T
- Status
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
It seems to me that you’re packing a lot more meaning into the word “empathy” than is necessary. I view empathy as simply the ability to correctly interpret the mental state of another organism. However one might interpret the reasons for rats freeing other rats in traps – whether they be purely adaptive or otherwise – those actions seem to have been predicated on the un-trapped rats’ ability to first correctly interpret the trapped rats’ calls as distress and not something else. In turn, I have no problem conceding that empathy itself may simply be an advantageous adaptation. As noted in the article, a female rat that can correctly interpret the distress signals of its offspring and subsequently attend to their needs is far more likely to raise them to maturity than one which is oblivious.
I absolutely agree that assigning human-like emotions and reasons to the behavior of other animals is a mistake. However, I also see it as equally mistaken to summarily dismiss any evidence of apparent shared cognitive abilities as anthropomorphizing.
If it’s true that empathy and other cognitive abilities in rats and other animals are simply naturalistically-explained survival adaptations – which they certainly may be – then what does that say for the development of those same abilities in humans?
G
grannymh
Guest
The natural quality of sentience or being sentient accounts for animal actions beyond naturalistically-explained survival adaptations. The natural quality of sentience or consciousness or awareness is also present in humans. The difference is the scope of development between animals and humans. Not only are humans different in degrees from other species, humans are different in kind. This means that while animals may share some of our feelings and perceptions, humans are an entirely separate, unique, peerless species. Human nature is a composite of both material anatomical qualities and rational spiritual qualities.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It follows logically from the materialist’s view that all living organisms are molecular mechanisms which react according to physical laws so that distress is no more than a set of amoral, meaningless and purposeless chemical reactions - unless you can explain how naturalism differs from materialism…
G
grannymh
Guest
I do not know how naturalism differs from materialism. I do know that sentient animals are aware of their surroundings and will respond accordingly. This, in my opinion, is not the same as purposeless chemical reactions.
Seems to me that the materialistic view is simply that the world and its inhabitants, including humans, consist only of matter – no kind of spiritual soul. How this matter reacts to stimulation from sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch would not be limited to meaningless and purposeless chemical reactions.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Indisputable!
Indisputable!
Inscrutable! It remains to be explained how sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch are derived from - and produced by - meaningless and purposeless chemical reactions.
Materialism is so widespread that its absurdity is overlooked!
P
PRmerger
Guest
I attended a Town Hall meeting last night about a rising epidemic in my community: Heroin addiction.
The testimonies of the horrific toll this drug has taken on our youth and our families were profound. And my mind is dwelling on these families and the hell they are enduring.
So I hope you’ll forgive me if I segue into this question (I leave it to the mods to rein in the off-topic discourse, as I rather like going off topic myself. It mimics true conversation, IMHO!):
During the Town Hall meeting many references were made to addicts “being a shell of the person they once were” or “they lost their soul to heroin”.
Is it possible for a human being to have a “partial” soul? Does an addict, who exists only to get his next high, have little of “that which animates us” left?
G
grannymh
Guest
Because our soul is spiritual, it exists as a whole or does not exist at all. A material anatomy can evolve, change, adapt, decompose, etc. The spiritual does not do any of these things.
Soul has so many different and wonderful meanings. “That which animates us” is closest to the concept that the unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body, i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living person. (please refer to CCC 365)
On the other hand, “that which animates us” can also refer to our “spirit” which at times can be distinguished from the spiritual soul. His spirit is low–he is down in the dumps. He has lost his spirit–he has no energy, no motivation; he is only a shell of his former self. Lost their soul to heroin is an apt and desperate description of what does happen to addicts. But it does not mean that the spiritual soul, itself, changes.
Yet, it could mean that serious sin is involved and he has lost sanctifying grace. Please note that I do not mean to judge one’s soul in that regard. Only God knows the hidden circumstances of each individual.
I was a volunteer in our local hospital’s Pastoral Care Department. During one of my rounds, I visited a patient who was in so much pain that I could not get near her bed because any vibration would increase the pain. She had just arrived and pain medicines were not working. Her only words were “I want to die”. Then she realized that she said she wanted to commit suicide which would be morally wrong. So I asked her to describe her pain. She said she wanted to live, but the pain was so bad she couldn’t describe it. Slowly, I told her that when she said “I want to die” what she was really describing was her brutal pain. It was not a desire to commit suicide, but rather it was the only way she could communicate her situation.
In the same way, talking about losing one’s soul to heroin may be the only way to describe one’s pain, desperation, and the living hell. Losing one’s spirit for life says it all.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
I have no idea what you mean by this.
Without conceding that all animals are sentient or that humans aren’t animals, I agree completely.
If some non-human animals and humans share some mental faculties and characteristics and if they differ only in a matter of degree, then I don’t see how humans can be “entirely” unique.
If it isn’t too much trouble can you delineate exactly what these rational spiritual qualities are? Thanks
S
StAnastasia
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
What I said was:
*“The natural quality of sentience or being sentient accounts for animal actions beyond naturalistically-explained survival adaptations.” *
It was my first attempt to get beyond the idea that most everything can be reduced to survival adaptation. I am not sure how to explain what motivates animals to do some amazing things so I attribute it to their consciousness or awareness or sentience of what is happening around them.
The matter of degree is an on-going debate. Are you saying that if both humans and some animals share some similar mental faculties and characteristics then humans lose their uniqueness? This is because humans are not “entirely” unique. One could also say humans are not unique because they share similar bone structure with other vertebrates. I can concede to this view because I continually look at the big picture of human nature which is both spiritual *and *material. It is our human nature per se which makes us unique.
As a start, the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought are rational qualities of the intellective spiritual soul. Some lists include language, imagination, creativity, and other functions of the human mind.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes. This is eloquently presented. And a trenchant insight.
Perhaps it could be said that while a human person can never have a “partial soul”, when he is at his most despondent/sinful/iniquitous, he has lost that union of body/soul that embodies the saints? That is, a saint is someone who has most fully married the body and the soul?
I dunno…just musing.
Yes. I have seen patients suffer, and to those who have no faith it appears to them that death is the only solution.
Indeed.
P
PRmerger
Guest
The ability to apprehend God by faith and reason.
I
inocente
Guest
Sure, I’d like to as long as we can speak freely without anyone telling us what we can and can’t believe.
I
inocente
Guest
I didn’t understand - how is being blind both a fault to be rectified in heaven and also to be valued and cherished as part of them.
I
inocente
Guest
Do you think Oppenheimer is lying in his account? Do you have contrary evidence that Flew was in fine fettle? Or can you only make ad hominems?
And I did refute his reasoning – I said “I remember only a somewhat second-rate invented deist god-of-the-gaps”, and to parse that, his “reasoning” amounted to not understanding how stuff happened and inventing his own god to make the stuff happen. This, mind, after a lifetime as an atheist.
I already challenged you (“if he has an ace argument for Christianity then by all means repeat it”), so go on then, if he has an ace argument for Christianity then by all means repeat it.
You conveniently quoted yourself. But let’s look at the history of your blustering here:
tonyrey #495: “You still haven’t explained the directiveness, orderliness and creativeness of organic activities and the psychological aspect of life”
inocente #504: “I don’t understand what you mean. Could you start by explaining the directedness and psychological aspect of an olive tree’s life?”
tonyrey #520: Answers inocente’s question with a question.
inocente #504: Points out that the stickies prohibit answering a question with a question.
tonyrey #539: Answers his own question instead of inocente’s.
inocente #559: Points this out and repeats the original question.
tonyrey #563: Again answers inocente’s question with a question
inocente #617: Points this out and lets tonyrey off the hook as I’m fed up trying to get a straight answer.
tonyrey #630: Quotes himself as an excuse to make another ad hominem and to attack inocente’s beliefs.
Don’t be ridiculous. I’ve repeatedly said I’m Baptist, it’s been on my profile from day one (and note my classy new sig).
Just to win a debating point you attack another’s beliefs? How low can you go, tony? Could you get any lower? Serious question, can you think of anything more debased, more bigoted, less Christian?
Stickies:
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
So are you going to apologize (not hard for a Christian) or do I report you?.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Didn’t we have a similar conversation a while ago about a British actor who suffered from bipolar disorder? You noted that this was part of his self-identity and (if I remember correctly) commended him for not taking medications. This actor did not want to be free from this disorder on earth, and we discussed whether this bipolar disorder would be part of him if he entered heaven. I stated that it would not.I didn’t understand - how is being blind both a fault to be rectified in heaven and also to be valued and cherished as part of them.
Similarly, we can embrace being blind–it’s our essence and “who we are” that can be valued and cherished as part of us–but when we get to heaven we will realize how that was only a small, small part of our being and when we get to heaven we will be complete and whole and how we were to be “from the beginning”
G
grannymh
Guest
From granny’s post 624. "I do not ask you to believe what I will say. I only ask if you can understand what I am saying. I do not ask you to change your worldview. I only ask that we find some common terminology in order to understand, not necessarily accept, my worldview as a Catholic.
“If you are agreeable to the above, may we begin by what is meant by human nature?”
We can speak freely as long we are charitable. However, I cannot guarantee that others will stop telling us what we can and can’t believe.
Do like your additional signature. Without reading 'sola scriptura" into it, having Christ as a personal Savior should be the goal of all people. On this point, our worldviews match.
We both have an intense curiosity about how the world, including human nature, works. We both sincerely respect science per se, though we disagree on some of its facets. Therefore, both our worldviews broadly include *both *science and faith so we are on topic.
Relating Catholicism to my worldview, I may not be in sync with other Catholics when it comes to which teaching is the base or foundation for the Catholic Church. My guess is that others would say that God’s existence is the prime motivator for Catholicism. For me, the foundational teaching is about human nature which is an unique unification or composite of both the spiritual and material worlds. Practically speaking, both God’s existence and the existence of humans are both basic, primary truths of Catholicism.
So the original question, what is human nature, remains.
What do think about the material and spiritual world being united as a single nature?
Or maybe we need to first establish what the material and spiritual worlds are in real life?
“If you are agreeable to the above, may we begin by what is meant by human nature?”
Great!
We can speak freely as long we are charitable. However, I cannot guarantee that others will stop telling us what we can and can’t believe.
Do like your additional signature. Without reading 'sola scriptura" into it, having Christ as a personal Savior should be the goal of all people. On this point, our worldviews match.
We both have an intense curiosity about how the world, including human nature, works. We both sincerely respect science per se, though we disagree on some of its facets. Therefore, both our worldviews broadly include *both *science and faith so we are on topic.
Relating Catholicism to my worldview, I may not be in sync with other Catholics when it comes to which teaching is the base or foundation for the Catholic Church. My guess is that others would say that God’s existence is the prime motivator for Catholicism. For me, the foundational teaching is about human nature which is an unique unification or composite of both the spiritual and material worlds. Practically speaking, both God’s existence and the existence of humans are both basic, primary truths of Catholicism.
So the original question, what is human nature, remains.
What do think about the material and spiritual world being united as a single nature?
Or maybe we need to first establish what the material and spiritual worlds are in real life?
I
inocente
Guest
Oh right, got you. Not sure I agree though.
If I was blind then I might not wish to lose the heightening of my other senses by regaining my sight. And if I was blind from birth, if it were all I ever knew, I’m not sure I’d want to be changed. Do I get a choice in heaven or just get told? Should I plan to join a heavenly protest march?
I’d forgotten our conversation about Stephen Fry (well done for remembering). He refused medication because while he struggles with the depressive phase of bipolar, he doesn’t want to lose the creativity and energy of the manic phase (btw this is public knowledge, he wants people to be open about mental health issues). He believes medication would rob him of a core part of his personality, and again I think that should be his choice.
The question is about what constitutes our identity. Being “how we were to be from the beginning" is what we might have been in a parallel universe, but it’s not us or what got us into heaven. It’s a question about whether God loves us for who we are or for who we might have been.
Do not fear, for I have redeemed you;
I have summoned you by name; you are mine.
When you pass through the waters,
I will be with you;
and when you pass through the rivers,
they will not sweep over you.
When you walk through the fire,
you will not be burned;
the flames will not set you ablaze.
…]
Since you are precious and honored in my sight,
and because I love you - Isaiah 43
P
PRmerger
Guest
I believe you get a choice in heaven. But, like the metaphor I used in the Stephen Fry discussion (I searched today and reviewed–so I am certainly not going by memory here of a conversation we had from July!Oh right, got you. Not sure I agree though.
If I was blind then I might not wish to lose the heightening of my other senses by regaining my sight. And if I was blind from birth, if it were all I ever knew, I’m not sure I’d want to be changed. Do I get a choice in heaven or just get told? Should I plan to join a heavenly protest march?
) it’s akin to a little boy, who loves his toy truck, asking his parents, “When I get married can I bring my toy truck to bed with me?”I suppose he can, but why would he want to?
(Note, there are some on this CAFs of an immature nature who would take the discussion of a toy truck and the marital embrace and run with it on a vein that is, well, silly and inane.)
Thus, while we may want to embrace our blindness in heaven, when we have the glory of being face to face with the ONE, why would we want it?
- Status