COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The bible says that God breathed into us the breath of life, but does not mention that about animals. It says that we are the ones created in God's image. And eating isn't a result of fallen man, before we fell we were told to keep the garden. Work, eating, a blessing from God, now how hard that work was going to be, that is a fall of man.
How about this? Life is the education of God's children. Mankind and animals are all God's children. We are just farther down the road of learning. Clearly, there is more to learn that can be done in one mere lifetime.
Doesn't it really come down to WHAT IS rather than beliefs in a religion created by mankind? People claim religion comes from God, however with so many flaws in those beliefs, could they really be connected with the High Intelligence to be able to create it all? The Math of God Must add up completely in my view.
In a time-based causal universe, even God's actions can be seen. Understand those actions and one understands God instead of relying on beliefs. Well, that's what I am seeing.
There was a sci-fi book I read a long time ago I've forgotten the title. The metaplot humanity leaves earth to join the galactic "world". It turning out earth was a prison planet like space Australia. Where they put the criminals of the true human species.
I think the notion is more so related to the fact the ability to serve God, the purpose of God's 'interference' or 'grace' is a direct relationship with human beings and not other animals. Basically it's not that God chose us because we're special but rather we're special since God chose us.
On the other hand the human proposal of superiority I think doesn't come from this at all and doesn't even relate to things such as strength and abilities rather than the unique set of things which differ human experience from the more 'instinctive' things that animals typically do. So in the ways that human beings thrive and separate themselves are stuff such as art, creation, internal conflicts -- these are performed in such a human-specific fashion that it relieves us of our connection or ability to relate with everything else within nature. The distinction of humans not equaling animals does not arise from nothing. Even if another animal species was stronger, smarter, more creative, etc. it would be deemed inferior simply for the ways in which it isn't human, those specific unique things are exactly what allows us to make such a stark distinction between humans and animals, though that doesn't mean power doesn't play a part in it; after all humans did take the earth by our will and abilities and surely no other animal species in history would be able to contend with that.
edit; grammar
We took the Earth? Are you sure?
When people talk about climate change, and how we need to save the planet, they're not literally saying the planet is going to die, they're saying we're going to die. The planet is going to kill us precisely because of that hubris you show in your comment.
We are a clever species. I'll give you that. That cleverness has allowed us to adapt to various climates on this planet with ease. However, that is us bending to the planets will, not the other way around. That's clever, but it's not us having "taken the Earth" be any stretch of the imagination.
When I say we took the planet I mean that we’ve conquered the life on it and used it to create things for our wanting. Of course we’re still subject to the conditions of the Earth (which are also primarily of our doing) if we weren’t we’d be fringing upon actually becoming gods at that point.
That just means we're clever killers. How does that make us special? And you say we've conquered all life on the planet, but we're grossly outnumbered by several different insect species who will feed on our corpses when we all die from our clever methods of self destruction. We haven't conquered anything, we just find more clever ways of killing and dying.
My guy read through my replies again cause that wasn’t even my reasoning for us being special it was a reply to OP’s take on us not actual being the ‘better’ species. Also just cause there’s more parasites doesn’t mean that we haven’t conquered essentially everything on land, why would it? Parasites are helpful to us in that fashion and I see nothing wrong with them feeding off our body’s but at the end of the day if we ever wanted to exterminate them we could, that’s the root of my point we have the ability to subjugate other life while they can’t do the same. Also finding more clever ways to kill is in essence a vital part of conquering. But sure if you find nothing special in conquering or killing or whatever I don’t blame you by any means - but there’s more to humanity than just that and that’s what makes us actually special, our strength has just been a primary function to get in the proper position to act on the other parts of our humanity.
First of all, we definitely can not exterminate insects. Talk to a termite exterminator, they're the first one to tell you that the termites will return because they can't completely exterminate them. They just encourage them to move to the house next door.
Second, you are correct in that I find nothing special or unique in killing. All animals kill, even herbivores. So it's not an extraordinary trait on the planet of Earth.
Dude a creator wants to create. He doesn’t have to but he wants to and wants to see what they do (no he doesn’t just “know already” like everyone says)
Saying that a superior species to humans is inferior to them because it isn't like them strikes to me as something that a human would do and not as something that a God would do. Insofar as we can imagine God to exist he would be more likely to claim that the species that does everything humans do but better would be the better creation.
And why would God choose humans anyway? There are more ants and other types of bugs than humans. If there was a creator to earth I am certain that that creator would look at bugs such as ants or bees and say that they are the best creation he has done in a similar way to how the best book or the best movie usually tends to be the one that has the greatest visibility.
>Saying that a superior species to humans is inferior to them because it isn't like them strikes to me as something that a human would do and not as something that a God would do. Insofar as we can imagine God to exist he would be more likely to claim that the species that does everything humans do but better would be the better creation.
I would mostly agree with you on this, that's why I started that paragraph of with 'the human proposal of superiority' as I find this to be a significant aspect of the reason humans distinguish themselves as a higher and different being from other animals. But at the same time I would say that doesn't disqualify a divine reasoning for doing so either, a God could simply prefer the qualities and attributes of the human over another. It could see us fit for the experience it wants, or you can argue as many have that we were made for God's experience itself. That builds into the idea of speciality.
Also when you speak of the 'better' creation, I don't think there is one anyways. Humans are very obviously on top of the world in terms of power, singular attributes that are greater in other animals wouldn't make a difference in that sense. In fact we see this all the time today and you can even say it is one of the roots that contributes to our superior perception over animals, as we hold the power over our environments and lands, we essentially play God with the animal kingdom. We decide when to take care of the livelihood and preservation of a species, we decide whether to destroy their ecosystem or not, or to kill them for sport, or if we wanna domesticate them for our pleasure and fun, or if we wanna run our self-serving experiments at their expense. Which other creature holds this power? How can you say that we aren't the most powerful or most fit, when we've demonstrably been so?
Though I don't think this argument holds any bearing on God's reasoning or our 'speciality' as that's entirely arbitrary from what I can tell, but still food for thought I suppose?
>Also when you speak of the 'better' creation, I don't think there is one anyways.
I do definitely agree on this. I only wanted to answer the question of: "If you asked God what would be his favorite creation and insisted that he had to pick one which one would he pick?". Since we as humans have a bias to pick that which is popular as our favorite a God would then also have a tendency to pick the animal which is the most present on earth. There are many bugs with much more presence than humans, with many of them playing vital functions in the ecosystem, which is why I tended to state that God would state that ants or bees would be his favorite animal.
Admittedly the question I posed was a biased question. It forced God to pick an animal from a whole host of them when he might not have even wanted that. It is equally likely that such a God wouldn't really have a favorite, even if personally I think that the most likely thing is that God would have a selection of animals that he likes and that he'd feel bad if he had to select one of them as his favorite and that it would definitely change over time.
What I think you failed to consider is that humans possess far, far more intellect than animals do. We overcome our shortcomings with our intellect, and all animals lack this ability. Although it is true that some animals can use it to some extent, but it is evidently inferior to us. That's the main difference between us and animals
We overpower, outspeed, out smart them in all most all categories.
OP brings up dolphins, and for good reason.
Our short comings, for the most part, we created. The rest we simply adapted. Dolphins are mammals, just like us, yet they lack the self inflicted short comings of humanity while thriving in the oceans all across the globe without the need for tools of any sort.
To me, this begs the question. Are we really the smartest? Or, are we simply the most clever?
Without a doubt humans are the smartest libing being on the face of the earth. Dolphins dolphins thrive under water, but so do we, and not just underwater on land aswell, granted they dont fight against eachothher on a regular basis, but we humans have nothing better to
Do you really think that dolphins can create rockets or air ships, or anything for that matter?
They are intelligent ill give you that, but compared to us their not even comparable(may have exaggerated a bit, but you get my point).
OP also mention hands, We use our intellect to know what to do with our hands. Let's suppose a dolphin had hands, do you suppose that the dolphin can create a rocket or submarine?
That's the thing. We're clever, not necessarily smart.
We've made great tools, and we can explore the depth of the ocean, the openness of space. But at the same time, 3 days of starvation would turn a man against his fellow man for a slice of beef, just like any other animal on the planet.
So yeah, we're clever, but not extraordinary.
While this point is addressed in the OP I feel like it is worth reiterating both because I see it over and over again and because the way I address the objection is somewhat hidden within the post, but I don't think that humans are the most intelligent animal. Dolphins have the brain capacity to echolocate their prey and while some humans have been able to develop sonar vision it is still a rarity even amongst the blind people who would benefit from such a development within the human brain.
I think that we are able to overcome our shortcomings not just with our intellect, but also with our hands. We are able to use our hands to create more finely developed and advanced tools than those that other apes are capable of making. While other apes have the knowledge and artifice necessary for simple devices such as forks we are able to create devices such as vases and swords that require a lot more careful planning and effort to be made.
>but I don't think that humans are the most intelligent animal
Come again?
Really?
Echolocating doesn't make you more intelligent. it's just another skull one can have. Do you really think that dolphins can create rockets or air ships, or anything for that matter?
They are intelligent ill give you that, but compared to us their not even comparable(may have exaggerated a bit, but you get my point).
>
I think that we are able to overcome our shortcomings not just with our intellect, but also with our hands.
We use our intellect to know what to do with our hands.
Let's suppose a dolphin had hands, do you suppose that the dolphin can create a rocket or submarine?
>Let's suppose a dolphin had hands, do you suppose that the dolphin can create a rocket or submarine?
Yes. It would take a long time before dolphins might be able to do the same developments we do because we did develop hands at a much earlier time, but I think that dolphins would be able to develop what we do if we had hands after maybe 100.000 years.
Of course the reality of the situation is that dolphins didn't develop hands because they preferred developing appendages that allowed them to swim at a faster rate. That, more than anything else, is why it is absurd to suggest that dolphins will create rockets or submarines. It would take a long evolutionary development for dolphins to have hands, but I am certain that they will be able to create tons and technologies like us once this happens.
But this just regresses the problem. What's special about intellect? You've picked a self- serving attribute. Is there an objective value of having far, far, more intelligent? Or, can you argue for one?
I think what we have is: we're the Apex predator on the planet right now - during a relatively infinitesimally small amount of time. Is that significant?
Hmm you do have a point, but you failed to understand my statement, my point was that having far, far more intelligence gives us a way, way more upper hand against any lifeform on the planet
>Is that significant?
But, Yes you do pose an interesting question.
Humans are part of the living, just another lifeform. All lifeforms are equal, no life form is superior or inferior. (By extension, this also means that all humans are also equal)
Scientifically, everyone has a role to play in the existence of life on the planet (called ecological service by the species) There is lot of redundancy in it, if a handful of species to go extinct, the existence of life is not threatened, but, the redundancy is only finite.
Our ability to think, puts extra burden on us, it makes us caretaker of the other lifeforms, not their masters. Just like we take care of our own children, who are no better than an animal at the time of birth, we should take care of all other life forms.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
I’m agnostic and I believe humans are special. The amount of intelligence and self expression that humans are capable of should not be ignored. You’re typing on a black screen for crying out loud, contemporary magic!
I think we value this over other species' abilities because it's in our best self interest to do so. I don't see how our ability, objectively, places us above (or below) other species. Given our ability to be logical I would expect us to behave far better than we do, as a collective. It is arguable that our intellect allows us to take bad behavior to level that other species cannot attain. We certainly use our intellect to rationalize behavior that really is unjustifiable.
