Pervasiveness of Religion

[yoda55]

Never said everybody on earth did it with the intent of trying insure the survival of everybody else on the earth.

Seems fair enough.

The violence, or lack of it, doesn't stem from an instinct for specie preservation. If specie preservation was an instinct, then all would err in favor of life. Since it isn't an instinct, it must be a conscious decision of one individual to inflict harm on another.

If it's a conscious decision, then there is a value judgment being committed - one where the violence perpetrator holds his own preservation worth more than that of the victim. It is as easily reversed - indicating that the motivation is subjective. And, the motive is selfishness. If selfishness were removed, and replaced with altruism, then more people would survive to die of natural causes (e.g. old age).

Looking at history, and around at the progress of which mankind is capable, we note that building and progress are best served by cooperation (where the end product, and/or knowledge, is at the very least the sum of the individual contributions).

If building and progress are superior (to further the greater benefit), then can we say the "greater benefit" is a "moral" foundation? And, if this "moral" foundation is agreed to by all, then can we say it is an "absolute morality"?