"...No parent expects to receive anything but satisfaction from raising their
children - as perfectly well explained by Darwin. And how dare you assert that
money I sent to Katrina victims was simply calculated to get something back.
There are many possible Darwinian explanations for feelings of altruism; but
apparently you haven't bothered to find them..."
What is this? a mental blockage?
How could you forget (disregard) your 1st sentence in the 2nd? Are you a
formalistical materialist to expect ONLY monetary rewards for money (or
anything else) spent? S a t i s f a c t i o n is not a reward? Feeling good
about something? Besides such feelings - indeed - might have developed from
'real' return: raising young means having a community-protection when getting
old (as the most primitive idea). As complexity grew such ideas get also more
complex. Luv is a composition. Not a primitive
----- Original Message -----
From: Brent Meeker
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote:
> On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tom Caylor wrote:
>>>> A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the
>>>> sister's of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can
>>>> agree on what it provides.
>>> I don't like simply saying "That isn't so," but "nobody can agree
>>> on what it provides", referring to the source of ultimate
>> I was referring to the "sufficient source of *morality*". Such a
>> source should be able to provide an unambiguous standard that is so
>> clear everyone agrees - if it existed.
>>> is not true. In fact it's very remarkable the consistency,
>>> across all kinds of cultures, the basic beliefs of truly
>>> normative morality, evidence for their being a source which
>>> cannot be explained through closed science alone.
>> Why not? Why isn't Darwin's or Scott Atran's or Richard Dawkin's a
>> *possible* explanation. And how is "God did it" an explanation of
>> anything? It's just a form of words so ambiguous as to be
>> virtually empty. "God" meant different things to the crusaders and
>> the 9/11 jihadists, to the Aztecs and the Conquistadores, to the
>> Nazi's and the Jews. So just because they use the same word
>> doesn't mean they are referring to the same thing.
> We've talked about this before. Darwin cannot explain giving without
> expecting to receive.
Where do you get this nonsense?? Do you just make it up as you need it? No
parent expects to receive anything but satisfaction from raising their children
- as perfectly well explained by Darwin. And how dare you assert that money I
sent to Katrina victims was simply calculated to get something back. There are
many possible Darwinian explanations for feelings of altruism; but apparently
you haven't bothered to find them.
...skipped the rest...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at