Which looks healthier, Roseanne Barr or Pamela Anderson?
Symmetry and elegance are indicators of health and fitness. You may note that humans are the only primate with exagerated mammary glands, and that the male of our species is heavily dependent on visual cues to judge reproductive fitness and readiness.
The "spiritual capacity" is principally an outgrowth of consciousness, not vice versa. Men have an ego that cannot comprehend it's own non-existence, and refuses to try. So it invents the concept of "life after death" for self-comfort and convinces the rational part of the mind to buy it.
Morality: that act of self-interest that recognizes the "Golden Rule" as the optimal means of maintaining existence in an organized society, the only sort of existence likely to enhance survival of a individual evolved to be in such societies.
Emotions: Fear, anger, - primordial responses to threats. Survival benefits obvious. Love - a bonding emotion tying parents to offspring and each other to ensure the survival of the offspring.
Self- a recognition mode of time, as stated. Useful to ensure the survival of the individual.
People defeding religion against the encroachments of science shouldn't object to metaphysical argument. Not unless they've earned a medal in Viet Nam for a wounded big toe.
I don't know - maybe Roseanne is healthier than Pamela - I'm not a doctor. Where does the feeling of beauty come from? Explain it in light of science, not value judgments.
Symmetry and elegance are indicators of health and fitness. You may note that humans are the only primate with exagerated mammary glands, and that the male of our species is heavily dependent on visual cues to judge reproductive fitness and readiness.
What is healthy and fit about a pretty sunset or a piece of artwork in a museum?
The "spiritual capacity" is principally an outgrowth of consciousness, not vice versa. Men have an ego that cannot comprehend it's own non-existence, and refuses to try. So it invents the concept of "life after death" for self-comfort and convinces the rational part of the mind to buy it.
Really - got some empirical scientific data to back up that statement? If you don't, then you are making a faith statement. You are making metaphysical assertions that have no basis in scientific observation. You really need to address this problem.
Morality: that act of self-interest that recognizes the "Golden Rule" as the optimal means of maintaining existence in an organized society, the only sort of existence likely to enhance survival of a individual evolved to be in such societies.
Too simplistic. Moral decisions begin with a "sense of ought". Again, you are making metaphysical statements that are far outside the realm of science. I'm not interested in your "opinion" - I want data.
Emotions: Fear, anger, - primordial responses to threats. Survival benefits obvious. Love - a bonding emotion tying parents to offspring and each other to ensure the survival of the offspring.
Are these chemical reactions in the brain?
People defeding religion against the encroachments of science shouldn't object to metaphysical argument. Not unless they've earned a medal in Viet Nam for a wounded big toe.
I object when a materialistic darwinist makes metaphysical statements since materialistic darwinists claim that all that exists is material and that even our thoughts, emotions, morals are just matter in motion in our brains. You are your brain, in effect. But it is self-refuting becuase they exempt their own ideas, thoughts, etc. from the rules of materialism, and if my ideas are matter in motion, then so are the materialist's. If you are dealing in metaphysics, then you can only state your opinions and you can't provide any scientific evidence. In the metaphysical arena, logical reasoning rules.