It is much much more than that. People are the only creatures that consider their plight. They are also the creatures that have aesthetic feelings (explain that in light of natural selection!), and the only spiritual creatures (no animal has the capacity to worship). You also need to explain the conscious self in light of materialistic neodarwinism - provide scientific evidence that shows that morality, emotions, and even the self have material causes. I guarantee that you can't do it - therefore, you are making metaphysical faith statements not grounded in empirical science - that is called self-refutation.
Your bias is showing when you say "foolish religions" without any science to back that up. Besides, foolish is a value judgment - what part of the brain produces those?
Which looks healthier, Roseanne Barr or Pamela Anderson?
Symmetry and elegance are indicators of health and fitness. You may note that humans are the only primate with exagerated mammary glands, and that the male of our species is heavily dependent on visual cues to judge reproductive fitness and readiness.
The "spiritual capacity" is principally an outgrowth of consciousness, not vice versa. Men have an ego that cannot comprehend it's own non-existence, and refuses to try. So it invents the concept of "life after death" for self-comfort and convinces the rational part of the mind to buy it.
Morality: that act of self-interest that recognizes the "Golden Rule" as the optimal means of maintaining existence in an organized society, the only sort of existence likely to enhance survival of a individual evolved to be in such societies.
Emotions: Fear, anger, - primordial responses to threats. Survival benefits obvious. Love - a bonding emotion tying parents to offspring and each other to ensure the survival of the offspring.
Self- a recognition mode of time, as stated. Useful to ensure the survival of the individual.
People defeding religion against the encroachments of science shouldn't object to metaphysical argument. Not unless they've earned a medal in Viet Nam for a wounded big toe.
You clearly don't have a dog.
I disagree, I've seen plenty of animals "consider their plight" when they are in situations that they understand do not bode well for them.
They are also the creatures that have aesthetic feelings
Again, I disagree. I have seen many animals show that they have clear preferences for certain arrangements of their surroundings which have no functional purpose. For example, a friend's cat will purposely make anything vertical, horizontal -- if you stand something up, like a candlestick, the cat will demonstrate clear annoyance until it is allowed to come over and shove the candlestick until it falls flat, at which time it sits down and purrs. My parrots have very particular preferences about the arrangements of objects in their cages, and even which objects should be ejected entirely.
(explain that in light of natural selection!),
Preference/aversion for certain patterns/colors/sounds/sequences will arise due to evolution "recognizing" that some things signal safety and some signal danger (red=blood=danger is one of the more obvious), and thus over time creatures will develop elaborate "aesthetics" by which certain types of visual or audio cues will elicit pleasure, and some will elicit revulsion. A good example is the sound of fingernails on a blackboard, which some researchers showed is very similar to a danger cry in certain African primates.
Not all esthetics has to be tied so directly to a natural cue, however. Once creatures have developed an instinct to prefer some patterns over others, they have gained the ability to use this mechanism "recreationally" -- experimenting with the creation of different patterns just to see how they tickle the instinctual pleasure/aversion pattern recognition parts of their brains (which orginally arose for more practical purposes).
Note that I'm not claiming that I've proven that the esthetic sense *did* arise in exactly this way -- in order to do that a number of careful research studies would have to be performed. But my point is that you were expressing doubt that there would be *any* "reason" for evolution to select for an esthetic sense, and thus I've laid out one plausible survival-based reason that evolution *would* drive such preferences to arise.
and the only spiritual creatures (no animal has the capacity to worship).
I repeat my earlier comment about dogs. And no, I'm not kidding.
You also need to explain the conscious self in light of materialistic neodarwinism - provide scientific evidence that shows that morality, emotions, and even the self have material causes.
That's an easy one -- various drugs, targeted electrical stimulations, and many kinds of physical brain damage (e.g. tumor, chemical damage, gunshot or falling damage, etc.) can directly affect "morality, emotions, and even the self". In short, physical alterations of the brain produce changes in the very things which you consider to be "metaphysical", strongly indicating that they're rooted in the physical after all.
Similarly, PET scans and other types of activation scans of the brain show clearly physical activity occurring in different characteristic parts of the (physical) brain when subjects exercise "morality, emotions, even the self".
I guarantee that you can't do it
You guarantee wrongly.
- therefore, you are making metaphysical faith statements not grounded in empirical science - that is called self-refutation.
On the contrary, it appears your position is the one that's currently lacking in evidence from empirical science (although I've joined this thread late -- if you posted some earlier which I've missed, please let me know).