Without God, Man Becomes Unintelligible . . .
These are key words for the two personalist theologian-popes we have been blessed with (of course, JP the Great and B16 are those of whom I speak); taken as they are from Gaudium et spes (the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World from the Second Vatican Council). As if to exemplify the truth of this statement, the AP ran an article yesterday (published here in the NY Times) about the London Zoo’s new exhibit which is a group of eight homo sapiens on display. The zoo spokesperson, Polly Wills says of the purpose of the display:Â
“Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals . . . teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate.â€
One of the homo sapiens on display is a chemist, Tom Mahoney. His reason for participating is that:
“A lot of people think humans are above other animals . . . When they see humans as animals, here, it kind of reminds us that we’re not that special.â€
It is interesting that such an eminent zoo thinks it has the responsibility to teach the public that the human person is no more special than any other primate, or perhaps any other animal I suppose. Like many in science, they do not recognize when they have gone well beyond their competence. Those who do generally presuppose a materialistic notion of the cosmos and then interpret it based upon that presupposition. However, there is no scientific justification for the materialist presupposition. One wonders what agenda drives these folks . . .
Yesterday’s Zenit interview of Auxiliary Bishop Raúl Berzosa of Oviedo on his book “A Believer’s Reading of Atapuerca: Christian Faith Vis-à -vis Theories of Evolution” (Desclée de Brouwer) provides a relevant response to this type of thinking.
.jpg)
When was the last time you saw an animal worry about whether or not it was an animal? I mean, that we can even have existential questions like this proves we’re not animals. When was the last time a dog worried about the ‘circle of life’ and its place in the ecosystem!?
Comment by Kate — August 31, 2005 @ 12:51 am
Of course, one can only speculate on the agenda, or motivation behind the zoo display. I don’t think this stunt will convert anyone who is confused on the matter of creationsim vs Darwinism, it maybe for publicity and also to provoke. It is just my humble opinion, but this seems more like a provocation vs. education.
Comment by Anonymous — August 31, 2005 @ 6:15 am
Hm… I’m not sure the ability to have existential questions is really a good measure of the difference between humans and animals.
We have the same basic substances - we are all made of the same stuff of life - but really I think what you are getting at is that the human mind is decidedly different than an animal’s. I would agree… but the brain of a human and the brain of an “animal” is not too dissimilar…
As for the humans that became part of an exhibit… well… aren’t we animals? I have no problem with thinking of myself as such - just a “higher” animal. I do kind of agree with anonymous though in that this really probably won’t “convert” anyone. I think they simply believe in this stuff so much that they want to show their belief. I think we can all see how that might be, right?
Comment by bloggerman — August 31, 2005 @ 8:42 am
Hm… I’m not sure the ability to have existential questions is really a good measure of the difference between humans and animals.
Actually, Kate uses a strong philosophical tradition to depict an important difference between man and animals. This ability to pose existential questions reveals the human person’s ability to transcend his environment and to seek the truth about himself and the cosmos. This ability for rational thought and free will is what separate him from the animals.
Sure we do share much biologically in common with the animals (in fact, one tradition has this as the reason for Satan’s non serviam). Nevertheless, we are much more than they will ever be. We are made in God’s image and therefore, we have a dignity which can never be taken away. Even the most athiestic society recognizes the innate difference between animals and man, though they denied his transcendent value. Even the secular media in this current catastophe in the southeast US reports on the human tragedy. There has been no talk I have seen about the tragedy of the loss of non-human life.
I disagree that this type of article has no influence. The vast majority of people, unfortuately, have little in the way of critical thinking skills. Just look at the rapid swing in the polls during campaign season based upon the tenor of media coverage. Look at the rapid change in thinking about such issues as abortion or homosexuality as an “alternative lifestyle” when the mass media adopted each as a politically correct idea they would promote. While it is true that it will not sway those who have already decided, those are a small minority. If/when “animal equality” becomes a secular media agenda, we can confidently expect to see public opinion to blindly follow along.
Comment by David — August 31, 2005 @ 6:41 pm
Dave, I think you missed the point I was trying to make on that one. I was trying to indicate that “existential questions” are merely an extension of the fact that I believe “…the human mind is decidedly different than an animal’s. I would agree…”
I merely say that the “stuff” that makes us is no different than the “stuff” that makes all life on Earth. I think ya missed that one there…
I’m not sure if us being made in God’s image is a real good measure of the concrete difference between humans and animals - I think it’s more in line with what you stated “[The]… person’s ability to transcend his [or her] environment and to seek the truth about himself and the cosmos.”
So I agree with you and never stated that I disagreed on this point. Since you seem to have taken an arrogant tone when I was merely continuing discussion, it’s time to talk about the rest of your post.
From what I’m reading, you seem to blame the media for people thinking the way that they do on abortion and homosexuality. While the media definitely has some influence, I would think the media publicizing these issues has more of an effect of making people think about them rather than something akin to brainwashing.
You yourself have been goaded by the media, since it appears you think of them (as a lot of people do) as “the liberal media.” The liberal part of the media never really had too much power, and for every liberal media news station, newspaper, etc, there’s a conservative media news station, newspaper, etc.
I agree people often have problems thinking for themselves, but for heaven’s sake, don’t blame it on the media influencing them. The media merely gives people buzzwords on an issue for the opinion they already have.
Comment by bloggerman — September 1, 2005 @ 9:31 am
Bloggerman -
I do apologize if I struck an arrogant tone, it was not intended … though I must admit that in rereading my comments I still do not see any arrogance. Nevertheless, this type of media is notorious for mistaking tone when there is a disagreement in view . . . perhaps due in part to the attempts to be concise. Please do take all that follows as given in charity.
I’m not sure if us being made in God’s image is a real good measure of the concrete difference between humans and animals - I think it’s more in line with what you stated “[The]… person’s ability to transcend his [or her] environment and to seek the truth about himself and the cosmos.”
The former is the cause, the latter is the effect. We are able to transcend our environment solely because we are made in the image of God.
You yourself have been goaded by the media, since it appears you think of them (as a lot of people do) as “the liberal media.”
I do not follow you here. My comments are based upon the fact that people are easily swayed by the media (not simply the news media of course, but wide and small screen entertainment, etc.). It is simply the case that whatever the media pushes a large portion of the public is swayed in that direction. I really do not care what one calls oneself (liberal, conservative, moderate). Really, my only measure of concern is the socially destructive messages which the mass media pushes . . . and they are all too plentiful. Thus we do disagree, the media definitely has an influence on public thinking and it is not in the direction of making people think about the topics. It is more in the vein of subtly (or not so subtly) telling the viewer what to think.
Comment by David — September 1, 2005 @ 10:25 pm