Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[TD1]

I already gave the example of Alex The "Avian Language Experiment"

[Arx]

At this point, I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. What I'm saying is that there's no 'line' of 'beast' and 'not-beast'. There are just different degrees of intelligence. We happen to have the highest, as far as we can tell.

How many Christians would say there isn't a division between man and beast, anyway?

Does it matter?

[TD1]

My point:

Humans are animals.

The Bible shows a different origin for each - god created animals, and then, individually, men.

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

The superiority of humanity - that it is "above animal" is seen in that we are in God's image. We are stewards.

If asked, a Christian would say that yes, we are better than animals.

Man ate the Forbidden Fruit - he has knowledge of good and evil, which animals don't. Your idea of the division between man and beast being their intelligence is somewhat linked to this, although this may be slightly more epistemological.

So, really, what I'm saying is that there is an assumption that man is the best. He is the supreme being on earth. This is in many ways supported by the Bible. There isn't, for example, a bird heaven or a Bible for pigs. They're not the ones God speaks to. They're not in his image. Another supporting factor for this hypothesis seems to be linguistic, and other supports include intelligence and appreciation of music. Even the terms support this - they are "human" and "animal." That homo sapiens is simply the name for our species isn't really considered that much. There are the humans, then the lower forms of life, the generally-labelled "animals." To quote Homer Simpson, to weasel is "what separates us from the animals."

Some go so far as to say that we were never animals. These seem to be the same ones who believe that the world was made in six days, and that evolution is a myth. Hence the out roar against our shared ancestry with other animals. Such a revelation - that we're not so very different from animals at all - strengthens the theory of evolution's viability to such, if those that go against it can be reasoned with.

How many Christians would say there isn't a division between man and beast, anyway?

Does it matter?

I may have answered this previously, but I got interrupted mid type, so I may be repeating myself. But yes, it does matter - people who think like that think there is a distinction between man and beast. Not that we're just ones who have developed certain traits that enable us to appreciate certain things, but that we are different. A cat and dog are different, but they're both still animals. Man and dog? Man and Pig? Giraffe? What most Christians get from the Bible is that they are the owners of animals - stewards - and as such can kill them for sport, eat them ad infinitum, eve use them in medicinal practices instead of humans, and so on. My R.E. teacher was one such as this.

[Arx]

If asked, a Christian would say that yes, we are better than animals.

Mind the generalisations there.

I still can't work out what your actual point is. Are you saying you think it's a problem that a lot of Christians think that way?

[wierd]

Failure to appreciate a discovered truth, because of dogmatism, is the worst kind of confirmation bias.

So, Yes, it is a problem.

[TD1]

All Christians - true ones - believe in Jesus.

That's a generalisation, but nonetheless true. I assume. Saying that most Christians think of themselves as better than animals is almost a given. Most people do. Christianity just has some supporting back stories.

And it's not a problem until it begins to be applied in harmful ways to animals. It can justify hunting and medical experiments. Cosmetic testing too.

Besides whether or not it's a problem, though, is that I just think that it's not true. ((This point seems to have been ninja'd by wierd.)) We don't have any inherent qualities which make us better. And that in itself can call into question some biblical assumptions - a seemingly accepted assumption in the Bible is that the earth is flat. Another is that humans are the rulers of animals, and that we are God's special children which gives us this right. If there isn't all that much difference between human and beast, why take this as granted?

[origamiscienceguy]

It is debatable weather animals have free will or not. I am of the oppinion that they do not, they just act on instinct (which can be trained) While humans use our instincts for quick decisions, but we have the ability to think and choose while animals don't.

[TD1]

And there's a point I forgot to make as to why Christians would see a divide between man and beast.

As to its validity, well, origami seems to believe animals act only on instantaneous instincts. To counter this, we could again refer back to Alex, who seemed quite capable of more than base instinct. Animals seem quite capable of long consideration of things, and humans seem quite capable of bestial things which you would say characterise those without free will.

[origamiscienceguy]

Alex?

[TD1]

Actually, the (sadly now dead, birds have shorter lifespans than people) african grey parrot, Alex, seemed able to understand and invoke complex, and even abstract understanding of spoken language, and was not mere pavlovian conditioning, or mere stimulus/response and or babble.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXoTaZotdHg

Then there's the whole bag of worms involved in dolphin echograms that strongly resemble language...

It changes a lot. Biblical accounts would have you believing in a clear cut line. Here is animal, here is human. One is made in God's image, and therefore naturally superior. This (arrogant, I would say) notion of superiority is often backed up by our use of language as an exclusively human trait.

Besides which, your acacia tree is somewhat different from this (Link to Wikipedia):

Before Pepperberg's work with Alex, it was widely believed in the scientific community that a large primate brain was needed to handle complex problems related to language and understanding; birds were not considered to be intelligent as their only common use of communication was of mimicking and the repetition of sounds to interact with each other. However, Alex's accomplishments supported the idea that birds may be able to reason on a basic level and use words creatively.[4] Pepperberg wrote that Alex's intelligence was on a par with that of dolphins and great apes.[5] She also reported that Alex seemed to show the intelligence of a five-year-old human, in some respects,[3] and had not even reached his full potential by the time he died.[6] She said that the bird had the emotional level of a human two-year-old at the time of his death

[origamiscienceguy]

Free will is different from complex thought. Alex (in that video at least) seems more like a robot to me. I don't know what kind of rewards it is getting, but it says it took years to train him. So I still think that answering the questions is an instinct in order to get whatever rewards he gets.

[TD1]

And how long does it take children to learn language? And what rewards do their parents give them? Along with other taught things like morals. A good boy for doing the right thing, a star for good school work.

And actually, I'm not sure that he does get rewards. The wikipedia page just mentions him talking with and taking roles with his instructor in order to teach other parrots.

[origamiscienceguy]

hmm. Interesting. But while children eventually grow up to make choices on their own (the age of which is unknown) I don't believe it is possible for Alex to get to that point. But I believe that at the age when children can make choices on their own, is the same age when they are responsible for their faith.

[TD1]

So...you believe animals are incapable of independent thought? They can't choose anything by their own agency?

As for children making their own choices, that's comparable to a cub and a bear, for example. The mother nurtures and teaches it, and it obeys. When it gets old enough it makes its own decisions on where to feed, what mate to choose, where to live, where to sharpen its claws, which trees to climb. The same may be said for human children.

I'm failing to understand what makes you think animals don't make choices outside of pure instinct - at least to the extent in which any species can.

[origamiscienceguy]

Mainly in morality. I have seen no indication of animals deciding what is right from wrong. This really depends on your worldview. For example, I assume your morality code is "whatever benefits mankind as a whole" or something like that. (feel free to correct me) While animals are limited to helping themself and possible others in a pack and children. Therefore human morality (whatever it might be) is already more complicated than what animals think. And if you are a christian, than it is even more complex. Much more decision making about what is right and wrong for humans than for animals.

(the "r" button on my keyboard is not working very well, so if I type words with missing r's that's why.)