Examining The Differences Between Secular And Religious Morality

[responding to a Christian-fundamentalist, about this issue]

Hypothetical:

Some random psychopath
wants to kidnap and torture someone I care about, because it sounds like a fun way to spend a Saturday.

I find out, just in time to be ABLE to prevent it.

Meanwhile, I am standing there with a Muslim.

Let's say ... the person in danger is our sister.
The person I'm with is our brother.

Perhaps their thought processes begin-and-end with "What Would Muhammad Do?".

-similar to a Christian asking themselves "WWJD?". 

So then it would depend heavily on which sect's subjective interpretations they've subjectively decided to defer to, as (in place of) their own.

So if our sister recently left Islam, they might conclude the right thing to do is let her die.
It will save them the trouble of killing our sister; which they were already considering.

Such is the nature of religion; where people subjectively assume some Super-Entity has a list of priorities which differ from ours, and must by given greater weight.
--

Realize:

No one
has
any objectively rational means
by-which they could VERIFY the wishes of such a super-entity.

[This was the theme/point of the STNG Episode "Who Watches The Watchers?"]

So then, ...
religious people must defer to:

The fallible intuitions
 of randomly, overly-confident men, 
and their
fantastic RUMORS
about "conversations with god(s)";
spread only/entirely by other fallible humans.
--

Religious Sheeple subjectively choose to have "faith" that:
 those are truly the wishes of a Super-entity.

By making that choice, they are giving the random fallible opinions of other humans
greater weight than their own thought processes.

Basically, their reasoning is:
"I feel unqualified to sort through moral issues. I better let someone else do that for me".

And then they rely on their own subjective, fallible intuitions, to decide who they'll hand over that power and responsibility to;

- even though that responsibility is really always still their own. They just stop recognizing that responsibility. 

But I am more compassionate, and more responsible than that.

I'm not mentally a CHILD who feels like their every thought and action must be based on what might please a subjectively-assumed, emotionally distant, conservative, authoritarian Super-Parent.

Instead, ...
I am mentally an ADULT.
Thus, I take sole responsibility for my values and choices in life.

I'm also not a hypocrite. 
So whatever I want and expect from others,
I make sure they can count on getting from me.

My thought process begins with:
compassion, and a sense of duty to others.

 A sociopath,
a psychopath,
a clinical narcissist,
 and a religious conservative 
might agree among each other 
that I risk repeatedly screwing myself over, if I keep allowing compassion to factor into my assessments and subsequent choices in life.
 But:
1. I think that assessment would be factually in error. 
And
2, At least they realize the person I'm putting at sometimes-risk would be myself; the one person everyone agrees I have a right to insist on personal sacrifices from. 

Now, granted, 
things like compassion, empathy, and the desire (or emotional "feeling" of civic duty) are emotions.
And these are 100% subjectively experienced.

And yet, these are caused by objectively factual processes;
aka "physics".

For anyone to justify how those entered my thought processes,
you just need an adequate understanding of biology (including neurobiology, and evolutionary processes).

With that adequate understanding of biology,
there wouldn't be any confusion
about how powerfully and quickly these feelings arise as a basis for personal values (aka: literally what I value, why, and how much).

Physics.
You can't get more objectively factual, and objectively-causal 
 than physics in action.
 
Meanwhile,
 I can't help but notice 
religious people don't condemn beavers for building dams.

 No one says "Beavers can't justify building damns, no matter how much it rationally benefits them to do so, until they start to base that decision on the belief that a great Spirit-Beaver wishes it.".

Additionally, there are further rational and responsible considerations that can go into assessments of good vs bad.

A more rational person
will rely more heavily and more consistently on rational considerations,
in assessment of:
what is deemed good (as existing things, and optional things)
vs
what is deemed comparatively bad.

For a common example, I'll use myself.

I WANT to live in a society with other humans.

Why?
Because I am wired by evolution to be a social animal.
But also because there are a wide range of practical personal benefits
which can only be had in a human societal system.

But in order to maximize the personal benefits to myself and anyone I share life with,
I will logically/rationally/factually need for that society to be very safe, and very functional.

Safety depends on everything that promotes and protects health.

Health/wellness might have a curious little grey area, where opinions rule. But ~for the most part~, there are objectively definable criteria.
-Otherwise, it would make no sense to have doctors swearing to "do no harm", and there would be no rational basis for any of our laws.

When countries create new laws, they don't typically say "well, let's base it on what some religion says a literal deity says we should do."

Instead, they base it on the principal of:
common interest (whatever pretty much everyone wants to get from a society),

and also:
the principal of
equality.
Because only when everyone is granted equal access to all factors of wellness, and equal protection against all factors of injury, ...
is a SAFE society actually created.

A society that isn't safe for 90% of people, isn't safe for anyone.
Even the rich and otherwise privileged would be less safe in-and-near a society that isn't safe. So they'd always have to lock their doors, and they'd still occasionally get robbed. Even their children would be at greater risk of:
the full range of risks
inherent to being actively connected to an unsafe society.

