Is the fact that human beings are sentient that, we (human beings), are the only kind that contemplates the concept…. — Shawn

that contemplates any ‘concept’. Conceptualisation relies on abstraction, the ability to represent and to imagine. Is there evidence that any species other than h.sapiens possesses those abilities? (I know that Caledonian crows and some other species can display rudimentary reasoning abilities, but doesn’t qualify as truly conceptual ratiocination in my view.)

I think the question you’re asking can otherwise most profitably be viewed through the lens of anthropology and palaeontology. For instance Agustin Fuentes’ Why We Believe (although there are many others on the theme.) But it’s not hard to imagine early hominids witnessing the birth and death of their kin and prey animals, the cycles of the seasons and the bounty of nature and attributing it to or imbuing it with agency. And it’s also well-documented that humans have had a sense of the sacred since paleolithic times, evidenced by statuary, art and ritual burial practices. Of course the ancient origins are ‘lost in the mists of time’ as the saying has it, but it goes back well beyond the beginning of recorded history.

That is a topic approached by anthropology. There is content online about the origins of animism, which is considered the most primitive, thus earliest, kind of religion. Of course, it is speculative, so we will never know for sure.

Seems a fairly straightforward matter. Humans look for order and predictability to manage their environment. We see that most things, if not all, appear to be caused. Hence the quesion who caused reality? The idea of a sky wizard or cosmic mummy seems to be a reasonable supposition. And in more sophisticated terms, the idea of a cosmic consciousness seems reasonable too. The unassailable human drive to make sense and identify patterns (our innate apophenia) would seem to suggest that we need to understand the world in terms that already make sense to us. Creation and causality seem to be built into our cognitive apparatus.

No idea what varieties of animal cognition allow for but it can be observed that unlikely animals relate to another species of animal for their mother or their offspring.

I'm not sure I follow.

Why would you assume that (mere) sentience gives you enough to be able to form beliefs (or thoughts) about anything?

Maybe you have a particular idea or definition of sentience that goes beyond what we usually take the term to mean, awareness. Awareness does not give you belief. You need something like understanding and reason, which are substantially more complicated than sentience to have beliefs.

At minimum I'd think you'd need to have explicit propositional awareness that something is the case (or not the case).

So far as we know, other animals tend to be concerned mostly with immediate surroundings and they also have instincts which guide them to do certain things: look for a mate, migrate to another part of the world etc.

To talk of an extra-worldly being must go significantly beyond environmental concerns and instinctual behavior.

But again, if you have a broader definition or conception of sentience, maybe more could be said.

Conceptualisation relies on abstraction, the ability to represent and to imagine. — Wayfarer

I agree, but, is conceptualization something that can be specified any further? I left the OP ambiguous about what defines the capabilities on h. sapiens to imagine/reason/conceptualize the notion of a creator. I don't want this to be the focus of the thread, as there are many interesting things that can be said about this topic apart from anthropology...

That is a topic approach by anthropology. There is content online about the origins of animism, which is considered the most primitive, thus earliest, kind of religion. — Lionino

This might be a question framed best in terms of anthropology, but, I'm also quite interested in what the concept of a creator might mean to a chimpanzee or dolphin or gorilla.

I accepted your post as the answer to this thread; but, wanted to further ask, if inference based off of causality is something that only humans can do, (is it called 'backwards rationality')?

But again, if you have a broader definition or conception of sentience, maybe more could be said. — Manuel

No, I kept the OP as simple as I could; but, thanks for the input!

I doubt they have any concept of creation. Though there are bonds between parent and child among mammals, I don't think they understand themselves as actually being generated by their parents. I imagine it is the same for them as it is for us that they don't retain memories from their early childhood. Even when they themselves create another being I don't think they relate that to themselves, their thought is not that advanced — the lack of language surely doesn't help either. So, if it is shaky whether they even have any idea of being created by their ancestors, I doubt they extrapolate the thought all the way back to a creation of all.

I agree, but, is conceptualization something that can be specified any further? — Shawn

Looking at it, again, from a kind of biological anthropology - the evolution of the h.sapiens forebrain was one of the most (if not THE most) spectacular and unparalleled events known to evolutionary science. I read an interesting account, in a book by a medical science writer, James Le Fanu (ref), on what was involved in the transition from simian to hominid anatomy, because the hominid cranium is far larger than that of its simian forebears, and this also had to be accomodated with the shift to bipedalism. This mean the birth canal of hominids had to be smaller, while the head of the infant was much larger - the reason that human babies are born with soft skulls, the fontanelle, which hardens during the first months of life. All in support of this fantastically elaborated brain anatomy, which enabled language, conceptualisation, tool-making, story-telling and many of the other essentially human characteristics of our species. (Le Fanu also notes that the payoff for these developments had to take a very long view, as it results in far higher instances of birth trauma and maternal mortality than among simian species, while for many hundreds of thousands of years, the rewards of that larger brain capacity may not have been abundantly obvious.)

