Seems some animals have a (very small) knowledge of right and wrong part 2

Non-human animals are as close to us as possible without language and recursive thinking. Emotionally, ethically, morally we are on the same spectrum with overlap. Instead of trying to make us culpable and damnable due to the synergy of uniquely human recursion and those higher animal psychological characteristics, we need to realise how deterministically inevitable our ‘sinfulness’ is.

How innocent we are.

How human they are. This made we weep. As I said elsewhere, ‘Please help me’.

So you say a 3-4 year old child cannot yet understand the desire for heaven, and that he doesn’t understand faith in God, is that right? As for what this has to do with going to heaven or not, I just thought that one of two things may happen if the child were to die. Forget the second one, it was just a thought of mine.

No I do not. I learned to read at 6. My youngest son taught himself to read at 2. We are all different and in different circumstances. I don’t believe in rules by which we can judge whether someone goes to heaven or hell, Romans 10 calls that “righteousness based on law” which I equate to legalism. It says faith doesn’t ask such question.

That’s quite a claim.

I have a funny story about that one.

I took him to visit libraries all that summer after that. He wandered up to this family where the mother was reading to her children. She caught my attention utterly flabbergasted saying, “He can read!” And she asked, “How did you do it?” I said, “I didn’t.” He learned from watching programs on PBS. She sort of shrunk in her seat, and said, “I don’t let my children watch TV.”

Those programs were good. He became obsessed with letters and would see them everywhere such as in abstract patterns on walls and carpets. In any case, reading at age 2, while unheard of while I was that age is not so extra-ordinary these days. Look it up. What they call gifted yes, but not even genius level.

The signs of genius are a little more subtle and has more to do with continuing to advance rapidly. Learning to read early is one sign but not decisive. But I wouldn’t be surprised if my youngest does have a higher IQ than I do.

1 Like

I have a question for the OP (@Dominic2090), which I hope was not already addressed in the aforementioned Part 1. And allow me to reveal from the outset that I am a Bible-believing evangelical Christian who accepts the science and history of evolution within a biblical world-view.

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that some animals do have a capacity for rudimentary moral behavior. Given this fact, what kind of problems do you anticipate?

“Can we say that a chimpanzee is morally culpable to his troop for some wrongdoing?” Well, let us assume for the sake of argument that he is. What, specifically, would be the problem with that scenario?

“Is he morally culpable before God?” I don’t see how, as there are no creatures on Earth with whom God has a covenant relationship other than humans. I am willing to grant that some animals are capable of wrongdoing and may be morally culpable to those in their community, but that wrongdoing cannot be a sin against God without a covenant relationship defining that term. This would make a distinction between moral wrongdoing and sin, the former representing a horizontal dimension (morally culpable before others) and the latter representing a vertical dimension (morally culpable before God). Humans are not unique with respect to the former, but they are with respect to the latter.

As far as I can tell, it would seem to follow from the biblical witness that there is no such thing as “sin” apart from a covenant relationship with God. 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—a state of affairs which could arguably apply to humans prior to a covenant relationship with God (i.e., before Adam). That is, before Adam and the garden, humans were capable of wrongdoing but not sin, a term which was meaningless until the events of the garden. Once that covenant relationship was established, however, sin became a potential—but not an actuality until Adam disobeyed God (thus Adam’s state of posse non peccare et posse peccare is preserved).

So chimps don’t burn in Hell because they can’t sign a contract. I haven’t signed one with God either. So I’m OK.

Hello. First let me make some things clear first. I’m not saying any of those smart animals can go to hell or that they should be accountable for sin. Even if they INDISPUTABLY have a little of morality or not, they can’t go to hell. The problem is another.

I anticipate that with little morality (a spiritual concept) they may be able to understand some rights and wrongs and therefore be slightly accountable for them. Also, by having the intelligence of a 4 year old child, they can act with as much impulse, learn some things and act consciously. If they are so smart and can even show empathy, who is to say they can’t understand the desire for heaven even a little? Since, I say again, they can grasp (a little) a spiritual concept (morality) and can show empathy, who is to say they don’t understand the (also spiritual) desire to not die, to live without seeing wrongdoing from their peers, etc. (i.e. a heaven-like version of life)?
As far as I know many Christians say animals aren’t going to heaven or hell.
And since they’re not going to heaven, while humans are, why is that? Is God being partial? Please address what I ask and only it.

I’m really confused. How do you conclude that a human is infinitely-able-to-receive while a chimp isn’t? Simply because humans can go to heaven? If the 4 year old child can understand the need to go to heaven, then the chimp who’s as smart may also be able to. So why not go to it?

1 Like

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.

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.

Then what is required to go to heaven according to what you believe? Why isn’t the desire for heaven a reason as to why one can 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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

Considering that we start off in heaven, how does the chimp leave heaven?