Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

On the works of art thing -- yes, we can't truly know an elephant's "mind".
We can, however, observe and record the external indicia of elephant
"culture." There is absolutely nothing in elephant, bird, monkey, or any
other culture other than human, that suggests a capacity for sustained
ethical reflection. I don't think you'll find any competent ape scientist
who will argue that apes could construct a Shakespearian sonnet, or even a
crude limerick. Again, show me the Ape Aristotle and I'll change my tune.
OTOH, the fact that we can't truly know an ape's mind means that it isn't
adequate to argue that "maybe apes really think thus-and-so" without
pointing to some related circumstantial evidence.

As to differences of "degree" and "kind" -- the argument about human infants
and disabled people misses the potentiality principle. Yes, I think there
is no gainsaying that a newborn infant's capacity for ethical reflection
differs in kind from a full grown adults -- that's developmental
psychology. But that doesn't mean a newborn infant isn't "human," because
of the potentiality principle. An ape, in contrast, has no potential to
develop the intellectual and emotional capacity of a human adult. (The
question whether, over deep time, apes could evolve into creatures with
human capacities is a different issue, because by definition you are then
talking about changes in kind over time, not changes in individuals over
lifetimes).
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Christine Smith <
christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If I might interject...I largely concur with Burgy in
> that I see differences in morality, emotions,
> rationality, etc. between us and animals in terms of
> degree, not kind...by that I mean that fundamentally,
> the root of animals' and humans' "intangible"
> qualities are the same i.e. they are of the same kind,
> and that animals are simply less advanced in these
> areas than humans are i.e. they're are differences in
> degree.
>
> To your point/question regarding why animals don't
> produce great writings, works of art, etc. A couple of
> thoughts--one, to remind you of what you yourself
> wrote, how do we know what is in an animals' mind? In
> truth, our assumptions are nothing more or less than
> guesses. Who knows---when a bird sings a song, who
> says that there isn't more to it than just attracting
> a mate? If apes were biologically capable of writing,
> maybe they would write poetry? Since we are not a bird
> or an ape, we will never know for sure. I say this,
> not because I actually believe that birds and apes are
> talking about the meaning of life when they sing a
> song or grunt, but only to point out that your
> critique goes both ways--we can't assume that they
> experience life in the same depth that we do, but then
> again, we can't assume they don't. Secondly, as has
> been pointed out in other threads, infants and
> mentally disabled individuals also cannot write poetry
> or talk about the meaning of life or fall in love in
> the same way normal adult speak of these things--would
> you also say that because of these biological
> incapabilities, they also are different in kind, and
> not just degree, from other humans?
>
> I think the bottom line difference here between myself
> (and Burgy?) and you is our understanding of what it
> means to be created in the image of God? As I recall,
> it is the same Hebrew word for "breath of life" that
> God breathed into both humans and animals--thus, the
> ONLY distinction between us and animals is this
> "image" and what that means...from my point of view,
> this image refers to our ability, like God's, to claim
> lordship...God has delegated to us lordship
> (stewardship) of creation--we have been tasked by God
> within certain parameters, to rule the world and the
> creatures in it. We have a functional role in creation
> that is different *in kind*, not just *degree* than
> animals--both Genesis 1 & 2 testify to this function.
> To be equipped for that task, we had to possess a
> higher *degree* of advancement in emotional, ethical,
> and rational capabilities than other animals do, and
> so we evolved in a way that brought these abilities
> out from within us--in fact, I'd argue that having
> evolved along with and from the rest of God's
> creatures, it would be a better guess to assume that
> they have the same (potential) innate emotions,
> ethical nature, and rational capacities that we do,
> than to guess that they don't. It has just been
> according to God's plan and purpose that we were
> designated for this special function, and equipped
> accordingly.
>
> Anyway, I guess that's all for now--you're right
> though--fun conversation :)
>
> In Christ,
> Christine
>
> --- David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok -- but I thought it was a fun conversation. It'd
> > be nice to hear more
> > clearly what you're thinking.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM, j burg
> > <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > David -- you mis-represent my views. It seems to
> > me that this is not
> > > yor fault, but mine, for striving tto be clear and
> > failing to do so.
> > >
> > > This thread has gone on long enough.
> > >
> > > All the best
> > >
> > > Burgy
> > >
> > > On 2/21/08, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > Burgy said: What I seek, and so far the search
> > has come up empty, is
> > > some
> > > > OBJECTIVE attribute of humanity that would
> > distinguish this IOG. For
> > > > me, this has to be a difference of kind, not a
> > difference of degree.
> > > >
> > > > Why is a capacity for understanding of notions
> > of "good" and "evil" not
> > > > "objective?" Why is a capacity for producing
> > sustained ethical
> > > reflection,
> > > > ala Aristotle, etc., not "objective?" Why is a
> > capacity for producing a
> > > > literary tradition on themes of "the good,"
> > "justice," and "evil," ala
> > > > Shakespeare, etc., not "objective?" If that
> > isn't "objective," what is?
