Chimps can become more through evolution, but individually right now their learning capabilities are quite limited. This is a difference which language makes. Language has the representational abilities which surpasses even DNA. Thus with language human beings can in principle learn anything.
I frankly don’t know what heaven has to do with this, let alone this ability to “understand the need to go to heaven.” Sounds like you employing your own premises which I don’t share. Nor do I understand why you would conclude that I think animals don’t go to heaven. I see all living things in heaven. I do think that most living things don’t have much of an individual identity and that most of their life is at the species level rather than individual (because that is where the majority of their learning and identity is to be found) – MOST of them not all of them. And as for the human mastery of language, I see no innate barrier preventing changes in other animals enabling them to acquire language also.
I understand you never suggested that smart animals might be capable of sin or liable to go to hell. The only reason why I raised the subject of sin was in order to show that I think there could be a difference between “moral wrongdoing” on the one hand and “sin” on the other; that is to say, a creature can be capable of and culpable for moral wrongdoing without being guilty of sin. In my opinion, this distinction is important because it would mean that a creature can be morally culpable to his peer group without being so to God. I want to carefully ensure that other readers are mindful of this distinction as they consider my argument.
And we are about to see why.
Here you identified morality as a spiritual concept. As should be obvious by now, I do not agree with this identification; I prefer to maintain a distinction between moral wrongdoing (a sociobiological concept) and sin or evil (a theological concept). In order for a moral wrongdoing to be a sin, a covenant relationship with God must first exist, as I had said. So smart animals like chimpanzees might be able to “understand some rights and wrongs” and therefore be held morally culpable to their peer groups, as you say, but a lot more work is required in order to call this a spiritual concept. On the view I am defending, the spiritual dimension did not enter the picture until Adam and Eve roughly six thousand years ago when we first entered into that covenant relationship with God.
It’s because that requires an order of thinking and abstraction for which only humans possess a demonstrable capacity (see animal cognition studies). Perhaps some people like to imagine that these animals can understand such things as the desire for heaven, even if only just a little, but that is just wishful thinking at this point; it is not a conclusion drawn from scientific evidence.
Again, let me direct your attention to the biblical fact of our covenant relationship with God. As far as I know, this is unique to humans. Apart from that covenant relationship there is no such thing as righteousness or sin, thus neither salvation nor condemnation, and thus no heaven or hell. “God created humankind in his own image” (Gen. 1:27). This is not said of any other creature. We are the only imago Dei. Christ took on human flesh. He lived, died, and rose again to save only God’s children who are human. So, yes, God is being partial.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
36
Of course no human animal is going to Hell either. Why would they? Even if they wanted to. Love wins.
You ask what I think heaven has to do with this. Simple. If you can understand the need to go to heaven, you have some idea of what heaven or a heaven-like life is like, then you desire it. If you desire it you go to it. It’s just that as I said many Christians believe that when an animal dies that’s it for the animal.
You also say that the learning capabilities of a chimp are limited. A super-intelligent being can also say that our learning capabilities are limited. He can say that he’s infinitely-able-to-receive while we’re not. Human language is not like this ready-made thing by God Himself given to humans from the beginning. It has primitive beginnings and is very limited in scope, has a very limited vocabulary and its concepts are as many as humanity’s perception will allow. Therefore it can’t be used to learn everything and I don’t see how it would make someone infinitely-able-to-receive.
Sorry… but I don’t think you can speak for a “super-intelligent being.” A more intelligent person would explain to you that things are not that simple. There is a difference between speed of learning and what ultimately can be learned. Furthermore the difference is demonstrable. While animals remain the same for millions of years, we learn things at an accelerating rate without any limits except the what our environment has to offer. Animals become more by evolving, while humans don’t need evolution any more. The implication is pretty clear that with an infinite environment or unlimited source of knowledge, we have no reason to think there are any limits at all to what we can learn.
