What if animals are found to be "self aware"?

[QED]

I detect a significant resistance among many Christians to the idea that animals might be intelligent to the degree of having "self-awareness". I'm not entirely sure I understand the reasons for this, but it is a recurrent theme, so it might be useful if someone could offer me an explanation.

The question for debate is therefore what consequence(s) if any would there be for Christianity if animals are indeed found to be self-aware and capable of ethical thinking. I have no objections if the debate also enters into the question of whether or not evidence already exists for this.

I would like to note that with better technology and continual investigation and learning the potential for such a discovery is always present. For example, many African Elephants are now tracked in the wild by GPS telemetry. This means that an accurate history of their movements is available to researchers. A recent report by the BBC news service recently covered an event where a matriarch Elephant died and "news" got round over a wide area such that many Elephants travelled a significant distance to visit the deceased. Both the communication and concern displayed adds to existing knowledge about the complex behaviour of Elephants. In an interview a researcher also mentioned that they were beginning to see Elephants removing the tusks of deceased relatives in a way that suggested they were trying to outwit poachers.

While looking for an online link to the story (which sadly I cannot seem to find) I found this video of Elephant paintings. This BBC webpage links to the video with the following image:

[Goat]

I detect a significant resistance among many Christians to the idea that animals might be intelligent to the degree of having "self-awareness". I'm not entirely sure I understand the reasons for this, but it is a recurrent theme, so it might be useful if someone could offer me an explanation.

The question for debate is therefore what consequence(s) if any would there be for Christianity if animals are indeed found to be self-aware and capable of ethical thinking. I have no objections if the debate also enters into the question of whether or not evidence already exists for this.

I would like to note that with better technology and continual investigation and learning the potential for such a discovery is always present. For example, many African Elephants are now tracked in the wild by GPS telemetry. This means that an accurate history of their movements is available to researchers. A recent report by the BBC news service recently covered an event where a matriarch Elephant died and "news" got round over a wide area such that many Elephants travelled a significant distance to visit the deceased. Both the communication and concern displayed adds to existing knowledge about the complex behaviour of Elephants. In an interview a researcher also mentioned that they were beginning to see Elephants removing the tusks of deceased relatives in a way that suggested they were trying to outwit poachers.

While looking for an online link to the story (which sadly I cannot seem to find) I found this video of Elephant paintings. This BBC webpage links to the video with the following image:

I feel that it isn't 'christian' so much as 'human'. I have seen a number of non-Christians, including atheists that have that viewpoint. I think there is a need for many people to feel 'special'. I always felt that many people underestimated the intelligence of animals, and overestimate the scope of human intelligence. While I agree that man has a more specialised intelligence, I don't see the gap between man and animal is as great as many people see it.

For that matter, it appears the difference between a chimps i intelligence and man's intelligence might be 18 mutations on a single gene.

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology ... _gene.html

[McCulloch]

I believe, consistent with evolution, that attributes such as intelligence, self-awareness, social behaviours including ethical understanding are not simple Yes|No boolean flags. They exist in beings to various degrees. Humans seem to have, on average, the highest degree of these attributes.

What consequence(s) if any would there be for Christianity if animals are indeed found to be self-aware and capable of ethical thinking?

They would have to address the question, "do non-human species have eternal souls?"

Who makes the rules for non-human species? While Christians do teach that there is a natural law, they also teach that there is a divinely revealed law. Are non-human species only under natural law, or do they also have a divinely revealed law? Do they get to endure eternal torment in an afterlife if they violate their own ethical code?

Did humanity's mythical first sin cause them to be born in sin or are they exempt from the effects of The Fall?

[Sleepy]

Initial thoughts on this one over a coffee and bacon sandwich -

Firstly I think many animals are remarkably aware of their own identity and am equally baffled by those Christians that seem resistant to this. I have no issue with a chicken thinking it is a chicken.

I can't see much danger to scripture at the moment, given the difficulty of communication with these intelligent species (I don't even know what is going on in my wifes head half the time and she uses language).

Also it may be worth noting the 'ethics' these creatures display, they seem to have significantly more regard for individuals and the environment then most of mankind, could this suggest even if they are moral thinkers they may well not turn out to be sinful in the Christian sense.

Side note, I enjoyed watching the elephants paint thanks for the link.

On an amused note

For that matter, it appears the difference between a chimps i intelligence and man's intelligence might be 18 mutations on a single gene.

And the difference between a chimp and a chicken being 2. Should evolution be true I see the 18 mutation gap to be quite significantly larger than expected and so does the article.

In the time since humans and chimps split about 6 million years ago, HAR1 has racked up 18 base substitutions when only one or none would be expected by chance.

For comparison, the HAR1 region of chickens and chimps only differ by two substitutions, even though more than 310 million years have passed since they shared a common ancestor.

Its an interesting article for sure, just not sure of the relevance that it has to this particular debate when we are assuming that animals could potentially be capable of moral reasoning anyway.

[Sleepy]

I believe, consistent with evolution, that attributes such as intelligence, self-awareness, social behaviours including ethical understanding are not simple Yes|No boolean flags. They exist in beings to various degrees. Humans seem to have, on average, the highest degree of these attributes.

