Replies

Why, if there is noone to ultimately answer to, should anyone worry about "living peacefully" with neighbors? That is a principle for the weak to live by, not the strong and clever. If I have the most powerful navy, why not impose "gunboat" diplomacy on lesser nations? If I have the most powerful army, why not impose my will on weaker peoples? If I'm stronger than my neighbor why not take his wife, car, house and money? The existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre says that "If God is dead, everything is permitted." In other words, if there is no supreme being to lay down the moral law, each individual is free to do as he or she pleases. Without a divine lawgiver, there can be no universal moral law.

Societies based on such principals don't work. They are out-competed very effectively by societies that promote co-operation. Easy when you think about it, and mathematically demonstrable. Try googling the "repeated prisoner's dilemma" to see why benefits accrue from *not* picking the option with the biggest payoff all the time, if that option involves screwing your neighbour. Oddly enough the creationist's arch-demon Dawkins has done a lot of work in this area in his guise as a real biologist, rather than a pop-biologist.

see 288.

Let's not pretend it isn't happening. Every bit of research says it is....and a lot.

Society is thriving as it always has.

It only matters when the individual gets his turn to stand before God.

What I find most troubling is that creationists believe everyone would act depraved if it weren't for God keeping us in check. What this actually means is that creationists would act depraved if they didn't believe God was riding herd on them.

Another implication in this belief is that creationists are not acting good because it is the right thing to do, but simply because they want rewards in an afterlife, or at least to avoid punishment.