Different in degree or kind: animal minds (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 05, 2016, 14:23 (3245 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So your arguments don't make logical sense to you, but you reckon your God thinks as you do.
DAVID: That is not what I said. My arguments are logical to me, but you keep probing God's logic and I don't think we humans can.-You admitted that you didn't know how the weaverbird's nest, the parasitic wasp, the parasitic jellyfish and the hundreds of other examples provide “consumable energy requirement plant” for humans. How, then, can your anthropocentric concept of evolution seem logical to you? I am not probing God's logic. I am probing yours. -dhw: The duckbilled platypus is here but obviously not required.
DAVID: And why isn't it? I've seen a wild one in Australia. They are cute and part of the balance of nature.-You keep arguing that humans were not required, and must therefore be the purpose of evolution. I keep pointing out that NOTHING beyond bacteria was “required”, since they have survived from the year dot. You might as well say that many humans are also cute and part of the balance of nature, and therefore they were also “required”. It's a non-argument. A much more convincing theistic argument in my view would be that with their unique levels of consciousness, humans alone appear capable of communing with God, and so they have a special place in his universe. However, this still won't explain how the weaverbird's nest feeds humans, so a free-for-all, perhaps with divine dabbling, still seems to me a far more logical explanation.-dhw: ...and by definition all species are different in kind. 
DAVID: I thought you believed in evolution. Adler considered all animals different by degree due to evolution, except humans who are different in kind.-Yes I believe in evolution. I believe that animals (including humans), birds, insects, fish etc. are “different in kind”, although they all descended from Darwin's few forms or one. I also believe that even allowing for our vastly superior intelligence, evolution has produced a far greater degree of “difference in kind” between elephants, sparrows, ants, gudgeon and my beloved duckbilled platypus than that between humans and chimpanzees. But if you and Adler think otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion.-dhw: You have missed the point. If we are not the only life, that does not mean God does not exist. He could easily have experimented elsewhere.
DAVID: I can accept that point, but if we are the only life, it is more likely that God exists.-You wrote: “If we are the only life, then God exists”...I am merely pointing out that if you believe in God, he will still exist for you even if we are not the only life.-dhw: As a mere human being, may I suggest it [free-for-all with possible dabbling] is more logical than the suggestion that the weaverbird's nest is essential for the production and feeding of humans though you haven't a clue why.-DAVID: As a mere human, let me note that weavers alone are never essential for us to exist. the whole wild bush is as a balance of nature. If you don't believe in a balance, as I've suggested before, ask the Australians how they messed up their continent with foreign animals being brought in.-As I keep saying, the balance of nature is constantly shifting. Before humans arrived, nature “messed up” the balance far more catastrophically than the Aussies. But you don't see those changes and mass extinctions as “messing up”.Those “messings up” of the balance were apparently all part of the “balance for everyone”, though everyone presumably didn't include the 99% of extinct species.
 
dhw: Human logic and science have so far failed to solve all the mysteries we have been discussing, and so you must either join me on the fence or, like the materialist atheist, dispense with logic and commit yourself to faith until the answers are known - which may never happen.
DAVID: It will come with scientific discovery. when we finally recognize how complex life is, then the chance appearance will not be an option for consideration. You and I may not live that long.-I would say that the complexity of life is already so apparent that belief in chance appearance requires a leap of faith just as great as that needed to believe in an eternal mind that encompasses the unfathomable vastness of the universe, which it created all for the sake of you, me, the weaverbird's nest and the duckbilled platypus.