Animals and Religion: Challenging the Idea of Religious Faith in Animals?

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

Baboons greeting the sun: Hedjwer, the ancient baboon sun god

Hedjwer was the earliest Egyptian baboon sun god, dating back to the early Dynastic period in Upper Egypt. Hedjwer was a solar deity and represented as a baboon, as these primates chatter and screech at sunrise and warm themselves in the early morning sun. The ancient Egyptians were wary of baboons as they exhibited many human characteristics, including strange chattering sounds. They believed that the baboons were singing to the sun god and that they were the first to pay proper religious observances. Hedjwer, the first baboon god, embodied royal ancestors, and the earliest pharaohs linked themselves to the glorious deeds of their forbears as indicated in their serekh, the hieroglyph used to convey the name of the pharaoh. The serekh of Narmer (founder of the First Dynasty) also represented Hedjwer. Baboons were often portrayed in art with their arms raised in worship of the sun, and are connected to Divine Consciousness. The baboon god was also depicted holding the Wadjet or “udjat” (the Eye of Horus, the All-seeing Eye, the Eye of Ra) and was one of the most potent symbols of ancient Egypt, symbolizing restoration, protection, and sacrifice.” ref

Religion, Ritual, and Spiritual

To me, there is a difference in the concepts of religion, ritual, and spiritual. I don’t believe in the term spiritual. I see spirituality as trying to make magical thinking about the world that expresses itself as only natural, and no supernatural. Ritual is a type of behavior; it can be for personal reasons, or social reasons, political or other identity reasons, and could be related to spiritual reasons, such as its claimed awe. As well as religion reasons. It is an error, then, to say that because some animals may do a ritual, it means it is evidence of animal religion.

Religious ideas or identity would need a high thinking ability and the ability to communicate ideas and identity with your religion. Animals can be intelligent, but compared to humans, they are at the level of children. And without a language, it is hard to spread or develop awe into religion. Well, it is true that it is common for children to express animistic thinking, and even if we grant this animistic attitude to animals with childlike intelligence, animism is not a religion; it is more like spiritism/spiritual thinking.

I also don’t believe animals, even ones as smart as kids, have animism; they seem not to believe in a magic-filled world, and instead demonstrate a very naturalism so extreme that when they see magic tricks, it is extremely shocking. Thus, they don’t have magical thinking the way humans do. Even if an animal were spiritual, that still doesn’t make it a religion. Even if they do one religious-like behavior, that one religious belief, even if we grant them that for the sake of argument, doesn’t constitute a religion.

Religion is a set of beliefs, it will have animism/spiritual, supernatural power/supernatural being, and rituals at least. Likewise, I see religion as an evolved cultural product that moved in cultural migrations. I am not simply biased, only thinking modern humans can have religion. I think it seems that Neanderthals exhibited religion thinking and behaviors. They are a closely related more ancient human and are also believed to have had language, which l think is important in developing culture into religion.

Burial/grave stashing started in the later homo but mainly developed in Neanderthals and Modern humans. Thus, not only do I not believe animals have religion, but likewise, no hominid until Neanderthals had religion, which in some way or another, Neanderthals passed pre-animism/animism with ritualistic behavior to us around 100,000 years ago. And we evolved religion from this.

Proto Religion: Superstition around 1 million years ago, to Pre-Animism & then Animism Religion (Video/Blog post)

Burial evidence of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sharing culture between 120,000 and 100,000 years ago?

“Understanding Religion Evolution: Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, Paganism & Progressed organized religion”

Understanding Religion Evolution:

• Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago)
• Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago)
• Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago)
• Shamanism (Siberia: 30,000 years ago)
• Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago)
• Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago), (Egypt, the First Dynasty 5,150 years ago)
• CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago)
• Early Atheistic Doubting (at least by 2,600 years ago)

“An Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution”

Earliest Colonization of Europe: Aurignacian and Gravettian cultures, both with different Migration routes, and different Subclades of C1 Y-DNA

Primate Death Rituals

According to Dr Alex Fitzpatrick,

“The term “ritual” has a bit of a reputation among archaeologists. Well, less of a “reputation” and more of a “running joke”, if I’m being honest…one of the first things I learned as an undergraduate taking an “Intro to Archaeology” class was that “ritual” is what archaeologists write when they don’t know what’s happening at a site.” ref

“And, to be honest, that makes sense. How do we even define the word “ritual”? Let’s take a look at some examples:

Colin Renfrew (1985) identified the “Four Aspects of Ritual Practice” as:

1. An attention-focused activity that can be seen in the physical record
2. A liminal zone that can be correlated with the remaining material
3. A focus on transcendence and symbol in the material record
4. Archaeological evidence for participation or offerings” ref

