Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 20937 | ||
James 3:7 For every species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by the human race. Yes, I was aware of Koko and Pavlov, Sir Pent: Koko's amazing display of gorilla intelligence does not, however, prove that she has rational thought processes. It is an attestation to her trainers' skill and patience. But Koko will never sign (pun intended) her memoirs at the end of her life. If fact, not being rational, she'll have no appreciation for her personal history or of her coming death. Animals, while they have an instinctive terror of being hurt, have no fear of death or non-being. This is a quality which only rational creatures have (Matt 8:29 And they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?") I read your post under my answer to Charis. No, you do not see. My evangelist friend was using “personal” in the sense that we’ve been using rational. Again, Sir Pent, we DO disagree. It is not a problem of terminology. And one last point: Jesus calling the serpent shrewd (Mat. 10:16) is an anthropopathism, which is what animal lovers do all the time! I’ve enjoyed our exchange, but I think we’ve reached an impasse. Maybe when I can make my case stronger (or yours weaker!) we’ll come back to this. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
2 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 21016 | ||
Clarification .................................. Dear Lionstrong, The never-ending struggle to find common ground continues :) In your last post, you talk about rationality in terms of "appreciation for her personal history" and "fear of death or non-being". This seems to me like you are talking about being self-aware, which is defined by the dictionary as "an awareness of one's own personality or individuality". If this is what you are talking about, then I also agree with you. Humans have an ability to recognize their unique existance, seperate from the rest of the universe. They are able to perceive that "I" am something other than just stuff (tissue and electric currents). They are also therefore concerned about what happens to "I" after the stuff ceases to function. I do not believe that animals have this ability, and I don't know of any experiments to the contrary. However, I would reiterate that this is "self-awareness", and that is beyond mere intellegence. You seem to agree that animals can communicate to some degree. I think that communication requires some level of intellegence and rationality; don't you? |
||||||
3 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Lionstrong | 21061 | ||
Intelligence? Yes. Rationallity? No, dear Sir Pent. Human communication is the transference and reception of thought from one to another. Since animals do not think, no thoughts are transferred, and no communication takes place. Further, regarding Mat. 10:16, and to strengthen to point that Jesus was speaking anthropopathically about animals, not only are serpents not shrewd, but doves are not innocent. In order to be innocent one must be a moral agent. Animals are amoral creatures. God does not judge them for sinning, because they CANNOT sin. In order to sin, one must be a moral agent. In order to be a moral agent, one must understand moral commands. In order to understand moral commands, one must understand the thoughts communicated in the moral commands. In order to understand thoughts, one must be rational. Therefore, doves are not innocent because doves (and all animals) are not rational. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
4 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 21138 | ||
Contrary View .................................. Dear Lionstrong, I respect you personally, but your post is based on purely circular reasoning. You say that animals don't communicate, because communication requires thought, and animals don't think. But your fundamental assumption "animals don't think" is the very thing that is being debated. It is not logical to prove an idea by using something completely based on the idea itself. Secondly, you are using a different definition of communication than the dictionary. The true definition of communication is simply "an exchange of information". It is a proven fact that animals are able to do this. Finally, you said that animals are intellegent but not rational. Yet earlier in this thread, you agreed that those words were synonymous, which would be in agreement with the dictionary. It definately appears that you (and perhaps certain Bible verses) are using the word "rational" to have a special meaning beyond the standard definition. Do you mean "self-awareness"? |
||||||
5 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | DanosPlace | 153278 | ||
Interesting debate, even though it is a moot point, but I'd like to interject a thought of my own. I once had a dog, and my room mate and I would go to work in the morning, when we got home in the evening, the dog was outside running the streets. We found the back door opened. The next day we decided to make sure the doors were closed and locked in the morning, when we got home, "Chopper" was running the streets again. We finally discovered quite by accident, that Chopper, though never trained to do so, learned to work the doorknob, and if the door was a push open door, he would open it and stroll freely about. This may simply be a case of watching and copying, kind of like the monkey see, monkey do mentality. That winter, we had Chopper chained to a tree out front, and me and several others were sitting on the porch talking. Chopper was intent on trying to reach a pine cone that was about 1.5 ft our of his reach. After he realized he could not reach it with either his mouth or his front paws, (no matter how hard he stretched), he turned around and tried to get it with his back feet. This only succeeded in pushing the pine cone further from him. Now we considered that to be a pretty intelligent move, but what happened next really floored everyone present. There was a rubber garden hose that snaked it's way around the area, and Chopper picked up the garden hose, being in the cold season it was pretty stiff, and he flopped the curve of the hose over the pine cone, then proceeded to drag the hose toward him, thus coaxing the pine cone into his reach. There were no bells or whistles, no training exercises or rewards, this dog did this on his own. I guess it depends on what you call rational thought, but that was pretty well thought out in my opinion, and in the opinion of everyone else present. As far as the image of God, maybe it is exactly that, His image! Through out Old Testament History, kings would have statues of themselves, (images), made and placed at the borders of their land so people would know who's country they were coming into. I like the idea that everything here is owned by God, and we are simply stewarts of all he has given us. These images of human beings inside every car, standing on every porch, and everywhere else you look are reminders everywhere that this is Gods world, Gods Creation, and Gods elements. We have simply learned, (as Chopper did), how to use the elements that God owns to make things that make our lives easier or more comfortable, (many times to our own discredit). As for the serpent, it was more subtle than the beasts of the fields, does not specifically mean he was a beast of the field. We don't know what the serpent is, and it may very well be an animal that has been long extinct. In fact, eating dust of the ground for the rest of it's life, it may have been the last of its kind. Debates are fun and they excercise the mind, as long as we don't loose touch that some debates are not essential to our salvation. Dano |
||||||