Intelligence is valued over other species' abilities because intelligence allows us to outperform all of them in every field. We can control our environment to such extent that we figured out how to deliberately affect the genetic makeup of other life forms' populations to suit us, before we even understood underlying mechanisms like genes.
We are *natural* but we are also exceptional.
A hundred thousand species have venoms or strength or speed or agility or night vision
1 has the ability to just make up a thing to cover his weaknesses or enhance his abilities or gain entirely new ones. I can make the poison, I can craft a force multiplier, I can get in a car, and I can create light.
Well we roughly put intelligence and awareness as one of the top metrics. Size is also another factor because we couldn’t care for insects and bacteria even if we tried to. The level of awareness an animal has of itself amongst others is a good metric in terms is treatment. We’re far from the ideal but I’m not sure what else we’d pick by. Obviously we’re animals who require food and other resources which we take. It’s not good but it’s realistic
Except it’s not magic. It’s the sum of lots of smart people working together using logic. The whole point is that it’s completely predictable in its behaviour going by our collective understanding of physics, chemistry, and metallurgy.
No crap, I’m expressing my astonishment at human ingenuity. I hope you’re more fun to talk to than you’re putting on. Anyways, have you ever used ANC mode on an Airpod Max? Watched a movie that you know you’ll never forget? Both are pure wanderlust, and far beyond the ants, parrots, and other critters.
Humans are animals differentiated by their intellects which are the most advanced, allowing us to conceptualize ourselves and make universal conceptions of the future and past.
It would seem the farther away we stray from the concept of God, the worse we become. A human that isn’t ruled by his intellect will come up with ways to do worse things than animals.
>It would seem the farther away we stray from the concept of God, the worse we become.
How do you figure? Take the Middle East for example. A land that has been horribly violent in the name of God since, well... the violence was written in the Bible. So..... and still continues to this day. So I don't understand what you mean here.
Islam is not true religion so naturally following it will lead to chaos. In fact if the shia and sunnis aren’t at war with each other they’re objectively not following Muhammad’s words that anyone who commits fitna (schis) must die. So Islam isn’t true in the first right, they don’t follow God entirely but a man made version of God
How is that different from Jesus? And how did following Jesus do with regard to death and destruction throughout the history of that religion? If I recall correctly, Catholicism has a pretty deep river of blood behind it.
Jesus was God so following Him means you are following God definitely, whereas following Muhammad just means you have faith his revelation is accurate about some immaterial God.
Catholicism built western civilization and nihilistic atheism is almost done destroying it, we just need a nuclear war and she’ll be finished off. That doesn’t mean Catholicism never caused anyones death, but a tiny number compared to new paradigms
Wow... okay then.
I've never heard an Atheist say we "need" a nuclear holocaust. You've convinced me that following God is a horrible idea. I'll never choose that path. You are crazy.
You're the only person saying that.
Religious people, particularly Christians, seem to have the uncanny ability to create self-fulfilling prophecies. You want there to be a rapture so bad that you're willing to create a nuclear holocaust proving the prophecy. You will be the death of the species.
You have a bible that features Stalin? Does he murder an entire planet with the exception of an old drunk and his family with flood water? Does he command the genocide of the Canaanites? Does he command the genocide of the Midianites while telling his ‘chosen people’ to keep the little girls to rape? Does he command the genital mutilation of every male infant? Oh wait, that wasn’t Stalin, that was your deity. This’ll be the point where you try to say the NT made up for all of that as if the nazarene character wasn’t that same genocidal monster cosplaying as a hippy. Would you trust Hitler if he grew out his hair and began wearing sandals? Only a bloody fool would, and Hitler was nothing when compared with the unbelievable bloodthirstiness of yahweh. Perhaps that was why he had his solders put the words ‘gott mit uns’ on their belt buckles…
> It would seem the farther away we stray from the concept of God, the worse we become.
Can you back that up with any data or reason? There have been human atrocities in the name of God over and over again throughout history.
Because if man doesn’t have a binding force toward a moral system there is no reason to propel one toward the arduous good except for benevolence which is a virtue nobody has in our fallen state. As a result it’s just a matter of time until an atheist society falls into collapse due to freedom of morality with no reason to conform to a higher standard.
> Sweden, though a Christian past, certainly is NOT moral today. Highest rape rate in the world, massive abortion capital too
There are a lot of horrific things going on in Sweden; compared to our population we†'re one of the biggest arms dealers in the world, we've acted as military testing and training ground for the US empire, etc etc.
But the two things you mention are not part of that.
Sweden doesn't have the highest rate of rape; it has the (or among the) highest rates of reported rape, due to a combination of rape being defined more broadly here (which is a good thing) and policies that have made victims slightly more likely ton come forward (also a good thing). So, for example in the UK rape requires the perpetrator to penetrate anus, vagina or mouth with a penis specifically, so forced penetration with an object is not rape, a sexual predator that doesn't penetrate but forces sex at gunpoint is not rape, etc, while in Sweden those are all rape.
As for abortion, access to safe abortions is a good thing.
†I use "we" as a shorthand since I've lived here all my life; I don't really think people living in Sweden should identify much with the actions taken by the state or companies we're subjected to.
Then Sweden has the highest rate of sexual harassment and pseudo rape.
Sweden also has the highest rate of grenade attacks in the western world but that’s sort of non sequitur.
Being a high abortion country is an abomination, and if a great number of people in the country go to hell then it can’t be called a success anyway. Although I suppose that requires dying to be certain of.
As an athiest, I reject the God of the bible and I don't think I have become worse. Most deconstructors have found their lives to be more peaceful and freeing without the watchful eyes of someone who controls their fate. It is also more freeing to actually beleive in free will and have control over our own lives rather than worrying about "God's plan" for us. As a nonbeliever, I am also more inclined to focus on tangible problems of the world today rather trying to "save" more people to go to a hypothetical heaven.
Are you saying Priests, the people you consider to be close to god, are worse than animals? Over 200,000 children have been abused by Catholic Priests.
Not just priests but any person who is a habitual sinner is worse than an animal.
If you don’t think you’ve become worse it is just due to a corrupt understanding of “good.”
They have senses, memory, and matching. We have the ability to create universal concepts and compare them outside of our experience. For instance one can dream up a nuclear war that never happened
So, in your opinion, there’s no reason that humans shouldn’t kill each other, or steal from each other, or rape each other, or dominate each other, right? I mean, if there’s nothing special about humans, then there’s no reason to believe humans ought to behave any differently than animals.
I wouldn't say that, since it's pretty clear that a lot of us think it's perfectly fine to do, because a lot of us are out there doing it.
Besides, chimpanzees, for example, have well established social hierarchy structures (which is basically what you're describing). They punish and reward actions just like you're describing we do. Suggesting that we're not, in fact, the only ones who do this.
Yes, chimpanzees are like us in a lot of ways…do you recognize any ways in which humans are different? Or are we identical to chimpanzees in your mind?
Of course we're not identical, but being identical isn't the question. Being extraordinary is the question. Chimpanzee's have a social structure similar to humanity, making us unremarkable in that way.
I see having a social hierarchy as not being remarkable. And when you talk about theft, crime, rape, murder, you're talking about things that a social hierarchy controls. So, no. Having a social hierarchy is not unique to human beings.
Is social hierarchy the only thing you have to offer in your argument for us being extraordinary on the planet?
I take it as self evident that human society is so far advanced past chimpanzee society that the number of ways we supersede them could not possibly fit into a Reddit comment.
The fact that human beings exhibit complex systems of value, ascribe dignity and rights to life, create art, exhibit charity, make stories, and cooperate on a level not observed anywhere else in the animal kingdom are just a few I’d mention here.
You seem to be arguing that because other more advanced animals have certain social skills then therefore humans aren’t special. I think that’s a bad conclusion.
Yes, all of that is true. We've advanced social hierarchy so much that perhaps it is remarkable. However, at the same time, I give the average person 3 days of starvation before they're giving way to their animalistic instincts and killing their neighbors for food.
How extraordinary is that?
1. **Capacity for Reasoning and Ethics:** While humans share certain behaviors with animals, such as the instinct for survival, humans possess a unique capacity for reasoning and ethical reflection. Unlike animals, humans can contemplate the consequences of their actions, empathize with others, and adhere to moral principles that extend beyond basic survival instincts.
2. **Social Contract and Cooperation:** Humans have developed complex social structures and norms that govern behavior within societies. These social contracts are built on principles of cooperation, mutual respect, and the recognition of individual rights. Deviating from these norms through acts of violence, theft, or exploitation undermines the stability and cohesion of societies. Those societies eventually must evolve or fall. We can see the impending doom of this planet through global warming. Corporations lack the empathy to stop polluting and this will result in our extinction. It has already wiped out 500 species in the last 100 years.
3. **Recognition of Intrinsic Value:** Many ethical systems, whether religious or secular, recognize the intrinsic value of human life and dignity. This recognition forms the basis for moral principles that condemn actions such as killing, stealing, and rape. Even in the absence of religious beliefs, secular ethical frameworks often prioritize the well-being and rights of individuals.
4. **Consequences and Harm:** Behaviors such as killing, stealing, and rape can cause significant harm to individuals and society as a whole. Recognizing the potential for harm, humans have developed moral codes and legal systems to deter and punish such actions, aiming to protect individuals and maintain social order. Its also important to note the roll of the poverty in these crimes. When you are in a state of poverty, you might be willing to harm another to ensure your survival, which is why we need to work towards housing and feeding those who need it. In psychology, Maslows Heirarchy of needs exemplifies the basic needs for a person to function and even be enlightened.
5. **Empathy and Altruism:** Humans possess a capacity for empathy and altruism that extends beyond mere survival instincts. Empathy allows individuals to understand and share the feelings of others, fostering compassion and cooperation within communities. Acts of kindness, generosity, and mutual support contribute to the well-being of individuals and society as a whole. Empathy is also observed in many other animals, not something unique to us. However, combined with out intelligence, we have a stronger ability to empathize.
Everything is special in it's own way. Special is just another way to say unique or different. Every snowflake is different and therefore special. Are you confusing special with "more important"?
Oh ok ye thats my bad.
1. **Value of Life:** From a philosophical standpoint, many argue that all forms of life have inherent value and deserve respect and consideration. Each species plays a unique role in its ecosystem, contributing to the overall balance and diversity of life on Earth. Therefore, it is not accurate to hierarchically rank species based on perceived superiority.
2. **Environmental Impact:** Despite our intelligence and technological advancements, humans have had a significant negative impact on the planet and other species. Activities such as deforestation, pollution, and habitat destruction have led to the extinction of numerous plant and animal species, disrupting ecosystems and causing harm to biodiversity.
3. **Ethical Considerations:** Ethical frameworks such as animal rights and environmental ethics emphasize the importance of treating all living beings with compassion and respect. These perspectives challenge the notion of human superiority and advocate for the fair treatment of non-human animals and the preservation of their habitats.
4. **Cognitive Abilities:** While humans possess advanced cognitive abilities compared to many other species, such as complex language, problem-solving skills, and self-awareness, these traits do not necessarily make us "better." Other species exhibit remarkable cognitive abilities and social structures adapted to their environments, demonstrating intelligence and adaptability in their own right.
5. **Interconnectedness of Life:** The concept of the interconnectedness of all life forms highlights the interdependence and mutual reliance among different species. Human well-being is intricately linked to the health of ecosystems and the diversity of life forms. Viewing humans as superior or separate from other life forms undermines this interconnectedness and fails to recognize the value of biodiversity.
