Last edited Sat Jan 31, 2015, 07:16 PM - Edit history (1)
on edit-- you seem to have the cart before the horse, i.e. "It seems to me to imply that such emotions must be dependent on a belief in a 'higher power' or the related concept of an afterlife" is precisely the opposite of what is implied by the articles. Rather, what develops in humans as belief in a higher power or afterlife MUST BE DEPENDENT on such emotions which existed for millions of years in other species.
If you simply define religion in purely human cognitive terms, then by definition animals are incapable of it. Case closed, problem solved, but it seems like an evasion of the essential question posed by the article.
Obviously animals don't have thoughts about religion like those humans that attempt to explain the universe. But is religion purely a matter of thinking in symbolic terms, or is it (equally if not more so) a matter of feeling awe and connectedness? Schaefer argues the latter:
Schaefer argues that the best explanation for these animal behaviors is that these animals are expressing religious emotion—they are naturally reacting to the mystery and “divinity” around them. As Schaefer puts it, “Animal religion… is a product of bodies constructed inside particular evolutionary-historical lineages—affective, pre-linguistic bodies.” In other words, religion is not primarily about beliefs or highly cognitively demanding complex systems, but about something affective and bodily. Animal religion does not have language or philosophy, and it does not need to to be religion because religion is much more primitive (perhaps even more natural) than either of those.
Maybe you have to be one of those humans who is aware of strong religious feelings, and at the same time rejects religious belief systems, to grasp this distinction. You don't have to believe one word of the theology of a hymn to feel uplifted and harmonious singing "sacred" music with others.
= new reply since forum marked as read