Religion makes a huge difference. Although it is not a definitive proof, it makes a huge difference. Even bigger difference than intelligence.

Accepting divine creationism is a very human behavior.
Atheism in humans is closer to “eat sleep repeat" behavior of animals.

To stop eating for a long period of time because of religious motivation is something an animal(eating machine) would hardly understand.

Almost a definitive difference between animals and humans, it is still not the definitive difference. Almost, but still not.

It is hard to distinguish between religion and illogical behavior in animals. So, hardly there can be any solid proof. The thing is, the vast majority of animal kingdom is not even close to something that could be even remotely compared to religion. With very few exceptions quoted below.

Possible religious behavior in animals -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_behavior_in_animals

NikiTo said:
Religion makes a huge difference. Although it is not a definitive proof, it makes a huge difference. Even bigger difference than intelligence.

yeah you will have a difficult time convincing an animal about the presence of an invisible guy or that a stone is not actually a stone and that it has `powers`. You need your imagination developed to a determined level to perceive God as a reality. And it doesn`t need to be God, animals can`t perceive any reality(places and characters) beyond what they see.

Calin said:
yeah you will have a difficult time convincing an animal about the presence of an invisible guy or that a stone is not actually a stone and that it has `powers`

In this sense, animals are more logical than humans.
It could be a difference between humans and animals…almost. I say almost, because i search for a thing that definitively, no other animal than humans exhibits. And there are possible examples of religion in highly intelligent animals.

Maybe the idea of God is only possible inside a very superior brain. But only maybe. I am 99% sure. Because it can not be proven or disproved that an animal believes in God without being able to communicate with that animal using complicated words and definitions. It is impossible to prove, but from what we see, the vast majority of animal kingdom doesn't care about the afterlife. It only cares about eat, sleep repeat.

There is suicidal behavior observed in animals. But it is not the same as religion. Religion disapproves suicide. Religion approves homicide more than it approves suicide. I leave aside the suicidal behavior in nature that assures the survival of the offspring. Males in nature, often voluntarily let themselves being eaten by the female… ONLY after procreating with that female. I leave that suicidal behavior apart.

Religion assumes the oneself keeps existing after the death. Assuring that the genes of oneself exist after death is nothing new. It is often observed in a lot of animals. It is what moves nature - the existence of the specimen, not the individual.

Alien franchise offers a deep dive into the what makes us humans question. A robot that was designed to look more human started to design its own life forms. The robot that was intentionally designed to be less human, was only serving to the humans and was banned even from creating music.

Maybe creationism is what makes the difference.

if (String_IsEquation(task)) SolveEquation(task);

What's the difference?

Both is planning a series of events, including solving problems.

Jump after he's away → get the food

Sole the equation → get the job → get the food

What matter is this: Who writes the program? Answer: Emotions - motivation because of hunger, greed, etc.

Animals and humans are motivated from external force like hunger. We have no control about the fact we have to eat.
The need to eat motivates us to solve the problem to get food. We either need instinct or memories to know eating food removes the hunger.
(We could init and grow a database, but our form of static language and data structures is stuck, and growing data won't solve this.)

At first we need senses and association ability to detect food, also to detect a problem that prevents us from just taking it. E.g. seeing a living animal, but it is running from us.
So we also need ability to react to the observed world, and to predict how it behaves: The longer we wait, the farther away the animal becomes.
(Computer vision, ML image labeling, proximity queries in a game, etc. addresses this ability partially, but they lack at problem detection and classification.)

The increasing distance to the food is bad so we detected our problem from logic of sensing and prediction.
To solve it, we follow the animal so we can kill and eat on success. Does not matter if you draw a line between instinct or reasoning, both have the same origins and goals. Just the variety of behaviors increases.
(In games we can only hardcode a fixed number of desires, problems, solutions. But the system is not adaptive and does not really change. It's static and can not evolve, so it could not survive for long.)

NikiTo said:
Religion makes a huge difference. Although it is not a definitive proof, it makes a huge difference. Even bigger difference than intelligence.

It is only the result of philosophy, which itself is result of language, communication and the from of abstractions, games of mind this allows.

