Do Animals Believe In Supernatural Beings?

I think jar is arguing that we cannot identify what animals are thinking unless we can talk to them (or otherwise communicate). It is very easy to identify what they are doing: watch them. The problem comes with trying to link the behavior to thoughts that might be considered 'beliefs in the supernatural'; we simply have no basis for making such a link when it comes to animals.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

'Pretend' religious behaviour is still religious behaviour - and the reasons people fake religious behaviour is because of existing religious beliefs and behaviour (in themselves or others).You cannot (sincerely or otherwise) behave religiously unless religion exists - by definition.Edited by Panda, : clarity

But it is not belief. The topic is "Do Animals Believe In Supernatural Beings?"In addition even there all you are doing is ascribing YOUR beliefs to other critters. They could have entirely different beliefs yet exhibit the same behaviors.

---

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

But we were discussing "Do animals behave religiously".
We have been discussing this for a while.
I am left wondering why you (only now) consider it off-topic. I am not trying to ascribe my beliefs: I am trying to interpret animal behaviour.
Identification of animal behaviour is done all the time by people all over the world.So why do you think that religious behaviour is uniquely unidentifiable?

I explained that above.How is religious behavior different than the behavior of soccer fans?I do not think that without the knowledge gained by communication with other humans we could identify religious behavior.I could well be wrong but so far no one has convinced me of that fact.

---

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

So why do you think that religious behaviour is uniquely unidentifiable? Yes, and I showed you why you were wrong and you replied that I was off-topic.
Why do you think that religious behaviour is uniquely unidentifiable? And how is mating behaviour different to group behaviour?
But we happily talk about mating behaviour and group behaviour.
Why do you think that religious behaviour is uniquely unidentifiable? ...but we can identify all other kinds of behaviour without the knowledge gained by communication.
Why do you think that religious behaviour is uniquely unidentifiable?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If all you want to talk about is behavior alone with no attempt to make a link to any sort of thought process or mental state whatsoever, then perhaps you can say that some animals may behave in a way that we would see as similar to the behavior exhibited by some people who hold religious beliefs.But that is only half of the puzzle. The thread is about beliefs, not just behaviors. You still have to show that these 'religious behaviors' are explainable best by religious beliefs; if you cannot do that, then all you've got are a handful of observations to which you've attached the fancy anthropomorphism "religious"that is, all you've got is nothing.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

You have said that you think I am wrong, why YOU think I'm wrong, but of course not why I am wrong.I have also explained why I think religious behavior is impossible to determine in critters where we cannot communicate.There is nothing that has been shown that differentiates religious behavior from non religious behavior that was not distinguished through knowledge gained by communicating with other humans.The reason we identify a painting as religious as opposed to just a portrait or landscape is based on our knowledge gained by communicating with other humans.The reason that we identify religious gathering as different than other social gatherings is based on knowledge gained by communicating with other humans.We identify clothing, paintings, buildings, gatherings, song, dance, most every activity based on the knowledge gained by communicating with other humans.None of that is possible yet with other species.We can identify mating behavior, hunting behavior, grooming behavior. Religious behavior though has no characteristics I know of that are not also common to other behaviors, and by definition, are NOT related to natural behavior.How is a priests vestments different than a soccer fans jersey?How is singing praise different than singing for the pleasure of the sounds?

---

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

And yet we have identified animals doing all of those things.
(I would provide links, but google is full of them. Just type "animal dance", "animal buildings", etc.)Why do you think that religious behaviour is uniquely unidentifiable?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I explained, but I will try yet again.

quote:

---

You have said that you think I am wrong, why YOU think I'm wrong, but of course not why I am wrong.

​

I have also explained why I think religious behavior is impossible to determine in critters where we cannot communicate.

​

There is nothing that has been shown that differentiates religious behavior from non religious behavior that was not distinguished through knowledge gained by communicating with other humans.

​

The reason we identify a painting as religious as opposed to just a portrait or landscape is based on our knowledge gained by communicating with other humans.

​

The reason that we identify religious gathering as different than other social gatherings is based on knowledge gained by communicating with other humans.

​

We identify clothing, paintings, buildings, gatherings, song, dance, most every activity based on the knowledge gained by communicating with other humans.

​

None of that is possible yet with other species.

​

We can identify mating behavior, hunting behavior, grooming behavior. Religious behavior though has no characteristics I know of that are not also common to other behaviors, and by definition, are NOT related to natural behavior.

​

How is a priests vestments different than a soccer fans jersey?

​

How is singing praise different than singing for the pleasure of the sounds?

---

How do we discriminate between dance for fun and religious dance, a church from a stadium or theater, hands raised in religious praise from fans doing the wave?

---

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

So: how do we determine religious behaviour (from other behaviour)...?...and we are back to the start. Message 92
Well, that was fun, but I CBA to go 'round again.

As an example of the sort of poor reasoning that I (and some others) have been discussing, here is an excerpt from a book called Circles and Standing Stones by Evan Hadingham:

quote:

---

Circles and Standing Stones (1975, p. 29):

​

The most exciting finds at Star Carr were twenty stag frontlets, the antlers still connected to part of the skull, which was lightened and perforated so that it could be worn on the top of the head. Was this mask adopted as a kind of camouflage, as sympathetic magic to attract the deer, or was it used to re-enact the hunt at some form of ritual afterwards? The antler frontlets are the first evidence of beliefs or superstition of any kind yet found in prehistoric Britain.

---

Of the multiple interpretations possible (several of which were mentioned in the excerpt), what is the logic for drawing the conclusion that is drawnthat the find is evidence of 'beliefs or superstition'? Why are the other possible explanations thrown out in favor of the religious one?What has allowed folk to make the link to 'beliefs or superstition' based on this evidence?
What would allow folk to make the link to 'beliefs or superstition' based on similar evidence in animals?JonEdited by Jon, : inclusive

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Do you consider direct communication to be a key prerequisite of being able to ascertain religious behaviour?Do you consider it impossible to evidentially summise that any beings with which direct communication is impossible have supernatural beliefs?

Too funny.See Message 91 and Message 102 and Message 105 and Message 84. That would depend on the evidence as seen in context.Do you have any such evidence to offer?

---

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