Atheism is DEAD!

[ToadBrother]

But even Jane Goodall could recognize a spiritual component among chimpanzees. Oh wait, what does Jane Goodall know? And I am still waiting for your "evidence" that only human (and now Neanderthal) frontal lobe development is a requirement for the conception of a deity. Guess I will be waiting a long time for that won't I?

I'm always a little cautious of Goodall. I think she does tend to anthropomorphize chimps a bit, more, I think to accentuate their relationship to us for the purposes of preservation and humane treatment. I'm always a little skeptical of claims of "spirituality" in the great apes, in part because the term itself seems so subjective that it might catch a lot of behaviors that have much more mundane explanations.

[GostHacked]

Then you obviously missed page 25 and ToadBrother's comments on religion and the development of the early church? Heck, do I have to do your homework for you too? Sheesh...

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14190&st=360

I did not miss it, because I responded to it. And agreed with it.

[Shwa]

I'm always a little cautious of Goodall. I think she does tend to anthropomorphize chimps a bit, more, I think to accentuate their relationship to us for the purposes of preservation and humane treatment. I'm always a little skeptical of claims of "spirituality" in the great apes, in part because the term itself seems so subjective that it might catch a lot of behaviors that have much more mundane explanations.

I agree of course, but the point being that Goodall made a connection between behaviors of different species in the same sense that we view play in other creatures. Whether or not her views are coloured by her own spiritual feelings is another thing, but her recordings are a very useful starting point. I think when she first made the connection it she was observing chimps that 'appeared' to be in awe of a waterfall or some other natural feature of their habitat. Interesting aside whether other creatures can appreciated something that we would call beautiful.

[ToadBrother]

I agree of course, but the point being that Goodall made a connection between behaviors of different species in the same sense that we view play in other creatures. Whether or not her views are coloured by her own spiritual feelings is another thing, but her recordings are a very useful starting point. I think when she first made the connection it she was observing chimps that 'appeared' to be in awe of a waterfall or some other natural feature of their habitat. Interesting aside whether other creatures can appreciated something that we would call beautiful.

The problem here again is clearly "attractiveness" or "beauty" certainly have analogs in what I somewhat grudgingly call "lower" animals as well. The issue isn't really whether certain emotional responses can be found in our relatives, it's when those emotional responses got wrapped in more complex symbolic notions. I'm from the language school of human intellect and cognition, in that it was when whatever-it-was-that-happened delivered fully modern language. Language is wrapped up in everything we consider to be uniquely human, even if further investigation of animal behavior reveals that many of those things we consider human; like language and culture, can be found in species close to us and sometimes in species much more distant.

The trouble always is that language doesn't fossilize, and even the great apes show at least some of the neurological hardware associated with language (Brocca's Area in particular). Yet, despite a few decades of trying to teach apes to talk, what we seem to have demonstrated is that they are at best capable of proto-language, there's little evidence of syntax or complex grammar, which is a clear "line in the sand", if you will, between other apes and ourselves. In human populations where you have the development of a pidgin, one will find that there is substantial innovation that leads to fuller grammars and syntax (word orders are imposed, you find inflection in nouns and verbs, in short a pidgin can develop into what we consider a full language). There is no such innovation among chimps. There seems to be upper limit to the kinds of concepts they can express and in the degree of complexity of the kind of language they are taught.

It's probably too simplistic by half, but I think the origin of modern humans is in the innovation of full languages. The moment that happened, we could start communicating and thinking in abstract terms, creating symbolism. From that rose more complex cultures as the ease with which we could communicate rose vastly. I think many distinctly human things couldn't exist in any form approaching the complexity they do now without language. Maybe our closest relatives and some of the earlier H. sapiens showed some capacity for a spirituality, and maybe some limited symbolism, but somewhere between 100,000 and 60,000 there was an explosion in our abilities, and we move from a small amount of evidence of symbolism in burial and some evidence of body decoration to the whole enchilada of "human-ness"; art, religious beliefs, rituals, ceremonies, ever larger and more complex societies, and so forth.

Still, I do feel it's a matter of degrees. Other species that are closely related to us show some primitive capacities that clearly must represent the ancient roots of our abilities, but it isn't until H. sapiens sapiens appears that we find those capacities in full fruition.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Still, I do feel it's a matter of degrees. Other species that are closely related to us show some primitive capacities that clearly must represent the ancient roots of our abilities, but it isn't until H. sapiens sapiens appears that we find those capacities in full fruition.

