From an ABC News Report....my notes in BOLD print:
DO WE NEED GOD TO BE MORAL?
One of the world's leading primatologists (notice he's a primatologist, not a human behaviourist) believes his decades of
research with apes answers a question that has plagued humans since the
beginning of time. I don't remember being 'plagued' over a question.
Are we moral because we believe in God, or do we believe in God because we are moral? I thought this was about monkey behavior and not about 'we' humans. Silly me.
Frans de
Waal argues in his latest book that the answer is clearly the latter. Clearly. The
seeds for moral behavior preceded the emergence of our species by millions of
years, and the need to codify that behavior so that all would have a clear
blueprint for morality led to the creation of religion, he
argues. Since he is millions of years old...and was there...he should know.
Most religious leaders would argue it's the other way around (Imagine that!): Our sense of what's moral came from God, and without God there would be no morality. Case in point: Has any parent EVER had to teach their child to act badly? No, they must be taught to act otherwise. We are born with selfishness at our core. Selflessness must be taught. So, if there were no God...man's selfish nature would not be restrained.
But this is a column about science, not
religion (Really? I believe Frans de idiot Waall made it so), so it's worth asking if de Waal's own research supports his
provocative conclusions, documented in the newly released book, "The Bonobo and the Atheist." (Wouldn't waste my money)
Just the title answers one question: he is an atheist (So, what other unbiased conclusion could he have possibly reached?), although he disparages the efforts of other atheists to convince the public to abandon all beliefs in the supernatural. Religion serves its purpose, he argues, especially through the rituals and body of beliefs that help strengthen community bonds. (How fair of him)
De Waal is a biology professor at Emory University and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes Primate Center in Atlanta. He is widely regarded as one of the world's top experts on primatology (not human behavior), especially the sometimes violent chimpanzees and their fun-loving sexually obsessed cousins, the bonobos, sometimes called the forgotten apes because they have become so rare.
Through years of research all over the world, de Waal has reached these basic conclusions: Chimps and bonobos and other primates clearly show empathy with others who are suffering. They have a sense of fairness, they take care of those in need, and they will share what they have with others who are less fortunate. (Elephants do the same. Dogs do the same. Cats do the same. Etc etc etc. Animals were created by God, and possess a knowledge of him we could never understand. The Bible reveals that all of the animal kingdom obeys him, at least to their mental capacity.)
Those and other human-like characteristics, that have been clearly documented by other researchers as well, at least show they have some grasp of morality. (No, they don't. The good doctor has confused instinctual behavior and equated it with a human trait...morality. Animals are not moral, that's why they are animals) It doesn't mean they are moral -- especially chimps, which can be very violent -- but they have the "basic building blocks" for morality, de Waal argues. (Okay, doctor, are they moral or are they not moral. You can't have it both ways. What they have is the basic building blocks for behaving according to their species...as they were created.)
Chimps, he says, "are ready to kill their rivals. They sometimes kill humans, or bite off their face." So he says he is "reluctant to call a chimpanzee a 'moral being.'" (Well, I'm glad he's 'reluctant')
"There is little evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not directly affect themselves," he writes. Yet, "In their behavior, we recognize the same values we pursue ourselves. (He's a treasure trove of contradictions! First, there's little evidence to prove his theory...then in the same sentence they have the same values we pursue. I know what, doc...blindfold yourself and throw darts at any ole hypothesis that grabs ya and stick to it.)
"I take these hints of community concern as a sign that the building blocks of morality are older than humanity, and we don't need God to explain how we got to where we are today," he writes. (So, we write a WHOLE book on 'hints' and plant your flag on the statement that the building blocks...whatever the hell that means...of morality are older than humanity itself. You can't make this stuff up...well...I guess you can.)
Our sense of morality, he continues, comes from within, not from above. Many activities he has witnessed show that apes feel guilt and shame, which also suggest a sense of morality. Why should anyone feel guilty if they don't know the difference between right and wrong? (Aha! And who established what was right and what was wrong? The apes? I guess we need to start a church that's called The First Right Holy Apostolic Pentecostal Catholic Methodical Lutheranistic Church of the Chimpanzee!!!!, since it was the apes that genetically implanted this into us when we finally fell out of the tree and broke our tails off and stood up straight.)
For example, Lody, a bonobo in the Milwaukee County Zoo, bit the hand -- apparently accidentally -- of a veterinarian who was feeding him vitamin pills. (BAD Lody!!!)
"Hearing a crunching sound, Lody looked up, seemingly surprised, and released the hand minus a digit," de Waals writes. (I would have shot Lody!!)
Days later the vet revisited the zoo and held up her bandaged left hand. Lody looked at the hand and retreated to a distant corner of the enclosure where he held his head down and wrapped his arms around himself, signs of both grief and guilt. (There you have it. Lody is the sign we have ALL been looking for. Next time I bite somebody's finger off I'll just pray to Lody for forgiveness.)
And here's the amazing part. About 15 years later the vet returned to the zoo and was standing among a crowd of visitors when Lody recognized her and rushed over. He tried to see her left hand, which was hidden behind the railing. The vet lifted up her incomplete hand and Lody looked at it, then at the vet's face, then back at the hand again. (Okay, the monkey looked at the hand...then at the vet...then back at the hand...MAN, I'm on pins and needles waiting to read what happened next!!)
Was he showing shame and grief? (No, it was showing memory. Animals have memory.) Or was it
fear of a possible reprisal? (Now, that's possible. I bet in the wild if he bit another ape's finger off he would have gotten his ass kicked right away. That's what is going through his mind. Where's my ass whuppin'???)The ape at least realized he had done something
wrong, de Waal argues, showing the seeds of moral behavior. (No he didn't you idiot. Animals don't know the difference between right and wrong. They DO know by conditioned responses and instinct when things happen that imbalance the natural order of things.)
There are scores of other examples showing deep grief over a dying colleague and compassion for a mother ape that has lost her young and care for young apes that have lost their parents. All those things are signs of what we would call unmistakable morality, if the subjects were humans, not apes. (I'm sorry, but grief and morality are two entirely different things. When a young member or a leader of the pack, herd, pride or whatever, dies...animals react instinctually. When young die, it is a danger to the continuation of the group. When a leader or elder dies, it is a danger to the group's cohesiveness. They aren't grieving. They are recognizing danger and responding instinctively.)
"Some say animals are what they are, whereas our own species follows ideals, but this is easily proven wrong," de Waals writes. "Not because we don't have ideals, but because other species have them too." (The definition of 'ideal' is a conception of something in its perfection. Animals are devoid of reasoning power beyond the most simplistic. DEVOID. They have no concept of perfection. They eat, pro-create, crap and pee. Some can be domesticated, others can't. That's it. Animals do not have ideals.)
When an ape expresses grief or guilt or compassion he is living out the blueprint for survival in a culture that is becoming more complex, and possibly more dangerous. He is acting from within, not because he believes in God who defined right and wrong. De Waal puts it this way:
"The moral law is not imposed from above or derived from well-reasoned principles; rather it arises from ingrained values that have been there since the beginning of time." (I love how scientists know, without a friggin' doubt, what existed since the beginning of time. Hell, let's just worship ole De Waal since he was there.)
He cites at least one instance when those "ingrained values" led to action among bonobos that seems like a divine solution to a nasty problem that confronts human society around the world. (Animals don't have values!!!! Has this guy ever watched Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom??? I think not.)
Bonobos, according to his research, know how to avoid war. (Here we go....)
Over and over he has seen neighboring bonobo colonies gather near a common border as the males prepare to do battle. Ape warfare can indeed be violent. But when the bonobos are ready to fight, the females often charge across the boundary and start making out with both genders on the other side.
Pretty soon, the war has degenerated to what we humans would call an orgy, after which both sides are seen grooming each other and watching their children play.
So an orgy is moral? Maybe these guys understand it really is better to make love, not war. (Okay. Forget everything I've said. I like the way these guys operate.)
No comments:
Post a Comment