Looking at it, again, from a kind of biological anthropology - the evolution of the h.sapiens forebrain was one of the most (if not THE most) spectacular and unparalleled events known to evolutionary science. — Wayfarer

Yes, fascinating topic to drill. Quite curiously, I want to ask, from what I understand the forebrain was developed by our need for the use of tools in its earliest stages. I do want to know that how could something so simple as the need to use and create tools could have led to so much of what defines human beings. What are your thoughts on the matter?

this fantastically elaborated brain anatomy, which enabled language, conceptualisation, tool-making, story-telling and many of the other essentially human characteristics of our species. — Wayfarer

Yes, I take the forebrain or frontal and prefrontal cortex as the highest developed trait, yet, the Broca center the brain seems equally important too for language development. I'm not sure if our abilities would have mattered without such a highly sophisticated use of language skills and learning abilities...

Deep topic.

accepted your post as the answer to this thread; but, wanted to further ask, if inference based off of causality is something that only humans can do, (is it called 'backwards rationality')? — Shawn

You'd need to ask an expert. Inferential thinking (making connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of information to draw conclusions) appears to be part of the behavior of animals like family pets. They know that if a drawer opens and a lead is picked up, it means a walk. They know that the fridge opening means food. And animals who have been abused will often cringe when a person raises their hand. They can often and mysteriously tell when the owner is arriving home - even when unscheduled. And much more complicated behaviors. But what does this tell us about making connections, intentionality and pattern recognition?

I want to ask, from what I understand the forebrain was developed by our need for the use of tools in its earliest stages. I do want to know that how could something so simple as the need to use and create tools could have led to so much of what defines human beings. What are your thoughts on the matter? — Shawn

That the Darwinist account tends to invariably be reductionist, because it looks at the question solely solely in terms of the benefit it has for reproduction. That because of the role of Darwinian biology in our culture, as a kind of secular creation myth, it has no conceptual space for the kinds of questions that our highly-developed forebrain allows us to ask. And that this is one of the root causes of what John Vervaeke describes as 'the meaning crisis' - even while the evolutionary account may be perfectly sound in its own terms. (Now there's a can'o'worms for you ;-) )

I think that in a world where there are so many variables, that the situation couldn't have been any different, or the methodology couldn't have been as good.

Meaning is derived from interpretations, and even Derrida would have had something to say on the matter. :smile:

We have an exceptional imagination, combined with an inflated self-image. Other animals live in the world as they find it. We want the world to be organized around us, for us and controlled by us. So we invent a human with superpowers who considers us special, pays attention to us, is flattered by our praise and charmed by our sacrificed children; to whom we can address requests and from whom we can expect favours.

:up:

[W]hy do sentient beings contemplate the concept of a creator? — Shawn

Only language-using "sentient beings" seem to do so. To wit:

I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar. — Friedrich Nietzsche

Creators (gods) are so convenient in the absence of science, to explain all unknowns and (currently) unknowables, that human psychology guarantees humans would invent gods, whether they exist or not. Of course in order to survive after the invention of science (to explain natural phenomena), gods pivot to perform other duties, such as regulating heavenly gates, etc.

Additionally, why do sentient beings contemplate the concept of a creator? It seems like a natural thing to question, and am wondering what are your thoughts on the matter. — Shawn

Some want to analyze your question from the perspective of Anthropologists or Biologists. But this is a philosophy forum. So, why not approach your "why?" question philosophically?

I would begin with the notion of Causation as more elementary than Creation. The Greek philosophers postulated abstract impersonal First Cause and Prime Mover instead of a humanoid Creator. So that might be a good starting point. We observe Causation (ongoing change) in the world, and postulate impersonal causal forces, such as aimless Energy and space-warping Gravity. So, we imagine tracing mechanical causation all the way back to the beginning. But Creation-from-scratch implies Intention, so the mind naturally turns to the personal human experience of creative causation.

Hence, the image of a human Creator to design & implement a real ever-changing self-organizing machine-like world system, seems to be intuitive. But, is it true? Do we have any way to prove the existence of an a priori Designer/Creator? I suppose you know the answer to that. :smile:

Only language-using "sentient beings" seem to do so. To wit:
I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.
— Friedrich Nietzsche — 180 Proof

''Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.''

-Ludwig Wittgenstein

The comparison to animals is hard to make since we can't prove that they do or do not worship anything. (And if they did, it would be in such a different way than us that we wouldn't even realize it was worship.) This is despite the low probability that animals do worship.

The human urge to explain things with ideas such as a creator could also not have a causal relationship with our sapience. A believer might argue that if there is a creator, people will come up with ideas about a "God", given the anomalies actually caused by one. The human drive to explain things could be unrelated, or contribute a smaller amount to the relevance to the creator concept.

Both believers and non-believers seem to be able to agree that part of what drives religion and the creator concept is this human urge to explain things, whether or not it relates to our uniqueness as a species or our spiritual distinctiveness (the first, however, is more universal, and therefore more prevalent).