Do Animals Believe In Supernatural Beings?

I wasn't, and you are still adding to what I'm saying. I am not talking about spoken word, I mean a sound emitted from a larynx to communicate to other members of a tribe/species exactly what is happening. Some monkeys emit specific sounds for specific things, even break it down for specific threats (leopard gets a sound different from the sound made when a hawk is over head.) This is documented. That is language by definition.Crickets emit different sounds, granted, not from their larynx, to communicate specific demands to other members of their species. That is their language.Humans emit different sounds from their larynx to communicate different things to other members of our species. That is our language. I would say as much as a normal human has. Same as the above, as much as a normal human has. Why? because humans are the only ones with documented religious beliefs and belief in the supernatural.This might interest you: Temporal Lobes and God - Part 1 Temporal Lobes and God - Part 2- Oni

It doesn't, but now it depends on what you mean by "abstract."Chimps don't have written words, poetry, musical compositions, realism art, they don't have religious shrines that they worship, present offerings to, they don't pray or teach others to pray.They do laugh, play pranks, dance to some degree, they can mimic human behavior, learn, to some capacity, sign language and things like that.If all of it is abstract thinking, then fine, they can think in the abstract. But if the first is abstract thinking and the rest just monkey behavior, then they haven't as of yet shown evidence of think in the abstract.So you tell me...- Oni

And, of course, how we could tell what abstract thought they were thinking.For example, was Rodin's "the Thinker" thinking "Be sure to remember to leave the seat up. Be sure to remember to leave the seat up."

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

To avoid previous confusions, and to simplify some of the terms into stricter more narrow definitions:

• When I say "animals" I mean excluding humans.
  ​
• When I say "religious" I do NOT mean the belief in or worship of supernatural entities, I mean it in the sense of "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" (or in this case, non-human animals).
  ​
• When I say "abstract thought" I mean "Thinking characterized by the ability to use concepts and to make and understand generalizations, such as of the properties or pattern shared by a variety of specific items or events."

Perhaps I missed it, as this thread was rather cumbersome to catch up on, but I don't think Oni explicitly ruled out abstract thought in chimps. There does in fact seem to be evidence that various animals are indeed capable of abstract thought.Examples:Signs Of Abstract Thought Seen In Old World MonkeysDogs smarter than we think, study shows | Animal behaviour | The Guardian(These and simliar stories originated with peer-reviewed journals such as Animal Behaviour and Animal Cognition).I am not prepared to comment on the possible religiosity of animals, except to say that there is (as previously pointed out) a difference between "religious behaviour" and a belief in supernatural beings.Death rituals are not evidence of a belief in supernatural beings. Grieving behaviour appears in some animals, but again this does not provide evidence in any belief in supernatural entities.The instances of spirituality in the originally cited origins.net articles make no reference to God apart from a quote credited to Jane Goodall in which the term "gods" is not used in the sense of divine creators: It seems that all references to religion in the article are confined to the very narrow definition of religion as provided at the start of this post: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" (or in this case, non-human animals).So, to weigh in on your original questions: I see no evidence of this in anything you've linked or anything I can find. Of course not. There are still people (human animals) that believe the earth is flat (The Flat Earth Society). That is NOT evidence in favour of its proposed lack of curvature into the third dimension. This seems the only cogent and salient question here. There are two primary schools of thought on the evolution of religiosity: religion as an adaptation, and religion as a by-product... but that's another thread.

You are still mistaking instinctive forms of communication with that which can meaningfully be called language. Straggler: (**stamps hard on Oni’s foot**)
Oni: Yaaaarggh!!
CS: (**flinches instinctively then sees Oni hopping about and starts laughing**) BWAHAHAHAHA!Here we could reasonably say that you expressed pain and that CS expressed amusement. But none of this is linguistic. If you were both deaf and languageless the behaviour, including the noises made, would be the same. If you were both prelingual 2 years olds the reaction would be essentially the same as well. Because this is not linguistic communication. There are no symbolic representations of concepts as such. Just reactive instinctive noise. Just like your clicking cricket and your yelping lemur.Unless the "symbol" (i.e. sound in this case) consciously represents a concept I don't see how you can call it language in this context. It seems we all now agree that chimpanzees are capable of some degree of abstract thought. Hurrah!! Neanderthals? Here you are potentially conflating correlation with causation. Agreed. If you think I am suggesting even the possibility of Christian monkeys (or anything resembling that) - then NO.I am asking what the basic cognitive requirement for "religious" (call it superstitious if you prefer) belief is. I am suggesting that the minimum requirements are a basic concept of causality and intent combined with an ability to imagine (or perceive if you think such things exist) some sort of agent to ascribe these roles to. I can't look at these at the moment (at work). But do these suggest any reason to think chimps lack the ability to ascribe intent and a causal role to some sort of "dreamed" entity?If they do suggest this- Then we have the answer to the question posed in this thread.

