Herewith my last post on the opening question
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=are+crows+smarter+than+your+seven-year-old

On the other hand, what makes so many of us believe that collective humanity should be able to enjoy the pleasures of free will, but cry out for and expect divine mercy and rescue when our free will ruins our figurative good day — i.e. that we should have our cake and eat it, too? — FrankGSterleJr

The human condition in a square bracket. We have caused most of our own misery - not entirely unknowingly, because there was always at least one 'enemy of the people' who warned us and was overruled for all the wrong reasons.

Those who have almost nothing are usually thankful for the little they have.
Those who have almost everything usually think they deserve better. — unenlightened

The whole point of institutional religion.

We learn by what we see, hear, experience, do, and read, and then our brains, with its hypersocial focus and filters, ascribe mental states to that which is not us – and believe in them. — Questioner

Which is exactly what I've been saying. You can stimulate a fetal brain anywhere you wants, and it still won't know what 'another' is, let alone guess what that other is thinking or imagine a great big Other in the sky.

Ask and it shall be given. Google provides.
Now I'm off to find out how many roles Ron Masak has played in the tv series Murder She Wrote.
Love trivia.

Why to be ever unconditionally kind? — Atrox

Who says it has to be unconditional?

Why to be kind even? — Atrox

The normal thinking is: If you help others when they need it, they'll be motivated to help you when you need it. If it's all business, when your business fails, you're up shit creek, alone.

Also the same with honesty, why is it considered such a strong thing I do not understand. — Atrox

The general understanding is that when you have a reputation for telling the truth, people trust you. In order to get such a reputation, you have to tell the truth most of the time. If you get a reputation for dishonestly, people won't want to do business with you, and if you consider all of life business, you're up shit creek. Alone.

I reject the idea that they can do so without first having encountered other sentient beings, learned something about them, and how to read the outward signs. — Vera Mont
I'm sure that this can be part of the process, but it is not required. — Questioner

What, then, is the requirement?

Every person of faith has formed a theory of mind about what is in the mind of their God. — Questioner

No they have not. No person of faith living today has conceived of a god independently. They've been told by their priest, and read in the book thrust upon them by priests, and they accept that as gospel.... selectively.

I want to know his story. — Amity

Easily done; his life was very public. Lots of acting out before an audience. Here's one source There should be a few quality picture books in the library, as well.

There was a time when the very word 'religion' would have me turn away. My Christian faith had vanished and I despised anything to do with it. I would not have been attracted to Dali's religious paintings. Fortunately, things change. — Amity

Once you put a little distance between your present self and the experience that turned you against a particular religion, you can begin to think about why it was there in the first place, and why so many people still subscribe to it. (No, not because they needed to explain where lightning comes from!) I find Christian literature and art fascinating. Much of it is also beautiful, and I value beauty for its own sake. We look at a cathedral, my SO says, "What a colossal waste of stone and manpower!" Yes, I agree, but admire it anyway.

To deny that humans make conclusions about what is in other minds is blind indeed. — Questioner

I never denied that humans, as well as other species draw conclusions, or at least surmise, what another sentient being is thinking. I reject the idea that they can do so without first having encountered other sentient beings, learned something about them, and how to read the outward signs.

Who said it does not require experience and sensory input? — Questioner

I could have sworn you did.

it's not about reading outward signs — Questioner

Reading inward signs is telepathy. To form a guess, conjecture, theory or belief about what's in another mind, we first need to learn about something about the species and individual with whom who are faced. Infants respond to physical stimuli, but have no notions of the existence of minds or thoughts - and won't until they've interacted with others and learned to recognize patterns in their behaviour, from which they can deduce stimulus and response, cause and effect, similarity to their own feelings, etc. It's a long process of learning and associations before anything like a theory can form.

Right now, I have a theory of what is in your mind. — Questioner

From what? Words I typed are unequivocal outward signs.
Never mind. You have a theory I'm unable to validate.

it is about forming theories about what is in anther mind. — Questioner

On what basis? You're right: I don't understand how telepathy comes out of a theory based on no experience and no sensory input.

