Are Animals Religious?

[Kaworu 17]

Arcoon Effox

Some even make art.

This is misleading. That happens only in heavily artificial scenarios.

[Kaworu 17]

Arcoon Effox

First of all, what you're talking about is meta-ethics, aka "applied ethics".

Second: What you said doesn't disprove anything about animals having religions or beliefs in what humans would consider 'the supernatural', because second-order thinking is not necessary for such things.

Numerous religious people the world over have proven that deep thinking is not necessary for belief. Hells, one could even argue that deeper thinking and logic is detrimental to faith, as it forces them to address the various 'holes in the plot', as it were.

Nice goalpost shifting.

[Dieu des hommes]

Hikarulawl

I can't read the full article without signing up. But from what I read of the short summary, that octopi can determined color. Which isn't that amazing considering most species of octopi can change color and mimic other species of aquatic animals. I don't believe these types of survival traits could constitute the level of awareness of a vertebrate animal.

That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. They have more sophisticated problem solving skills than most mammals, including tool use, and have amazing observational learning skills (an octopus learning from watching another) which implies a degree of thinking past their instinctive behaviours.

[Hikarulawl]

Dieu des hommes

Hikarulawl

I can't read the full article without signing up. But from what I read of the short summary, that octopi can determined color. Which isn't that amazing considering most species of octopi can change color and mimic other species of aquatic animals. I don't believe these types of survival traits could constitute the level of awareness of a vertebrate animal.

That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. They have more sophisticated problem solving skills than most mammals, including tool use, and have amazing observational learning skills (an octopus learning from watching another) which implies a degree of thinking past their instinctive behaviours.

Wow. It seems the octopus is the exception to the rule. Although the video you provided me mention how the newer generation of octopi is capable of learning. Either we didn't know octopi could learn and use problem solving skills before, or something evolutionary had happen in a few years.

[Arcoon Effox]

Kaworu 17

Arcoon Effox

Some even make art.

This is misleading. That happens only in heavily artificial scenarios.

I'm not getting into this again with you, dude. Take your Wilde's pretentious views on art, and piss off.

Kaworu 17

Arcoon Effox

First of all, what you're talking about is meta-ethics, aka "applied ethics".

Second: What you said doesn't disprove anything about animals having religions or beliefs in what humans would consider 'the supernatural', because second-order thinking is not necessary for such things.

Numerous religious people the world over have proven that deep thinking is not necessary for belief. Hells, one could even argue that deeper thinking and logic is detrimental to faith, as it forces them to address the various 'holes in the plot', as it were.

Nice goalpost shifting.

Nice demonstration of how you don't know what that means.


Now, do you actually have something to contribute to this thread, or did you just come here to harass me...?

[Kaworu 17]

Arcoon Effox

I'm not getting into this again with you, dude. Take your Wilde's pretentious views on art, and piss off.

I accept your surrender.

Arcoon Effox

Nice demonstration of how you don't know what that means.

Lady Kariel: Animals can't engage in second-order thinking.
You: Prove it.
Lady Kariel: *Proves it*
You: B-But that doesn't disprove anything about animals having religions or beliefs in what humans would consider 'the supernatural'!

Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied and refusing to concede or accept the opponent’s argument is the very definition of the fallacy.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Arcoon Effox

Lucky~9~Lives

Arcoon Effox

I mean, certain animals have advanced linguistic skills...

Source?

Here is a Wikipedia page which references baboons & dolphins (among others).

"Some researchers, including the linguist Charles Hockett, argue that there are significant differences separating human language from animal communication even at its most complex, and that the underlying principles are not related.[1] Accordingly, linguist Thomas A. Sebeok has proposed to not use the term "language" for animal sign systems.[2]"

Arcoon Effox

Here's an article which summarizes a study done by the Royal Society, about rock hyrax, free-tailed bats, Carolina chickadees, Bengalese finches, orangutans, pilot whales and orcas. (A link to the study can be found within.)

" 'The problem is they don't have big data,' said Fitch. “For most of the species they talk about, they have tiny data sets.”

"He also doesn't believe that a lack of randomness means animal communication is any more complex or closer to language."

Arcoon Effox

Here's a PBS Nature documentary which talks about crows. Among other topics, it discusses how crows have a vocabulary of over 250 different calls, and also how they can identify and remember threatening humans by facial recognition, and can communicate to other crows (including their offspring) the specific people they don't like.

African Grey parrots are also known for their large vocabularies, and experiments done with Alex have shown that they can understand the words they're saying.

Auditory pattern recognition isn't linguistic per se.

Arcoon Effox

Finally, there's Rico, a border collie who knew the names of over 200 individual items, and Chaser, another border collie with similar abilities, who can even identify something it's never seen before by inference, as demonstrated by Niel Degrasse Tyson for Nova.

Well that deserves more analysis.

Kaworu 17

Lady Kariel: Animals can't engage in second-order thinking.
You: Prove it.
Lady Kariel: *Proves it*
You: B-But that doesn't disprove anything about animals having religions or beliefs in what humans would consider 'the supernatural'!

Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied and refusing to concede or accept the opponent’s argument is the very definition of the fallacy.

Demanding that an opponent's argument be relevant to the topic, less so.

[Texadar]

Kaworu 17

Lady Kariel: *Proves it*
.