Funny, I thought language was an instinctive form of communication. Right, becauase we are human and have a complex language that's further along than just noises. And they do: Monkey's talk like humans

quote:

---

Monkeys can string sounds together to communicate just like humans do, scientists at a Scottish university say.

​

Experts from the University of Saint Andrews have discovered that putty-nosed monkeys in west Africa can combine two different noises to mean something different again.

​

The primates use their two main call types to alert each other to the presence of predators in the area.

​

A string of "hacks" indicates a hovering eagle, while a burst of "pyows" warns against a loitering leopard.

​

A sentence made up of several pyows followed by a few hacks tells the group to move off to a safer area.

​

Mr Zuberbuehler added: "To our knowledge, this is the first good evidence of a syntax-like natural communication system in a non-human species."

​

The research took three years to complete and is being published in the science journal Nature.

​

The publication's Michael Hopkin said: "These building blocks that they use are being strung together - you could describe them as words. This is not something I have come across before."

---

So, according to this particular study, they can string together sentences, that can be described as words. So that answers that, yes? Yeah, I should have correctly stated: homo-genus instead of just human. Maybe, but you'll need to show me how. Yup. And I'm saying monkeys don't have that because we have never witnessed them exibit such religious behavior. No no, they're just videos pertaining to a question you asked earlier in the thread: These videos where answering that question. So I thought you'd find them interesting. When you can watch them.- Oni

Obviously. The only reason that question was there is because it relates to the origins of this thread in the peanut gallery. Message 609Again - I am not actually claiming that there is any evidence for animal belief in supernatural beings at all. Bluegenes theory that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural concepts is looking pretty frikkin safe. As (again) AdminMod put it this thread poses the question: "What evidence might look like and try to resolve one way or another what we can say we know about this topic."The fact is that I seriously doubt that any animals do hold any supernatural beliefs. But I don’t think it is as obvious as everyone here seems to be insisting that they cannot do so. In fact I would speculate that the advent of such beliefs in our evolutionary past quite possibly predates modern humanity and that studying our closest living relatives might shed some light on how or why this came about. But we never really get to that because everybody is too busy telling me monkeys can’t talk. Not at all. At what points in mans evolutionary past would evolution of religiosity occurred f it was an adaptation? Or if it was a by-product? Do either of these possible origins dates precede the species that is homo-sapien? If everyone now agrees that chimpanzees are capable of some level of abstract thought then all well and good. Because it has been relentlessly asserted by a few here that any capability to think in abstract terms is necessarily dependent upon (or even synonymous with) communicative linguistic ability. Oni says that isn’t what he meant. But he didn’t exactly object to anything those who were making that argument more explicitly were saying either. CS started out saying that a deaf man who knew no language didn’t think much at all for heavens sake!! Where was the objection to that? And even now we are discussing communicative language as if it were the sole indicator of any ability to think abstractly. If we apply the definitions you have provided then nobody sane could claim that animals do hold such beliefs. And it would probably be an act of great fantasy to even suggest that they could. But that doesn’t answer the question I am asking.

As my participation in this thread is waning, I'll give some parting opinions on the latest arguments presented.Straggler says:

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 290:

​

I am asking what the basic cognitive requirement for "religious" (call it superstitious if you prefer) belief is. I am suggesting that the minimum requirements are a basic concept of causality and intent combined with an ability to imagine (or perceive if you think such things exist) some sort of agent to ascribe these roles to.

---

What is so inherently 'supernatural' about imagining an agent behind some event? As I mentioned before, your thresholds are so low on the matters of 'abstract thought' and 'supernatural beliefs' that there is nothing meaningful in addressing the questions; even if we answered the questions you've asked, it wouldn't really tell us anything we could use to conclude some sort of significant similarity to what we call human 'supernatural beliefs'.Oni says:

quote:

---

onifre in Message 291:

​

Funny, I thought language was an instinctive form of communication.

---

Is this claim supportable? A lot of linguists (especially of the Chomskyan persuasion) argue that there is something instinctive/native about linguistic communication; unfortunately, the evidence offered never supports the claims they make. However, even if these linguists were correct, I don't believe the the type of language instinct for which they argue is at all similar to the instinct you've raised regarding animal communication behaviors.Briterican says:

quote:

---

Briterican in Message 289:

​

I am not prepared to comment on the possible religiosity of animals, except to say that there is (as previously pointed out) a difference between "religious behaviour" and a belief in supernatural beings.

​

Death rituals are not evidence of a belief in supernatural beings. Grieving behaviour appears in some animals, but again this does not provide evidence in any belief in supernatural entities.

---

Fully agreed! This argument has been made numerous times in this thread by jar and myself; everytime it is ignored or replied to with irrelevancies. Unfortunately, I'm sure you can expect the same reaction...Y'all enjoy yourselves!Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Again you are conflating the human instinct to acquire language with instinctive forms of communication such as yelling in pain. If I scream in pain every human being regardless of language will know what that expresses. If I say "That fucking hurts" to someone who only speaks Swahili it will be lost on them.One is nothing more than instinctive communication (as per your clicking cricket) and the other requires the logical connection between symbols and concepts that can meaningfully be called "language" and which humans (arguably) have an instinct to acquire.But if we all now agree that chimps are capable of some level of abstract thought (which was where all this language stuff started) does any of this matter? Yes. Because we have the ability to make the logical link between symbols and concepts that abstract thought allows. FFS - I have been arguing that some intelligent animals (e.g. chimps) are capable of abstract thought and thus can make the logical link between symbols and concepts that lies at the root of human language all fucking thread Oni!!! Now you present evidence of this to me as some sort of refutation of my argument!!!! So where does homo-genus start and it's predecessor stop? How can you so definitely know that they don't have the basic cognitive requirement without considering what the basic cognitive requirement might be?We constantly meet people on this board who proclaim belief in "something" based on experiencing "something". Are other intelligent animals cognitively capable of such experiences and (in basic terms) ascribing causal roles to the imagined entities in a similar manner? What cognitive abilities are at play in such cases?"They can't because they don't" (as far as we know) isn't really an answer.

You can call it whatever your like. Your delirious need for absolute definitions of everything is just tiresome. If our closest living evolutionary relative can (in the sense of being cognitively able to) ascribe causal roles to imaginary entities (or even more amazingly - be demonstrated to do so) doesn't that tell us something deeply interesting about ourselves and the origins of the human capacity (indeed proclivity) for belief in such things?If other creatures have the cognitive ability to hold such beliefs but don't do so why is that? How are we so different from them to the point that it is almost impossible to imagine humanity ever not ascribing causal roles to imagined beings? You will be pereniallly frustrated with my responses because of your own inability to ever get past the idea that the person you are talking to isn't trying to prove that animals do hold such beliefs but is simply asking questions about the possibility.Your shortcomings are not my problem.

An instictive form of communication is language, whether vaguely displayed by yelling or more acurately displayed with words. It's all the same shit. No, it started here: Which it is not; it is a physical representation of reality via sounds and signs. The idea of language is a concept.You then said: Which it doesn't. Because, as my evidence shows you, monkeys use language, but I doubt highly that they understand the abstract concept that is the idea of language itself. They have a very basic form of language which doesn't require that.Now, if you concede on these two points, then we can move on.I do agree, however, that monkeys, and apes, have some ability to think in the abstract. No, you haven't.Of course they can make the link between symbols and physical objects, but that doesn't mean that they understands the abstract concept that is the idea of language itself. Which is what you argued. I don't know. But what you suggested are the basic requirements - (a basic concept of causality and intent combined with an ability to imagine (or perceive if you think such things exist) some sort of agent to ascribe these roles to.) - is something not evidenced in monkeys. Homo-genus - Starting with homo floresiensis, and ends with homo sapiens. I don't believe humans have that capability.You know quite well that this: "We constantly meet people on this board who proclaim belief in "something" based on experiencing "something" is total bullshit.However, if we could provide the evidence for how humans can experience it, then we may be able to find out if other animals can. But we don't know if humans actually can, or if it's all in their imagination. - Oni

Bear in mind that this whole what is language side topic arose because others in this thread were explicitly equating communicative language ability with any ability to think abstract thoughts at all and denying chimps any ability for abstract thought on that basis. Yes I have. Absolutely I have. Indisputably I have. Did you read Message 276? No. It’s not. Do you understand the difference between acquired language and genetically transmitted forms of communication that are not linguistic? Spoken/written German or sign languages used by the deaf are examples of the former. Humans screaming when the experience intense pain or (to use your primary example) horny crickets clicking away to attract mates are examples of the latter. The latter is little different in nature to emitting pheromones as a means of communication. Aside from being audible the latter is NOT language by any meaningful definition.In order to acquire even the most rudimentary language of the type humans excel at one has to have the mental ability to make the basic connection between a symbol and the concept that the symbol represents. This logical link is demonstrative of some basic ability to think in abstract terms. This has been my argument throughout. Can a cricket make the logical link between symbols and concepts that is required for language? Yes — And I have repeatedly explained exactly what I mean by this. To use language at all one needs to be able to get that logical link between symbols and concepts that is the concept of language itself. And this ability is itself demonstrative of some basic level of abstract thought. This has been my consistent argument throughout.. I can refer you to numerous occasions in this thread where I have made this explicitly and abundantly clear if you want me to? Did you read Message 276
When I gave the example of my 4 year old son in that post do you really think I was suggesting that he could define language as a concept in the way you are implying? Seriously? If you agree that chimps are capable of making the logical link between symbols and concepts in some basic way I am utterly bemused as to why you have been disagreeing with me about their ability for some basic level of abstract thought? Making the logical link between symbols and concepts is the concept of language itself in the most basic form that I have quite clearly been talking about.Do you really think I am saying that one needs to be able to define, or understand in some academic sense, the concept of language before they can use language? When I gave the example of my 4 year old son in do you really think I was suggesting that he could define language as a concept in the way you are interpreting what I said? Seriously? When I was arguing that chimps could learn simple some sign language do you think I was suggesting that they can engage in a debate about what language is or go off and write wikipedia entries on the nature of language as a concept? C’mon Oni Yes I have. Absolutely I have. And I will quote myself extensively to show you this if you still doubt it?

Which isn’t evidenced? A basic concept of cause and effect? A basic concept of intent? Or an ability to imagine/dream? We know humans have these subjective/religious experiences. Even if you and I can agree that any such experience is due to factors internal to the mind rather than the actual existence of imaginary somethings. Then we are back to something like the god helmet for chimps. Which is kinda where you and I started out in this discussion. Firstly — On what basis do you make this seemingly arbitrary distinction? Secondly - What do you say to those who suggest that chimpanzees should be re-classified to homo genus? Link

Before we can even do more than create fantasies about non humans beliefs in supernatural beings, it might be worthwhile to look at some limits related to critters far closer to us than even chimps. {some images from Wikipedia}Now these are all creations of people very much like us, people we would call 'modern humans' and some likely very recent. Yet looking at the images I still see no way to tell what 'beliefs' prompted the paintings.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I agree. But knowing the nature of humanity as we do it would be rather remarkable if these people didn't believe in some sort of "gods". And whilst we cannot know it is hardly beyond the realms of speculation to think that these might be representations of those beliefs. In fact one could argue that it is even quite likely.Now as far as we can see there is nothing similar to even suggest animal belief in such things. But if we did find such things being done by our very close evolutionary cousins (e.g. chimps) it seems to me perfectly legitimate to speculate that they too are doing something quite similar to that which humans are know to be highly prone to doing.It would at least raise the question of whether or not they are cognitively capable of such beliefs. Which may be possible to research further in terms of neuroscience etc.