Talk:Animism

Americans?

I found the phrase 'All Native American religions are fundamentally animistic' a little unencyclopedic. This may or may not be true, but such a blunt fact could do with even a little more info. To what extent? Any examples? And how do they differ?

Considering the wide variaty of native american religions and cultures, I find it hard to beleive there are'nt any answers to these questions. I'd also add that in my research I've found evidence of shamanistic and polythesic fundamentals in many Native American religions, which again makes the current statment fustratingly short. If anyone could add anything to this it would be greatly appreciated. Elcaballooscuro (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdated References, POV Problem

This article seems only to convey the colonial perspective of Tylor, Frazer, et al. Today, the religions of indigenous people and forest dwelling peoples are widely acknowledged as such, and their traditions are not considered 'primitive' or lower on a long-rubbished scale of cultural evolution. The article should be made to reflect this point. 217.171.129.79 (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC) R.E.D.

I edited the Africa section because it simply does not reflect the complexity of what is being referred to as "Animism" in African traditional beliefs. I would strongly suggest that those who wish to understand this debate begin with Evans-Pritchard's Nuer Religion and Godfrey Lienhardt's Divinity and Experience, both over 60 years old at this point. No leading scholar of Africanist Anthropology has used the terms "animist" in any significant way since then, and the debate that has followed as to how to best capture the conceptualizations of spirits has been very rich. The science is way too decided here to let this stand as is. I do realize that disciplinary traditions and definitions may be playing a role here, but I really think Anthropology has enough evidence that should alter how scholars of Religion and related fields deal with subject by now. Drewalanwalker (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Animism and the origin of Religion

I changed Karen Armstrong's title from "freelance author Karen Armstrong" to "feminist author Karen Armstrong" - now, that isn't totally accurate, either, but she is NOT a "freelance author," by any means. She calls herself a "freelance monotheist" which is something completely different. Perhaps she should just be listed as "author" and leave off the adjective altogether?

71.110.1.32 (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not explained why she is not a freelance author. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)"

Spiritual not Religious

Some mention of modern American Animism, i.e. unformed belief in spirits outside of any theology, seems called for. Lycurgus 10:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever that beilef should be called, it is not animism. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Might just be me, and constitute Wikipedia:OR; but couldn't this particular form of Animimism be summed up with something like....

Treating "existance"/"reality" as being a system of interacting black boxs, with anima replacing the "behavour" of black boxes

NB I'm English and first learnt of these animistic like topics through studying Mechanical Engineering, rather than religion/spirtuality.(That came later.)

steve10345 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested reading section

I have removed a linkfrom suggested reading section, which is no longer active. Please put it back if you can find it in a new web adress. Thanks..Ciup (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

John Maynard Keynes

what is John Maynard Keynes's animal spirits? Jackzhp (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sentence

I have removed from the Mythology subtopic a sentence which read "For instance, Australian mythology focuses largely on corporeal, non-spiritual beings.^{[citation needed]}" because it is incorrect. The Australian Aborigines have ancestral spirits, human, flora or fauna in form --AlotToLearn (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Neopaganism

re [1], I have actually written much of Wiki page "Asatru"/"Germnic Neopaganism". The article does not present any evidence to support your claim. Of course, all neopagan flavours attempt to revive historical animism, but there is nothing to suggest that Germanic neopaganism does this more than others. Re [2], "Neoshamanism is not a religion": is that so now? In this case, Neopaganism as a whole "is not a religion". This depends entirely of your personal definition of "religion". For narrower definitions, animism and religion are mutually exclusive because religion proper develops out of animism anthropologically.

Now please stop pushing Neopaganism on this page. It may be mentioned, but it isn't the focus of this page. If you have literature discussing Neopaganism in terms of animism, be sure to discuss it at Neopaganism, and after you did that, we can post a brief summary of your findings here. --dab (𒁳) 15:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, "Neopaganism" is not a religion, because it is a term used as an "umbrella-term" for SEVERAL religions. Wicca and Asatru are two separate religions that are both fall under the term "Neopagan". Asatru is, in Europe, a legitimate, State recognized religion (by four European States: Spain, Denmark, Iceland, Norway). Wicca is not. It is by self-definition animistic and therefore as valid as Shinto or Hinduism, which are mentioned in the the preceding paragraphs. Furthermore, Wicca which IS specifically mentioned in the section following "new religious movements", is not animistic, but is by self definition an "immanent religion" and therefore only has very limited similarity with animism. Wicca is lacking in "land-spirit" and "wight" worship, etc. This is why Germanic Neopaganism is separated out of the umbrella-term "Neopagism", due to the fact that it stands apart from all other "Neopagan" traditions in that, without its animistic beliefs "Germanic Neopaganism" is not possible. This can be proven through Icelandic Sagas and laws (see Landnámabók, Heimskringla and Eybyggja Saga in part.) where the settlers of Iceland, were to remove the dragon-prows off their ships when approaching Iceland to prevent the frighting of "land-spirits". When settling their new land they carried fire around the land to mark it and to pacify the land-spirits. Another example of land spirits (in the Heimskrinla, chapt., Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar), is when a wizard goes to Iceland in whale shape to find a way to invade Iceland, but the land-spirits,who are on the side of the Icelanders, fend him off. (the crest on Icelandic money is the four land-spirits of this story.) This by definition, is classic animism. And in daily life the land spirit- and wight-worship is more important, or rather practised with more frequency, than the Blóts to the gods (See "Our Troth" pub. by "the Troth"). There is no other Neopagan tradition that has this in common with Asatru. That is why it has to be mentioned, because animism is not common in all religions that "Neopaganism" encompasses, but it is, and is essential, in all branches of Germanic-Neopaganism.