To minimize those risks, we must minimize the frequency.
To minimize the frequency, we must minimize the causes.
To minimize the causes, we must maximize the preventions.

ALL OF IT
is cause-and-effect.

All of it requires rational scientific analysis of our every circumstance, every optional action, every optional goal, and every optional strategy towards those goals.

People who don't understand the physical machinery they are a part of ... will be less well equipped to accurately predict the results of their choices (including their votes).

 Meanwhile, those who are better-informed about that machinery,
especially if they CARE about the consequences of destructive actions, ...
will naturally consider the saboteurs as behaving "bad"-ly.
- Because "bad" means "against the good", and the "good" is being rationally defined by:
 that which has the best chance to preventing harm and promoting health. 

This is based on a rational desire for wellness, and
a rational understanding of the difference between wellness and un-wellness, 
and
a rational understanding of
which environments and actions provide for those outcomes 
vs 
which are antithetical to wellness. 
(clickable link) 
---

If someone saw you bashing your own face against a brick wall, until it was a bloody mess,
they wouldn't bother with making a moral judgment.
They'd decry your behavior as "unwell"
and irrational. 

They definitely would not need

and probably would not have 

a religious text

which first TELLS THEM such behavior is problematic.

 In that case, they are being rational
about you behaving irrationally.

If you finally said "but the voices in the head of some random prophet-guy told me that the Creator Of the Universe wants me to do this to my face", 
onlookers would not go "ohhh ok. Well, than yea. That makes sense. I wonder if I should be doing that too".
 But if that action had developed gradually, as a cultural custom, motivated by popular religious superstitions, ...
then:

similarly-superstitious people would think it's a great idea for you to bash your face up like that.

Everyone else would pity you for the effect of religious bullshit on your brain, and how that is now going to impact your face, and other aspects of your health. 
---
Similarly,
Notice: 

There's NOTHING in a bible, or a Quran 
which says "God" has an opinion at all
about if you should be wiping your ass with high-grit sandpaper.
 But I'd wager you'd consider it a "bad" experience, and decry it as "wrong" if any business had that as the thing they stocked for TP. 
---

As a more important example of people getting their morals from secular advancement, ... 
there is nothing in there which even acknowledges that something like pedophilia is even a thing; let alone prevents to define it, nor which attempts to morally codify the matter. 

Same with literal and barbaric slavery, ...

Humans had to figure that out for themselves, 
based on ever-maturing understandings 
of which actions result in signficant and lasting harm,
and
 realizing rational reasons for why we should care, and
becoming gradually more compassionate and respectful of other sentient beings. 
----

Granted, some people have concluded they won't be HAPPY or feel WELL unless they force kids into sex.
 
My views about that matter are deemed "better" BY ME because I CARE about the wellbeing of all kids,
AND because:
 I want my own kids to be safe;
- which they WON'T BE unless I help maintain a society where kids are protected from it. 

Does any Super-Being have any opinion about it?
 If so, it didn't make it into bibles.

Meanwhile,
I only care about whatever I happen to care about. 

Predators only care about whatever they happen to care about.

They scheme to get what they want.

I try keeping them from hurting anyone. 

The battle continues.

Nature doesn't give a flying fuck about anyone.

 So even the mere THEORY of nature being "designed" should rationally trouble anyone. 

 We sure better hope it wasn't designed. Because that would logically indicate a very, very psychopathic designer. 
 
NONE OF US would ever be safe from such a Being. 

 Pascal's brain must have been damaged by his religion. (clickable link) 
- Else, he never would have proposed his "wager".

Meanwhile, ...

the people who CARE about others... will act accordingly.
And that is fully reasonable.

And people who only care about themselves will act accordingly ... and that too is fully reasonable, IN THE SAME EXACT WAY that it's fully reasonable when a hungry dingo in the Outback steals a human baby as a snack. 
 -------

The dingo has good reasons to attempt to steal a baby.

The parents have a good reason to prevent it. 

The dingo's reason's don't negate the parents' reasons.

The parents' reasons don't negate the dingo's reasons. 

---------

For you (or any other religious fundamentalist)
 to come along and say:

 we need some random fallible humans to CLAIM they had a private conversation with an invisible Super-Being,

and
for those fallible humans to CLAIM the Super-Being has a moral opinion about a curious arbitrary list of issues, 

and 
that we must all defer an arbitrary assortment of those PEOPLE,

hand-selected by random other people,

as each being a moral AUTHORITY over the rest of us,

just because they CLAIMED to represent a "God" (whatever the fuck that is), 

~in order for any value and action to be rationally justified~, ...

means:

1.)
 I'm sure the world's Muslim Jihadists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Westboro Baptists, etc. etc 
 all appreciate YOUR ENDORSEMENT of their RATIONAL and OBJECTIVE MORALITY. 
(clickable link)  

2.) SOME of your narcissistic mafia-Klan
 are:
Straight-up hijacked enough to buy into your own bullshit.

and

3. The rest of you
are clever and predatorial enough to pretend to buy into your own bullshit. 

 But I still know disingenuous, self-serving,  gaslighting when I see it.