Ship of Fools: Evangelising dolphins

Thread: Evangelising dolphins Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026094

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

I was struck by IngoB's comment on the "extraterrestrials" thread that classically, humans are defined as "rational animals".

So, if it turned out that certain creatures (dolphins? monkeys?) actually were rational, would they count as "human"?

And ought we then to have a "mission to dolphins?"

And how might we go about that?

Or is this a mad idea?

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

I read the title and got quite the wrong end of the stick. So it turns out it's not about dolphins who evangelise. [Hot and Hormonal]

Didn't some preachers (thinking of likes of Wesley or Spurgeon) occasionally preach to empty rooms or claim they would preach to a rock? I'm not sure if this is true or church urban myth.

What the question kind of points to is the question of original sin and whether it is only humans who are thus afflicted.

Though if rationality is what defines a "human" then I know quite a few people so lacking in rationality that they might not be classed as human any more. [Yipee]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Mad idea.

For starters: how would you propose to communicate with your possible new flock?
[Ultra confused]

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
how would you propose to communicate with your possible new flock?

Babel fish. [Cool]

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I was struck by IngoB's comment on the "extraterrestrials" thread that classically, humans are defined as "rational animals".

So, if it turned out that certain creatures (dolphins? monkeys?) actually were rational, would they count as "human"?

And ought we then to have a "mission to dolphins?"

And how might we go about that?

Or is this a mad idea?

No.

No.

We couldn't.

Yes.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Mad idea.

For starters: how would you propose to communicate with your possible new flock?

Well - let me run with the madness for a while - take chimpanzees - they say chimps can maybe learn sign language - maybe it would become very important to teach chimps sign language just so that we could communicate with them for this important purpose... as for dolphins, perhaps they could bop little pictures with their noses as means of communication...

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
I read the title and got quite the wrong end of the stick. So it turns out it's not about dolphins who evangelise.

I didn't think of that! But maybe it would be a good idea! Once you had your first dolphin converts obviously they would be the ideal picks to preach to other dolphins. Also they might be better "enculturated" to read porpoises, manatees and whales (although perhaps this is a speciesist thing to say)...

I'm sorry, I'm getting carried away here

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

...and why assume that they need 'converting' in the first place?

Ian J.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Dolphins are quite rapey.

But if dolphins, why not octopi ?

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Well - if dolphins are rational, then possibly some dolphins are pretty dodgy characters: see here. (Although it is only fair to state that some disagree).

I seem to remember that different behaviours are associated with different dolphin cultures. Perhaps dolphins are displaying a capacity for sin, maybe individual (maybe we need some Great Dolphin Awakening), maybe corporate (maybe we need some dolphin liberation-theology).

[ 27. September 2013, 15:15: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

Cheetah and Flipper being tossed by their heavenly father into the gaping maw of hell in order to suffer the conscious and unending torments of damnation throughout all eternity?

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Uh... I don't think I said that... I guess that's a separate discussion... but... if that were the case for humans, why should a Talking Dolphin get off any easier?

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

Can I recommend "Will we ever speak Dolphin" published by New Scientist, and available in all good bookshops, and Amazon, of course.

This might help as a preparatory course for those hoping to bring our finny mammalian cousins into The Fold.

[Big Grin]

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

Goodbye and thanks for all the fish!

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

Why not ask Dolphy ?

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

As an aside: An old comment is that human beings are not rational creatures but rationalizing creatures.

Back to the topic: There are various questions here:

Are whales, dolphins, et alia, rational?

Can we manage to communicate well with them? (Notice the word "well".)

Will they want to communicate with us?

Do they have souls? (Can any living creature not have a soul?)

Are they "fallen" creatures? (If they have not fallen, they do not need to be saved.)

Do they already have one or more religions?

Do we have a right or duty to mess with their religious beliefs?

How should we react when they try to convert us? (They may feel they have a right or duty to do so.)

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
HCH: Are they "fallen" creatures?

No, they float.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
...and why assume that they need 'converting' in the first place?

Ian J.

It was humans who fell through the sin of Adam and Eve. Jesus came as a human being to undo that sin. He came to reconcile all creation but all creation needs reconciliation due to the sin of humans.

