I'm not an adherent and used it for what it was trying to express. In fairness this was through the lens of reading Tolstoy that prompted me to reference the Bi

I'm not an adherent and used it for what it was trying to express. In fairness this was through the lens of reading Tolstoy that prompted me to reference the Bible as a piece of text that tried to synthesize the feeling of para-familial bonds, asking: why should I help my neighbor? The bit I quoted in hindsight does read like fanatical dribble. I'll lean on Tolstoy here and say that from his angle, he posited that only a larger, universally conscious philosophical system (one that many people can understand, not just scientists or philosophers) would elevate our social systems to consider more than just our immediate family. I think there is definitely choice wisdom in these kinds of collected works, the fact that corrupt churches etc leverage these things is another matter, I think you could read it tabula rasa. Anyways back to the point, imo you probably don't need a large binding locus like God in smaller groups. I suppose even in larger societies bonds could be maintained along cultural/economic/etc lines. I could in fact just worship science (as DFW says, we all worship). Having a philosophical system that encourages self-effacement seems to me to be what could undergird the impetus to be selfless. If it happens to be religion or science based doesn't matter, but it's atleast something that has thought put into it and has been QA'd so to speak. Also I agree with you on your last point, but I think for it to occur it needs to have a why, and the why (to me) can't just be 'cuz family' because it doesn't scale (literally).