“Peter Tompkins (2009), on the other hand, highlights the main elements used for “ritualization” to further define “ritual”:

1. Temporality – Experiencing time differently
2. Spatiality – Restricting space
3. Fragmentation – Relationships between parts and whole
4. Distance and Scale – Enlargement and minimization for emphasis
5. Value and Substance – Setting “ritual” importance
6. Food and Cuisine – Associated with and used to designate “ritual acts” ref

“More recently, Ronald Hutton (2013) adds that ritual, as well as religion, can be differentiated from other acts due to the need for imaginative processes, arguing that finding evidence of early ritual will correlate to the oldest instances of the development of an imagination and symbolic behavior.” ref

“To round these definitions off, Joanna Bruck (1999) provides her perceived definition of “ritual” in her critique of its use in archaeology, arguing that the discipline sees it as something “non-functional” and “impractical”, mutually exclusive from functionality. In some respects, there are some commonalities in these definitions – for most, ritual is something associated with more abstract, often spiritual concepts that can be differentiated in some sense from what we consider “normative”. Except…that’s a bit problematic as well. After all, what’s “normal” then? This has led to some archaeologists, such as Joanna Bruck (1999) to consider these dualities – “sacred”, “profane”…are these always separated?” ref

“This has been discussed specifically with regards to prehistoric rituals in Europe, where “ritual” and “domestic” contexts have been found intermingled at sites. Tompkins (2009) theorises that by drawing from the domestic sphere, rituals allowed prehistoric people to gain new insights and new experiences from their everyday life. Bruck (1999) further argues that perhaps the need to differentiate between “ritual” and “non-ritual” is simply born from the bias of Post-Enlightenment rationalism, and that we should accept that they can co-exist simultaneously in prehistoric life.” ref

“Unfortunately, we may never truly agree on what “ritual” is. Based on textual and ethnographic evidence, rituals in the past would most likely utilize tools and offerings that wouldn’t leave behind much of a trace within the archaeological record (Wait 1985), rendering the act as “archaeologically invisible” (Bruck 1999). Ultimately, we will never really have material evidence to base a definitive definition of ritual on – of course, it would be impossible to have one anyway, as ritual will be variable by culture!” ref

“So, as we return to modern day paganism, we find that many practitioners of alternative spiritualities will often say that “everything is ritual” (Sylvan 2016). Its a common phrase, promoting a popular concept among modern spiritual communities that one should infuse reverence for the divine into all aspects of everyday life. So perhaps future archaeologists will actually be able to call most things “ritual” and not be joking? Who knows. That’s the beauty of abstract concepts like “ritual” – they’re always changing with the times. And so will our interpretations of them.” ref

Archaeology of Religion and Ritual

“Religion may be defined as “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs,” whereas ritual is “an established or prescribed procedure for a religious or other rite.” Archaeologists may study the material traces of religious ritual (for example, the ritual destruction of ceramic vessels during the Aztec New Fire ceremony) or the material correlates of religion as a totalized worldview (for example, Elizabeth Kyder-Reid’s study of the Southern Redemptorists’ reconfiguration of landscape and artifacts to reflect their ideals of community and poverty in material form).” ref

“As in religious studies and the Anthropology of religion, many archaeologists differentiate between “world religions,” and “traditional” or “indigenous religions.” “World religions” are defined by Bowie (2000: 26) as:

1. Based on written scriptures.
2. Has a notion of salvation, often from outside.
3. Universal, or potentially universal.
4. Can subsume or supplant primal religions.
5. Often forms a separate sphere of activity.” ref

“while indigenous religions are defined as:

1. Oral, or if literate, lacks written/formal scriptures and creeds.
2. ‘This worldly’.
3. Confined to a single language or ethnic group.
4. Form basis from which world religions have developed.
5. Religious and social life are inseparable.” ref

However, Timothy Insoll (2004) has argued that these categorizations arise from a much-critiqued neo-evolutionary perspective. Strict dichotomies of religious forms may also contribute to skewing research toward state religions, leaving household religious practice, and the relationships between these, under-investigated (a trend noted by Elson and Smith, 2001). Insoll (2004) argues that archaeologists may contribute to blurring the boundaries of world and indigenous religions. The archaeology of religion also incorporates related anthropological or religious concepts and terms such as magic, tradition, symbolism, and the sacred.” ref