> > > > How is that fact that elephants have graveyards
> > more "objective" than
> > > all of
> > > > the above? The indicia I've mentioned are not
> > only "objective," they're
> > > > empirically measurable. Let's produce a chart,
> > for example, of the
> > > number
> > > > of pages elephants have written on the theme of
> > "justice" as compared to
> > > the
> > > > number of pages written by humans.
> > > >
> > > > As to the distinction between a difference of
> > kind vs. a difference of
> > > > degree, who says that's a valid distinction?
> > Aren't most differences of
> > > > "kind" really reducible to differences of
> > "degree?" At some point,
> > > doesn't
> > > > something differ so much in "degree" that it
> > also differs in "kind?"
> > > And at
> > > > what level of being are we making this degree /
> > kind distinction?
> > > >
> > > > Would you argue, for example, that elephants are
> > exactly the same "kind"
> > > of
> > > > organism as mice or spiders or fish or bacteria?
> > After all, at least at
> > > the
> > > > genetic level, the differences between all of
> > them are only differences
> > > of
> > > > degree, and all of them ultimately spring from a
> > common ancestor. But
> > > the
> > > > claim that elephants are the same "kind" of
> > organism as bacteria seems
> > > > absurd to me.
> > > >
> > > > Finally, when it comes to the question of "mind"
> > / "soul" / "emotion,"
> > > on
> > > > what basis do you argue that an elephant's
> > "emotions" are the same as a
> > > > human's except for "degree?" How do you know
> > that an elephant's
> > > emotional /
> > > > mental life is of the same kind as a human's?
> > I'd suggest that, just as
> > > we
> > > > must conceive of the "mind of God" analogically
> > based on human
> > > experiences,
> > > > we can only conceive of the "mind of an
> > elephant" analogically. In both
> > > > cases, we have no way to experience the "mind"
> > of the other. We can
> > > draw
> > > > analogies, but we have no direct empirical basis
> > for making stronger
> > > claims.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This problem of analogy, in my view, necessarily
> > leads us back to some
> > > > theological presuppositions. The most basic way
> > in which we know we
> > > differ
> > > > in kind from elephants is because God has
> > revealed that fact to us. The
> > > > observable evidence, whether you call it
> > "degree" or "kind," only
> > > confirms
> > > > this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:04 PM, j burg
> > <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/20/08, David Opderbeck
> > <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I don't know what you mean by "without a
> > rationale." Why is 1 Cor.
> > > 13's
> > > > > > definition of "love" not a rationale? Do
> > you really argue that
> > > > elephants
> > > > > > have notions of "evil" and "truth" that are
> > anywhere near as
> > > developed
> > > > as
> > > > > > those humans possess (and Michael, do you
> > think your dog has such
> > > > notions)?
> > > > > > Do you guys really argue that elephants and
> > dogs have the sort of
> > > > cultural
> > > > > > memory that supports notions of "hope" and
> > "trust" as those terms
> > > are
> > > > used
> > > > > > by the Apostle Paul?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think a foundational evidence that
> > elephants and dogs do not
> > > possess
> > > > these
> > > > > > characteristics in the same kind as humans
> > is the fact that there is
> > > no
> > > > > > Apostle Paul of the elephants and dogs. Nor
> > is there an Aristotle,
> > > an
> > > > > > Augustine, a Shakespeare or a Ghandi of the
> > elephants and dogs. Nor
> > > is
> > > > > > there a Hitler, Stalin or Mao of the
> > elphants and dogs; and so on.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Elephants and labradors are not robots; they
> > have emotions and
> > > reactions
> > > > > > that we can call "love". But if there is
> > any content to theological
> > > > > > statements about "love" such as 1 Cor. 13,
> > it is a "love" that is
> > > > different
> > > > > > in kind than the sort of love we humans are
> > capable of displaying.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And if 1 Cor. 13 isn't enough, I think the
> > nail-in-the-coffin
> > > > "rationale" is
> > > > > > the incarnation and the atonement. Christ
> > became a human being, not
> > > an
> > > > > > elephant or a labrador, and the atonement
> > frees us and only us (not
> > > > even,
> > > > > > apparently, the fallen angels) to experience
> > and live the kind of
> > > love
> > > > > > described in 1. Cor. 13.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me try one more time, since it is clear
> > from the above that we are
> > > > > talking past one another.
> > > > >
> > > > > The claim is that humans are made in the
> > "image of God." What I wish
> > > > > to do is explore what that might mean. I do
> > not deny it -- indeed, I
> > > > > affirm it. But I seem to be able to defend the
> > claim ONLY on
> > > > > religious/theological grounds. Much as you do
> > in
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 22 19:59:18 2008