Evolution v Creationism

[Ironside]

Once again I didn't say evolution has/does not happen, maybe we humans just had a different starting point is all.

It's not surprising our bodies share so much DNA with bananas, its the building block of all life. But then, I like to think there is something which humans have that a banana does not... some kind of soul/consciousness. If we don't, we are really just biological robots.

It's interesting that the just is what we fear, that if our mind is only chemicals moving inside our brains, we're suddenly becoming lesser in some way. If our consciousness stems from our biological robots are we then less conscious?

Soul implies that there is some part of us separate from our biological body and mind--but that's a problematic claim. But, we are more conscious that any other animal, so I wouldn't say "just".

More aimed at Rhyfelwyr, but most relevant in this context.

So... at what point is the consciousness of a child higher than of an animal? Is that the point where the soul enter the body?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Also related, if the soul exist and are of a more eternal state, but the soul's expression is dependant on the brain the soul inhabit (shown by personality changes, or even better, split personality), how can it be any certainy that animals don't have a soul?

I don't understand why people talk about emotion as a human trait that seperates us from animals, to me it just looks like animal instinct at its worst. I'm a bit of a stoic.

You haven't given this one much thought have you?

For starters, why shouldn't I murder if I can get away with it and it's logically beneficial for me? An even more important question is how could I decide that's it's beneficial for me without emotions?
One simple example is if you got to choose between two times at the dentist. One is next week and the second is a month from now. You're not busy at any of the times. Logically, which time is better? Neither, so how do you logically choose?

Also, one well-known state of lack of emotions is known as apathy, hardly the state any human strives for.

And finally, when did you logically decide that God exist? Remind you that knowing things are in the realm of emotions.

To summarise, while logic thinking is a great tool, it's the emotions that drives us.

There's so much seperating us from animals its hard to know where to begin....

I can give a few fairly advanced traits that animals have (and some humans lack). Self-restraint (choose a large reward later instead of a small one now), logic thinking (solving a problem in your mind before even trying and then use that experience to solve a even more complicated one), preparation (adapt so when you got bad luck one day, you gotten enough resourses to handle that. This in a non-natural way, so it requires more than instinct) and lying (not a nice achivement, but it is harder than telling the truth).

That's a few ones I got in mind at the moment, but feel free to add stuff that separates us from the animals and I'll see at least some of the research on that area.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOK49CnJj-4

A few notes, stupidity=lack of soul or "the ghost in the machine"?

Second, it's hard to determine purpose with lack of communication. Simply put, the dog may very play around in that video and not really caring about capturing the squirrel (that hardly act scared anyway).
How can we be certain that an animal doesn't have a philosophical thought, when we don't know how to fully communicate with them? Parrot and ape conversations were they learnt a bit of human language would be quite interesting to see.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Things like logical thought are just our brain doing its 'robotic' bit, doesn't really say anything about whether or not we have a 'soul'. For the self-restraint thing, waiting for a better reward is not what I had in mind. Animals don't actually deny themselves just for the sake of it like us folks do. We are by nature very restrained compared to any animal.

As for the things with emotions, I think we act the way we do because of morals, not just our genes hardcoding us with emotions to manipulate how we act. When I see people get angry and go in a rage, it just looks completely ridiculous, honestly some people give Darwin credit. Animal-like emotions such as hate, fear, anger, some elements of 'love', they are the polar opposite things like morality which people should base their actions upon.

I guess I am coming from the Stoic position, maybe this can clarify things a bit. Just replaced the 'logos/nature' with 'God/godliness' and you have my position. Taken from Wikipedia:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The ancient Stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts in the past than they do today. The word 'stoic' has come to mean 'unemotional' or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from 'passion' by following 'reason.' The Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions, rather they sought to transform them by a resolute 'askēsis' which enables a person to develop clear judgment and inner calm [22]. Logic, reflection, and concentration were the methods of such self-discipline.

Borrowing from the Cynics, the foundation of Stoic ethics is that good lies in the state of the soul itself; in wisdom and self-control. Stoic ethics stressed the rule: "Follow where reason leads." One must therefore strive to be free of the passions, bearing in mind that the ancient meaning of 'passion' was "anguish" or "suffering",[23] that is, "passively" reacting to external events — somewhat different from the modern use of the word. A distinction was made between pathos (plural pathe) which is normally translated as "passion", propathos or instinctive reaction (e.g. turning pale and trembling when confronted by physical danger) and eupathos, which is the mark of the Stoic sage (sophos). The eupatheia are feelings resulting from correct judgment in the same way as the passions result from incorrect judgment.

The idea was to be free of suffering through apatheia (Greek: ἀπάθεια) or peace of mind (literally,'without passion)'[24], where peace of mind was understood in the ancient sense — being objective or having "clear judgment" and the maintenance of equanimity in the face of life's highs and lows.

For the Stoics, 'reason' meant not only using logic, but also understanding the processes of nature — the logos, or universal reason, inherent in all things. Living according to reason and virtue, they held, is to live in harmony with the divine order of the universe, in recognition of the common reason and essential value of all people. The four cardinal virtues of the Stoic philosophy are wisdom (Sophia), courage (Andreia), justice (Dikaiosyne), and temperance (Sophrosyne), a classification derived from the teachings of Plato.

Following Socrates, the Stoics held that unhappiness and evil are the results of ignorance. If someone is unkind, it is because they are unaware of their own universal reason. Likewise, if they are unhappy, it is because they have forgotten how nature actually functions. The solution to evil and unhappiness then, is the practice of Stoic philosophy — to examine one's own judgments and behaviour and determine where they have diverged from the universal reason of nature.

[rory_20_uk]

What are these morals by the way?

