The difference between humans and other animals

[Aggie]

This is something Lucaspa and I were discussing in this thread, but I decided to give it a thread of its own. Christians in general tend to think that there's something unique about humans that set us apart from all other species of animals, and I'd like to know what it is--especially from the standpoint of theistic evolutionists.

Lucaspa seems to acknowledge that the BIOLOGICAL difference is very small, as one might expect considering that we're descended from other animals, but he suggested there is a theological difference--God's attitude towards humans is different from his attitude towards other animals. His words were,

Tell God's attitude toward other animals within science? Not that I can find.

Again, we are talking about a theological statement. "fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

I have a few questions here. One of them is, at what point in our evolution did God's attitude towards our ancestors change? Since there's so little biological difference between us and other animals, it's not as though there were a sudden biological change that the theological change could have been accompanying. Was it just at an arbitrary point in our evolution, where the descendents of a certian population had dominion over the earth but no other animals did?

And a slightly related question: did this also change God's attitude towards our behavior? There are several species of animal that occasionally kill juveniles of their own species--for example when a lion takes over a pride, he often kills the offspring of the previous leader in order to increase his own reproductive opportunities. Christians consider God to disapprove of this sort of behavior when humans engage in it, but does he disapprove of it when other animals do it?

Most of the time the answer I get is "no"--if God disapproved of other animals doing this, Jesus would have also died for them. But if he doesn't, why are his standards for them different from his standards for us? And at what point in our evolution did his standards change?

 

[USincognito]

This is an interesting topic and my flippant attachment isn't meant to be disrespectful. I just thought it was funny.

 

[Genetica]

I would say the differece is that humans can acknowledge the existence of God (and other super natural phenomena) as a consequence of abstract thinking, and animals - as far as we know - are unable to do that.

Presumably, there was a point in our evolutionary history when our ancestors began to attribute natural occurences (rains, floods, draughts, etc) to "higher beings" - the birth of "primitive" religion. At this point humans were set apart from animals, and only after this point could god "exist" for humans.

 

[lucaspa]

This is something Lucaspa and I were discussing in this thread, but I decided to give it a thread of its own. Christians in general tend to think that there's something unique about humans that set us apart from all other species of animals, and I'd like to know what it is--especially from the standpoint of theistic evolutionists.

Lucaspa seems to acknowledge that the BIOLOGICAL difference is very small, as one might expect considering that we're descended from other animals, but he suggested there is a theological difference--God's attitude towards humans is different from his attitude towards other animals. His words were,

Aggie, look at my quote carefully. One deduction from it is: the choice is entirely God's. IOW, there is nothing inherent in us that would make God choose to regard us as special. However, that is what you are looking for, something inherent in us: intelligence, abstract thought, technology, etc. Compare this to other times God chooses. God chose the Hebrews to be His Chosen People. There was nothing inherent in the Hebrews to set them apart from any other tribe. They weren't wealthy, powerful, more intelligent, more loyal, or had any virtue that other tribes didn't have. Shoot, in the intelligence and loyalty department, they were substandard! God frees them from slavery, performs miracles in front of their eyes, including parting the Red Sea, and what do the idiots do as soon as Moses takes a sabbatical? Make a graven image and worship it! Jesus picks 12 disciples, but they too have nothing inherent in them that makes them "worthy" to be disciples. One, after everything Jesus shows him, betrays him! Another denies him. The rest run and hide. Yeah, just the group of people I'd want at my back when the going gets tough. Shoot, any special forces squad has it all over those guys!

So, theologically you are barking up the wrong tree. You are looking at some point where some internal difference made God choose humans. But there is no "made". The power and choice lies entirely with God.

I have a few questions here. One of them is, at what point in our evolution did God's attitude towards our ancestors change? Since there's so little biological difference between us and other animals, it's not as though there were a sudden biological change that the theological change could have been accompanying. Was it just at an arbitrary point in our evolution, where the descendents of a certian population had dominion over the earth but no other animals did?

Darwin addressed this. Darwin asked: where, in the sequence that is human embryonic development, does God choose to impart a soul? Does it matter? Same principle here.

And a slightly related question: did this also change God's attitude towards our behavior? There are several species of animal that occasionally kill juveniles of their own species--for example when a lion takes over a pride, he often kills the offspring of the previous leader in order to increase his own reproductive opportunities. Christians consider God to disapprove of this sort of behavior when humans engage in it, but does he disapprove of it when other animals do it?

The Judeo-Christian deity is different from other versions of deity in that the only discussion about Yahweh is when Yahweh is interacting with humans. What Yahweh does when it is not interacting with humans or what its thoughts are unless it tells humans is simply neither known nor discussed. The answer is: we don't know!

