poll: are you an ape?

[bahamut19]

I answered no, but probably not for the same reasons that Christians would answer no, since Baha'is believe that evolution is a fact.

While `Abdu'l-Bahá states that man progressed through many stages before reaching this present form, `Abdu'l-Bahá states that humans are a distinct species, and not an animal, and that in every stage of evolution through which humans progressed, they were potentially humans. Nov 8, 2022

Bahá'í Faith and Science | Encyclopedia MDPI​

Another reason why Abdul-Baha should NOT be used as a primary source for the Baha'i Faith.

By the way, great apes are not a singular species. A species is basically a group of living organisms that can reproduce together and their offspring is also capable of reproducing. A gorilla and orangutan, while each are apes, are capable of having sex if they so desired, but would be incapable of creating offspring that can reproduce. No Gogutans or Orangillas. Why? Because a gorilla is a distinct species. Orangutans are distinct species. Likewise, if a human wants to have sex with a Chimpanzee, there would not be Hupanzees. You know what is cool? All of these distinct species are animals.

Humans are animals, even if Abdul-Baha says otherwise. Baha'u'llah nor any Manifestation of God had ever said humans are not animals, despite us being created with a soul. Sure, we have a special place here, but it doesn't mean humans are separate from the evolutionary pathways all life has shared. Remember, God created all life and was a part of all evolutionary pathways.

 

[LuisDantas]

Does that mean you can prove what you said is true?

Frankly, it is not even a matter of proof, but rather of simply not choosing to lie to ourselves.

Sometimes things are exactly as simple and as direct as they appear to be at first glance.

If you can't do that it is not a fact, it is only a personal opinion.

Sorry; I am not playing that silly game. Because that is what it is. A silly game that does not deserve either my attention nor yours.

 

[Heyo]

I am not an ape

You are.

nor a monkey’s uncle

That depends, if you have siblings who have offspring, then you are also a monkey's uncle.

 

[Heyo]

My parents were human, so I am a human. My grandparents and my great grand parents and great great grandparents were also human.

I was speaking metaphorical of course. What I was getting at is that you can't escape your ancestry. If in your family there was a (non-human) ape, you are still an ape and if there was a non ape monkey, you are still a monkey.
It's nested boxes like your geologic location. Say, you live in Huston, then you are a Hustoner. But you are also a Texan and a US American and an American and an Earthling.

 

[Heyo]

The article mentioned at the end is over 30 pages long, and you may not have the time to read that. But suffice it to say I know of the findings of genetics and am convinced that Chimpanzees and man have a common ancestor several million years ago and I am comfortable with that as a Baha'i. Any questions?

No further questions. If Baha'is really try to reconcile their faith with science, I find that to be a noble goal. (Though there will always be the ultimate conflict between magic and naturalism.)
But that goal is hard as some members of the Baha'i faith (and a lot of people in general) lack understanding of science. I'm just communicating what little I understand of science. If you are serious with the reconciliation, you'll appreciate the explanations.

 

[danieldemol]

If Baha'is really try to reconcile their faith with science

It's kind of complicated, they attempt to post-hoc rationalise their founders more ridiculaous teachings with science, but if you can demonstrate that what their founders were saying is unscientific (which is easy in some cases and more difficult in others) they will cling to the sayings of their founders at least in the majority Haifa based Baha'i faith and deny science if they are deeply indoctrinated enough in Baha'i teachings in my view.

 

[Heyo]

It's kind of complicated, they attempt to post-hoc rationalise their founders more ridiculaous teachings with science, but if you can demonstrate that what their founders were saying is unscientific (which is easy in some cases and more difficult in others) they will cling to the sayings of their founders at least in the majority Haifa based Baha'i faith and deny science if they are deeply indoctrinated enough in Baha'i teachings in my view.

I heard that claim that their faith doesn't contradict science (and if it does, science wins) from Lamaists also but found that they weren't serious. (But that may be personal opinion. The official statement from the Dalai Lama is that science is to be believed when it contradicts doctrine. But then again, is he serious?)

 

[Trailblazer]

No argument, but the rational thing, in the absence of evidence, would be to defer belief, would it not?
Rational implies accord with the evidence. Belief without evidence is pretty much the definition of irrational.

There is evidence, just no 'tangible' evidence. Belief with evidence is rational.

 

[Trailblazer]

Humans are animals, even if Abdul-Baha says otherwise. Baha'u'llah nor any Manifestation of God had ever said humans are not animals, despite us being created with a soul.

Abdu'l-Baha never said that humans are not animals. He said that humans have an animal nature and a spiritual nature. I am sure Baha'u'llah would concur.

 

[Trailblazer]

Frankly, it is not even a matter of proof, but rather of simply not choosing to lie to ourselves.

Sometimes things are exactly as simple and as direct as they appear to be at first glance.

Appear to whom?

Sorry; I am not playing that silly game. Because that is what it is. A silly game that does not deserve either my attention nor yours.

It is not a silly game. If you have no proof or even evidence then all you have is a personal opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

I heard that claim that their faith doesn't contradict science (and if it does, science wins) from Lamaists also but found that they weren't serious. (But that may be personal opinion. The official statement from the Dalai Lama is that science is to be believed when it contradicts doctrine. But then again, is he serious?)

Baha'u'llah said the opposite, he said between current science and his books his books win;

'Weigh not the Book of God with such standards and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring balance established amongst men.'
Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 73-74

 

[Kenny]

Are you a giraffe today? You can't be human.

Today I am identifying as an atheist. Now the possibility of me being a monkey’s cousin has increased exponentially.

 

[Kenny]

You are.

That depends, if you have siblings who have offspring, then you are also a monkey's uncle.

I’ve always said two people can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Appear to whom?

It is not a silly game. If you have no proof or even evidence then all you have is a personal opinion.

We will have to agree to disagree. Because there is only so much I can allow.

 

[Valjean]

There is evidence, just no 'tangible' evidence. Belief with evidence is rational.

OK, so what sort of evidence is it? How is imperceptible evidence even evidence?

 

[SalixIncendium]

OK, so what sort of evidence is it? How is imperceptible evidence even evidence?

Is all non-tangible evidence imperceptible?

 

[Valjean]

Is all non-tangible evidence imperceptible?

I'm considering the terms essentially synonymous here.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm considering the terms essentially synonymous here.

I think doing so is misleading at best.

Tangible means perceptible through the sense of touch...palpable. Is everything that is not palpable imperceivable?

When is the last time you touched a thought? Are you unable to perceive your thoughts?

There is a clear distinction between the terms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Today I am identifying as an atheist. Now the possibility of me being a monkey’s cousin has increased exponentially.

Of course you always were a monkey's cousin. But forgive me if I have doubts about you identifying as an atheist. You might be able to mimic being one. Oooh, that is a challenge. See if you can respond rationally in all of your posts today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just a note, for those that do not mind being called an ape, but draw the line at monkeys that is largely a linguistic problem. Not all languages put monkeys and apes into different categories. In Spanish for example one would say "Yo estoy uno mono". The most accurate translation of that would be "I am a simian." Since simian is our biological term for the group that has all apes and monkeys in it.