“Theory within the archaeology of religion borrows heavily from the Anthropology of religion, which encompasses a broad range of perspectives. These include: Émile Durkheim‘s functionalist understanding of religion as serving to separate the sacred and the profane; Karl Marx‘s idea of religion as “the opium of the masses” or a false consciousness, Clifford Geertz‘s loose definition of religion as a “system of symbols” that orders the world, Victor Turner‘s work on ritual, including rites of passage and liminality, Max Weber‘s religious types and thoughts on the relationship between economics and religion; Claude Lévi-Strauss’ structuralist understandings of totemism and myth; and Mary Douglas’ idea of the division of “purity and danger.” ref

“Archaeological studies of religion increasingly recognize religion as an organizing principle in social life, rather than as a separate sphere of activity. They include religion as an axis of identity that structures social life and personal experience. Therefore, entire artifact assemblages (rather than specifically “religious” artifacts, such as rosary beads) can be interpreted according to the ways that they simultaneously create, display, and constrain notions of self according to religious ideas. For example, John Chenoweth (2009) interpreted ceramic assemblages and burials according to Quaker ideals of plainness and modesty.” ref

“Because social identity is both imposed and negotiated through social practice, including material practice, archaeologies of religion increasingly incorporate practice-based theory. Building upon Anthony Giddens’ idea of structuration and Pierre Bourdieu‘s ideas of both practice and cultural capital, theories of material practice posit that people use material goods to negotiate their places within social structures. Examples of the archaeological interpretation of religion and ritual as part of social negotiation, transformation or reinforcement include Chenoweth’s work on Quaker religious practice, Kyder-Reid’s work on the Southern Redemptorists, and Timothy Pauketat’s work on feasting in Cahokia (Pauketat et al., 2002).” ref

“Because archaeology studies human history through objects, buildings, bodies, and spaces, archaeologists must engage theories that connect anthropological and sociological theories of religion to material culture and landscapes. Theories of materiality and landscape serve to connect human activities, experiences, and behaviors to social practices, including religion. Theories of embodiment also serve to interpret human remains as they relate to religion and ritual.” ref

“The archaeology of religion makes use of the same material evidence as other branches of archaeology, but certain artifact classes are particularly emphasized in studying religion and ritual in the past:

• “Human remains and burial assemblages can offer many clues to religious and ritual activity. Human remains themselves are used in all branches of archaeology for information on sex, age, occupation, and disease. Methods of interment (including burial position, cremation, burial location, primary and secondary burials, etc.) contribute to understanding changing religious practice, as well as social difference within groups. Total burial contexts, i.e., the setting, artifacts, ecofacts, and human remains themselves, may provide evidence of religious beliefs about death and the afterworld.” ref
• “Religious buildings, such as temple complexes, kivas, and missions, are often used to examine communal religious and ritual activity. Part of archaeoastronomy is the investigation of how buildings are aligned to astral bodies and events, such as solstices, which often coincide with religious or ritual activities. Archaeological examinations of religious buildings can reveal unequal access to religious knowledge and ritual. Religious buildings frequently contain religious iconography that provides insight into the symbolic dimensions of religious life.” ref
• “Within landscape archaeology, sacred landscapes are an increasingly important focus of study. Landscapes are imbued with sacred meaning throughout the world; aboriginal Australian songlines, and the related belief that mythical events are marked on the landscape, are one example. Human modifications to landscapes, such as Kyder-Reid’s study of the Redemptorists’ modifications of their estate to emphasize communality, may point to the enactment of religious views.” ref
• “Religious iconography, symbols, ethnographic texts and ethnographic analogy are important tools that archaeologists use to compare with the material record to examine religions in the past. Though texts are not direct “windows to the past,” particularly for societies with few or no written records, they are valuable lines of evidence that may be contradicted or supported by the material record.” ref
• “Common artifact classes such as ceramics have been increasingly reinterpreted within a religious framework. According to the idea of religion as a form of social practice and a total worldview, any artifact may potentially be used to embody religious ideas and ideals in material form. Patterns of artifact and ecofact use within ritual contexts may expose preferences or sacred meanings of certain materials; the ritual use of pine among the ancient Maya is one example.” ref

Anthropology Of Religion

“Despite a keen and enduring interest in religion, there is no single, uniform anthropological theory of religion or a common methodology for the study of religious beliefs and rituals. Researchers in the area cannot agree as to exactly how “religion” should be defined or what the term religion should encompass. Efforts at defining religion—ranging from Tylor’s 1871 definition of religion as “the belief in spirit beings” to the more complex definitions offered by Clifford Geertz and Melford E. Spiro—have met with considerable resistance (Morris 1987, Klass 1995, Saler 1993). Nevertheless, Geertz’s definition by far has been the most influential anthropological definition of religion in the twentieth century.” ref

“Geertz (1973) defined religion as (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men [and women] by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic. Although his definition may be useful in elaborating what religion is like conceptually and what it does psychologically and socially, Geertz has been criticized for failing to explain specifically how a researcher might identify religion when encountered in the field. A major stumbling block to all definitions of religion, of course, is that religion is not a “thing” but an abstraction.” ref

“Other twentieth-century definitions of religion (e.g., Spiro, Jacob Pandian, E. E. Evans-Pritchard) follow Émile Durkheim (1912) in positing a rigid dichotomy between the so-called supernatural and natural, or sacred and profane orders. These alternative definitions have proved no more satisfactory than Geertz’s because distinctions between supernatural and natural are seldom obvious and may vary dramatically from individual to individual and from society to society.” ref

“In the later twentieth century, debate has arisen concerning the scope of the anthropology of religion. Do anthropologists of religion only study religions in tribal settings? Is it exclusively the study of non-Western religions? Is it to be limited to the study of religion among oppressed and marginalized people? The focus of anthropological study has shifted from the study of tribal to modern religions. A number of well-received studies have analyzed religion in developing societies, Europe, and the United States. Many of the leading contemporary exponents of anthropology of religion —Geertz, Spiro, Vincent Crapanzano, Victor Turner, James W. Fernandez, Sherry B. Ortner, Mary Douglas, James Boon, and Stanley J. Tambiah—have devoted the bulk of their attentions to local variants of major world religions (Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity) and/or the impact of world religions in developing countries (Java, Indonesia, Morocco, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Nepal, and Burma) instead of the religions of isolated tribal groups. Contemporary ethnographers concentrate on examining religious diversity in complex societies rather than providing further documentation for uniformity in tribal religions.” ref

“An unresolved issue facing the anthropology of religion is the nature and problem of religious belief itself. “Belief” is the central focus of Protestant Christianity but is clearly of less concern in tribal religions, in which questions of orthodoxy seldom arise. There has been protracted debate among scholars as to whether it is possible for a nonbeliever to make definitive pronouncements concerning the religious beliefs of others. Can a religion be understood fully only from the perspective of the believer? While a number of leading psychologists and sociologists of religion are themselves adherents to the faiths they study, the overwhelming majority of anthropologists are skeptics. Most anthropologists are materialists and reductionists. They would find themselves in strong agreement with Firth (1995:215), who contends that “there is truth in every religion. But it is a human not a divine truth.” Belief presents special problems for anthropologists because conversion is seldom an option for outsiders. Nevertheless, a number of anthropologists have insisted that religions can be grasped only from “within.” Ethnographers who conduct research among pentecostalists and fundamentalists are often themselves members of these groups, and many younger anthropologists who specialize in new religious movements such as neo- and core shamanism are themselves avid practitioners.” ref

“The hallmark of twentieth-century anthropology has been the advocacy of firsthand, participant observation and/or fieldwork. This has altered the character and scope of research on religion and forced anthropologists to become more modest in their goals and less sweeping in their generalizations. Contemporary anthropological assertions are more likely to concern the manifestation of a particular belief in a particular place and time rather than speculate on “religion” in the abstract. Researchers focus on a single aspect of a religion (a specific myth, a specific ritual, or an aspect of a ritual such as divination, sacrifice, spirit possession, and so on) but refuse to examine an entire religious complex. This has had both positive and negative consequences for the anthropological study of religion. Twentieth-century anthropologists of religion have been left with the choice of “saying more with less authority” or “saying less with more authority.” Most have chosen the latter path. This is a far cry from the imperious stance taken by Müller, Tylor, and Frazer, and cannot help but have far-reaching consequences for the anthropological study of religion in the next century.” ref

“Theories developed in other subfields of anthropology (linguistics, economics, kinship, ecology) have been applied—with varying degrees of success—to the anthropological study of religion. As a result, religions have been analyzed from a variety of perspectives: functional, psychological, ecological, structural, cross-cultural, cognitive, and symbolic. Of these new perspectives, variants of functionalism have been the most enduring, but cognitive and symbolic studies are likely to dominate in the next century.” ref

“A number of promising studies have focused on ritual and ritual forms. From this perspective, rituals are seen as the fundamental unit of religious expression and the building blocks for all religions. Earlier studies (Durkheim 1912, Radcliffe-Brown 1961) underscored the role of ritual in mirroring the defining central features of society and culture, worldviews, identities, political forms, and social arrangements. More recently, scholars have argued that ritual not only mirrors these defining features but challenges them as well. Greater attention has been given to so-called ritual inversions and to what Max Gluckman has termed “rituals of rebellion.” ref

