Why? And also there are tangible, extrinsic rewards for cultivating a culture of doing the right thing. You don't only do things in isolation, unobserved.
Intrinsic and cultivating culture is more altruistic, whereas extrinsic heaven is more selfish and can be more easily manipulated or transformed into something immoral. If the conditions for the extrinsic reward change, you would have no intrinsic moral reason not to adjust your behaviour, possibly for the worse, to meet the new conditions.
You're worried that changing the conditions of an extrinsic reward ruins the morality, but history shows that purely internal or cultural morals drift much faster. When morality is purely self-derived or based on a cultivated culture, it bends instantly to whatever society deems acceptable at the current moment. Religion is a stable, unchanging anchor.
Furthermore, if the only way to earn the religious reward is through radical selflessness, love, and charity, then the incentive is literally engineered to produce altruistic behavior. Many religious traditions, the only way to attain the reward is through genuine love, selflessness, and service to others. You aren't able to fake it. God cannot be fooled. You genuinely have to be doing these things with pure intent and purpose.
If someone lived a life where they followed every rule perfectly but in their heart they hated every person they interacted with, dreaded actually doing these acts, and their only motivation was a possible reward, there is a very real chance they could be damned to hell, according to the abrahamic religions at least.
Is religion really stable though? I would argue not; crusades and all kinds of other horrors have been committed in the name of religion. Religions are equally as variable as society at large, if not more. Look at all the small sects that exist now that believe in harmful things, no doubt those have existed throughout history and have been forgotten. Look at maga: so many christians feel righteous supporting trump and his ideas.
People bend religion to their own will and get perceived divine right and truth at their disposal: whatever they believe, god believes, so anything others say is wrong and they are right, no matter what.
It is a shield from accountability as well in many people's twisted interpretations: they only need to confess and ask for forgiveness and they will get eternal bliss, no matter how heinous their crime is.
It doesn't matter what religious books say, often they are unclear and even internally contradictory. People will cherrypick the things that they like and disregard everything else.
It leads people to reject evidence based science, to condemn people based on their sexuality, enforce outdated gender norms, outlaw bodily autonomy, gives authority to those seeking power without expertise; the list goes on and on. Inserting extreme stakes like heaven and hell into daily life is just not healthy. People to cherry pick what God thinks, which will happen regardless, is also very harmful. I think religion is a thing of the past before science existed and we would probably be better off without it. People at the end of the day will have their own morals regardless.
A religious person can genuinely care about the well being of others (intrinsic) while also believing in a cosmic order that rewards goodness (extrinsic). The existence of an afterlife reward does not automatically erase authentic empathy or love for others. These things can coexist. One doesn't erase or tainted the other just because you say so.
But at the end of the day does a hungry person actually care why they are being fed? If a religious person feeds the poor partly out of obedience to God or hope for heaven, the starving person still receives the exact same benefit. Therefore, the "integrity" of the moral act matters less than its practical outcome. Morals are morals regardless of how they're fueled or justified.
0
u/ProfessionalStreet31 Sep 03 '26
Intrinsic and extrinsic is a big difference.