Do Animals Believe In Supernatural Beings?

"Test for" is probably a bit too definitive given the speculative nature of this topic. As AdminMod put it this topic 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." Through comparison with known human behaviours I guess. If we found Australopithecus shrines or suchlike that would surely qualify as legitimate evidence (albeit highly open to interpretation) - No? I think it is fair to say that our inferences regarding non-homo species and their motivations have been made primarily on direct observation of living creatures rather than archaeological evidence.But surely direct observation is preferable in most cases? My complaint with jar's position is that he denies that there even can be evidence for such things pertaining to any other non-homo-sapien species such as Neanderthals, Australopithecus etc. purely because we cannot linguistically communicate with them. Too definite, too simplistic and too requiring that we treat religiosity as different from other social and psychological phenomena.

Oh good. So now you accept that even in the absence of linguistic communication we can determine aspects of thinking in non-homo-sapiens that are beyond the "basics".Progress?Or are you calling self awareness "basic". 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." If that remains your answer then why continue?If however you now accept both that your initial criteria of linguistic communication and homo-sapien-species-only are overly simplistic then I guess we can move on.

Jon I don't think I can legitimately conclude that you are self-aware or in possession or capable of related behaviours. In fact I have been of the opinion for some time now that you are just be an algorithm in the EvC board software inserted by Percy to stress test the patience of regular participants.

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." If your overly simplistic position remains that no evidence is even possible in the absence of linguistic communication then please just stop participating.

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 point that you are persistently missing is that this is a thread about what potential evidence might look like. It is speculative in nature exactly because it doesn't make any evidential claims. It instead asks what sort of evidence could support such an inference.If you are simply incapable of getting beyond a "here's my evidence" followed by "oh no it isn't" Vs "oh yes it is" type discussion then please go away. I'll try one last time.If we observed a chimp colony which had constructed what appeared to be a "shrine" of some sort and to which they displayed significant reverence including such acts as leaving food after thunderstorms could we reasonably infer religious behaviours and associated sorts of beliefs on the basis of comparison with humans?I would say yes - This would be a reasonable inference.

See above post to jar. So do I. No disagreement there. I think we must limit any inferences made on the basis of comparison to human behaviour to those species that display self-awareness and sentience. Primarily apes. Maybe possibly elephants, dolphins and other creatures displaying "higher" cognitive functions.Speculating about the inner thoughts of ants (for example) is, I agree, pointless. Obviously it would be ideal. But I think demanding it as a be-all-and-end-all pre-requisite is too simplistic and too limiting.

Has anyone said "must be religious" about anything here? Yes in a thread that asks what evidence for a certain phenomenon might look like we should obviously at all costs avoid speculating on what evidence for that phenomenon might look like. What belief is it I am supposed to be trying to support? I simply asked the question. It seems you are just dismally unable to have any discussion that doesn't take the format of "What is your evidence?" followed by "Oh yes it is" Vs "Oh no it isn't".I despair.

I don't know for sure. How much cognitive function does one need?But consider the following: It seems chimps in particular are capable of greater cognitive functions than most people allow for. At what point down the evolutionary tree does such behaviour stop being legitimately comparable to human behaviour in terms of inferring the same motivations?We infer self-awareness in apes based on the same tests we give humans. Why is that justified if we cannot make reasonable assumptions about beliefs? Is not self-awareness the belief that "I exist" as opposed to simply reacting to ones environment?

Yo yo yo.(***Straggler attempts an ambitious street-cred-worthy high five, misses, and looks slightly sheepish before continuing***)Ready for some more monkey business I see.. You are suggesting that a chimp observes that humans visit a special place after thunderstorms, observes that the humans are very quiet in this special place and notices that they leave food there which must not to be touched. The chimp then goes off, builds his own special place and convinces the rest of his colony to very quietly leave precious food supplies as offerings after every thunderstorm.This, you think, is the parsimonious explanation for the (admittedly rather speculative) chimp behaviour I detailed? If we did conclude that chimp behaviour such as the above was copied from humans rather than self-invented we would have to describe this level of abstraction as closer to role play than mere mimicry. It would be like chimps playing at ‘being human’ in much the same way that little kids play at ‘mummys and daddys’ or ‘doctors and nurses’. They are not simply reciting human actions they are actually recreating an interpreted version of that behaviour. This in itself would arguably be just as remarkable as chimps displaying signs of religiosity. Rather than go through the usual Where’s your evidence routine (I don’t claim there is any in this thread) let’s do something different. Let me ask you - What do you think the minimum of evidence legitimately suggesting religiosity in chimps might be? Then we can discuss how fantastical or otherwise the possibility of such evidence ever existing might be.

