• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

How does evolution explain one genera of animals with spiritual beliefs

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
39
✟28,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Well, since we're all TE here, I'm pretty sure the universal response will be something along these lines:

God guided (thru direct intervention or setting up the process to inevitably lead that way, or something along those lines) the natural process of evolution to give rise to a creature whom He could reveal Himself to, give a soul to, and who would be able to understand and comprehend what He was showing at the level He wanted to show it.


If you want to get into the atheistic evolution (not atheism in terms of 'there is no god' but in terms of 'god(s) were not directly involved) it would go something like this:

Some creatures are social creatures. Furthermore, relative brain size and complexity is usually correlated to intelligence. Since primates are social animals, and humans are primates, human are social animals. And as humanity's brains grew and grew, we grew smarter and more sophisticated, and as we did, so did our social structure. Religion was one way of binding a group together, that could fulfill a large variety of social roles and interactions. It could be shared with other tribes to increase bonding and cement ties between various groups, and help bind groups together to keep invaders out when other unfriendly tribes threatened.

Metherion
 
Upvote 0

OrdinaryClay

Berean
Jun 16, 2009
367
0
✟22,998.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, since we're all TE here, I'm pretty sure the universal response will be something along these lines:

God guided (thru direct intervention or setting up the process to inevitably lead that way, or something along those lines) the natural process of evolution to give rise to a creature whom He could reveal Himself to, give a soul to, and who would be able to understand and comprehend what He was showing at the level He wanted to show it.
I agree.

If you want to get into the atheistic evolution (not atheism in terms of 'there is no god' but in terms of 'god(s) were not directly involved) it would go something like this:
Not really, I've spent countless hours in those debates.



My real interest is in the mediocrity principle (wikipedia can be used to look it up). I find it odd that people will look at the details and see mediocrity, but ignore the gross evidence of specialness. This thread dovetails with my thread about ETI. The details say we are nothing special, but the larger picture says we are special. The evolutionary record says we are very special and unique despite the possibility of sameness or the nuances of sameness.
 
Upvote 0

OrdinaryClay

Berean
Jun 16, 2009
367
0
✟22,998.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here is another interesting observation regrading our specialness. The nature of technological development requires resource consumption. Since we are, and have been, the one and only species we have benefited from the untouched nonrenewable resources of our planet. Had there been another species before us it would be hard to imagine how we could have developed technologically as we have. It is almost like the history of our planet has been a setup for our historical benefit. Very interesting.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 30, 2009
10
0
Green Bay
✟22,620.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I've read about supposed spiritual behaviour occurring in gorillas and chimps, too. Google isn't turning up much, though.

How about the waterfall display rituals of the Gombe chimps? They are not in our genus.

janegoodall.org/chimp_central/chimpanzees/behavior/rain_dance.asp

14 Feb. 2002

Thank you for your letter. I too am fascinated with they way primates see their world. Questions of awe, reflection, appreciation, and level of understanding, are constantly on my mind as I watch the Gombe chimpanzees react (or not) to their physical environment.

I think that little has been published because it is impossible for primatologists to quantify what 'may' be going on in the minds of apes or monkeys. Most hesitate to publish anything that would be construed by others as anthropomorphic.

In my time at Gombe (about nine years since 1992) I have witnessed an average of two to three waterfall displays and rain dances per year. They have ranged from single individual solitary events to a single individual participant within a social group, to multiple participant events. The displays I have witnessed were performed by males of all age groups. Rarely have I seen adolescents or infants displaying in and around adult males, but it does occasionally happen. The displays are prolonged, lasting as long as five minutes, sometimes more. Aggression is occasionally an element of the display, but usually the event continues long after the subordinates have moved away. My feeling is that dominance plays a secondary role (if any) in most of this type of display. Rain dances are performed more often toward the beginning of the rainy season. I do not have a sense of seasonality in relation to waterfall displays.
I do not recall seeing a female perform an extended rain dance or waterfall display, but Dr. Goodall has and I am not at all surprised that they do.

I have discussed these displays at length with Dr. Goodall over the years. One of the most interesting and scrutinized events I have recorded on video was a waterfall display performed by the alpha at the time, Freud. Freud began his display with typical rhythmic and deliberate swaying and swinging on vines. For minutes he swung over and across the eight to 12-foot falls. At one point, Freud stood at the top of the falls dipping has hand into the stream and rolling rocks one at a time down the face of the waterfall. Finally, he displayed (slowly, on vines) down the falls and settled on a rock about 30 feet downstream. He relaxed, then turned to the falls and stared at it for many minutes. It was one of those times that I would give body parts to know what was going through a chimp's mind. Dr. Goodall and I have seen several events in which the participants seemed to ponder or consider the natural event to which they were reacting.

To your question of "the perceptual/cognitive problem of telling what's alive from what's not", I would answer that chimpanzees almost certainly know that waterfalls and rain are not alive in the same way baboons, pythons, pigs, and the other creatures of the forest are. However, the displays in reaction to these elements of nature suggest that chimpanzees find something meaningful which could possibly be described as reverence to aspects of their environment.