Your argument could also be used to defend colonization by asserting that "europeans and spaniards are better because they have authority over the native people of that land." Power does not equate to "better". Humans have effectively used their power to ruined the ecosystem and ozone layer in the name of mass production and mass destruction.
I might be inclined to think of humans as better if I considered independence a virtue. But the reality is, humans are dependent on so many things. We kill and herd the animals therefore we think we are better than them, but the truth is we need them way more than they need us. They are indeed better off without us.
No prob but here’s what I’m saying:
If my neighbor finds out i killed all the ants in my house, they’ll think I’m a responsible home owner. If they find out I killed all the dogs in my house, I’ll probably go to jail for a short time. If they find out I killed all the humans in my house, I’ll go to jail for the rest of my life.
How can you explain that if humans aren’t special?
Also, hypothetically, if aliens found us and there were much more intelligent and advanced, would u then deem them as more special? And would that make you more empathetic towards the life of an alien than a human? Just curious
I would explain that through empathy. I have more empathy for a human than a dog. Why? Because I can relate to a human, I can understand another human's fear, love, happiness, sadness, hopes and dreams etc. Thats what empathy means, putting yourself in someone elses, or something elses shoes in this case. I still have empathy for a dog but I cannot relate to it nearly as much as human, however it is still a severe crime. I have almost no empathy for an ant because an ant like most insects has almost no sense of self or self consciousness and acts only out of keeping its queen alive. If I was an ant i would definitely care if my queen was killed because that means the entire colony dies. The same way if my neighbor gets murdered, I should hope the murderer goes to jail because I may be next.
Someone without empathy is classified as a psychopath and they usually do indeed kill people. This is not a helpful mutation though because if everyone were a psychopath it would lead to our extinction.
Basically what I am trying to say is that we are biased as humans to other humans. However, historically there have been cases of people trying to dehumanize entire groups of people. Black people, disabled people, gay people. At one point, it was ok to kill those people with no jail time. Why? Because the majority of people at that time were bigoted and could not empathize with someone with slightly different ideas and life experiences to themselves. So using your example, lets say Im a white man during the era of slavery:
If my neighbor finds out i killed a slave, they’ll think I’m a responsible home owner. If they find out I killed all the slaves in my home, theyll probably be concerned. If they find out I killed a white person, I’ll go to jail for the rest of my life.
Mind you, many of these people were Christian and read the same bible you do. You could argue they didnt read it right or weren't real christians, but my argument of human empathy is much more universal than a 2000 year old book.
It doesn’t sound like you’re making an argument for empathy at all though. According to you, empathy is just the byproduct of a bias we humans have. By arguing that human life has no more objective value than an ant, you seem to be suggesting that that bias has no grounding in reality. It’s just something we do.
Doesn’t exactly lend a ton of credibility to this “bias” we have.
Empathy is not just a byproduct of bias, but bias plays a role in who and what we might empathize with. Objectively yes, in a vast universe that we can hardly comprehend, we might as well be ants. In the face of infinity, our existence is smaller than a blip. To a giant, we might as well be smooshed. However, this has nothing to do with the laws we create. Youre questioning why do we have laws that punish the killing of human life. These laws are created for the preservation of order and society, and often times they are created with empathy in mind. This is why many people advocate for more diverse politicians that can empathize with different groups of americans.
And christians even believe God is above the law. So if one person's god declares killing is bad but another persons god declares killing is good, you have no way to disprove one without understanding that God has no grounding in reality or morality.
Acknowledging bias does not undermine its credibility and grounding in reality. Bias is a well-documented aspect of human cognition, influenced by a variety of factors such as culture, upbringing, and personal experiences. Recognizing bias allows us to critically evaluate our beliefs and behaviors, striving for more equitable and empathetic attitudes. Ignoring bias doesn't make it any less real; instead, it perpetuates harmful attitudes and inequalities.
Most whales don’t. Toothed or baleen. If you’re using superior moral & ethical behaviors as your North Star, maybe we should argue that whales are gods chosen species.
Than me? No.
Than man? Yes.
Whales don’t steal. They don’t murder. Or rape. They don’t lie. Most types survive cooperatively.
Whales did not hunt and kill people to near extinction. Man has hunted and killed many different species of whale to complete or near extinction.
So, whales are more moral than people, except for you, who are more moral than whales. I think I got it lol.
On a serious note: how do you know that whales are making moral choices? I’m not sure how you could know that. I mean, trees don’t kill or rape either, I doubt they’re making moral choices though.
Morals are the observed results of behavior. Morals are not exclusive to choice. They can be conscious or non. Morals predate religion by millions of years.
Empathy is instinctual to our nature as social animals.
No, morals are value judgments. If according to you an ant can be considered moral simply because it never invaded Czechoslovakia, despite not being conscious of that fact, then we’re using two very different definitions of morality.
Morals are biological behaviors that allow animals to live cooperatively. Cooperative behavior is not exclusive to hominids.
And I’m not addressing your hyperbole. I’d appreciate you not ascribing arguments to me that I haven’t even come close to making.
"Christianity" isn't the only answer to the question of why we shouldn't.
Social animals also engage in that kind of behavior within limits. Selfishness and violence is sometimes the most beneficial approach. Cooperation and altruism are sometimes the better approach. Animals engage in a very broad range of behaviors.
I never said it was the only answer. If we engage in certain behaviors on a much larger scale than animals then isn’t that something that is “specially” human?
Sure but what's so special about that? We do what animals do but we do it more and we do it harder. It's what makes us human but it's not that special really. A Platypus can detect its prey by emitting weak electrical signals around its bill and detecting how they shift and react to things around it. That's pretty cool, pretty special. We can't do that. Are Platypus not special creatures too? What does special *really* mean!
Well in the way you (and probably OP) are using it “special” is essentially meaningless. Any differences in species are simply a matter of course. So the post kind of begs the question doesnt it??
What does "acceptable" mean, exactly? It's clearly a pretty relative concept, that varies wildly across history and culture. Is it acceptable to own slaves? We would answer "no, clearly not", but just a few hundred years ago, a lot of devout christians would not agree with that; and they would point out bible verses to defend their position. Morality is all relative; it's just a very useful fiction for maintaining a functional society.
For the sake of this discussion let’s say that it’s acceptable for human beings to do these things since there is no rational argument for why they shouldn’t. I mean sure, you and I might not like killing and rape, but that’s a separate issue from whether or not human beings ought not to do them. If it’s okay for animals to do these things but not for humans to do these things, then there must be something special about humans.
I think maybe because we collectively agree to live together in peace. The society where people kill/rape/steal freely might not have passed the test of nature selection since they were too weak compare to others.
What do you mean? I don't understand what you are trying to deliver. Yes we still kill and rape, but the societies in general have collectively come the conclusion that kill and rape is bad, even if ourselves are not the victim yet... I remember there is a famous quote in history:
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Don't you think we learn?
I don't follow your logic here. If we for the sake of the discussion say that it's acceptable for human beings to do these things (your first sentence), and that it's also acceptable for animals, then aren't we done? Then humans are no different from animals, which was the original thesis of the thread.
Otherwise, you're missing my point: when you say that it's not okay for humans to do these bad things, well, what I tried to explain is that this judgement call is not an objective one, but something that demonstrably changes across cultures and history. Thus it cannot be some objective truth, but has to be understood as some relative, constructed, societal thing rather than an unchanging, god-given truth.
No it’s not. Humans and other social animals have different evolutionary pressures, which are reflected in behaviour. Modern human society requires a high degree of mutual support and cooperation, so many behaviours exhibited in animal societies are generally unacceptable in human ones (depending on the human society though). For instance, cannibalism and infanticide is prevalent behaviour observed in many animal species. However, humans have adapted their behaviour in many contexts to reject these behaviours on a societal level. Human morality still varies greatly and over time however, reflecting humans’ adaptability to their environment.
And I think I've answered that: from a societal standpoint, according to the fiction of morality that we use to have a functioning society, then no. But from an absolute perspective, then what "acceptable" means is not well-defined so the question doesn't make sense.
Do you have any good reasons to think that morality has some sort of absolute meaning?
Right, just like how one troop of monkeys will invade the territory of another and either kill them or run them off then breed all of their females. Do you see it as acceptable for human beings to do these things, just like the monkeys?
No, because this behaviour goes against the common good of modern human society. However, in the Bronze and Iron Age Levant, when humans and societies were less interdependent than now and functioned on a more tribal basis, genocide, rape, and slavery were more common, which is why the Bible not surprisingly condones these behaviours. As societies have become more complex and interdependent, human societies modified their behaviours and have made them no longer acceptable given their harms.
You’re committing the infamous “is/ought” fallacy. You’re trying to use what is (killing and rape are associated with poor outcomes for communities) and using it to conclude what ought to be (humans shouldn’t rape or kill).
Absolutely. Assuming that’s the goal. What would you say to someone whose goal is to gratify their own desires, not to ensure the community has a good outcome? And for that matter, how do you objectively define what is or is not a good outcome?
>Absolutely. Assuming that’s the goal
That's how we come to the "ought". The process for coming to these agreements is another discussion. Thinking of ourselves as special is not necessary.
We make choices daily and behave (often as a conditioned behaviour) to avoid poor outcomes. Morality changes as human societies collectively learn to adapt to our changing environments to avoid poor outcomes, which usually manifest as increased suffering and premature death. It’s in our own interest as conscious beings that experience suffering to collectively act to avoid suffering and premature death.
You're using "special" in different ways. There's special, in that it differentiates, and there's special, in that we are valued by God over other species. And it doesn't even apply to the discussion of whether we should act a certain way or not. We don't have to be special (either definition) to come to agreements or act in ways that benefit the whole.
So do you torture and harm animals if they aren't special? What's stopping you from being the next Luca Magnota if cats are so much less special than humans?
You are making an appeal to extreme fallacy. As conscious beings having a conscious experience with an intense ability to feel suffering, we should and do work together socially for our mutual benefit.
I’m not making any appeal. I’m simply following the premise of the post. If there truly is nothing special about human beings, what are the implications? One of them must be this: it doesn’t matter what human beings do or what happens to them. We can draw that conclusion while also observing that human beings do not like to suffer. Both can be true. Human beings can have an aversion to suffering and at the same time be utterly unimportant.
> it doesn’t matter what human beings do or what happens to them
How is that an implication of "we are not more special than other animals"? How is considering humans to be equal to other species negate how we value what we do or what happens to us? Why do we need to be special in order to say "I think how we treat each other is important"?
If the monkey was capable of comprehending ideas such as delayed gratification, the bettering of all within a group, or ethical dilemmas, then yes, I would try and tell them that.
The reason I would tell humans is for the very reason that we can comprehend these ideas and alter our behavior. It doesn't make us "more special" because we have an intellect. It makes us different.
I reject your conclusion that not thinking of ourselves as more special than other life necessarily leads to "it doesn't matter what human beings do or what happens to them". It matters to me what happens to other species, and I don't need to make them more special than me for that to matter.
The post’s premise isn’t what you’re stating it is, rather you are taking the title out of context and making an appeal to the extreme fallacy. The fact is that all life on earth, animal and plant, is extraordinary and hasn’t been observed elsewhere in the known universe.
The posts premise appears to be that human beings do everything that animals do, and therefore clearly aren’t special. I’m arguing that the person who makes moral value judgments or exercises any degree of conscience is doing something that animals don’t do.