...and still, this is a circular reference, defining the attributes of "spirituality" in modern, human terms.

[wyly]

Not quite. All you have done is drawn an anthropocentric opinion based upon scant fossil material evidence. That will hardly do. According to the reasoning you have presented here, the paleo-indian people that occupied the Simcoe highlands 9kya had no language, no religion, no culture except that which supported a life that was nasty, brutish and short. Because, you know, on some of those camps all they found were broken points, some stone flakes and the remains of a hearth.

it will do absolutely considering you have zero evidence...any sapiens around 9K Bp had fully functioning language centers, they were our intellectual equals and had language...you say they had no religion how do you know? Sapiens have been burying their dead for some time it's reasonable to assume they had no religion but unlikey, but without evidence there is no way to say one way or the other...

But even Jane Goodall could recognize a spiritual component among chimpanzees. Oh wait, what does Jane Goodall know? And I am still waiting for your "evidence" that only human (and now Neanderthal) frontal lobe development is a requirement for the conception of a deity. Guess I will be waiting a long time for that won't I?

Goodall is a theist, Goodall transferring her spiritual beliefs to a chimp isn't science and isn't evidence, I friends who think their dogs are children...

only Sapiens and Neaderthals have shown an attempt to understand death and a possible life after death there is NO EVIDENCE that any other animal does this or has done this...I realize you're reluctant you to accept this reality but do try...

[ToadBrother]

...and still, this is a circular reference, defining the attributes of "spirituality" in modern, human terms.

Frankly, I don't necessarily see much point in dealing with "spirituality" at all. I think the concept is so vague that it's rather pointless. If we deal in concrete behaviors, we certainly do not see any kind of symbolism in any hominid behavior until at the very earliest some 120,000 years ago. Even the much lauded Neanderthal "religious" burials don't really show up until around 70,000 years ago, long after the rise of fully modern (both morphologically and behaviorally) humans.

I think, rather than talk of spirituality, we should talk of concrete behaviors; evidence of belief in an afterlife or a spirit world, of some "other" place, which is very consistent with pretty much all human societies that we know of. I think that's a far more useful metric, and one that doesn't get us trapped into what essentially becomes a semantical debate. If we use that as a metric, then there is little evidence of such behavior in humans (H. sapiens or Neanderthals) prior to approx 120,000 years ago. That tells me that such forms of abstract thinking seem linked to other cognitive behaviors, in particular language. It seems possible with this hypothesis to look at the very few unambiguous "religious" Neanderthal burials that they basically learned the behavior from us, and that it was simply part of a trend of later Neanderthals, upon being forced to compete and interact with H. sapiens sapiens that they began to innovate; though much too late, sadly, to save them.

[wyly]

I agree of course, but the point being that Goodall made a connection between behaviors of different species in the same sense that we view play in other creatures. Whether or not her views are coloured by her own spiritual feelings is another thing, but her recordings are a very useful starting point. I think when she first made the connection it she was observing chimps that 'appeared' to be in awe of a waterfall or some other natural feature of their habitat. Interesting aside whether other creatures can appreciated something that we would call beautiful.

my dog is in awe of the laser pen should we extrapolate a doggie spirituality from this?

[ToadBrother]

my dog is in awe of the laser pen should we extrapolate a doggie spirituality from this?

I don't think there's anything particularly wrong in hypothesizing that awe or fear may be the emotional origins of later beliefs like the anthropomorphizing of natural forces (nature spirits, gods with dominion over certain natural phenomena and geographical locations, and so forth), but to say that even our closest living relatives conceive of the world with degree of imagination and inventiveness that humans have is a step too far. Thus far, the only two animals in the world that we have any actual evidence of any kind of belief in an afterlife is the last two species of genus Homo, and in the case of H. neandertalis, the evidence for any such behaviors comes rather late in that species' history.

[bush_cheney2004]

Frankly, I don't necessarily see much point in dealing with "spirituality" at all. I think the concept is so vague that it's rather pointless. If we deal in concrete behaviors, we certainly do not see any kind of symbolism in any hominid behavior until at the very earliest some 120,000 years ago. Even the much lauded Neanderthal "religious" burials don't really show up until around 70,000 years ago, long after the rise of fully modern (both morphologically and behaviorally) humans.

Even better, as I can point to elephants who have already managed that level of burial behavior.

I think, rather than talk of spirituality, we should talk of concrete behaviors; evidence of belief in an afterlife or a spirit world, of some "other" place, which is very consistent with pretty much all human societies that we know of. I think that's a far more useful metric, and one that doesn't get us trapped into what essentially becomes a semantical debate.

