Is Atheism Incompatible with Absolute Truth?

[hypatia]

This Sunday,8:00 PM est. Discovery channel, Jane Goodall, When animals speak.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I guess it's just species bias, but I can't bring myself to believe that elephants, or any species other than humans, can communicate concepts as complex and varied as humans.

The reason I wouldn't feel comfortable closing my mind to the notion is that we don't know what, for instance, birds are saying to each other. Since we don't, and can't really form any idea of how a bird perceives the world, we don't know for sure birds aren't communicating very complex concepts to each other when they chirp back and forth. The discovery of how bees tell each other where the flowers are is a prime example of a level of complexity in communication that startled me when I first read about it. It never occurred to me that something like an insect could communicate the presence of flowers at a specific remote location without physically leading the other bees there.

Okay, I shouldn't have said "many." It's a fringe position and probably incorrect. I just can't think of any known instances of an animal without a language as complex as that of humans developing a religious belief, so any evidence that suggested it was possible seems the best I can offer. Forgive my zeal.

This paper suggests that the "debunking" of elephant burrial may not be as cut and dried as was suggested. I haven't tried to research the subject myself, and I don't know how reputable anyone in the animal world is, but it seems clear from this paper that some professionals believe that the touching of bones is more than just abstract fascination with shape, and that it is a mourning procedure:

Society&Animal Forum - Society & Animals Journal
Address:http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa12.2/bradshaw.shtml

I can buy mourning with no trouble, but the afterlife thing is too much of a stretch without way, way more information.

 

[Math Is Hard]

This paper suggests that the "debunking" of elephant burrial may not be as cut and dried as was suggested. I haven't tried to research the subject myself, and I don't know how reputable anyone in the animal world is, but it seems clear from this paper that some professionals believe that the touching of bones is more than just abstract fascination with shape, and that it is a mourning procedure:

I've been reading a little bit about elephants lately, and while I haven't found anything definitive on elephant burial procedures, there does seem to be some evidence of elephants' need for mourning their dead and it seems that touching and smelling the bones is something that puts them at ease. I wish I could locate the specific book where I read about an elephant's corpse being removed from a zoo and how the other elephants living there could not be calmed until the zoo keepers returned the bones for inspection. Unfortunately I donated a lot of my books to a local library last summer and I think the one containing this story was among them.

I can buy mourning with no trouble, but the afterlife thing is too much of a stretch without way, way more information.

As far as awareness or spectulation about the afterlife(or lack of it) by non-humans, the closest thing that I can recall is recounted in the stories of Koko, the famous gorilla who was taught sign language. Koko had a pet kitten (whom she had named All Ball) who died. Not long afterwards, her trainers struck up a conversation with Koko about what she thought about death.
from http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20000905.html

When asked, "Do you want to talk about your kitty?"
Koko signed, "Cry."
"What happened to your kitty?"
Koko answered, "Sleep cat."
When she saw a picture of a cat who looked very much like All Ball, Koko pointed to the picture and signed, "Cry, sad, frown."

 

[Moonbear]

Ethologists are experts in the behaviour of humans, but they apparently know nothing of elephants.

Actually, ethologists study animal behavior. However, it is not consistent with ethological studies to attribute meaning to behaviors. Someone who is purely an ethologist records behaviors in a fairly dispassionate way, so I'd question someone who called themself an ethologist who then attributed ritualistic functions to a behavior.

Just as an example of the difference between how a casual observer might describe an event vs how an ethologist would describe it...
Casual observer: The elephant grabbed the bone with its trunk and then buried it in the mud.

Ethologist: Elephant #93283 makes contact of trunk to bone. Trunk is flexed such that it wraps around bone. Head is raised and upper portion of trunk flexed upward while bone is retained by flexed distal portion of trunk. Elephant moves head to the right. Elephant lowers head and trunk and extends trunk. Bone falls onto muddy patch of ground. Elephant contacts mud with trunk and displaces mud. The mud displacement leaves bone covered with mud.

Ethologists catalog behaviors. They'll categorize them into some functional categories, such as mating behaviors (those observed exclusively near the time of mating), or feeding behaviors (those observed only when food is placed into the mouth and swallowed). I've even seen people challenged when they say an animal is "eating" instead of "exhibiting feeding behavior" when they stuck their head into a food bin. Unless you can be certain food was swallowed every time the animal stuck its head into a food bin, you have to call it "feeding behavior," because it could have just been sniffing the food or pushing its nose through it or licking/tasting and spitting it back out. So, while the folks on National Geographic might call burying of elephant bones a sign of mourning, an ethologist ought not attribute an emotional function to a burying behavior.

That all makes perfect sense to me.

The lucky shirt may have no actual effect on a situation, but it could affect a person's confidence if they believed in the power of the shirt. A person's confidence could have an effect on some things. They may try harder just to prove to themselves the power of their shirt.

Superstitious hunting rituals and that sort of thing could be the same. They also bring a group together. If everyone participates in these rituals then it reinforces their actions as a team. It gives them comfort of strength in numbers and purpose.

Even obviously superstitious beliefs have the potential for real results by how they affect the believer.

This sounds like the best explanation to me. What we do know from history is that rituals are borrowed from exising religions and incorporated into new religions. It seems it is the rituals that are the important component of religions (I'm referring to religion as separate from faith or belief; an organized group of people who have similar beliefs and congregate to express those beliefs), and these rituals can serve different functions. Some may stem from superstition or be perceived as a way of controlling nature or of appeasing supernatural beings that in turn control nature on behalf of the worshippers, some may simply be ways to gather people into groups where they have safety in numbers and more success in working as a team than as an individual, and the success reinforces the practice of the ritual. Rituals provide a means for people to bond in situations where teamwork is essential to their survival and don't necessarily require any belief in the supernatural to be practiced or to work.

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, ethologists study animal behavior. However, it is not consistent with ethological studies to attribute meaning to behaviors. Someone who is purely an ethologist records behaviors in a fairly dispassionate way, so I'd question someone who called themself an ethologist who then attributed ritualistic functions to a behavior.

I should be clear and say that I don't know of any instance of an ethologist in a professional aspect claiming that elephant behavior seems indicative of mourning or belief in an afterlife. I have, however, heard of ethologists that make this claim in a personal aspect, as an opinion they have that is almost certainly not scientifically testable. As long as they don't confuse the two modes of making claims, I wouldn't question them. After all, they are human. They're going to speculate about things beyond what they can get published in a journal, and I do think they should have the right to express these.

To be honest, I cannot now remember where I heard these claims, but I am certain that it was not in anything claiming to be scientifically reputable. It's meant only to suggest the possibility that non-human animals might have something akin to spiritual belief (I hesitate to call it 'religious,' with all the attendant ritualistic and organizational structure that word implies) as they do show behavior consistent with that belief. Just saying that it shouldn't be ruled out.

 

[Evo]

I saw a documentary on elephant's ancestral memory. Don't know how fact based it was. They claimed elephants were born remembering where the burial grounds were and where watering holes were.

 

[Gamecubesupreme]

I find it funny people always confuse athiesm with nihilism.