Do Animals Believe In Supernatural Beings?

If we are talking about the primordial origins of supernatural beliefs and the sort of thing chimps are likely capable of are we really going to quibble over a precise definition of "supernatural". Is that really the important point here?If a chimp dreams of a non-existent being (e.g. a recently deceased relative) and then ascribes this entity a causal role in the real world (e.g. the cause of a storm) then how is this not a simplistic primordial version of exactly the sort of beliefs we describe as "supernatural" when talking about humans? Who cares if a dead ancestor meets some pernickity pedantic definition of "supernatural" or not? I got that from here: Link"At the heart of the movement is a mythic messianic figure called Jon Frum, who allegedly appeared on the island of Tanna and who is variously identified as a god who lives in the crater of Tanna's highest mountain with his several thousand strong army or the 'king of America'. Jon Frum day is celebrated annually on 15 February; it is believed that Jon Frum will return on this day, bringing with him the cargo from heaven that westerners are selfishly diverting for themselves."According to the God Delusion (which you cited as your source of knowledge for this phenomenon) he is. From the God Delusion: Link"His apocalyptic vision included a 'great cataclysm; the mountains would fall flat and the valleys would be filled;* old people would regain their youth and sickness would vanish;"Again from the God Delusion: "It is believed that the day of John Frum's return will be 15 February, but the year is unknown. Every year on 15 February his followers assemble for a religious ceremony to welcome him. So far he has not returned, but they are not downhearted. David Attenborough said to one cult devotee, called Sam:

​

'But, Sam, it is nineteen years since John say that the cargo will come. He promise and he promise, but still the cargo does not come. Isn't nineteen years a long time to wait?'

​

Sam lifted his eyes from the ground and looked at me. 'If you can wait two thousand years for Jesus Christ to come an' 'e no come, then I can wait more than nineteen years for John.'The concept of Jon Frum is indisputably supernatural. But if you remove all the supernatural properties from the concept then obviously it won't be supernatural anymore......... I'm not saying that beliefs and behaviours are the same. I am saying that the motivations of humans and neanderthals are likely to be highly comparable. I was talking about chimps. And I know you were talking about chimps. I apologise if this was not clear.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well of course we don't know. I’m not claiming to have any answers. I am defending the evidential legitimacy of the question.As (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."I think we can say that it is not beyond the realms of evidenced possibility that chimpanzees are capable of some sort of individual primordial "supernaturalism". Whether you want to call it strictly "supernatural" or not by some rigid definition or other I have little interest in pursuing. The most sophisticated believers tell us that they believe in "something" that they deem to be incomprehensible and which they can't adequately define. Yet we accept their beliefs on this basis. Which kinda puts the whole "because they can tell us" into context.Deistic chimps anyone?

