The significance of human beings
Up until the late Middle Ages humanity thought it was the center of the universe. And indeed, why would we think otherwise? When we looked into the sky, it was obvious that everything revolved around us: the sun, the moon, and the stars all circled the earth.In addition to that, humans dominated and subjected every animal to their whim.
It seemed that religion was right, humanity was the center of God’s creation, and everything was created to serve humankind.
Then Galileo appeared on the scene and showed that it was actually the earth that revolved around the sun. Soon after, we discovered how big the universe really was. Suddenly humanity had to completely refashion its understanding of the universe. Then Darwin showed that humans had actually evolved out of the entire lineage of animal species by a process he called “survival of the fittest.” We were not created instantaneously by the hands of God, but like every other animal, had evolved out of the earth over millions and millions of years. Both these discoveries had the effect of knocking humanity off its pedestal. We were no longer the center of the cosmos, and by all intents and purposes, simply a small speck in an enormous universe.
In the year 2010, this is still the general perception of the human race: we are insignificant. The Psalmist expresses what many of us feel today: “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?” (Psalm 8: 3 – 4). As a whole, humanity has lost its sense of uniqueness and privilege.
But this is an illusion, and illogical. For science is showing us that humanity is still very much the “center” of the universe, albeit in a different manner than we first thought.
The illusion stems from something that causes us to associate importance with size. Because the universe is so vast and we are so small we think we are unimportant. But that is an illusion because God is not closer to something that is big than to something that is small. The true measure of importance of a being is its consciousness, its mind. If we imagine the scale of evolution in these spiritual terms, we see that the stars are at the very bottom. Then proceeding upwards we find plants, then eventually animals, and then at the very top, human beings. Knowledge and love exist in pure form at the human level. We are highest on the scale of evolution, and are the most sophisticated life-form ever: self-conscious persons. I do not believe that many people realize the significance of that fact. For millions of years evolution operated “blindly,” but in human beings, evolution has become “aware of itself.” Amazing!
Now I am not saying animals are not conscious, because they are. All life and all animals are conscious (which is the same as saying all life is spirit). But only humans are self-conscious. That is a big difference. Humans not only know; they ‘know that they know.’ Now, there are intelligent minds who, because they harbor animosity (probably rightly so) towards religion, are surprisingly irrational when it comes to analyzing humanity against other life-forms. They refuse to see any difference. I must admit that I have often looked at dogs and thought that they must be self-conscious, or at least have glimpses of it. However, I cannot help but see that there are at least two fundamental characteristics proper to human beings alone that prove that we are the only self-conscious animals.
The first is awareness of our nakedness. “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves” (Genesis 3: 7). Again, I do not think people pay sufficient attention to this fact. From apurely objective point of view, it is certainly very bizarre that human beings are the only animal on earth that wears clothes. Yet this makes sense because we are the only animal who is “conscious of self.” A self-conscious animal can look at itself in the third person, so to speak, and examine itself. It is this “reflective” act which makes us aware of our nakedness.
I visited the Milwaukee Zoo with two Caymanian friends and we watched in amusement as this obviously extremely intelligent gorilla sat facing us with his hands behind his head. His legs were wide open exposing his genitals. This was an animal on the cusp of self-consciousness, but was not quite there. He was not aware of his nakedness. Now of course, there will be objections to this. A common objection is, “wearing clothes is a cultural thing: there are tribes in rural parts of the world where nakedness is not looked upon in shame.” But that objection misses the point. Because if any one of those tribal persons were suddenly transported to Times Square in NYC, they would immediately become aware and embarrassed of their nakedness. The gorilla, on the other hand, would not bat an eye. Despite cultural acceptance of nudity, only human beings are aware of what it means to be naked. If intelligent life-forms from another planet were to visit us, would we not expect them to wear clothes?
The second proof of our self-consciousness is our awareness of morality. “And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3: 22). Anybody can see that this fact also separates us from the animals. No animal is ever brought to justice for “murdering” another animal. That is absurd. Questions of good and evil do not apply in the animal kingdom. Even if an animal was to kill a human being (like that Killer Whale in Orlando) we do not hold it accountable for its actions, send it to prison, or to court. We may euthanize it, yes, but that is not for the sake of justice, but simply so that it does not happen again.
Animals are not self-conscious, and therefore cannot sin. A good example of this is the fact that only human beings worry about the extinction of other species; like in Cayman, we worry about the extinction of the Blue Iguana. But why? If evolution is a “survival of the fittest,” is it not natural that some species will become extinct? The history of evolution is one animal species after another becoming extinct. So in reality, animal extinction should not bother us; it certainly does not bother any other animal out there. But it does bother us, and that is because we are aware of good and evil. We are moral animals; different than every other animal. Yes, we may be 98% genetically the same as a chimpanzee, but apparently that 2% makes all the difference. We belong to the plane of “self-consciousness,” making us “persons” who are aware of our nakedness and the concept of good and evil.
I have only chosen two, but there are certainly many other characteristics that one could point to in order to show the self-consciousness of humanity: our discovery of mathematics and the physical sciences, philosophy and music, and all the artistic ways we express ourselves. In addition, scientists are still not sure that any other animal beside the human being laughs or cries. Yet, if we remain objective, it is very obvious that humans represent a whole new level in the evolution of consciousness. In addition to the lithosphere, geosphere and biosphere, some thinkers are already identifying a “human-sphere,” or noosphere. Yes, it is true that from a physical perspective we are mere specks of dust in the universe. But from the more important spiritual point of view, the stars and galaxies are mere specks compared to the infiniteness of our minds. We stand on the highest rung of the ladder that reaches to God, who is Spirit, Consciousness, Mind.
The Psalmist, after reflecting on themagnitude of the stars, says to God of human beings, “You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet” (Psalm 8: 3 – 5). Yes, we are the rulers of this world (for good or for bad,) and everything is literally under our feet. We are the center of the evolution of the world. Evolution has not stopped with us, it continues in us, in the form of human socialization. Evolution runs right through us, and is now conscious of itself, in us. We literally hold the future of the world in our hands.
The critical question indeed, is whether we will use this power for good or for evil. Will we save the world, or destroy it? But that is a different topic for a different time. My point here was only to restore the significance of humanity in the universe, based on our current scientific knowledge. Humans are far from insignificant as still too many people think. Their eyes are not opened to the true reality of things. We are the highest point of the evolutionary process. We are the part of the universe which has become personal, and conscious of itself – a grave responsibility, and an extraordinary privilege.
Category: Viewpoint
Gee, Badir Awe, your were sounding a lot less irrational than most who espouse a religious view to explain cosmology and humankind’s place in the grand scheme of things. Until the closing that is.
The rhetorical statements you posed "We literally hold the future of the world in our hands" and "Will we save the world, or destroy it?" are so lame and worn out that I could not let them pass without commenting on the whole piece
If by the "world" what is meant is the Earth, if humans manage to destroy anything significant, it will likely be Homo Sapiens that will be rendered extinct; the world, the Earth, will be fine without us. Sure, we humans might take a significant portion of the biosphere with us if we nuke or pollute ourselves into oblivion, but over the eons the world will cleanse itself of our pollution and destruction. Evolution will yield a replacement for mankind as a dominant species.
Unless and until humans have the power to impose some major physical catastrophe upon the structure of the Earth, the only worry we have is destroying ourselves as a species. The earth would certainly be a healthier and more tranquil planet without humans.
It is only our arrogance that leads us to think of ourselves as destroyer or saviour of the earth. We are neither. The only future we hold in our hands is our own. And in light of the potential for human extinction caused by a meteor impact, even that power is limited.
From an objective and logical point of view, it is not the slightest bit bizarre that human beings are the only animal on earth that wears clothes. It came not from an awareness of nakedness and shame of being nude, but out of a desire to be comfortable and shielded from the elements. Humans donned hats not because of shame of a bare pate, the sun was hot or the wind cold. Hats enhance comfort. Ornamentation and status also became associated with headgear. Likewise, early man did not lace on animal skin boots because of being ashamed of having bare toes. If you maintain that humans donned animal skins out of shame, then you may as well say that man fashioned clubs and spears because he was ashamed of walking around empty-handed. Your observation on shame and nakedness is far from being objective.
On another point, I beg to differ, but science is certainly not showing us "…that humanity is still very much the center of the universe". The scientific truth is that if humans vanished off the face of the earth tomorrow, the universe would not pause to take notice. We would be just another extinct species. Our structures would remain impressive until they crumbled to the dust from whence they came. Our brief fossil legacy will be that we were a relatively short-tenured species of creatures on Earth that did not even last as long as cockroaches. The biblical truth is that as an animal species humans will one day vanish off the face of the Earth!
Other than as a physical geometric point, the universe has no "centre". The universe simply is.
You seem to lean to the opinion that we humans have made ourselves the centre of our own "universe". This is not so wrong as without human kind all our religious and philosophical viewpoints are moot, all arguments silenced. If I do not hear the tree in the woods fall because I am extinct, to me it made no sound.
Mankind’s value to the "world" and our stature as a species on earth falls to less than zero if you weigh our self awareness with our capacity for doing bad things and our destructive capability. We may the only creatures on Earth who are self-aware; we are also the only ones who intentionally torture others of our kind for pleasure, profit or political gain, and we are the only species who have the capability of self annihilation. Not an impressive resume’ by any means.
While on the topic of being the centre of (our own) universe: Those who say "we are so small we think we are unimportant" do not speak for me. I may be just a flyspeck on a pimple on the posterior of the universe, and my kind might be a horrible lot as species go, but I do not think myself as insignificant. Oh no, not me. To me I am pretty damn important!
The vastness of the universe does not trouble or intimidate me in the least – it is what it is, big. The Andromeda galaxy is astoundingly huge, but in the grand scheme of my world, I consider myself way more important than the Andromeda galaxy. (Unless, of course, the Andromeda contains any sentient, intelligent beings. If so, then I may have to rethink my opinion of my priority in the universe. But that is another debate for another day.)
If the Andromeda galaxy went POOF and vanished tomorrow, I may wonder where it went, but I would just go "Oh, well", and resume eating my burrito, or writing my comment to CNS, or whatever I was doing at the time.
You said it much better than I Just Commentin’ I said it sounded like someone off their meds which was perhaps a little too critical. Or sarcastic. What I meant to say was: Badir Awe appears childlike or with a childlike philosophy. Or: someone who has learned everything from playing with ‘My Little Pony’ and watching Muppet movies. Is that better?
Joe Average, I detect a hint of desperationin your voice…
Be not afraid.
While I appreciate the effort of the author to present his ideas, I’m afraid his premise is flawed, I suspect either because the argument was formulated to fit the idea or because of insufficient research of history and anthropology.
Just from the first paragraph, he says that until the middle ages it was thought that the Earth was the center of the universe. In reality, several ancient civilizations knew this was not true. There was even a Greek astronomer (Aristarchus) who postulated a heliocentric solar system.
Whether it was Man’s ego to believe in his self-importance or the ‘God-given right’ to ‘dominate’ nature, the truth which was self-evident was ignored by European civilizations, which then proceeded to re-write history.
Many thinkers may have posited a heliocentric universe before Copernicus, but it was only "posited." They certainly never "knew" it.
Galileo made it a scientific fact.
There is certainly no way that you know that they didn’t know. The fact that many books were written supporting a heliocentric model seems to implythe contrary.
Europeans were seemingly not convinced by Galileo either, as he was put on trial, forced to recant, and spent his last years under house arrest.
Actually, I CAN say that I know they did not know it.
From Wikipedia:
The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun was first proposed in the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos. However, it was not until the 16th century that a fully predictivemathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician and astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, leading to the Copernican Revolution.
Not until "a fully predictive mathematical model" as started by Copernicus did humanity KNOW that the earth was not the center of the universe.
Until that point it was pure conjecture my friend. Predictive models is the basis and staple of modern scientific knowledge.
"it was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician and astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus."
I’m not sure what Wikipedia means by ‘fully predictive mathematical model’, but the original Copernicus model was hardly perfect. For one thing, it assumes that the Sun is the centre of the universe and also as per Wikipedia, "(Copernicus) continued to believe in the celestial spheres and could provide little in the way of direct observational evidence that his theory was superior to Ptolemy’s."
That said, this was the starting point for all modern astronomy and basically the scientific revolution. Copernicus gets the credit because his theory was the one that was worked on and about 200 years later calculus and the theory of gravity made the model accepted. Also, Copernicus was aware of Aristarchus, but the Greek’s work was already lost to antiquity. As far as I know, Copernicus was not aware of Aryabhata or other non-European works, some of which are also lost.
Amusingly enough, while writing this, I read the following on the Heliocentrism page: "A proportion of the public still believes in the geocentric model. Approximately one in five Americans and Britons believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, according to surveys in 1999, 2006." So, it appears there are a lot of people who still do now ‘know’.
This is one of the most interesting articles I read in my life. FINALLY someone that gets it! I was beginning to think I was the only one that compared the significance of humanity, God, creation etc this way!
Loved it, loved it, now I am eager to read "part two" please prepare an article to the second topic, ‘saving the world or destroying it’ etc.
This article made my day, I can get off the internet and actually do some work now :-). Thanks for this amazing read up!
Badir
I love your topic and I love this article. I think it triggers rational thought and investigation. I do sincerely believe we are of great significance; if we weren’t of any significance, then why are we here and alive? Why are we experiencing this life? Why do we have good and bad choices? and, Why when we go contrary to noble principles within us, we end up gravitating to self-destruction? Indeed there must be a moral guide that is interested in us! I am not talking about being taught right from wrong from society. I am not talking about the genes or the traits in one’s personality. There is at times, an influence that comes upon us and almost like tells us what is right from wrong. There is at times in us something we don’t want to do, yet we do it not for any reason because of an inner sense. And apparently, it dictates to us and brings havoc in our lives when we resist it, but peace of mind, contentment, and happiness when we conform in harmony with its princples. No one can tell me that it is my instinct! All I know is that it is a higher Being than what my ego imagines me to consist.
Thank you Badir! I hope you do as well believe in a Supreme and Just God, the Source and core of all life.
The shame of nakedness amongst humans was taught to them by the uptight religions throughout time. As mentioned above, climate necessitated clothing, not shame.
Look at children. They are blissfully unaware of their nakedness until taught to be ashamed and cover up by adults.
Look at the primitive tribes of the Amazon River Basin, who also live their lives comfortably without unnecessary clothing for their climate.
The only time you will see pictures of these tribal Indians wearing clothes is after prudish "Christian" missionaries visit and try to cover them up after the shock of seeing the tribe people’s nakedness (without shame).
According to your Bible, in Genesis, didn’t Jehova say he made all people in his image. Is that something to be ashamed of? Does Jehova wear clothes to cover his nakedness? If not, should he be ashamed? If so, who made his clothes? I know some of this is silly, but so is Badir’s, "only humans are self-aware". See Wikipedia’s article on the universally accepted, self awareness "Mirror Test". NINE species animals passed this test, including European Magpies!
If I recall Genisis correctly, Adam & Eve were only ashamed of their nakedness after they disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit. The implication is clear: God originally intended Man to be nekkid!
oh, so humans are the only animal who didn’t grow an extra layer of skin and fur to accommodate for climate change?
Respect to the author for his approach. Please continue to examine these issues and hopefully you’ll be able to discuss at length with mature responders. Good luck!
Wha?
I like this. I disagree with much of it (some people feeling shame for nakedness and morality are not proof of a god’s existence by any means. Not even close)
I hope the writer of this is not discouraged by the harsh comments. At least he’s thinking, which is more than I can say for about 95 percent of all the other people who claim to know that gods are real.
Keep thinking and keep writing.
Ps. Do the existence of nude beaches prove that gods are not real?
Shhh!!! I’m still reading it. They’re saying..
It’s something to do with..
with….
People? Writing??? Animals?? Gorillas???
No. Wait a minute
It’s about..
Being off your meds????
Now I’ve lost my place
It is what it is. We are what we are.
Significance is in the eye of the beholder.
Get used to it.
I get your point. It has to start by some form of intelligent being at the top. This is what we are lacking here. Take our Govt. per instance If the top (the stars,the sky) our Governor and our Premier cannot seriouly lead then the rest of the animal chain cannot function properly because there are no vision nor leadership. It’s like animals in a zoo, pretty to look but that it’s non functional and interesting as evolution according to Darwin adopts to it’s environment for better or worst. Some think we are descendent from apes others see us as the result of the Big Bang or is it from the deep bottom of the oceans form by warm vents into micro organism. Others believe that we were created in the image of God to be messed up by a serpent or evil (devil or Premier) and temptation in which however we were given a second chance for redeming our sins by sending us is only beloved Son to be crucified. You take all that and everyone as their own beliefs. A very confused and inefective human being just like us here in the Cayman islands. It’s nobodys fault except our own for while understanding there is something very wrong we are unwilling to do anything about it or take a stand for what we believe in. Should I dare say God help us all or the end of the world as we know it is coming and there’s nothing we dare do about it 🙂
Wow. I think I think this is nonsense. But every time I get to about one third in I seem to fall asleep.
What a load…
"… But that objection misses the point. Because if any one of those tribal persons were suddenly transported to Times Square in NYC, they would immediately become aware and embarrassed of their nakedness. The gorilla, on the other hand, would not bat an eye."
There are lots of people who don’t mind nakedness. It is you who thinks you are a god (or you think that you think like a god) who PRESUMES that either the gorilla or the tribesman OUGHT to care about being naked. You are just wrong and the assumptions that form the basis of your presentation render it meaningless.
NB: If you existed as an animal with an animal’s brain, you would be in a position to comment on their state of consciousness: Thomas Nagel, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" (1974); but you are not, so you can’t.
Stop being so pompous as to presume the qualities of the existence of other life forms.
Or they might just be cold in NYC…
I think the feeling of coldness rather than nakedness encouraged our forefathers to cover up as they migrated to cooler climes…..also, it gets pretty cold in some parts of Africa, how about keeping warm with an animal skin or two?
but then you would have to ask why other animals don’t do the same?
Mostly because of tools and thumbs.
Oh yessss!, Voice of Science! You are soooooo right! I gotta agree, that was one big assumption!
What if the tribal dude in question landed in a nudist resort? If there is an inherent shame in nakedness, then nakedness per se should evoke shame, regardless of the context, no? That is what we see in the Garden of Eden story. Adam and Eve were not placed in Times Square but they felt ashamed of their exposed naughty bits after their little incident with the snake and the fruit. Awe’s argument is a bit flawed. which brings us to an interesting question: Did God wear clothes when he walked in the Garden? What did he wear?
I think the naked tribal dude in question would be wondering why the hell all these strange tribesmen around him were wearing so much goofy looking artificial animal skins.
What if the tribal dude in question landed in a clothing optional beach where half the people were nude and half were clothed? Would he feel ashamed of his nakedness? Nah! He would probably go up to one of his fellow starkers and ask why the other tribe covers up the good bits.
The assumption was overstated to include "any" one of those tribal persons. What if the tribal person in question was an exhibitionist who was proud of his stuff? I would imagine he would be strutting up and down the street like a peacock, amused that this strange tribe he popped into were running away, averting their eyes, and hiding their children’s gaze from the sight.
Shame of one’s own nakedness is learned and depends on context – it is not an inherent instinct common to all humanity.