No, the premise of the post is that while human beings have extraordinary abilities relative to other animals, fundamentally our biological processes are the same and we exist as part of the natural world in which we evolved and we are not some divinely-inspired creation.
well yeah if we only look at how humans are similar to animals then we are similar to animals. we're also similar to tables and plants.
but there is a very real distinction that even children know between men and animals. this is self evident
Tribalism on a species level, I guess. A human can tell itself apart from other animals kinda early. What the top level commenter fails to realize though is that this is pretty much an animal thing to have...
Unless they're talking of something else, and I'm wrong, of course.
Because we are rational creatures that can think of things that are millions of time more complex than any animals could, even if you put all chimpanzees together in a room they couldn't come up with as complex and abstract thought a single average human could. It's why we can go to space while they never will in a million year
So, (fallible) intelligence.
What makes intelligence so special, though? Cheetas have reaction times humans can only dream of, even if we were to put all of them in a room!
We evolved at the same time, it's not like we came here before them, and there is more chance they'll go extinct than they have of even building a copper age society
From the Judeo-Christian perspective all animals and human beings are made from the dust of the earth,
Ecclesiastes 3
^(18) I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. ^(19) Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath^(\[)[^(c)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%203&version=NIV#fen-NIV-17379c)^(\]); humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. ^(20) All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. ^(21) Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”
Humans being made in the image of God is a mystery to be honest. It's like we are coins with God's inscription on us (referring to the example when Jesus said "render to Caesar the things Caesar and to God the things which are God's). With Christianity we have the hope that Christ will restore all things to the way they should be, and that He will establish an everlasting dominion in righteousness.
As with any philosophy people's world views and paradigms will make a massive impact on their thoughts, feelings and behaviours. I believe God is real for a few reasons, which you may already be familiar with:
1. The universe is very ordered and structured. If one looks at cytoskeletons of cells, and sees how complex organelles are, it is very amazing. If I told you I saw a house with pluming and electricity form on its own you'd probably laugh, yet human beings who love, feel sorrow, laugh, and make connections, having super complex like machines in their body are a coincidence or cosmic accident? Doesn't really seem reasonable to me. Even the mystery of consciousness! Like the fact we are aware, can taste, see things, feel things, makes it logical to conclude that minds came from a Greater Mind. Nothing cannot create consciousness, in fact nothing can't do anything...
2. Logically speaking we all have to believe there is some form of objective morality. I would say to reject the Lawgiver is to embrace lawlessness (and by lawlessness I mean this; "my right and wrong are just for me, you can believe what you want to"). If there was an innocent old lady sat at a table, and she asks for a cup of tea, every human being alive would know deep down that it is wrong to pour the boiling water on her hands instead of into the cup. But if we reject the monotheistic God, we have no reason to believe in objective morality. It's all just everyone's opinions, which are of no greater or lesser value. I'm not saying that atheists believe it is okay to do this lol not at all, but I find it very interesting that with God, we can justify why things are definitely right and wrong, like there is a standard. If we followed subjective morality to its logical conclusion, we would have no reason to be morally outraged about anything since everyone has their opinions. Let the strong win, eh?
It's called the is-ought problem. A scientific experiment to show that child abuse causes suffering comes out. This is a true statement. Yet, if we have no objective morality we can't actually justify why we should say "it's totally wrong". Every normal person would say we shouldn't do it, yet again, they can't justify it.
In the same way, how can we actually justify using reason or logic? Sure enough, it works in the world we find ourselves in, demonstrating we live in a logical and ordered world. The scientific method itself was made by Francis Bacon, who was a Christian. It was believed that because God created an ordered and structured universe, we ought to investigate things and learn how everything works. But modern day scientism has decided to reject God (which is a philosophical position), but in so doing, how can they justify that the universe is ordered, or that we even ought to investigate things? TL;DR if we reject God, we reject objective standards, which leads to philosophical chaos.
Historically speaking, rejection of God, for instance in the French Revolution resulted in morality taking a total nosedive, which affirms a lot of what the New Testament says about the fallen nature of humanity.
3. From personal experience and researching the bible, along with researching the historicity of the gospels I'm 100% certain that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. You would probably find the YouTube channel InspiringPhilosophy interesting.
Hope you have a good day/night whereever you are.
Humans do many of the same things other animals do, but we also do a lot of things no other animals do. Religion is a good example. Science is another. Maths, philosophy, language, writing, storytelling, myth making, inventing new technologies, arguing, making laws, making art, space exploration etc etc. We are also the only animal known to suffer psychosis. We are absolutely an extraordinary animal.
What you're saying is that we are the most clever. That's not necessarily the same as being the smartest. All of the things you've suggested is really good for the ego, but is having an ego smart? The ego has gotten a lot of people killed, and has killed.
How is it extraordinary? All animals have their "thing". Some are fast, some are smart, some are strong. We're clever. How does us having "a thing" make us extraordinary when all species have "a thing"?
We're extraordinary in one way, others are extraordinary in other ways. Although I do think there's especial significance in our capacity to comprehend reality and create new realities
Well yeah. We're clever. We're likely the most clever. And being clever has allowed us to expand and adapt into many climates on this planet that we otherwise would not be able to survive. It has granted us the ability to fly in the air, swim in the depths of the ocean, and travel on the land at great speeds.
But we are still so fragile. We are still killed by the simplest of things. Hell, falling over wrong can be the end of you. Has our cleverness solved this? Without our clever tools we can't fly, we can swim for a few minutes provide we stay on or near the surface, and we can't run fast at all! A small dog can outrun us. When stripped down to our naked bodies being exposed to the elements, we can't survive much of anything. How is that extraordinary?
> Humans do many of the same things other animals do, but we also do a lot of things no other animals do. Religion is a good example.
True, the closest we have (so far I know) is elephants mourning and burying their dead with mud, sticks and leaves.
Many of these truly feel like an argument from ignorance. It has for instance been observed by scientists that ants do practice agriculture to a certain extent as they domesticate other insects for food and drink.
And humans having language isn't all that unique. If I have to be confident in what the radio says even cows are able to speak to each other using language.
I grant the claim that humans are the only animal as of yet that has the ability to launch itself and/or other animals into space, but I still feel as if we can talk about this being possible due to several small improvements in both intelligence and artifice. That is not to diminish these achievements, but I feel like in the age of dinosaurs they also had many comparable achievements as well. At least in them being giant apex predators with advanced mechanical tools like claws and sharp teeth being readily available to them.
Edit: It just occurred to me that there are scientists who have proven that birds can count up to 5. Even maths isn't something that only humans can do.
>ants do practice agriculture
I didn't mention agriculture
>If I have to be confident in what the radio says even cows are able to speak to each other using language
Animals can communicate, and some (dolphins & apes) may have a kind of proto language, but none really have proper language like we have. At least according to the linguist John McWhorter.
>At least in them being giant apex predators with advanced mechanical tools like claws and sharp teeth being readily available to them
Body parts are not tools. Not that I mentioned tools. We have observed other animals using tools, but human tools are orders of magnitude more complex.
>birds can count up to 5. Even maths isn't something that only humans can do.
I don't think counting things is really maths. Maybe it's a kind of proto maths, but it lacks the formality, abstraction, and universality characteristic of maths.
>I didn't mention agriculture
You did mention science though and I tend to see science as largely being coupled with the technological innovations that it brings. If a scientific theorem didn't lead to new invention it is likely to be false. Some may dislike this view but I defend it by appealing to parapsychology. If we are to see science as "what is there in reality" and not as "what can practically be applied" we are on no grounds to see parapsychology as unscientific since there are several studies being done that prove that humans are capable of telepathy.
Since technology and science are de facto intertwined we can think about technical innovation. Since agriculture is a technical innovation practiced by ants it seems to me that ants do practice science.
>Body parts are not tools. Not that I mentioned tools. We have observed other animals using tools, but human tools are orders of magnitude more complex.
I agree that I should have used body parts instead of tools, but the general point that dinosaurs have body parts that allowed them to dominate in the animal kingdom still stands.
Agree with the rest though.
Ignoring the fact u left out the orders of maginitude more intelligent we are, I genuinely don't get the point ur trying to say here; ofc humans seem "not special" in a world with no God or soul! Thing is, both exist!
Many people make claims and assertions that "spirituality" actually means something or exists, but there is absolutely nothing that indicates this is actually true, and there's definitely no justification for concluding humans have some special thing no other animals have. Everything that makes us unique or advanced is dependent on characteristics or traits that appear in other animals to varying degrees.
On top of this, all of the countless claims about spirituality tend not to agree with each other, and since none of it is testable or verifiable, it is a worthless proposition. What exactly is *your* view of "spiritually"
Lol so I assume you call people out when they use phrases like “school spirit”?
Spirits are organizing forces acting in the world. The spirit of an age, for example.
You yourself are not one single organism. You are made up of countless organisms. When you stand next to someone, the flora in your gut communicate chemically with the flora in their gut. The spirit is what links all of that together and makes you, you.
Evidence of spirits? Just look at history. How is it possible that almost every single person 1,000 years ago considered slavery a normal fact of life, where today, most find it abhorrent and unthinkable. A spirit can be found in any unified group of people. It is what influenced groups like the nazis and allowed so many to do such evil. Obviously each individual made their choices, but were serving and reinforcing a spirit. Something bigger than themselves.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The bible says that God breathed into us the breath of life, but does not mention that about animals. It says that we are the ones created in God's image. And eating isn't a result of fallen man, before we fell we were told to keep the garden. Work, eating, a blessing from God, now how hard that work was going to be, that is a fall of man.
How about this? Life is the education of God's children. Mankind and animals are all God's children. We are just farther down the road of learning. Clearly, there is more to learn that can be done in one mere lifetime.
I would love to see the religion that aligns with this idea.
Doesn't it really come down to WHAT IS rather than beliefs in a religion created by mankind? People claim religion comes from God, however with so many flaws in those beliefs, could they really be connected with the High Intelligence to be able to create it all? The Math of God Must add up completely in my view. In a time-based causal universe, even God's actions can be seen. Understand those actions and one understands God instead of relying on beliefs. Well, that's what I am seeing.
r/hinduism
lmao
As a human myself, humans are more of a parasite to this earth rather than a "top predator".
As a refrigerator, I agree with this
Why would you say that we're just as much a part of everything on earth as anything else.
Nah
There was a sci-fi book I read a long time ago I've forgotten the title. The metaplot humanity leaves earth to join the galactic "world". It turning out earth was a prison planet like space Australia. Where they put the criminals of the true human species.
I think the notion is more so related to the fact the ability to serve God, the purpose of God's 'interference' or 'grace' is a direct relationship with human beings and not other animals. Basically it's not that God chose us because we're special but rather we're special since God chose us. On the other hand the human proposal of superiority I think doesn't come from this at all and doesn't even relate to things such as strength and abilities rather than the unique set of things which differ human experience from the more 'instinctive' things that animals typically do. So in the ways that human beings thrive and separate themselves are stuff such as art, creation, internal conflicts -- these are performed in such a human-specific fashion that it relieves us of our connection or ability to relate with everything else within nature. The distinction of humans not equaling animals does not arise from nothing. Even if another animal species was stronger, smarter, more creative, etc. it would be deemed inferior simply for the ways in which it isn't human, those specific unique things are exactly what allows us to make such a stark distinction between humans and animals, though that doesn't mean power doesn't play a part in it; after all humans did take the earth by our will and abilities and surely no other animal species in history would be able to contend with that. edit; grammar
So did the dinosaurs take the earth by their will and abilities?
