Of course, yes! Until the time of Enlightenment the Christian World was teeming with evil spirits, one only knew that they were demons, whether they came from nature or from "hell", was not quite clear. Exorcism also reminds us of this. Even if strictly speaking animism refers to nature devils (spirits) and evil in monotheism is not necessarily the forces of nature (they can also come from God), there was no strict separation, at least the evil spirits had to be tempered mildly. The monotheistic religions have in common that aggression and violence (against enemies of God) is a trademark, but the world of spirits is only partially touched by it. According to biblical accounts, It is said in the Bible the Jew Jesus of Nazaret healed people from spirits; heaven and hell, which were formed under Greek influence, did not originally exist in the Jewish religion. When Adam, who died at the age of 930, had no heaven or hell, faith invented them later. But there have always been spirits, because anything that seemed threatening can be a spirit. In some religions, such as Shintoism, they still exist today.

...even with atheism - it all depends on how someone believes, what God changes in your life. How does belief change behavior, social behavior.

As a believer, do you become a better person, that's the question. (Compatibleness is broadness of mind)

I believe that in rural areas in Southeast Europe, there are still many animistic beliefs that are tolerated at the edge of Christianity. For example, in Maramureş, in northern Romania, the mandragora, which is used in charms of love, is reconciled with disenchantments and food offerings placed in the hole from which her root was unearthed.

Daniela Sorea

I find this communication very interesting and suspect that local cults, which have always existed in a religiously deeply rooted population, have a strong influence by animism. I am not an expert in that field. One who could say more about this, but who has unfortunately already died, would be Mircea Eliade, who is well known from the relevant specialist literature. But at RG there are perhaps (a) connoisseurs who can say more about regional or local cults, (b) reports of local animistic convictions.

Hein Retter

Thank you all for your answers! I highly recommend A. E. Jensen's book: Myth and Cult within Primitive People (Mythos und Kult bei Naturvölkern). The autor discusses the concept of animism using direct ethnologies that are very interesting. His methological perspective is impecable!

Julio Amador The above mentioned book by Adolf Jensen on myth and cult among primitive peoples was a standard work when it appeared. It is a valuable work, but it is already part of the history of ethnology. It was published in 1951 and is based on the research of the first half of the 20th century. Secondly, the book belongs entirely to a certain academic direction. Jensen - who died in 1965 - was a representative of the so-called cultural morphology, which was very strongly oriented towards the humanities. American social anthropology set different standards in the same period. Jensen wanted to hold up a mirror to modern man: he thought that true humanity lay in the beginnings of mankind, in which religious sources, mixed with myth and cult, were abundantly present, while the further development of mankind represents a process of flattening out. But, as I said, this cultural criticism must be viewed historically. There are a number of objections to the theory of animism and Jensen is one of the critics.

Hein Retter

Hein: you're right. Nevertheless, I think Jensen's critique of evolutionism, positivism and ethnocentrism is still valuable.

Best regards,

Julio

Adolf Ellegard Jensen le respondería así:

Cada vez que en la literatura moderna se trata de obtener una comprensión adecuada de las manifestaciones de vida prehistóricas o primitivas, hacen su aparición las afirmaciones más extrañas, cuyo absurdo debería saltar inmediatamente a la vista a cualquiera y que, sin embargo, son aceptadas y vuelven siempre a sostenerse porque, por lo visto, aun las insensateces más grandes, en relación con las culturas no occidentales, se consideran como posibles y reales […] La más afectada por esta desfiguración de la naturaleza del hombre primitivo ha sido la literatura científica sobre las religiones (1966: 9-10).

Jensen, fue uno de los primeros antropólogos en señalar, con gran perspicacia, que: “Apenas existe otro terreno en el que la etnología pueda hacer sentir su voz de modo tan decisivo como en la ciencia de la religión” (1966: 11). Destaca, además, que las primeras formas religiosas, algunas de las cuales los pueblos tradicionales siguen conservando, constituyeron grandes logros espirituales, fueron formas de expresión religiosa “cuyo origen creador se sitúa en tiempos muy anteriores a los de las altas culturas” y que “fueron, con todo, en la época de su advenimiento, formidables creaciones espirituales de la humanidad” (1966: 11). Rompe, así, con el evolucionismo positivista.