We all seem to agree that it is a necessary first step. And the focus on that aspect came about not because I think it the most important but because others were denying chimps this ability and making their case in this thread on that basis. The focus on dreams came about purely because you said: "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? 2 out of 3." Message 304The various focuses of this thread have not always been where I would have chosen to make the best case. They have been shaped by those who are challenging the idea. Exactly my point. Except to say that in evolutionary terms chimps are far from "distant" cousins. This is my argument in summary:1) We know humans are capable of and deeply prone to such beliefs.
2) We know that humans evolved from "non-humans" (for lack of a better term).
3) We don't know when the cognitive abilities required to hold "religious" beliefs manifested themselves in mans evolutionary past but given the graduated nature of evolution there is every reason to think they didn't just pop into existence fully formed with homo-sapiens.
4) Evidence suggests that other great apes (e.g. our closest living relatives chimpanzees) have the basic cognitive abilities to grasp cause and effect, ascribe intent and use their imagination.
5) This raises the question of when the cognitive ability to ascribe causal roles to imagined entities arose - Before or after the breaking away of the homo-genus line?
6) Neurological evidence suggests that apes (and indeed many other mammals) are capable of what humans call "religious" experiences.
7) What most less intelligent animals make of these experiences is probably beyond even speculation but those who have observed apes in particular describe behaviour that is comparable to that of humans and speculate that the internal mental processes and motivations may not be a million miles away from those that we know of in humans. See above. But does this mean you now think there is more evidence for this possibility than for telepathic dogs? (to use a comparison cited by you earlier in this thread)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What do you mean by religiosity? In this latest post you seem to have reverted to the sort of ritualistic complex religion that we all agree is unique to humans rather than the sort of primordial supernaturalism I thought we had agreed was relevant here. Currently observed human abilities (and proclivities) have to have developed from something more primitive must they not? That is what we are talking about here. When did the capacity for supernatural belief first emerge in it’s most primordial form? That is essentially the question. Not - When are the first signs of organised ritualistic religion to be found? That is a very very different question indeed. Let’s not conflate the two. Complex religiosity of the human variety — Sure. But we are not talking about Sikh or Hindu chimps here. We are talking about primordial supernaturalism of the sort that presumably preceded our uniquely human capacity for such things. The links you have provided seem to indicate that many areas of the brain involved are indeed shared by both us and chimps. And as far as I can see a lot of the brain activity investigated is primarily concerned with susceptibility to stories and subjective experiences rather than indicating that the frontal lobes are vital to ascribing causal intent to non-existent entities which is essentially what we are talking about at the most primordial level. The question would then be what is required for primordial beliefs of the sort under discussion. If frontal lobes are known to be associated with this then you have a watertight case and I will shut-up. Do you think this is the case? To say that we can have absolutely no idea at all as to what chimps are likely to be dreaming about is just not true at all. Based on what we know about human dreams and studies of animals ability to dream we can say that chimps are almost certainly dreaming about the things they interact with and that matter to them in their everyday lives. Things like their fellow chimps. Frankly — What else would they be likely to be dreaming about? And why would this not include things like recently deceased relatives with whom they had a close relationship? The ability to dream provides evidence of the ability to hold representations of things that may not exist (because they have died or been destroyed) in ones mind. If (for example) a chimp is dreaming of a recently deceased relative and then when they awake they associate some aspect of the real world (e.g. a storm) as being caused by the object of that dream then as far as I am concerned we have supernaturalism in it’s most primordial form. Are they doing this? Who knows. But all of the individual cognitive abilities required to do so (ascribe intent and appreciate cause and effect as well as dream) seem to be in place with regard to chimps specifically. Are you serious? At the sort of base primordial level we are talking about here you are making a distinction where there is just unlikely to be a difference. You earlier described Neanderthals as exhibiting religious behaviour but refused to associate this as likely to be caused by supernatural belief on the basis that you and Sam Harris are spiritual beings who are not religious. Frankly I think this comparison is ridiculous. Whilst I am sure that some Neanderthals would have loved to do a bit of atheistic-yoga after a hard day in the cave it seems far more likely that their reasons for exhibiting religious behaviours are identical to those of prehistoric humans. Namely that they were engaged in a daily struggle for survival in a hostile and seemingly inexplicable environment. Constantly trying to ascribe cause to aspects of nature (e.g. the weather) by imbuing inanimate objects and elemental forces with conscious intent of the type they had themselves. In other words a primitive form of supernaturalism. You and Sam Harris, needless to say, are not engaging in spirituality for these same reasons. What chimps make of these sorts of spiritual experiences is unknown. But I would suggest that it is more akin to primitive humans and Neanderthals than you or Sam Harris. C’mon Oni. Be serious.

Firstly we know that belief in the supernatural exists. We have no reason to think telepathy exists at all.

Secondly we have evidence that chimps possess the cognitive abilities that would seem to be required for some form of primordial supernaturalism. We have no evidence to remotely suggest that dogs have the cognitive abilities for telepathy.

Thirdly we know that we humans are evolved apes and that our cognitive abilities must have emerged at some point in our evolutionary path. A path of which much is shared specifically with chimpanzees. Nothing suggests that telepathic abilities have ever evolved in the dog lineage. Or indeed any other.

​

Basically it is an indisputably unjustifiable evidential comparison and you are being silly to make it.

If you hold the hand of your parent and they hold the hand of theirs and so on you will form a line of ancestors. This line can be formed all the back to the human chimp common ancestor. It will consist of about 500,000 individuals and be about 300 miles long (Yes — That’s all!!). There is no individual on this line that you will be able to pinpoint as the first homo-sapien. Likewise there is no individual that you will be able to pinpoint as the first human. Your position here seems to demand that there exist a point on this line where the cognitive abilities required for full scale complex religious beliefs of the sort demonstrably present in modern humans suddenly just pops into existence without existing in any more primitive form in preceding ancestors.If this is not what you are saying can you explain using this ancestor line analogy where it is you think the evidence indicates that primordial supernaturalism of the sort I have been talking about (i.e. NOT ritualistic religion of the sort you seem to be talking about) might emerge?

