Do Animals Believe In Supernatural Beings?

This thread poses the question regarding animal supernatural belief in the following terms (to quote AdminMod) "What evidence might look like and try to resolve one way or another what we can say we know about this topic".You started your participation in this topic by saying that in the absence of direct communication with animals no such evidence is even possible. Message 84It was then pointed out to you that we conclude supernatural belief in ancient humans without the benefit of direct communication with them. It was also pointed out to you that we draw conclusions regarding other aspects of animal psychology by observing and comparing behaviour rather than through direct communication.Whether there is any evidence of animal belief in the supernatural (and how we would recognise it if it existed) remains the topic of this thread. That much is clear.What is not clear is why you think this question is fundamentally different to any other regarding what we can know or examine about animal thought processes. Then you must be very easily amused. Because your equivocations are mildly amusing in a tedious sort of way at very best.

Which of the other animals are human?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

If you are going to insist on some definitive line where "other animal" stops and humanity starts then it is up to you to define it.Not me.

LOLMaybe where they are no longer classified as Homo sapiens.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Firstly - Where specifically is that in the evolutionary scheme of things?Secondly - Are you restricting this to homo-sapiens who we can directly communicate with? Or have you abandoned that particular criteria? Have we ever spoken to paleolithic or neolithic humans? Can genuinely evidence based speculation of a scientific nature be applied to the question of their beliefs?

We have spoken to modern contemporary human beings and also have some written records going back a few thousand years that allow us to listen to what those people said were the motivations for their acts and practices. We can look for patterns that are similar to ones established where we do have direct communications and make some rather weak assertions about possible motivations, but that is about all. We can say we know that people now behaved a certain way based on a belief in the supernatural and that motivation also held true for at least several thousand years, and possibly longer.But that is about it.I see no way that can be used as evidence regarding any other species including even our very close cousins, for example Homo sapiens neanderthal.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Do you apply this position to all psychological/sociological conclusions made regarding species other than modern-humans? Or just those pertaining to possible supernatural beliefs?

I'm not even sure what that means. I would certainly apply it to almost anything relating to what they think beyond the very basics such as being hungry, feeling pain, showing some form of societal relationship.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You have thus far insisted that it is impossible to make evidence based judgements regarding the motivations of non-homo-sapiens in the absence of linguistic communication. I was simply asking if you apply this position consistently to ALL aspects of ALL non-homo-sapien behaviour.It now seems that you don't. But on what basis do you make the distinction between those that require linguistic communication and those that don’t?This remains very unclear. You are now unjustifiably conflating instinctive behaviours pertaining to things such as hunger or pain and social behaviours that are potentially highly complex and requiring of relatively high levels of sentience and intellect.Can you give a clear indication of that which you consider to be included in the basics and that which you don’t and can you specify where the dividing line lays as far as you are concerned?In short - What specifically do you mean by this ambiguous term of "basics" in this context?

And I said I really don't understand what it is you are asking. Sorry, I thought I did. I think we can see evidence that animals respond to being hungry, wanting sex, building troops, prides, herds, maybe even inter social behaviors such as grooming.Beyond that I would need a specific example to say whether or not we can even guess what they are thinking, much less believing.I think this is possibly another instance where you are looking for generalities that I simply can't understand or provide.Maybe if you gave me a specific example I could say whether or not I saw a way to speculate about beliefs?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Do you now accept that it is possible to make evidence based judgements regarding the motivations of non-homo-sapiens in the absence of linguistic communication?Or does linguistic communication remain your be-all-and-end-all requirement for evidentially establishing motivation for all "critters" at all times as you have thus far asserted? A specific example of what?You want a specific example of non-homo-sapien behaviour that can legitimately be considered to imply motivation that is considered evidenced on the basis of being comparable to human behaviour and motivations?Is that what you are asking for?

Sometimes. That would certainly not extend to matters of beliefs though beyond those very limited areas I've outlined. HUH?I don't believe that is what I have ever said. That might be a start. What do you have in mind?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Then what exactly is your position regarding ascertaining the motivations for behaviours of species that are non-homo-sapien?

I think I covered that back in Message 84.

quote:

---

If and when we develop a sufficiently sophisticated common language between humans and another animal species we may then be able to find out whether or not they believe in supernatural beings. Until such time though, we ain't got a clue unless someone can show some way simply through observation what exactly each critter is thinking.

---

Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I think we can all comprehensively agree that there are no examples of non-homo-sapiens (or even very early homo-sapiens) verbally communicating their motivations or leaving written records of the sort you are insisting upon.However we can, and indeed do, legitimately infer all sorts of motivations for various non-homo-sapien behaviours based on other forms of evidence such as archaeological findings or direct and detailed observation of interactions.Imperfect? Yes. But that is no reason to just dismiss such evidence as completely unworthy of consideration. Your answer is both overly simplistic and requiring that we treat this question differently to other psychological and sociological questions pertaining to beings with whom linguistic communication is not possible.