What consequence(s) if any would there be for Christianity if animals are indeed found to be self-aware and capable of ethical thinking?

They would have to address the question, "do non-human species have eternal souls?"

Who makes the rules for non-human species? While Christians do teach that there is a natural law, they also teach that there is a divinely revealed law. Are non-human species only under natural law, or do they also have a divinely revealed law? Do they get to endure eternal torment in an afterlife if they violate their own ethical code?

Did humanity's mythical first sin cause them to be born in sin or are they exempt from the effects of The Fall?

Great questions! Can I try and answer them here or do we need a new thread?

[McCulloch]

Great questions! Can I try and answer them here or do we need a new thread?

I think that these questions are directly related to the question for debate. Let's work on them here. If these questions take on a life of their own, independent from the opening post, we can always split the thread.

[QED]

I believe, consistent with evolution, that attributes such as intelligence, self-awareness, social behaviours including ethical understanding are not simple Yes|No boolean flags. They exist in beings to various degrees. Humans seem to have, on average, the highest degree of these attributes.

What consequence(s) if any would there be for Christianity if animals are indeed found to be self-aware and capable of ethical thinking?

They would have to address the question, "do non-human species have eternal souls?"

Who makes the rules for non-human species? While Christians do teach that there is a natural law, they also teach that there is a divinely revealed law. Are non-human species only under natural law, or do they also have a divinely revealed law? Do they get to endure eternal torment in an afterlife if they violate their own ethical code?

Did humanity's mythical first sin cause them to be born in sin or are they exempt from the effects of The Fall?

Great questions! Can I try and answer them here or do we need a new thread?

Go for it! I wanted this to be a wide ranging debate (just for a change )

[Sleepy]

What consequence(s) if any would there be for Christianity if animals are indeed found to be self-aware and capable of ethical thinking?

My first impression is why not? I recall of story in the bible of a donkey arguing with a man over his unfair beating. Numbers 22 v 21-34. I would actually be fascinated to hear what the animals thought of humanity.
I can't recall where I read this next part so perhaps someone else knows, otherwise I made it up . Some research has potentially shown that animals are making some small types of moral decision already based on an awareness of harm to another. I think it was rhesus macaque (monkeys) that were given an option of pulling a cord for some food. They saw through a one way mirror another macaque being subjected to an electric shock each time the cord was pulled. Gradually the macaques began to starve themselves rather than get the food, if i recall correctly one animal went without food for weeks rather than cause harm to another macaque. Ironically these experiments have been done with humans without such effects, it would seem humans are far more sadistic.

They would have to address the question, "do non-human species have eternal souls?"

I guess that depends on what your concept of what an animal soul is. For the purposes of scripture there is no direct reference to animals having souls save for one possible exception Job 12 v 10
"In whose hand is the life of every living thing, And the breath of all mankind". The word 'life' highlighted in bold has been translated as soul / self / life / creature / person / living being... The original word is 'Nephesh', I am sure some of the Jewish debaters on here could do better with this verse than me.

Who makes the rules for non-human species? While Christians do teach that there is a natural law, they also teach that there is a divinely revealed law. Are non-human species only under natural law, or do they also have a divinely revealed law? Do they get to endure eternal torment in an afterlife if they violate their own ethical code?

Lets be clear the 'law' of the bible is written to people, I doubt God requires all carnivores to repent of murder each time they get hungry. With regard to who makes the rules, assuming God is the designer my best guess would be ultimately God. Do they have a natural law? I guess the best way to find out is to ask them, we can infer already by behaviour some sort of social / ethical code. With regard to afterlife, the bible does not mention an afterlife for animals, I have already referenced the one possible area for an animal soul although this is only one interpretation from the word used.

Did humanity's mythical first sin cause them to be born in sin or are they exempt from the effects of The Fall?

Scripture is not clear on this question directly either however there is one possible answer that springs to mind. It is unlikely animals are sinful since after requiring that animals can be used as a blood sacrifice for sin in the Old Testament, at least the animals involved cannot themselves be sinful. The sacrifices were described as without 'Tamiym' or blameless.

OK I did my best to find you some possible answers. To conclude I should add that the ultimate ground of what makes people special in scripture would be the concept of being made in the image of God (Genesis 1 v 26). No animal could therefore be counted as more valuable than a person. (EDIT: I should qualify however that this does not mean animals should not be valued or treated kindly, the donkey example in Numbers is sufficient to suggest we have a responsibility to value animals although how far this responsibility extends is debatable ---- cue the questions )

[upallnite]

Rev. 19
[11] And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
[12] His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
[13] And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
[14] And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
[15] And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
[16] And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
[17] And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
[18] That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
[19] And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
[20] And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
[21] And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.


It seems like animals go to heaven and hell. I just wanted to help a little.

[QED]

It seems like animals go to heaven and hell. I just wanted to help a little.

Thanks for that upallnite. Of course it must mean that their souls go to heaven -- after all their bodies are entirely recycled through the Carbon Cycle like every other living thing. Goodness, if every living creature left physically left the Planet then Carbon in all its forms would have been exhausted long ago!