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.
I agree.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.
Not really, I've spent countless hours in those debates.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:
I've read about supposed spiritual behaviour occurring in gorillas and chimps, too. Google isn't turning up much, though.
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
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.How about the waterfall display rituals of the Gombe chimps? They are not in our genus.
What kind of evidence do you suppose would suffice?We need stronger evidence then this. We need some kind of projection that indicates the species is really considering supernatural realities.
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.What kind of evidence do you suppose would suffice?
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.
Not exactly. Specialness does have probability on its side.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
Why don't you ask them. Hmmm ...Maybe that makes Extremophiles the most special in God's creation hmm.
Perhaps, but the key point is that we are special and unique - which was the point of this thread.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.
No, it is not possible to be anthropomorphic when describing human behavior. Don't confuse anthropocentrism with anthropomorphism.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?
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.Is it not possible to be religious without building shrines and talismans?
My mistake. I meant anthropocentric. My point still stands.No, it is not possible to be anthropomorphic when describing human behavior. Don't confuse anthropocentrism with anthropomorphism.
How do you mean?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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?