Aurel,

I don't decide where people will spend their eternity, that's between them and their creator.

But is their creator different than yours ?

Aurel

We'll find out.... that's what makes it interesting!

It seems the further we place ourselves away from other living creatures (like Koko), the easier it is to minimize them. We do it quite frequently with animals we eat, hunt, put in zoos and conduct scientific tests on. On a human level, Nazis did it with Jews and Poles. In our country's history, we did it with black slaves and Native Americans.

If there are super intelligent life forms beyond our world, how should they act toward us when we meet?

All rhetorical,
Sherwood

France!

The 1950's-era "definitions" that set humans apart from animals seem outdated nowaday: as chimps, otters, birds, and even some non-mammals use tools, complex communication patterns(even non-verbal and subsonic) have been recognized, complex task abilities have been shown in many simpler animals(octopii for one), and even "spiritual" actions have been shown(such as in elephant grieving) even where there is no survival necessity or physical reference.

One could also claim that many, if not most, animals have senses well beyond those of humans, and some have brain many times larger for preception of "existance" in the "world". For example, if one can't see electricity does it exist? All sight is for the brain is chemical/electrical pulses recreated to make logical sense. Modern science is leading towards multiple overlapping universes, solid matter being energy, and ...?

This doesn't disprove(or even attempt to) a God(s), only that if one went by the ability to preceive reality alone, many animal would be well ahead.

There was a joke about a couple bio-chem engineers talking with God:
One says to him "now, we don't need you anymore because we can do anything you can do." "O.k.", God says, make a human out of sand." "No problem" says the scientist scooping up a few handfulls. "No" says God, "use your own sand".

Anyone who has worked closely with animals of any kind will have gained some insight into their intelligence and capacity for feeling. For example, I have worked with hunting dogs my whole life. I fully expect them to eventually wind up with about a 30 word "vocabulary" that they not only understand, but to which they immediately respond. I also expect them to problem solve to a degree and to demonstrate this ability without fail at the hunt tests and in the field. It simply amazes most people to see a well-trained dog working. To me, it's not that big of a deal; I have come to expect it from them. In developing this kind of a close association with one of these dogs, you can also begin to pick up on their personalities and moods. They have them just like we do. They have good days and bad days; days where they are more enthusiastic than others; essentialy the same ups and downs we have. They are living, thinking creatures; why would we be surprised to see this? That said, I do believe that regardless of any species of animal's ability to think, reason, perceive, feel, and whatever other "human" traits they exhibit, they are still just animals. Just because they demonstrate traits similar to ours does not make them truly "human" traits. The more one sees these traits demonstrated in other animals the less exclusively "human" they become. These traits in no way raise them even close to our level. They are simply not that remarkable to folks that grew up around animals. This is just a hunch, and a pretty broad generalization, but I would guess that folks today that are unduly impressed by these traits may just be "city boys" (for lack of a better term) that had no real exposure to them growing up. They are assigning more meaning to all of it than there really exists, getting all worked up over something the rest of us have always known, and are better able to keep in perspective.

Yes, working with animals is fascinating and rewarding. The story of Koko is perhaps more interesting than others because of degree. I can understand Jeff's conclusion that, in spite of their obedience and quick learning, dogs just don't come anywhere near humans.....but I think working with Koko might be a very different experience. This "animal" makes up words, takes care of other animals, plays practical jokes, etc. At some point, I'll bet the researchers stop regarding Koko as a lowly animal. In fact, interaction with Koko might just be richer and more intense and intelligent than with many people.

Some of you know I was powerfully affected by CS Lewis' Mere Christianity. In that book, Lewis makes a compelling argument that our innate sense of moral code is the "likeness" between us and God. Not just our ability to feel emotions. That's not it. He points instead to our recognition of right and wrong, whether we like it or not. What if, aside from the emotions I'm sure Koko and other animals feel, what if we noticed that Koko's ethical code was essentially exactly the same as ours. In other words, let's say Koko was observed to avoid lying even when lying would benefit her, but then telling little white lies for the purpose of helping someone else? What if Koko observed a researcher making an unethical decision, and then Koko scolded the researcher and criticized them specifically for taking the unethical action?

And finally, maybe it's not so much about animals as it is about us. Maybe their behavior is not so interesting as ours. maybe they are fairly predictable, even with a moral code, but we are not. maybe we're more "bad" than they are. what would that suggest about God? What would it suggest about Evil?

Oh, and BTW, I align with Art. Doesn't mean I have figured everything out, but yeah, I believe that we are here to make a choice. And we get what we ask for. those who turn toward God and look hopefully forward to meeting Him, get that. Those who deliberately reject him and hold no hope of an eternal relationship...get that. And no, I don't know what happens to folks never exposed to this choice (Christianity). Or is there really anyone who lacks this choice? Maybe not. In any case, while I do not know the answers, I believe God is inconceivably generous and merciful. That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

I have to admit I have never considered the possibility of any kind of ethical code among animals. That would be something to see. Have they pursued that with Koko? In my admittedly limited experience with dogs and other domestic animals, I have never seen any indication of this. Maybe because it never occured to me to look for it. The only decision making criteria I have picked up on with my dogs has been based on a very simple reward vs. punishment "decision gate" that they use. "If I do this, he'll clobber me; if I do this, he'll pet me and feed me" is about as far as I have seen it go. If they do not know you are watching, even this simple decison gate is not used - possibly the simplest form of "situational ethics". Dogs very much do whatever they think they can get away with no matter how well trained. They are even worse than kids that way.

Re: Ape with a Pet
 

As an atheist, the answer to this question is easy for me to answer. I don't have a relationship with any gods so I don't think there is any implication. :>)

There shouldn't even be an evolution/creation debate unless the creationist camp can come up with a scientific theory that holds more water than the theory of evolution (and they haven't been able/willing to do that).

I think our relationship with the animal kingdom is that we are part of the animal kingdom. I don't see it as much more complex than that.

Mike