Do little people go to heaven?: If the 3' tall hominids were rational, did they have immortal souls?

spectator.co.uk ^ | 6 November 2004 | Christopher Howse

[Destro]

Issue: 6 November 2004

Do little people go to heaven?

If the three-foot-tall hominids of Flores were rational, did they have immortal souls? asks Christopher Howse

When they showed on television the cave on the island of Flores where the remains of little people had been found, I felt, I admit, a Yeatsian frisson that the world of politics cannot give. It was not delight at a new branch on the hat-stand of anthropoid evolution, but the thought that in the thick Indonesian rainforest there were (or had been, perhaps as recently as the time when dodos lived) creatures with whom we could converse, but which were not men.

The appetite for talking to other creatures is amply exemplified by our often exasperated one-sided conversations: ‘Get off the bloody table, Tigger, there’s a good cat.’ The very existence of pets as a sort of imaginary friend shows how reluctant humans are to be alone among the frightening emptinesses of Paschalian space. The exciting news was that the folk tales of green men, little people, wood-dwellers, might be based on fact.

But don’t these new creatures in Flores, so gratingly christened hobbits, prove that the Bible is rubbish, Darwin is right and everything can be explained by evolution? Well, for so-called fundamentalists, the difficulties of keeping to the sentence-by-sentence literal truth of the biblical account of the Creation should not be much greater than they already are, even if a delegation of Flores hobbits arrived in Downing Street demanding equal rights and bus passes.

For mainstream Christians, Darwin was never much of a problem anyway. He was only thought to be so by those who presumed he had somehow either: 1) proved the Bible wasn’t true, or 2) proved that men had no immortal souls. He had proved neither.

Genesis was chewed over, about 1,800 years ago, by the clever Christian thinker Origen. ‘What reasonable man would think that the first, second and third day — and the evening and the morning — existed without a sun, moon and stars?’ he asked. I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries.

No one, before the phrase ‘sola scriptura’ became a motto, took the Bible for a sort of cosmological mechanical maintenance manual. But it was the contention of Christians 1,500 years before Darwin that evolution does not rule out questions of design, intention, teleology or why anything exists at all.

Far more interesting this week, in an irresponsibly speculative way, is what we should make of these Floresians’ spiritual life, if they existed.

The Church used, in the Middle Ages, to be very fierce against those who declared that there were men living in the Antipodes. The problem was that the scientists taught then that the torrid zone at the equator made it quite impassable to travellers, and so any human existing down-under would be descended from another first-father rather than Adam. But Christian doctrine had always maintained that all men were descended from one man. They were all fallen through original sin, but all redeemed by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The scientists who have come up with these new Floresians do not count them among the ancestors of man, but among the collateral branches which died out, like the Neanderthals, only later. The suggestion is that the Floresians are, like us, rational animals.

Now Christians believe that man (I mean homo, of course, not vir) is a special creation of God. Would these Floresians be in the image and likeness of God too, with immortal souls to be saved or lost, capable of praying to God and going to heaven?

I cannot see that evolution would be an obstacle to their being spiritual and rational creatures. ‘The Catholic faith obliges us to hold firmly that souls are immediately created by God,’ wrote Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis in 1950. And he wasn’t just making it up; that was the general belief of Christians over the centuries. By ‘immediately created’ is meant that the souls don’t grow like coral out of the bodies that our parents kindly bequeathed us by their passionate or careless mingling of zygotes.

The soul is, in scholastic terms, derived from Aristotle, the form of the body, making it, with its constituent matter, a unified substance. Bunny rabbits have souls too, but they are not immortal. Ours are, and, as such, cannot be confected by a collision of matter. For more details see Aquinas’s Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima.

The assumption is that God does not deny any human an immortal soul; the bodily set-up is capable of working with an immortal soul, like a mobile with a charged battery, and God provides one. The one soul performs all the functions: spiritual, intellectual, animal and vegetative. It would be the same story for the Floresians if they were capable of rational, immaterial thought.

By ‘rational thought’ I do not merely mean the kind of cleverness we notice in our dogs, or in the cleverest mammals, dolphins or, if you are Lyall Watson, pigs. Descartes thought animals were mere automata, but he was wrong, for they clearly have feelings, can learn and make decisions.

If you accept the standard post-Aristotelian arguments for the immortality of the soul, you will link it to intellectual reason. This is more than mere mathematical calculation. Though we are animals when we are thinking intellectually, the thoughts themselves are not bits of brain or electrical charges being arranged. Of course the original information came in through the senses, but ratiocination is immaterial, and immaterial things cannot decay, having no degradable parts.

But even if you accept this unfashionable view of thought, is it not hard to see where on the continuum of intelligence our ape-like ancestors qualified as having true immaterial rationality? Well, naturally it is hard to detect a step-change on any continuum, but the scientists are ready to claim a new species in Flores, a specific difference that is more than a matter of degree.

I suspect that the Neanderthals did not have the spark of reason, and thus their souls departed, as any form of a substance does, when their bodies died and decayed. Only if the Floresians were brighter and could conceive of universal ideas, conversing excitedly perhaps about what should be on Saturday night television once Saturday night and television had been invented, would they be capable of sustaining an immortal soul.

The presence of these rational animals is no weirder than the belief millions of Christians hold, that there are lots of angels around, each a spirit individually created, like immortal souls, by God.

But would the Floresians be fallen creatures, like the children of Adam, or still walking in unsevered friendship with God? C.S. Lewis wrote about unfallen Martians in Out of the Silent Planet, one species at least of which, the sorns, were more intelligent than human beings. If the Floresians are fallen creatures, how would they be redeemed? Would the incarnation of Christ and his resurrection save them?

Not that I can see, since God did not become a Floresian but a human, a Homo sapiens. Still, the Incarnation and Resurrection have had a universal, cosmic effect, so it could well be lèse majesty to criticise divine arrangements for the redemption, if necessary, of an intelligent species, the existence of which is posited only on the evidence of some dry bones. Ezekiel had a vision of a valley of dry bones, and was much surprised by what happened next.

Christopher Howse is an assistant editor of the Daily Telegraph.

[GeronL]

The UK SPECTATOR has gotten weird on us, except for articles by Mark Steyn

[JimSEA]

If there is one thing archaeology has shown, it is that humans, all human ancestors capable of rational thought at least, have had a concept of "god" likely as long as we have been around. Why is an interesting but, as yet, unanswerable question.

[Destro]

I won't say "god" but some sort of beleif in the supernatural.

I have read somewhere that some anthropolgists view religon as a tool created by man.

Man is a tool maker. Man makes tools to control his enviornment - he makes fire - clothes - shelter - hunting impalements.

So man was faced with aspects of nature that he needed or wanted to control - like birth and death and the hunt. Man then invented ritual as a tool that he thought would give him control/influence over nature. This ritual became religion as man saw that whatever he was doing went along with his goals.

If I can give one example - the Aztec use of ritual human sacrifice as a tool to control the elements to produce good crop weather.

The Aztecs actually thought what they were doing was linked to good crop weather. When the Spanish put a stop to human sacrifice the Natives were terrified. They thought it would no longer rain - the seasons would not change - they could not understand why the Spanish did not understand this.

When the weather changed anyway without any human sacrifice the Aztecs were shocked. They dumped their religion almost overnight because they saw that as a tool it was meaningless to what they needed.

That is the rationlist version of why man has religion.

[GeronL]

The British newspaper The World in 1790 had a strange report on its front page, (these things were only 4-8 pages back then) it was about how they saw different people back then.

---

ASSEMBLAGE of LIVING RARITIES
To be seen over EXETER 'CHANGE;
consisting of the finest Collection of foreign Birds and Beasts in this Kingdom; amongst which is that renouned Bird of ancient fame,
The PELICAN of the Wilderness,
So remarkable for its extraordinary formation and singular appearance. In the adjoining room, is the handsomest LION in Europe; and those famous and surprising creatures the ARABIAN SAVAGES, which nearly approach the human race. Also a variety of capitol and uncommon animals, forming in the whole a Grand Exhibition of Quadrapeds, and the beautiful Feathered Tribe, which has been honoured with the presence of several in the Royal Family, who expressed themselves agreeably entertained. There is a number of curious Birds lately added to the Collection--- Admittance Only One Shilling to View the Whole, or sixpence each room.

N.B. Foreign Birds, Beasts &c. bought, sold or exchanged

[GeronL]

Arabian Savages and the feathered tribe (American indians?) were in ZOO's!!!!!

[Destro]

I know of this well. European museums used to have stuffed humans from below the Equator on display.

http://www.africaresource.com/scholar/elnegro.htm

AFRICAN REBURIED AFTER 170 YEARS IN SPANISH MUSEUM

One hundred and seventy years after his grave was descrated by white grave robbers and his body spirited to France, then to a Spanish museum, the stuffed remains of a 19th century Negro has finally been buried in Botswana.The embalmed body of the 19th century man was buried in an emotional and sometimes bitter ceremony that recalled his degrading display in Europe for nearly two centuries.

More than 1,000 mourners gathered to bury the remains of the man believed to have been dug up by white grave robbers 170 years ago, stuffed with straw and shipped to France as a curiosity. The body later became the main exhibit in a small museum in Spain where it was known as "El Negro" and nearly led to an African boycott of the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona."The honour we are bestowing on this son of Africa is an indication of our strong determination to close a chapter of the injustices of the past," Botswana's Minister of Foreign Affairs Mompati Merafhe told the gathering at a civic park in the capital, Gaborone.

"We are prepared to forgive, but we cannot forget the crimes of the past, lest they are repeated," he said, standing next to the small conffin draped in the blue, white and black flag of Botswana. Historians believe the 27-year-old man, who was given a christian burial with military honours, died of natural causes and was stolen from his grave by two celebrated French taxidermists, Jules and Eduoard Verraux. His corpse was exhibited in a Parisian shop for the next 50 years before being sold to a Spanish naturalist, who later bequeathed the remains to a museum in the town of Banyoles, near the Spanish city of Barcelona.

A scandal erupted in the early 1990s when a local doctor of Haitian origin objected to the exhibit on the eve of the Barcelona games. Alphonse Arcelin, who attended Thursday's funeral, was overcome withemotion as he recalled seeing the body for the first time in 1991. "I cried and I still cry when I think about it. He was a black man. I felt humiliated, insulted," Arcelin told Reuters. A large commemorative plaque was erected next to the grave and tells the story of "El Negro's" 170-year journey home.

At least one mourner questioned why he was being buried again. "They should put him in a museum to attract tourists. If you bury him, then history is gone," Ndu Lekoko told Reuters. Others have questioned why it took nearly a decade for the body to be returned home after the initial international outrage over the exhibit.

The Banyoles town council initially defended the exhibit, and some townsfolk took to wearing T-shirts bearing the slogan "Banyoles loves you El Negro. Don't go!" Some shopkeepers sold chocolates made in El Negro's image. "How could officials of the town of a civilised country defy for so long the principle of respect of a human being," said Daniel Antonio, a senior representative of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). "This act represented an insult to the dignity of all Africans."

The outrage eventually forced the mayor to remove the body from the exhibition in 1998 and the Spanish government agreed to pay for its repatriation to Botswana.Spain's ambassador to Botswana, Eduardo Garrigues, said he hoped the return of El Negro would strengthen relations with Africa, but he fell short of giving the apology that some African dignitaries had expected.

Garrigues said the body was not originally taken by Spanish citizens and the delayed return was due to the "complexity of relations" between local and central governments.

"We are not responsible as a government for something that happened in 1830," Garrigues told reporters.

The OAU had asked Botswana, home to around 55,000 San bushmen, to accept the body on behalf of Africa. But some historians say the man may have come from a small village on the Vaal River in what is now South Africa.

The publicity over El Negro has also focused attention on the plight of bushmen in southern Africa, fighting for ancestral desert homelands seized from them centuries ago.

[JimSEA]

I am perhaps a romantic but I must attribute my highly suspect idea as to how it (religion) started to awe and wonder and I attribute human sacrifice, et. al. to the cynical evil in us that seeks advantage by controling our fellows. At base we are perhaps saying at least similar thing.

[Destro]

"El Negro of Banyoles" is the name given to a stuffed human body that was displayed at the Francesc Darder Museum of Natural History in Banyoles, Spain, between 1916 and 1997. It was removed after protests by Africans and people of African ancestry, which began around the time of the 1992 Barcelona Olympics. The body was eventually repatriated to Africa, and was re-buried in Gaborone, capital of Botswana, on October 5, 2000.

Who was he? His origins were investigated by a University of Botswana research paper of April 2000. He was probably one of the Batlhaping people, who were living around the confluence of the Orange and Vaal rivers, possibly in the village of Kgatlane. He was a young man of about 27 (see post-mortem) who died in about 1830. His body was stolen and stuffed by two French taxidermists, the Verreaux brothers. They took it to Paris with thousands of other specimens of African wild life, and displayed it as the "Bechuana" (i.e. a Tswana person from South Africa/Botswana) in their shop.

The body was subsequently purchased by Frencesc Darder, a Spanish nauralist, who displayed it at the 1888 Barcelona World Exhibition. It then went with the rest of his taxidermy collection, after his death, to a new museum named after him at Banyoles. Here the body became popularly known as "El Negro" ("El Negre" in the Catalan language), because it was painted black (see pictures on page xxx). It now represented all "Negro" people, and became a symbol of Spanish exploitation and enslavement of black Africans. It also raised questions about the (re-)presentation of dead human bodies in museum displays.

http://ubh.tripod.com/afhist/elnegro/eln0.htm

[GeronL]

Oh so enlightened in Europe.

[Destro]

I used the Aztec human sacrifice story to show how religion is in reality a human tool per those that advocate this theory. Once the tool was shown to not work the religion or ritual is dropped and man seeks a better tool. Like dropping flint tools for bronze.

[Destro]

Americans held the same views as Europeans. What makes Western/European civilization great is that is learns and advances.

What is a paradox is that the Enlightenment in leaving Christianity behind allowed for such disregard for humanity to rise up. This dispaly of a human body would never have been allowed in a Christian centered Europe. In fact it can be argued that American slavery in the South became what it became (treating Black Africans as non-humans and chattel) because the enlightenment weakened the Christian bonds of morality.

[GeronL]

Of course those old newspapers also have ads and articles about slave auctions and rewards for returning runaway slaves. It was a much different time, I hope we as a species, don't return to that kind of thing.

[redgolum]

In fact it can be argued that American slavery in the South became what it became (treating Black Africans as non-humans and chattel) because the enlightenment weakened the Christian bonds of morality.

I can agree with you up to a point, but slavery existed in Europe for centuries before the enlightenment, though not on the scale of the American south. Slavery was seen as a necessary evil, and as something ordained by God in some cases.

It can be argued that the treatment of slaves and servants was better before the enlightenment, but at that point I will have to plead ignorance and do some more research.

[fishtank]

I find it offensive and flabbergasting that the evolutionsts are using "home floresiensis" as an example of evolution. If anything, it demonstrates that organisms are restricted by their Designer into their "kinds". i.e. a dog is always a dog, whether Rott or Chihuahua.

[Destro]

European slaves - while slaves - were not considered fully human - with rights and limits placed on slave holders even in pre-Christian times but more so after. You have many cases of slaves gaining freedom and being equal citizens in their society. This was not the case in the South.

[Destro]

The enlightenment made things worse before it made them better. Enlightenment allowed for progress but it also created concepts like Social Darwinisim.

[Destro]

Where did dogs come from? Did they auto-generate whole as dogs? Which came forst the chicken or the egg question.

[fishtank]

They were created by the Creator.

[Destro]

Why would not teh Creator use evolution for his design? Do we not "evolve" in the womb? We are not born fully formed you know. Why can't you consider evolution as design process? Does not God describe asexual mitosis of one celled organisims when he describe how Eve was created from Adam? Genisis actually describes what appears to be an evolutionary time line - first sea life was formed then land life. Check it out.