[Rhyfelwyr]

What are these morals by the way?

Godliness. Try to be more specific and you end up with everything breaking down.

[rory_20_uk]

Right, well that was my attempt to garner some interest shot down.

Is this the "ascribed, current view of Christian Godliness" held by yourself, or something slightly more useful?

Else that really is so much marsh gas.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well are you asking what the morals are? Ten Commandment etc?

Or are you asking what makes them morals, or how are they universal, or something like that?

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, what they are is interesting. Obviously the come from God so why or how are not relevant.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

More aimed at Rhyfelwyr, but most relevant in this context.

So... at what point is the consciousness of a child higher than of an animal?

Depends on the animal.

Also related, if the soul exist and are of a more eternal state, but the soul's expression is dependant on the brain the soul inhabit (shown by personality changes, or even better, split personality), how can it be any certainy that animals don't have a soul?

Exactly...or rocks or trees for that matter.

A few notes, stupidity=lack of soul or "the ghost in the machine"?

Second, it's hard to determine purpose with lack of communication. Simply put, the dog may very play around in that video and not really caring about capturing the squirrel (that hardly act scared anyway). [/quote]

Intelligence is the defining human factor.

How can we be certain that an animal doesn't have a philosophical thought, when we don't know how to fully communicate with them? Parrot and ape conversations were they learnt a bit of human language would be quite interesting to see.

How can we be certain trees don't have a philosophical thought? They can communicate with each other...

[Sigurd]

Who says animals don't have souls?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Who says animals don't have souls?

Maybe they do, but they are not bound by the same rules as us regardless.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Maybe they do, but they are not bound by the same rules as us regardless.

Lousy laws of physics. Never there when you need them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Lousy laws of physics. Never there when you need them.

You know what I mean.

[Ironside]

Depends on the animal.

Intelligence is the defining human factor.

Well, beating an amoeba in intelligence will hardly make intelligence a remarking trait that makes humanity special so I'll think I go with the most intelligent animals, like dophins, apes, parots, crows (they're surpricingly intelligent) and simular.

How much more intelligent must humans be to be special compared to the rest of the animals? Do they need to break the average human intelligence or simply to most stupid humans? Is there's an average amoung the specie or only the most brilliant mind that's needed?

Personally I would go with the complex language, but like with all human traits, the basic framework excist in other animals, only expressed much stronger in humans.

Are blue whales special because they're huge?

If there is no more reason to believe in God than pixies or leprechauns or whatever, then it is a great coincidence that He has so many followers.

When I was an atheist I thought religion was stupid, but at least I admitted there was something behind it, even if it was just an evolutionary function.

So does Shiva. Pixies and leprechuans have the downside of actually needed to leave some physical proof behind, at least occationally.

Anyway, the elusivness of the gods by being poor of true supernatural miracles leaves at least the religion and science free from eachother. If the way any god work is thruogh natural means, then science works great to describe the world, no matter the existance of any god. The downside is of course proving that they exist, but it's fairly certain that they don't plan to make it easy on that matter.

btw, self-restraint is the framework whom Stoism stands on. Without it, you're slave under your passions. And animals do show self-restraint for other things than food, it's just that it's the easiest and most non-personal thing to test.

Did you know that (at least some) religious experiences seems to be located into a speciffic center of the brain? For whatever reason, but it certainly indicates that religiousity has an evolutionary function.

Seamus, evolution and big bang theory thrown together?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, beating an amoeba in intelligence will hardly make intelligence a remarking trait that makes humanity special so I'll think I go with the most intelligent animals, like dophins, apes, parots, crows (they're surpricingly intelligent) and simular.

How much more intelligent must humans be to be special compared to the rest of the animals? Do they need to break the average human intelligence or simply to most stupid humans? Is there's an average amoung the specie or only the most brilliant mind that's needed?

Personally I would go with the complex language, but like with all human traits, the basic framework excist in other animals, only expressed much stronger in humans.

Are blue whales special because they're huge?

Special is a vague word. Restaurants have specials.

You're questioning the anthropocentric view, yes? Rather than asking about the differences between people and animals your asking what the significance of the differences is?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wouldn't normally quote from this site, but it came up on a Google search and it seemed pretty funny.

It does raise some good points - surely the fact that we even question the meaning of our existence seperates us from the animals?

[Ironside]

Special is a vague word. Restaurants have specials.

You're questioning the anthropocentric view, yes? Rather than asking about the differences between people and animals your asking what the significance of the differences is?

Yes. I don't deny that we are more intelligent than animals one average, but I won't say that this difference is enough to say that humanity is somehow special compared to the rest of the living beings on earth.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well... I guess one has to define intelligence...

We live in small appartments, wage war on each other and develop nukes...

Dolphins swim around in the ocean and have fun...

How do you know they are not questioning our intelligence?

[Fixiwee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBQRy0aV3P4


edit: be aware of foul language, you 13 year old kids on this board.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes. I don't deny that we are more intelligent than animals one average, but I won't say that this difference is enough to say that humanity is somehow special compared to the rest of the living beings on earth.

I missed this post, sorry. Without humans there is no "special"; it's a human concept. I feel like this is the line of thinking that leads to radical environmentalism and the animal rights movement. You can't say the earth would be better without humans, because without humans there is no "better".

[Kadagar_AV]

I missed this post, sorry. Without humans there is no "special"; it's a human concept. I feel like this is the line of thinking that leads to radical environmentalism and the animal rights movement. You can't say the earth would be better without humans, because without humans there is no "better".

Your point is that animals are unable to think, or to define things as "good and bad" or "better and worse"?

It would be interesting to see you back that up with a fact or two.