The relationship of religious and existential variables to scores on the animal-human continuity scale.
King, Frank L. ; Thomas, John C. ; Habermas, Gary R. 等
Today, in America, there is a split in the philosophical,
religious, and scientific worldviews of modern man (Newman, 1987). One
aspect of the split is between those whose world view is that animals
and humans are dichotomous in nature and those who hold that human
beings and animals are on a continuum. At one extreme are creationists
who hold the dichotomous view that God created animals first and then
created humans in God's own image in a literal week (Genesis
1:20-27). At the other end is a strict evolutionary perspective that
suggest that humans only evolved from the lowest cell, a continuum that
took hundreds of millions of years to develop, and that humans have no
spiritual aspects. There are, of course, world views that could be
regarded as a blend of the two. There are many people who believe that
the human body can be viewed as a product of evolution but that
humanness did not begin until God asserted a soul. Difference in these
world views may determine how we treat animals and each other. Mahatma
Ghandi said that "the greatness of a nation and its moral progress
can be measured by how it treats its animals" (Ridgeway, 2008). The
purpose of the present study was to correlate church attendance,
strength of belief, and existential life attitudes with the Animal Human
Continuity Scale (Templer, Connelly, Bassman, & Hart, 2006), which
assesses the extent to which animals and humans are viewed on a
continuum versus a dichotomy.
Literature Review
This review of literature has two parts. The first part contains
the traditional views of Christian theologians and philosophers that
there is a qualitative difference between humans and animals with the
former having a spiritual aspect and the latter not possessing such.
These scholars often traced the roots of their ideas to Plato and
Aristotle. The second part consists of the cognitive abilities in animal
research. These two areas should not be viewed as contradictory. Since
humans have body structure and functioning similarity with some animals,
it is to be expected that brains and associated cognitive processes
would have some similarity. An additional caveat is that the authors
never conceptualized a one-to-one relationship between one's
theological position and score on the Animal-Human Continuity Scale.
Religious and Philosophical Literature
There is a wide variation of attitudes toward animals among
naturalists, with some viewing them as genetic cousins, while others see
them as inferior species (Darwin, 1859). The book of Genesis records
that God created the world in seven days. God's creation of all
species of animals on day 6 and then humans on day 7 implies distinct
differences and importance. Providing humans with dominion over all
living things also emphasizes a unique position of humans. Furthermore,
the making of humans in the image of God implies a spiritual aspect to
humans.
The Greek philosophers, especially Plato and Aristotle, dealt with
the concept of the soul. Plato maintained that the soul continues to
live after death and that the quality of life after death is a function
of degree of virtue during life. Plato maintains that one goes to either
paradise or purgatory for a thousand years following going to paradise
or a hell-like existence. Aristotle maintained that plants and animals
have a soul but that the human soul is superior and qualitatively
different. Aristotle maintained that rational souls should seek
intellectual and moral virtue.
Descartes was unquestionably a strict mind-body dualist. He (1993)
maintained that animals do not have minds but are like complex machines
such as a clock or church organ. He maintained that animals lack
immortal souls, reason, and any kind of inner experience, including
pain. He maintained that humans have no moral obligation toward animals
and he was sometimes viewed as having hostility toward animals. He
maintained that the cries of animals that he did experiments on were
mechanical and that they felt no pain (Preece & Fraser, 2000).
McGoldrick (2012) stressed the roles of free will and consciousness in
the Catholic conceptualization of the human soul. He maintained that,
although "rational human soul is united to the body at the cellular
level the person is able to transcend the body and make free
choices" (p. 498), that the souls of only humans, which are not
bound by time or place, apprehend truth and beauty and goodness. The
Catholic position is anchored in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, who
maintained that there are different kinds of animal souls that vary as a
function of mental ability of the animal. Thomas, however, said that the
human soul is completely different because it is rational and immortal.
Pope John Paul II in 1990 appeared to view animals in a less disparate
fashion than traditional Catholic teaching. He said that animals have
souls and that in this respect are identical to all living creatures.
This pronouncement is interpreted by some Catholics to mean that animals
have immortal souls and by other Catholics to mean that animal souls
cease to exist on physical death.