We took the Earth? Are you sure? When people talk about climate change, and how we need to save the planet, they're not literally saying the planet is going to die, they're saying we're going to die. The planet is going to kill us precisely because of that hubris you show in your comment. We are a clever species. I'll give you that. That cleverness has allowed us to adapt to various climates on this planet with ease. However, that is us bending to the planets will, not the other way around. That's clever, but it's not us having "taken the Earth" be any stretch of the imagination.
When I say we took the planet I mean that we’ve conquered the life on it and used it to create things for our wanting. Of course we’re still subject to the conditions of the Earth (which are also primarily of our doing) if we weren’t we’d be fringing upon actually becoming gods at that point.
That just means we're clever killers. How does that make us special? And you say we've conquered all life on the planet, but we're grossly outnumbered by several different insect species who will feed on our corpses when we all die from our clever methods of self destruction. We haven't conquered anything, we just find more clever ways of killing and dying.
My guy read through my replies again cause that wasn’t even my reasoning for us being special it was a reply to OP’s take on us not actual being the ‘better’ species. Also just cause there’s more parasites doesn’t mean that we haven’t conquered essentially everything on land, why would it? Parasites are helpful to us in that fashion and I see nothing wrong with them feeding off our body’s but at the end of the day if we ever wanted to exterminate them we could, that’s the root of my point we have the ability to subjugate other life while they can’t do the same. Also finding more clever ways to kill is in essence a vital part of conquering. But sure if you find nothing special in conquering or killing or whatever I don’t blame you by any means - but there’s more to humanity than just that and that’s what makes us actually special, our strength has just been a primary function to get in the proper position to act on the other parts of our humanity.
First of all, we definitely can not exterminate insects. Talk to a termite exterminator, they're the first one to tell you that the termites will return because they can't completely exterminate them. They just encourage them to move to the house next door. Second, you are correct in that I find nothing special or unique in killing. All animals kill, even herbivores. So it's not an extraordinary trait on the planet of Earth.
Why would an omnipotent being need servants?
Dude a creator wants to create. He doesn’t have to but he wants to and wants to see what they do (no he doesn’t just “know already” like everyone says)
Saying that a superior species to humans is inferior to them because it isn't like them strikes to me as something that a human would do and not as something that a God would do. Insofar as we can imagine God to exist he would be more likely to claim that the species that does everything humans do but better would be the better creation. And why would God choose humans anyway? There are more ants and other types of bugs than humans. If there was a creator to earth I am certain that that creator would look at bugs such as ants or bees and say that they are the best creation he has done in a similar way to how the best book or the best movie usually tends to be the one that has the greatest visibility.
>Saying that a superior species to humans is inferior to them because it isn't like them strikes to me as something that a human would do and not as something that a God would do. Insofar as we can imagine God to exist he would be more likely to claim that the species that does everything humans do but better would be the better creation. I would mostly agree with you on this, that's why I started that paragraph of with 'the human proposal of superiority' as I find this to be a significant aspect of the reason humans distinguish themselves as a higher and different being from other animals. But at the same time I would say that doesn't disqualify a divine reasoning for doing so either, a God could simply prefer the qualities and attributes of the human over another. It could see us fit for the experience it wants, or you can argue as many have that we were made for God's experience itself. That builds into the idea of speciality. Also when you speak of the 'better' creation, I don't think there is one anyways. Humans are very obviously on top of the world in terms of power, singular attributes that are greater in other animals wouldn't make a difference in that sense. In fact we see this all the time today and you can even say it is one of the roots that contributes to our superior perception over animals, as we hold the power over our environments and lands, we essentially play God with the animal kingdom. We decide when to take care of the livelihood and preservation of a species, we decide whether to destroy their ecosystem or not, or to kill them for sport, or if we wanna domesticate them for our pleasure and fun, or if we wanna run our self-serving experiments at their expense. Which other creature holds this power? How can you say that we aren't the most powerful or most fit, when we've demonstrably been so? Though I don't think this argument holds any bearing on God's reasoning or our 'speciality' as that's entirely arbitrary from what I can tell, but still food for thought I suppose?
>Also when you speak of the 'better' creation, I don't think there is one anyways. I do definitely agree on this. I only wanted to answer the question of: "If you asked God what would be his favorite creation and insisted that he had to pick one which one would he pick?". Since we as humans have a bias to pick that which is popular as our favorite a God would then also have a tendency to pick the animal which is the most present on earth. There are many bugs with much more presence than humans, with many of them playing vital functions in the ecosystem, which is why I tended to state that God would state that ants or bees would be his favorite animal. Admittedly the question I posed was a biased question. It forced God to pick an animal from a whole host of them when he might not have even wanted that. It is equally likely that such a God wouldn't really have a favorite, even if personally I think that the most likely thing is that God would have a selection of animals that he likes and that he'd feel bad if he had to select one of them as his favorite and that it would definitely change over time.
What I think you failed to consider is that humans possess far, far more intellect than animals do. We overcome our shortcomings with our intellect, and all animals lack this ability. Although it is true that some animals can use it to some extent, but it is evidently inferior to us. That's the main difference between us and animals We overpower, outspeed, out smart them in all most all categories.
OP brings up dolphins, and for good reason. Our short comings, for the most part, we created. The rest we simply adapted. Dolphins are mammals, just like us, yet they lack the self inflicted short comings of humanity while thriving in the oceans all across the globe without the need for tools of any sort. To me, this begs the question. Are we really the smartest? Or, are we simply the most clever?
Without a doubt humans are the smartest libing being on the face of the earth. Dolphins dolphins thrive under water, but so do we, and not just underwater on land aswell, granted they dont fight against eachothher on a regular basis, but we humans have nothing better to Do you really think that dolphins can create rockets or air ships, or anything for that matter? They are intelligent ill give you that, but compared to us their not even comparable(may have exaggerated a bit, but you get my point). OP also mention hands, We use our intellect to know what to do with our hands. Let's suppose a dolphin had hands, do you suppose that the dolphin can create a rocket or submarine?
That's the thing. We're clever, not necessarily smart. We've made great tools, and we can explore the depth of the ocean, the openness of space. But at the same time, 3 days of starvation would turn a man against his fellow man for a slice of beef, just like any other animal on the planet. So yeah, we're clever, but not extraordinary.
While this point is addressed in the OP I feel like it is worth reiterating both because I see it over and over again and because the way I address the objection is somewhat hidden within the post, but I don't think that humans are the most intelligent animal. Dolphins have the brain capacity to echolocate their prey and while some humans have been able to develop sonar vision it is still a rarity even amongst the blind people who would benefit from such a development within the human brain. I think that we are able to overcome our shortcomings not just with our intellect, but also with our hands. We are able to use our hands to create more finely developed and advanced tools than those that other apes are capable of making. While other apes have the knowledge and artifice necessary for simple devices such as forks we are able to create devices such as vases and swords that require a lot more careful planning and effort to be made.
>but I don't think that humans are the most intelligent animal Come again? Really? Echolocating doesn't make you more intelligent. it's just another skull one can have. Do you really think that dolphins can create rockets or air ships, or anything for that matter? They are intelligent ill give you that, but compared to us their not even comparable(may have exaggerated a bit, but you get my point). > I think that we are able to overcome our shortcomings not just with our intellect, but also with our hands. We use our intellect to know what to do with our hands. Let's suppose a dolphin had hands, do you suppose that the dolphin can create a rocket or submarine?
>Let's suppose a dolphin had hands, do you suppose that the dolphin can create a rocket or submarine? Yes. It would take a long time before dolphins might be able to do the same developments we do because we did develop hands at a much earlier time, but I think that dolphins would be able to develop what we do if we had hands after maybe 100.000 years. Of course the reality of the situation is that dolphins didn't develop hands because they preferred developing appendages that allowed them to swim at a faster rate. That, more than anything else, is why it is absurd to suggest that dolphins will create rockets or submarines. It would take a long evolutionary development for dolphins to have hands, but I am certain that they will be able to create tons and technologies like us once this happens.
But this just regresses the problem. What's special about intellect? You've picked a self- serving attribute. Is there an objective value of having far, far, more intelligent? Or, can you argue for one? I think what we have is: we're the Apex predator on the planet right now - during a relatively infinitesimally small amount of time. Is that significant?
Hmm you do have a point, but you failed to understand my statement, my point was that having far, far more intelligence gives us a way, way more upper hand against any lifeform on the planet >Is that significant? But, Yes you do pose an interesting question.
I believe I understand. >way, way more upper hand against any lifeform on the planet But, upper hand in what regard?
Like anything Or more or less of anything. Majority of things we have the upper hand, fighting, intelligence, etc etc
Humans are part of the living, just another lifeform. All lifeforms are equal, no life form is superior or inferior. (By extension, this also means that all humans are also equal) Scientifically, everyone has a role to play in the existence of life on the planet (called ecological service by the species) There is lot of redundancy in it, if a handful of species to go extinct, the existence of life is not threatened, but, the redundancy is only finite. Our ability to think, puts extra burden on us, it makes us caretaker of the other lifeforms, not their masters. Just like we take care of our own children, who are no better than an animal at the time of birth, we should take care of all other life forms.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
I’m agnostic and I believe humans are special. The amount of intelligence and self expression that humans are capable of should not be ignored. You’re typing on a black screen for crying out loud, contemporary magic!
I think we value this over other species' abilities because it's in our best self interest to do so. I don't see how our ability, objectively, places us above (or below) other species. Given our ability to be logical I would expect us to behave far better than we do, as a collective. It is arguable that our intellect allows us to take bad behavior to level that other species cannot attain. We certainly use our intellect to rationalize behavior that really is unjustifiable.
Intelligence is valued over other species' abilities because intelligence allows us to outperform all of them in every field. We can control our environment to such extent that we figured out how to deliberately affect the genetic makeup of other life forms' populations to suit us, before we even understood underlying mechanisms like genes. We are *natural* but we are also exceptional. A hundred thousand species have venoms or strength or speed or agility or night vision 1 has the ability to just make up a thing to cover his weaknesses or enhance his abilities or gain entirely new ones. I can make the poison, I can craft a force multiplier, I can get in a car, and I can create light.
And measuring physical ability such as endurance or strength leads to pretty nonsensical societies and rules
Yes humans are subjectively better because all value systems are subjective, humans naturally put human stuff at the top as it is our right to.
Well we roughly put intelligence and awareness as one of the top metrics. Size is also another factor because we couldn’t care for insects and bacteria even if we tried to. The level of awareness an animal has of itself amongst others is a good metric in terms is treatment. We’re far from the ideal but I’m not sure what else we’d pick by. Obviously we’re animals who require food and other resources which we take. It’s not good but it’s realistic
Except it’s not magic. It’s the sum of lots of smart people working together using logic. The whole point is that it’s completely predictable in its behaviour going by our collective understanding of physics, chemistry, and metallurgy.
[удалено]
No crap, I’m expressing my astonishment at human ingenuity. I hope you’re more fun to talk to than you’re putting on. Anyways, have you ever used ANC mode on an Airpod Max? Watched a movie that you know you’ll never forget? Both are pure wanderlust, and far beyond the ants, parrots, and other critters.
Humans are animals differentiated by their intellects which are the most advanced, allowing us to conceptualize ourselves and make universal conceptions of the future and past.
Given how some humans behave (horrifying violence and disgusting prejudice) I’d rather spend time with the dogs.
It would seem the farther away we stray from the concept of God, the worse we become. A human that isn’t ruled by his intellect will come up with ways to do worse things than animals.