That's fine, but surely you can see the corruption and hominid bias in doing this. The semantic debate cannot be avoided unless the attributes are defined more universally for all behaviours by any species, now or in the past.

[wyly]

I don't think there's anything particularly wrong in hypothesizing that awe or fear may be the emotional origins of later beliefs like the anthropomorphizing of natural forces (nature spirits, gods with dominion over certain natural phenomena and geographical locations, and so forth), but to say that even our closest living relatives conceive of the world with degree of imagination and inventiveness that humans have is a step too far. Thus far, the only two animals in the world that we have any actual evidence of any kind of belief in an afterlife is the last two species of genus Homo, and in the case of H. neandertalis, the evidence for any such behaviors comes rather late in that species' history.

agreed...it will be interesting to see what comes of the wee people of Flores, tiny sapiens or holdout erectus... and what if any abstract mental abilities they may have had...

[ToadBrother]

That's fine, but surely you can see the corruption and hominid bias in doing this. The semantic debate cannot be avoided unless the attributes are defined more universally for all behaviors by any species, now or in the past.

Why more universally? Surely the terms are clear. These are concrete behaviors. Either other species have them to some degree or they do not. For hominid studies, the first signs of symbolic thinking, that is, the mental process by which objects or phenomenon take on some meaning beyond the concrete, and even more importantly that work is put into things which have no utilitarian function. For many anthropologists and primatologists, for instance, the making of beads seems to be a use of hominid tool using capacity which serves absolutely no utilitarian function. The beads appear to have served the purpose of decoration, and there is virtually no evidence that any animal prior to some 120ky-100ky years ago ever did that.

[bush_cheney2004]

....For many anthropologists and primatologists, for instance, the making of beads seems to be a use of hominid tool using capacity which serves absolutely no utilitarian function. The beads appear to have served the purpose of decoration, and there is virtually no evidence that any animal prior to some 120ky-100ky years ago ever did that.

You are just continuing the same limited domain for such possibilities. May as well define the exercise as "behaviours indentical to those observed in the known hominid record...and no others".

Edited December 29, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[wyly]

You are just continuing the same limited domain for such possibilities. May as well define the exercise as "behaviours indentical to those observed in the known hominid record...and no others".

either is evidence or there is not...and in this case there is not...

[ToadBrother]

You are just continuing the same limited domain for such possibilities. May as well define the exercise as "behaviours indentical to those observed in the known hominid record...and no others".

You can falsify my statement easily by demonstrating some sort of similar cognitive ability in other animals. So get to it, provide me a counterexample or two.

Edited December 29, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Oleg Bach]

Maybe atheists are nasty to you because, well, you're a rather nasty person yourself. This post seems to neatly some up everything that is wrong with you.

So my old buddy who caused so much damage to the world though his nasty atheistic arrogance is a nice guy and I am not..oh...I get it. If you believe in natural rule of law and a bit of order you are considered bad? This reminds me of the ant in the ant hill that has eyes while the other ten thousand are blind. The blind ants hate the visionary ant. Yet they are dependent on that ant for survival...as for people wondering if I am wrong or right or whether I fit in or not...well I don't care if you cut me from the herd..I have been an independent all my life and don't give a crap if I am not liked...some people care constantly what others think of them..."he who forever seeks the approval of their fellow man becomes a slave to all" I like my freedom perhaps more than you like yours?

[bush_cheney2004]

You can falsify my statement easily by demonstrating some sort of similar cognitive ability in other animals. So get to it, provide me a counterexample or two.

But then I would be guilty of the same myopic view. What religion....what behaviours.....what spirituality and in what context? Why don't documented elephant burial rituals apply?

Not too long ago, unique maker/user of tools was similarly adopted....long since debunked.

Edited December 30, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

But then I would be guilty of the same myopic view. What religion....what behaviours.....what spirituality and in what context? Why don't documented elephant burial rituals apply?

Not too long ago, "homo sapien" was defined as a unique maker/user of tools....long since debunked.

Science at one time bled you in order to treat lukemia. When you needed your blood the most they took it away. There has been a recent discovery that human fossil remains that are a million years old are not different than todays human skeletal structures. About 25 years ago they peeled back a layer of shale to fine prehistoric foot prints of huge creatures and along those were perfect what we would call modern human prints. No one wants to discuss this stuff.