The one that gets the closest to the truth? — Questioner

How is that determined? — Patterner

Ask the person whose thought they were guessing. He may tell the truth about what he was thinking at that moment, or he may lie, or he may refuse to answer. Refusal to answer leads you to draw a new inference about his present state of mind, as well as about the thought that was in question. You may even draw inference, from context, about his reasons. If he does answer, you'll have to decide whether to believe him or not. That decision will depend on what you know of his character from previous experience, as well as his demeanour in the moment.
Each of these inferences and decisions, along with some other operations, is part of an overall theory of mind: a general ability to 'read' the body language, expression and tone, in the context of previous knowledge, of another's communication.
Anyhow, theory of mind is rather misleading and vague nomenclature, IMO.

Do you have a few Dalis hanging in your kitchen? — Amity

I have a couple of books, since about 1970. Anecdote; the second year I was working, I saw a pair of minor Dali prints in a Toronto gallery. #175 of the run, they were little things, about 10"x7" and came as a set for $200. That was two thirds of my monthly pay after deductions. I could have swung it, with some economies in my not-so-lavish lifestyle. But I lived in a small rented room with hardly any wall space and zero security. But I loved them! But... Common sense won. The damn things would be worth about $4000 today.

Imagine floating in Dali's dreams... — Amity

Shudder!
By synchronicity! The daily jigsaw puzzle - which is where I wend from here a minute ago - is a Kandinski. He was also one of Dali's influence, along with Miro, both of whose work I like.

Do you have its title and I can search elsewhere? — Amity

All over the place. It's Called Christ of Saint John of the Cross.

He was quite mad, you know. Aside from the boundless imagination, he had a reported IQ if 175. That's enough to drive anyone 'round the twist, even without Catholicism and being named after a dead brother.

They are not the average paintings of Murillo or the ones that hung in the Vatican. — javi2541997

Nothing about Dali was average. He turned things inside-out and merged them with other things.

For example -- the amazing crucifixion that you shared in your post. No blood, no image of Jesus Christ, the floor is mysterious, the cross looks like cement blocks, the crown of thorns is missing, and the famous nails are substituted for perfect cubes. — javi2541997

It's also floating in space. Here's a slightly more traditional one.
Still not Murillo, but a little closer to Vermeer, one of his early influences.

To hell with this story :rage:
And the rotten, worm-infested fruit it still brings forth...
The idea that Woman=Sin. The opposite of 'Good'. The religious importance of birthing a child.
How dare women even think of abortion...they are still seen as being 'owned' by males. — Amity

Oh, yeah. Christian, Jewish or Muslim, that's clearly stated in The Book.

How dare people want to know more? Knowledge is Power. Ignorance is bliss?

Ignorance, coupled with the threat of punishment, is obedience. That was the point. Also, Adam got off lightly, because he said: "The woman tricked me." He rules by Righteousness; she, in league with the Serpent, corrupts him with Guile.
(And you may have given me an essay topic.)

No, no. The Dali's apple is not Biblical, and I think he never painted something religious. The point was to be surrealist or even dreamy. — javi2541997

Those exquisite crucifixions are worth checking out. Also several madonnas, a ghostly last supper and a lot of Christian symbolism. Catholic themes, as far as I recall, not the Old Testament.
There are green apples without butterflies in a couple of the large pictures, though he seems to have preferred pears.
(Dali is my all-time favourite Painter.)
Kush is no slouch, either. Amazing stuff! He likes butterflies and apples. There is one explicitly about the biblical apple.
Thanks, Amity; I'd never heard of him.

This seems to put the OP in a box that isn’t needed though: why start with personal and social goods? Why not start with what it would mean for something to be good in the first place? — Bob Ross

I did.

What is the purpose of defining good? That is, Why do I need to make this distinction? To acknowledge that some things are good and some things are bad is to exercise judgment. Why do you want to exercise judgment? Why do other people? — Vera Mont

Once these questions are answered, you can go on to which kind of good you want explore.
'Start with' was a poor choice of words.

So it is good, then, for me to kill an innocent person to ensure my survival? That would be a “personal good”? — Bob Ross

In some situations, yes, and that's exactly what some people do, and that is where it comes into direct conflict with the social good. Hence the need to distinguish the one from the other.

So it is good, then, for me to avoid my duties to my children because it makes me happier? — Bob Ross

That, too, is the chosen path of many people.

So it is good for society, then, to torture one person in order to ensure its own survival? — Bob Ross

Most societies, at some level, think so - and do.

These definitions don’t accurately reflect what either an individual nor social good would be. — Bob Ross

According to a particular set of values.

Good is always relative to something. — Vera Mont

It has various definitions which are already set by customary usage. — bert1

Good observation!
So, think of a definition that covers all of its uses. Something like: that which most closely approaches a preconceived standard. What is a cake supposed to be? What makes a cake fail in that requirement; what makes it succeed? In what context is the comparison made? When one is parched in a desert, and you're offered an excellent cake, you cannot value it - or evaluate it.
Good is always relative to something.

We do, however, have some and those help avoid some anthropomorphism. — creativesoul

And this is important to you. Why?

They also allow one to recognize some mistakes 'in the wild'. — creativesoul

What does this mean? Malevolution? Man shooting the wrong species?

That [non-discrimination of thoughts by subject matter]'s unacceptable by my standards. — creativesoul

Yes, I can see that. I can also substitute 'prejudices' for 'standards'.

What question should I make? — Matias Isoo

Try: What is the purpose of defining good? That is, Why do I need to make this distinction?
To acknowledge that some things are good and some things are bad is to exercise judgment. Why do you want to exercise judgment? Why do other people?

I would start with: which good - personal or social?
Personal good is whatever contributes the individual's continued survival, welfare and happiness.
Social good is whatever contributes to the well-being of the community.
Very often, these two kinds of good are in conflict, which is why societies establish rules that apply to everyone - whether a religious moral code or a secular code of ethics. Both can be enacted as laws. In a theocracy, the religious one is applied across the board; in a secular state, laws are devised for the benefit of the ruling elite, the polity or the dominant faction.
The confusion begins when religious precepts bleed into the legal code of a nominally secular nation and are imposed on both the religious, who may reject the secular aspects and the non-religious, who resent being constrained by dogma.

With those or similar titles, I'd consider changing from read only to write maybe.
It actually starts sounding like fun.

By what standard/criterion do you judge which sorts of human thinking(rational or otherwise) non humans are capable of? — creativesoul

I don't discriminate between 'sorts' of thinking.
Reason is reason, whether it's applied to practical or fanciful subjects.

We imagine them. — Questioner

That's been known to produce variably reliable results.

That's why. — creativesoul

That's equally true of your theories.

We can make conclusions about emotion and health just by observing outward signs. — Questioner

Of course. How else do we draw conclusions about anything? We don't get inward signs of other individuals.

Not all rational thought is the same — creativesoul

So what? A thought is rational or irrational. And action the result of thought or of emotion.

Some rational thought can only be formed by virtue of naming and descriptive practices. That is one crucial difference between our language and non human animals' languages. It is the difference between being able to think about one's own thought and not. Only humans can do this. — creativesoul

Yes, yes, several people have already established human specialness about two dozen times in this thread alone, and I have not disputed it once. I just don't see how it could invalidate the capability of other species for rational thought.

There's much more nuance within my position than you've recognized. — creativesoul

Oh I appreciate the distinction you keep making. Sounds much like Descartes': They don't speak [in human words] and they don't philosophize. Granted on both counts. I just don't consider it relevant to the topic.

you have invalidated observations made on scientific principles for the choice of words not being objective enough. — Vera Mont
That's not true. — creativesoul

Than what was the purpose of

What seems to be of philosophical importance, from my vantage point anyway, is how the narrators and/or authors report on the minds of the subjects. There is always a notion of "mind" at work. — creativesoul

That's our theory of mind at work. Why is it a problem, if you're not fussy about objectivity.

None of them require a creature capable of metacognition. — creativesoul

Neither does the Ford assembly line. The point is still to find areas of human specialness. You already have that. Why belabour it?

Humans have a lot of beliefs that no other species has, and we wouldn't without language. That seems like a significant difference to me. — Patterner

This is the direction this discussion needs to take. — creativesoul

This is the direction this discussion needs to take. — creativesoul

It's been taken in that direction ten times over. By all means, pursue it again.

The origins of both theory of mind and empathy go back about 5-6 million years ago. — Questioner

Theory of mind originated with gorillas? Without language? OK - I did not know that 'theory' could be applied to an inarticulate process like watching and interpreting the physical actions of another sentient being. Though I do suspect emotional empathy is older and less dependent on the socialization of young.

Interacting is not the same as interpreting mental states. — Questioner

I don't see how two individuals - other than predator and prey - can interact without interpreting states of mind - or at least states of emotion and health.