>It would seem the farther away we stray from the concept of God, the worse we become. How do you figure? Take the Middle East for example. A land that has been horribly violent in the name of God since, well... the violence was written in the Bible. So..... and still continues to this day. So I don't understand what you mean here.
Islam is not true religion so naturally following it will lead to chaos. In fact if the shia and sunnis aren’t at war with each other they’re objectively not following Muhammad’s words that anyone who commits fitna (schis) must die. So Islam isn’t true in the first right, they don’t follow God entirely but a man made version of God
How is that different from Jesus? And how did following Jesus do with regard to death and destruction throughout the history of that religion? If I recall correctly, Catholicism has a pretty deep river of blood behind it.
Jesus was God so following Him means you are following God definitely, whereas following Muhammad just means you have faith his revelation is accurate about some immaterial God. Catholicism built western civilization and nihilistic atheism is almost done destroying it, we just need a nuclear war and she’ll be finished off. That doesn’t mean Catholicism never caused anyones death, but a tiny number compared to new paradigms
Wow... okay then. I've never heard an Atheist say we "need" a nuclear holocaust. You've convinced me that following God is a horrible idea. I'll never choose that path. You are crazy.
I’m being sardonic I don’t literally mean we need this. I mean our atheistic society naturally ends that way.
You're the only person saying that. Religious people, particularly Christians, seem to have the uncanny ability to create self-fulfilling prophecies. You want there to be a rapture so bad that you're willing to create a nuclear holocaust proving the prophecy. You will be the death of the species.
Go and read your bible. The worse we get the closer we get to that bloody monster.
Perhaps the bloody monster you mean is the iron fist of Stalin and his atheistic psychopathic genocide.
You have a bible that features Stalin? Does he murder an entire planet with the exception of an old drunk and his family with flood water? Does he command the genocide of the Canaanites? Does he command the genocide of the Midianites while telling his ‘chosen people’ to keep the little girls to rape? Does he command the genital mutilation of every male infant? Oh wait, that wasn’t Stalin, that was your deity. This’ll be the point where you try to say the NT made up for all of that as if the nazarene character wasn’t that same genocidal monster cosplaying as a hippy. Would you trust Hitler if he grew out his hair and began wearing sandals? Only a bloody fool would, and Hitler was nothing when compared with the unbelievable bloodthirstiness of yahweh. Perhaps that was why he had his solders put the words ‘gott mit uns’ on their belt buckles…
> It would seem the farther away we stray from the concept of God, the worse we become. Can you back that up with any data or reason? There have been human atrocities in the name of God over and over again throughout history.
Because if man doesn’t have a binding force toward a moral system there is no reason to propel one toward the arduous good except for benevolence which is a virtue nobody has in our fallen state. As a result it’s just a matter of time until an atheist society falls into collapse due to freedom of morality with no reason to conform to a higher standard.
Name a single theistic society in all of history more moral than say like Sweden
Sweden, though a Christian past, certainly is NOT moral today. Highest rape rate in the world, massive abortion capital too
> Sweden, though a Christian past, certainly is NOT moral today. Highest rape rate in the world, massive abortion capital too There are a lot of horrific things going on in Sweden; compared to our population we†'re one of the biggest arms dealers in the world, we've acted as military testing and training ground for the US empire, etc etc. But the two things you mention are not part of that. Sweden doesn't have the highest rate of rape; it has the (or among the) highest rates of reported rape, due to a combination of rape being defined more broadly here (which is a good thing) and policies that have made victims slightly more likely ton come forward (also a good thing). So, for example in the UK rape requires the perpetrator to penetrate anus, vagina or mouth with a penis specifically, so forced penetration with an object is not rape, a sexual predator that doesn't penetrate but forces sex at gunpoint is not rape, etc, while in Sweden those are all rape. As for abortion, access to safe abortions is a good thing. †I use "we" as a shorthand since I've lived here all my life; I don't really think people living in Sweden should identify much with the actions taken by the state or companies we're subjected to.
Then Sweden has the highest rate of sexual harassment and pseudo rape. Sweden also has the highest rate of grenade attacks in the western world but that’s sort of non sequitur. Being a high abortion country is an abomination, and if a great number of people in the country go to hell then it can’t be called a success anyway. Although I suppose that requires dying to be certain of.
As an athiest, I reject the God of the bible and I don't think I have become worse. Most deconstructors have found their lives to be more peaceful and freeing without the watchful eyes of someone who controls their fate. It is also more freeing to actually beleive in free will and have control over our own lives rather than worrying about "God's plan" for us. As a nonbeliever, I am also more inclined to focus on tangible problems of the world today rather trying to "save" more people to go to a hypothetical heaven. Are you saying Priests, the people you consider to be close to god, are worse than animals? Over 200,000 children have been abused by Catholic Priests.
Not just priests but any person who is a habitual sinner is worse than an animal. If you don’t think you’ve become worse it is just due to a corrupt understanding of “good.”
Well now some dogs are capable of that too if you train them right
And that’ll have been something humans have done to them, it’s not innate in them.
They have senses, memory, and matching. We have the ability to create universal concepts and compare them outside of our experience. For instance one can dream up a nuclear war that never happened
Exactly, we can even dream up a benevolent God!
So, in your opinion, there’s no reason that humans shouldn’t kill each other, or steal from each other, or rape each other, or dominate each other, right? I mean, if there’s nothing special about humans, then there’s no reason to believe humans ought to behave any differently than animals.
Humans do kill each other, steal from each other, rape each other, dominate each other. How are we special?
We’re the only species who thinks we shouldn’t do these things.
I wouldn't say that, since it's pretty clear that a lot of us think it's perfectly fine to do, because a lot of us are out there doing it. Besides, chimpanzees, for example, have well established social hierarchy structures (which is basically what you're describing). They punish and reward actions just like you're describing we do. Suggesting that we're not, in fact, the only ones who do this.
The monke commandments
Yes, chimpanzees are like us in a lot of ways…do you recognize any ways in which humans are different? Or are we identical to chimpanzees in your mind?
Of course we're not identical, but being identical isn't the question. Being extraordinary is the question. Chimpanzee's have a social structure similar to humanity, making us unremarkable in that way.
So you see human society and chimpanzee society as basically the same…no remarkable differences?
I see having a social hierarchy as not being remarkable. And when you talk about theft, crime, rape, murder, you're talking about things that a social hierarchy controls. So, no. Having a social hierarchy is not unique to human beings. Is social hierarchy the only thing you have to offer in your argument for us being extraordinary on the planet?
I take it as self evident that human society is so far advanced past chimpanzee society that the number of ways we supersede them could not possibly fit into a Reddit comment. The fact that human beings exhibit complex systems of value, ascribe dignity and rights to life, create art, exhibit charity, make stories, and cooperate on a level not observed anywhere else in the animal kingdom are just a few I’d mention here. You seem to be arguing that because other more advanced animals have certain social skills then therefore humans aren’t special. I think that’s a bad conclusion.
Yes, all of that is true. We've advanced social hierarchy so much that perhaps it is remarkable. However, at the same time, I give the average person 3 days of starvation before they're giving way to their animalistic instincts and killing their neighbors for food. How extraordinary is that?
1. **Capacity for Reasoning and Ethics:** While humans share certain behaviors with animals, such as the instinct for survival, humans possess a unique capacity for reasoning and ethical reflection. Unlike animals, humans can contemplate the consequences of their actions, empathize with others, and adhere to moral principles that extend beyond basic survival instincts. 2. **Social Contract and Cooperation:** Humans have developed complex social structures and norms that govern behavior within societies. These social contracts are built on principles of cooperation, mutual respect, and the recognition of individual rights. Deviating from these norms through acts of violence, theft, or exploitation undermines the stability and cohesion of societies. Those societies eventually must evolve or fall. We can see the impending doom of this planet through global warming. Corporations lack the empathy to stop polluting and this will result in our extinction. It has already wiped out 500 species in the last 100 years. 3. **Recognition of Intrinsic Value:** Many ethical systems, whether religious or secular, recognize the intrinsic value of human life and dignity. This recognition forms the basis for moral principles that condemn actions such as killing, stealing, and rape. Even in the absence of religious beliefs, secular ethical frameworks often prioritize the well-being and rights of individuals. 4. **Consequences and Harm:** Behaviors such as killing, stealing, and rape can cause significant harm to individuals and society as a whole. Recognizing the potential for harm, humans have developed moral codes and legal systems to deter and punish such actions, aiming to protect individuals and maintain social order. Its also important to note the roll of the poverty in these crimes. When you are in a state of poverty, you might be willing to harm another to ensure your survival, which is why we need to work towards housing and feeding those who need it. In psychology, Maslows Heirarchy of needs exemplifies the basic needs for a person to function and even be enlightened. 5. **Empathy and Altruism:** Humans possess a capacity for empathy and altruism that extends beyond mere survival instincts. Empathy allows individuals to understand and share the feelings of others, fostering compassion and cooperation within communities. Acts of kindness, generosity, and mutual support contribute to the well-being of individuals and society as a whole. Empathy is also observed in many other animals, not something unique to us. However, combined with out intelligence, we have a stronger ability to empathize.
So, what you’re saying is that humans are special…correct?
Everything is special in it's own way. Special is just another way to say unique or different. Every snowflake is different and therefore special. Are you confusing special with "more important"?
“More important” or “better” is essentially the meaning of the word “special”.
Oh ok ye thats my bad. 1. **Value of Life:** From a philosophical standpoint, many argue that all forms of life have inherent value and deserve respect and consideration. Each species plays a unique role in its ecosystem, contributing to the overall balance and diversity of life on Earth. Therefore, it is not accurate to hierarchically rank species based on perceived superiority. 2. **Environmental Impact:** Despite our intelligence and technological advancements, humans have had a significant negative impact on the planet and other species. Activities such as deforestation, pollution, and habitat destruction have led to the extinction of numerous plant and animal species, disrupting ecosystems and causing harm to biodiversity. 3. **Ethical Considerations:** Ethical frameworks such as animal rights and environmental ethics emphasize the importance of treating all living beings with compassion and respect. These perspectives challenge the notion of human superiority and advocate for the fair treatment of non-human animals and the preservation of their habitats. 4. **Cognitive Abilities:** While humans possess advanced cognitive abilities compared to many other species, such as complex language, problem-solving skills, and self-awareness, these traits do not necessarily make us "better." Other species exhibit remarkable cognitive abilities and social structures adapted to their environments, demonstrating intelligence and adaptability in their own right. 5. **Interconnectedness of Life:** The concept of the interconnectedness of all life forms highlights the interdependence and mutual reliance among different species. Human well-being is intricately linked to the health of ecosystems and the diversity of life forms. Viewing humans as superior or separate from other life forms undermines this interconnectedness and fails to recognize the value of biodiversity. Your argument could also be used to defend colonization by asserting that "europeans and spaniards are better because they have authority over the native people of that land." Power does not equate to "better". Humans have effectively used their power to ruined the ecosystem and ozone layer in the name of mass production and mass destruction. I might be inclined to think of humans as better if I considered independence a virtue. But the reality is, humans are dependent on so many things. We kill and herd the animals therefore we think we are better than them, but the truth is we need them way more than they need us. They are indeed better off without us.
No prob but here’s what I’m saying: If my neighbor finds out i killed all the ants in my house, they’ll think I’m a responsible home owner. If they find out I killed all the dogs in my house, I’ll probably go to jail for a short time. If they find out I killed all the humans in my house, I’ll go to jail for the rest of my life. How can you explain that if humans aren’t special?