Martin Luther said that humans but not animals have the image of
God. He said that animals would not participate in the same eternity as
humans but did not rule out the possibility of some sort of existence
after death. Luther said that there was a greater discrepancy between
humans and animals before the fall and that humans then had greater
strength and vision and hearing than animals. They also had greater
dominion over animals. Luther at times held up animals as moral examples
and contended that animals have greater empathy in regard to the
suffering of the same species. He maintained that humans should not be
cruel to animals and that animals should be regarded as good gifts that
God gave us as stewards (Clough, 2009) .
Bakhos (2009) found that Jewish and Christian and Muslim scholars
have viewed humans as superior to animals and to be justified in their
subjugation. He cited the Muslim philosopher Al-Hazen in saying that the
ranks from highest to lowest are God, angels, humans, the animal
kingdom, the vegetable kingdom, and the mineral kingdom. Al-Hazen stated
that the human body belongs to the material world but the soul belongs
in the spiritual realm. It is apparent that Christian scholars have
traditionally maintained that humans have a spiritual and immortal soul
but animals do not. There is not complete agreement on what sort of
souls, if any, animals possess. There is no complete agreement about the
role of evolution and about the cognitive differences between humans and
animals. Nevertheless, there tends to be more agreement about a
qualitative, spiritually rooted difference.
Scientific Literature on Cognitive Ability in Animals
Older research on cognitive psychology and animals showed that they
are able to think abstractly, that relationships between black and grey
objects can be abstractly thought through, and psychologists can train
animals to distinguish lightness, from grey to white. This ability,
therefore, is an indication that animals have some abstract ability
(Thomas, 1996). A more reasonable inference is that animals do have
cognitive abilities resembling those of humans, although this does not
constitute strong evidence that they have a soul (Harrison, 1992;
Hatfield, 2008), as spirituality and cognitive ability are not
synonymous.
There have been many empirical studies regarding the cognitive
abilities of animals, particularly regarding the capacity of gorillas
and other primates to learn American Sign Language (Fouts, 1974; Howell,
2003; Patterson, 1978; Patterson & Lindin, 1981; Terrace, 1985) and
then to spontaneously sign to one another (Gardner & Gardner, 1978).
There is an ability to understand hundreds of signs of American Sign
Language by these primates, as well as to put together coherent phrases
with independent coherent meaning. Gorillas have also demonstrated the
ability to transfer this to their offspring without specific human
training (Fouts, Hirsch, & Fouts, 1982). Primates were not only able
to carry out simple commands but they could recall the commands, travel
to another room, locate an object, and carry out the command given to
them (Rumbaugh-Savage & Boysen, 1978; Rumbaugh-Savage, McDonald,
Sevcik, Hopkins, & Rupert, 1986; Rumbaugh-Savage, Pate, Lawson,
Smith, & Rosenbaum, 1983). Seidenberg and Petitto's (1987)
apes, Kanzi and Mulika, were taught symbol usage and found that they
shared many characteristics of word usage with those seen in young
children. Rather than concentrating on food, which previous research had
indicated that primates favored, Kanzi and Mulika's favorite topic
was social play, the same as young children (Rumbaugh &
Rumbaugh-Savage, 1996; Rumbaugh-Savage, 1987).
The research of the Gestalt psychologist Wolfgang Kohler (1967,
2001) highlighted that in problem-solving, chimpanzees could grasp whole
situations and were able to understand the relationships among the
various stimuli. Schultz and Schultz (2007) were able to describe how
the cognitive revolution in psychology restored consciousness not only
to humans but to animals as well. Beginning in the 1970's, animal
psychologists attempted to demonstrate how animals encode, transfer,
compute, and manipulate symbolic representations of the real
world's spatial, temporal, and visual features for the purpose of
adaptively organizing their behaviors (Cook, 1993). in other words, the
computer-like system of information processing that occurs in humans is
now being studied in animals.
Method
Sample
College students were administered the scale from both a
conservative evangelical university and a secular university. The 99
evangelical university students in the South, 51 males and 48 females,
ranged in age from 17 to 26 years with a mean age of 24.41 and a
standard deviation of 6.06. The 96 Southern secular university students,
47 males and 49 females, ranged in age from 19 to 42 years with a mean
of 21.26 years and a standard deviation of 4.48. The 195 combined group
of students, 98 males and 97 females, ranged in age from 17 to 42 years,
with a mean of 23.16 and a standard deviation of 5.58.
Instruments
Animal-Human Continuity Scale (AHCS).