10 out of 10 for predictive power. This is a long one. This is starting to feel like one of those conversations where I try to explain to why the question of life on other planets is not the same as the question of god. But I know that you know the difference. Because I have seen you make the same arguments as me regarding the evidential validity of questions. The question of life on other planets is derived from fact (i.e. the extrapolation of the known existence of life on this planet). The question of primordial supernaturalism in chimps is also derived from fact (i.e. the known existence of complex religious belief in humans, the fact that the cognitive ability to hold such beliefs must have evolved and the fact that we human apes share a great deal of lineage with our chimpanzee cousins). Meanwhile the existence of both god and of telepathic abilities in dogs remains entirely derived from the unsubstantiated claims of flawed humans.Do you see the difference between the two classes of question or not? Will you concede that your comparison is unjustified? What sort of religious actions are you talking about? Can you give an example? No. If you ask that you will be asking an entirely different question to the one I am asking. I am talking about the evolution of the cognitive ability to ascribe a causal role to an imagined entity that ultimately lies at root of human religious behaviour. You seem to be talking about human ritualistic religious behaviour itself. The latter quite evidently requires social communication and group organisational abilities which nobody here is claiming chimps have. What I am talking about quite obviously precedes what you are talking about. If you hold the hand of your parent and they hold the hand of theirs and so on you will form a line of ancestors. This line can be formed all the back to the human chimp common ancestor. It will consist of about 500,000 individuals and be about 300 miles long (Yes — That’s all!!). There is no individual on this line that you will be able to pinpoint as the first homo-sapien. Likewise there is no individual that you will be able to pinpoint as the first human. The line will be continuous. But your position here seems to demand that there exist a point on this line where the cognitive abilities required for full scale ritualistic religious activity of the sort exhibited by modern human hunter gatherer societies suddenly just pop into existence without existing in any more primitive form in preceding ancestors. Question: If this is not what you are saying can you explain using this ancestor line analogy where it is you think the evidence indicates (including frontal lobe evidence) that primordial supernaturalism of the sort I have been talking about (i.e. NOT ritualistic religious behaviour of the sort you seem to be talking about) might emerge? I am simply talking about dreaming of a dead relative and then upon waking associating the object of that dream as the cause of some event (e.g. a storm). This is very much based on the sort of hunter gatherer conclusion that a dream about a dead relative preceding a natural event means that the dreamt of ancestor somehow caused that event. I am most definitely NOT talking about chimps sitting around dreaming up the concept of Thor and suchlike. In terms of the dream very much the former. But it is the ability to associate the storm (or whatever) with the dream afterwards that is the key cognitive requirement here. Chimps seem to have all the abilities required to do this. Are you aware that one of the key differences between us and Neanderthals is the size of the frontal lobe? How can what you are saying make sense if Neanderthals lack the frontal lobe capabilities of modern humans? So what are you saying that a significantly reduced frontal lobe didn’t stop Neanderthals having supernatural beliefs? I am saying that it may be possible to make reasonable speculative conclusions about the mental processes of evolutionarily closely related beings without actually speaking to them on the basis of their shared evolutionary past with us. Well let’s take a look at your highlighted specifics We know chimps can do this in a basic sense. Link. Likewise Neanderthals. Are you seriously suggesting that chimps and/or neanderthals are incapable of this? Chimps have problem solving skills. Are you saying they don’t? Are you saying neanderthals didn't? Link "The higher cognitive function of chimpanzees has been demonstrated repeatedly in captivity. Chimpanzees are able to solve problems. They have the ability to abstract and generalize, and they perform cross-modal transfer of information (e.g. object previously felt but not seen can be identified from photos). In addition, chimpanzees show evidence of being able to plan ahead for anticipated events as well as evidence of remembering past events."And which of these things do you think chimps and/or neanderthals are lacking in some basic format? Are you aware that chimps show empathetic responses to dying relatives and mourn? And our conclusions about neanderthal religiosity are based on the evidence of their reaction to death as well. It is the enhanced development of these areas that is unique to humans. Their presence is not unique to humans. And these two areas are both possessed by chimps but are less developed than in humans. As is the case with Neanderthals too. Which is consistent with the evidence of them having all the capabilities you highlight in a much less developed format than modern humans. No? And your comparison remains ridiculous. You don’t have to look much further than EvC to see that spiritual experiences and supernatural beliefs generally go hand in hand. You don’t have to look much further than cargo cults of the type already discussed to see that default human behaviour involves invocation of the supernatural. And you don’t have to go any further than studies of hunter gatherer societies to see that spirituality and supernaturalism are innately entwined in circumstances that best replicate those of our ancient ancestors. Whilst I have no doubt that enlightened sophisticates such as yourself and Sam Harris can and do make a conscious distinction between spirituality and supernaturalism I would suggest that we have every reason to think that our less refined ancestors were blissfully unaware of the need for such distinctions and thus unlikely to make them. Wherever the primordial origins of human supernaturalism may lie, whether before or after the split with our chimpanzee cousins, I don’t think you or Sam Harris are the best basis for comparison.Edited by Straggler, : Fix linkEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Links and formatting