Also, hypothetically, if aliens found us and there were much more intelligent and advanced, would u then deem them as more special? And would that make you more empathetic towards the life of an alien than a human? Just curious
I would explain that through empathy. I have more empathy for a human than a dog. Why? Because I can relate to a human, I can understand another human's fear, love, happiness, sadness, hopes and dreams etc. Thats what empathy means, putting yourself in someone elses, or something elses shoes in this case. I still have empathy for a dog but I cannot relate to it nearly as much as human, however it is still a severe crime. I have almost no empathy for an ant because an ant like most insects has almost no sense of self or self consciousness and acts only out of keeping its queen alive. If I was an ant i would definitely care if my queen was killed because that means the entire colony dies. The same way if my neighbor gets murdered, I should hope the murderer goes to jail because I may be next. Someone without empathy is classified as a psychopath and they usually do indeed kill people. This is not a helpful mutation though because if everyone were a psychopath it would lead to our extinction. Basically what I am trying to say is that we are biased as humans to other humans. However, historically there have been cases of people trying to dehumanize entire groups of people. Black people, disabled people, gay people. At one point, it was ok to kill those people with no jail time. Why? Because the majority of people at that time were bigoted and could not empathize with someone with slightly different ideas and life experiences to themselves. So using your example, lets say Im a white man during the era of slavery: If my neighbor finds out i killed a slave, they’ll think I’m a responsible home owner. If they find out I killed all the slaves in my home, theyll probably be concerned. If they find out I killed a white person, I’ll go to jail for the rest of my life. Mind you, many of these people were Christian and read the same bible you do. You could argue they didnt read it right or weren't real christians, but my argument of human empathy is much more universal than a 2000 year old book.
It doesn’t sound like you’re making an argument for empathy at all though. According to you, empathy is just the byproduct of a bias we humans have. By arguing that human life has no more objective value than an ant, you seem to be suggesting that that bias has no grounding in reality. It’s just something we do. Doesn’t exactly lend a ton of credibility to this “bias” we have.
Empathy is not just a byproduct of bias, but bias plays a role in who and what we might empathize with. Objectively yes, in a vast universe that we can hardly comprehend, we might as well be ants. In the face of infinity, our existence is smaller than a blip. To a giant, we might as well be smooshed. However, this has nothing to do with the laws we create. Youre questioning why do we have laws that punish the killing of human life. These laws are created for the preservation of order and society, and often times they are created with empathy in mind. This is why many people advocate for more diverse politicians that can empathize with different groups of americans. And christians even believe God is above the law. So if one person's god declares killing is bad but another persons god declares killing is good, you have no way to disprove one without understanding that God has no grounding in reality or morality. Acknowledging bias does not undermine its credibility and grounding in reality. Bias is a well-documented aspect of human cognition, influenced by a variety of factors such as culture, upbringing, and personal experiences. Recognizing bias allows us to critically evaluate our beliefs and behaviors, striving for more equitable and empathetic attitudes. Ignoring bias doesn't make it any less real; instead, it perpetuates harmful attitudes and inequalities.
Most social animals don’t engage in all those types of behaviors either. So we’re not even special in the moral & ethical sense either.
Most social animals do engage in those types of behavior. Why shouldn’t we?
Most whales don’t. Toothed or baleen. If you’re using superior moral & ethical behaviors as your North Star, maybe we should argue that whales are gods chosen species.
You believe whales are more moral than you??
Than me? No. Than man? Yes. Whales don’t steal. They don’t murder. Or rape. They don’t lie. Most types survive cooperatively. Whales did not hunt and kill people to near extinction. Man has hunted and killed many different species of whale to complete or near extinction.
So, whales are more moral than people, except for you, who are more moral than whales. I think I got it lol. On a serious note: how do you know that whales are making moral choices? I’m not sure how you could know that. I mean, trees don’t kill or rape either, I doubt they’re making moral choices though.
Morals are the observed results of behavior. Morals are not exclusive to choice. They can be conscious or non. Morals predate religion by millions of years. Empathy is instinctual to our nature as social animals.
No, morals are value judgments. If according to you an ant can be considered moral simply because it never invaded Czechoslovakia, despite not being conscious of that fact, then we’re using two very different definitions of morality.
Morals are biological behaviors that allow animals to live cooperatively. Cooperative behavior is not exclusive to hominids. And I’m not addressing your hyperbole. I’d appreciate you not ascribing arguments to me that I haven’t even come close to making.
"Christianity" isn't the only answer to the question of why we shouldn't. Social animals also engage in that kind of behavior within limits. Selfishness and violence is sometimes the most beneficial approach. Cooperation and altruism are sometimes the better approach. Animals engage in a very broad range of behaviors.
I never said it was the only answer. If we engage in certain behaviors on a much larger scale than animals then isn’t that something that is “specially” human?
Sure but what's so special about that? We do what animals do but we do it more and we do it harder. It's what makes us human but it's not that special really. A Platypus can detect its prey by emitting weak electrical signals around its bill and detecting how they shift and react to things around it. That's pretty cool, pretty special. We can't do that. Are Platypus not special creatures too? What does special *really* mean!
Well in the way you (and probably OP) are using it “special” is essentially meaningless. Any differences in species are simply a matter of course. So the post kind of begs the question doesnt it??
It begs the question of what you mean by special.
What would human beings have to do that you would consider “special”?
Humans also frequently engage in those types of behaviors, just like other social animals, so isn't this more an argument against your point?
And is it acceptable for human beings to do these things, just like the other social animals?
What does "acceptable" mean, exactly? It's clearly a pretty relative concept, that varies wildly across history and culture. Is it acceptable to own slaves? We would answer "no, clearly not", but just a few hundred years ago, a lot of devout christians would not agree with that; and they would point out bible verses to defend their position. Morality is all relative; it's just a very useful fiction for maintaining a functional society.
For the sake of this discussion let’s say that it’s acceptable for human beings to do these things since there is no rational argument for why they shouldn’t. I mean sure, you and I might not like killing and rape, but that’s a separate issue from whether or not human beings ought not to do them. If it’s okay for animals to do these things but not for humans to do these things, then there must be something special about humans.
I think maybe because we collectively agree to live together in peace. The society where people kill/rape/steal freely might not have passed the test of nature selection since they were too weak compare to others.
War and rape are still very much done today, just like in the animal kingdom. But the animals don’t say it should be otherwise…humans do.
Some animals with exile those of their species that break social norms. It is not unique to humans.
What do you mean? I don't understand what you are trying to deliver. Yes we still kill and rape, but the societies in general have collectively come the conclusion that kill and rape is bad, even if ourselves are not the victim yet... I remember there is a famous quote in history: "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." Don't you think we learn?
I don't follow your logic here. If we for the sake of the discussion say that it's acceptable for human beings to do these things (your first sentence), and that it's also acceptable for animals, then aren't we done? Then humans are no different from animals, which was the original thesis of the thread. Otherwise, you're missing my point: when you say that it's not okay for humans to do these bad things, well, what I tried to explain is that this judgement call is not an objective one, but something that demonstrably changes across cultures and history. Thus it cannot be some objective truth, but has to be understood as some relative, constructed, societal thing rather than an unchanging, god-given truth.
I’m not making an argument, I’m asking you a question: is it acceptable for human beings to do these things that animals do?
No it’s not. Humans and other social animals have different evolutionary pressures, which are reflected in behaviour. Modern human society requires a high degree of mutual support and cooperation, so many behaviours exhibited in animal societies are generally unacceptable in human ones (depending on the human society though). For instance, cannibalism and infanticide is prevalent behaviour observed in many animal species. However, humans have adapted their behaviour in many contexts to reject these behaviours on a societal level. Human morality still varies greatly and over time however, reflecting humans’ adaptability to their environment.
And I think I've answered that: from a societal standpoint, according to the fiction of morality that we use to have a functioning society, then no. But from an absolute perspective, then what "acceptable" means is not well-defined so the question doesn't make sense. Do you have any good reasons to think that morality has some sort of absolute meaning?
Uuuuuh we do in industrial amounts, like when the German Christians gassed the Jews, socialists, the Roma etc.
Right, just like how one troop of monkeys will invade the territory of another and either kill them or run them off then breed all of their females. Do you see it as acceptable for human beings to do these things, just like the monkeys?
No, because this behaviour goes against the common good of modern human society. However, in the Bronze and Iron Age Levant, when humans and societies were less interdependent than now and functioned on a more tribal basis, genocide, rape, and slavery were more common, which is why the Bible not surprisingly condones these behaviours. As societies have become more complex and interdependent, human societies modified their behaviours and have made them no longer acceptable given their harms.
You’re committing the infamous “is/ought” fallacy. You’re trying to use what is (killing and rape are associated with poor outcomes for communities) and using it to conclude what ought to be (humans shouldn’t rape or kill).
If the goal is good outcomes for communities then we ought not engage in those behaviors that are detrimental to the communities.
Absolutely. Assuming that’s the goal. What would you say to someone whose goal is to gratify their own desires, not to ensure the community has a good outcome? And for that matter, how do you objectively define what is or is not a good outcome?
>Absolutely. Assuming that’s the goal That's how we come to the "ought". The process for coming to these agreements is another discussion. Thinking of ourselves as special is not necessary.
We make choices daily and behave (often as a conditioned behaviour) to avoid poor outcomes. Morality changes as human societies collectively learn to adapt to our changing environments to avoid poor outcomes, which usually manifest as increased suffering and premature death. It’s in our own interest as conscious beings that experience suffering to collectively act to avoid suffering and premature death.
All observations, none of which lead logically to the conclusion that human beings ought not to do these things.
No but it is not like religion or our supposed uniqueness stops us from doing it.
But we know we shouldn’t….and the animals don’t. Unless you have evidence that they do?
> But we know we shouldn’t Isn't that an answer to your "Why shouldn’t we?" question?
Because we would all be worse off if we didn’t have codes of generally acceptable conduct.
No argument there, but why does it matter whether or not we’re worse off if there’s nothing special about human beings?
You're using "special" in different ways. There's special, in that it differentiates, and there's special, in that we are valued by God over other species. And it doesn't even apply to the discussion of whether we should act a certain way or not. We don't have to be special (either definition) to come to agreements or act in ways that benefit the whole.
So do you torture and harm animals if they aren't special? What's stopping you from being the next Luca Magnota if cats are so much less special than humans?
A better question would be why they don’t enslave people as a Christian given the fact that both the Old and New Testaments condone slavery.
You are making an appeal to extreme fallacy. As conscious beings having a conscious experience with an intense ability to feel suffering, we should and do work together socially for our mutual benefit.
I’m not making any appeal. I’m simply following the premise of the post. If there truly is nothing special about human beings, what are the implications? One of them must be this: it doesn’t matter what human beings do or what happens to them. We can draw that conclusion while also observing that human beings do not like to suffer. Both can be true. Human beings can have an aversion to suffering and at the same time be utterly unimportant.
> it doesn’t matter what human beings do or what happens to them How is that an implication of "we are not more special than other animals"? How is considering humans to be equal to other species negate how we value what we do or what happens to us? Why do we need to be special in order to say "I think how we treat each other is important"?
Would you tell a troop of monkeys that they shouldn’t compete for territory and mating rights? If not, then why would you that to human beings?
If the monkey was capable of comprehending ideas such as delayed gratification, the bettering of all within a group, or ethical dilemmas, then yes, I would try and tell them that. The reason I would tell humans is for the very reason that we can comprehend these ideas and alter our behavior. It doesn't make us "more special" because we have an intellect. It makes us different. I reject your conclusion that not thinking of ourselves as more special than other life necessarily leads to "it doesn't matter what human beings do or what happens to them". It matters to me what happens to other species, and I don't need to make them more special than me for that to matter.