The Animal-Human Continuity Scale (AHCS) is a 12-item scale that
was constructed to measure the extent to which the respondent views
humans and animals in a dichotomous fashion versus as a continuum
(Templer et al., 2006). items were generated on a rational basis. item
selection was based on ratings of content validity followed by item
total score correlations with graduate students, faculty, and university
staff participants. The scales contain such items as "humans can
think but animals cannot," "people evolved from lower
animals," and "people have a spiritual nature but animals do
not." The Animal-Human Continuity Scale has reasonably good
psychometric properties (Templer et al., 2006). it has good internal
consistency as gauged by Chronbach's Alpha (.69). its construct
validity is demonstrated by significant correlations with religion,
gender, and theoretical orientation variables. it has good
criterion-oriented validity insofar as members of a fundamental religion
scored in the dichotomous direction in comparison to a unitarian group
(Templer, et al., 2006). More traditional religious participants tended
to respond in the dichotomous direction. The instrument yielded a
meaningful factor analysis. The scale yielded three factors, Rational
Capacity, Superiority versus Equality, and Evolutionary Continuum. The
Animal-Human Continuity Scale takes about ten minutes to complete. The
Animal-Human Continuity Scale has a Likert-like format with strongly
disagree = 1, moderately disagree = 2, slightly disagree = 3, unsure =
4, slightly agree = 5, moderately agree = 6, and strongly agree = 7. The
dichotomous items (1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12) are reverse scored.
Life Attitude Profile--Revised (LAP-R). The Life Attitude
Profile--Revised (LAP-R) is a 48-item questionnaire developed from the
original 156-item Life Attitude Profile (Reker & Peacock, 1981). The
manual indicates that it can be used with participants ranging from
adolescence to older adulthood and requires only a fifth grade reading
level. Each item is scored on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from
seven representing strongly agree to one representing strongly disagree.
The profile produces six scores titled Purpose (PU), Coherence (CO),
Choice/Responsibility (CR), Death Acceptance (DA), Existential Vacuum
(EV), and Goal Seeking (GS) and two composite scores entitled Personal
Meaning Index (PMI) and Existential Transcendence (ET). Each of the six
scales has eight items, producing the total 48 items. A high score on
the scale indicates a high degree of that attitude. The LAP-R was
constructed to empirically measure Frankl's concept of "will
to meaning," as developed in his logotherapy. The first scale of
the LAP-R, Purpose, refers to having life goals, a sense of direction,
and a notion of worthiness (Reker, 1992). The second scale, Coherence,
refers to having an ordered, logical, and consistent understanding of
self, others, and life in general.
The third scale, Choice/Responsibility, refers to one's sense
of freedom to make choices and decisions and have a sense of control
over the direction that an individual's life takes. The fourth
scale, Death Acceptance, refers to an absence of fear and anxiety about
death and the acceptance of death as a natural part of life. The fifth
scale, Existential Vacuum, refers to a lack of meaning, goals, and
directions, and results in feelings of boredom, apathy, and
indifference. The sixth scale, Goal Seeking, refers to the desire to
avoid the routine of life by seeking out new experiences and challenges.
The first composite score, the Personal Meaning index, is derived by
adding the Purpose and Coherence scales. The second composite score,
Existential Transcendence, is derived by summing the Purpose, Coherence,
Choice/Responsibility, and Death Acceptance Scales and then subtracting
the Existential Vacuum and Goal Seeking scales.
Measures of Religiosity
Table 1 consists of the religious/spiritual inventory administered
to all participants. Both question 1 and question 2 yield two scores,
one pertaining to strength of belief and the other to degree of
certainty.
For questions 1, (strength of belief), 5 is scored for "God
definitely exists," 4 for "God probably exists," 3 for
"I do not know whether God exists or not," 2 for "God
probably does not exist," and 1 for "God definitely does not
exist."
For question 1 (degree of certainty), 3 is scored for either
"God definitely exists or God definitely does not exist," 2
for either "God probably exists or God probably does not
exist," and 1 for "I don't know whether God exists or
not."
For question 2 (strength of belief), 5 is scored for "Life
after death definitely exists," 4 for "Life after death
probably exists," 3 for "I don't know whether life after
death exists or not," 2 for "Life after death probably does
not exist," and 1 for "Life after death definitely does not
exist."
For question 2 (degree of certainty), 3 is scored for either
"Life after death definitely exists" or "Life after death
definitely does not exist," 2 is scored for either "Life after
death probably exists" or "Life after death probably does not
exist," and 1 for "I don't know whether life after death
exists or not."
