“The animal creation is captive to matter, God has given freedom to man. The animal cannot escape the law of nature, whereas man may control it, for he, containing nature, can rise above it.”
`Abdu’l-Bahá
Apr 23, 2012. Humans and animals clearly differ.
Is the difference merely one of degree, as Darwin believed? Or are humans and animals distinctly different?
Above the laws of nature
The Baha’i Faith embrace the latter view, as do the world’s major religions. It does so in a very interesting and illuminating way:
Humans, the Bahá’i Faith teaches, possess reason and intellect and can control the laws of nature, whereas animals are confined by nature.
Below we considering the human ability to master nature – and some of its implications. We have – according to the Bahá’i perspective – “supernatural” abilities!
First, let’s consider what nature is.
The Nature of Nature
There are several meanings to the noun nature. One meaning, according to Wikipedia, is the physical universe:
Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. “Nature” refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.
Another two, Wikipedia tells us, are philosophical:
Nature is a concept with two major sets of inter-related meanings, referring on the one hand to the things which are natural, or subject to the normal working of “laws of nature”, or on the other hand to the essential properties and causes of those things to be what they naturally are, or in other words the laws of nature themselves.
A related word, important to discussions about nature, is the term naturalism (for interesting discussions about naturalism, see articles on the topic by Steven Schafersman and Keith Augustine).
Metaphysical naturalism – as opposed to the ordinary naturalism of the physical sciences – holds that everything is a natural phenomena:
… the view that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature” (Robert Audi, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1984, p. 372)
… the view that everything is natural, i.e. that everything there is belongs to the world of nature, and so can be studied by the methods appropriate for studying that world. (Alan Lacey, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, 1995, p. 604)
This view is overturned if – as the Bahá’i Writings indicate – the human intellect has powers that control and transcend nature.
A Bahá’i Definition of Nature
Laura Dreyfus-Barney
A Baha’i definition of nature is given in Some Answered Questions, a remarkable book compiled by Laura Dreyfus-Barney (1879-1974), the prominent French-American philanthropist, sculptor, and recipient of chevalier and officier rank of the French Légion d’Honneur. It records Dreyfus-Barney’s talks over several years with `Abdu’l-Bahá – the son of the Bahá’u'lláh, the prophet-founder of the Baha’i Faith.
In the first chapter – entitled Nature is Governed by One Universal Law -`Abdu’l-Bahá defines nature:
Nature is that condition, that reality, which in appearance consists in life and death, or, in other words, in the composition and decomposition of all things. This Nature is subjected to an absolute organization, to determined laws, to a complete order and a finished design, from which it will never depart …
`Abdu’l-Bahá’s definition of nature is the nature of modern science – of modern physics, chemistry, astrophysics, biology. and evolutionary theory. But nature lacks intelligence:
… when you look at Nature itself, you see that it has no intelligence, no will. For instance, the nature of fire is to burn; it burns without will or intelligence. The nature of water is fluidity; it flows without will or intelligence. … Thus it is clear that the natural movements of all things are compelled; there are no voluntary movements except those of animals and, above all, those of man.
We possess intelligence, thus we have a capability that nature lacks:
Man possesses conscious intelligence and reflection; nature does not. … Man can seek out the mysteries latent in nature, whereas nature is not conscious of her own hidden phenomena. … Man is endowed with ideal virtues – for example, intellection, volition, faith, confession and acknowledgment of God – while nature is devoid of all these.
The ideal faculties of man, including the capacity for scientific acquisition, are beyond nature’s ken. These are powers whereby man is differentiated and distinguished from all other forms of life.
The upshot of all of this is that there is a clear distinction between our world and the world of nature. We have the power of intelligence and science, and nature doesn’t. We have the ability to learn in ways that, although prefigured in the animal world, far transcend it.
Edward O. Wilson – no lover of religion – shares this point of view, although he expresses it in a different way. In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012, p. 192) he notes that human nature
“is obvious through its manifestation in everyday life. Its intuitive expression is the substance of the creative arts and the underpinning of the social sciences [although the] very existence of human nature was denied during the last century by most social scientists.”
But, human nature is not
“the genes underlying it. They prescribe the developmental rules of the brain, sensory system, and behavior that produce human nature. Nor can the universals of culture discovered by anthropologists be defined collectively as human nature.”
Rather
“[h]uman nature is the inherited regularities of mental development common to our species. They are the “epigenetic rules,” which evolved by the interaction of genetic and cultural evolution that occurred over a long period of prehistory.”
