Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Religion and evolution [View all]tama
(9,137 posts)44. Good post
and thanks for reminding that compassion and love is not limited to human animals - as anyone who has had closer relationships with other species knows.
But I would be reluctant to reduce compassion and love - and beauty - to mere "survival instinct", as well as "moral law". IMHO love and beauty don't really need explaining, as they are best known by experience itself, not from explanations, and trying to explain them with Darwin's theory (or distortion of) is stretching the theory beyond it's intended explanatory scope.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
98 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Anthropic fallacy: "Isn't it amazing that we are here, to be amazed that we are here?"
immoderate
Jan 2012
#42
I find it easier. No RW Cristian has been able to refute me, yet. There is always a yet.
Festivito
Jan 2012
#5
These questions are raised thousands of times every week all across the globe.
Thats my opinion
Jan 2012
#77
God lit the fuse, crouched down in a hole, butt facing the bomb, arms over his head...
hunter
Jan 2012
#17
As a null hypothesis, atheism is the only legitimate position unless...
Humanist_Activist
Jan 2012
#54
Stated very well: "unscientific bias that cannot be reconciled with his profession"
MarkCharles
Jan 2012
#55