And yet, you have not elaborated the scientific method whereby it can be objectively measured and verified. — Vera Mont

Nor have I claimed that. — creativesoul

But you have invalidated observations made on scientific principles for the choice of words not being objective enough.

I have elaborated on the philosophical enquiry/method I've used to discriminate between language less thought and thoughts that are existentially dependent on language and/or each other - as many of our own thoughts are. — creativesoul

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of how much reliable factual information philosophy has contributed to human knowledge over the last two millennia.
The distinction of human language-using vs human language-less is entirely anthropocentric. I do understand why that distinction may seem vital to establishing human superiority, but I don't see why it matters to the question of whether a thought is rational.

Our differences seem to be about which sorts of thoughts other species are capable of and which ones they are not. Although, there is some agreement there as well. — creativesoul

How did sorts of thought become the central issue? A logical solution to even one single problem, such as getting a grub out of a hollow tree or escaping from a fenced yard demonstrates rational thought. Adding layers of complexity, all the way up to wondering why the universe exists, doesn't change the fundamental nature of reason itself; it merely obfuscates the issue by shifting focus from the process to the subject matter.
A very small minority of humans set themselves the task of mulling over questions with no available answers (just how many angels can dance on a pin); a large minority grapple with the invention and application of technology or administrative affairs; the vast majority think about getting food, securing their physical well being, having sex, raising their young, pursuing pleasure when they get the chance - much like all the other animals. They go about these activities through both rational and irrational decisions - much like all the other animals.

That's not true. — creativesoul

And yet, you have not elaborated the scientific method whereby it can be objectively measured and verified.

It's not that the word troubles me. It's that the report of the language less creatures' thought(s) is based largely - if not exclusively - on the reporter's notion of mind. — creativesoul

Whose narrative isn't based on their own notion of mind?

There is no other method to discriminate between what language less creatures are capable of thinking and what we are. — creativesoul

There is no method to discriminate between what human language less creatures are capable of thinking and what we are. Quite apart from the fact that one species - undisputedly - having more fanciful and abstruse thoughts than others doesn't negate rationality in others. And the secondary fact that the majority of humans also don't give very much of their day to contemplating metaphisics, the nature of thought about thinking, or 'the hard question of consciousness'.

There is always a notion of "mind" at work. — creativesoul

No kidding! What's the point of a brain, if it's not to generate a mind? But if the word troubles you, turn off the sound and watch the action.

The difficulty is in discriminating between which sorts of thoughts are existentially dependent upon language use and which ones are not. — creativesoul

Why is that so important to you, and by what method - other than philosophizing - do you propose to discriminate? Aside from the fact that you arbitrarily consign all communication, among any species, that doesn't have human grammar and vocabulary as language-less. Makes pre-verbal babies sound mindless, and completely dismisses the human vocabulary a great many human-associated animals are capable of learning. (Some humans are also capable of learning some non-human vocabulary.)

What language less creatures are capable of believing and thinking is precisely what's in question here. — creativesoul

I thought the question was whether other species are capable of rational thought. The language boondoggle was introduced later.

I said empathy is one trait that depends on theory of mind. — Questioner

And I say it doesn't. I say empathy predates theory of mind by many millennia.

"Homo sapiens" translates to "wise man"

We're also very big on wishful thinking.

You use your theory of mind every time you make an inference about the mental state of another – like reading a mind. Sometimes, these inferences are correct, and sometimes they are not. — Questioner

Yes. But how is that empathy?

It doesn’t have to be that dramatic. Smiles are contagious. — Questioner

It doesn't have to be dramatic; people also yawn when they see others doing it; a giggle fit can engulf the entire table. Mirror neurons firing at random. Still not empathy.

Why humans exist? Or the entire universe? — Questioner

Whatever. Gods have been used as stop-gap explanations for lots of things we didn't know, and are still used as a explanation for misfortune, the weather, altruism and the supremacy of man over all of creation. But their main function is to replace the all-powerful father figure from childhood.

And when we make up an explanation for existence that involves a supernatural being with specific characteristics – whether we imagine he is a loving god, or a vengeful god, or whatever – we are using our theory of mind to infer what is in the mind of that god. — Questioner

By projecting there whatever is in the mind of whichever kind of man invented that god.

