Are humans more important than fish?

[Vagabond]

It seems to me that the evolution of humans as social animals and the (much more recent and rapid) evolution of human societies has led to certain behavioural traits......... properties of the kinds of human society which succeed in perpetuating themselves.

 

One of the interesting things about "evolution" is that it seems to be a universal law, not just confined to Darwin's findings.

 

Find anything that replicates a process - even a human skill handed down from master to apprentice, such as boatbuilding, ploughing, design of steam locomotives, etc etc, and you will find that different environmental pressures will over a period of time produce different designs. Boats for rocky coasts as opposed to those for lagoonal ones, ploughs for clay soils as opposed to those for sandy areas, and so on. That may sound simplistic, but detailed study of design of any artefact will show branches, trends and even extinctions in exactly the same way as a phylogenetic "tree" (or bush as Cory points out)

 

Here you are applying the same principle to human societies, and their behaviour. It would explain (amongst other things) the rise of the career politician as a creature best adapted to the environment it finds itself in.

 

Probably time to consider a corollary of evolutionary theory. If two organisms compete for exactly the same ecological niche, then in the end one of them will extinguish the other.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Vagabond

[The Flying Tench]

Do they try to reconcile that belief with the passage in Genesis about having dominion over "the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth"?

I don't know, but it's certainly true, as you suggest, that those early chapters in Genesis are important for most christians in arguing that humans are a 'higher' creature in some sense than other animals, but with a repsonsibility to look after the creation.

[corydoras]

...but with a repsonsibility to look after the creation.

Stewardship in other words, not the right to destroy His creation.

[Vagabond]

our minister said that it was just a bad translation from the original texts.

 

Ah, that old chestnut. The lunatic fringe religious sect that my parents belonged to were always on about how badly the bible had been translated from the original - whenever it didn't quite fit their narrow beliefs.

 

Funny thing is, that neither they, nor their local "ministers", nor their head honcho could speak or write a single word of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek !

[The Flying Tench]

Steve, could you tell that to the eco-worriers?

 

 

My "moral authority" is to do what I think is right at the time. A sort of "do-as-you-would-be-done-by" for readers of The Water Babies.

 

That is qualified by a sense of priorities - by which I mean two sets -

 

1. a diminishing priority as you move away from me and my family, (which probably applies to everyone if they are honest) and

 

2. the balanced priorities between short and long term (Is it OK to eat this fish now to satisfy my immediate hunger, or should I fast until tomorrow and return the fish because its part of the breeding stock?)

 

Yes, it all might well be conditioned by the social organisation I grew up in, but I always trust my own gut feeling rather than a set of rules, and certainly rather than what somebody else may think.

 

Dave, am I understanding you correctly? You're saying that you trust your gut as to what is right, but I think you said earlier that you don't believe in right and wrong in any ultimate or objective sense anyway. So aren't you simply defining right as what you feel in your gut? There is no objective standard against which you could be judged as being wrong.

 

But what happens if someone you respect sees things differently? Let us take the gay issue as an example. They say that their gut tells them it's wrong, your gut tells you it's right. (Or the other way round, or some other issue). Would there be nothing you could say to them as it's all in the gut?

 

Stewardship in other words, not the right to destroy His creation.

Absolutely, Cory.

[Vagabond]

do animals think as in the human musing way? i'v often wondered what a pigeon is thinking sitting on a wire

 

Yeh, me too, especially with dogs. Abbie (the most "intelligent" Border Collie I have ever come across) understood the rules of soccer even when seen on television.

 

She would bark for a foul BEFORE the ref's whistle went, and go berserk when a goal was scored.

 

She never quite understood the concept of action replays though, and thought (and celebrated accordingly) Michael Owen scored nine goals when England beat Germany 15-0

[The Flying Tench]

I think the honest answer from me is that I don't believe there is any moral authority, only power derived from social organisation.

 

So in your example, I believe that we would be justified in intervening - but it's a judgement rather than an absolute principle.

 

(Excuse me deleting most of what you said apart from the bits I want to refer to)

 

So you are saying that you get your morals from the social organisation of this country, and the people who believe in killing babies (or animals etc) get their moral authority from their country, tribe etc. So am I right in thinking neither has any basis for saying they are objectively right, so presumably neither is truer than the other.

 

I'm missing something. What is your basis for intervening?

[Vagabond]

I think you said earlier that you don't believe in right and wrong in any ultimate or objective sense anyway.

No, it was Steve said that.

 

So aren't you simply defining right as what you feel in your gut? There is no objective standard against which you could be judged as being wrong.

Yes, I define right as what I think is right - as for judgement - I really don't care very much if someone else thinks I am wrong - unless or until they have a rational argument as to why I am wrong (rarely happens )

 

But what happens if someone you respect sees things differently?

So what. They are entitled to their opinion, UNLESS they try and force that opinion upon me - if that happened there would not be any respect on my part.

[Leon Roskilly]

Dave, am I understanding you correctly? You're saying that you trust your gut as to what is right, but I think you said earlier that you don't believe in right and wrong in any ultimate or objective sense anyway. So aren't you simply defining right as what you feel in your gut? There is no objective standard against which you could be judged as being wrong.

 

But what happens if someone you respect sees things differently? Let us take the gay issue as an example. They say that their gut tells them it's wrong, your gut tells you it's right. (Or the other way round, or some other issue). Would there be nothing you could say to them as it's all in the gut?

 

 

"Receive the vocal ministry of others in a tender and creative spirit. Reach for the meaning deep within it, recognising that even if it is not God's word for you, it may be so for others".

 

"Each of us has a particular experience of God and each must find the way to be true to it.

 

When words are strange or disturbing to you, try to sense where they come from and what has nourished the lives of others.

 

Listen patiently and seek the truth which other people's opinions may contain for you.

 

Avoid hurtful criticism and provocative language.

 

Do not allow the strength of your convictions to betray you into making statements or allegations that are unfair or untrue.

 

Think it possible that you may be mistaken."

 

"Respect the wide diversity among us in our lives and relationships. Refrain from making prejudiced judgments about the life journeys of others.

 

Do you foster the spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness which our discipleship asks of us?

 

Remember that each one of us is unique, precious, a child of God."

 

 

"We do not own the world, and its riches are not ours to dispose of at will. Show a loving consideration for all creatures, and seek to maintain the beauty and variety of the world. Work to ensure that our increasing power over nature is used responsibly, with reverence for life. Rejoice in the splendour of God’s continuing creation."

 

 

 

(Advices and Queries)

Edited January 20, 2010 by Leon Roskilly

[chesters1]

ignore others opinions and find out for yourself is better within reason.

not sure how many christians there are in the world but i presume when someone said there is a god they all said "fair enough it suits me" and couldnt be bothered to find out themselves if there was , perhaps the word "Flock" is an insult used by ministers to describe the silly sheep they minister upon?

Edited January 20, 2010 by chesters1