Religious experience is not simply a moral philosophy. At the core, many religions are able to grant psychological feelings of self-value, which is probably the primary psychological value for conscious healthy people. (Unfortunately this often comes at the expense of the value of those on the 'opposing' teams). Also there are metaphysical possibilities to at least consider, such as salvation for souls, answered prayers, etc etc. Also ritual, and community need more than an acceptance of the golden rule, at least so it seems, although humanism could certainly become a powerful 'religion' in a world where people treated each other badly enough that it stood out, and became an alternative social group. In that case, could they take the cow as their symbol, in that they are willing to be exploited, as has been suggested? Also, Jesus didn't say "turn the other cheek until it becomes uncomfortable and then fight back," so this part of Christian philosophy (seldom applied in modern Christianity anyway), is quite radical.
Very interesting questions involved here far beyond simply morality.
Ps regarding science - As always, true science has no philosophy, but rather a set of functional rules. When people attach philosophies to science and thereby create a false credential for their philosophy they are making a big mistake. I suppose one philosophy, truth is good and falsehood bad, could be attached, but that is it. Even dependence on empirical evidence is a functional rule, not a philosophy. The extension of that rule into philosophy, is something I personally have a problem with due to what I perceive is inconsistent application, I.e. that empiricists can take unproven ideas into account when dealing with relationships, for example, but not in dealing with philosophy and religion.
Very interesting questions involved here far beyond simply morality.
Ps regarding science - As always, true science has no philosophy, but rather a set of functional rules. When people attach philosophies to science and thereby create a false credential for their philosophy they are making a big mistake. I suppose one philosophy, truth is good and falsehood bad, could be attached, but that is it. Even dependence on empirical evidence is a functional rule, not a philosophy. The extension of that rule into philosophy, is something I personally have a problem with due to what I perceive is inconsistent application, I.e. that empiricists can take unproven ideas into account when dealing with relationships, for example, but not in dealing with philosophy and religion.
