Human supremacy

[wjb2008]

Oh my, but do I sense this discussion bordering on the edge of Chaos? I believe I do... less and less organization, more and more name-calling, tempers being flared, sarcastic remarks, not-so-nice behavior. This is becoming more of a personal battle than a philosophical discussion. The rudeness is uncalled for. Usually when I think of the question asked, I think in terms of soul. Is the human soul "superior" to that of all other living beings? Catholicism (maybe other sects of Christianity too, but I don't know anything about them) says that humans are the ONLY beings with free will and a soul, which is (in my opinion) the root of this discussion. Intellectually, I'll be damned if Homo sapiens sapiens ain't better than most everything else. Physically, it is clear that we are difficient. We obviously effect the environment (in terms of effect vs. biomass; I'd say certain bacteria have a greater effect, but there are a few trillion of them) more than anything else. We are more adaptable than almost anything else. But are we the only besats of spirit? If not, does the human soul shine brighter and clearer than EVERY other life-forms? Do all living things have the same quantity of soul? Are viruses living? THAT was what I meant, although in re-reading my post and reading a few of these other discussions it is clear that I was in error to not clarify. Please pardon my error, and can we get back to discussing and away from insulting, please?

 

[Druidus]

How can we accurately demonstrate that any being has a spirit? I, personally, know they do, through an experience with a tree. However, not everyone has such an experience.

I believe if there are spirits, there's no reason why ours would be better.

 

[NothingIsNot]

My cat often dragged mice or birds into the house.. it certainly never ate them. I know thats not its own kind but.. there are stories of chimps or some kind of money species which kills others from different 'packs'..
Im not sure your statement is in fact true.

Hey Tawn, that is absolutely right, Chimps (who share 98.5% of our genes) attack other chimp groups. So just like us humans, they kill animals of their own species. I might be saying more about it in this post, if you wanna join in:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14642

 

[Ormiston]

Oh my, but do I sense this discussion bordering on the edge of Chaos? I believe I do... less and less organization, more and more name-calling, tempers being flared, sarcastic remarks, not-so-nice behavior. This is becoming more of a personal battle than a philosophical discussion. The rudeness is uncalled for. Usually when I think of the question asked, I think in terms of soul. Is the human soul "superior" to that of all other living beings? Catholicism (maybe other sects of Christianity too, but I don't know anything about them) says that humans are the ONLY beings with free will and a soul, which is (in my opinion) the root of this discussion. Intellectually, I'll be damned if Homo sapiens sapiens ain't better than most everything else. Physically, it is clear that we are difficient. We obviously effect the environment (in terms of effect vs. biomass; I'd say certain bacteria have a greater effect, but there are a few trillion of them) more than anything else. We are more adaptable than almost anything else. But are we the only besats of spirit? If not, does the human soul shine brighter and clearer than EVERY other life-forms? Do all living things have the same quantity of soul? Are viruses living? THAT was what I meant, although in re-reading my post and reading a few of these other discussions it is clear that I was in error to not clarify. Please pardon my error, and can we get back to discussing and away from insulting, please?

I know nothing of souls. When I look into a dog's eyes, I see it looking back at me. Not much different there. Yeah, it might eat its own poop, but arn't there things we humans do that are just as vile. I'm no dog lover, but you're gonna have to try hard to convince me that we have "Superior Souls". I do know one thing though, all the dogs in the world couldn't conquer the smallest army. We are supreme to dogs because our advantages are greater. Not our souls.

 

[painted wolf]

To the best of our knowledge, all such abstractions are human-centric constructs. There's a point there

yes, to the best of our knowledge... however we hardly know enough about how our own brains work to be making such calls on all species. Other large brained, Long lived, highly social animals, like Dolphins and Elephants may also think in similer ways.

Truth is we don't know. Saying humans are the only creatures 'so gifted' without knowing what goes on in the minds of other species isn't very scientific.

the ability to make tools is thinking abstractly. Many species are capable of tool making, from chimps to ravens. Thier tools aren't as well made as ours, nor are they as varied, but concidering thier level of manual dexarity they are quite impressive.

We know for instance that dogs are capable of 'thinking human' in that they can follow what we point at and figure out what we want. No other animal has displayed this sort of 'abstract' thinking so far. Humans don't eaven need to speak thier wish, the dog is able to read the humans body language and determine what they are thinking indipendantly. This is abstract thinking.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2956766.stm

A reserch Collie named Rico has demonstrated the ability to link words with items, eaven if he has never seen the item or heard the word previously. He knows 200 words and thier equivilent items and can pick them out from one another. If given a word he doesn't know he makes the abstract thinking leap to connect it with an item he doesn't already have a word for. Evolutionary biologists are highly intersted with Ricos abilities, they suggest that the ability to connect sounds and things evolved before the actual ability to use language. His memory is also quite good, he is able to remember the new words for up to a year of hearing them only once.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3794079.stm
Paper title: Bloom, BEHAVIOR: Can a Dog Learn a Word?, Science 2004 304: 1605-1606

*I'd post the actual reserch paper links but they are archived and I don't yet have a subscription. *

the point is that we are still learning about the mental abilities of other speices. There is as yet no way to quantify if your dog for instance is thinking about the nature of life and the univerce while he rolls in something stinky. Its still to early in the game to declare definitively one 'superior' over the rest.