Procedure
Participants were given a stapled packet that included a consent
form, a short demographic questionnaire, the brief religious inventory,
the Life Attitude Profile--Revised, and the Animal-Human Continuity
Scale. Participants were instructed to read and sign the consent form
and then continue on with the questionnaires if they chose to do so.
When they had completed the questionnaires, the participants were
instructed to return the entire packet with the signed consent form to
the senior author. The entire procedure took less than 75 minutes, with
most of the participants finishing within an hour.
Results
Table 2 contains the means and standard deviations for all
continuous variables for the evangelical university students, the
secular university students, and the combined groups. The secular
university score (M = 33.5) is significantly higher (i.e., in the
continuity direction) than the evangelical university score (M =14.41),
t = 11.21, p < .001.
Although previous AHCS factor analyses have been reported, it was
decided to do a factor analysis with the present data because factor
structure differs in different populations. The present factor analysis
combined the two groups of participants with the evangelical university
students appearing not to be a representative group of American
university students. For the combined group, two factors were extracted.
Table 3 contains the factor loadings for the combined group. Factor 1,
labeled "animal spirituality," had an eigenvalue of 4.66 and
accounted for 38.9% of the variance. Factor 2, labeled
"animal-human similarity," had an eigenvalue of 1.30 and
accounted for 16.84% of the variance.
Table 4 presents the correlations of the Animal-Human Continuity
Scale with the religious and existential variables with the combined
group of college participants. it should be borne in mind that a higher
score on this instrument indicates more of a continuous orientation. it
should also be noted that in regard to the religious variables, a
positive correlation indicates greater belief or greater certainty.
Table 4 indicates that a dichotomous orientation toward animals and
humans is associated with greater church attendance, belief and
certainty regarding God, belief and certainty regarding a life after
death, purpose, choice/responsibilities, and existential transcendence.
Discussion
The lower scores of the evangelical university students on the
Animal-Human Continuity Scale in comparison to those of the secular
university students are consistent with the traditional Christian
religious teaching that humans and animals are qualitatively different.
Furthermore, the evangelical university itself stands for the literal
interpretation of the Bible in which humans were created by God rather
than merely the product of evolution.
The negative correlation of the Animal-Human Continuity Scale with
that of the religious variables for the evangelical and secular students
and the combined group is congruent with the group differences. That is,
more traditionally religious persons perceive less continuity between
humans and animals. The fact that the correlations tend to be higher for
the combined group can be attributed to greater variability yielding
higher correlations.
The religious variable that yielded the highest and greatest number
of significant negative correlations with the Animal-Human Continuity
Scale was frequency of church attendance. it could be argued by some
that greater continuity represents extrinsic rather than intrinsic
(Allport, 1950) religiosity. A more parsimonious explanation, however,
is that frequency of attendance is more behavioral objective and
quantitative than belief. It is difficult to quantify subjective
experiences such as strength of belief and certainty of belief.
Nevertheless, most of the significant correlations between the
Animal-Human Continuity Scale and the Life Attitude Profile--Revised do
show that persons with higher existential attitudes such as Purpose,
Choice Meaning, and Transcendence tend to believe that there are
qualitative differences between humans and animals. This seems
reasonable. if a person views human nature as having more spiritual than
biological determination, he or she views humans as having attributes
distinct from animal attributes.
It is apparent that Choice/Responsibility of the Life Attitude
Profile-Revised (Reker, 1992) yields the highest and most significant
(negative) correlations across the evangelical and secular and combined
groups. This is understandable in view of Choice/Responsibility
assessing the degree that the respondent feels that he or she has
responsibility and control of one's life. Low scores on the
Animal-Human Continuity Scale imply a free will in contrast to a
continuity of perspective in which humans are animals whose behavior is
entirely determined by the same principles that govern animal behavior.
The composite of the findings converges to a perspective in which
stronger traditional Christian beliefs are associated with perceiving
greater qualitative differentiation between humans and animals.
Evangelical university students scored more in the dichotomous direction
on the Animal-Human Continuity Scale than the secular university
students. With the evangelical and secular and combined groups, those
students who were more religious endorsed a dichotomous distinction
between humans and animals. Furthermore, more existential attitude
frames of reference were associated with a dichotomous as opposed to a
continuous perceived relationship between humans and animals.
It is noteworthy that existential scores were associated with
greater church attendance and traditional Christian belief of
qualitative difference between humans and animals. These findings were
not unquestionably predictable because existential scholars and
clinicians are often atheistic or agnostic and often maintain that
existentialism rests on the assumption that there is nothing after
death. May (1983) pointed out that both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard had a
contemptuous attitude toward Christianity. Sartre (1967) said that his
position is one of atheistic existentialism. The Life Attitude
Profile--Revised, the measure of existential values used in the present
research, was based on the thinking of Viktor Frankl, a Jewish
psychiatrist incarcerated in a Nazi concentration camp. Frankl speaks
frequently of spirituality but does not write about the beliefs or
practices of Judaism or Christianity. Nevertheless, in the present
study, greater Christian religiosity seems to be related to values of
persons who apparently have more of a theistic than humanistic
orientation.
This present research incorporated two southern universities. one
university was a conservative evangelical university and the other a
southern secular university. The locations of these universities are in
the Bible Belt of the south. Future research with different regions may
gleam different findings. Research with Jewish and with Muslin
participants is recommended since these two monotheistic religions also
believe in the Bible. It would be expected that more religious
participants would have a more dichotomous orientation. Such a
prediction would not necessarily be made with Eastern or Native American
religions since both to a greater extent incorporate animals in the
spiritual realm. in the Hindu religion one may be human in one life and
an animal in another.
References
Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his religion. New York,
NY: MacMillan.
Bakhos, C. (2009). Jewish, Christian, and Muslim attitudes toward
animals. Comparative Islamic Studies, 155, 1203-1207. doi:
10.1558/cis.v5i2.177
Clough, D. (2009). The anxiety of the human animal: Martin Luther
on non-human animals and human animality." In Deane-Drummond, C.,
and Clough, D., Eds.), Creaturely theology: On God, humans and other
animals (pp. 41-60). London: SCM Press.
Cook, R. G. (1993). The experimental analysis of cognition in
animals. Psychological Science, 4, 174-178.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00483x
Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of the species. London, England: John
Murray.
Descartes, R. (1993). Animals are machines. in S. J. Armstrong
& R. G. Botzler (Eds.), Environmental ethics: Divergence and
convergence (pp. 281-285). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Fouts, R. S. (1974). Language: origins, definitions, and
chimpanzees. Journal of Human Evolution, 3, 475-482. doi:
10.1016/0047-2484(74)90007-4
Fouts, R. S., Hirsch, A. D., & Fouts, D. H. (1982). Cultural
transmission of a human language in a chimpanzee mother-infant
relationship. in H. E. Fitzgerald, J. A. Mullins, & P. Gage (Eds.),
Child nurturance (Vol. 3, pp. 159-193). New York, NY: Plenum.
Gardner, R. A., & Gardner, B. T. (1978). Comparative psychology
and language acquisition. Annuals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
309, 37-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1749.66-32.1978.tb29441.x
Harrison, P. (1992). Descartes on animals. The Philosophical
Quarterly, 42, 219-227. doi: 10.2307/2220217
Hatfield, G. (2008). Psychology and philosophy: Historical
perspectives. in S. Heinamaa & Reuter, M. (Eds.), Psychology and
philosophy: Inquiries into the soul from late scholasticism to
contemporary thought (Vol. 8, pp. 1-25). New York, NY: Springer.
Hatfield, P. (1992). Psychology and philosophy: Historical
perspectives. in S. Heinamaa & Reuter, M. (Eds.), Psychology and
philosophy: Inquiries into the soul from late scholasticism to
contemporary thought (Vol. 8, pp. 1-25). New York, NY: Springer.
Howell, N. (2003). The importance of being chimpanzee. Theology and
Science, 1 , 179-191. doi:10.1080/1474670032000124.86
Kohler, W. (1967). Gestalt Psychology. Psychological Research, 31,
18-30. doi: 10.1007/BF00422382
Kohler, W. (2001). Simple structural functions in the chimpanzee
and in the chicken. in W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A Source Book of Gestalt
Psychology (pp. 217-227). New York, NY: Routledge.
May, R. (1983). The discovery of being: Writings in existential
psychology. New York, NY: Norton.
McGoldrick, T. A. (2012). The spirituality of human consciousness:
A Catholic evaluation of some current neuro-scientific interpretations.
Science and Engineering Ethnics, 18, 483-501.