But she did not.

The proof is because they don't act human.

They don't act human because they are not human.

[Kaworu 17]

Texadar

Kaworu 17

Lady Kariel: *Proves it*
.

But she did not.

The proof is because they don't act human.

They don't act human because they are not human.

So how can they "act" religious if they aren't human?

[stealthmongoose]

Kaworu 17

Texadar

Kaworu 17

Lady Kariel: *Proves it*
.

But she did not.

The proof is because they don't act human.

They don't act human because they are not human.

So how can they "act" religious if they aren't human?

Kaworu 17, the one true goalpost shift incarnate.

[VeganIncubus]

Hikarulawl

Yes I'm dead seriously about this question that no one have ever asked before. All you theists out there; do you believe that animals follows a religious belief in a god?

This should be interesting.

Well, humans are animals, and they hold religious beliefs. So, yes, animals do follow a religious belief in a god or gods.
Not all animals, perhaps, but the human animal.

None other can delude themselves in such a fashion.

[Arcoon Effox]

Kaworu 17

Arcoon Effox

I'm not getting into this again with you, dude. Take your Wilde's pretentious views on art, and piss off.

I accept your surrender.

I wonder if you even realize that this is what you look like as you crow over your "victory"...?

Kaworu 17

Lady Kariel: *Proves it*

Um, no; she did not prove it, which was why I said as much.

Kaworu 17

Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied and refusing to concede or accept the opponent’s argument is the very definition of the fallacy.

rolleyes That's decidedly not "the very definition" of Shifting the Goalposts, and her answer was far from satisfactory (which, again, was why I said as much). Rejecting a rebuttal and explaining my grounds for doing so is not a goalpost shift.

Thanks for confirming that you really don't understand how that works.

[Arcoon Effox]

Lucky~9~Lives

"Some researchers, including the linguist Charles Hockett, argue that there are significant differences separating human language from animal communication even at its most complex, and that the underlying principles are not related. Accordingly, linguist Thomas A. Sebeok has proposed to not use the term 'language' for animal sign systems."

Hockett argues that there are 16 "design features" of human language, and that they distinguish human communication from that of animals. He says that these 16 features have so far been found in all spoken human languages, but at least one of them is missing from any known animal communication system. Sebeok seems to just be arguing that the word "language" is a misnomer when referring to animal communication, which is also largely a semantic issue.

I see their points, and as such I should have used the word "communicative" instead of "linguistic" in my original post, as they're ultimately not the same thing.

Lucky~9~Lives

" 'The problem is they don't have big data,' said Fitch. “For most of the species they talk about, they have tiny data sets. He also doesn't believe that a lack of randomness means animal communication is any more complex or closer to language."

...and Fitch is welcome to criticize them for that. If anything, it means more research should be done in the field so we can get a more conclusive answer... though I don't think his opinion really denounces the significance of their findings.

Lucky~9~Lives

Auditory pattern recognition isn't linguistic per se.

Are you specifically referring to crows or African Greys, here...?

[Kaworu 17]

Arcoon Effox

I wonder if you even realize that this is what you look like as you crow over your "victory"...?

So now it's come to "lolsofunny" reaction images? The hallmark of a loser who has no arguments.

Arcoon Effox

Um, no; she did not prove it, which was why I said as much.

I don't think you proved that parrots are capable of meta-ethics. Where is that proof?

Arcoon Effox

rolleyes That's decidedly not "the very definition" of Shifting the Goalposts

Then what is? Define it.

Arcoon Effox

Rejecting a rebuttal and explaining my grounds for doing so is not a goalpost shift.

You failed to refute her (again, where is your refutation?) and you demand she prove more points than what you originally asked for.

[Arcoon Effox]

Kaworu 17

Arcoon Effox

I wonder if you even realize that this is what you look like as you crow over your "victory"...?

So now it's come to "lolsofunny" reaction images? The hallmark of a loser who has no arguments.

...says the guy who seemingly came to this thread solely to harass me.

Kaworu 17

Arcoon Effox

Um, no; she did not prove it, which was why I said as much.

I don't think you proved that parrots are capable of meta-ethics. Where is that proof?

Parrot meta-ethics were never a part of my exchange with Kariel.

Kaworu 17

Arcoon Effox

Kaworu 17

Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied and refusing to concede or accept the opponent’s argument is the very definition of the fallacy.

rolleyes That's decidedly not "the very definition" of Shifting the Goalposts.

Then what is? Define it.

"Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met."

A good example of this would be making the issue about parrots, when that was never part of the conversation.

Kaworu 17

Arcoon Effox

Rejecting a rebuttal and explaining my grounds for doing so is not a goalpost shift.

You failed to refute her (again, where is your refutation?) and you demand she prove more points than what you originally asked for.

Let's look at the exchange:

Arcoon, to Kariel

What you said doesn't disprove anything about animals having religions or beliefs in what humans would consider 'the supernatural', because second-order thinking is not necessary for such things. Numerous religious people the world over have proven that deep thinking is not necessary for belief.

She said animals didn't have religion because they can't engage in second-order thinking.

I said second-order thinking wasn't necessary for religion.

I didn't ask for any further points, and she didn't reply to what I said. As far as I'm concerned, that means she conceded my point.


...Now, is there anything you'd like to contribute to the thread?