During rain dance displays, lightning and thunder often, perhaps usually, precedes and accompanies the downpour. If you have experienced a storm in which the hair stands up on the back of your neck and you can feel or smell the electricity in the air, you can almost be certain that the chimps would display if they were there. In other words, the behavior is predictable under some circumstances.

An excellent example of a respect and intense curiosity of chimpanzees to an animate object is in their reaction to snakes, particularly pythons. Pythons could pose a threat to young chimpanzees, but it is not likely that any snake would take on an adult. However, when a single individual or group of chimpanzees encounters a python (even a small one), the reaction is remarkable. One would expect the chimps to issue alarm calls to warn others and as an expression of their fear, but then to move well out of harms way as soon as possible. Predictably, the chimpanzees do issue a specific vocalization called a snake wraa, but when it is uttered, the group often draws near, to stare at the snake. Some climb above if possible for a better look. Typical facial expressions are those of fear and curiosity. Physical reassurance contact is often made (especially mutual embracing), and eye contact among individuals is frequent. After tens of minutes, members finally begin to disperse. Some individuals however, (Skosha and Apollo, for instance) show exaggerated and prolonged interest. Both call time and again even after the other individuals have moved well away. I have seen both stay and stare and call for as long as 30 minutes.

It is difficult to explain why chimpanzees react to pythons in this way. It appears to be much more than keeping a close eye on a possible threat, as many species do. It also seems a great waste of energy and time. If pythons are dangerous, it would make much more sense to alarm call and move away as quickly as possible.

The only case of possible projected 'animation' on an inanimate object is that of a young female chimpanzee carrying and cradling rocks and sticks in mimicry of nurturing behavior. I cannot be sure that this is exactly what I was seeing, but Gaia on several occasions has shown what appeared to be mothering behavior toward objects, much as human children care for dolls. There is a fine line between hugging and holding on, but I have seen Gaia groom both rocks and sticks as she held them in her lap. There is a similar observation of a young female baboon at Gombe who was observed mothering a rock.

What does this all mean? We can't come to any real conclusions, but I honestly do believe that chimps have the capacity to contemplate and consider (even revere) both the animate and inanimate. Where the line is drawn between what is alive and what is not I fear will always remain a mystery.

I've spent many hours pondering how complex and sophisticated are the workings of a chimp's mind, but I still have far more questions than answers.

— Bill Wallauer, Gombe videographer
 
Upvote 0

OrdinaryClay

Berean
Jun 16, 2009
367
0
✟22,998.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How about the waterfall display rituals of the Gombe chimps? They are not in our genus.
Considering how inclined humans are to anthropomorphising we have to be very careful not to associate animal behavior with mental states. We all know that the bird of paradise courtship display is not demonstrating a theory of mind any more then an ant colony is demonstrating superior logistical skills. Behavior that appears to be "pondering" is a long way from spirituality. We need stronger evidence then this. We need some kind of projection that indicates the species is really considering supernatural realities.

I'm sure there will be many who, driven by a desire and need to associate spirituality with other species, will read into these behaviors spirituality. Wishful thinking in my opinion.
 
Upvote 0

OrdinaryClay

Berean
Jun 16, 2009
367
0
✟22,998.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What kind of evidence do you suppose would suffice?
Humans demonstrate spirituality via clear and distinctive behaviors that have physical manifestations such as elaborate rituals, shrines, artifacts and talismans, for example. Like I said a physical projection of their thoughts.

It is tempting to feel warm and fuzzy about the great apes by reading into what is obviously (relative to any other species besides us) intelligent behavior. Of course, it is also very convenient that we can not really get into their minds so our hopes and wishes can not be disproven. You know ... who knows what is going on in their minds, hey maybe we got a tee shirt coming on here ;), maybe there are really Einstein apes who have it all figured out and they are just shy ... ;)
 
Upvote 0

MattLangley

Newbie
Sep 8, 2006
644
32
Las Vegas, NV
✟23,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I agree.


Not really, I've spent countless hours in those debates.



My real interest is in the mediocrity principle (wikipedia can be used to look it up). I find it odd that people will look at the details and see mediocrity, but ignore the gross evidence of specialness. This thread dovetails with my thread about ETI. The details say we are nothing special, but the larger picture says we are special. The evolutionary record says we are very special and unique despite the possibility of sameness or the nuances of sameness.

You see what you want to see... the subjectivity of human perception is guilty of this. If you look for specialness you'll find it, if you look for mediocrity you'll find this. You can look at non-human species and find specialness too though. So even in being special we are not unique ;)
 
Upvote 0

OrdinaryClay

Berean
Jun 16, 2009
367
0
✟22,998.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You see what you want to see... the subjectivity of human perception is guilty of this. If you look for specialness you'll find it, if you look for mediocrity you'll find this. You can look at non-human species and find specialness too though. So even in being special we are not unique ;)
Not exactly. Specialness does have probability on its side.
 
