> The argument [presumably he means my observation that religion
> could have evolved as a substitute for long-term reasoning] isn't
> an objective one. What occurs in nature doesn't decide
> subjective morals as good things or bad things.
I made no such naturalistic claim. I agree--describing what exists
in no way suggests that it is good or bad. I suggested that religion
evolved as a handy substitute for more intricate reason, just as I
believe prejudice and xenophobia evolved the same way; in no way
does that imply that those of us who _can_ reason should not do so.
Indeed that's exactly the opposite of what I beleive. We can and
should overcome our evolutionary programming. But to do that, we
must first understand it.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT