All Beliefs are Welcome Here!
MAN THE ANIMAL AND CREATION
While I am in almost unnanimous agreement with the nine basic tennets or Statements of Satanism, as outlined by Anton LaVey in his Satanic Bible, there is one item of curiosity that I wish to shed light on as what I would deem to be an innaccurate representation of the homo sapien.
"7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development", has become the most vicious animal of all!"
This is a premise that many church members and advocates were eagerly willing to misinterpret, including LaVey himself, for nothing more than optical effects, particularly, to shed a certain selective image in the public domain. The reasons for this are irrelevant. To assume OR ASSERT that humans are nothing more than animals displays a gross misunderstanding, or deliberte misinterpretation of the most basic premise of biological human vs animal evolution.
Perhaps this was not completely understood in the 1960's, but there are clear biological distinctions between humans (homo sapien) and any species of animal. When the two species are analyzed scientifically, there is never a correlation of the two as one and the same as animal species.
The distinctions are obvious. For example, that of intelligence, particularly that of emotional intelligence on a level that no animal can even come close to duplicating. Although in the very early stages of human evolution, there may have been some similarities in the construct of the human brain and the brain of larger animals, such as apes and monkeys,
This is often misinterpreted because there are these similarities, such as eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. Also similarities in general bodily movement, as well as some basic similarities in behavioral traits.
Fact is, that the human brain is the only brain that evolved into sophistication, where as all other animal species there was no biological advancement in brain evolution whatsoever.
This is not an accident, any more than creation. Evolution, which is an aspect of creation, was not accidental. Creation is never accidental, it always is based on intelligent design. Creation is not biblical by any means, although the Judeo Christian establishment lays claim to the origins of creation as a biblical event, which history, archeology, and anthropology demonstrate to be pure nonsense. All definitions of creation are something that has been constructed, not manifested accidentally.
The intellectual and emotional capicity of humans is far superior to any animal, and puts the Human in a different category of species altogether. Over time the advanced development of the human brain is the most singular factor in the eventual distinct separation of the two species
You realize Levay Satanism doesn't believe in gods are anything spiritual? I may believe in the spiritual myself but man is still just an animal only spirits are not. Every physical (non-spirit based) living thing comes under one of these 6 kingdoms. The six kingdoms are Eubacteria, Archae, Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia. Human is Animalia or Animal...
Well, I'll expound on this a little, which I will lay out in more detail, as if I would not have to deal with that sooner or later. If you are spiritual, or a believer in such, then you must realize the advanced spiritual component in humans vs other life forms, aside from emotional intelligence. Even LaVey had a belief in the soul, of course, which is non physical, which he openly admitted, only his interpretation of it was grossly oversimplified and opinionated.
But this is only the beginning of the argument.
I was referring to the philosophical aspects of the nine statements as they apply to how we as Satanists (not LaVeyan Satanists) relate that to our environment.
LaVey had a keen and uncanny insight into the psychological aspects of humanity, but it certainly was not unique or original. I find his assertion of humans as animals to be a convenient cop out to justify his beliefs pertaining to gods. To say that gods are the invention of the psyche, is humerous in a sense that EVERYTHING that exists within the human mentality is rooted in the subconscious mind, later to be processed by environment. So what else is new?
I am not really interested in the debate of whether LaVey was spiritual, or in handing the LaVeyans the rights to the territory of Satanic philosophy or theology. Their world view is their world view, I just happen to resonate with a great deal of it. He had this public profile he had to reconcile with, which involved the accumulation of money, which all churches have an interest in, even though his church would not qualify as the definition of "church". That was where he took a shrewd maneuver to take advantage of existing tax law. .
As well, how he decided what image his organization was going to wield in the public domain. Obviously, he and some of his cohorts made the decision that to view Satan or Lucifer as sentient beings, was a kooky and politically incorrect thing to do, and he didn't wan't that so called "stigma" attached to his clan or his image. It also helped to increase his fan base, and influence as a rational thinker, rather than a devil worshiping ideologue, increasing his ability to accumulate money.
Natural selection itself is a suspect component of this. The origins of the human species is still a subject of debate. I don't buy into the Darwinian/Leakey "one geno" theory, with one point of origin, or anyone else's subscription to that. The Earth has not been canvased sufficiently in order to jump to that conclusion. That conveniently over simplifies it. Natural Selection dictates size, strength, and physical superiority, perhaps with some base brain intel and instinct. Which further indicates intelligent design. In the heyday, even beyond dinosaurs, that would have left humans as an unsurvivable species, that would have been retired into the annuls of extinction long ago. There was no place for them to hide from the predators at the top of the food chain. So, the timing of the appearance of advanced human evolution, particularly that of intelligence, is also suspect.
This is something that modern philosophy and anthropology needs to reconcile with. I don't see the correlation between Natural Selection that occurred in the animal kingdom, vs humans. Humans, because of their weak physical design, needed some kind of intelligence to survive beyond instinct and impulse, even at the utmost minimum. But that in and of itself did not put them at the top of the food chain, until they advanced much much further.
Astrobiology made the evolution theory much more plausable, and Astrobiology, of course, did not exist in Darwin's time. Also, this field of study, as a branch of modern astrophysics, needed extremely advanced technology in order to support it's theories, which quite frankly, may have made Darwins theories of origin to be somewhat outdated and incomplete. Astrobiology indicates that the building blocks of life in general were scattered all over the planet, billions of years ago, and not unique to one particular region.
Theories of mass migration and climate adaptation in the midst of the last ice age that occurred in the last 10,000 or 15,000 years do not make any logical sense. What makes humans even more unique is the fact of rapid late development, and even more rapid late development of intelligence, compared to all other species of life on this planet, that took aeons of time longer to develop, hundreds of thousands, millions, and billions of years in fact. Not so with humans. At least no solid proof of it.
But origin is not really the issue. Even though there are some similarities between humans and mammals, the fact that the brain evolved in a very unique and advanced evolutionary design, and mammals did not, indicates that humans, if they were not a uniquely designed species to begin with, at the very least, evolved into a much higher species because of the unique development of the brain, no longer classifying humans as mammals, or animals.
"Domesticated animals" makes no logical sense either, by the normal process of "domestication". The only evidence is that of brain development. And that begs the potential question of WHO the domesticator actually was, as all domestication requires a domesticator, by the human implementation of domestication. No animal could ever domesticate itself, so this would have been a major development in animal behavior. If humans did not become advanced in scientific technology, their so called self domestication would not have gone very far, and that is a good bit of my point.
Quite frankly, to call humans domesticated animals is an absurd oversimplification, because that domestication would have occurred only in the last several thousand years. Even though SOME modern humans, as well as Neanderthals could be considered a "subhuman" species, closer to the behavior of animals. LaVey seemed to have a keen understanding of that. The classification of humans as animals is obviously something that atheists use to support their weak humanist arguments, as "what you see is what you get", possibly the same way LaVey did.
If apes and monkeys are what biologists claim is the link, I find those species NOT to be in resemblance of humans in the slightest, in spite of remote biological and behavioral similarity.
I personally believe all animals regardless of what they are have a soul pass on but humans seem to think they are better than other animals and top of the food chain BUT MOST people could not survive in the jungle but themselves. We are just parasites that take everything from nature destroying the world we live in but as most animals because there are way too many of us we we are pack animals and that is how we survive but our advantage is or fancy tools...
That's a good point. Animals take only what they need, and that makes them somewhat more animalistic than people.
The fact that the vast majority of people could not survive on their own is also suspect in terms of animalizing the human race, even though any animal is subject to extinction under certain environmental circumstance.
The fact that people can be detrimental to the environment on a mass scale is also a clue that we are not dealing with apples vs apples.
You have to give credit to evolution as it continues to evolve. That is never going to stop, until all life is gone. That means that if evolution marches on, that humans will continue to evolve to levels of existence that no longer qualifies them as animals.