We don't know what thoughts animals have while they are bored and fed up. What fantasies, what dreams might they have? Probably visual images of tasty food, being the leader of the pack, getting the girl?

Now bring communication into the mix. Herd animals would try to unify their dreams by detecting similarities. They would start to believe and to conform each others wishes. Some animal would try to utilize this to control the behavior of others for his own advantage, e.g. to get free food for spending consolidation by confirming afterlife. At this point the animals would be classified as humans, while still being just sheep.

Calin said:
animals can`t perceive any reality(places and characters) beyond what they see.

No, man. They can. I know it when my little dog is dreaming in sleep. After we had a walk and met another dog, little dog is excited. Mostly after such days, my dog barks while sleeping. The bark is only quiet and different from barking while awake. Similar to humans just mumbling something while sleeping. Without any doubts, the dog is dreaming. And if you can dream, you can imagine.

Most of animals have ways they use to communicate. And they are communicating for real.
It is proven.

Most of animals do communicate and use language. But it is very very very basic communication.

Only few species can communicate complicated combinations of words. Whales have their own dialects. Even ants communicate by touching their antennas. But although both, ants and dolphins can communicate using language(call it a communication protocol) dolphins communicate over the communication protocol lot more of meaning.

Maybe we need to differentiate between exchanging sound stimulus between animals. This is something almost any animal does. And language or idiom.

Language becomes with meaning. Communication is everywhere. Even bacteria communicate using chemicals.

Language can exist without communication. I can write down something on paper and this paper could burn with me during a fire, and nobody got that message. There was not communication, but language did take place.

If we make a distinction between data link and a language, we can move toward the intelligence frontier.
Our gadgets communicate between them for real. Gadgets need to negotiate a link for the data transfer. It is a complicated algorithm, but it doesn't make the gadget intelligent. Then, once the data link is established, the not-clever phones can transmit our clever human language content.

JoeJ said:
games of mind

It`s a 50 /50 call. (Am not here to take sides I see myself as a referee) From a believer point of view it`s down to believing the four guys. You have to trust people about history and things you have not witnessed. Faith/religion falls into the same category. You even have to trust people for things you do not understand like a cell phone. You might have a general understanding about cellphone but you still have to trust an expert about its inner workings. Getting back to evolution I think Religion and science have a common ground. Even Christianity and Darwinism have a common ground. These have been for decades and none has had a definitive win. The only answer is that they are both true.

Task - explain the concept of god using only these four concepts -

Calin said:
Christianity and Darwinism have a common ground. These have been for decades and none has had a definitive win. The only answer is that they are both true.

I don't know if we lack proofs about evolution, if it's a theory or knowledge - i don't know much about biology. But i'm sure we lack proofs about christian (or any other religions) beliefs? So you can't say they would be both true.

Calin said:
It`s a 50 /50 call. (Am not here to take sides I see myself as a referee) From a believer point of view it`s down to believing the four guys. You have to trust people about history and things you have not witnessed. Faith/religion falls into the same category. You even have to trust people for things you do not understand like a cell phone. You might have a general understanding about cellphone but you still have to trust an expert about its inner workings.

You do not dig deep enough. You are aware about adoption of general truth and knowledge implies a need to belief or doubt, which is fine.

But the real problems we get from this sneak in in the cases where we (or the others) are not aware. In those cases adoption becomes dangerous. This differs from not knowing how exactly the cell phone works.

An example: A group A of people points out a defect caused by another group B, and they propose changes to fix the issue. Because of the obvious defect, other people joint group A. The people in group A do for good without doubts, and they confirm and gratulate each other for their good goals and achievements. So they grow further, amplifying the confirmation of truth and correctness. Common goals and collaborative action become general truth, and it's no longer necessary or even possible to question things like the attack on the other group B within group A. Within group A, the people from group B loose even their individuality of being just other people, they are just the others, the enemy, an abstraction.
This mechanism works no matter which group is the minority, if it is about politics, religion or even science. If it goes too far, people are not only sheep, they become lemmings.

After considering this it becomes more easy to classify which knowledge to adopt and what should be better ignored, at least.
It also proofs my point: Ability to communicate complex and subtle issues, or to innovate and use tools does not make us smarter than animals.