Sobre las posibilidades que tenemos el día de hoy de reconstruir las religiones del pasado subraya que “la mayoría de las manifestaciones culturales se nos presentan hoy en un estado que no es originario” por lo cual sólo podemos elaborar hipótesis que no pueden ser concluyentes (1966: 12). Así, “en el terreno de los pueblos primitivos, las diversas manifestaciones culturales casi nunca se nos presentan en sus fases de expresión […] Son extremadamente raros los casos en los que podemos establecer una relación con el sentido originario de tales costumbres” (1966: 14).

I do not know about animism but to be convinced that no form of monotheism is compatible with it reveals that either you do not believe in God or that you have put Him in a box. As mankind we are limited, finite in knowledge, however, the Creator, the One who spoke things into existence and who holds all things together in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible (spirits), whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him by Him and for Him. He is not only able to cause the sun to rise and fall daily, but He is in ALL things and ALL things are held together by Him (Collosians 1:16-17). It is also noted that by using the words Paleolithic and Neolithic you most likely believe in evolution. Those words referring to millions of years ago are based on assumptions. Carbon dating is not accurate and has been proven not to be accurate because there is a variable in the equation. Therefore, those words are based on assumptions. One definition of religion is defined as "a comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted” (Stackhouse)(emphasis mine). Evolution which is taught in schools and many believe in had never had one aspect of it proven true. Therefore, it is a religion and shouldn't be taught in schools since other religions are banned from schools.

Ms. Retter, heaven and hell is in the Torah or Old Testament. The first sentence talks of heaven (Genesis 1:1) and Sheol (Hell in Hebrew) is first mentioned in Genesis 37:35. Additionally, the book of Enoch, which was considered Scripture until 364 A.D. where it was rejected by the council of Laodicea even though Jude the half brother of Jesus quotes out of it (Jude 14-15, Enoch 1:9) explains the evil spirits. In the Torah or Genesis 6 the sons of God saw the daughters of men found them beautiful and mated with them and their offspring were the Nephilim or in Hebrew fallen ones. They were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Most likely where Greek gods came from. In the book of Enoch it goes further in the explanation after the sons of God (watchers of heaven in book of Enoch) sin by going after strange flesh (Jude 6-7 describes this) and mating with the daughters of men they realize their sin and ask Enoch to intercede for them and ask the King of the ages the Lord of Majesty for forgiveness. Then this is what He said, “1 And He answered me, and said to me with His voice: “Hear! Do not be afraid, Enoch, you righteous man, and scribe of righteousness. Come here and hear my voice. 2 And go say to the Watchers of Heaven, who sent you to petition on their behalf: You ought to petition on behalf of men, not men on behalf of you. 3 Why have you left the High, Holy and Eternal Heaven, and lain with women, and become unclean with the daughters of men, and taken wives for yourselves, and done as the sons of the earth, and begotten giant sons? 4. And you were spiritual, Holy, living an eternal life, but you became unclean upon the women, and begot children through the blood of flesh, and lusted after the blood of men, and produced flesh and blood, as they do, who die and are destroyed.5 And for this reason I give men wives; so that they might sow seed in them, and so that children might be born by them, so that deeds might be done on the Earth. 6 But you, formerly, were spiritual, living an eternal, immortal life, for all the generations of the world. 7 For this reason I did not arrange wives for you; because the dwelling of the spiritual ones is in Heaven. 8 And now, the giants who were born from body and flesh will be called Evil Spirits on the Earth, and on the Earth will be their dwelling. 9 And evil spirits came out from their flesh, because from above they were created, from the Holy Watchers was their origin and first foundation. Evil spirits they will be on Earth and ‘Spirits of the Evil Ones’ they will be called.

(Baruch 3:24-28)

(Matthew 8:28-32), (Matthew 10:1), (Mark 1:23-27), (Mark 3:11), (Mark 5:2-13), (Mark 9:25), (Luke 4:33-36), (Luke 6:18), (Luke 7:21), (Luke 8:2), (Luke 8:28-31), (Luke 9:42), (Acts 5:16), (Acts 8:7), (Acts 19:12-16)

Rob Coyle Julio Amador

As contemporary scientists, we have to consider the difference between scientific research and the knowledge gained from it on the one hand, and religious conviction on the other, even if religion is regarded as a cultural phenomenon, religious needs as a psychological condition (though not for all people and groups), or religious works of art. While in the Middle Ages religion and science represented a single factual connection of the "reason" given by God and science was in the service of religion, this relationship has fundamentally changed since the time of the Enlightenment: Science provides theories of the "explanation" of the fact of religion as well as of the diversity of religions, without having to change the subjective belief in every case. In contrast to the monotheistic religions, which represent an absolute claim to truth, the existing hypotheses of science can always be replaced by better, more thorough hypotheses. Scientists who are themselves very religious will today have to separate the different claims of religion and science. Religion does not have to prescribe science (as it did in the past), science does not attack subjective beliefs. It can, however, make statements of faith that focus on the reality of the past, present and future, or that these alleged truths were false, be it predictions of the end of the world, the imminent return of the Redeemer, etc.

Hein Retter

Ms. Retter,

I agree with your statement but how then is it okay for schools to teach evolution when it has not been validated with empirical science? Depending on the school and the location the teachings of evolution differ. Some schools are teaching the Gill slit theory which has been proven wrong. There are so many variables, for one thing people assume the speed of light is constant but how could somebody measure it 5000 years ago. Facts should be based on facts. I will tell you a fact nothing in the Bible has been disproven. In fact, we know for sure that the Old Testament was on the earth before Jesus. In it the book of Daniel it states that "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.

26“Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing" (9:25-26). Sir Robert Anderson in his book "The Coming Prince" reveals marvelous truths about this prophecy. Daniel and the book of Revelation definitely indicate that the prophetic year is one of 360 days. Such moreover was the sacred year of the Jewish calendar; and, as is well known, such was the ancient year of Eastern nations. Now seventy years of 360 days contains exactly 25, 200 days; and as the Jewish New Year's day depended on the equinoctial moon, we can assign the 13th December as "the Julian date" of tenth Tebeth 589. And 25, 200 days measured from that date ended on the 17th December 520, which was the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month in the second year of Darius of Persia – -the very day on which the foundation of the second Temple was laid. (Haggai 2:18, 19.)

Here is something to set both critics and Christians thinking. A decree of a Persian king was deemed to be divine, and any attempt to thwart it was usually met by prompt and drastic punishment; and yet the decree directing the rebuilding of the Temple, issued by King Cyrus in the zenith of his power, was thwarted for seventeen years by petty local governors. How was this? The explanation is that until the very last day of the seventy years of "the Desolations" had expired, God would not permit one stone to be laid upon another on Mount Moriah.

Dismissing from our minds, therefore, all mere theories on this subject, we arrive at the following definitely ascertained facts:

1. The epoch of the Seventy Weeks was the issuing of a decree to restore and build Jerusalem. (Daniel 9:25.)

2. There never was but one decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

3. That decree was issued by Artaxerxes, King of Persia, in the month Nisan in the 20th year of his reign, i.e. B.C. 445.

4. The city was actually built in pursuance of that decree.

5. The Julian date of 1st Nisan 445 was the 14th March.

6. Sixty-nine weeks of years – i.e. 173, 880 days – reckoned from the 14th March B.C. 445, ended on the 6th April A.D. 32.

7. That day, on which the sixty-nine weeks ended, was the fateful day on which the Lord Jesus rode into Jerusalem in fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9; when, for the first and only occasion in all His earthly sojourn, He was acclaimed as "Messiah the Prince the King, the Son of David."