Just because we are all disturbed by religion is no reason to dispise the idea that there is a God or that the universe in all it's eternity has intelligence. We like to talk about the big bang and the big crunch vibration but we don't want to talk about the idea if it all started from a pin point of nothing that, that nothing made a decision to become a something. It could have stayed a nothing but a decision was made...by a something.

[wyly]

But then I would be guilty of the same myopic view. What religion....what behaviours.....what spirituality and in what context? Why don't documented elephant burial rituals apply?

Not too long ago, unique maker/user of tools was similarly adopted....long since debunked.

requiring evidence is myopic? this coming from the same person who claims there is no evidence of AGW?...

[wyly]

There has been a recent discovery that human fossil remains that are a million years old are not different than todays human skeletal structures.

should have no problem finding simple link for that for us...

About 25 years ago they peeled back a layer of shale to fine prehistoric foot prints of huge creatures and along those were perfect what we would call modern human prints. No one wants to discuss this stuff.

LINK PLEASE! this right up there with Area 51 and the 2nd sniper on the grassy knoll..

Just because we are all disturbed by religion is no reason to dispise the idea that there is a God or that the universe in all it's eternity has intelligence. We like to talk about the big bang and the big crunch vibration but we don't want to talk about the idea if it all started from a pin point of nothing that, that nothing made a decision to become a something. It could have stayed a nothing but a decision was made...by a something.

the Big Bang is incredible all by itself why would creating a magical sky pixie and making it a billion times more difficult to conceptualize and verify make it more believable

[Oleg Bach]

I don't do links... just not that computer savy and plus the net has just about everything to safisfy and enforce just about anybodies opinion or agenda. So I don't bother. What I can tell you is that I saw what appeared to be a good documentary where they clearly showed a set of human foot prints that were along side of a prehistoric reptile. Look at those old fish thought to have been extinct for a million years..then they find a dead one in the flesh and now a few live ones have been documented on film.

I will be blunt with you...we may be related to all live forms because we are life...but I was never an ape...I may have two eyes and four appendages and a lateral line running along my scrotum..but I am not a monkey...Why is it that your type so desperately want to be monkeys? Is it so you can continue with your monkey buisness?

[Oleg Bach]

Just to say one more thing on this topic. Religious fanatics are fanatics. Atheists are also religious fanatics. All of our problems come from people who do not think for themselves who are then mobilized by the master fanatics to simply get rid of all intelligent resistance. Look at our foolish government who gave Henry Morgantaler the Order Of Canada... when Henry himself confessed he pushed abortion rights along in order to make sure that no more Nazis were born. "Unwanted children become concentration camp guards" YES the delluded old fool said that. Where are the twenty or so million people who should be adults by now - that should have been born - that may have carried great gifts to improve the lot of the nation? We now have an intelligence shortage - Atheists for the most part approve of this reverse eugenics..that would make atheists fools - and those nuts ...that screamed pro-life all those years should have been having children instead of protesting - they should have countered this warped and mislead genocide...now we have people like Obama - Cheney - Harper - who are second rate ruling the roost. Not to mention the banksters who never aborted their children nor encouraged it.

[Oleg Bach]

What is most amusing is that the atheists assume that I am some sort of religious person and they attack me with their full vigor - until they figure out that I am just like them - not religious at all - I do believe in goodness and in the thing we refere to as God - and God is not a religion.

[ToadBrother]

So my old buddy who caused so much damage to the world though his nasty atheistic arrogance is a nice guy and I am not..oh...I get it. If you believe in natural rule of law and a bit of order you are considered bad? This reminds me of the ant in the ant hill that has eyes while the other ten thousand are blind. The blind ants hate the visionary ant. Yet they are dependent on that ant for survival...as for people wondering if I am wrong or right or whether I fit in or not...well I don't care if you cut me from the herd..I have been an independent all my life and don't give a crap if I am not liked...some people care constantly what others think of them..."he who forever seeks the approval of their fellow man becomes a slave to all" I like my freedom perhaps more than you like yours?

Or perhaps you don't know a damned thing about me. Even if your story about this guy is true (which it may or may not be), it's like saying all Catholic priests are child molesters because a few are. Your logic, not to say anything of your basic ethics, is highly questionable.

Do you actually have anything meaningful to add to the debate apart from asserting that I'm a child molester?

[ToadBrother]

What is most amusing is that the atheists assume that I am some sort of religious person and they attack me with their full vigor - until they figure out that I am just like them - not religious at all - I do believe in goodness and in the thing we refere to as God - and God is not a religion.

I don't think you're religious, I think you're stupid and insane.