Is it reasonable to conclude that the cognitive functions of a chimp are comparable to that of 2/3 year old humans?How many 2/3 year old humans believe in Santa Claus? Can 2/3 year old humans invent their own imaginary beings?If "cognitive function" is our criteria I guess we need to think more about what that means and if we need to be more specific about what aspects of cognition are most important to this question.This is a fascinating link regarding experiments done to compare the proclivity of chimps and human children to blindly imitate. LinkOK. Not at all. But it would show that non-human self-aware animals displaying complex emotions are capable of displaying such beliefs would it not?That in itself would be a significant discovery. It depends what degree of fantasticality in my speculations you are willing to entertain.Lets say we developed a colony of australopithecus in some sort of "Jurassic Park" DNA extraction type scenario. If they started exhibiting the sorts of behaviour that we associate with religiosity in humans would that point to evidence of such beliefs in non-humans?

Yet you agree that the "burial rituals of the Neandertals are good evidence for religious beliefs". Message 163How did you jump from evidenced behaviour to inferring belief in that case? The link (which you couldn't get to) said the following regarding propensity for imitation:

From my experience I would say that many 2 year olds can and do believe in Santa Claus and his ability to do magical things (like fly) that they have never observed a person doing.From what (little admittedly) I have read on this the vocab of an average 2 year old is 150-300 words with some grammatical understanding. This (if true) is very comparable to the 200 word or so vocab (with some grammatical understanding) that has been achieved by chimps who have been taught sign language.So if linguistic ability is our criteria we again face a less than blatant distinction between chimps and young children. Yes - That the thought processes are comparable in some way. This is necessary to infer anything from behaviourial comparisons and seems to be the cause of conflict in this thread. Where is the "border" between that which we can legitimately ascribe known motivations to human-like behaviours and that which we cannot?For example you are happy to accord Neanderthals and Australopithecus with such abilities but consider there a "border" between us and chimps. But if the graduated nature of evolution teaches us anything is it not that these "borders" are extensively blurred and significantly overlapping? I think we can all agree that chimps are not comparable to "educated adult" in terms of sentience, intellect, sapience or any other cognitive ability. So that is a pointless comparison in this context. I would suggest that we try and think about this in the following terms:What is the lowest cognitive ability class of human we would ascribe religious beliefs to?Does this overlap at all with the highest cognitive ability class of non-human (e.g. chimp) we know of? In this context I think that is appropriate. If you want to point out that this isn't religious belief per se and denounce the thread title on that basis I won't disagree with you.

Waddup.....(***Straggler [cool guy that he is] does the double pistol hello***) (***Straggler looks a little sheepish before gathering himself and continuing***) Did you know chimps were made in God's image? Yep. Fair enough. Go with the known (or at least linked to known) before diving of on wild tangents. Fair enough.But on the basis of the behaviour described a degree of religiosity, I think, would be a perfectly valid and evidentially supported scientific hypothesis worthy of further investigation. Well frankly nor do I. Although I doubt it has ever been met. Which to some (like jar) I suspect makes the whole question pointless and moot. But I think it is interesting.Let's try and think of it in the following terms: What is required cognitively to possess beliefs about imaginary beings doing things like creating stuff (e.g the world or the forest or whatever), what is required to acquire such beliefs and are any animals capable of these things?Considering the earliest evidenced origins of human/homo belief in such things might be the way to start?

What about a human mute physically incapable of verbal communication at the age of 2 - Is that comparable? How do you react to the claim by some scientists that chimpanzees are members of the genus homo? LinkThen where do young children stand in relation to the ability to abstract reason and what is the known evidence regarding apes and their ability to abstractly reason? There still seems to be an "obviously comparable to human" and an "obvioulsy NOT comparable to human" bias going on here.Where does that "border" lie?

Feel free to present that argument.