I personally rejected a warring and intimidating god at twelve without replacing it and drugs crept into the vacuum as I searched for meaningfulness though altered states of consciousness, which still seems the cheapest way to travel, at or in any age. I found no answers until I read research about perceptions versus reality which includes emotional reactive theory and therapy. How could we build a nation of caring citizens if we were all at odds about what to call a god much less how to worship (with no question that he ought to be worshipped) one, or many. Diversity in adaptation put to rest the notion that eminent domain of homogenizing the earth was no longer a valid nor sane principle as it eradicated without knowledge many informational ecosystems of which could be of great or necessary benefit. How to fit morals into a relative and subjective worldview; is it anything goes or are there bounds? The bounds of society are bonding behaviors, for the antisocial behaviors that unbind do disintegrate our social harmony. The bounds of emotions are positive, for negativity destroys the ability to adapt; bonding opens minds and arms with hospitality as much as anger closes both tight with hostility. Ergo, social beliefs and behaviors need to be about binding whereas nonbinding creates negative emotional landscapes from which behaviors regarding life as cheap and easily dismissed derive. If callousness unbinds, then caring must bind and research measures this as a level of empathy or caring for and about others’ welfare, often before one’s own; perhaps the true altruist is not happy until everyone else is, which may contradict altruistic motive but not the perception that it exists.

Without religious education for morality of a particular inclusive view, individuals can be generally educated for ethical consideration through empathy or be taught empathy for ethical considerations, which can work for many who are not narcissistic and will not change, pathological and cannot change, or myopic who do not see/acknowledge change. For those individuals who desire prosocial, positive thoughts, words, and deeds the education is out there, be in a college campus course (they do not teach or model this stuff in high schools I know! but maybe at preschool), a mature role model (as common as common sense from my observations), or internet surfing as an autodidactic, it is there for the curious, caring, and courageous enough to initiate their own self changes as they desire to see them in the world.

Religion does not necessitate prosocial and positive beliefs and behaviors; often it is utilized to create antisocial attitudes about any who do not belong to specific beliefs, behaviors, or bloodlines. With diversity as adaptable (those who do not adapt, die out), equity as humane, autonomy as fair, and sharing (information, goods, feelings, time) as survival, we all need to know that morals/ethics are not held by restrictive and static religious principles and can be applied by any empathetically concerned individual to another as a personal choice in everyday life. We choose to wear a smile or frown, we choose to stop and help or hurry by, we choose to criticize others with whom we share that behavior without change, and we choose to seek more than we know now in benefit of all at some hopeful future. We can be ethical and empathetic without religious education, but without a stable role model it is doubtful that many without further education would be naturally empathic or moral without cultural awareness of how behavior is perceived by others; after all society is always a we domain and we learn from others as much as we teach them.