[:en]Science vs. Theology? – Human Psychological Exercise How It Differs From Animal Intuition[:]

[:en]Science vs. Theology? – Human Psychological Exercise How It Differs From Animal Intuition[:]


Robert L Kuhn  

FOR ALMOST 4 full a long time now, Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong has been proclaiming to the world that man isn’t an animal. Mr. Armstrong has repeatedly asserted what the Bible teaches: that the human thoughts is vastly superior to animal mind, having been designed that manner by a Nice Creator God for a transcendental religious objective.
   All through this similar time period, the rising forces of materialism* have been “religiously preaching” exactly the alternative. These “erudite authorities” would have us consider that man is simply an animal and his so-called “thoughts” merely the complicated output of essentially the most superior mammalian mind.

*THE DOGMA OF MATERIALISM proclaims that solely the “bodily” is actual — the attainable existence of nonphysical actuality is categorically rejected. Materialism teaches that “thoughts” is merely the totality (Gestalt) of physiological mind perform. Consequently, “the thoughts” can be simply “the mind”. — and nothing extra. The materialist believes that each one psychic processes are solely the product of multitudinous electro-chemical adjustments within the nervous system. “Thoughts” is due to this fact seen as an epiphenomenona — a secondary phenomenon which doesn’t keep an impartial existence of itself, however is definitely the shadowy by-product of one other, main phenomenon. This being so, the human thoughts can be merely an synthetic categorization or an artifactual extrapolation of the bodily human mind. As a matter of reality, the materialist may effectively condescendingly comment that the time period “thoughts” itself is sort of complicated and fully pointless — having been “invented by primeval man to superstitiously clarify what he couldn’t bodily comprehend.” One semi-sarcastic, however revealing, analogy utilized by the intense representatives of materialism is that “psychological thought is the product of mind perform in the identical manner that urine is the product of kidney perform.”

   Is man an animal? If that’s the case, he has now reached the top of his rope — his “second of reality” has come, his time is almost up. Man is irreversibly bent on self-extermination.
   At the very least it will not be boring. Human ingenuity has concocted a macabre selection of hyper-efficient methods for mass suicide. The job may be accomplished rapidly by nuclear, organic and chemical warfare, or extra subtly by way of overpopulation, famine and air pollution. But man acts oblivious and carefree, merrily clinging to a whimsical host of idealistic “options,” as he conveniently represses historic actuality. Face it. Humanity’s demise certificates is signed and sealed — all that continues to be is to affix the date of demise.
   However is that this logical? Does it make sense? Did “human animals” abruptly materialize on earth out of the equally unfathomable infinities of house and time for the specific objective of busily organizing their very own execution? Is the totality of human historical past only a passing wisp of time, an evanescent twinkling in an unconcerned rush of eternity? Ought to beings who can understand the presence of eternity be denied it — would not that be virtually a self-contradiction? Should we consider that each one mankind has been conjured up merely to be the butt of a sadistic cosmic joke? No matter our explicit opinions could be, one reality stands clear: If man is an animal, he’ll quickly be extinct.
   However is man an animal? Or is there a non-physical — a “religious” — issue in his being?
   Now not can we afford the lackadaisical luxurious of relegating this very important problem to suburban cocktail events, freshman philosophy programs, and the proverbial “bull classes.” Now not can we waste what little time we could have left by taking part in the position of the “cooly7 thinker — exuding airs of pompous aloofness — as if we have been uninvolved bystanders. Now not can we nonchalantly and condescendingly assume that this downside is insoluble. We have now no selection however to think about it.
   We’d like a solution.
   And shortly!

Our Goal

   It’s inside this sobering context that we provide the next presentation. Not as an attention-grabbing examine in psychology. However as a matter of life or demise for humanity.
   Now it’s not our current objective to go into particulars about what instances the human thoughts to be vastly superior to animal mind. Nor are we going to undertake a whole scientific evaluation to show {that a} nonphysical part — a “spirit in man” — does in actual fact exist. (Those that have an interest ought to seek the advice of Mr. Armstrong’s “Private” in the January 1970 problem of The PLAIN TRUTH.)
   Reasonably, we’re going to focus in on one a part of the image. We’re going to ask the materialist’s favourite query — “Is the human thoughts REALLY completely different from animal mind?” — after which proceed to element a scientifically rigorous reply.
   The query is prime. As a result of if the human thoughts isn’t radically, qualitatively and uniquely superior to animal mind, then there may be little hope for the survival of the human species — grew to become the Biblical description would then be in error. And the one manner by which human beings will nonetheless exist by the top of this current century is that if the Bible is true.
   But that is exactly what the materialist appears compelled to assault. He should “show” that the Bible isn’t impressed by a supernatural supply, and that THE HUMAN MIND IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ANIMAL INSTINCT.
   To the layman, this latter declare could sound ludicrous and absurd. It’s not. The materialist — let’s name this representational gentleman “Dr. Materialist” — is ready: He has accomplished his homework, and has some fastidiously reasoned arguments. And regardless that he’s motivated by a pre-packaged ideological bias, we should hear “the nice physician” out. Simply because most individuals — non secular individuals for essentially the most half — intuitively “really feel” that man “should be” distinctive and simply distinguishable from all animals simply doesn’t show the level. The truth is this non secular ignorance, nonetheless honest it may need been, has been the meals by which materialism has been nourished.