And here again we must keep to Scripture. Though God has nowhere recorded the Bethlehem birth-date of Christ, no date in history, sacred or profane, is fixed with greater definiteness than that of the year in which the Lord began His public ministry. I refer of course to Luke 3:1, 2. I say this emphatically, because Christian expositors have persistently sought to set up a fictitious date for the reign of Tiberias. The first Passover of the Lord's ministry, therefore, was in Nisan A.D. 29; and we can fix the date of the Passion with absolute certainty as Nisan A.D. 32. If Jewish or infidel writers set themselves to confuse and corrupt the chronology of these periods, we would not be surprised. But it is to Christian expositors that we owe this evil work. Happily, however, we can appeal to the labors of secular historians and chronologists for proofs of the divine accuracy of Holy Scripture. There is prophecy that has been proven true why don't scientists research that?

As one of the crucial strands constituting the complex systems of existence, human beings are very closely related to the physical world . To ease out some of the tensions resulting from experiencing the world, man has sought to find some kind of solace by establishing rapport and communicating with the animals, plants, ancestors and earth spirits. As such, the animist worldview has been with the human communities from time immemorial to the present. This spiritual communication with various natural forces seems to be opposed to the principles of monotheism. However, this is not totally true because even the monotheists worshiping one God may choose to communicate with other natural forces . As an illustration, the water from ZamZam well in Mecca is sacred to the Muslims because of its healing effect . It is generally admitted , at least by morality philosophers , that humans have a natural tendency to trust in their supernatural Creator(s) who watch over them and make their lives better. Therefore, both monotheism and animism are different ways of looking for protection from the elements threatening our peace of mind. On this basis, human beings should be free from any coercion in choosing their own ways of handling spiritual and ecological crises and the recovery from all those factors which make the life absurd and meaningless.

Definitely without a doubt the faith in God is fully connected, as a Muslim all religious teachings connect me to God directly as well as increase my spirituality

regards

Very deep and interesting discussions here, I am fascinated. However, my position is that monotheism is incompatible with animism. However, in practice and away from the origins of a faith, many things and dilutions happen to make the faith appear eclectic. Julio and Reitter, thanks for the illuminating exchanges.

Adewale Ajayi

Dear Adewale, there is a difference between the claim of a (monotheistic) religion and the real relations in every day manners and customs. There so many local beliefs which are in connection with the practiced faith, that the orthodox or "pure" belief doesn't agree with this.

Kind regards, Hein

Rob Coyle

I think, there is it difficult to discuss except with like-minded people within the religious sphere. It is logically not possible, when discussing a subject area (say: any narration from the Bible), to present evidence for anything that is already presumed to be given as a condition - without questioning it. Regarding the Bible I found the book of the archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, revealing: "The Forgotten Kingdom", 2013.

The science of ageing and archaeology works empirically today. Also palaeontology. The theory of evolution has gone through different stages since Darwin, it is composed of several different components, and even Darwin was so influenced by Lamarckism that he was able to formulate his Pangenesis theory, which is historical today. If today the evolution theory is discussed on the level of genetics. If there are different focal points in evolutionary research, which also includes the origin of the cosmos, then the differences of the views are much smaller than the history of the views on the origin of human life, with its religious mistakes. As a researcher one will no longer set 7 days in which the earth originated, one will also not assume 5-6 thousend years like Darwin at the beginning of his journey with the "Beagle" - we assume some billion years. Such assumptions are working hypotheses that are valid as long as they prove to be correct in the web of further progress. Whoever thinks the literal truth of the Bible and 7 days of creation is the alone applied truth can do this, privately. But to talk about this is better for believing Buddhists to deal with the Jehovah's Wittesses than that scientists discuss this as scientist problem.

Science thrives on contradiction and the attempt to falsify hypotheses. Faith thrives on confirmation by fellow believers and its religious dimension essentially in a field outside science, the assumption of man's continued existence after his death. One can speculate about this or do metaphysics, but empirically nothing can be said about it. Personally I don't think that there is some more than my death - but every human being is free what he or she believes. The same goes for eternal life, doomsday, hell, heaven, incarnation, etc. This is a matter of religious faith, and the religions do not agree on it either, which does not bother the individual believer in "his" belief.

Hein Retter

Thank you all for your answers. I want to make clear that I'm talking about the religious beliefs of hunter-gatherer groups of the past and present. I am not referring to my personal beliefs. As Hein puts it, it is clearly a problem of anthropological knowledge. I respect all religious creeds. I am not attacking any religion, but asking a question about certain kinds of religions.