Wilson’s epigenetic rules, although hardwired in, are the basis for learning, not innate behaviors. In other words, humans are hardwired to learn. And what we can learn allows us unprecedented control over nature.
Nature and the Supernatural
If we have powers that transcend nature – if our intellect gives us the ability to control nature – doesn’t that mean we have abilities that are supernatural? Supernatural – of course – means “above nature” from the Latin “supra” meaning “above”.
`Abdu’l-Bahá tells us that this indeed is the case:
All the powers and attributes of man are human and hereditary in origin — outcomes of nature’s processes — except the intellect, which is supernatural.
Through intellectual and intelligent inquiry science is the discoverer of all things. It unites present and past, reveals the history of bygone nations and events, and confers upon man today the essence of all human knowledge and attainment throughout the ages. By intellectual processes and logical deductions of reason this superpower in man can penetrate the mysteries of the future and anticipate its happenings.
And how should we use these supernatural powers? Speaking at the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in Washington, DC in the segregated American South on the 23rd of April in 1912, `Abdu’l-Bahá gave the following answer:
How shall we utilize these gifts and expend these bounties? By directing our efforts toward the unification of the human race. We must use these powers in establishing the oneness of the world of humanity, appreciate these virtues by accomplishing the unity of whites and blacks, devote this divine intelligence to the perfecting of amity and accord among all branches of the human family so that under the protection and providence of God the East and West may hold each other’s hands and become as lovers. Then will mankind be as one nation, one race and kind — as waves of one ocean.
Next Week
Next week, we will revisit the topic of what it means to be human, addressing issues raised by materialistic interpretations of evolution and science that insist – without any scientific authority – that there are no higher goals than to be an intelligent animal.
…………………………
This is the 11th in a series of blogs on evolution and religion. The author, Stephen Friberg, is a Bahá’í living in Mountain View, California. A research physicist by training, he authored Religion and Evolution Reconciled: ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s Comments on Evolution with Courosh Mehanian. He worked at NTT in Japan before joining the semiconductor industry in Silicon Valley.
11 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Melissa Trible
June 1, 2012 at 2:43 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Something to consider…
there are several animals that may be roughly as intelligent as we are (the list I’m aware of: dolphins, most of the great apes, parrots, and elephants, corvids (crows and ravens) may be up there, too). At least 2 critters on that list are known tool-users, at least 2 have learned human languages, all have complex social interactions, all have shown significant reasoning and problem-solving skills, and so on. Though there may be a difference of kind rather than merely degree between “person” and “animal”, it is… not very likely that the line of “person” stops at “member of H. sapiens”…
I think it’s more reasonable to say that it is a difference in degree that is large enough to act like a difference in kind. Like, to make a rather gruesome example, the difference between dropping a BB on your head and dropping a 2400-lb wrecking ball on your head. The first is harmless, the second is lethal, constituting a difference of kind… but there’s not a magic line where you can say “it’s harmless up to here, it’s lethal thereafter”… Most animals have low enough intelligence that they are pretty much purely subject to the laws of nature. At least one known animal (us) is clearly intelligent enough to direct its fate. But several other animals are, if not on the same side of the line as us, at least close enough that we cannot entirely say “these animals are entirely subject to the laws of nature”…
Stephen Friberg
June 1, 2012 at 4:42 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hi Melissa:
You wrote:
Charley, our dog, can be very clear to us about what he wants to do. He communicates it very effectively. Migrating animals – birds, butterflies, whales, and others – build stunningly effective maps of the world that may exceed our capabilities. But for all of this, these critters don’t build airplanes, text during meetings on their iPhones, or build guided missiles. We do.
So where do you draw the line? The qualities that we have – or can have, they are not automatic – are so dramatically different and the gap between us and even the most intelligent animal are so big that it is hard to avoid concluding that we are distinct.
But, it might be that the line is different for different disciplines. For medicine, of course, the line is at a different place and we are on the same side of the line as many of the animals, often to their detriment if we think of guinea pigs. But, for social, moral, educational, legal, and a host of other purposes, it strikes me that drawing the line as you do doesn’t necessarily disadvantage us, but it doesn’t clearly explain things either.
What do you think? Does this make sense?
Melissa Trible
June 3, 2012 at 12:51 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I think to some extent, we are… over-enamored of our things. I’m reminded of a line from one of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy books (by Douglas Adams): “Man has always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much…the wheel, New York, wars and so on…while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man…for precisely the same reason.”