What Materialism Propounds

   It’s our duty to current the tenets and arguments of materialism as precisely and as forthrightly as we’re ready. Then, and solely then, can we confidently start to show that materialism is incorrect and that the unrestrained human thoughts is in actual fact totally distinct from the stereotyped animal mind.
   Dr. Materialist clings to a basic axiom: He claims that the psychological (particular person) and sociological (collective) productions of the human thoughts aren’t qualitatively distinct from these of the animal kingdom. We current what a typical “Dr. Materialist argument” may sound like:
   “All of the qualities,” our Dr. Materialist may announce, “usually thought of ‘uniquely human’ are merely the highest manifestations on the current psychological continuum, and are in reality represented in different animals.” (Which is a technically pompous manner of stating the materialistic dogma that human psychological actions aren’t all that completely different from animal psychological actions.)
   The realized physician continues by asking, “Why do these traits seem like ‘uniquely human’?” He solutions his personal query: “Just because they’re distended and exaggerated by the full-range technique of expression accessible to man. In different phrases, all human psychological processes differ from their exact counterparts in animals solely due to man’s capacity to write down, converse, compose and draw — talents which in themselves are simply improved methods of expression, and aren’t, if we care to confess it, restricted to human beings.”
   Dr. Materialist will readily admit that mankind has a phenomenally giant mental and technological functionality — evidenced by the complete scope of twentieth century society. However he vociferously maintains that each one these spectacular accomplishments are literally the product of many generations of collected Data. And he thereby deduces that man’s innate talents aren’t as nice as they first appear.
   Dr. Materialist may select to border his argumentative logic into the next state of affairs:

   “If a bunch of infants one way or the other managed to outlive to maturity in full isolation from the remainder of society, they’d not have the profit of instructional establishments, libraries, guidelines, traditions, legends, and even language. And consequently, the would not get a lot achieved: Reasonably, they’d spend their time scratching their bare our bodies, searching for meals, operating from hearth, grunting, shouting, lusting, mating, beating their chests, and hiding from thunder. These individuals wouldn’t invent airplanes, telephones, weapons, pianos, ballpoint pens, heart-lung machines, razor blades, and even paper cups. They would in all probability &play concern, rage, greed, lust, affection, surprise, awe. However they’d not show a lot of what we’ve got come to know as aesthetic appreciation or mental achievement. Their actions wouldn’t vastly differ from chimps.
   “Man has, nonetheless, managed one necessary distinction from the primates — his capacity to go on data from one technology to a different. Due to this fact [reasons our good materialistic Friend] to match fashionable man with chimp may be most deceptive. It is like evaluating two frogs, one that may leap eight inches and one that may leap ten inches. There’s not a lot actual distinction — however on a stairway of nine-inch steps, one frog will depart the opposite far beneath.” Dr. Materialist concludes by warning that it’s simple to be misled by appearances. We agree.