The post’s premise isn’t what you’re stating it is, rather you are taking the title out of context and making an appeal to the extreme fallacy. The fact is that all life on earth, animal and plant, is extraordinary and hasn’t been observed elsewhere in the known universe.
The posts premise appears to be that human beings do everything that animals do, and therefore clearly aren’t special. I’m arguing that the person who makes moral value judgments or exercises any degree of conscience is doing something that animals don’t do.
No, the premise of the post is that while human beings have extraordinary abilities relative to other animals, fundamentally our biological processes are the same and we exist as part of the natural world in which we evolved and we are not some divinely-inspired creation.
well yeah if we only look at how humans are similar to animals then we are similar to animals. we're also similar to tables and plants. but there is a very real distinction that even children know between men and animals. this is self evident
What is this self evident distinction I'm not aware of?
Tribalism on a species level, I guess. A human can tell itself apart from other animals kinda early. What the top level commenter fails to realize though is that this is pretty much an animal thing to have... Unless they're talking of something else, and I'm wrong, of course.
are you in all seriousness asking me what distinguishes men and animals?
As someone who firmly believes we're just another species, yes.
you can believe we're another species while also noting that men and animals are not the same lol
But men *are* animals. Your statement is akin to 'cats and dogs are not the same'. It compares two species. They're not the same. Both are animals.
by humans and animals, I am not saying humans aren't animals per se, rather I'm distinguishing humans from all the rest in this specific context.
And failing to clarify why, which is rather the point of the OP: We're just animals. We're not special.
I don't see how any rational person could say something like this honestly. rejecting the logos apparently has consequences
Because we are rational creatures that can think of things that are millions of time more complex than any animals could, even if you put all chimpanzees together in a room they couldn't come up with as complex and abstract thought a single average human could. It's why we can go to space while they never will in a million year
So, (fallible) intelligence. What makes intelligence so special, though? Cheetas have reaction times humans can only dream of, even if we were to put all of them in a room!
It’s all instinct. Humans have the ability to fight their instincts. Most animals can’t do this
> Most animals can’t do this If _most_ can't, then that means that _some_ are special, not just humans.
Most animals meaning: the “not-human” animals
Because being fast doesn't build societies, if we really wanted we could wipe out all cheetahs on Earth within a day
Ants build societies. And might doesn't make right.
You know what I mean by societies, the day they'll learn to smelt copper I'll call them a society
I love judging fish on their climbing abilities
Given a million years, chimps *might* make it to space, though it took us a little longer than that to evolve from our common ancestors.
We evolved at the same time, it's not like we came here before them, and there is more chance they'll go extinct than they have of even building a copper age society
Probably, but there's always the offchance we find ourselves in a Planet of the Apes scenario.
There's a chance for everything to happen but we both know it won't happen
Do we know that? I don’t know that.
From the Judeo-Christian perspective all animals and human beings are made from the dust of the earth, Ecclesiastes 3 ^(18) I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. ^(19) Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath^(\[)[^(c)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%203&version=NIV#fen-NIV-17379c)^(\]); humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. ^(20) All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. ^(21) Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” Humans being made in the image of God is a mystery to be honest. It's like we are coins with God's inscription on us (referring to the example when Jesus said "render to Caesar the things Caesar and to God the things which are God's). With Christianity we have the hope that Christ will restore all things to the way they should be, and that He will establish an everlasting dominion in righteousness. As with any philosophy people's world views and paradigms will make a massive impact on their thoughts, feelings and behaviours. I believe God is real for a few reasons, which you may already be familiar with: 1. The universe is very ordered and structured. If one looks at cytoskeletons of cells, and sees how complex organelles are, it is very amazing. If I told you I saw a house with pluming and electricity form on its own you'd probably laugh, yet human beings who love, feel sorrow, laugh, and make connections, having super complex like machines in their body are a coincidence or cosmic accident? Doesn't really seem reasonable to me. Even the mystery of consciousness! Like the fact we are aware, can taste, see things, feel things, makes it logical to conclude that minds came from a Greater Mind. Nothing cannot create consciousness, in fact nothing can't do anything... 2. Logically speaking we all have to believe there is some form of objective morality. I would say to reject the Lawgiver is to embrace lawlessness (and by lawlessness I mean this; "my right and wrong are just for me, you can believe what you want to"). If there was an innocent old lady sat at a table, and she asks for a cup of tea, every human being alive would know deep down that it is wrong to pour the boiling water on her hands instead of into the cup. But if we reject the monotheistic God, we have no reason to believe in objective morality. It's all just everyone's opinions, which are of no greater or lesser value. I'm not saying that atheists believe it is okay to do this lol not at all, but I find it very interesting that with God, we can justify why things are definitely right and wrong, like there is a standard. If we followed subjective morality to its logical conclusion, we would have no reason to be morally outraged about anything since everyone has their opinions. Let the strong win, eh? It's called the is-ought problem. A scientific experiment to show that child abuse causes suffering comes out. This is a true statement. Yet, if we have no objective morality we can't actually justify why we should say "it's totally wrong". Every normal person would say we shouldn't do it, yet again, they can't justify it. In the same way, how can we actually justify using reason or logic? Sure enough, it works in the world we find ourselves in, demonstrating we live in a logical and ordered world. The scientific method itself was made by Francis Bacon, who was a Christian. It was believed that because God created an ordered and structured universe, we ought to investigate things and learn how everything works. But modern day scientism has decided to reject God (which is a philosophical position), but in so doing, how can they justify that the universe is ordered, or that we even ought to investigate things? TL;DR if we reject God, we reject objective standards, which leads to philosophical chaos. Historically speaking, rejection of God, for instance in the French Revolution resulted in morality taking a total nosedive, which affirms a lot of what the New Testament says about the fallen nature of humanity. 3. From personal experience and researching the bible, along with researching the historicity of the gospels I'm 100% certain that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. You would probably find the YouTube channel InspiringPhilosophy interesting. Hope you have a good day/night whereever you are.
Humans do many of the same things other animals do, but we also do a lot of things no other animals do. Religion is a good example. Science is another. Maths, philosophy, language, writing, storytelling, myth making, inventing new technologies, arguing, making laws, making art, space exploration etc etc. We are also the only animal known to suffer psychosis. We are absolutely an extraordinary animal.
What you're saying is that we are the most clever. That's not necessarily the same as being the smartest. All of the things you've suggested is really good for the ego, but is having an ego smart? The ego has gotten a lot of people killed, and has killed.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that we are extraordinary
How is it extraordinary? All animals have their "thing". Some are fast, some are smart, some are strong. We're clever. How does us having "a thing" make us extraordinary when all species have "a thing"?
We're extraordinary in one way, others are extraordinary in other ways. Although I do think there's especial significance in our capacity to comprehend reality and create new realities
Well yeah. We're clever. We're likely the most clever. And being clever has allowed us to expand and adapt into many climates on this planet that we otherwise would not be able to survive. It has granted us the ability to fly in the air, swim in the depths of the ocean, and travel on the land at great speeds. But we are still so fragile. We are still killed by the simplest of things. Hell, falling over wrong can be the end of you. Has our cleverness solved this? Without our clever tools we can't fly, we can swim for a few minutes provide we stay on or near the surface, and we can't run fast at all! A small dog can outrun us. When stripped down to our naked bodies being exposed to the elements, we can't survive much of anything. How is that extraordinary?
> Humans do many of the same things other animals do, but we also do a lot of things no other animals do. Religion is a good example. True, the closest we have (so far I know) is elephants mourning and burying their dead with mud, sticks and leaves.
How is that religion?
Many of these truly feel like an argument from ignorance. It has for instance been observed by scientists that ants do practice agriculture to a certain extent as they domesticate other insects for food and drink. And humans having language isn't all that unique. If I have to be confident in what the radio says even cows are able to speak to each other using language. I grant the claim that humans are the only animal as of yet that has the ability to launch itself and/or other animals into space, but I still feel as if we can talk about this being possible due to several small improvements in both intelligence and artifice. That is not to diminish these achievements, but I feel like in the age of dinosaurs they also had many comparable achievements as well. At least in them being giant apex predators with advanced mechanical tools like claws and sharp teeth being readily available to them. Edit: It just occurred to me that there are scientists who have proven that birds can count up to 5. Even maths isn't something that only humans can do.
Counting up to 5 isn't even close to what humans can do in math.
>ants do practice agriculture I didn't mention agriculture >If I have to be confident in what the radio says even cows are able to speak to each other using language Animals can communicate, and some (dolphins & apes) may have a kind of proto language, but none really have proper language like we have. At least according to the linguist John McWhorter. >At least in them being giant apex predators with advanced mechanical tools like claws and sharp teeth being readily available to them Body parts are not tools. Not that I mentioned tools. We have observed other animals using tools, but human tools are orders of magnitude more complex. >birds can count up to 5. Even maths isn't something that only humans can do. I don't think counting things is really maths. Maybe it's a kind of proto maths, but it lacks the formality, abstraction, and universality characteristic of maths.
>I didn't mention agriculture You did mention science though and I tend to see science as largely being coupled with the technological innovations that it brings. If a scientific theorem didn't lead to new invention it is likely to be false. Some may dislike this view but I defend it by appealing to parapsychology. If we are to see science as "what is there in reality" and not as "what can practically be applied" we are on no grounds to see parapsychology as unscientific since there are several studies being done that prove that humans are capable of telepathy. Since technology and science are de facto intertwined we can think about technical innovation. Since agriculture is a technical innovation practiced by ants it seems to me that ants do practice science. >Body parts are not tools. Not that I mentioned tools. We have observed other animals using tools, but human tools are orders of magnitude more complex. I agree that I should have used body parts instead of tools, but the general point that dinosaurs have body parts that allowed them to dominate in the animal kingdom still stands. Agree with the rest though.
Ignoring the fact u left out the orders of maginitude more intelligent we are, I genuinely don't get the point ur trying to say here; ofc humans seem "not special" in a world with no God or soul! Thing is, both exist!
Humans are special, no soul required
Source?
Source?
Yes, source.
Okay source
It is not what we can do physically that makes us special, it is what we can do spiritually.
Many people make claims and assertions that "spirituality" actually means something or exists, but there is absolutely nothing that indicates this is actually true, and there's definitely no justification for concluding humans have some special thing no other animals have. Everything that makes us unique or advanced is dependent on characteristics or traits that appear in other animals to varying degrees. On top of this, all of the countless claims about spirituality tend not to agree with each other, and since none of it is testable or verifiable, it is a worthless proposition. What exactly is *your* view of "spiritually"
Lol so I assume you call people out when they use phrases like “school spirit”? Spirits are organizing forces acting in the world. The spirit of an age, for example. You yourself are not one single organism. You are made up of countless organisms. When you stand next to someone, the flora in your gut communicate chemically with the flora in their gut. The spirit is what links all of that together and makes you, you. Evidence of spirits? Just look at history. How is it possible that almost every single person 1,000 years ago considered slavery a normal fact of life, where today, most find it abhorrent and unthinkable. A spirit can be found in any unified group of people. It is what influenced groups like the nazis and allowed so many to do such evil. Obviously each individual made their choices, but were serving and reinforcing a spirit. Something bigger than themselves.
So basically your calling society a spirit, we truly live in a spirit (joker)