Do animals have their own gods?

That may sound weird, but I just remembered…

Back when I was a child, one of my hobbies was frying bugs with a magnifying glass. Mainly ants. Well, after some anticides, I noticed that some of the ants sorta kneeled and threw their front legs thru the air in MY direction, as if they’re begging me for mercy. That was spooky, as if they were PRAYING to ME!

You’re kidding, right?

No, I’m not. I’m just wrong, this post was supposed to be in my IMHO sector. Goofed.

I saw a show on TV about either chimps or gorillas (I can’t recall which) and it told about (and showed) how during thunderstorms they all start doing the kinds of things they do when trying to get attention and/or display how tough they are - jumping up and down while vocalizing, grabbing tree branches and swinging them around, etc. Perhaps that is some kind of religious behavior.

The Bible draws a clear distinction between “soulful” animals (monkeys, dogs, etc.) and “soul-less” animals (fish, ants, etc.)…

Maybe the “soulful” animals do have some concept of a divinity…

Dog:
They feed me. They pet me. They take care of me. - They must be gods.

Cat:
They feed me. They pet me. They take care of me. - I must be a god.

Astroboy14, where does the bible imply some animals (besides man) have souls and some don’t?

Of course, cows have a god. imthecowgodmoo posts on this board! :wink:

I would have to say that no, they do not.
I feel that the apes who show off to thunderstorms are simply trying to assert their superiority to an unseen, loud , possible enemy. That makes more sense than apes worshiping the storm in my opinion.

Wasn’t Aristotle who said that if horses had a religion, the god they worshiped would be in the form of a horse? Well, logically what could you expect from an ancient Greek? They worshiped gods in human form. If Aristotle had come from a religion where the Ultimate Reality transcends form, like Judaism, Islam, or Taoism, he would have had a different perspective.

The Sufi mystic Ibn al-`Arabi (1165-1240) said:

Like DrMatrix, I’m curious. Do you remember where in the Bible this distinction is made?

I don’t think there’s much of a leap from that to early (human) religion. Of course, our ancestors must have realized early on that they had no chance of “asserting their superiority” over an “unseen, loud, possible enemy” capable of controlling storms (or volcanoes, or droughts, or plagues, or whatever), so they switched to sucking up instead. But the basic element of anthropomorphizing (or pithecomorphizing, as the case may be) natural forces would already be present.

Which is not to say that I have any idea whether it’s really true or not that apes react this way to storms.

Eh. Let’s leave it here anyway, at least until astroboy returns.

Uhmmm, back to the OP, did the ants also curl their abdomens underneath themselves?

If so, what you saw might have been a threat response to the smell of fried fellow ant. Some ant species shoot jets of formic acid to defend themselves (or hunt other insects). The stance for this (thank you National Geographic and David Suzuki) has the front pair of legs in the air and the abdomen curled under the thorax, with the tip of the abdomen pointing forward.

As to the rest, I’m pretty sure animals have their own gods, but I can wait to find out for sure.

Tisiphone

Uniball, it’s called “anthropomorphism”: ascribing human quqlities to animals (or even inanimate objects) In your case, the whole “ritual” was probably due to agonizing contractions. Even humans, the “evolved” animal, did not come to the idea of god right away, it required millions or thousand years of “cultural evolution”.

Any shred of evidence for this enormous assertion?

Is any evidence really necessary? The alternative to religion being the product of years of cultural evolution is spontaneous theology.

God is not a discovery, it is an invention. And, as with all inventions, there was a lot of trial and error. We’re still refining our concept of the Divine.

Yeah, evidence is necessary unless you expect people to buy your pronouncements on faith alone.

Your faith in atheism or agnosticism does not show any sign of being supported by evidence.

As for “spontaneous theology” (do you mean by that “natural religion” which is the recognized term in religious studies?), it isn’t an a priori absurdity as you imply. Reputable philosophers have made serious arguments in favor of belief in God being innate in humans.

Like the evidence for God’s existence? We could go around and around on that track for years and never get anywhere. So let’s not even try.

I’ll stand by my statement that gods have come and gone, constantly being refined. From the Nature-gods of early man to the Polytheism of Ancient man to the Monotheism of modern man, our ideas and interpretations of spiritual powers are constantly undergoing refinement.

I can accept the idea that the concept of divinity may be innate. But not as a detailed idea of what or who God is.

Have there been any studies on children raised in a godless environment questioning their spiritual nature? If so, I’d love to read them. (I say this as a genuine request for academic information, not as a snide comment.)

According to Christianity, if you life a holy life you would by virtue of it come to know all things about God.

From the Sermon at the Last Supper:

We just had a thread on this in GD.

Sorry. That doesn’t really mean anything to me. Nice book though. Shame about the ending.

Sorry. I handled that poorly.

What I meant to say was that using the bible to prove the existence of god is circular reasoning in its purest form. As such, backing up theosophic arguments with Bible quotes falls short of convincing me of anything.