I encountered a fellow recently who - in the course of conversation - routinely said "If man is just an animal... [we would have no reason to be moral... we would be purely driven by instinct... etc etc]." If you've heard a claim that starts with "If man is just an animal..." that claim was probably made in this conversation. He built on this argument by claiming that - since humans are not as he claimed we would be if we were "just an animal" - we must therefore have a god-given, immortal soul that makes us unlike everything else in the universe. I'd like to take a moment to take issue with that claim.
My first issue is the word "just". "Just an animal". As though admitting to be what we really are, would in some way damage us. To be blunt, human's are animals. It's not up for debate. We are flesh and blood and bone. What more could you ask for in an animal? In fact, we're mammals! We have sweat glands, mammary glands, three middle-ear bones, a four-chambered heart, we're warm-blooded, we have a set of baby teeth, and a set of adult teeth, we have the remnants of a tail and it hurts like hell if you fall on it. Even further, we're Apes! If you can look at these skeletons and still deny that we're Apes... all I can say is that it is not because of any absence of evidence, nor is it logic which dissuades you. If you were to somehow show that humans are NOT animals, you would rock the entire field of biology. One claim, however, that is completely devoid of evidence is the claim that we have an immortal "soul".
From this we can move on to my next issue: Humans are animals. Humans are animals, and we do put a lot of effort into trying to figure out morality. We are animals, and we do have instincts (if you don't believe me, go punch someone in the face. I can almost guarantee that the initial response will be instinctive) but we also do have logic. We can sit back and contemplate. We can weigh the possible and probable consequences our actions using past experience as our guide. In short, admitting what we are, cannot make us less than what we are. To argue that "If we are just animals then 'X'." is simply a dishonest argument. We are animals, therefore any argument claiming that we would be different if we were animals is incorrect by definition.
I'd also like to briefly zoom in on the "purely driven by instinct" bit. This is based on a woefully inadequate understanding of what it is to be an animal. Consider the gorilla "Koko". Koko has learned 1,000 signs of American sign language, and understands about 2,000 words of spoken English (Basically, she understands the English language better than anyone who has ever said "YOLO" in a conversation). Her trainer also claims that Koko created her own word for "ring" (which she was never taught) by combining the words for "finger" and "bracelet". "To be an animal" does not equal "to be purely driven by instinct". Are some animals driven purely by instinct? Absolutely! Are they all? No, not all the time. Instinct is not the sole defining characteristic of what it means to be an animal. Frankly, if a gorilla (which - to my knowledge - has never been claimed to have been "made in the image of god") can think abstractly, than our ability to think abstractly and use logic is no proof of a divine creation.
In closing: You (yes, I'm looking at you) are an animal. You are a great ape. And accepting this cannot hurt you!
This has been your Sunday sermon, go without god.
P.S. If you want to know the real reason why childbirth is so painful for women (among other things about humans) Click Here
P.P.S. Just for laughs: Bill Maher's "New Rules About Religion - Part 1"
No comments:
Post a Comment