   Persons are historically misled by virtually something. Particularly non secular individuals. So we should take care to all the time use essentially the most incisive and analytical reasoning procedures. We should keep away from the pitfalls of “conventional faith” simply as absolutely as we need to dissect and destroy the materialistic argument.
   The “two frogs on the steps” analogy epitomizes your complete scope of materialism’s major level. It propounds that the basic distinction between the psychological output of man and the psychological output of animals is deceptively minor. However this minor distinction — in no matter reference system this “minor distinction” exists — exceeds the essential threshold for psychological development.
   The analogy of the “two frogs on the steps” applies right here. It explains how the idea of “threshold” applies to the downside of the connection between human and animal psychological exercise. The frog which may leap solely eight inches can by no means attain even the second (9 inch) step, whereas the opposite frog, which may leap a naked two inches increased, can ultimately climb to the highest of an Empire State Constructing of steps. (9 inches is, on this instance, “the threshold.”) Consequently, a triumphant Dr. Materialist gleefully factors out, if a “non secular observer” got here alongside close to the top of this course of and noticed one frog on the backside of step one, constantly leaping up, hitting its head on the second step and falling again all the way down to step one, after which in contrast this frog with its companion frog who was merrily vaulting step after step on the one hundredth flight of stairs of the constructing, the “spiritually oriented gentleman,” being quite naive, would in all probability come to a quite misguided conclusion. He may effectively postulate that since each frogs have been almost equivalent in construction and performance, the leaping frog, a whole bunch of ft above its fellow frog, “should be vastly superior” — and this “huge superiority should be” as a result of a “nonphysical part.”
   This analogy, sarcastically feedback Dr. Materialist, could seem absurd. And it’s. However, he continues, religionists casually attain simply such an absurd assumption relating to the supposed “unbridgeable hole,” separating the psychological actions of man (the vaulting frog) and chimp (the head-hitting frog). The idea is absurd — naive would maybe be a pleasant phrase — as a result of this idea of “threshold” is neglected. And herein, Dr. Materialist concludes, lies the easy, wholly bodily resolution: The one (man) has exceeded the essential threshold — which is the capability to go on data from one technology to the subsequent — and the opposite (chimp, dolphin, and so forth.) has not. And that is the one distinction between the 2. Not some ethereal “nonphysical part.”
   Such is the “last-gasp” argument of materialism.

The Burden of Proof

   Nonetheless, the onus and burden of proof falls on our shoulders. We should scientifically set up the reality. Nothing lower than rigorous reasoning will likely be tolerated. To start, we evaluate materialism’s details:
   1) The psychological and sociological merchandise of the human thoughts are not qualitatively distinct from these of animal mind.
   2) These psychological actions labeled “uniquely human” are simply the results of improved methods of expression.
   3) Man’s innate psychological talents are not as nice as they first appear — they are simply barely superior to the psychological talents of the upper mammals within the similar method because the human mind is simply barely superior to chimp and dolphin mind.
   4) The easy capability to go on data from one technology to one other has artificially generated the look of an enormous hole between the psychological and sociological outputs of people and animals.
   5) Human psychological exercise is only the refined product of evolving animal intuition.
   However are these statements true? Is human psychological exercise simply quantitatively — and simply barely — superior to animal psychological exercise? Or is the distinction qualitative and basic? IS human psychological exercise purely the refined product of evolving animal intuition? Or is it one thing extra?
   Does there certainly exist an unlimited hole between the person, innate increased psychological talents completely distinctive to human beings and the compulsive, straight-jacketed “increased psychological talents” attribute of all mammals? The eminent author, J. W. N. Sullivan, for example of many, concluded that “an amazing gulf separates even the bottom races of mankind from the best dwelling animals.”
   However can we show it?
   That is our goal.

What’s NOT Distinctive Concerning the Human Thoughts

   We at the moment are able to scientifically and unequivocally show that the human thoughts is essentially and radically completely different from animal intuition. We will accomplish this job by enumerating and detailing — over the subsequent few months — the varied qualities, attributes and proclivities of the person human thoughts which may by no means be initiated or imitated by the animal mind.
   However first, in all equity and completeness, we should current the psychological similarities between the psychological talents of man and animals. As a result of if we’re to efficiently differentiate the human thoughts from animal intuition as a way to show that the bodily human mind alone can’t account for the human thoughts, we should actually differentiate the 2. Not a superficial, self-convincing differentiation — however a actual one.
   The typical individual may effectively assume that “clearly human psychological exercise is vastly superior to animal intuition — people have intelligence whereas animals don’t — why all of the fuss?” Such a simple-minded assumption lends credence to Dr. Materialist’s argument that animal and human thought patterns lie alongside the identical continuum!
   As a result of certainly animals and people each can have “intelligence.” Clearly this assertion is wholly depending on the exact which means of the phrase “intelligence.” And in any fundamental definition, acceptable to the scientific group in common, animals and people simply do NOT differ all that a lot.
   So it turns into our duty now to fastidiously differentiate which traits are shared by animals and people alike, and which traits are the unique property of human beings.
   To start with, ideas like intelligence, reminiscence, thought, sensation, notion, emotion, studying, consciousness, consciousness, persona, conduct, creativeness, communication, and so forth., are all fairly prevalent in animal psychological exercise! Shocking? To not the scientifically astute Dr. Materialist. Positive, he is biased. However he additionally has thought of the issue. Bear in mind the issue is one among semantics — an issue of creating the precise definitions of very complicated and subjective word-concepts.
   Fastidiously be aware that the abovementioned psychological similarities between man and animals have been usually considered distinctive to the human thoughts by uninformed laymen and honest non secular professionals. Now it’s definitely true that these shared psychological qualities imply far more to the human thoughts than they do to the animal mind. After all. However that doesn’t change the fundamental proven fact that each the human thoughts and the animal mind do share these qualities. Due to this fact, it’s logically inconceivable for these psychological attributes to be used to distinguish the human thoughts from animal mind, and to allow them to by no means set up the necessity for a nonphysical part within the human thoughts to clarify this distinction.
   Regarding “intelligence,” for instance, we learn from J. W. N. Sullivan’s traditional e book The Limitations of Science a brief demonstration which proves that it’s a semantic error to immediately and categorically attribute “intelligence” to people, and solely “intuition” to animals:

   If we outline intelligence because the capability to change behaviour efficiently in face of latest conditions, then it’s a matter of widespread information that some creatures are extra clever than others. Sure theorists, it is true, have maintained that each one animals are automata, and due to this fact have nothing that may correctly be known as intelligence in any respect. It’s inconceivable to refute this concept by statement, since we’ve got no direct entry to the minds of animals. However then we’ve got no direct entry to any thoughts however our personal. We attribute minds to different human beings on the power of their behaviour, and we’re justified in making use of the identical inference to animal behaviour.
   Precise experiment reveals that animals differ very significantly of their capability to be taught by expertise. A widespread check is to provide an animal two paths to select from, one among which results in meals whereas the opposite doesn’t. A creature of human intelligence, having as soon as hit on the profitable path, would follow it. However such a creature as a frog, for instance, appears virtually incapable of profiting by its previous successes. Very affected person experimentalists have discovered, nonetheless, that even a frog can be taught. Certainly, it can’t be undoubtedly said that any animal is altogether incapable of studying. On this floor alone, due to this fact, we shouldn’t be justified in saying that any animal’s intelligence was radically completely different from our personal [as some religionists would like to maintain in order to bolster their own shaky theories]. With the upper organisms, notably the good apes, we’ve got proof of psychological processes akin to the human. Such extremely developed creatures as orangs and chimpanzees, confronted by a brand new scenario, have been identified to make right inferences for coping with it, primarily based on previous expertise, as through the use of a stick to attract in meals in any other case out of attain, or by piling containers on one one other and mounting them as a way to attain meals suspended from the roof.
   [The naive anti-materialist might then shift his approach and state that animal intelligence is the result of trial-and-error chance efforts while human intelligence is based on “rational and intuitive cognition.” Again — false.]
   Sure performances, even of the increased apes, can’t be accounted for by a trial-and-error course of. Kohler’s well-known experiments on chimpanzees make this fairly clear. He offers a number of situations of clever behaviour on their half that are definitely not situations of trial and error. Considered one of the very best identified is the place the ape Sultan is supplied with two bamboo canes with which he tries to attract fruit into his cage. Having discovered that every of those canes was too quick for the aim, Sultan had a interval of silent thought. He discovered, maybe by chance, that one finish of one cane might be fitted into one finish of the opposite. Straight after he found this, he realized that he had the answer of his downside and instantly utilized the lengthened cane he thus obtained to attract in his meals. Kohler, talking of his experiments, usually, says:
   “It’s definitely not a attribute of a chimpanzee, when he’s introduced into an experimental scenario, to make any likelihood actions, out of which amongst different issues, a non-genuine resolution may come up. He’s very seldom seen to aim something which must be thought of unintended in relation to the scenario (excepting, after all, if his curiosity is turned away from the goal to different issues). As lengthy as his efforts are directed to the goal, all distinguishable levels of his behaviour (as with human beings in related conditions) have a tendency to look as full makes an attempt at options, none of which seems because the product of by chance arrayed elements. That is true, most of all, of the answer which is lastly profitable. Definitely it typically follows upon a interval of perplexity or quiet (typically a interval of survey), however in actual and convincing instances the answer by no means seems in a dysfunction of blind impulses. It’s one steady easy motion, which may be resolved into its elements solely by creativeness of the onlooker; in actuality they don’t seem independently. However that in so many ‘real’ instances as have been described, their options as wholes ought to have arisen from mere likelihood, is a completely inadmissible supposition.”