Yes the capacity of language can be increased. And for that reason its limitations at any point in history are irrelevant. It is a living growing thing. The irrefutable fact here is that humans have language and animals do not, and language has demonstrated that it has representational capabilities which surpasses DNA. Therefore language encompasses all the potentiality of evolution itself without such limitations as no inheritance of acquired characteristics.
I do not accept your premises that going to heaven requires some knowledge of heaven. Sounds like Gnosticism rather than Christianity. I don’t think this notion of a “knowledge of heaven” is even coherent. Heaven represents eternal life which is infinite.
You say you don’t consider morality to be a spiritual concept. Then how do you understand it? Please be specific because one may think one may be specific but one may not be. Explain to me as you’d explain to an average person without knowledge of biology. Also as I said, since they have a little knowledge of morality, a spiritual concept, they can understand that they should not do some deeds, that their peers shouldn’t either and that they’d prefer a life with cooperation and no wrongdoing (something heaven-like, also spiritual). So no, more abstract thinking doesn’t seem necessary, even a very small understanding of the desire for heaven (as much as a 4 year old child’s) seems enough to go to heaven.
I believe in heaven and hell because I see them in the world and it looks to me to be largely a product of people themselves. Some make the place where they are hellish by the way they treat other people, and others make the place where they are heavenly by the way they treat people. Logically therefore the requirement is that you be the sort of person you makes the place where you are heavenly rather than hellish.
I have never said any such thing. You have changed things quite dramatically from “knowledge” to “desire” and from “requirements” to “reason why you can.” But from above we see that desire is certainly not enough if you are going to bring hell with you wherever you go. But I suppose if you really want something enough then you would be willing to change… right?
I already answered this, so please interact with that response (December 25, 2020). Again, “I prefer to maintain a distinction between moral wrongdoing (a sociobiological concept) and sin or evil (a theological concept).” In this case, the precursors of human morality can be traced through primate sociality and the behaviors of other social animals (our evolutionary kin). For a rudimentary introduction, see “Evolution of morality” at Wikipedia, as I don’t want to reproduce here what is already written there. I would also recommend Philip Clayton and Jeffrey Schloss, eds., Evolution and Ethics: Human Morality in Biological and Religious Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004). Schloss, by the way, is a senior scholar on staff here at BioLogos. His research interests include evolutionary theories of altruistic morality.
But, as I had said, moral wrongdoing as a spiritual concept (sin) requires a covenant relationship with God, which did not exist until six thousand years ago, starting with Adam and Eve in the garden, and is exclusively between humans and God. Furthermore, I also said early on (December 20, 2020), “No creatures on Earth other than humans are either capable or culpable of sin, despite the fact that other creatures demonstrate characteristics of moral agency.” Again, I am denying that moral wrongdoing and sin are identical; that is, moral wrongdoing is not necessarily sin, a spiritual concept that requires a covenant relationship with God.
So when you say, as you did just now, that smart animals like chimpanzees “have a little knowledge of morality, a spiritual concept” (December 31, 2020), I can only sit back and wonder why you’re not taking my point seriously, that their morality does not rise to the level of a spiritual concept. Maybe we need to shift gears and transition from my perspective (which you are not taking seriously anyway) over to yours and have you defend this idea that the “little” morality of chimpanzees is “a spiritual concept.” Let me know which avenue you wish to choose, whether to take my point seriously or shoulder the burden of defending your view.
I was tracking with you until that point where you attributed “heaven-like” and “spiritual” to what these chimpanzees are experiencing. That is anthropomorphic language whereby you’re imposing human concepts onto animals because their behaviors bear some similarity to ours. We consider human flourishing as “heaven-like” and thus “spiritual,” for example, so if chimpanzees are concerned for the flourishing of their social group, that must mean they likewise contexualize it as heaven-like. But that is a wild and naked leap of logic without a shred of scientific warrant. These animals should be considered without resorting to unwarranted speculations about their subjective states.
Do chimpanzees have “a very small understanding of the desire for heaven”? I don’t think so, but feel free to convince me otherwise—with scientific evidence, not blatant anthropomorphisms.
