Primates and the Very Ancient Roots of Religion

Okay ... I am ... still unsure what to make of it all. This is one of those things where I'm going to have to read the book, and spend some time thinking about it, and then shrug it off only to finally figure out something relevant months later when talking about something seemingly irrelevant.

Confused? Don't worry.

Wisconsin Public Radio produces To the Best of Our Knowledge, a weekly program that covers diverse topics. A recent broadcast, for instance, covered in its first hour Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, and jazz. The second hour was a replay of a January program about animals, including Dave Foreman (Wilderness Society, EarthFirst!, and now the Rewilding Institute) on species reintroduction; Sy Montgomery (The Good Good Pig) about her pet pig Christopher Hogwood; Patricia McConnell (For the Love of a Dog and Calling All Pets) on teaching/training dogs; and lastly, most curiously and confusingly, Barbara J. King (Evolving God) discusses the rudimentary qualities of religion as seen in great apes.

That's right. Religion and apes. Take a moment, if you need, before going on.

To quote program host Jim Fleming:

I will state here a very important distinction: At no point does King assert that great apes have religion.

The episode link is an audio file (RealMedia); the segment starts right around 40:55.

To reiterate: Nobody is saying apes have religion. Not even, in this context, Goodall. Much of the rest of the program discussion considers aspects of those four behaviors. In discussing empathy, King recalls the 1996 incident at Brookfield Zoo when a female gorilla protected and in essence rescued an injured human child who fell into the habitat. At approximately 45.58, King offers an example from the wild:

The thing is that it's a lot to take at once. By the time you get to the bit about the bonobo and the squirrel, you will find yourself truly in surreal territory.

Don't worry, though. Steve Paulson makes the pertinent point:

If people are willing to give King some credibility here, most will see their definitions of religion begin to crumble. (Well, if they weren't already captivated by the idea of primates and the roots of religious behavior.) And those familiar with Armstrong's work will better understand the influence it can have over anthropology, psychology, and religion itself. There are dimensions of ourselves, as individuals, awaiting discovery if only we stop leaving it to the religionists to define religion and faith. Many who are atheistic or anti-religious would reconsider those positions if they were not obliged by custom or principle to define God and religion so narrowly as the faithful insist, in large part because if there is one thing an atheist can believe in, it is the personal experience. Even if all else is illusory, there is still something of a self to perceive and respond to the illusion. It would be better, I think, for people to have the chance to understand that religion relates to something we as humans do naturally, and when we look at religion in our communities today, we are seeing the most superficial strata, the accretions beneath which the roots of our religious functions are sublimated. The nonreligious need to know that what they are seeing is a circumstantial result; we humans may have bungled our religious functions, but there are reasons for that bungling. As with anything, there is no all-knowing, malevolent party aiming to distort everything. There is no Central Chauvinist Agency gathered in a back room somewhere conspiring about how to turn every moment into an opportunity to oppress women. There is no Devil hiding in Hell deciding how to make our faith in a benevolent God work against us at every turn. And though it is more likely, there is no capitalist conspiracy aiming to reduce humanity to servants of the self-proclaimed superhuman. Rather, what happens today is at least in part shaped by what has come before. Humans are finite, imperfect organisms. When the American slave owners said that it would be cruel to teach the slaves to read, or when the men believed it would be cruel to ask women to vote in elections, they actually believed it. Even though we might justly theorize that such perverse beliefs arise from whatever subconscious chambers in which we've sealed away our senses of guilt and shame, the result is a compelling belief. They did not sit back and chuckle to themselves about having stolen another day from their victims.

And so it is with religious behavior. Nature is not extraneous; we sense and respond to religious ideas for a reason, and it would be better to consider what that reason is than blindly stumbling and shouting about what God wants.

Okay, enough. I've transcribed enough of the segment; the point being that this is one of those things that you come across and suddenly find your presuppositions scattered across the floor like shards of a broken coffee cup. And, in true form, you'll just about think you've got the mess cleaned up when you manage to slice open your toe on one a tiny piece you hadn't noticed until it was too late.

For instance, I always reach back to the "fire god". Early gods rose inspired by awe and wrought in ignorance. Place the stones in a circle, contain the fire; this seems a practical thing to the modern human, but our prehistoric relationship to fire was one of intuition and discovery. Our mastery of fire is so important to our species that we write myths about it. That the transformation of something so awesome as fire into something an organism could contain, manipulate, and engage, should impress its way into human legend should not be surprising. We still attempt to do and achieve things that are beyond our expression; we're just better at pretending around our ignorance.

Barbara King, however, is reaching well beyond the fire gods. I am awestruck by the potential implications of such theories.

And, of course, my esteem for primates is in the process of raising itself; I don't know how that's going to turn out.