AS for souls... my faith says that every living (and frankly every non-living) thing has a 'soul'. Untill a proper definition of what exactly a 'soul' is and what its function for the thing in question is, I choose not to use it in such discussions.

wa:do

 

[NothingIsNot]

As far as some scientist believe, human intelligence is excessive and can be compared to a peacock's overly large tail. It has evolved because of an evolutionary arms race. Male needs to be smarter to deceive female into mating, female must become more intelligent to detect such treachery on the males part. Males need to outwit other males to get female. It might seem quite harsh, but I think it makes perfect sense. Therefore, we think we are supreme because of our high intelligence which has evolved for some other purpose. Or the counter argument for our excessive intelligence would be that God planted a soul in Humans and made them smarter at some point in time.

 

[kreeden]

... however we hardly know enough about how our own brains work to be making such calls on all species.

In my opinion , that deserves to be repeated .


Deut , there is some factual base to the concept of a " web of life ". For excample I saw a nature show on TV awhile back . Can't recall which trees they were talking about , but they made up a large part of the canopy of the Amazon rainforest . They weren't regrowing after being cut down and the question was " why ? ". Turned out that most of their pollinization was done by one type of bee . As I can't recall much of the show , I will jump straight to the findings . Turns out that these bees used the scent of a flower to attract mates . This flower only grew in the shadow of the canopy ... I'm sure that you already see the connection . Cut the trees down , no shade . No shade , no flowers , no bees , no trees . Simple really .

Now I have a question for you Deut . Are autistic savants superior , or inferior to " normal " humans ?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In my opinion , that deserves to be repeated.

But not too often. It is little more than an argument from ignorance.

Deut , there is some factual base to the concept of a " web of life ".

Duh. May I recommend E.O. Wilson?

Now I have a question for you Deut . Are autistic savants superior , or inferior to " normal " humans ?

No.

 

[michel]

[PART QUOTE=kreeden]
.........."Now I have a question for you Deut . Are autistic savants superior , or inferior to " normal " humans ?"..........[/PART QUOTE]

Hi Kreeden,
Deuts answer to your question was to be expected - you were asking a question which is impossible to answer. Superior - physically, mentally, artistically ? The only answer I think you could hope to get from your question is 'autistic savants have a superior ability in one particular expertise than most of "normal" humans. There again - your word normal is a dangerous one to use; are you normal ? am I ? - define normality - If you really wanted to do so, you would most likely end up realizing that no one on Earth is normal.

 

[kreeden]

Actually Michel , Deut's reply was expected , but for other reason then you state . Deut makes a habit of debating in that way . He appears to much prefer the attack , then try to defend .

I agree with you Michel , which was why I brough the issue up . In some ways an autistic savants is far superior to " normal " people , in some ways somewhat inferior , so IMHO that pretty much makes them " normal " too .

Deut I tire of your games . I have admitted that you have made good points and you in turn have no even tried to see my point of view . or have show a total lack of respect for them . But then , I guess that is what a debate is all about eh ?

In ways the human animal is superior to all others . In other ways , we are inferior . Untill we have some set scale with which to measure superiority , it is a waste of time to try .

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deut makes a habit of debating in that way . He appears to much prefer the attack , then try to defend .

Drop the ad hominem. I much prefer to do what appears appropriate, and I believe I have a fairly good record of defending my positions more than adequately.

Deut I tire of your games . I have admitted that you have made good points and you in turn have no even tried to see my point of view. or have show a total lack of respect for them .

And I tire of your characterizations. As for seeing your point of view, it truly requires little in the way of effort, and it is hardly enhanced by references to the "web of life". To note that various individuals and various species have various capabilities and various degrees of capability is tiresomely obvious and undebatable. My very first comment on this thread cautioned that my response to the question posed was 'yes', but only "to the limited extent that it is answerable in any meaningful way".

In ways the human animal is superior to all others . In other ways , we are inferior . Untill we have some set scale with which to measure superiority , it is a waste of time to try .

Hence our difference. Scales measure quantitative differences, not qualitative ones. Painting an impressionist landscape, composing a Mozart concerto, writing Summa Theologica or Les Miserables, designing an iMac - these are not simply cases of thinking better. They are cases of thinking differently.

Something truly wonderous, if not miraculous, occurred some 30,000 years ago. It was a sea change perhaps as profound and significant as the evolution of eukaryotic from prokaryotic life. Those fans of the "web of life" might consider the radiations on each side of the prokaryotic|eukaryotic divide. Where is the biodiversity and why? Where is the potential and why? In my view, there exists a human 'supremacy' in precisely the same way that there exists a eukaryotic 'supremacy' - not because of differential skill set, but because of differential potential - while any other definition of superiority is cognitivelly meaningless.

 

[wjb2008]

I agree with Kreeden. I don't much like the way Deut is handing this debate (I'm too new to say anything about "how he is"). It would be better and more debate-like and less (yes, I'm gonna say it) Bible Thumping if you were to make a case instead of being rude. All you are doing is inflaming the debate and turning it into an argument. And there is a difference homey. I've got a question for you: If Chrstianity is right how come the only ancient group of people to know it to any degree were the Hebrews? And they were definitely considered "inferior" to everyone else. Why didn't the brilliant, artisitc, and cultural Greeks figure it out? I would have a much higher opinion of you if you were to answer the question with a thoughtful, insightful answer that reflects your mental supremecy over the apes. Any beast is capable of providing a simple sound that has no intellectual basis.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've got a question for you: If Chrstianity is right how come the only ancient group of people to know it to any degree were the Hebrews?

That question demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of the history of Christianity. It also suggests a curious confusion about my attitude towards that religion.

And they were definitely considered "inferior" to everyone else.

Please substantiate this.

 

[michel]

I AM going to steer clear of this one; I SHALL not say anything.....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Me too.

 

[michel]

Me too.

I'm into one upmanship - me three!:bonk:

 

[wjb2008]

Sorry it took so long to get back.

Anyway...

see? you didn't answer.

If my question shows a "remarkable degree of ignorance," believe it or not, I'm actually willing to learn what I am ignorant about. You see, that is what those of us who look to science for The Answers do. We listen to lessons. Most of us listen to/read explanations and then choose whether or not to believe them. My own grandfather is a BRILLIANT physicist who does NOT think that Superstring Theory is the Theory of Everything. But he came to this conclusion after serious studying of the ideas and mathematics behind it. I am truly willing to be taught said "history of Christianity" without so much as a sarcastic bat of my eye. It is my goal to assimilate as much knowledge as possible. Please, as I said, do not insult me, help me, assist, lead me to the proverbial light.

As for the "inferiority" of the Hebrews (also, by-the-way, I believe that all men truly are created equal--I personally do not believe this inferiority), what one culture has had a six-thousand year history of being beaten, killed, enslaved, genocided upon (had to make up my own verb there), and rescued, only for someone else to pop up and say "hey, let's go beat, kill, enslave, and genocide them!"? The Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews because they thought them to be inferior. The Romans killed them for the same reason. Medieval Europe killed them for a similar reason. Personally, I would think that God would not throw a bunch of suicide bombers at his Chosen People, but then again, God Works in Mysterious Ways, right? So I won't even argue that point...

ANYWAY! Please refrain from insulting me. I'm trying to enlightenand be enlightened by a fellow intellectual.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I remember when we talked about this in my 8th grade theology class. Our priest came in to teach us, as he did from time to time. I really respected this priest, for he was very intelligent and down-to-earth, as well as being genuinely devout. Anyhow, we were talking about the Catholic Church's teachings on human supremecy. He brought up this scenario: "If a 90 year old man who was confined to his bed with a respirator and a feeding tube was hanging off of a cliff, and the every member of the panda bear species was also hanging off of a cliff, and if you only had time to save one group, (keeping in mind that the entire panda species would become completely extinct if you didn't save them), which would you save?"

"The pandas!" We all cried.

"Wrong!" Said our priest.

He then went on to explain that the Church teaches us that human life must be valued above everything else, no matter what, and I went on to think that that was the most ridiculous and impractical thing I had ever heard.

 

[Druidus]

In your scenario, Ceridwen, I'd most definately save the pandas. If I had to choose between an equal amount of humans, I'd choose the pandas. Even if I had to choose a greater amount of humans, I'd choose the panda, because we surely woudn't go extinct. If it was one panda to one human, I'd go with the panda, they need every individual. However, if it was a dog and a human, I'd go for the human, because in the absence of other variables, I'll generally choose by intelligence.

 

[wjb2008]

I must say that the scenario is rather intriguing. Honestly, In that exact scenario I'd choose the pandas. I'd also have to agree with Druidus n the human vs dog scenario, however for a different reason. Basically, IMO, people tend to immediately prefer those most like themselves. Almost any human is more similar to me than almost any dog.