I also agree with you that there should be a specific section in the "Germanic-Neopaganism" page, that deals with animism. Even though animism is mentioned in the section "Rites and Practices", which clearly states that: "Animism or land veneration is most evident in the rituals dedicated to the elves and wights.". I will gather my findings on the subject and write a section. The fact that the latter page is lacking in an appropriate section, does not mean that this section is not based in fact. Please do not delete.

I hope you understand, am not "pushing" Neopaganism, I am adding Asatru.Odinsjarl (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Odinsjarl

I am not disputing there was animism and magical thinking in Viking Age paganism, just as in every other instance of historical paganism. But you keep conflating Neopaganism with historical Viking Age paganism. Don't do that. Please WP:CITE a reference in support of your claimed "fact" that Asatru "stands apart from all other 'Neopagan' traditions" wrt animism. I am not saying it isn't true, I am saying you need a reference or your assertion is pointless, per WP:TRUTH. I support your introduction of the Germanic_Neopaganism#Animism section as a good idea in principle, but there also you need to cite some appropriate reference. Please save us both some time by accepting right now that without references, you can do nothing on Wikipedia. I will be very pleased to discuss animism within Neopaganism with you, but this will only be possible based on quotable literature. --dab (𒁳) 12:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The language in this section is not in any way neutral to begin with. "Purport to" and "like to describe themselves as"? Come on. Would you use that terminology about a follower of, say, Shinto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.186.77 (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian attitudes towards animism

The article should maybe try to better explain what have been the Christian attitudes towards animism. There have arguably been two different attitudes, one which is to denounce it as pagan or occult, and another which is to try and find relevant similarities between the two religions, such as in John Paul II's interfaith efforts on several continents. ADM (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Christian attitudes were far more complex than that. The missionaries generally denounced and accepted animism at the same time: it's not a dichotomy, those are different dimensions. The attitude of the home church was often different. Almost by definition, the missonaries were people who more interested in, had more sympathy with, and had a wider knowledge of religion. And more interested in, had more sympathy with, and had a deeper knowledge of the people.

The Roman Catholic attitude to both inclusion and denunciation predates John Paul II by millenia. The Roman Catholic church is explicitly traditional, and able to include elements not in conflict with the core faith. That church is also strongly denuncatory: if you are in the business of accepting traditional beliefs, you need to be strong and clear about which traditional beliefs are accepted and rejected. RC missionary practice in South America and in the Orient was both widely inclusive and strongly denunciatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Muism

I haven't read all that much about it (though I am in the process of changing that--I've got some books on hold at the local library), but doesn't the Korean indigenous tradition of Muism/shamanism fall under animism, too? Would any Wikipedians be opposed to my adding appropriate references to it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.238.33 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course the Korean indigenous tradition is animist -- unless, as is becoming increasingly common, you define "animist" to be an outdated theoretical construct which does not actually include any real examples at all. The problem with that approach is that it does not leave us with a generic term (like "monotheist" or "pantheist") to describe, however inadequately, this group of religions, and no modern term has yet emerged to replace it.

The generic term "animist" conceals real differences in belief: it's kind of like calling some one an "American". But if you read much anthropology, you'll see that anthropologists prefer to look at subsets of that group too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tylor Quotation

Although the definition "the theory of the universal animation of nature" has been attributed to Tylor in some sources, that phrase does not seem to actually appear in Primitive Culture. I updated the quotation to his actual words (which are pretty similar in concept) for the sake of accuracy and added a reference. Numenetics (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Rocks and thunder...

So, animism assigns spirits to non-living particles (rocks and such). Is there a name for the idea that spirits exist only in biological beings but not exclusively humans? If so, there should be a Link from this Article to an Article on that idea. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the page should be changed so that it phrases animism as giving souls to nonliving objects, not to nonhuman objects. There is no reason why humans should have souls and all other life should not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.252.231.131 (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

First off, you're right. The words for "life" and "soul" are the same in the original Hebrew, and God breathed life/soul into the brutes and then into humans. It is only by reading the Bible in English (and other modern languages) that people find what seems to say that souls are solely human. However, Jesus only had to save humans because, due to our conscious relationship with God in this life and our guilt from Original Sin, only humans can go to Perdition (as opposed to being absolutely gaurenteed Paradise or at least a positive state of being). In other words, only humans can go to Hell anyway and that's why he only had to save humans. In the interest of WP: Not a Forum, however, I ask that you reply to this on my own Talk Page if you choose to reply. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Why only one definition?

This article used to list at least three different definitions of animism. Now the article gives only one explicit definition: the belief that non-human entities have souls. Now, this is by far the best-known definition of animism, but it isn't the only one. As the article itself notes further down, Tylor defined animism as the belief in souls or spirits in general; clearly, by this definition, a religion could be animistic without involving non-human souls. Moreover, Britannica defines animism as "belief in the existence of spirits separable from bodies".[3] This definition is, of course, completely different from the definition given in this article. Is there a reason why only one definition is given in this article? I'd be happy to edit the article to include other definitions, but I don't want to do so and then come back later to find that the other definitions have mysteriously disappeared again. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)