Maybe you can clarify something.
Who are these animals being held accountable to? Are you saying God is holding them accountable as in they committed a sin and will be punished or what?
In reviewing our discussion above, it occurred to me to ask the following question: Is it possible to have language without a mind? Yes I think so. I don’t think computers have a mind and yet there are various programs which use human languages in different ways. So… if I think computers have both language and intelligence while thinking that they don’t have a mind, then what is missing? I don’t think the mind is just a set of abilities, let alone that language and intelligence is sufficient. I think the mind is a living organism – a self-organizing process which learns, adapts, and makes choices. The substance and medium for that self-organizing process is language… but just because there is language doesn’t mean the living process we call a mind is there as well. Computers programs may use language but there is no life or consciousness. I do say they are capable of intelligence because from what we see in modern AI I just don’t see any reason to restrict the word “intelligence” to living organisms let alone human beings.
They are being held accountable to each other in the communities which they form.
I understand that part.
I’m just mostly uncertain about the OPs nuance of the phrase. Between the two threads it’s almost as if they believe that animals are held accountable to God for their choices as if there is a issue of sin that needs to be addressed within the animal
Kingdom of species like chimps.
It seems everyone agrees that animals have social standards , and can understand disobeying them. It seems like the OP is wanting to go beyond that aspect.
Obviously they do not have the language to be in communication with God in that way. But then I really don’t buy into that understanding of sin and punishment as implied by your question except as a metaphor. I believe that sin consists of self-destructive habits which have consequences destructive to our well being – eternally and spiritually beyond this life as well as in this life. I don’t believe in the wrathful God seeking vengeance upon us for daring to do things our own way contrary to his commands. I believe in the loving God who is giving us guidance and advice for the benefit of our own well being.
So what about animals…? I think that most of their life is at the species level with some exceptions in cases where they have had too much interaction with humans and thus where some of our humanity has rubbed off on them. At least that is my best guess. What has this to do with anything? Well I see spirit as a product of the process of life itself, so these go hand in hand I think.
Funny that you didn’t recognize Tomasello’s work on intention-reading and first-order theory of mind shared by chimps and toddlers in my comments.
No, it doesn’t. There’s a profound difference in our wiring. See here:
We posted on top of one another and I misread your comment about this as directed to my comment:
My apologies for misunderstanding. Otherwise, I hate to break it to you but you’re consistently the most rude regular commenter by far. You call me a troll? Haha. I do my best to ignore your “contribution” to the Forum, but you can have it. Enjoy the sandbox you’ve constructed for yourself.
1 Like
Reading this reminds me of the Victorian phrenology quackery. I don’t know why Jay thinks the changes in skull shape from neanderthals to modern humans has some bearing on the question of animals and morality.
Oh I see… he is linking this up to a thread which neither I nor Dominic participated. Is this tantrum because I didn’t pay any attention to this theory he is all excited about? Looks like much ado about not so very much… The more I read of it… phew… it really is a revival of phrenology.
Yes, it would be better restrict yourself to responding only to people to whom you can be civil.
Hello, and thank you for your reply as well. I need to understand better what you believe sets us apart from the animals so we can be in the image of God since you seem to present an alternative view. As for what you say about language, there’s a TED talk by evolutionary biologist mr. Pagel related to what you say, who talks about how language affected humanity: Mark Pagel: How language transformed humanity - YouTube
What do you think about what he says?
Note: I’ll also read and answer to the other answerers when I can. Thank you for your time.
I think the physical difference is largely quantitative rather than black and white, and being in the image of God is more about a relationship. Our infinite potentiality reflects God’s infinite actuality so that there is no end to what God has to give and no end to what we can receive from God. This is precisely what is needed for an eternal parent-child relationship. For children is exactly what you make when you create in your own image. But there is a radical difference from the animals because we are not just a biological species. Along with the genetic inheritance we have from the animals and evolution, we also have an inheritance of the mind from God by which we are His children.
- language is a means to rewire other people? No! People are not blank slates. They decide the relevance of what you say and they decide what to do about it.
- language are genes talking? No! Absolutely no information goes from our genes to what we say.
- Interpretation of tower of Babel story? No! I see this story as directly connected to the story of the flood and how God avoided ending back in the same situation which led to the flood. God broke them up into many languages and cultures, so instead of one culture dominated by evil you would have many competing with each other which would require some cooperation and goodness within a culture in order for them to survive.
- Chimpanzees lack social learning? No! They do learn by copying and imitating. They do learn from other’s mistakes. They don’t do it nearly as well because they don’t have language. That much is true. They can and do pass down some things learned to the next generation. But imitation is about the only means they have of doing this, and that is very little compared to what we can pass to the next generation using language and other forms of human communication media.
- If you come back in a million years they will be doing the same thing? Maybe, maybe not. Millions of years is the evolutionary time scale and on that scale change is very possible. Perhaps not if the population and environment remains stable. No what language adds is the ability to change radically during much shorter periods of time… at first in thousands of years down to only hundreds of years down to radical changes even within a decade. THAT is certainly something evolution will never give you.
And that is where I stopped… at 3:54 of the video. Perhaps these are not huge disagreement and we agree more than we disagree. I agree 100% that language is a game changer and makes us radically more than the animals by a factor of a 1000 at least (as measured by change in 1000s of years rather than millions of years).
Of course… I am a physicist not a biologist. So in biology I am an amateur… probably one of the things which irritates Jay when I speak authoritatively on the subject. But it has always been an interest of mine so I did keep up on many developments in Scientific American as well as some personal research on topics like mutagenesis. And truth be told scientists are pretty focused these days so they are really only experts on a small portion of even the subjects they have their degrees in and done their work in.
Hello, I need to better understand what you mean by the infinite potentiality and infinite actuality you talk about. Thank you.
1 Like
Please guys don’t argue we’re here to understand each other’s thoughts on a subject and engage in constructive dialogue. We can all benefit from a little information exchange by improving our understanding of the subject. Thank you, have a nice day.
1 Like
To say God is infinite actuality means He is without limits – everything possible is already within Him. He has all knowledge, ability, and there is no more for Him to become or achieve. The only possible motivation He can have is therefore giving of His abundance to others. In this we are the perfect complement – the ability to become more and receive all God has to give in an eternal parent-child relationship with Him.
2 Likes
Hello again, so you’re saying humanity can always receive from God. What exactly do you mean by become more (I have some idea but I’d like to know more precisely if I’m missing something)? And since the top most intelligent animals may be as intelligent as a 3 or 4 year old human and do not understand the desire to receive from God, does that mean that a 3 or 4 year old human doesn’t at least sentimentally understand the desire for heaven, and that he doesn’t understand faith in God? What do you believe about the 3-4 year old as far as understanding God and heaven is concerned?
Note: I believe the child may either go to heaven if he/she dies or that he/she may be given a second chance to live on earth, but God knows best.
That is our humanity as it is supposed to be. It is what being created in the image of God means. But sin gets in the way of that. Sin destroys our potential and even our freedom of will.
It is what living things do. They grow, they learn, and they evolve. All of these are examples of becoming more.
The infinite potential which is the image of God is already there in the nature of life. But not individually – only collectively because of evolution. Thus human beings are more directly and individually created in the image of God because they can become more simply by growing and learning. Of course it doesn’t mean they can do everything or understand everything at every point of their growth. After all they start as a single cell not capable of very much at all. It is all about potential – what they CAN become if they keep growing and learning.
Why do you think understanding God and heaven has anything to do with whether they go to heaven? I don’t think I really understand your question. I don’t believe in reincarnation. Why would children need another chance? Chance at what?
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.