Upvote 0

MattLangley

Newbie
Sep 8, 2006
644
32
Las Vegas, NV
✟23,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Not exactly. Specialness does have probability on its side.

Would you explain that? Any way I can reason it specialness would not have probability on it's side, considering if we are special in some way then probability would expect other species to be just as special if not more, but most likely in different ways. This is what we see.
 
Upvote 0

OrdinaryClay

Berean
Jun 16, 2009
367
0
✟22,998.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Would you explain that? Any way I can reason it specialness would not have probability on it's side, considering if we are special in some way then probability would expect other species to be just as special if not more, but most likely in different ways. This is what we see.
Something less likely is objectively special from the perspective of how often it happens. Our physical situation appears special. Our historical situation appears special. Our intellectual situation appears special.

These are not subjective observations. It may be we are not special, but our accrued evidence suggests we are.
 
Upvote 0

MattLangley

Newbie
Sep 8, 2006
644
32
Las Vegas, NV
✟23,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Something less likely is objectively special from the perspective of how often it happens. Our physical situation appears special. Our historical situation appears special. Our intellectual situation appears special.

These are not subjective observations. It may be we are not special, but our accrued evidence suggests we are.

Every observation is subjective, you can try to determine something objective out of a subjective observation, but they are not the same thing.

I agree with your first paragraph though.

Extremophiles appear special because they live in situations that no other live (including us) can sustain itself, that is much more relatively special to other species than say us to apes (how smart we are in comparison).

Maybe that makes Extremophiles the most special in God's creation hmm.

In physical specialness other species are very special even in comparison to us. There are animals that move faster, that are stronger, that are more dexterous, more agile, etc. Sure we can do things they can't, but some of them can do things we can't. So that means if that's what makes us special it has to equally make them special, or we aren't special.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 30, 2009
10
0
Green Bay
✟22,620.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Its easy to dismiss the chimps apparent "spirituality" as anthropomorphic, but the idea of a spiritual evolution of the mind is worth considering. I realize Im venturing into the realm of pseudoscience, but I can only assume that spirituality developed as the mind evolved and more pathways to a higher consciousness became availible... Or perhaps the "homo" genus had finally crossed some threshold, and spirituality was spontaneously bestowed upon man.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Humans demonstrate spirituality via clear and distinctive behaviors that have physical manifestations such as elaborate rituals, shrines, artifacts and talismans, for example. Like I said a physical projection of their thoughts.
I'm confused. When I posited spiritual behaviour in other apes, you warned me against anthropomorphism. But when I asked what would constitute evidence of religious behaviour in other apes, you list a bunch of human behaviours. Doesn't that seem circular? Is it not possible to be religious without building shrines and talismans?
 
Upvote 0

OrdinaryClay

Berean
Jun 16, 2009
367
0
✟22,998.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Every observation is subjective, you can try to determine something objective out of a subjective observation, but they are not the same thing.

I agree with your first paragraph though.

Extremophiles appear special because they live in situations that no other live (including us) can sustain itself, that is much more relatively special to other species than say us to apes (how smart we are in comparison).

...

In physical specialness other species are very special even in comparison to us. There are animals that move faster, that are stronger, that are more dexterous, more agile, etc. Sure we can do things they can't, but some of them can do things we can't. So that means if that's what makes us special it has to equally make them special, or we aren't special.
Don't confuse equally less likely as equally special. A fluted stone tool and a random rock are both extremely unlikely to be duplicated. An anthropologist obviously considers the fluted tool special.

Maybe that makes Extremophiles the most special in God's creation hmm.
Why don't you ask them. Hmmm ...
 
Upvote 0

OrdinaryClay

Berean
Jun 16, 2009
367
0
✟22,998.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Its easy to dismiss the chimps apparent "spirituality" as anthropomorphic, but the idea of a spiritual evolution of the mind is worth considering. I realize Im venturing into the realm of pseudoscience, but I can only assume that spirituality developed as the mind evolved and more pathways to a higher consciousness became availible... Or perhaps the "homo" genus had finally crossed some threshold, and spirituality was spontaneously bestowed upon man.
Perhaps, but the key point is that we are special and unique - which was the point of this thread.
 
Upvote 0

OrdinaryClay

Berean
Jun 16, 2009
367
0
✟22,998.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm confused. When I posited spiritual behaviour in other apes, you warned me against anthropomorphism. But when I asked what would constitute evidence of religious behaviour in other apes, you list a bunch of human behaviours. Doesn't that seem circular?
No, it is not possible to be anthropomorphic when describing human behavior. Don't confuse anthropocentrism with anthropomorphism.

Is it not possible to be religious without building shrines and talismans?
Feel free to provide an alternate means of detection. Note: it would be good if you apply the same level of rigor in your approach as you require from ID theorists.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
No, it is not possible to be anthropomorphic when describing human behavior. Don't confuse anthropocentrism with anthropomorphism.
My mistake. I meant anthropocentric. My point still stands.

Feel free to provide an alternate means of detection. Note: it would be good if you apply the same level of rigor in your approach as you require from ID theorists.
How do you mean?
 
Upvote 0