Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Byblos wrote:We don't know whether they can or can't. We may observe and perceive an act to be altruistic but we don't know for sure. Those dolphins that circled humans to protect them from sharks, did they do so based on an altruistic 'decision'? Or were they acting based on certain survival instincts that say protect anything that moves from predators. We simply don't know. What we do know is the prisoner who went back to save the guard did so knowing full well he will suffer and die for his action. Yet he CHOSE to do it regardless.
If your speaking to intentions then of course we cannot know. But at some level I think the dolphins knew they were in danger.
Of course they did, it's instinctive.
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Meaning that if an alien were to come to earth and see human nature, they would conclude that we were acting in self defence, because they would not be able to pick out the Mother Theresa's from the pack. And then come to the conclusion that humans are incapable of altruism.
And how would you presume to know what aliens would think?
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:How many animals have you encountered, do you think that is enough to conclude that animals are incapable of acting foolishly in terms of self-preservation?
Foolish indeed, my friend, foolish indeed.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Byblos wrote:We don't know whether they can or can't. We may observe and perceive an act to be altruistic but we don't know for sure. Those dolphins that circled humans to protect them from sharks, did they do so based on an altruistic 'decision'? Or were they acting based on certain survival instincts that say protect anything that moves from predators. We simply don't know. What we do know is the prisoner who went back to save the guard did so knowing full well he will suffer and die for his action. Yet he CHOSE to do it regardless.
If your speaking to intentions then of course we cannot know. But at some level I think the dolphins knew they were in danger.
....
How many animals have you encountered, do you think that is enough to conclude that animals are incapable of acting foolishly in terms of self-preservation?
I'm not sure I understand your last sentence, would you mind re-phrasing?
"At some level" they did know -- it's instinctual. The problem I see with the original contention is that this person was mixing biological instincts (which humans have as well) with the metaphysical.
According to Wiki;
"There is no accepted explanation for this behavior; as mentioned in the Journal of Zoology, "The importance of interactions between sharks and cetaceans has been a subject of much conjecture, but few studies have addressed these interactions". In some cases, sharks have been seen attacking, or trying to attack dolphins.The presence of porpoises does not indicate the absence of sharks as both eat the same food."
thus, inserting a very, very weak suggestion of altruism in animals.
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge".
I think that the idea of Self-sacrifice and altruism is a question asked by humans because we are more self-aware and able to think abstractly to a greater degree that other animals. I think there is evidence of a lesser measure of this in higher mammals outside of humans. It will seem cliche, but I think on some level, my dog loves me and would attack others or even die to protect me and my family. It's somewhat normal for me to reflect back upon the dog my own feelings and values.
But as has been noted, there are evolutionary things that might be at work here too. A willingness to die for one's young makes evolutionary sense. The young preserve the gene pool and are the future of the species. Whether it's a self-actualizing quality of self-awareness or not, the net result is that those species with that quality would be more likely to survive and even within a species those qualities would be "rewarded".
In the case of dogs being domesticated, humans become the selection trigger as we tend to breed and preserve those qualities we value, such as loyalty and protectiveness of one's "pack."
I don't see the need to deny that animals can experience and show evidence of the trait. I agree though that we have to be careful of anthropomorphising animals to reflect our own emotions and thinking. As a Christian I think self-sacrifice and altruism is a reflection of the image of God within us when it is cultivated and allowed to grow and come out of us in our lives. There's other plausible explanations that can be rationalized but without language we can't do anything more than speculate.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
I think that's a very good point. We don't really *know* for sure if they're capable of altruism, though there are definitely tell-tale signs. Sure, we mix some behavioural aspects too, or social education (pack like mentalities, etc) but I think the more domesticated or intelligent the animal is, there is an increased likelihood for "selfless" acts.
I should read up more on St. Francis of Assisi...
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge".
