In this blog post, we explore the possibility of faith existing in animals from various perspectives, examining the definition of religion and animal emotions and behaviors.
When discussing the history and culture of any civilization, there is one element that cannot be overlooked: religion. Since the dawn of human history, religion has been closely intertwined with politics, forming the foundation of culture and art as it evolved. Even today, religion continues to exert a profound influence worldwide in diverse forms. For instance, in many Islamic nations, people’s lifestyles are dictated by the Quran, and conflicts between religious sects can escalate into war. Thus, humans and religion are inseparably linked, and many have long considered religion one of humanity’s unique characteristics.
Yet, in the film Planet of the Apes, animals—which we have long considered inferior—practice religion, something once thought to be the exclusive domain of humans. The protagonist of this film crash-lands during a space voyage into a world where apes dominate humans. These apes speak English and enslave humans. Interestingly, they also possess religion, revering a monkey named Seamos as their ancestor and praying before meals. Their behavior, mirroring that of humans despite their different appearance, shocks audiences considerably. However, most people would likely consider the idea of animals having religion to be something only found in science fiction films. So, are the scenes in this film impossible? Perhaps animals have had their own religion all along, unbeknownst to us?
To answer this question, we first need to define what constitutes religion. The dictionary definition of religion is “a community of believers sharing specific beliefs and the system of faith they hold.” In other words, a ‘system of beliefs’ observable within a ‘community’ formed on the basis of ‘faith’ constitutes religion. For instance, ancient Egyptians, who believed in an afterlife, mummified bodies and stored gold and treasures alongside them inside pyramids. Similarly, Hindus in India regard cows as divine and worship them. When considering the three essential elements constituting religion—‘community,’ ‘belief,‘ and ‘system of faith’—those who argue that animals cannot possess religion cite the following reasons.
First, forming a shared belief across species requires mutual communication. Unlike human language-based communication, animals exchange signals through gestures and vocalizations, making such shared belief difficult to develop. However, belief does not necessarily require language to form. While language can strengthen belief and refine its expression, the absence of language does not preclude belief. Long before using language, humans drew animal pictures on cave walls to pray for successful hunts and held beliefs in the inherent power of objects. This serves as an example that language is not a prerequisite for religion. People often say that with someone they’ve known for a long time, “a glance is enough to understand.” This signifies that silent communication can occur without words. Animals, though unable to speak, may also be connected in a world beyond consciousness, in the realm of the unconscious. Jung’s concept of the ‘Collective Unconsciousness’ explains this.
Jung’s collective unconscious is likened to ocean waves. The mind is not confined to an individual’s psyche alone; like ocean waves, it is connected to all things as one, while simultaneously expressing individuality. Each person’s consciousness possesses individuality and expresses the self, yet it is connected to the sea of the unconscious, like waves undulating. Jung argued that each individual is born with a virtual image of the world they belong to, and that beyond the individual unconscious, a collective unconscious exists. The collective unconscious reveals astonishing similarities in the symbols, myths, and gods created by people living in different cultures and eras. This religiousness within the unconscious has been passed down intact to modern humans; only its forms have developed diversely and elaborately. Humans and various animals, especially primates, evolved from a common ancestor. We can speculate that religion may also be inherent in the unconscious of animals sharing ancestors with humans prior to language acquisition. If religion is an instinctive, unconscious belief arising not from conscious thought, then the religious nature within the human unconscious could extend to animals.
The next argument raised is that faith is a product of higher cognitive functions, and therefore only relatively intelligent humans can possess religion. However, this premise itself is flawed. Faith is not a product of higher thought but is closer to instinct—that is, it is innate. While various opinions exist on the origin of religion, explanations such as reverence for nature evolving into worship during times when humans were heavily influenced by their natural environment, or religion arising from the worship of tribal leaders, are particularly persuasive. Considering that ancient mythological gods were identified with natural phenomena like the sun and wind and regarded as beings possessing immense power, these claims are entirely plausible. Thus, religion is not born from human higher thought but is closer to an instinct acquired over long periods of survival against nature. Many animals also live in groups like humans and feel fear toward nature. Since they have lived in environments similar to humans, it is entirely possible that religion is inherent in their instincts. Moreover, instincts are not limited to appetite or sexual desire; they sometimes manifest powers that cannot be explained by higher intellectual thought. For example, salmon instinctively undertake the immense journey of returning to the river where they were born to spawn.
Finally, those who argue animals cannot possess religion contend that religion requires an understanding of the meaning of life and death, and the ability to contemplate something beyond life. They argue that abstract concepts like an afterlife cannot exist for animals. However, many animals fear death, and particularly, they are observed to grieve when faced with the death of their offspring. This is indirect evidence showing that animals recognize death. Dr. Jane Goodall, known as the ‘Mother of Chimps,’ lived among chimpanzees in the jungle, studying their behavior. She observed mothers carrying and caring for their dead infants for up to a week after birth. Researchers interpreted this as the mother’s process of accepting the infant’s death. Additionally, the act of bringing the dead infant to other members of the group was seen as a process for the group to acknowledge the death. This suggests that animals recognize death and that death is an established concept among them.
Returning to the initial discussion: When we define the essential elements of religion as ‘community,’ ‘belief,‘ and ‘a system of faith,’ none of these are inapplicable to animals. Animals live in groups, have leaders who guide the collective, and possess an instinctive reverence for nature. Given these traits, it is entirely plausible that religion exists among them in the form of a collective unconscious.
Domestic researchers observed a pod of dolphins in the East Sea circling a dying companion, supporting it to keep it afloat. This behavior, where they lingered around the dying animal for hours as if mourning, has raised the possibility that it could be a funeral ritual. Because humans cannot communicate with animals, it is difficult to determine whether these behaviors stem from religion. However, it is clear that collective actions serve specific purposes. Among these purposes could be behaviors expressing the group’s beliefs. Perhaps, even at this very moment, somewhere, an animal religious ritual is taking place.