If there are other creatures with the level of rationality of humans, we are not in a position to judge their status with the Creator.

I have a hunch -- and it's just a hunch, based on things I've read in the Bible, that other animals, whatever their level of intelligence, have a sense of God. In line with that, I would say that they are not fallen creatures as we humans are, and thus have no sin.

Then I would speculate that predatory behaviours, i.e., the suffering that some non-human animals inflict on other non-human animals, is because creation has fallen -- a fall which is the fault of humans, not other animals, but which causes other animals to suffer through no fault of their own.

So what we humans perceive as "bad" behaviour by other animals is caused by stresses placed on them, e.g., animals mistreated by humans will likely, and understandably, display hostile behaviour toward humans.

[ 27. September 2013, 16:33: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
So what we humans perceive as "bad" behaviour by other animals is caused by stresses placed on them, e.g., animals mistreated by humans will likely, and understandably, display hostile behaviour toward humans.

But there are plenty of examples of animals in the wild seeming to mistreat each other (including packs of male dolphins that seem to forcible have sex with lone females).

ISTM that at that point one assumes (with your argument) that their entire environment is fallen and the behaviour is a result of stresses caused by the environment, or that they themselves are part of that fallen environment.

[ 27. September 2013, 16:39: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Oooo interesting. I didn't expect such a literal interpretation from you malik3000!

I don't think I agree though. I will buy your argument for non-rational animals (like cuckoos! Evil cuckoos!) but why should a rational animal (if there be any such other than humans) have no responsibility for its own sin?

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I don't think I agree though. I will buy your argument for non-rational animals (like cuckoos! Evil cuckoos!) but why should a rational animal (if there be any such other than humans) have no responsibility for its own sin?

Just because (some) humans have a sin-obsession why should we try to project that belief system onto other species?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

All feeling - pathic - creation is transcended gets my vote.

Those things that need to talk things through before moving on - us, but not dolphins - included.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

I don't think we would accept that excuse from a human doing evil. If a Roman said "Just because you have an obsession with the idea that gladiator fights are 'wrong' as you call it, why should you project that onto our culture"?

Anyway, I guess I can't help projecting my belief system, otherwise (pace Chesterton) it would not be my belief system. (Is that the correct use of the word pace by the way?)

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Maybe the dolphins want to talk things through Martin. Maybe they need to. Maybe they'd appreciate it.

I guess it would be difficult for them to talk it through with us though, after all that catching them in fishing nets business. They might forgive us though. That would be nice of them.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
TurquoiseTastic: If a Roman said "Just because you have an obsession with the idea that gladiator fights are 'wrong' as you call it, why should you project that onto our culture"?

This could come right out of a Monthy Python film. Including the Roman making square quotes in the air when pronouncing the word "wrong".

[ 27. September 2013, 17:10: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Why thank you Le Roc!

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
It was humans who fell through the sin of Adam and Eve. Jesus came as a human being to undo that sin. He came to reconcile all creation but all creation needs reconciliation due to the sin of humans.

[SNIP]

Then I would speculate that predatory behaviours, i.e., the suffering that some non-human animals inflict on other non-human animals, is because creation has fallen -- a fall which is the fault of humans, not other animals, but which causes other animals to suffer through no fault of their own.

Animals have been predating on each other ever since they became multicellular, hundreds of millions of years before the non-existence of Adam and Eve. The idea that that a human "fall" could reverberate back in time to cause behaviour patterns before the appearance of anything remotely humanoid says much more about the arrogant human belief that everything revolves around them than it does about how the natural world operates. Genesis, with its self-promotion of humans as the culmination of creation, is at least partly to blame.

quote:
So what we humans perceive as "bad" behaviour by other animals is caused by stresses placed on them, e.g., animals mistreated by humans will likely, and understandably, display hostile behaviour toward humans.

That I would agree with, to the extent that animals are placed in an artificial situation resulting from human action, e.g. foxes in a chicken house, but I see it having bugger all to do with any sort of cosmic "Fall".