Yes, if the signals sent are false, then your inference about what is in the mind of another will most likely also be false. — Questioner

And that is why humans can lie so much more elaborately and sustainably (sometimes an entire lifetime, sometimes even to themselves) than any other species, and more convincingly to one another than to any other species.
But false signals, feigning and misdirection are not exclusively human; we inherited the instinct and motivations for preverication from a long line of ancestors.

But the “theory of mind” (and the empathy related to it) I described allows a human to understand what another is thinking and feeling — Questioner

Being able to read thoughts and feelings are very different attributes. Humans discern the thoughts of other humans through choice of words, tone of voice, body language, facial expression and the little 'tells' when we're bluffing or lying. This is relatively easy to do between persons from the same culture and social background, much more difficult between people of different ethnicity or nationality or class or even sex in most cases. We can read the thoughts and feelings of a fictional character from the speech and manner of an actor, while the actor himself thinks and feels quite differently.

What people are feeling, otoh, is more nearly universal; much less affected by cultural mannerisms. It's more remarkable that other species can read our emotions more readily than we can read theirs, almost certainly because their noses are more sensitive and we sweat hormones. It has nothing to do with theory; it's about experience and the recognition of our same emotions in another.

Rather than empathy, what a dog is experiencing when he responds to your grief is emotional contagion, which is a response to emotions without fully understanding what the other individual is feeling. — Questioner

Sneaking in the requirement to "fully understand" makes it exclusively human.... As if humans all fully understood their own emotions, let alone one another's.

Emotional contagion — Questioner

Like human mobs at a lynching or cattle in a stampede? No, that's not very much like empathy.
How does a dog react when her human behaves in an uncharacteristic way? Try lying very still on the floor. Does your dog get contaminated and play dead? No, he paws and nuzzles at you, puffing little breaths through his nose, maybe whimpering or uttering short sharp yips, concerned for your welfare. (Which is why they train service dogs.)

Theory of Mind is not a set of proposals to explain the characteristics specific to any one religion, but rather an explanation for why religion exists at all. — Questioner

It's one explanation. And gods are one explanation for why humans exist. We're good at making up explanations, either from fact or fantasy; other animals are not. That's another distinction to add to the list.

For example, empathy could not exist without a theory of mind. — Questioner

Clearly, you have never had a dog console you in grief or ask you anxiously why you are on the ground with your head in the kitchen cabinet.

It has been proposed that religion is a by-product of this mental capacity we call theory of mind, as we evolved to make inferences about what is in the mind of God. — Questioner

Much has been proposed about "God", usually without reference to all the various conceptions of deity in all the various cultures that invariably project some aspect of their own version of human onto their gods.

It is the kinds or complexity of language less thought that needs attention. — creativesoul

It's getting plenty of attention from animal behaviorists. We're getting more and more studies of problem solving in both nature and laboratory conditions.

Many rational thoughts we have are incapable of being formed, had, and/or held by language less creatures. — creativesoul

And a great many irrational ones, as well.The human mind has a great breadth and variety of function and malfunction.

Isn't that exactly what is about to happen to humanity? — Ludwig V

Yes, but we've already wrecked most of the infrastructure that would reset the balance. When the rabbits die off, the grass grows back and little tree seedlings; the birds and squirrels move into that habitat. When a wolf-pack overhunts its territory, some die of malnutrition, but the survivors move on, leaving space for their prey to re-establish a healthy population. What we do is demolish entire ecosystems and poison the water and soil so that it cannot be revived.

Perhaps it would be best to scrap the present system and start again. — Ludwig V

We should have done that 2000 years ago. Even now, it might not be too late, if there fewer of us and we had the collective will to make a fundamental change. As things stand, this freight train has no brakes.

I'm not sure about the Big Brain, — Ludwig V

I'm just saying we take every kind of thinking to a new, unequaled level, including the ability to prevericate in more elaborate and creative ways.

So even our awesome power to wreck the entire planet has forerunners. — Ludwig V

In a way. A number of species are capable of overpopulating, overgrazing or overhunting their territory, given the right conditions. However, when that happens, nature quickly resets the balance by killing off the excess, though famine, disease or both. This was also true of pre-technological man.
It's only since humans declared war on nature and started winning that the the TEE (total extinction event) became all but inevitable, because man never reverses a bad decision; he generally exacerbates it with an even more technological 'solution'.

I didn't mean to suggest that the cat was to be blamed in any way. No more than the foxes are. — Ludwig V

Yet many, if not most, humans do blame animals for being animals; do judge other species, as well as other humans by human standards - but themselves. Little brains are quite capable of dishonesty, but only the Big Brain is capable of unlimited hypocrisy.

We need a concept of a pan-species morality. — Ludwig V

What would that accomplish? It could not be arrived-at through discussion and consensus; it could only be imposed by humans. Which is already the case in our folklore. Nor, even if we could make him understand the reason, could the lion lie down with the lamb unless we offered him satisfying veggie-burgers instead. And it would not be convincing, even so, unless all the humans - who do have dietary alternatives - all refrained from eating, torturing, trapping and hunting other species. Or even their own... Condemning a cat for playing with something that moves, something she does not recognize as being like herself, is just as human and irrational as applauding a human when, after some fancy play, he kills a terrified captive bull.
If we were able to agree among our species on a coherent moral system applied to our own species, we would achieve an immensely remarkable feat. Meanwhile: Try not to do to anyone or anything else what you would not like done to yourself.

Why don't we hold them accountable for there pain and death they cause each other? — Patterner

In what circumstances, according to what law, by what standards? The pain and death other animals cause one another are generally inflicted in the course of feeding to survive - the means and method of which they have much less control than we do, and we don't outlaw human mean and methods of obtaining food, regardless of the pain the captivity and death of that food entail.

Why do we often kill dogs that break their chain and attack people? — Patterner

Because in a human-controlled world, people are sacred - unless they've been convicted of a capital crime or inducted into an army - and dogs are not.

To deny that humans are leaps and bounds above any other species in significant ways is willful ignorance. — Patterner

Who's denying it? I'm well aware of all the things humans have accomplished and are capable of that no other species - indeed, not all the other species put together - could have done or can do.
Surely, having all those superior attainments, possessions and complexity of intellect are distinction enough. Our power to destroy them all should be power enough. I don't see a reason to deny them basic attributes like affection, communication and rational thought.

Can I take that as suggesting that the things that make humans so special are not necessarily important to other creatures or, necessarily, to the planet? — Ludwig V

Of course not. Why should they be? Every individual member of every species is primarily concerned with its own survival, secondly with the survival of its family, flock or colony, thirdly with making their life less difficult. Only those with an unusual amount of physical security and leisure time have the luxury of reflection, self-assessment and thinking about how to think about their own thinking. Only a diminishing minority of humans are lucky enough to have that. Some felines and canines under human protection have the leisure, but they use it differently.

The planet, at least, seems poised to wreck our civilizations and we seem incapable of doing anything much about it. — Ludwig V

That's only because our civilizations wrecked the planet, and when we became aware of this fact, refused to do anything about it.

The thing is, it seems to me that since, for better or worse, we are animals in so many ways, it doesn't really make sense to say that we are "utterly" different from other species. — Ludwig V

I've never thought so. Even rabbits are capable of destroying their habitat.

Most mammals don't fly but bats do fly. — Athena

And bats cannot communicate with iguanas and condors have little in common with zebras. Species within the same family are more like one another than they are like members of another family; human are more different from chipmunks than they are from gorillas. Gorillas are also very different from octopi, even though both are capable of rational problem-solving, neither can do algebra, but I expect both can be taught to play the piano. There are similarities and differences between species throughout the animal kingdom and its evolution.
But humans are super-duper-special; utterly different from other species in so many ways that are hugely important to humans.

How about love. What is it? What does it consist of? Will the lion ever learn to "love" its neighbor? — Athena

Love is older and more deeply rooted in sentient beings than rational thought. Love is a complex of emotions that connect one individual to another. In its most primitive form, the mother's tender concern for her young, closely followed by the bond between mated pairs. In the more evolved species, close friendship are formed between individuals - and not only of their own species. Many lions love their tiger, canine or human friends. Most humans are also picky about whom they love, and it's rarely their neighbour.

How does a god exist? — Athena

By inhabiting the human - exclusively human - imagination. Gods come into being through human projection and/or wishful thinking and are then sustained by application of rational narrative and social infrastructure to an irrational central idea.
Animals don't do that. If they're in awe of something, it's because that thing has got real power, not because they've they've conjured it up from their own murky subconscious.