Do animals believe in God?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Slacker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,623
33
91
It's o.k. if animals dont believe in God, because God believes in them. :thumbsup:
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,967
140
106
..animals were hunting and eating each other long before you showed up. So what do ya think doll..was that's Gods idea or were they just hungry??
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Well, if you believe in the Bible, one would obviously believe that animals are subject to God and his will. This being the case, I would have to assume that animals in some way comprehend their existence and thereby fulfill some purpose. That purpose may be to provide man with food, but it's still a purpose given them by God. So I would assume there is a relationship there, but I honestly don't understand it. Still trying to understand my relationship with God.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,967
140
106
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Well, if you believe in the Bible, one would obviously believe that animals are subject to God and his will. This being the case, I would have to assume that animals in some way comprehend their existence and thereby fulfill some purpose. That purpose may be to provide man with food, but it's still a purpose given them by God. So I would assume there is a relationship there, but I honestly don't understand it. Still trying to understand my relationship with God.

..God works in mysterious ways. Our comprehension is secondary to his grand plan.

 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Well, if you believe in the Bible, one would obviously believe that animals are subject to God and his will. This being the case, I would have to assume that animals in some way comprehend their existence and thereby fulfill some purpose. That purpose may be to provide man with food, but it's still a purpose given them by God. So I would assume there is a relationship there, but I honestly don't understand it. Still trying to understand my relationship with God.

..God works in mysterious ways. Our comprehension is secondary to his grand plan.

Actually, I think our comprehension is a primary purpose of his plan. Not everything that God does is mysterious nor is it uncomprehensable. I think God really does want us to understand him. However, I'm more interested in understanding God from my position. I'll let the animals worry about their relationship.
 

evilmantis

Member
Aug 15, 2002
72
0
0
My dog Chase thinks I am God.
My other dog Riley thinks DH is God.

My cats, on the other hand, each *know* that they are the one true God.
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,726
45
91
i guess it would be up to the animal. we are animals, some of us believe in god, but i am not too sure about the thinking ability of a dog, cat, bear or hippo that they do or even have the capacity to really give a sh!t.
 

GasX

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
29,033
6
81
My dogs believe I am God.

Let there be Dinner!

and there was dinner...
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Well, if you believe in the Bible, one would obviously believe that animals are subject to God and his will. This being the case, I would have to assume that animals in some way comprehend their existence and thereby fulfill some purpose. That purpose may be to provide man with food, but it's still a purpose given them by God. So I would assume there is a relationship there, but I honestly don't understand it. Still trying to understand my relationship with God.

..God works in mysterious ways. Our comprehension is secondary to his grand plan.

God works in mysterious ways.. This is synonymous with "I don't have a freakin' clue, so I refuse to contemplate the matter any further".

God is a figment of our collective imagination.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
I believe I may have the final word here:

Excerpt From New Scientist, 1/28/2006:
Our ancestors did not always have religion, yet many religious practices seem to have very ancient origins. So when did religion first evolve? Archaeologists have long been fascinated by this question. One indication is burial. Some experts believe this began as far back as 200,000 years ago with the Neanderthals, but the motivation for such cacheing of bodies is ambiguous. So most archaeologists more cautiously define the appearance of religion by looking for evidence of grave goods in burials, since these at least unequivocally imply belief in an afterlife. Deliberate burials of this kind do not occur much before 25,000 years ago. Such burials imply a sophisticated theology, so we can safely assume that these were preceded by a long phase of less sophisticated religious belief. But without evidence on the ground, can we see any further back than this?

I have suggested that there is another way to get an unexpected insight into the question. It comes from asking what kind of mind is required to hold religious beliefs. Take the statement: "I believe that god wants..." To grasp this an individual needs theory of mind - the capacity to understand that another individual (in this case, god) has a mind of his own. Philosophers call this "second-order intentionality" because such statements contain two notions of intent: I believe and god wants. But we need more than this to build a religion.

Third-order intentionality allows me to state: I believe that god wants us to act with righteous intent. At this level, I have personal religion. But if I am to persuade you to join me in this view, I have to add your mind state: I want you to believe that god wants us to act righteously. That's fourth-order intentionality, and it gives us social religion. Even now, you can accept the truth of my statement and still it commits you to nothing. But add a fifth level (I want you to know that we both believe that god wants us to act righteously) and now, if you accept the validity of my claim, you also implicitly accept that you believe it too. Now we have what I call communal religion: together, we can invoke a spiritual force that obliges, perhaps even forces, us to behave in a certain way.

So, communal religion requires fifth-order intentionality, and this also happens to be the limit of most people's capacity as indicated by research done by myself and my colleagues. I think this is no coincidence. The majority of human activities can probably be dealt with using second or third-order intentionality. The two extra layers beyond this undoubtedly come at some considerable neural expense. Since evolution is frugal, there must be some good reason why we have them. The only plausible answer, so far as I can see, is religion. And that's where this line of reasoning can throw light on the origins of religious belief.

As far as we know, all other animals are locked into first-order intentionality, with the exception of great apes who are just about able to cope with second order. If you look at the brains of humans and other animals you find that the level of intentionality they can achieve scales linearly with the volume of grey matter in their frontal lobes (a particularly important part of the brain's processing units). This can be used to work out the level of intentionality our extinct ancestors were capable of - provided you have a fossil skull from which you can measure the overall volume of the brain.

Plotting these values onto a graph, the evidence suggests that as early as 2 million years ago, Homo erectus would have aspired to third-order intentionality, perhaps allowing them to have personal beliefs about the world. Fourth-order intentionality - equating to social religion - appeared with archaic humans around 500,000 years ago. And fifth order didn't appear much before the evolution of anatomically modern humans around 200,000 years ago - early enough to ensure that all living humans share this trait, but late enough to suggest that it was probably a unique adaptation.

In a separate strand of research, my colleagues and I have also found a relationship between the size of the brain's neocortex and social group size in primates. Interestingly, this "social brain hypothesis" predicts that around the time our ancestors evolved the capacity for fifth-order intentionality their community sizes would have exceeded about 120 individuals. Religion may have evolved to provide the mechanism for bonding them into a coherent social unit.

Cliffs: Religion requires 'fifth order intentionality' -- ie: I want you to know that we both believe that god wants us to act righteously. This is a concept even the highest animals do not have -- they have first or second order, they inherently cannot have a concept of a god.
 

CVSiN

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2004
9,289
1
0
Originally posted by: bob4432
i guess it would be up to the animal. we are animals, some of us believe in god, but i am not too sure about the thinking ability of a dog, cat, bear or hippo that they do or even have the capacity to really give a sh!t.

God is an idea created by humans to give them false hope that if they live thier lives as a good person they will be rewarded... instead of the reality of dirt and worms or fire and ashes...

so No animals dont believe in god...

 

FeuerFrei

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2005
9,144
929
126
Stupid question, obvious answer.
I'm not taking this one seriously.
The OP was just playing around.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |