Do Animals Believe In Supernatural Beings?

Straggler writes: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.

Straggler writes:In isolation - No. But when you combine it with the known, highly evidenced and deep proclivity of "human beings" to express such beliefs in this way - Very very much so.So the question then comes - At what point in human evolutionary development did this proclivity emerge? And at what point did the cognitive abilities for such beliefs emerge in the first place?These are not simple questions. But they doesn't make them entirely pointless ones to ask.

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.

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?

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.

Firstly — On what basis do you make this seemingly arbitrary distinction?

Oni writes:The only evidence that we have of a species doing this involves ONLY members of the homo-genus.

Oni on abstract thought writes: If it's just linking symbols to physical objects, then how the hell would that lead to religious belief?

Oni writes:Concept of cause and effect? Sure. Concept of intent? Sure. An ability to imagine and dream? How could you know what goes on subjectively in the mind of an ape?

Oni writes:2 out of 3.

Oni writes:I see you chose to leave out the word "combined" this time.

Oni writes:The first time you said: "a basic concept of causality and intent combined with an ability to imagine some sort of agent to ascribe these roles to."

Oni writes:No we don't.

Oni on animals having "religious" experiences" writes:What evidence do you have that says they do?

jar writes: I don't see any support for that assertion.

Straggler writes:We know that humans as a species are deeply prone to expending great effort and resource to express their spiritual beliefs. The fact is that it would be truly remarkable if none of the examples you cite in Message 299 have any "religious" connection at all.It might be that those who created your examples wanted to express a mere fondness for animals or to relieve boredom by "scribbling". But then maybe the people who built Stonehenge did it because they had a bit of a thang for concentric circles.Who knows right?

jar writes:But what I posted was NOT Stonehenge and Stonehenge is totally irrelevant to the issue I raised.

jar writes:If we can be so unsure when it comes to our very close relatives, what makes you think we can know what species other than human might believe.

Link writes:Animals (not just people) likely have spiritual experiences, according to a prominent neurologist who has analyzed the processes of spiritual sensation for over three decades.Research suggests that spiritual experiences originate deep within primitive areas of the human brain areas shared by other animals with brain structures like our own.The trick, of course, lies in proving animals' experiences."Since only humans are capable of language that can communicate the richness of spiritual experience, it is unlikely we will ever know with certainty what an animal subjectively experiences," Kevin Nelson, a professor of neurology at the University of Kentucky, told Discovery News."Despite this limitation, it is still reasonable to conclude that since the most primitive areas of our brain happen to be the spiritual, then we can expect that animals are also capable of spiritual experiences," added Nelson, author of the book "The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain," which will be published in January 2011.The finding is an extension of his research on humans, which has been published in many peer-reviewed journals. A Neurology journal study, for example, determined that out-of-body experiences in humans are likely caused by the brain's arousal system, which regulates different states of consciousness."In humans, we know that if we disrupt the (brain) region where vision, sense of motion, orientation in the Earth's gravitational field, and knowing the position of our body all come together, then out-of-body experiences can be caused literally by the flip of a switch," he said. "There is absolutely no reason to believe it is any different for a dog, cat, or primate’s brain."Other mammals also probably have near-death experiences comparable to those reported by certain humans, he believes. Such people often say they saw a light and felt as though they were moving down a tunnel.The tunnel phenomenon "is caused by the eye's susceptibility to the low blood flow that occurs with fainting or cardiac arrest," he said. "As blood flow diminishes, vision fails peripherally first. There is no reason to believe that other animals are any different from us."Nelson added, "What they make of the tunnel is another matter."The light aspect of near-death experiences can be explained by how the visual system defines REM (rapid eye movement) consciousness, he believes."In fact," he said, "the link between REM and the physiological crises causing near-death experience are most strongly linked in animals, like cats and rats, which we can study in the laboratory."Mystical experiences moments that inspire a sense of mystery and wonderment arise within the limbic system, he said. When specific parts of this system are removed from animal brains, mind-altering drugs like LSD have no effect.Since other animals, such as non-human primates, horses, cats and dogs, also possess similar brain structures, it is possible that they too experience mystical moments, and may even have a sense of spiritual oneness, according to Nelson.Marc Bekoff, a professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, also believes animals have spiritual experiences, which he defines as experiences that are nonmaterial, intangible, introspective and comparable to what humans have.Both he and primatologist Jane Goodall have observed chimpanzees dancing with total abandon at waterfalls that emerge after heavy rains. Some of the chimps even appear to dance themselves into a trance-like state, as some humans do during religious and cultural rituals.Goodall wondered, "Is it not possible that these (chimpanzee) performances are stimulated by feelings akin to wonder and awe? After a waterfall display the performer may sit on a rock, his eyes following the falling water. What is it, this water?""Perhaps numerous animals engage in these rituals, but we haven't been lucky enough to see them," Bekoff wrote in a Psychology Today report."For now, let's keep the door open to the idea that animals can be spiritual beings and let's consider the evidence for such a claim," he added."Meager as it is, available evidence says, 'Yes, animals can have spiritual experiences,' and we need to conduct further research and engage in interdisciplinary discussions before we say that animals cannot and do not experience spirituality."

Straggler writes:No it isn't. In terms of the sole criteria you have insisted upon throughout this thread (i.e. direct communication regarding intent/belief with those who created the work in question) Stonehenge is absolutely identical to your examples. If you are now prepared to accept that the motivations behind such examples can be assessed in the wider evidential context of history, psychology, anthropology etc. etc. etc. then I applaud your change of position.

Straggler writes:I think we can be pretty sure about our fellow humans and their general proclivities based on a the various disciplines mentioned above.As for other closely related species - At some point in our evolutionary past the cognitive abilities under discussion emerged to a degree that facilitates the sort of beliefs that we know homo-sapiens are highly prone to expressing. It may well be the case that this occurred somewhere along the homo genus line rather than before. But if this is the case nobody in this thread has done anything to adequately make that case. Certainly that it must be limited to homo-sapiens simply because we are the only ones known to communicate such beliefs is like the logic of the drunk who insists that his lost keys must be under the lamp post because it is too dark to find them anywhere else....That the questions asked in this thread have only speculative answers has never been in doubt. But the general response I have received in this thread "They're monkeys. They can't talk. It's a stupid question. You're an idiot." (to paraphrase) are overly simplistic gut reactions.

jar writes:They are not comparable.

jar writes:I have said repeatedly that we can often make assertions about humans based on communications and then apply that to other similar humans where we have not had direct communication based on the fact that they are HUMAN.

jar writes:Again, as I have done so many times in this thread, I must ask you "How do you know what it is they believe?"

jar writes:What is the test?

jar writes:But none of that has anything to do with providing an answer.

jar writes:Where is the evidence?

Straggler writes:In terms of lacking any directly communicated motivation for creation both Stonehenge and your examples in Message 299 are very very comparable indeed.

Straggler writes:Or (as I would put it) the wider evidential context of history, psychology, sociology, anthropology etc. etc. allows us to make reasoned speculations about the probable motivations and origins behind such creations.

Straggler writes:How do you "know" what those who built Stonehenge believed? You don't. And nor do I. But that doesn't mean all answers (e.g. they just liked concentric circles) are all equally evidentiall valid does it?

Straggler writes:What is your test for assessing the motivation for any historical event for which there is no recorded history? Contextually evidenced speculation is probably about the best that can be hoped for. Ahhhh - If it is definitive answers you want then maybe you shouldn't take part in necessarily speculative threads? For fucks sake jar I have repeated this to you personally at least half a dozen times in this thread:As (yet yet yet yet 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."How do you think continually demanding that "answers" be "provided" or repeating "Where is your evidence" makes any sense in that context at all?

jar writes:Again, irrelevant as I pointed out in the very next sentence and as you quoted below.

Jar writes:Stonehenge could simply be a calendar to help with planning agriculture EXCEPT for one thing which I also pointed out and that is simply the scale of the effort required to build Stonehenge.

jar writes:Which so far are only relevant when used in connection with other humans.

jar writes:What is your evidence? Where are the examples that we should consider?

jar writes:And as I have asked you repeatedly "What evidence might look like and try to resolve one way or another what we can say we know about this topic."?

jar writes:So far absolutely no evidence or examples have been presented that might indicate support for non-human animal belief in Supernatural Beings.

Straggler writes:Again - 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.

Straggler writes:Well done jar. Well done.From Message 292You never really got past the "monkeys can't talk" stage did you?