Replies

3. The fittest survive. . . .Yes. The first three (#1 and #2) are man-made commands. The fourth (#3) is only an observation concerning reproductive plenitude.

Would you want live in culture whose morality is based on "survival of the fittest?"

Would you want live in culture whose morality is based on "survival of the fittest?"

But we don't, so what's the problem?

The fact of the matter is, that religion gives many people comfort, and gives them direction. They need religion in order to treat others the way they feel they should be treated. They need the threat of eternal damnation etc in order to be moral creatures.

Some of us, not many, but some, have realized that we do not need that threat to be moral. Most do though, so as long as there are people that need religion in order to be moral, then there will be religion, and we will not live in the society that you think is forming.

Morality is a necessity in this society, religion has made that possible, but as morals mature, then religion will become less necessary as more and more people do not need those threats to be moral.

It is like evolution, when something better forms to take somethings place, the original part is either changed to something else, or dropped.

Morals will always be a necessary part of this society, and religion will be needed for a good LONG time.

But, again, religion and science are like oil and water, one explains with god, the other CANNOT use god. but science as a basis for society will not work, not yet anyway. Morals MUST be maintained, as long as religion is needed to maintain those morals, then it will be around, so quit freaking out!!

Would you want live in culture whose morality is based on "survival of the fittest?"

Of course not. That's why we have a government that (theoretically) recognizes our inherent rights and protects them.

"The fittest survive" is not a morality. It is an observation of how things work in the natural world. Humans--being the fittest critters on this tiny rock--have advanced to the point where we are able to invest extra resources towards the survival of our least fit.

Survival of the fittest is only applicable when environmental pressures are such that survival is not guaranteed. This does not apply to most of Western civilization, although I think I could make a very successful case that the "Law of the Jungle" still takes a high toll in much of the Third World (and probably in some areas of the inner cities as well).

Would you want live in culture whose morality is based on "survival of the fittest?"

It is interesting that while evolutionists constantly attack Christianity they cannot find anything wrong with either Christ or the Ten Commandments.