But take some time with this. I'll be searching out the book, and if all goes well, be able to give some thoughts on the subject at some point in the near future. This is one of those really cool things, though, that has the potential to radically alter the terms and boundaries of theological and religious discussion. I feel lucky, at least, to have the chance to think about these things. It's been thousands of years, and now that it's here, relatively few of us will get the chance, and even fewer will take it up.

Really ... this is so cool ....
____________________

Notes:

Wisconsin Public Radio. "Animal Crossings". To the Best of Our Knowledge. January 21, 2007. See http://www.wpr.org/book/070121a.html

• Wisconsin Public Radio: http://www.wpr.org
• To the Best of Our Knowledge: http://ttbook.org
• Audio link (RealMedia): http://broadcast.uwex.edu:8080/ramgen/wpr/bok/bok070909b.rm ​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well we got the ruler gorilla...the tribe's leader...as one sole ruler of our world...hence the idea of God...the sole ruler of our world...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have long believed that what separates humans from other animals has it's core in imagination, abstract thought, assigning meaning and an emotional connection to the world - all of which are the basic ingredients in religion or religious capacitity.
It seems almost self-evident to me that any animal with such traits would develop religion.

What I didn't see in your transcription, however, is anything to suggest that the great apes have these traits - perhaps she was convincing of this, but not from what I can see above.
Sure they appear to experience emotion, but so do dolphins, elephants, dogs - hell even crows - but that's only one part of the puzzle.
Capacity for abstract thought is an intergral piece, and one which I have yet to see evidence for in great apes.

Did she make this case?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My first impression is that this smacks of anthropomorphism.
Are you convinced that is not what it is?

 

anthromorphism evolution until it secedes.

 

You haven't been banned yet?

 

Anthropomorphmism used to be taboo in scientific circles. Slowly over time it has become OK to talk about animals emotions, intentions, consciousness. Sicne the issues raises problems for scientists who are loathe to acknowledge intuition or define the boundaries of it AND use it, they have never really acknowledged as a group how long they denied the obvious about animals and why.


When Elephants Weep by Jeffrey Masson has an introduction where he tracks this change in the scientific community. 40 years ago, even, it could end your career for antho....etc. Now it is commonplace. Scientists have come around to the common man and woman who knew this all along.

 

Anthropomorphism is falsely attributing uniquely human characteristics to non human entities or inanimate objects.

Simple recognition of the capacity for emotion in animals is not anthropomorphism, as this is obviously not a uniquely human trait.

Recognizing traits common between humans and other animals is not anthropomorphism, seeing what is not there is.

Anthropomorphism, by definition, is bad science.

 

The topic starter might be interested in the work by Primate behaviouralist: Frans de Waal.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/DEWGOO.html

 

no.

 

Actually recognizing emotions in animals was considered anthropomorphism for a long time. Anthropomorphism means to acribe human characteristics to non-humans. This has often meant things that get debated about in Problem of other mind debates: feelings, emotions, thoughts, intentions, motivations, etc.

What do you mean by the term?

 

I strongly believe that what is behind the religions of humans today...is an evolution of that which we mimick around us, especially things that are alive, however with more consciousness and self understanding developing as a result of higher intelligence...this mimicry of outside secedes. Polytheism seceded to monotheism and than to atheism. And before Polytheism existed simple mimicry of life phenomena...fear drove beliefs. If this mimicry what antromorphism is, than that is what it is.

 

The substantial presence of empathy, abstract thought, language, forethought and the like, within the great apes is well established. All of these facilities are less pronounced than in humans but more pronounced, for example, than within sheep.
What I found novel about the thesis was the notion that the roots of religion lay within our capacity for empathy and imagination. Just as these are more developed within man, so it seems logical that the religious impulse would show a similarly greater development.

 

Does that mean atheists are less empathetic/imaginative?

 

You mean more ape like?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I thought apes were more empathetic and sympathetic. Never had an ape do experiments on me, for instance.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's possible. It is also possible that, in contrast to redemptive theists, atheistic empathy is more genuine, and not symptomatic of sublimated guilt and greed. It is also possible that atheists are more imaginative, having avoided the poor investment of imagination in religious delusions.

 

You mean its not true that if you don't use it, you lose it? Hmm.

 

Apes are very emphatic. It's their favourite hobby to try to find out what the other is thinking.

So are all humans. It's what is hardwired in their brain. Without empathy you are lost in a complex social group, unless the social group operates on a strict set of hardwired rules such as ants.

You need empathy to guide your own actions because your own actions are dependent on others.

it is rather silly in my opinion to try to differentiate between theists and atheists regarding the possession of empathy.

Empathy doesn't mean the same as altruism.

 

Tell me more

I was just teasing Ophi and tiassa (I think Ophi got it) :bawl: