In Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes (1982), Frans de Waal discusses reconciliation, but he’s not talking about human beings who are making up after fighting. Rather, de Waal is describing the reconciliation he has observed in communities of chimpanzees:
Sometimes the maneuver is fairly obvious. Within a minute of a fight having ended the two former opponents may rush towards each other, kiss, and embrace long and fervently and then proceed to groom each other. But sometimes this kind of emotional contact takes place hours after a conflict. When I observed very carefully, I saw that the tension and hesitancy remained as long as the opponents had not reconciled their differences. Then suddenly the ice would break in one of the chimpanzees would approach the other . . . currently, there is no doubt that primates are capable of reconciling; the question rather is under which circumstances they do so. (Page 27, 29).
(The above photo and caption are from Chimpanzee Politics)
Most fundamentalists would argue that we should not study “animals” in order to draw any conclusions about human behavior, as though human beings are not animals. They argue that you can’t draw conclusions about humans based upon an “animal species.” They then proceed to make their own wild conclusions about human animals based upon zero other animal species. Their conclusions are mostly ad hoc and a priori, often completely contradicted by scientific observations. Fundamentalists thus create souls and heavens completely out of their embellished imaginations and their apocryphal old book. In this way, fundamentalists are blindered and unrelenting armchair anthropologists/primatologists/zoologists.
(This photo of these chimpanzee youngsters and the caption are also from Chimpanzee Politics)
De Waal argues that claims of human uniqueness “are a bit like advertisements for squirrel proof bird feeders,” in that both claims are way overstated. He argues (in all of his books) that there is an obvious continuity between humans and chimpanzees to anyone who cares to look.
The time has come to define the human species against the backdrop of the vast common ground we share with other life forms. Instead of being tied to how we are unlike any animal, human identity should be built around how we are animals that have taken certain capacities a significant step farther. We and other animals are both similar and different, and the former is the only sensible framework within which to flesh out the latter.Â
(The Ape and the Sushi Master (2001), page 362).  Why else start with the assumption that there is a strong continuity running from human behavior and behavior of other animals?  See here, here, here, here, here and here.Â
Excellent article! I think that all human diplomats and UN Ambassidors should be replaced with chimpanzees. Their social skills would obviously make them more effective.
With your permission, I am linking to this post. I look forward to reading more of your articles!
Monkey Bob: I'm glad you enjoyed this. I found the top photo a bit haunting at first. It truly cuts through lots of intellectual yim-yammering and gets to the point.
I'm proud that animals like us are cousins of animals like chimpanzees. Many people are threatened, though. In my opinion, their refusal to take to heart the screaming obviousness of the similarities is the source of much societal dysfunction. In coming posts, I plan to share more of what I am learning about the consequences of widespread refusal to recognize that humans are (magnificent) animals.
De Waal's books are clearly written and teeming with insight about the kind of animal humans are. You'll also find numerous other photos of chimpanzees and bonobos that will astound you, thanks to the social context that De Waal presents, a context that is only available to those who take the time to get to know the personalities and history of chimp communities. Anyone who writes chimps off as inferior "beasts" will miss out.
By all means link to this, or any other article in Dangerous Intersection! Thanks.
Excellent. I too am going to link to this in our current Martian god debate thread. Thanks for this article.
Sometimes, I wonder whether I'm just imagining whether someone out there might be offended by this sort of article. Then, I'm reminded that I'm not imagining things. Here is a comment to this post received via reddit.com:
Here's my response:
Here is a report of the latest attack on science by the Church of Christ…
Top 10 Missing Links
Discoveries that have helped build the puzzle of mankind's evolution.
Creation Myths Legends that helped define civilizations past and present.
Vestigal Organs Darwin argued that useless limbs and leftover organs are evidence of evolution.
-Scholar
My parents–well, my mother–utterly reject Darwinism. The theory of evolution is wrong because—"I am not descended from a monkey." That's it. Lay out as much evidence as you like, it is pointless, because her rejection is purely emotional, purely anthrocentric, and purely unassailable. Doesn't matter that I agree with her—the line of descent is more complex than that—it is that there is ANY line of descent that is rejected.
I'm reminded often of the "sentient/intelligence" tests constructed by Douglas Hofstadter in Godel, Escher, Bach wherein machines can be made to mimic emotinal states, thereby proving that such things can be faked. What chimpanzees do, ergo, has nothing to do with humans.
Sad…
With "science" like that, you may be able to start a bible academy. 🙂
For a no-holds-barred report on Christianity, try Sam Harris's new book "The End of Faith". Even I (as a stoic Atheist), was shocked to read of the atrocities and idiocy that the Church is responsible for. Beware the graphic descriptions of medievel torture, they made me queasy for a week.
Ironically, the person who gave me the book is still an agnostic, but I am going to make sure that he reads it too.
Maybe I don't get it but, I don't care whether I'm descended from apes. My faith is not challenged by evolution. I consider myself lucky to have a roof over my head, three squares and a wonderful wife and kids.
As for the various stupidities of our race due to misapplications of faith, those are the stupidities of the perpetrators. My challenge as a Christian is to model myself and my life after Jesus, in accordance with the Gospel. As for the rest, insofar as it may depend upon me, I shall be at peace with others. Happy Holidays and a peaceful New Year.
Hoggy, you deserve the utmost respect for the conclusions you have come to on your own. I assure though, you are decended from "apes" as you call them. Your ancestors were cavedwellers, who also enjoyed warmth and family. They used animal hides as clothing and use rocks to scavenge bones (marrow). Eventually, they began painting on the walls, and spoke and made gestures toward the sky and the sun. They obviously had many questions, and created spirits to explain the unknown.
It's convenient that you are able to put your history aside and enjoy your life of prosperity without considering all the others who don't have warmth and food. You are a "good" Christian though, and you do not practice in the "bad parts" of the Bible or in preaching, so I will bite my tongue in terms of my harshest arguments for now. Jesus is fake too. Happy Holiday.
The psychology of the question—are humans descended from apes or an entirely separate and "special" creation?—is basic to the fundamentalist viewpoint. The former, you see, makes humans intrinsically, inextricably a part of the rest of nature, and therefore by definition responsible; the latter means we're separate in some way that means we're "in charge" of everything (have dominion over, I believe is the biblical phrase) and we can therefore do any damn thing we want without concern for the consequences. The answer to the question of descent is actually an important component of a moral outlook and those who adamnantly refuse to consider their link to the rest of nature through evolutionary descent wish to be "above" nature, special, and therefore unconstrained by nature's rules.
Seems simple enough to me. Pathetic, yes. But simple.
Peace to you, Hoggy. I have in no way denied others in their need in my thoughts, words or deeds. In practice, I give whatever I may have to others if their need is greater than mine. Its not practical but, with the grace and tolerance of my family, it is what I do.
I don't consider a Darwinist view as a necessary and sufficient condition to being a responsible human being. If the world is a gift, do we cherish it, respect it, protect it and preserve it in order to show respect to the giver?
Hogiemo,
It's not a necessary a sufficient condition for responsibility. But for a certain mindset, it's antithetical to the whole view of "dominion." What it does, finally, is remove any otherworldly excuse for not being responsible. And in my experience, the one thing that binds all fundamentalists together ultimately is a deepseated urge to duck responsibility. So much better to blame others or make excuses about the "way things just are" than to change their minds and stop being so self-righteously convinced of their right to not be part of the human race as it naturally is.
Hogiemo, I can tell that you "mean well". What I was suggesting, is that your view of the world is clouded or at least incomplete. You claim to "…give whatever I may have to others if their need is greater…". That shows lack of understanding of the reality that millions of people are hungry and oppressed. Since you do not see the suffering, you think it does not exist. (That is not however, to say that I am any better off than you in terms of being "a responsible human being"). The differece is that when confronted with facts and information, I am unable to ignore what my intuition suggests, whereas you seem to have developed a "blind eye". Darwinism is just another example of "facts" which contradict what YOU have been taught in Sunday School. Its up to you how you interpret that we ARE INDEED animals. I only "pray" you are not suggesting that you believe in the Gospel of the Bible over science. You stated earlier … "My faith is not challenged by evolution". Which leads to this MOST poignent question. I ASK YOU HOGIEMO– WHAT EXACTLY, WOULD IT TAKE TO CHALLENGE YOUR FAITH? Or as I suspect, do you already have your mind "tied in a noose" when confronted with arguments contrary to the Gospel of Christ?
-S
(Sorry, I forgot to put my name on my last post as Hoggy.)
A wise friend once told me that responsibility is a grace we freely accept as we grow up. Perhaps some blame others, I tell my children that they are in charge of themselves and responsible for their actions or inactions.
I do my best to live this way but, am a human animal and sometimes fail. When I fail, I believe it to be my first thing to re-make my promise or agreement and do what it takes to deliver. I don't make lots of promises, nearly always deliver. That is not to say that some made promises are not huge but, I nearly always deliver. I strive to be so very good at keeping my word that whatever I say, is done. If we all lived in such a world, I believe it would be somewhat better than it is now. My work supports this kind of world through the grace which my clients give me by allowing me to represent them.
One piece of separatist creation ammo I rarely see from anti-evolutionists is the fact that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, but all the other apes have 24! Well before the Human Genome project, they had identified where the missing telomeres got spliced. One Good Book is Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters.
So Hogiemo, what sort of evidence would it take for you to question your faith in God? Would you still believe in God, if there was no God? If you do not want to answer the question, that is okay, but at least acknowledge that you are indeed dodging the question I ask you.
It IS possible that religion was taught to you at such a tender age, and then reinforced so completely that it is a part of you which you cannot (easily) detach from.
Imagine being born into an Islamic Fundamentalist Lifestyle. Everything you encounter leads you to believe that martyrdom is the only true way to achieve "heaven" or "70 virgins". Many would (and are) brainwashed (as you are now OBVIOUSLY), and would be the first in line with a bomb strapped to their back. Do not take this as a direct insult, it is simply an observation based on your "dark ages" way of dealing with conflicts of reason. I am so thankful that I am not so naive as that.
So, the question remains HOGIEMO "What evidence would be sufficient to make you doubt God?"
"One piece of separatist creation ammo I rarely see from anti-evolutionists is the fact that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, but all the other apes have 24"
Using this argument would mean accepting a mechanistic description of human distinction. It would be tacitly admitting there's "something to" all this genetic science.
And…one would have to understand science just a bit to be able to make such an argument. In other words, they'd have to comprehend that this is significant and why.
Scholar, in my "brainwashed" state I don't know what evidence would make me doubt God, as evidence is not part of the equation. Faith is belief in the absence of proof. I may believe that some quantum of information tends to support my belief but, ultimately I cannot prove the existence of God. I will not then take the obverse to be true, that you cannot disprove the existence of God for that would be sophistry on the order of yours.
By the way, correct grammar would dictate the use of the subjunctive mode in your sentence "Would you still believe in God, if there [sic] were no God?" as it expresses a doubt or entreaty.
However, as a reasoning animal I admit the possibility that my belief is incorrect. Could you do the same?
Thank you Hogiemo, I am grateful and honored to have your attention, but I am unsatisfied with that (excellent) example of smoke and mirrors, for now. First of all, you did not answer my main question. Maybe my post was ambiguous, I will clarify. I am asking you to imagine a World where there TRULY never *were* a God. As an inhabitant of this imaginary World in which God TRULY does not exist, will you still believe in God? Feel free to answer or dodge, I obviously can't expect you score 100% on this test, but please try. Here's a hint if you get stumped — (The correct answer is… NO, because you wouldn't have any clues about ANY religion, unless you, or someone else made them up.)
In answer to your question, yes of course I could be wrong, I have been wrong thousands of times already in my life. You could say I'm a born loser (doh). However, I like to learn from my mistakes. Everything which I have encountered in my lifetime has a scientific explanation. If I see something which seems other-worldly, it makes me curious, and I have made it a habit to investigate for myself. Astoundingly, everything I investigate turns out to be already explained by science. Even the synapses in our reptilianesque brains have a scientific basis. Sure enough, on a philosophical level, I can imagine a World in which a Creator reigns supreme. But that is NOT this World my simple servant Hogiemo!
I do not carry faith in the "super" natural. I base my worldly conclusions on what I have experience and from hearing/seeing/reading the experiences of others. Some of my ideals do indeed "coincide" with the Christian Gospel. For example, do not kill, do not steal, do not covet thy… (oh wait not that one 🙂 ), do not cheat. I have held these since childhood. However, if I saw a burning bush, and it talked to me, you have my WORD that I would be a believer that same MINUTE. Of course, when the drugs wore off I might become an athiest again.
Oh yeah, I looked up *obverse* and I'm pretty sure ya butchered the usage, but then again, "I could be wrong", I often did my REAL homework during English classes.
Jason, that whole chromosome thing gets confusing real fast for me (a self-certified Genius), so just imagine how clueless the average Christian is when it comes to college level Biology/Genetics. Maybe that's why the stem cell debate is raging too, some folks still haven't read a newspaper, let alone a textbook. I imagine that once they get to the level of actually counting chromosomes and comparing traits with monkeys, they will have been exposed to anthropology, astronomy, *psychology*, and maybe even biochemistry. Their once "FLAT" minds will be able to handle abstract thoughts like, the immense universe, curing disease with vaccinations, postulating about a World with no God. Education really is a cure all.
Scholar: I would caution you to keep in mind that there are many kinds of Christians. For many of them, religion is an opportunity to associate with like-minded others to consider traditional (albeit far fetched) stories as a springboard from which to draw moral lessons. They don't buy into the literalness of extraordinary or oxymoronic aspects of these stories. They are often brilliant in their professions and dedicated to their families. These people often make wonderful neighbors, friends and co-workers. They are often strong allies of freethinkers and non-believers. Even though on Sunday they sit in churches and utter things that would be hard on our ears.
On the other end of the scale are the fundmentalists, who have, indeed, shut off their minds for such a length of time that they now strut about working hard to smugly harness the police power of the state to invade the liberties of total strangers. They somehow claim that the Bible is inerrant. The people in this latter group (maybe half the U.S., depending on how you measure) are the real targets of your frustration.
I think we need to be careful not to smear the first group, poetic believers, with the sins of fundies. They don't deserve it. They are just too often good people who live and let live, despite the strangeness of their articulated versions of their world view. In fact, I agree with Daniel Dennett that most of them believe in belief rather than believe in the articles of faith of their religions. They have been raised to think that belief in something supernatural is important, so they strive to do this–such beliefs are intertwined with the traditions and morals they value. In short, many of them are closet agnostics.
On the other hand, having an "education" is not the same as being a wonderful person. I have known many intellectually brilliant people who are either A) frozen with indecision or B) unwilling to consider practicing common sense empathy toward those around them who need it desperately. Good education does not (yet) mean high emotional IQ (though Howard Gardner is working to change this). I am often challenged by what I'm about to say: Show me someone who selflessly jumps to the aid of a hurt stranger and I'll show you someone who likely believes in some sort of God.
I certainly don't like being written off with all of the "atheists" who make the headlines. Therefore, I would urge all of us not to paint all members of all religions with the same broad brush. A typical Unitarian is very different than a typical member of one of the new big fundamentalist mega-churches. I'm trying to not sound too "preachy"–sorry if I've failed in this.
My bottom line: isolating virulent strains of dogma is always a worthy quest. Inviting all Believers to question their claims and beliefs is always a worthy quest. Attacking all religions as per se equally harmful is not, because it's not true and it's too often counter-productive. This topic was addressed repeatedly at the recent La Jolla conference. See http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=763 .
My initial reaction (not having studied your post or heard all the conferences yet), is that I agree. In fact, at some point I was, going to make ammends with certain groups, but I was sidetracked, as you can see is possible. I think I am a little less tolerant of "passive ignorance" than you may be. At the same time (this was gonna be one of my next posts, I swear on the holy… oh nevermind), I realize the danger in awakening the "sleeping dog". I think our wise friend Hogiemo is in this situation. He may not want nor require "awakening". Please do not judge me by what I say (not that you have), I am very different in real life, less talkative and aggressive, I think. Plus, any faults I have are just God's faults. See how easy being Christian is.
Great post Erich, just want to point out one thing, for now. You said (knowing you would get a reaction out of me 🙂 )…. "Show me someone who selflessly jumps to the aid of a hurt stranger and I’ll show you someone who likely believes in some sort of God." The flaw which I see is that you say 'selfless', but if you think about it, that person is really just serving God. The fact is, if they believe that God is all powerful and controls everything, they are really just acting "selfishly" in an attempt to please God and get a quick ticket to Heaven by doing good deeds. Complicated, but I think important that it is possible to see an act of generosity where really the motive is just as "human"/selfish as ever.
As the administrator of the site, you have attempted (and succeeded) in maintaining a level playing field. You probably have encountered and discussed some issues which required restraint on your part in order not to alienate your opponents. An admirable, yet rarely acquired, ability (in my experience on the Internet).
I guess that I am somewhat dishonest in that I present a slightly more aggressive attitude when I am posting, as opposed to when talking over the dinner table, at a party, etc. My reasoning is that, having witnessed some of the extremist and downright *afflicted* attitudes here on the web, my defenses are indeed raised. For many years I did not voice my opinions online and was content to be one of the smart folks who "just isn't concerned" with those Christian Fundamentalist Mor(m)ons. Now that I am actually posting, and as my interests (addictions) tend to change with circumstance, I want to make an impact while I am here on the web. I prefer to play the role of the *extreme opposite* of what I have disliked and disapproved of over the years. I may still have some atheist rage pent up, or it could be my unconscious using the game theory strategy that "a good offense is the best defense". I guess I was/am willing to let the "poetic" Christians dismiss me as an extremist in exchange for being (attempting) the countervoice to their extremists, thus providing a decoy so as to diffuse attacks on the "average" atheist. Noble, I know. 🙂
Gentle Scholar, I respectfully disagree.
If I lived in an hypothetical world where there were truly no God, I would still believe in God. Perhaps I would be wrong in this belief but, it would not be drugged induced.
I have examined many faiths and question my own but, unless I were the sole occupant of the hypothetical world (and therefore God) I would believe in God, and we would still have something like what we have now as far as belief or non-belief goes in the world. If your premise of the non-existence of God is true then, the world without God is not hypothetical at all but our current reality.
The question is why? Why do some human animals postulate the existence of a being which is "God"?
I assert that a sense of the numinous is an essential part of what differentiates humans from other animals. As our ancestors looked up in awe at the night sky, they sought to explain that for which they had no explanation. As our knowledge has increased, so too has our understanding of the limits of our knowledge, and still we are in awe.
Some sense the numinous and might seek a unifed field theory, or another a faith explanation, or another some amalgram of the two. That is also not to say that upon the description of a unified filed theory, my belief in God will wink out of existence!
I have chosen to believe in God, and I see the revelations of science as the unfolding of the wonders of the universe which God has made.
As for my faults, I own them. I don't take potshots at others without any knowledge of who they are but, I do like to give those which do a Rockefeller salute!
Hogiemo, I have learned from you, and I hope you have learned from me. Thanks again. (potshot omitted)
In other news today, I stumbled upon what looks to be a valuable website, Americans for Informed Democracy. Here is the link to AID…
http://www.aidemocracy.org/
Seems like a very high quality news and opinion source, let me know if any of you folks disagree.