Dogs are fairly bright animals, and because of the way we domesticated them they seem smarter to us than a lot of other animals, because their smarts are people-oriented. (for example, dogs can pass an intelligence test–figuring out that pointing=the hidden thing you want is over there–that chimps usually can’t, and iirc human infants sometimes have trouble with) But the animals I listed may, in fact, genuinely be as smart as we are, and the only reason we can’t tell is that they live in circumstances that don’t lend themselves to inventing the wheel, New York, wars, and so on. But, would you say you are categorically smarter than, say, a traditional Bushman hunting animals with hand-made spears? Or do you just have better *stuff*? It may be that the difference between us and dolphins or chimps is more like the difference between us and Bushmen than the difference between us and dogs.
I’m not saying I’m sure. I’m just saying that… the morally relevant definition is “person” rather than “human”, and we may not be the only species on this planet (and we almost certainly aren’t the only species in the universe) on the “person” side of the line. Also, that there are at least some species who are close enough to make the “person” line… a little more fuzzy than we might like. And I firmly believe that at least one basic human right–the right not to be killed without reasonable cause–should be extended to any species that *might* be on, or at least very near, the “people” line.
Melissa Trible
June 3, 2012 at 12:52 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Correction: handmade bow and arrow. It looks like the Bushmen did/do most of their hunting with poisoned arrows.
Maya Bohnhoff
June 3, 2012 at 7:27 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
To me, it’s not the things that are really the point but the qualities and faculties we have that have led to their invention—faculties other animals do not possess. I once had someone argue that cheetahs were superior to humans in some ways because they could run much faster. “A human,” he said, “would have to drive a car to be able to go that fast.”
Indeed. But before that human could drive that car, someone would have to first conceive of the concept of a car—an object that did not exist anywhere in nature—and then conceive of each of the individual systems necessary to create such a vehicle, conceive of the way in which those system would have to work together to create the car, then devise a means of giving it motive power. Our nearest relatives on the evolutionary tree, meanwhile, are using sticks to prod ants out of logs.
To me, the line is not so fuzzy: After millions of years of evolution, humans are the only creatures in our niche. We are the only creatures on a planet teeming with life forms that have developed as we have, that conceive of what we have never seen, then bring into reality to solve a perceived problem, or to give us a talent we do not naturally possess (such as the speed of a cheetah). As a Baha’i, I believe the reason for this is that we have been endowed with what Baha’u'llah called the “rational soul”.
This does not, IMO, give us the right to kill other animals without reasonable cause or to otherwise treat them as if they were expendable. But I’d draw your attention to the fact that while we argue whether other animals are equal to humans as “persons” we do not hold them to the same standards of morality that we hold human persons to. Even at the most basic concept that it’s wrong to kill, we do not hold animals responsible before the law if they kill another animal’s young, for example. We may react with sorrow or even anger, but we do not arrest the animal (even a fellow ape) and put him on trial. We do not recognize other crimes among animals either—rape, theft, assault, etc. nor do I know any animal rights activists (even the most outspoken) who would suggest that we do.
That sword cuts both ways, of course. We actively overlook other animals’ behavior—for example, their eating of other animals. I had a philosophy professor in college who made a point of being vegetarian because it was morally wrong for us to eat other animals. Yet, he Idolized the “noble puma” who was, unlike humanity, “part of nature.” That was our problem, he theorized. That we had separated ourselves from nature. I thought about that for a moment then raised my hand and asked him if he knew of any vegetarian pumas. To his credit, I think he saw the irony in him venerating an animal that regularly indulged in behavior he found objectionable in his fellow human beings, meanwhile criticizing humans for not living in a more “natural” condition.
Watch animals for a while and try to imagine what the world might be like if people really did behave in that way. We do not hold animals to account for that behavior, however savage it is. Nor do we consider it wrong or sinful or immoral. Would we benefit if we either extended that absolution to humans or conversely held animals to account?
Melissa Trible
June 6, 2012 at 12:16 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Well, the thing is… we generally don’t arrest people in other countries for committing rape, murder, etc. either. I kind of see our possible fellow sapients as… well, much the same way I’d view an alien who came here from another planet, as far as applying our laws and moral codes. If we cannot communicate well enough to come to any sort of agreement about what codes of behavior they should be held to, then we cannot reasonably expect them to follow the codes of behavior we want them to. Instead, as with the citizens of another actual physical country (who are in said actual physical country, at least), we must leave them to tend to their own criminals and sinners. And, in at least some cases, they *do*. When there were a bunch of younger male elephants with no older males around, they were destructive and obnoxious. When some older males were re-introduced, the older males kept the younger males in line…
And part of why I think the line is, at least, not *quite* so clear-cut as we might think is we’ve seen a lot of behaviors that… are a lot like what our earliest forays into tool use, et cetera must have been like. We’ve seen sequential tool use in crows (crows using one tool to retrieve a second tool, which they use to retrieve a third tool, which they use to actually retrieve the food). I believe we’ve seen both crows and chimps improve tools. I believe we’ve seen behaviors in elephants that seem an awful lot like true language. It may well be that the only reason one of those other species hasn’t become a dominant tool-user like we are is *because* we’re pretty well taking up the “dominant tool user” niche, and they can’t get enough resources to advance any further.