If I throw a stick will you go away?

I am unaware of any significant cognitive abilities in dogs. Not even the relatively basic abstraction of self-awareness As for elephants and dolphins — I think your assumption that a decent degree of intelligence is unique is misplaced. The link on elephants in particularly is fascinating. LinkLink

Coming from the man who said this: I'll try being nicer if you try being smarter.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Where do you think the cognitive abilities required to hold such beliefs are derived from Jon?I suspect that any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.

Oh, I get it. Like humour. Only different.I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant.

Whether others are swayed by my attempted defence of what is admittedly a pretty out-there stance in this thread or not is one thing. I'm doing my best.But as a bare minimum to take part in this thread it required that one accepts that the human brain evolved and that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees.If Jon can't even get that far then he should just go away.

What do you mean by "intellect"?

So the ability for these things didn't evolve as far as you are concerned.I see you've set aside this special time to publicly humiliate yourself.

I think I have demonstrated that the question being asked in this thread is evidentially legitimate in exactly the same way that the question of life on other planets is evidentially legitimate. There is no direct evidence for either. But there is a good evidential basis from which the question is derived. I never said it would be easy. I said that the question was a legitimate one. It's more like asking what cognitive abilities are required for primordial supernatural beliefs and when in our evolutionary past these abilities are likely to have arisen. The evolution of brain physiology. Evolutionary psychology. Anthropology. Exactly the sort of questions I have been asking in this thread in fact. The question is very similar in nature to the question "When did humans evolve language?" in that sense. I think how and when consciousness evolved is an equally valid and interesting question. Likewise the ability to "think" (although I fear that would end up more a semantic argument about what it means to "think"). Likewise the human ability and proclivity for language. All hard questions. But that doesn't make them pointless. I think impossible is too strong a term. Who knows what neurological advances might tell us? Or if cloned versions of our ancient ancient ancestors might one day shed some light? But yeah - It's all a bit sci-fi in terms of the necessary steps to really gain concrete answers in these areas. But we can study our closest living relatives and evaluate just how different or similar the inner workings of their minds are likely to be to some extent. As e have discussed. We're not trying to "prove" anything. We're seeking the best physically evidence based answers we can achieve. I don't see difficulty to answer as a reason to ignore a question. Then you are seeking the best physical evidence to answer a different question to the one I asked. A legitimate question. But not the one I asked. A dead relative is considered to have caused a storm (for example) and you wouldn't call that supernatural belief in essence? What would you call it? I don't KNOW. But I would strongly suggest that neanderthals experiencing spirituality and exhibiting religious behaviours did so for reasons that are closer to the reasons and motivations of hunter gatherer human societies than those of you and Sam Harris. Engaged in a daily struggle for survival in a hostile and seemingly inexplicable environment constantly trying to ascribe cause to aspects of nature (e.g. the weather) by imbuing inanimate objects and elemental forces with conscious intent of the type they had themselves. In other words a primitive form of supernaturalism.But no. I don't KNOW this. That much I will concede.