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
So what we humans perceive as "bad" behaviour by other animals is caused by stresses placed on them, e.g., animals mistreated by humans will likely, and understandably, display hostile behaviour toward humans.
But there are plenty of examples of animals in the wild seeming to mistreat each other (including packs of male dolphins that seem to forcible have sex with lone females).

ISTM that at that point one assumes (with your argument) that their entire environment is fallen and the behaviour is a result of stresses caused by the environment, or that they themselves are part of that fallen environment.

All creatures are indeed part of the fallen environment, but it doesn't follow that all creatures share in the guilt of causing the fall. The behaviours you describe I would probably class with the other "bad" behaviors I was thinking of. Whatever rational level they might have, it is -- I would guess -- sufficiently different from ours for us to make definitive statements. But if dolphins do indeed sin, I don't think we could be the ones to evangelize them -- I think God would have to be incarnate to them as a dolphin. Again I am merely speculating.

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Oooo interesting. I didn't expect such a literal interpretation from you malik3000!

I don't think I agree though. I will buy your argument for non-rational animals (like cuckoos! Evil cuckoos!) but why should a rational animal (if there be any such other than humans) have no responsibility for its own sin?

I didn't think that I was being any more or less literal than any other time [Smile]

<tangent.I freely profess the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds without crossing my fingers, and on the other hand I believe that God inspired the writers of the Bible to write writings that point the way to God, but are not science texts or history texts, and one must consider the societal context in which individual writers wrote and what, in their particular contexts, were trying to say.</tangent>

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Animals have been predating on each other ever since they became multicellular, hundreds of millions of years before the non-existence of Adam and Eve. The idea that that a human "fall" could reverberate back in time to cause behaviour patterns before the appearance of anything remotely humanoid says much more about the arrogant human belief that everything revolves around them than it does about how the natural world operates. Genesis, with its self-promotion of humans as the culmination of creation, is at least partly to blame.

When I refer to Adam and Eve, I'm not at all saying there was a literal Adam and a literal Eve. I do think that it is myth, but myth that addresses the reality that there is much that is bad in the creation we are part of, and that we humans are guilty of having contributed to it (to whatever level). And I was just using that same mythic language to comment on the same things which that mythic language addresses.

Re rationality, I don't think a hard line can be drawn between rational and non-rational. I would think it is more of a continuum. For example, speaking of cuckoos, within class Aves (Birds) of the animal kingdom, parrots and ravens show remarkably high levels of intelligence. And, as noted above, though I speculated above that humankind's sin caused the Fall in creation -- I can't say for sure that other creatures who might be at a similar rational as humans haven't also sinned -- but if they have, while we possibly could (or not) have a salutary effect on their behavior, I don't think we humans could be the ones who could evangelize them. God, in order to redeem us humans, came as a human. If any other rational creature needs redemption ISTM God would be going to them incarnated as that species.

Of course all this is speculation, but a very interesting topic about which to speculate!

[ 27. September 2013, 17:44: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Well - if dolphins are rational, then possibly some dolphins are pretty dodgy characters: see here. (Although it is only fair to state that some disagree).

The blog in your second link is referencing a mistaken inference of the word bisexual in one report. Said report says nothing to refute actual observations of what appears to be dolphin rape. Or bullying, or violent behaviour towards similar species, or.....
Since we cannot communicate very extensively with dolphins, we are inferring motives, of course.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
All creatures are indeed part of the fallen environment, but it doesn't follow that all creatures share in the guilt of causing the fall.

Sure, but whilst they may not share in the guilt of causing the fall this does not in and of itself stop their behaviour from being sinful:

"In line with that, I would say that they are not fallen creatures as we humans are, and thus have no sin."

quote:

The behaviours you describe I would probably class with the other "bad" behaviors I was thinking of. Whatever rational level they might have, it is -- I would guess -- sufficiently different from ours for us to make definitive statements.

ISTM that there are some base truths that we can draw out of the applicability of the Christian moral code as a whole that would indeed lead us to judge some dolphin behaviour as 'bad' (dolphins killing porpoises for instance).

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
ISTM that there are some base truths that we can draw out of the applicability of the Christian moral code as a whole that would indeed lead us to judge some dolphin behaviour as 'bad' (dolphins killing porpoises for instance).

Humans have claimed that right of judgement before. It does not make for pleasant viewing.

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

Dolphins weren't made in God's image. It is not arrogant to elevate humans to an important level. They are indisputably the only creature that can substantially impact upon the lives of other creatures. The reason that we impact on other creatures irresponsibly is that we have not put sin to death. Indeed Isaiah 11 suggests that the redemption of humans will lead the way for peace among all creatures (should the following passage be taken literally):

The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.
10 In that day the root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Wouldn't this also mean that Jesus would have had to have been incarnated as a dolphin for dolphins to be saved?

If it was our sin that causes all creation to groan in travail, doesn't that make it our stewardship to work for the redemption of the rest of creation which won't actually be fulfilled until the parousia. Isn't this part of what the first chapters of Genesis and Psalm 8 are about?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Enoch: Wouldn't this also mean that Jesus would have had to have been incarnated as a dolphin for dolphins to be saved?

At times I like to believe that He does this sometimes at Friday nights when the moon is beautiful, just to play a bit.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Humans have claimed that right of judgement before.

I'm not saying we stand in judgement or even go as far as trying to execute it. Merely that animal society doesn't appear to anything like even the vaguest conception of what something 'unfallen' or even 'unfallen but affected by a fallen environment' should look like.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

You said the "christian moral code" would lead you to judge other species' actions as "bad". How is that different to standing in judgement, apart from using semantics to row back and say "oh I didn't really mean that, gov"?

Or put more bluntly, when are you christians going to show some of the humility you make such a song and dance about and recognise it's none of your fucking business what other humans do, let alone other species?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
You said the "christian moral code" would lead you to judge other species' actions as "bad". How is that different to standing in judgement, apart from using semantics to row back and say "oh I didn't really mean that, gov"?

Because I was specifically responding to malik's point that that we had no grounds for considering animals behaviour (if we consider them to be reasoning beings) as 'bad' or if it was it was due to environment reasons alone. I'm sure you could get similar inferences from other moral codes not all of which would be religious.

The reason I put 'bad' in quotes was that I'm not sure to what extent it makes sense in this particular context, it largely depends on how we view animals abilities to reason.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
ISTM that there are some base truths that we can draw out of the applicability of the Christian moral code as a whole that would indeed lead us to judge some dolphin behaviour as 'bad' (dolphins killing porpoises for instance).
Humans have claimed that right of judgement before. It does not make for pleasant viewing.

This is only stupid if the elephant is a brute beast. If the elephant is a rational agent who set out to do the murder knowing it to be murder, it is a completely reasonable response (albeit harsh).

And actually we still do this to dangerous dogs (for example). Except we don't make a public hanging of it because we don't think the dogs are (very) rational.

But we do think dogs are a bit rational and we do treat them as moral agents, somewhat. BAD DOG.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Or possibly you are arguing that it is unjust for the elephant to be treated this way - maybe it had been maltreated by the human it killed, for example. In this case the problem would not that we're projecting our beliefs too much, the problem would be that we weren't projecting them enough, we weren't applying our concepts of "justice" and "right treatment" to animals when we ought to have been.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

Given the horrendously and cruelly immoral and depraved way humans have treated and continue to treat elephants, and the horrible stress humans have caused them, I don't think humans are in any position to sit in moral judgement on elephants.

[ 28. September 2013, 14:11: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

I would certainly agree with that. It would probably be better to have elephants doing the judging.

Also, if elephants are rational and moral agents, then that makes our bad treatment of them an even worse crime... doesn't it? It's not so bad to abuse shellfish... I think...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Enoch: Wouldn't this also mean that Jesus would have had to have been incarnated as a dolphin for dolphins to be saved?
At times I like to believe that He does this sometimes at Friday nights when the moon is beautiful, just to play a bit.

But that would only make him a Docetist cetacean.
[Snigger]

Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :

To the O.P., as well as to all considering the Extra-Terrestrial And Dolphin Evangelization Question:

Mark 16:15: "And [Jesus] said to [the Disciples], 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation [all creatures]'."

This verse has always interested me...

The Lord knows what He said. He is the Word through whom the one God and Father of All created the Universe. If He tells us to preach to all creation of the New Creation, there is no reason to have a crisis when aliens show up. They're sentient beings, like us, living in a fallen Universe. The Divine Logos was incarnate with a sentient created nature, generally-speaking, because He was incarnate as a human being. We are what we are: sentient beings, broadly-speaking. Aliens (if they exist) are sentient beings too. Christ took on sentient created nature. It is what it is. [Smile]

[ 28. September 2013, 19:27: Message edited by: VDMA ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Well, if we're going to preach to other creatures, we might want to get our own act together first.

And maybe we could--oh, I don't know--stop capturing and/or harming wild animals. Let captured creatures loose, so they can have some kind of life. (Maybe we need an Innocence Project for animals? Though Greenpeace and PETA may have that pretty well covered.) And if there are any captive creatures that are truly unable to make it on their own *at all*, then give them the next best possible life they can have--probably at an animal sanctuary.

I tend to think that maybe everything's connected, and everything is alive (in some sense). I don't worry about "sentience". If we're all part of one Thing (however you want to define that), we all matter--sentient or not. And we all matter as separate beings, too.

If we are meant to be "lords of Creation", then we should resign in shame. We've really blown it. Some people think we were actually meant to be more like park rangers, helping and preserving.

Maybe we could just try to be good neighbors; and get over ourselves, a bit.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Mad idea.

For starters: how would you propose to communicate with your possible new flock?

Well - let me run with the madness for a while - take chimpanzees - they say chimps can maybe learn sign language - maybe it would become very important to teach chimps sign language just so that we could communicate with them for this important purpose... as for dolphins, perhaps they could bop little pictures with their noses as means of communication...

I once knew someone who was a Bible translator, who's spent many years working on an Anindilyakwa translation in the Northern Territory, and she discussed how difficult it was to translate a word like 'glory'.

Or even to find a translation for something like an olive tree in a culture that didn't have olives.

That's human-to-human. If you can find a little picture of 'glory' for a dolphin to understand and bop with its nose, good luck to you!

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
ISTM that there are some base truths that we can draw out of the applicability of the Christian moral code as a whole that would indeed lead us to judge some dolphin behaviour as 'bad' (dolphins killing porpoises for instance).
Humans have claimed that right of judgement before. It does not make for pleasant viewing.
This is only stupid if the elephant is a brute beast. If the elephant is a rational agent who set out to do the murder knowing it to be murder, it is a completely reasonable response (albeit harsh).

And actually we still do this to dangerous dogs (for example). Except we don't make a public hanging of it because we don't think the dogs are (very) rational.

But we do think dogs are a bit rational and we do treat them as moral agents, somewhat. BAD DOG.

That you seem more than prepared to defend this action beggars belief as far as I am concerned. If I ever have second thoughts about why I despise Christianity and so many Christians I'll just return to your posts on this thread.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
ISTM that there are some base truths that we can draw out of the applicability of the Christian moral code as a whole that would indeed lead us to judge some dolphin behaviour as 'bad' (dolphins killing porpoises for instance).
Humans have claimed that right of judgement before. It does not make for pleasant viewing.
This is only stupid if the elephant is a brute beast. If the elephant is a rational agent who set out to do the murder knowing it to be murder, it is a completely reasonable response (albeit harsh).

And actually we still do this to dangerous dogs (for example). Except we don't make a public hanging of it because we don't think the dogs are (very) rational.

But we do think dogs are a bit rational and we do treat them as moral agents, somewhat. BAD DOG.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
This is only stupid if the elephant is a brute beast. If the elephant is a rational agent who set out to do the murder knowing it to be murder, it is a completely reasonable response (albeit harsh).
That you seem more than prepared to defend this action beggars belief as far as I am concerned. If I ever have second thoughts about why I despise Christianity and so many Christians I'll just return to your posts on this thread.

There's something a little bit self-contradictory about judging Christians for judging other people or for not minding their fucking business when it's not your fucking business.

Also, I suggest you reread TurquoiseTastic's post, paying particular attention to the word 'if'.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0