Best regards,

Julio

Is God a spiritual being? I would say, it is compatible due to , yes, God is a spiritual being and is about creation for our natural surroundings-we are created in his image and are we not spiritual beings before and after life?

Dear Julio,

I am convinced to-the-opposite viewpoint as yours; I believe that the answer is "yes" that belief in "one god" is compatible with animism.

Firstly, we have a very poor understanding of what so-called (primitive) 'animists' really believed, especially we lack insight into their definition of 'soul.' I think that in the worldview of most animists (in-so-far-as-is-known), even though they may have expressed a belief that every 'thing' (even natural phenomena) possessed (an individual) soul or spirit, they still had an overriding belief that these individual 'souls' were (distributed) parts of a unity (equivalent to the Judaeo-Christian concept of Creator). Animists were essentially saying "everything is a part of Nature [= God = Creation]" and, thus, "is embued with a part of Nature's [God's] spirit."

Animists tend to think in terms of a unitary soul [being a part of the one-soul-of-all-creation or Nature's spirit] ... whereas Christian-fundamentalists insist that each soul is /unique /separate /individual. But, if pressed, even most fundamentalist Christians will acknowledge that every soul ultimately emanated from [was loaned ? temporarily ? by God] a unity [that concept is no different, really, from the animists' view that 'soul' as a 'distributed' part of all-Nature].

The 'incompatibility' you reference arises from the Christian insistence that ONLY humans can possess souls (and the argument for this being the earlier claim that humans were created 'in the image of God," whereas animists say "no! a part of the Creator embues not only humans, not only every living thing, but ALL things!" This fundamentalist [peculiarly Christian] argument, however, tends to the conclusion that we [humans alone] have souls that were somehow individually 'created' just for us, and are SEPARATE from God [and also, the corollary argument, then, that God must have no 'soul' ... but 'soul' is something 'He" creates for each individual ... rather than being, (as I seem to remember from a very poignant metaphor in the Bible wherein God is said to have "breathed life into Adam" ... that is, inferring, that God 'distributed' part of his own self ... distributed [loaned ?] a part of HIS own soul [life] to Adam ... passing to him from God's [metaphorical] lungs to Adam's] as a metaphorical "breath of Life" ... what more poignant way could be imagined to say that when a human 'gets' a soul it is when God simply distributes/loans/embues a part of his own soul to the individual ???]

IMO, only in theologists (and not all of them) is there perceived any real incompatibility of the beliefs of animists and theists. Many theists (and even more scientists everyday), nowadays, believe more in the animists' viewpoint than that of fundamentalist Christians who believe in the literal truth of the creation myth as portrayed in Genesis.

I just saw expressed on another thread this very morning (an argument made by a respected scientist) the idea that the Universe = Creator [God], the universe did not have a 'beginning' [as portrayed in the myths of the Big Bang, AND in Genesis], it [= the Creator] has ALWAYS existed, has constantly been evolving [creating] ... and on another thread [where the question was asked "Is our Universe conscious?"] I see the ideas run-in-favor of the answer being "yes" and that we [humans' consciousness] are [distributed] parts of the universe's [also read "God's"] consciousness.

So, I tend to believe the animists might likely have had a 'truer' idea of what 'soul' was (and where it resided), certainly a better idea than that held by fundamentalist Christians (and fundamentalists in other religions) ... and also a better idea than the one in which orthodox scientists believe [or dis-believe ?].

Best regards,

Bob Skiles

Dear Bob: thank you so much for your excellent answer. In fact we can only try to understand the religions of hunter-gatherers and small scale societies of mixed economies that have been documented ethnographically. About the religions of the past that have left no oral tradition, that has survived, we can only formulate very cautious hypothesis. Detailed speculations about the past, as we can find in the work of the authors I refer: Marija Gimbutas, Erich Neumann and Andrés Ortiz-Osés are quite wrong. We cannot know the contents and meaning of the Paleolithic or Neolithic religions they pretend to describe thoroughly, proposing the idea of a monotheist creed of a Great Mother, with a duration of 35,000 years. It is quite wrong to do so.

