God, say the religious fundamentalists, is the source of all morality; there can be no morality without a Judge who rewards and punishes. If we did not fear hell and yearn for heaven, then what would stop people from murdering each other left and right?
Suppose Omega makes a credible threat that if you ever step inside a bathroom between 7AM and 10AM in the morning, he'll kill you. Would you be panicked by the prospect of Omega withdrawing his threat? Would you cower in existential terror and cry: "If Omega withdraws his threat, then what's to keep me from going to the bathroom?" No; you'd probably be quite relieved at your increased opportunity to, ahem, relieve yourself.
Which is to say: The very fact that a religious person would be afraid of God withdrawing Its threat to punish them for committing murder, shows that they have a revulsion of murder which is independent of whether God punishes murder or not. If they had no sense that murder was wrong independently of divine retribution, the prospect of God not punishing murder would be no more existentially horrifying than the prospect of God not punishing sneezing.
If Overcoming Bias has any religious readers left, I say to you: it may be that you will someday lose your faith: and on that day, you will not lose all sense of moral direction. For if you fear the prospect of God not punishing some deed, that is a moral compass. You can plug that compass directly into your decision system and steer by it. You can simply not do whatever you are afraid God may not punish you for doing. The fear of losing a moral compass is itself a moral compass. Indeed, I suspect you are steering by that compass, and that you always have been. As Piers Anthony once said, "Only those with souls worry over whether or not they have them." s/soul/morality/ and the point carries.
You don't hear religious fundamentalists using the argument: "If we did not fear hell and yearn for heaven, then what would stop people from eating pork?" Yet by their assumptions - that we have no moral compass but divine reward and retribution - this argument should sound just as forceful as the other.
Even the notion that God threatens you with eternal hellfire, rather than cookies, piggybacks on a pre-existing negative value for hellfire. Consider the following, and ask which of these two philosophers is really the altruist, and which is really selfish?
"You should be selfish, because when people set out to improve society, they meddle in their neighbors' affairs and pass laws and seize control and make everyone unhappy. Take whichever job that pays the most money: the reason the job pays more is that the efficient market thinks it produces more value than its alternatives. Take a job that pays less, and you're second-guessing what the market thinks will benefit society most."
"You should be altruistic, because the world is an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, and the strategy that fares best is Tit for Tat with initial cooperation. People don't like jerks. Nice guys really do finish first. Studies show that people who contribute to society and have a sense of meaning in their lives, are happier than people who don't; being selfish will only make you unhappy in the long run."
Blank out the recommendations of these two philosophers, and you can see that the first philosopher is using strictly prosocial criteria to justify his recommendations; to him, what validates an argument for selfishness is showing that selfishness benefits everyone. The second philosopher appeals to strictly individual and hedonic criteria; to him, what validates an argument for altruism is showing that altruism benefits him as an individual: higher social status or more intense feelings of pleasure.
So which of these two is the actual altruist? Whichever one actually holds open doors for little old ladies.
You wield the word fundamentalist like an accusation, as if fundamental principles are to be avoided. Stop that.
Also, please be aware that very few people will assert that our moral compass comes wholly from a fear of punishment. Biblically speaking, people were generally expected to know the difference between right and wrong. That is our inheritance, of course. Mankind has eaten the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, see? ;)
When God-worshiping fundamentalists say that God is the source of all morality, we do not mean that we are conscienceless critters, automatons always needing a nudge. Better to say "Only God is good" and makes good things. God is the source of goodness as the North Pole is the source of northness...if our compasses point that direction, chalk it up to natural attraction. (But in this case the compass points heavenward, not northward, and we could never make the hike).
On another note, you're mixing up judgment and discipline. Judges do not (or should not) punish wrongdoers in order to "teach them a lesson" or "set an example". Judgment is the punishing of wrongdoing because it is wrong and deserves to be punished. Mercy in judgment is an obstruction of justice for the sake of love -- it is a withholding of punishment. Mercy in discipline may be something else entirely, may even put the beloved through pain and misery. That is because discipline IS concerned with "teaching a lesson"...and a good judge will only punish you in proportion to your wickedness, but a good father's discipline might stretch on seemingly for ever, an unearned gift in proportion to your need.
So do not confuse God's Judge Hat with his Father Hat, as so many people do. Even his worshipers get confused. Judgment exists because evil is intolerable. Discipline exists because Love is inexhaustible.
As a final point, does anyone here really believe that if people think something is wrong, they will never do it? There was no direct implication of that in the article...but perhaps a whiff of the sentiment. No man with standards worth mentioning has ever lived up to them.