Even if I was to make a great concession and suggest that the argument for heaven and hell was true, you would still have bad people doing bad things. We know that we (as humans) will go to prison if we commit crimes, and yet people still do so. If we knew for certain that sinners go to hell, this acts is a strong argument to suggest that it would not alter our behaviour. People would still be convinced that they could get away with it, and others simply would not be able to help themselves.
A question that I would like to put to Christians is this: If you were to discover for certain that there is no God, would you decide that murder was acceptable?
Furthermore, to suggest that humans have morals purely on the existence of an absolute morality is doing the race a great disservice. In one of the few highlights of The God Delusion, Dawkins gives a good explanation of a Darwinian evolution of morality. Ultimately, morality can be accurately illustrated to have survived through kin altruism, reciprocative altruism and reputation.
Contrast that with comments made by this lady:
"Everyone I have ever worked with has clearly known I am a Christian - it is what motivates me to care for others," she said.Am I the only person who finds that a little disturbing? A nurse, whose only motivation for caring for others is because of her Christian duty?
Tell me - would you rather be cared for by somebody who enjoyed caring for people, or someone who thought it their duty?
Hospitals are already full of individuals who are simply going about their job because it's what they are paid to do. It's not necessarily a bad thing (I don't know about you, but I don't particularly want my doctor becoming emotionally involved) but in the overall morality picture it's a pretty big smudge on the reputation of religion.
In Darwinian theory there is no absolute morality. There is no need for an absolute morality. Natual selection takes care of morality for us.