But if he doesn't, why are his standards for them different from his standards for us?

Why are our standards of behavior often more strict for our own kids than for the neighbor's? Why are our standards for our loved ones different than for others? Notice that the Israelites got a lot of regulations and rules that the surrounding people's didn't.

And at what point in our evolution did his standards change?

At what point did your standards for your wife change? Don't you have different standards for her than you do for other women? Is it anything she did or was it something you decided?

 

[Philosoft]

I would say the differece is that humans can acknowledge the existence of God (and other super natural phenomena) as a consequence of abstract thinking, and animals - as far as we know - are unable to do that.

Presumably, there was a point in our evolutionary history when our ancestors began to attribute natural occurences (rains, floods, draughts, etc) to "higher beings" - the birth of "primitive" religion. At this point humans were set apart from animals, and only after this point could god "exist" for humans.

This is almost exactly what an old psychology professor once said.

Did you ever teach at Florida State?

 

[Rage4Christ]

aggie

I think you've highlighted the entire point of Christ's message. What is it about us that is important? What do we need to know? Unconditional love stems from no boundaries-- even between humanity and the universe(animals). Once you realize your place, once you have Christ like insight, you are transformed.

I don't think this necessarily means that social norms of morality and rules can then be applied to animal communities or the physics of chemistry. In one case there is an element of "choice" and in others there is not----

 

[Aggie]

I would say the differece is that humans can acknowledge the existence of God (and other super natural phenomena) as a consequence of abstract thinking, and animals - as far as we know - are unable to do that.

Presumably, there was a point in our evolutionary history when our ancestors began to attribute natural occurences (rains, floods, draughts, etc) to "higher beings" - the birth of "primitive" religion. At this point humans were set apart from animals, and only after this point could god "exist" for humans.

Religion appears to be something else that Neanderthals also had, though. I don't know of all the evidence, but it includes burial ceremonies for their dead, figurines that may have been idols, and large numbers of bear skulls arranged in piles all to face the entrance of the caves where they lived.

These aren't PROOF of religion, but they're the strongest evidence of it that anyone will likely be able to find.

As for what sets humans apart from other animals, it's looking like this is the sort of question to which I won't be getting an answer that I'm satisfied with.

It's when I run into issues like these that I feel like Christianity isn't the right sort of belief system for me. If there were some strong evidence in favor of it, or if it were able to explain what happens in the world better than any other belief system, I'd feel like it has something to make it stand out from other religions. But it doesn't seem to have anything like that.

 

[MQTA]

I have a few questions here. One of them is, at what point in our evolution did God's attitude towards our ancestors change? Since there's so little biological difference between us and other animals, it's not as though there were a sudden biological change that the theological change could have been accompanying. Was it just at an arbitrary point in our evolution, where the descendents of a certian population had dominion over the earth but no other animals did?

Speech and written communication. Who knows what the other animals would claim, they've never talked to us except for one lone serpent, a long long time ago.

 

[MQTA]

Religion appears to be something else that Neanderthals also had, though. I don't know of all the evidence, but it includes burial ceremonies for their dead, figurines that may have been idols, and large numbers of bear skulls arranged in piles all to face the entrance of the caves where they lived.

These aren't PROOF of religion, but they're the strongest evidence of it that anyone will likely be able to find.
.

Religion or just supersition out of hope and fears?

 

[Aggie]

I agree about written communication, but other animals are capable of something pretty close to speech. I gave some examples of this in the first thread about this.

But written communication can't be what sets humans apart from other species, since there are some human cultures that don't have it. Saying that written communication is what sets us apart from other species is like saying that nuclear power is what sets us apart.

 

[Aggie]

Religion or just supersition out of hope and fears?

I could ask the same question about Christianity, coudn't I?

Is there a difference at all? And if so, how can anyone see it?

 

[MQTA]

I think it sets us apart because we can write down what we believe. We don't know what other animals believe. It's not like they have books we don't understand, they quite simply do not have any books. Never even saw them scribble messages in the sand, or their domiciles walls. Most of them wouldn't even be ABLE to use a pen.

We put monkeys at computers before, haven't we? Not even they could come up with anything more than random words with no context.

I don't know.. I don't have any answers.. just typing what comes to mind when seeing your questions.

As for other human cultures that don't have it... we don't know what they believe, do we?

 

[MQTA]

I could ask the same question about Christianity, coudn't I?

Is there a difference at all? And if so, how can anyone see it?

You mean that maybe it's just supersition out of hopes and fears?

Hmmmm.... well... yeah... didn't think of that when I typed the other message... but.. well... does the shoe fit?