Newman, L. E. (1987). The quality of mercy: On the duty to forgive
in the Judaic tradition. Journal of Religious Ethics, 15, 155-172
Patterson, F. (1978). The gestures of a gorilla: Language
acquisition in another pongid, Brain and Language, 71-97. doi:
10.1016/0093-934x(78)90008-1
Patterson, F., & Linden, E. (1981). The education of Koko. New
York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Preece, R., & Fraser, D. (2000). The status of animals in
biblical and Christian thought: A study in colliding values. Journal of
Human-Animal Studies, 8, 245-263.
Reker, G. T. (1992). Life Attitude Profile-Revised: Procedures
manual (Research Ed.). Petersborough, ontario, Canada: Student
Psychologists Press.
Reker, G. T., & Peacock, E. J. (1981). The life attitude
profile (LAP): A multidimentional instrument for assessing attitudes
toward life. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 13, 264-273.
Ridgeway, S. H. (2008). History of veterinary medicine and marine
animals. A personal perspective. Historic Perspective Series, 34,
471-513.
Rumbaugh, D. M., & Rumbaugh-Savage, E. S. (1996). In
communicating meaning: The evolution and development of language.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rumbaugh-Savage, E. S. (1987). Communication, symbolic
communication, and language: Reply to Seidenberg and Pettito. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 116, 288-292. doi: 10.1037/00963445.116.3.288
Rumbaugh-Savage, E. S., & Boysen, S. T. (1978). Cooperation in
primates: Critical analysis of behavioural criteria. Behavioural
Processes, 35, 101-111.
Rumbaugh-Savage, E. S., McDonald, K., Sevcik, R. A., Hopkins, W.
D., & Rupert, E. (1986). Spontaneous symbol acquisition and
communicative use of pygmy chimpanzees (Panpaniscus). Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 115, 211-235. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.115.3.211
Rumbaugh-Savage, E. S., Pate, J. K., Lawson, J., Smith, S. T.,
& Rosenbaum, S. (1983). Can a chimpanzee make a statement? Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 457-491. doi:
10.1037/00963445.112.4.457
Sartre, Jean-Paul. (1967). Existentialism and human emotions. New
York, NY: Philosophical Library.
Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2007). History of modern
psychology (7th ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt.
Seidenberg, M. S., & Petitto, L. A. (1987). Communication,
symbolic communication and language: Comment on Savage-Rumbaugh,
McDonald, Sevick, Hopkins, and Rupert. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 116, 279-287. doi: 10.1037/00963445.116.3.279
Templer, D. I., Connelly, H., Bassman, L., & Hart, J. (2006).
Construction and validation of an animal-human continuity scale. Social
Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 34, 769-776. doi:
10.2224/sbp.2006.34.7.769
Terrace, H. S. (1985). in the beginning was the "name."
American Psychologist, 40, 1011-1028. doi: 10.1037/0003-006x.40.9.1011
Thomas, R. K. (1996). investigating cognitive abilities in animals:
unrealized potential. Cognitive Brain Research, 3(3-4), 156-166. doi:
10.1016/0926 6410(96)00003-1
Frank L. King
John C. Thomas
Gary R. Habermas
Liberty University
Donald I. Templer
Alliant International University
Kimberly Tangen
Fresno, California
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Donald
Templer, Ph.D., 257 W. Los Altos, Fresno, CA 93704;
[email protected]
Frank L. King has earned two doctorate degrees, one a Doctor of
Ministry degree and the other a Doctorate in Counseling. He also has an
earned MBA degree and a graduate degree in education. Dr. King has
retired from full-time teaching as an Associate Professor of Religion at
Liberty University and is currently an adjunct professor at Liberty
University, where he has been associated for the past 15 years.
John C. Thomas has two earned doctorates and is an Associate
Professor in the Center for Counseling and Family Studies at Liberty
University.
Gary R. Haberman (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is
Distinguished Research Professor and Chair of the Philosophy Department
at Liberty University. He has published 36 books and more than 60
chapters or articles in other books. He has been a visiting or adjunct
professor, teaching dozens of courses at 15 graduate schools and
seminaries in the U.S. and abroad.
Donald I. Templer received his Ph.D. from the University of
Kentucky. He has well over 200 publications and well over 2,000
citations. His Death Anxiety Scale has been translated into 19
languages. He is retired Professor of Psychology at Alliant
International University, Fresno.
Kimberly Tangen received her bachelor's degree from the
University of Minnesota and a Ph.D. from Alliant International
University. She has published on professional issues and attitudes
toward animals. Her clinical practice involves professional psychology.
Table 1
Religious/Spiritual Inventory Administered to All Participants
INSTRUCTIONS: Circle the response that best expresses your
current religious/spiritual beliefs and practices
1 How certain are your beliefs about God?
a God definitely exists
b God probably exists
c I do not know whether God exists or not
d God probably does not exist
e God definitely does not exist
2 How certain are your beliefs about life after death?
a Life after death definitely exists
b Life after death probably exists
c I do not know whether life after death exists or not
d Life after death probably does not exist
e Life after death definitely does not exist
3 How frequently do you currently attend an organized
religious function?
a Rarely or never
b Several times a year
c At least once a month
d At least once a week
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for All Continuous Variables
Evangelical Secular
University University
Variable X SD X SD
Age 24.41 1.06 21.23 4.48
Strength of belief in God 3.87 .44 3.42 .99
Certainty about belief in 2.99 .10 2.80 .49
God
Strength of belief in life 3.87 .44 3.42 .99
after death
Certainty about belief in life 2.87 .44 2.56 .74
after death
Frequency of service atten- 3.72 .65 2.18 1.21
dance
Animal-Human Continuity 33.50 10.03 52.58 13.54
Scale
Life Attitude Profile-Revised
Purpose 22.93 7.10 17.81 6.01
Coherence 19.44 6.66 20.17 6.47
Choice/Responsibility 28.71 8.90 22.84 9.98
Death Acceptance 25.40 9.89 25.06 9.53
Existential Vacuum 35.82 8.17 38.34 8.87
Goal Seeking 20.00 6.98 20.27 6.02
Personal Meaning 42.38 12.23 37.98 11.34
Existential Transcendence 57.06 16.19 39.39 15.97
Combined
Universities
Variable X SD
Age 23.16 5.38
Strength of belief in God 3.80 .49
Certainty about belief in 2.89 .37
God
Strength of belief in life 3.65 .79
after death
Certainty about belief in life 2.71 .62
after death
Frequency of service atten- 2.96 1.24
dance
Animal-Human Continuity 42.94 15.26
Scale
Life Attitude Profile-Revised
Purpose 20.41 7.06
Coherence 19.80 6.56
Choice/Responsibility 16.79 6.98
Death Acceptance 25.23 9.69
Existential Vacuum 37.06 8.59
Goal Seeking 20.13 6.51
Personal Meaning 40.22 11.97
Existential Transcendence 48.36 18.32
Table 3
Factor Loadings for Animal-Human Continuity Scale With Combined
University Students
Factor
Item 1 2
1. Humans have a soul but animals do not. * .79 .37
10. The needs of people should always come before .78 .15
the needs of animals. *
3. People have a life after death but animals do .74 .43
not. *
7. People are superior to animals. * .65 .25
11. It's okay to use animals to carry out tasks .65 -.15
for humans. *
9. Humans have a spiritual nature but animals do .63 .41
not. *
5. Animals are afraid of death. -.32 .64
6. People evolved from lower animals. .21 .62
8. Animals can fall in love. .30 .60
4. People are animals. .33 .52
12. It's crazy to think of an animal as a member .20 .50
of your family. *
2. Humans can think but animals cannot. * .43 .33
* Dichotomous items that are reverse-scored.
Table 4
Correlations of Animal-Human Continuity Variables With Religious
and Life Attitude Variables With All Participants
Animal-Human Continuity Scale
Independent Variable Total Score Factor 1 Factor 2
Religious variable
Strength of belief in God (a) -.22 *** -.04 -.30 ***
Certainty of belief in God (b) -.22 *** .04 -.30 ***
Strength of belief in life -.18 ** -.09 -.19 **
after death (a)
Certainty of belief in life -.23 *** .00 -.26 ***
after death (b)
Frequency of service atten- -.61 *** -.10 -.48 ***
dance
Life Attitude Profile--Revised
Purpose -.28 *** -.19 ** -.22 **
Coherence .07 .07 .00
Choice/Responsibility -.54 *** -.36 *** -.43 ***
Death Acceptance .11 .14 * -.00
Existential Vacuum .05 .02 .03
Goal Seeking .02 .03 -.04
Personal Meaning Index -.13 -.07 .13
Existential Transcendence -.35 *** -.28 *** -.30 ***
(a) High score = greater belief
(b) High score = greater certainty
* p < .05. ** p = < .01. *** p < .001