Another question about the Creator god in animist religions is that in many cases of Africa, Australia and America (north and south) we find what Eliade has defined as deus otiosus. Creator gods that disappear after they created the world to an inaccessible place in the sky and leave the responsibilities of creation to minor gods. That is why I think that polytheism is a more adequate belief in animist religions.

Best regards,

Julio

Many thanks for the last contributions, which argue very differentiated and knowledgeable. This discussion is conducted entirely at the level of religious studies research. From time to time, however, we also have to deal with contributions whose authors acknowledge certain assumptions or findings on faith grounds, mostly in a critical view. To explore this limit - to discuss where it lies and how to deal with it - would be an interesting learning experience for me.

I think we need to tread softly in some areas. The idea has run forever that there is a Supreme Being and lesser gods and they are so worshipped in religions in Africa. The availability of ritual in some sense has also been used to confer undeserved privilege and status on some deities. I have however come to the realisation that some of the beings we call gods are not gods and are not so worshipped. While polytheism exists, the hierarchy of spiritual beings and the belief systems I think have been largely misunderstood. Where we have prophets, angels (with hierarchy) in some religions; the same painstaking delienation has not been applied where it concerns others and we are quick to recognise 'gods' where they may not in fact exist.

Thank you Adewale, very much. Your direct knowledge of African religions is very important to me. I would ask you if you could please extend your answer and be more explicit about the distinctions between spiritual beings and deities. Especially in what it concerns to animism in Africa.

Best regards,

Julio

I would like to share a very interesting article by Hervey C. Peoples, Pavel Duda and Frank W. Marlowe about hunter-gatherers and religión.

Even if one assumes that animism is a general initial stage of religious ideas, which is said to have been shown already several ten thousand years ago, I find it interesting that the origins of Judaism, in the 2nd millennium B.C., were a flawless monotheism (whether Ikhnaton's Aton cult had an influence in Egypt is controversial), and of course it was always in conflict with the deities of the neighboring peoples. A life after death played at least in the early Northern Empire, as far as I know, no special role, also if the Gehenna is represented as an unpleasant place. Primarily the Greek influence with growing significance of apocalyptic ideas paints the fate after death in detail.

Let people pursue their happiness by choosing whatever religion they want to follow. The most important thing is that we should respect the believers of all faiths and strive for the spread of love and unity among different religions, because as Bertrand Russel states, love and not hatred is a sure way of helping the continuation of life on our planet.

I wonder whether anybody can answer this question: was Christianity at least in part animistic until the 17th century? What about the role of saints in the Catholic Church, and the role of various "virgins Mary" in Catholic countries?

Thank you Luis Eduardo for your answer. Religions are too complex, so there's not a straight answer to this question. Though, in several animistic traditions of the Americas and of Siberia we are not able to find the belief in one sole God, but a plurality of living entities. Animals, plants and things have the same attributes that humans do, so, there is no distinciton between what we have called "culture" and "nature". We still have more questions than answers.

It is incompatible with monotheism due to its structure of a single, unique and true god, therefore the other gods or universal forces do not exist. A mother goddess like the one Gimbutas proposed is totally incompatible with the above. However, it would not be incompatible in a monolatrist, henotheistic or pantheistic system. Unfortunately, we do not have enough information from that period to really know about the rites and cults of the hunter-gatherers of the Volga steppes. However, the systems that I mentioned require a certain religious evolution, it could be that there was that evolution, but at the moment it is impossible to know.

Hi Luis Eduardo Luna. At is core, Christianity is not compatible with animism due to its beliefs of a single universal power. The saints and the Virgin Mary can only intercede for us before God, but they do not possess powers of their own as they would in other religious systems. Christianity did not replace local religions, but coexists with them despite the tension that this generated, that is why the local gods and spirits were replaced by saints. I think the best example is that of the goddess Brigid who was replaced by Saint Brigid in Ireland. In any case, we could say that Christianity is closer to polytheism than animism, but of course that is not correct because of monotheism and its belief on one single universal power and truth.