[gore3000]

. Merely thinking that you should, in theory, be altruist, fails the fallacy of the commons test. Rational self-interest dictates hypocracy. Your DNA will do best if you persuade everyone else to be moral, and that you are moral, when you are not. We buy altruistic arguments because we are inclined to--we have the sentiment for it. Not because they are outstandingly pursuasive. If we relied on logical pursuasion to institute morals, they, and probably we as well, would have died off long ago.

There is no doubt that the mind can control the body. We do this from walking to eating etc. But more importantly though when we discern something fearful or something stressful, our body responds to our thoughts. It is not all a one-way path.

Your emotive genes do not lock you into anything. They give you an inclination. They are not iron God's of the universe. All DNA can do is provide capacity--it cannot make you use it.

I think you are proving me correct then. The other 'something' is clearly not material since we are able to deny our physical or emotional inclinations.

[donh]

Your emotive genes do not lock you into anything. They give you an inclination. They are not iron God's of the universe. All DNA can do is provide capacity--it cannot make you use it.

I think you are proving me correct then. The other 'something' is clearly not material since we are able to deny our physical or emotional inclinations.

Yet another painfully obvious fallacy of the excluded middle argument from you. There is a vast body of things which are not our DNA, including our evironment, and the chemical and physical structure of our sterling selves we inherit from our mother, which affect our behavior. The fact that we can make choices is not automatic proof of the existence of either God or transcendental morals, last time I checked.