Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Ascribing human attributes to animals who act on instinct doesn't make it so.
|
They are animal attributes - homo sapiens being but one of the animals which possesses such attributes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I skimmed one of them. I've seen the arguments. A chimp does something that is interpreted as mourning, or a group of animals attacks an animal that does a behavior detrimental to them....scientists fall all over themselves to ascribe human attributes to the chimp. Yay. Not real impressed.
|
You made a false claim - that animals don't manifest morality. First, you concede that humans do, and humans are certainly anaimals. However, I chalk your obstinance there up to a ridiculous unwillingness to accept that humans are, by the very definition of animals, animals. Second, non-human animals do indeed demonstrate moral behavior. When presented with evidence of this inconvenient fact, you simply deny it. That's what you do. That, and you launch silly ad hominem attacks against the sources of those inconvenient facts. [
"scientists fall all over themselves to ascribe human attributes to the chimp"]
Let's review.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625085134.htm
Quote:
Felix Warneken and colleagues from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology present experimental evidence that chimpanzees act altruistically toward genetically unrelated conspecifics.
In addition, in two comparative experiments, they found that both chimpanzees and human infants helped altruistically regardless of any expectation of reward, even when some effort was required, and even when the recipient was an unfamiliar individual--all features previously thought to be unique to humans.
|
There's nothing there so basic as mere mourning or defensive behavior, yet that is precisely what you dishonestly insinuate. Rather, there is genuine altruism of a very similar nature manifested in both human and chimpanzee infants, before the respective cultures have been acquired by the individuals. And that right there is clear evidence of the moral behaviors in animals beyond humans (in, not suprisingly, our closest extant non-human relatives).
And you've got nothing more that to just insist that all the professional biologists in the world are wrong because... well, because you just want them to be wrong.
It is clear that you despise science, and it isn't hard to figure out why. Science compiles data and analyzes it to find truths about the world. It does this very well. And you know this. You know it, because when you get a serious injury or infection, you don't sacrifice a chicken or fall to your knees in prayer, you drive to the ER or call 911. Why? Because you know the fatality rate is far, far lower for those who seek the attention of professional biologists (which is precisely what every physician is) than for those who engage in religious rituals or whatever sort. That you know how correct science is, as a whole, is precisely why you despise it so. You fear it. You fear it because you're emotionally vested in baseless fantasies that have absolutely no evidentiary basis, and you know that science will never show those to be more than that - baseless fantasies.
As to the basis of this thread, we don't need your Bible one bit. One world:
slavery. The Bible teems with casual references to slavery where it is not condemned, thus tacitly condoning it. Rules for enslaving people are provided, and commands that slaves obey their masters are put forth, demonstrating that in the fetid moral morass of the Bible, slavery is perfectly acceptable. Yet I and most people understand that it is wrong. So do
you. And therein is the proof that neither of us needs the Bible to understand that slavery is wrong. Not only does the Bible not tell us it is wrong, the Bible tells us the opposite. This violates our inate sense of morality, so we reject it. You probably have some creative, and feeble, rationalization for this - whining about 'context', or insisting that 'slavery' is an incorrect translation, or something similarly shallow - that say nothing about the Bible and everything about you.
You go on and on about how people are just 'making up' their morality (duh - it's a human construct), yet that is precisely what you do when you reject slavery. I'm sure you've twisted yourself into some knot that makes no sense at all in order to justify this to yourself, at least in your own mind.
Here's another word:
democracy. This is a ubiquitous western ideal, and it is nowhere to be found in your Bible.
Racial equality.
Gender equality. None of those things are manifested in the Bible. Yet they are widespread. They are from the human-constructed morality. And the are actually useful, as opposed to idiotic religious edicts, such as
"Don't eat shellfish!" or
"Don't shave!". I won't pretend to assume that you've actually embraced these non-Biblical concepts of morality (in fact, I'm very confident you have no real use for the last one).
Look, we get it. If it wasn't for the Bible, you'd rob people, kill children and rape women because the only reason you can find for not doing so is that an authority figure tells you not to do so. Right? That's the (horribly distrubing) logic you're peddling.
But that's not really the case, is it? You won't openly admit it, because to do so would be to concede that we don't really need the Bible to tell us anything. Consider - what if God spoke to you (whatever that might mean to you) and told you that he'd changed his mind and that you should kill at least one child per week. Would you? Of course not. And why? Because you know this is inherently wrong, in a way that is not at all conginent on what anyone might think their superman-in-the-sky says. And that right there is proof positive that you, like all people who are not sociopaths, understand that morality can be reasoned out and is not just the capricious dictate of Captain Universe. If morality was solely dependent on God, then it would be arbitrary and could just as easily be "Kill all left-handed people!" depending on the whims of God if he commanded so. The fact that you think to yourself that he would never issue such a command is the tell that reveals that you know morality is a logical point of view that can be reached without any need for God.
And this fact utterly terrifies you. Given it, your carefully constructed house of cards tumbles. In the end, that's the sole reason for your bluster.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who says I don't have the authority to judge? You? 
