If you replace “love” in this article with “theistic spirituality”—another aspect of the human psychology which many, if not most, humans consider deeply important and beautiful—and likewise replace mutatis mutandis other parts of the dialog, would it not just as well argue for the propagation of religion to our descendants?
I don’t see the dialogue as arguing for anything, rather than explaining; but if it is, it’s arguing for the propagation of those parts of our psychology we really want to keep, not the blind preservation of everything evolution gave us.
I don’t see the dialogue as arguing for anything, rather than explaining; but if it is, it’s arguing for the propagation of those parts of our psychology we really want to keep, not the blind preservation of everything evolution gave us.