Hi Straggler,
Had to get away from this thread for a bit since (and this is in no way an offense to you) it was bothering me to think I was wasting so much time trying to figure out, with zero experience or education on the matter, if chimps had religious beliefs.
But, I didn't want to just drop it without coming to some conclusion.
If chimpanzees are reclassified to homo genus, as genetic evidence and consistency of classification would seem to demand, would you suddenly revise your entire position here to advocate that chimps are capable of such beliefs?
No I would not. Here's why: I was listening to the lecture that Mod provided in the Peanut Gallery. In it, the dude speaking mentions that homo-erectus didn't have a "language" which, I didn't know that shit. Now, if he is right that they didn't, can it then be said that chimps do?
In other words, how broad is this thing we call language? And how come in some cases lower primates are thought to have language but in other cases higher primates (such as erectus) are not considered to have language? When is it language, and when is it
just a vocal representation of physical objects with not much else to it? Is there a reason to think erectus doesn't have language but chimps do some how, being a lesser primate?
Because of this, I don't think I can give you an educated answer as to what is needed for religious belief as far as abstract concepts, the need for language, etc. I know homo-sapiens do have religious beliefs, and I don't see evidence for other animals having it. That's about as best as I can say on it.
We know that various mammals dream and that greate apes in particular demonstrate various aspects of secondary consciousness.
I was refering to the other type of dream, the kind one would combine with the word "imagine" as you did. More in the metophorical sense:
To imagine and dream of living on an island with hot babes.
And it's not that I don't think animals can't do that, it's that how on earth could we know that they do?
If chimps have some basic intuitive grasp of intent, causality and an ability to dream...
What does the "ability" to dream have to do with anything?
why wouldn't they be able to combine these such that they ascribe an intended causal role (e.g. cause of theunderstorms) to an imaginary entity?
Even if they can, what is it about that entity that makes it supernatural? If they imagine a human causing thunderstorms, they have applied all of the above and yet it remains natural.
Wouldn't they have to know the limits of nature to be able to break those limits using their imagination? If so, then I don't think, nor does any evidence suggest, that they can do this.
Claims of mystical causes are evidentially unjustified but that humans have such expereinces seems to be a widely accepted fact.
Humans have experiences, that is a fact. They have subjective experiences, that too is a fact. How are these experiences religious or supernatural?
"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."
But now it changes from religious to spiritual. Well, if that is your new question, "Can animals have spiritual experiences?" I would say yes, many probably can. But to me, as an atheist who has had spiritual experiences, there is nothing supernatural about a spiritual experience.
In fact, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who is also an atheist, says his study of the cosmos is s spiritual experience.
So it changes if it's spirituality that you seek to know about.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