   Clearly, to attempt to use “intelligence” in any try and show that the human thoughts is vastly superior to animal intuition would solely undermine our whole case. Consequently, we should proceed to show and discard these qualities of the human thoughts that are really qualities of the animal mind. We should be circumspect in our evaluation. We should not enable (what we hope to be) our conclusion to affect our reasoning procedures. We should not be biased. We should be rigorous in our logic.

Reminiscence, Persona and Consciousness

   These three qualities of psychological exercise are fully defined by the bodily mind alone. That is the place of Dr. Materialist. And, as common, the religionist finds himself on the different aspect of the fence, vehemently disputing this rivalry.
   What about it? Are reminiscence, persona and consciousness distinctive attributes of the human thoughts? Or are they discovered within the animal kingdom? Once more, it depends upon the precise definition of these word-concepts. As a result of, for one, Dr. Materialist claims to have developed a man-made system of electromechanical mechanisms — nuts and bolts and transistors and wires — which can simulate reminiscence, persona and consciousness. And he’s proper! He can do exactly that — relying, after all, on how the phrases are outlined.
   And if a pc can do that, how far more the dwelling animal mind! Reminiscence? Persona? Consciousness? Nothing right here distinctive to the human thoughts.
   The place does this depart the standard religionist? In hassle,
   What about us? We reject the simple-minded method of these well-intentioned religionists who aren’t conscious of present scientific methodology. However we don’t reject their conclusion. We assist it. The human thoughts is radically completely different from animal mind. God designed it that manner. The Bible confirms it. And we’re going to show it! Moreover, we’re going to use present scientific methodology.
   All proper — we’ve got seen examples of what can’t differentiate animals and people. Now what CAN?

The Uniqueness of the Human Thoughts

   Is human psychological exercise merely “the highest manifestation on the current psychological continuum” — solely the refined product of evolving animal intuition? That is the crux of Dr. Materialism’s argument in opposition to a non-physical part within the human thoughts.
   It’s now time to show what may solely be said — with out proof — in the previous: That the uniquely unrestrained human thoughts IS unequivocally distinct and irrevocably dissociated from the instinctively computerized animal mind.
   Dr. Materialist waits — he is aware of we can’t use intelligence, reminiscence, conduct, consciousness, and so forth. What else is there?
   What in regards to the attributes listed in the field on the left?
   The adjoining checklist means nothing of itself. Over the subsequent few months we’ll publish a short however complete evaluation of every of the enumerated areas. This is not going to be simple as a result of all of those ideas and classes are topic to as many “interpretations” as there are minds to learn them. Why? A part of the issue is semantics: What do these often-repeated and much-abused phrases actually imply? The opposite a part of the issue is preconceived concepts: What’s the explicit bias of the person evaluator?
   Dr. Materialist, fairly naturally, will rapidly decide his handy description and understanding in order that he can simply as rapidly “show” that the human thoughts is not distinctive as a result of “animals inherently exhibit all these traits to at least one diploma or one other.”
   Which means that once more the burden of proof falls on our shoulders. We should outline and look at — intimately — the above-mentioned traits to first uncover precisely what we imply by every one among them after which to display why the human thoughts has it and why the animal mind doesn’t.
   Most of the areas will overlap. Do not let that trouble you. Contemplate every as a distinctly particular person expression of the uniqueness of the human thoughts. However do not simply agree with us. Take into consideration what we are saying. That is critical enterprise.
   Severe as a result of the Bible dogmatically proclaims that Almighty God created the human thoughts to be distinctive — in a category by itself — with a non-physical part for an amazing objective — with a “spirit in man” — in a common plan — for a religious future transcending our imaginations.
   Man isn’t an animal.
   However make us show it.


Idea of humor

Appreciation of magnificence

Feeling of ecstasy


Consciousness of demise

Compulsion to suppose within the sphere of time — earlier than and past his personal private life

Capability to make summary manipulations

Capability for mathematical thought

Comprehension of the connection between phrases

Capability for historic communication


Management of his emotion

Groping aspiration to increased ranges

Seek for which means in your complete universe

Seek for which means in human life as a complete

Seek for which means in his personal private life

Seek for the which means of struggling

Seek for a which means in intercourse

Household life and little one rearing


In concord with nature

Have to work

Need to barter and change

Want for change and selection

Summary ethical sense

Free will

Capability to conceive of self-sacrifice and to commit suicide

Capability for knowledge

Obsession for worship

Quest for an final objective

Final capability for love

Source link


Share This


Wordpress (0)
Disqus ( )