Maya Bohnhoff
June 7, 2012 at 12:32 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I think you just moved the bar on our definition of the word “we” from “we humans” to “we humans living in X country”. I honestly think the geographical metaphor is a red herring, but let’s explore it for a moment.
Though we can SAY we don’t hold humans living in other countries to certain codes of conduct, in fact, we do. That’s what the World Court and United Nations is about, really. The belief that humans should behave toward each other in certain ways informs every nation’s foreign policy.
BUT most of the animals with which we come in contact are not living in other countries. They are living in our homes, on our farms, in our zoos and barns. When you take your dog for a walk, you might be upset if it got into a fight with another dog. You might be horrified if it jumped on a small child, stole his hotdog and knocked him down. But your dog would not end up in jail for assault in either case. (Though you might be rebuked for your poor stewardship of your animal.) You may take your dog to obedience school, in fact, to teach it “ethics” that will allow it to get along in human society without offending or harming anyone, but you do not expect that dog to understand WHY it is being required not to jump up on a child and take his hotdog. You simply want it to learn not to do that.
A child, on the other hand—even a toddler—you teach the same thing: don’t steal. But you expect that child to understand for himself WHY stealing is wrong. You want him to empathize with the possible victim of his crime. You want him to take the Golden Rule (“…if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbor that which thou choosest for thyself.”— Baha’u'llah, Words of Paradise) to heart. You would not, I think, expect any animal to do so because no animal—no matter how much education it received—would be able to contemplate the words as a human can. Animals and humans both do some things instinctively (like behave differently in the presence of more powerful animals), but only humans have the rational (and spiritual) faculties necessary to look beyond instinct for a deeper meaning behind the behavior or consider ways to change it.
Again, when I consider this fact (among others) in context with the millions of years of evolution—not just of humans, but of far, far older lifeforms—I can come to no other conclusion than that there is a fundamental difference between humans and other animals. We recognize it tacitly in so many ways, I find it puzzling that we still consider it a matter for debate.
Melissa Trible
June 8, 2012 at 11:05 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
What I’m talking about here? Doesn’t apply to dogs. At least, probably not. Dogs are bright animals, but I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting that they are sophonts. What I’m saying here is, if there’s a line between “person” and “mere beast”, we may very well not be the only ones on the “person” side living on this planet. And the fact that we’re not sure which side of the line these specific critters are on suggests that the line may not be quite as definitive and clear-cut as we might think. Or, in other words, humans may not be *quite* as unique as we think we are.
Let me give you an analogy. There are fundamental differences between an infant and an adult. There are behaviors that are acceptable for infants but not allowed for adults, and vice versa. There are many things adults can do that infants can’t. No one in their right mind would try to claim that a newborn baby is exactly like a grownup, or would mistake an infant for an adult. And we have a legal line that distinguishes between a child and an adult… but a child doesn’t magically become significantly more mature when he or she reaches 18.
Now, most animals are pretty clearly not people. Just like no one would mistake a newborn baby for an adult. And there’s even a line (puberty) that serves as a tolerably good separation between child and adult (ish), in a biological sense. But can you honestly look at someone and know, for sure, whether or not they’re over 18? Sometimes, it’s a little hard to tell whether someone’s hit puberty yet, even (because puberty is a fuzzy range, not a hard-and-fast line).
For most animals? There is a fundamental difference between them and us. We are reasoning beings, and they are not. But chimps, dolphins, elephants? They may *also* be reasoning beings, in much the same way that we are. And since intelligence is obviously a gradient (just as age or physical maturity is a gradient), sapience, like puberty, may be a fuzzy line that it is possible to be sort of on, rather than a quality that is inherently separate from or composed of different components than the intelligence that most vertebrates possess to at least *some* degree.
I’m not sure how well I’m explaining myself here, but hopefully some of what I’m trying to say is getting through.
Maya Bohnhoff
June 11, 2012 at 3:02 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The problem with “unique” as an attribute is that it’s a one or a zero. Something cannot be more unique than another thing. It is either unique or not. And humans are, indeed, unique. The conversation we’re having and the means we’re using to have it is evidence (I’d even go so far as to say proof) of that.
