I’ll let you get away with this egregious kind of logic if you agree that Chimps will act like Orangs, and vice versa, if we switched the environments the Primates live in. If you say they will - - if we give them long enough time to evolve, then you are simply agreeing with my point.
And ditto for switching climates for Lions and Cheetahs.
The point I was making is that alpha-male Lions may kill the cubs of the females of a pride it has taken over … but your description of this being political behavior is completely beside the point. You say it triggers the females to mate with the new male.
Right. And what is the outcome of all this?
Fewer cubs by the first male survive to pass on the genes of the first male… and
More cubs by the new male survive to pass on the genes of the new male.
And that is Natural Selection… whether its politics as well or not.
Lynn, there has been much confusion and controversy regarding the uniqueness of humankind, mainly, I think, because the participants were not careful to specify what the distinctions are to be used for. For discussions here in the BioLogos Forum, I am assuming the the important distinction would be: “Is humankind unique enough to consider them capable of entering into a covenant with their Creator? Would they understand the significance of being made in the image of their Creator?” Tool-use, communication through simple sounds (crude language), self-recognition, simple planning (like cooperative hunting)–all these might be steps in the direction of a relationship with one’s Creator, but symbolism and abstract thought are certainly required. None of the characteristics you mention above (those that we have with animals) suggest that they can think abstractly.[quote=“Lynn_Munter, post:89, topic:346”]
I don’t think we’re differently put together than the animals around us.
[/quote]
That is true, Lynn, and it is especially important in the case of our brains which are so important in guiding our behavior. It is useful to consider that the ‘design’ of our human brains is based upon evolution building upon our earlier ancestors’ brains. The central core has elements of the ‘alligator brain’ (reptilian), upon which is constructed a ‘horse addition’ (mammalian), and finally a cerebral cortex (a primate brain). But even the advance primates, Homo neanderthalis and early Homo sapiens, gave no indication they possessed a spiritual as well as a biological nature. Only some 40K yrs ago (Cro-Magnon culture in Europe) did burials with goods for an afterlife give reliable evidence of spiritual thought.
Not everyone gets as much stimulation from reading Pierre Teilhard de Chardin as I have. He used a very flowery French that does not translate easily. Plus the fact that he wrote (purposely?) in an abstruse style, possibly to defend his ideas from possible charges of heresy from the Vatican. You may get as much from Teilhard Quotes on www. One of my favorites: We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.” It reinforces his view that the newly established Noosphere is fated to become as significant in the history of the Universe as was the birth of the Biosphere or of the original Cosmosphere.
Al Leo
The reason @beaglelady uses the phrase “moving the goal posts” is because you did two things:
you used the “kin preference” aspect of altruistic behaviors in animals like this somehow proved something. Kin Preference is also at work in human altruism.
you then brought up Jesus’s call to rise above our [biological] flaws … which is quite beside the point that you and Beaglelady were discussing…
Yes, I was pretty much discussing moral behavior in animals. It turns out they will sometimes help non-relatives also.
Another short clip from Nova: Do Animals have Morals?
Actually I brought up kin preference–not to prove anything, but only that it has been offered in support of the selfish gene hypothesis which can operate in favor of, not only the gene in the individual’s phenotype but also in favor of the same gene in that individual’s kin. I see this as relevant in the point Jesus was trying to make in Matt. 5:43-48. " If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?" So the ‘tax collectors’ are not behaving better than many animals in this respect.
Yes, I interpret Matt. 5 as Jesus asking us to rise above the instinctive, biological nature that evolution (God’s creative mechanism) endowed us with. This is not beside the point. It is precisely THE POINT. Heretical, perhaps, but the only way evolution can be seen to be compatible with Christian Faith.
What makes sense to me is that humankind did NOT enter an earthly scene that was in a state of perfection–only to have Adam promptly spoil it by Sin. What makes sense is that some Homo sapiens were (somehow) gifted with Mind and thereby given the chance to introduce in the world the characteristic of care, compassion and love that the Creator saw glimmers of in previous animal life, but which he wanted to be more effectively displayed. That was what I meant by “moving the goalposts”. @beaglelady might have had something different in mind.
Al Leo
Murder is killing people. Killing people is sanctioned by the state during war and in some criminal contexts. Killing a person is also generally accepted in self-defense, or sometimes but not always in defense of others. There is a ton of detailed discussion you can have about where exactly the grey areas and boundaries are. It is absolutely subjective, and absolutely important to discuss! I am baffled by where you’re coming from.
With such a totally black and white view, you’d have to call Robin Hood a bad guy for stealing.
No, God is NOT Absolute! God is Relational, God is Love. Humans are created in the Image of God. The Creation is created through the Logos, Jesus Christ. God, the Trinity, is Relational, and God made the universe relational.
In that case, wouldn’t all of reality be based on his mind?
All of Reality is based on God’s Mind, or the Logos.
And if it’s all in his mind, of course it’s subjective then!
NO, it is not in God’s Mind, as a pantheist might claim. God created the universe to exist separate from Godself. You have created posts with you mind, but once they exist they exist separate from your mind.
The universe is created, has an existence separate from God, so it is not subjective. It is objective to humans and to God. Good thinking is the art of separating the objective from the subjective.
Why do you think ‘subjective’ is not worth discussing?
The subjective as normally used is based on personal opinion and speculation. It is impossible to discuss because it is not based on fact, but unfounded conjecture.
Beware of the rabbit hole here Lynn. Most Christians have no problem accepting on faith that there are absolutes and that the absolute ground of being for it all would have to be … God. But this, nevertheless is a trigger point with Roger. His unwavering mantra is seemingly to have us all abolish that word. He won’t back down. One might think he regards his studied conclusion in this as not just correct but … absolute.
I should have asked more clearly, I see. If, as you say, reality is not absolute, and God is not absolute, is there anything which is? Or is ‘absolute’ a somewhat useless word?
In which case, we might as well revert to discussing whether things are objective or subjective.
I don’t think you have this right. ‘Subjective’ is that which is internal or biased by emotion, while ‘objective’ is not. It’s perfectly legitimate for emotional bias to be based or founded on facts! If you cut all personal opinion and emotion out of discussion, it will be A) vastly curtailed and B) boring.
One could argue that all human thought, and especially all ‘memes,’ or ideas worth communicating, are subjective. Now, probably you could also make a case that strict math and direct observations of the world are objective. But I really don’t see how you can possibly cultivate a decent morality without emotional involvement.
The word Sbsolute is a good word, but it is based on an archaic philosophical world view. We need a new world view that is not based on dualism, not based on Natural/Supernatural, or Objective/Subjective, We need concepts that are based on the physical, mental, and the spiritual, which are all relational