“In the nineteenth century, scholars such as Lady Jane Harrison argued valiantly for the primacy of ritual over myth. All mythology, they argued, has its roots in ritual activity. The myth-ritual debate raged for more than 60 years until 1942, when Clyde Kluckhohn offered a satisfactory compromise by recounting multiple instances in which a myth clearly began as a ritual and other instances in which a ritual clearly began as a myth.” ref

“Anthropological studies of ritual distinguish between calendrical and crisis rituals and between individual and collective rites (Durkheim 1912, Radcliffe-Brown 1961). For Durkheim, rituals both reflect and support the moral framework underlying social arrangements. Radcliffe-Brown improved on Durkheim’s theory by attempting to explain why some rituals are chosen over others. Ultimately, Radcliffe-Brown suggested, rituals directly related to the collective and material well-being of a society are elevated to having spiritual, “ritual value” as well.” ref

“Perhaps the most influential study of the ritual process was provided by Arnold van Gennep in The Rites of Passage (1908), where he argued for the significance of rites of transition, which he categorized as an immutable tripartite sequence: separation, liminality, and reaggregation. Victor Turner’s The Ritual Process (1969) advanced van Gennep’s concept of “liminality” by advocating its applicability for the study of ritual in both tribal (Ndembu) and modern European societies. Roy A. Rappaport’s Pigs for the Ancestors (1968) skillfully demonstrated how rituals regulate environmental relations. Rappaport’s is the best known study linking religious ritual and ecology (Reynolds and Tanner 1995) .” ref

“Within the anthropological tradition, myth has been understood primarily as an encapsulation of sacred truth. Functional theorists such as Bronislaw Malinowski (1926) argued that myth promotes social cohesion and serves as a “charter” for human behavior. Myth, in short, legitimates human activities. Other theorists have treated mythology separately from religion. The twentieth-century study of mythology has received its greatest proponent in the seminal work of the French structural anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, who finds in myth a key to the underlying structures of the human mind. Myth, for Lévi-Strauss, reveals how the mind functions.” ref

“Anthropologists have long noted that religions are highly dynamic, and the role of religion in fostering social change has been extensively explored. An interest in religious change is discernable in the evolutionary theories of Tylor and Frazer as well as the twentieth-century diffussionist studies of Leslie Spier and A. L. Kroeber. Anthony F. C. Wallace (1966) identified a five-stage progression to account for attitudinal and organizational changes that occur within religious movements: prophetic, utopian, messianic, millennial, or millenarian. Wallace is best known for his conception of “revitalization movements” and his application of this concept to the Plains Indian Ghost Dance and cargo cults in Melanesia.” ref

Cognitive, Biological, and Symbolic Approaches

“Much recent work in the anthropology of religion focuses on symbols and cognition, as exemplified in the writings of Geertz, Turner, Fernandez, Boon, Ortner, and Douglas. Still other approaches focus on biological and experiential models of religion (Laughlin et al. 1993). Cognitive and neurological sciences have produced great insights into the biology of behavior, and many of these insights have been extended to the study of religion. Organizations such as the Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness are devoted to the rigorous, scientific exploration of religious experience, including the religious use of hallucinogens, altered states of xconsciousness, shamanism, trance states, and the cross-cultural study of spirit possession. Naturalistic theories of religion have experienced a revival in the writings of Stewart E. Guthrie (1993) and Pascal Boyer (1994).” ref

“Other scholars (Morris 1987, Horton 1993, Klass 1995, Saler 1993, Pals 1995) have devoted attention to the reassessment of previous research. They have argued that contemporary anthropologists of religion are constrained by inadequate and outmoded categories and conceptions. Their frustration is eloquently expressed by Morton Klass (1995:xi), who laments that anthropologists of religion continue to embrace “theoretical perceptions and assumptions that have long since been jettisoned in most other areas of anthropological concern and activity.” Not all anthropologists would agree. Such critical assessments often fail to do justice to the tremendous amount that can be learned from the excellent textbooks of Lowie (1924), Norbeck (1974), Wallace (1966), Radin (1937), and de Waal Malefijt (1968) as well as more recent texts by Pandian (1991) and Child and Child (1993).” ref

“In conclusion, functional, cognitive, and symbolic approaches have dominated the anthropological study of religion in the late twentieth century as researchers have become increasingly concerned with the concept of meaning. Biological, neurological, and cognitive approaches undoubtedly will assume greater importance in the next century. Anthropology of religion is no longer confined to the study of religion in tribal societies. Since the late 1970s, a majority of anthropological studies have dealt with religion in the developed or developing world.” ref 

“Religion includes such varied human constructs and experiences as social structures, sets of beliefs, a feeling of awe, and an aura of mystery. There should be a distinguishing between religion, spirituality, and worldview. And an ability to identify differences between deities and spirits. While different religious groups and practices sometimes extend beyond what can be covered by a simple definition, we can broadly define religion as a shared system of beliefs and practices regarding the interaction of natural and supernatural phenomena. And yet as soon as we ascribe a meaning to religion, we must distinguish some related concepts, such as spirituality and worldview. Religion typically regards the interaction of natural and supernatural phenomena. Put simply, a supernatural force is a figure or energy that does not follow natural law. In other words, it is nonempirical and cannot be measured or observed by normal means. Religious practices rely on contact and interaction with a wide range of supernatural forces of varying degrees of complexity and specificity. In many religious traditions, there are both supernatural deities, or gods who are named and have the ability to change human fortunes, and spirits, who are less powerful and not always identified by name. Spirit or spirits can be diffuse and perceived as a field of energy or an unnamed force.” ref

Ritual Explained?

“Rituals tend to have a common structure even though ritual and ritual performance can be quite variable.” ref

“A ritual is a sequence of activities involving gestures, words, actions, or revered objects. Rituals may be prescribed by the traditions of a community, including a religious community. Rituals are characterized, but not defined, by formalism, traditionalism, invariance, rule-governance, religious symbolism, and performance. Rituals are a feature of all known human societies. They include not only the worship rites and sacraments of organized religions and cults, but also rites of passage, atonement and purification rites, oaths of allegiance, dedication ceremonies, coronations and presidential inaugurations, marriages, funerals and more. Even common actions like hand-shaking and saying “hello” may be termed as rituals. Rituals appeal to tradition and are generally continued to repeat historical precedent, religious rite, mores, or ceremony accurately. Traditionalism varies from formalism in that the ritual may not be formal yet still makes an appeal to the historical trend. An example is the American Thanksgiving dinner, which may not be formal, yet is ostensibly based on an event from the early Puritan settlement of America.” ref

“The field of ritual studies has seen a number of conflicting definitions of the term. One given by Kyriakidis is that a ritual is an outsider’s or “etic” category for a set activity (or set of actions) that, to the outsider, seems irrational, non-contiguous, or illogical. The term can be used also by the insider or “emic” performer as an acknowledgement that this activity can be seen as such by the uninitiated onlooker. In psychology, the term ritual is sometimes used in a technical sense for a repetitive behavior systematically used by a person to neutralize or prevent anxiety; it can be a symptom of obsessive–compulsive disorder but obsessive-compulsive ritualistic behaviors are generally isolated activities. A rite of passage is a ritual event that marks a person’s transition from one status to another, including adoption, baptism, coming of age, graduation, inauguration, engagement, and marriage. Rites of passage may also include initiation into groups not tied to a formal stage of life such as a fraternity.” ref

“Ritual uses a limited and rigidly organized set of expressions which anthropologists call a “restricted code” (in opposition to a more open “elaborated code”). Maurice Bloch argues that ritual obliges participants to use this formal oratorical style, which is limited in intonation, syntax, vocabulary, loudness, and fixity of order. In adopting this style, ritual leaders’ speech becomes more style than content. Because this formal speech limits what can be said, it induces “acceptance, compliance, or at least forbearance with regard to any overt challenge”. Bloch argues that this form of ritual communication makes rebellion impossible and revolution the only feasible alternative. Ritual tends to support traditional forms of social hierarchy and authority, and maintains the assumptions on which the authority is based from challenge.” ref

“Activities appealing to supernatural beings are easily considered rituals, although the appeal may be quite indirect, expressing only a generalized belief in the existence of the sacred demanding a human response. National flags, for example, may be considered more than signs representing a country. The flag stands for larger symbols such as freedom, democracy, free enterprise or national superiority. Particular objects become sacral symbols through a process of consecration which effectively creates the sacred by setting it apart from the profane. Boy Scouts and the armed forces in any country teach the official ways of folding, saluting and raising the flag, thus emphasizing that the flag should never be treated as just a piece of cloth. The performance of ritual creates a theatrical-like frame around the activities, symbols and events that shape participant’s experience and cognitive ordering of the world, simplifying the chaos of life and imposing a more or less coherent system of categories of meaning onto it. As Barbara Myerhoff put it, “not only is seeing believing, doing is believing.” ref

Ritual Behavior in Animals

“The proposed “Animal faith” is the study of animal behaviors, that to some, suggests proto-religious faith. It is commonly believed that religion and faith are unique to humans, as worship, prayer, and belief in gods have not been observed in non-human animals. However, by using a “non-anthropocentric and non-anthropomorphic prototype definition” of religion, such as the one developed by James Harrod in his 2011 work “A Trans-Species Definition of Religion,” scientists can study animal religious practices and behaviors. Ritual behaviors are most commonly studied in chimpanzees, elephants, and dolphins^, but such behaviors have also been observed in other animals, such as magpies, crows, and orcas.” ref

“Nancy R. Howell suggests that “chimpanzees and bonobos may have the precursors for culture and spirituality, such as connectedness, interdependence and sociality and a level of ‘symbolic capacity'”. Primatologist Jane Goodall goes further, noting that some chimpanzees may “dance” at the onset of heavy rain or when they come across a waterfall. She speculates that “their ‘elemental’ displays are precursors of religious ritual”. While grief is common to many animals, funeral rituals are not. However, they are well documented in African elephants.” ref

“Ronald K. Siegel writes that: “one cannot ignore the elaborate burying behaviour of elephants as a similar sign of ritualistic or even religious behaviour in that species. When encountering dead animals, elephants will often bury them with mud, earth and leaves. Animals known to have been buried by elephants include rhinos, buffalos, cows, calves, and even humans, in addition to elephants themselves. Elephants have [been] observed burying their dead with large quantities of food, fruit, flowers and colourful foliage.” ref

“Both wild and captive chimpanzees engage in ritualized behaviors at the death of a group member. These behaviors begin with group or individual silence, which may last for hours and followed by behaviors such as distinctive vocalizations; grooming the carcass; solemn visitation and gazing at the carcass by group members; displays; and lamentation-like whimpers or hoo-calls of distress.” ref

“Attention to the dead is not unique to elephants or chimpanzees. Dolphins have been known to stay with recently deceased members of their pod for several days, preventing divers from getting close. However, the reasons for this remain obscure. While scientists can observe their actions, the thought processes that motivate them are beyond current study. Tahlequah (a.k.a. J35), a female orca, carried the carcass of her newborn infant for 17 days. Whether this was a “tour of grief” or merely instinct is debated. Crows and other corvids also seem to participate in funeral-like ritualistic behavior, including gathering around and holding vigils over the carcass.” ref

“The ritual lives of animals are of interest to paleoanthropologists, as they provide a convenient insight into how religious belief systems may have developed in our ancestors. “The skeletal remains of European early modern humans, (first early modern humans (Homo sapiens) to settle in Europe, possibly from as early as 56,800 years ago produced Upper Palaeolithic cultures, the first major one being the Aurignacian after around 45,000 years ago, which was succeeded by the Gravettian by 30,000 years ago) are found buried in the fetal position in line with the primitive myth that such a position facilitates rebirth. The study of allied behaviors in non-human animals provides an opportunity to understand their nature and function in humans.” Indeed, some have seen superficial similarities between the funeral rituals of African elephants and the burial rituals of Neanderthals.” ref, ref

“Evolutionary psychologist Matt Rossano has theorized that religion evolved in three stages: In the pre-Upper Palaeolithic, religion was characterized by ecstatic rituals used to facilitate social bonding. Later, shamanic healing rituals developed in the Upper Palaeolithic. Finally, religious expressions developed over time to include cave art, ritual artefacts, ancestor worship and the development of myth and moral structures. If this is true, then the behavior of chimpanzees witnessed by Goodall may be interpreted as similar to pre-Upper Paleolithic Human religion. However, De Waal notes that bonobos show no evidence of ritual behavior yet are extremely peaceful and demonstrate moral agency. This casts doubt on the co-development of morality and proto-religion.” ref

“Although my dog may stare at me like I’m a deity, there’s no evidence to suggest that non-human animals have religion. They don’t worship, pray or believe in gods of any kind, but they do perform ritualistic behaviors, prompting some to speculate that animals could have a spiritual side. Elephants, famously, ‘mourn’ their dead. Family members visit the bodies of deceased relatives, and smell and touch them. There are claims that magpies have been seen placing ‘wreaths’ of grass next to dead individuals. In 2018, a ‘grieving’ orca carried her dead calf through the icy waters of the Salish Sea for more than two weeks before finally letting it go.” ref

“Putting aside the use of anthropomorphic terms such as ‘mourning’ and ‘grief’, these and other incidents still hint that some animals at least have an awareness of death and the capacity to ritualize their dead. Rituals have been perceived in other areas, too. Jane Goodall witnessed chimpanzees dancing at waterfalls, and pondered whether the animals are experiencing feelings of awe or wonder. Other scientists have watched elephants waving branches at the waxing Moon, prompting some to wonder if the Moon holds symbolic significance for them. It’s a tough call. On the one hand, why shouldn’t intelligent, socially complex animals feel awe in response to the natural world or the night sky? Maybe ritualistic behavior does hint at a level of spirituality. On the other hand, maybe chimps just like having a boogie, and elephants just like waving sticks. Until we can read their minds, we should keep ours open.” ref

Can Animals have Spiritual Experiences?

According to Ask Dr. Universe, Joe Campbell said, “If they just have the behavior and aren’t capable of meta-level thought, then there’s no chance you should classify their behavior as religious. But it does seem like there are members of the animal kingdom like chimpanzees, elephants and dolphins that seem to be capable of self-conscious awareness. So, the answer could well be yes—at least for some members of the animal kingdom. We know humans have self-conscious awareness because we can talk about it. It’s more difficult to figure out if other animals do, too. The most famous chimpanzee expert in the world—Jane Goodall—says she’s sure chimpanzees feel awe and simply don’t have language to describe it. Other scientists caution that, since we can’t talk to non-human animals, we shouldn’t assume their thoughts and feelings line up with human thoughts and feelings—even if their behaviors look similar. Some scientists like neurophilosophers think understanding the brain is key to answering these deep questions.” ref

“Recent research in neuroscience may shed light on this age-old question by suggesting that many animals are capable of religious experiences, including near-death encounters and profound feelings of awe and oneness. According to these studies, the root of spiritual experiences in humans and animals is a structure shared by both – the limbic brain. Neurological investigation into human spiritual experiences has made rapid progress in recent years. Researchers have linked profound spiritual phenomena with the deeper, more ancient areas of the brain that evolved before the cerebral cortex, which governs higher cognitive functions. In particular, the limbic system, which rests beneath the cortex and is in charge of most emotional responses, is strongly linked to religious experience, especially mystical feelings of oneness and mystery.” ref

“Being the product of pre-human – and even pre-hominid – evolution, the limbic system is shared with other animals, including dogs, cats, and most other animals kept as pets or on farms. Two prominent professors, neurologist Kevin Nelson (University of Kentucky) and ecologist Marc Bekoff (University of Colorado – Boulder), have recently caused a stir by suggesting that the presence of the limbic system in animals implies that they, too, are capable of religious experiences. They might be struck with sudden overwhelming impressions of oneness and mystical unity, for example, or with joy, wonderment, and dislocation in time.” ref

“Meanwhile, new research in primatology strongly indicates that chimpanzees are more aware of, and deeply affected by, death than was previously thought. The balance of evidence, then, seems to be slowly swinging towards a commonality of spiritual experience among humans and animals. If chimpanzees mourn the deaths of their family members and dogs have the ability to experience mystical oneness, perhaps the core of religious phenomena is something deeper than mere cultural contrivances. Perhaps, then, the most important question raised by the research into animal spirituality becomes: when a dog has a spiritual experience, does it know it’s having a spiritual experience? While we might not ever be able to ask Spot this question directly, we can at least rest assured that the line between humans and animals is thinner than we ever supposed.” ref

“Belief, whether religious or nonreligious, is associated with greater signal in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vMPFC), a brain region important for self-representation, emotional associations, reward, and goal-driven behavior. However, religious belief, compared with nonreligious belief, registers a greater signal in the precuneus, anterior insula, ventral striatum, anterior cingulate cortex, and posterior medial cortex-areas associated with governance of emotion, self-representation, and cognitive conflict. In contrast, nonreligious belief registers more signal in the left hemisphere memory networks.” ref

Animism (a kind of spiritism, similar to: Espiritismo, a Latin American and Caribbean belief that evolved and less evolved spirits can affect health, luck and other aspects of human life, ref; Piaget (1929) originally noted that children demonstrate animistic thinking, they are likely to think that nonliving things, are conscious and alive, studies also have indicated that animism decreases with age. However, it does not completely disappear in adulthood, ref) may be common in children but it is a superstitious/magical thinking about the world and things in it, is not by itself a religion. To me, to make animism thinking into an “animistic religion” is beyond the “thinking” and adds rituals as well supernatural power/being worship.

“In animism (as a religious persuasion), rituals are performed to maintain relationships between humans and spirits. Indigenous peoples often perform these rituals to appease the spirits and request their assistance during activities such as hunting and healing. Animism can also entail relationships being established with non-corporeal spirit entities. And some animists believe that interaction with plants and fungi persons can result in the communication of things unknown or even otherwise unknowable. Likewise, various animistic cultures also comprehend stones as persons. Discussing ethnographic work conducted among the Ojibwe, Harvey noted that their society generally conceived of stones as being inanimate.” ref

“Video: ANIMALS REACTING TO MAGIC!“