Given the history of humankind—especially the recorded history, and given that we are far from the oldest life form on the globe, I don’t see that the line is fuzzy at all. Humans have a recorded history. No other hominid does. Humans have not just one but a number of extremely complex languages. No other hominids do. Humans are capable of completely conceptual (that is, abstract) ideation. No other hominids do.
Any way you cut it, that’s neither a gradient, nor a fuzzy line. Intelligence may be a gradient within a specific range of parameters or context. What we are trying to convey is that the range and context for humans is qualitatively different. Even a human toddler would not be mistaken intellectually for a bonobo of the same relative age because the context and starting parameters are different. The range of achievement of our closest relative in the animal “kingdom” is in a completely different scale than even the meanest range of human achievement. In short, we simply expect more of ourselves, but perversely, we don’t seem to realize it.
What Syed conveys is the reason for this qualitative difference. Humans have a “something extra” that differentiates them from the animal. Baha’u'llah refers to this as the rational soul. It is, in essence, what makes us human and determines the additional uses to which we can—if we wish—put our intellect. It is, indeed, what makes us consider the comfort and welfare of other beings—both human and animal.
Granted there are human beings who live just this side of the animal human divide. Some who even pride themselves in their animal qualities—strength, virility, physical beauty, sexual prowess, etc.. I don’t, personally, accept that as living human life to the fullest—which is another reason it seems clear to me that humans are not just animals. The highest goals of an animal’s life—even a very intelligent animal—are not comparable to a human’s.
Syed
June 9, 2012 at 2:25 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Sorry Melissa, but it is Baha’i belief animals and humans are in different and separate kingdoms and only humans are rational and intelligent because we have a supernatural soul created by God. No amount of “science” or reasoning can trump Divine revelation:
When we look upon the human kingdom we readily observe that it is superior to all others. In the differentiation of life in the world of existence, there are four degrees or kingdoms, — the mineral, vegetable, animal, and human. (Abdu’l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 90)
Baha’is don’t believe in the made up classifications of Darwin and false science. Read the earlier Evolution, Science, and Religion 8: No, Humans are Not Animals. Too many people are brainwashed by Darwinism and Western secularism. It was only Darwin’s opinion humans are animals because he thought humans evolved from animals. Humans did not come from soulless creatures! We were created separately.
“We have now come to the question of the modification of species and of organic development — that is to say, to the point of inquiring whether man’s descent is from the animal. This theory has found credence in the minds of some European philosophers, and it is now very difficult to make its falseness understood, but in the future it will become evident and clear, and the European philosophers will themselves realize its untruth. For, verily, it is an evident error.” (Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 175)
True science and Divine revelation tell us the kingdoms of Aristotle and religion are the only real ones and they are mineral, plant, animal, and human. Divine revelation defines what lines separate kingdoms. “God doeth whatsoever He pleaseth.” (Baha’u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 76)
Stephen Friberg
June 9, 2012 at 10:54 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hi Melissa: I really appreciate your comments. As you know, many people don’t see a hard and fast line between humans and animals. And there are solid reasons for avoiding arbitrary assumptions that want to draw such lines, chief among which is that they deny our close kinship.
My thinking – which is animated by the science and religion perspective of the blog – is that when we have a broad perspective that takes into account a number of different factors -especially empirical ones (i.e., what see around us), we see a natural distinction. Ideally, it would take the form of a table which would look something like the following, but fancier.
Attribute Humans Animals Comments
- Biology – similar – similar – certain animals (hominids) and humans are closely similar
- Memory – similar, but language, concepts, and ideas
– often better memory for spatial arrangements, smells, geography, directions
– human memory includes languages, concepts, writing etc.
There would be lots of entries like this. For example, humans have religion and have constructed places of worship, animals, even if they do have religions, haven’t constructed churches, etc.
One of the things that would jump out immediately from a table like this is that while animals – or advanced animals like dolphins – might have high intellectual horsepower, they haven’t parlayed it into the kind of visible and obvious infrastructure that we create. The empirically evident side to their ability to affect the world just isn’t of the same degree as is ours. So, for example, wolves will prepare dens and bird will prepare nests, but they don’t build vast planned cities. And in particular, animals except when trained by humans, don’t have large vocabularies.
So there ARE major differences (it would be very fun to do the table I’m talking about in detail) as well as similarities, and the differences are differences in kind, as Maya points out. For example, humans can be purposefully cruel. I don’t know of animals that are.
Stephen