Most of us in the Christian West are not opposed to using flyswatters to, well, swat flies. In fact, swatting flies, smacking mosquitoes, squashing roaches, and gassing wasps are all common behaviors. However, most of us would be horrified to see a driver swerve her car to intentionally run over a stray dog. Why? Assuming, for a moment, that the dog was not someone’s pet (so that the argument doesn’t invoke property rights), why are we upset over someone who kills a dog that’s hovering around them, but not a bug?
Let me first point out that it is not Biblical Christianity that makes the differentiation. The “Creation Mandate” does not distinguish between insects and mammals, humankind has dominion over both. An annoying wild dog is just as much a nuisance as an annoying wild wasp.
As a clue, let me also point out that when we’re saving aquatic life, it is most often dolphins and whales, not fish that we are keen to save.
Dolphins, whales, and dogs, like us, are mammals. On the continuum of the genetic code, they are more like us than, say, hornets are. One thing about mammals: we like each other. It helped us survive when we were tiny rodents in a world of big reptiles. Our genes want to survive, which means, for many mammals, a herd instinct. This is mostly for our own species, but not surprisingly for members of other similar species.
True, mammals eat each other. That’s part of the circle of life, but we also get along rather well. Cats and dogs and horses and even pigs bond better with us than snakes and fish and spiders. Closer relation in the evolutionary tree, rather than anything in the Genesis account, explains this bond.
Well, you might say, dogs and cats are smarter (i.e., more advanced nervous systems) than, say, spiders, so we care more about them because they can suffer more. True, but the Bible is pretty clear that humanity is the special kind of creation that is made in God’s image, all the rest of the creatures are made like each other. The Bible would suggest that dogs, spiders, wasps, and ponies are more like each other than any of them are like us. Evolution would suggest we are closer to, and feel more kinship with, other mammals.
I don't necessarily believe this argument, but it is one of two arguments for naturalism that came to me this weekend. Please feel free to, literally, knock the hell out of this argument! ;-)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Sure, we pick and choose who we devote conservation efforts towards. Dolphins have long been a favorite because of the charm surrounding them. But I would submit that we are kinder to some mammals than to, say, tuna or spiders or reptiles partly because some animals are unusually capable of pleasant interaction with humans, and partly out of a sentiment we've built up. You don't call something "man's best friend" then mow it over with a vehicle. It violates our developed senstivities. However, saying that we're kinder to other mammals because they're related to us evolutionarily is bunk. We run away from bears and we hunt deer. Wild mice, possums, or racoons are "disease-ridden" and distinctly not cute, so we put out poisons for them, or feed them live to our uncuddly pet snakes. And we butcher cattle, which can't bring you your slippers, without much sympathy for their plight. Whether you believe evolution has much or has no merit, the arguement you were presented has quite a number of holes in it.
Have you been reading Dominion??
Penguin, yes, it has holes... so many that I almost didn't post it. I'm still not sure there's not an evolutionary basis for our relationships with other intelligent mammals. "unusually capable of pleasant interaction with humans" sounds (a) like a trait selected for by natural selection, and (b) seems like something that would be more likely for creatures like us... mammals.
You say "it violates our developed sensibilities" and I agree, but why have we developed the sensitivities we've developed? And why have we inured ourselves to the plight of cattle?
Sure, we dislike mice, but Jerry has our sympathies as much as Tom (and there is no successful long-running cartoon about a snake chasing a mouse.)
Personally, I have no idea whether evolution has any merit, or whether the world was created 10 seconds ago with all of our memories in place (which is an argument of Bertrand Russell's that was used in the Matrix to good effect.) I do know that if evolution is true, then it has to be able to explain our interaction with other animals. And maybe utility is a better explanation than relatedness, but I have a hunch that any real evolutionary explanation will involve relatedness somehow...
Anyway, Penguin, thanks for kicking the house of cards.
And no, Lisa, I haven't been reading Dominion?
(And no, I would never mow down a dog. I even brake for squirrels!)
I don't discount evolution, because I have yet to be convinced that it impacts any theology that counts. People say it does, but no one's yet give me a good explanation of how. Anyway, that's a whole new topic.
Humankind has many characteristics that define it apart from other animals - culture being one. It's my belief that human cultures must be taken into consideration in almost any discussion, mainly because it is the lens through which we understand things. The Naturalism arguement you were given doesn't, and attributes human behavior to the evolutionary process alone. That's where it starts to spring leaks. :)
I agree that human cultures are important. The thorough-going naturalist would claim that cultures are part of the evolutionary process (in fact, the strictest naturalist would have to see religion as part of what humanity evolved; whether it has continued survival value or is an evolutionary dead-end I'll let the naturalists decide!)
The problem becomes what do we do with abstractions (like cultures)? Even if they arose originally because of some natural/physical aspect, they take on a type of existence of their own. Democracy exists even after my brain stops being able to think about it.
Further complexifying it all: we can think about our abstractions, giving rise to further abstractions that are further removed from physical reality, but still "real" in the sense of independent existence and impact on other real things (both physical and abstract).
But now we're getting into epistemology and platonism and the status of what I'm calling "abstractions" versus things, and honestly, my head is more in the code monkey frame of mind.
Penguin, you are a credit to your Maker, and I will recommend your boss give you a raise (I think I've still got S----'s address around here somewhere...)
You know the folks at the library here? :)
sure, Steve's a great guy!
Post a Comment