Hello. Alright I won’t say these things. I will say something else but it’s related. A child who’s 4 years old goes to heaven. Why can’t a chimp also go to heaven since he’s as smart? Also, I don’t know what you mean by covenant-relationship. Can you define it? And what does it have to do with all of us exactly? Please help me better understand what you said.
I don’t believe the chimp “starts off in heaven”. Please don’t ask me to answer why, let’s just agree that we disagree, I don’t want to argue about biblical verses.
Yes it does. I’m talking about the literal heaven that many people will go to after the 2nd coming of Jesus and the judgment. The heaven in which there’ll be literally no pain, no diseases, no unrighteousness, no death. That’s the heaven I want to talk about.
Sounds like the “heaven” which turned Buffy into a basket case.
Life is about growth and learning, and learning means making mistakes and experiencing pain.
What you describe is more like (but improved upon by) the great and wonderful promise of heavenly ever-after by all the atheists – simple nonexistence… sweet sweet nothing.
Not interested your empty bliss place. I wouldn’t even send a rat to a place that torturously boring.
Yeah, I believe in something quite different. Hell is where you can expect your heart’s desire. And if you think that sounds good then you don’t comprehend the depravity of the human heart. No, that is a pot for boiling frogs. Heaven is where you can expect what God desires for us – and I don’t think that is even a tiny bit comfortable. I think you can expect a long painful surgical operation removing those sins of yours – a place where you will become stronger, greater, and Christ-like – not a wimpy basket case.
Just to clarify, I was talking to dominic and hoped it would lead him to similar conclusion - but then I also annoyed my teachers by answering questions not meant for me earning me the comment “ist etwas vorlaut”.
I think both, @Jay313 and yourself seem to miss the point of the language but Jay picked up on the point in part that I was wanting Dominic to consider, a point that both, Jay and yourself completely failed which is why you got so heated about one another, the ability to identify the self. As you both can see, language is useless without a mind that can not correctly locate the self in relation to a context. And without acting from the understanding of the self one can not blame “one self” - or “two selfs”…
There are people who live without physical pain and they are definitively not in heaven for it. To those who are one with God, such as Jesus there is no pain etc and no death, as they are at one with eternity. This is why I can be in heaven already and why death has lost it’s sting. I have to admit, having been to the edge has helped to bring things in perspective. To be not in heaven , e.g. not with God requires to separate yourself from him. Tell me how an animal is going to do that.
People, I’m not here to argue about what heaven is. I’m here so someone can explain to me some things. If you don’t believe in the heaven I said then you can’t go on with this conversation and shouldn’t (because we’d be arguing different things). I want someone who believes in this heaven I believe in to reply to me and make some things clear. @John_Bauer please explain to me firstly what you mean by covenant relationship. The only thing I know is that Adam and Eve were in paradise and received a command from God. How exactly does this make them from now on accountable for sins in general? You believe that by being given the Holy Spirit they then started knowing God’s will and that they shouldn’t go against it or else they’d become sinners? If so, what about those who existed outside of Eden and didn’t receive God’s Holy Spirit? And what about the fact that according to Romans 1:18-20 it seems (as I see it) that humans can understand God’s will on their own? What is your take in this?
I already told you. I don’t get why you don’t understand it. The desire for heaven is spiritual, not wanting immorality and wrongdoing is spiritual, not wanting death is spiritual. That’s why chimps may have some spiritual knowledge. According to wikipedia (not 100% sure if true though) they’re even able to partly appreciate aesthetic beauty, thus understanding something spiritual, awe. Not material. They even mourn for dead chimps of their group.
Why don’t you answer? I already made my points. I can’t explain them more simply. Please reply, I still don’t get some things you say. You can’t just throw in what you say complicated terms and not want to explain them. I told this already. I’m not an expert. I’m a layman. Explain simply. But you don’t. That a chimp doesn’t share with other chimps the awe he might feel doesn’t mean anything. Perceiving the awe is spiritual enough for me to assume he can partly understand a spiritual concept. What else could it be? What else could not wanting immorality be? No answer so far.
