@@chaincat33 at on point they may have thought shrine maidens shaman on some and buryat shamans brought Siberian shamanism through japan which may have given some religion shamanistic aspects
As much as people might dismiss animism intellectually on a gut level in our daily lives many people embrace it. How many people assign gender or even proper names to their cars? Or their knives? I dated a girl who would apologize to her car after hitting a pothole really hard!
That's just weird. I've never done that and I've never known anyone that actually treats inanimate objects as having feelings. Animals? Sure. If I accidentally kick by dog while walking, I'll apologize profusely, even though I understand that he doesn't know what I'm saying. But my tonw and gestures help him know. Animism is stupid and anyone that ACTUALLY believes in that crap needs help
@@mr.osamabingaming2633 it's dangerous thinking, actually believing in that crap with literally no evidence. Accepting that stuff as fact is a dangerous mind set. Now, this is different from people who say that kind of stuff, but don't actually believe it's true. But if someone ACTUALLY believes that cars and other inanimate objects feel something or are conscious in any way, then they need to get help. Period.
I am an Anthropology student in Iran and i cant describe how vile educational system here is. As a result we literally dont learn anything valuable in our classes and i cant thank you enough for this information you sharing. You are teaching me what i had to learn in university but i dont!
Hello, I am a Brazilian of Indian descent (I suppose Tupi-Guarani) unfortunately due to the strong Christian upbringing, he does not listen to my family's interest in knowing for sure where indigenous descent, I dream of being an anthropologist but I have a question about indigenous religions, what is a shaman? i know the pajé is considered one but what differentiates a shaman from an animist priest or traditional healers?I also know that shamanism as well as Animism have pejorative and eurocentric terms, but are they still used? Or not? If so, how do you refer to other spiritual leaders (apart from what they are called in your culture)?
I've always been fascinated by how intensely social humans are. We're so inclined to view the world in terms of people and relationships that even those actively committed to scientific rationalism can't help but describe nature as acting with agency. Imagine if a less social alien came to visit and heard us saying things like "nature abhors a vacuum" or "ugh, my computer just refuses to work today" as if 'nature' or a computer were an independent entity with desires and volition. They'd think we were mad!
@@qboxer well, sort of. Behavioral evolution can be something of a blunt instrument, e.g. humans evolving to be excited about brightly colored fruits resulted in a fondness for bright cors generally. So I think it's mostly side effects of our very useful pack instincts But those side effects do seem to be adaptive. This hypersociality certainly helped us domesticate animals, and feeling like we have a relationship with land and plants probably contributes to agriculture. And it's arguably why we're able to have larger civilizations, as it allows us to.form "personal" relationships with abstract concepts like nations and ideologies
I've always been fascinated how modern humans are so materialistic, everything is cause and effect for them evolution has come to be more like a religion; like catholicism, however what fascinates me the most is the way humans live paradoxically in total opposite to this idea even though they are very conscious about it.
Astrum I see this as evidence that despite our attempts to be rational, ultimately, we tend to make decisions according to our nature and not our logic.
Reading: "Braiding Sweetgrass", where an native American biologist is reconciling her ancestral tongue, which sees the trees, forest, river, as her brothers, with her scientific background, was really fascinating. It showed me that scientific enlightenment has something to gain from a familiar and holistic approach to its subject, rooted in respect.
I just finished reading that work, that's actually how I was brought to this video lol. Braiding Sweetgrass definitely deepened by understanding of nature spirituality as something that can (and should imo) fruitfully coexist with science.
Love this book SO MUCH! It really shows how much we would gain if our capitalist society didn’t see everything non-human as mere resources to be used and an unyielding hunger to grow infinitely despite our world’s obvious limitations.
Love that book. This comment section makes me happy. Will give another book recommendation for Richard Powers' The Overstory. Listened to an interview from the author, he said writing it basically changed him spiritually, and now identifies as an animist
Ancient peoples had a bond with the land that most people today can’t even fathom. They were deeply tuned in to the passing of the seasons and the changes occurring all around them in such a world it’s quite possible to see how someone would build a deep spiritual relationship with the world around them. I think this is where the root of animism is.
@@marvalice3455it's really not, all they said was people in the past were more aware of the seasons and other changes happening around them, not exactly a leap when a lot of human developments have been geared towards isolating ourselves from such things for our comfort and safety. You shouldn't put people down for trying to empathize with those who have had different experiences of the world, whether it's modern people or those of the past. You may have good intentions, but by saying that a connection to sky, seasons, and soil is somehow more romantic than a connection to computers, cars, and concrete, you are yourself making a massive value judgement.
@@marvalice3455 Not really. "Noble savage" romanticism paints prehistorical and aboriginal peoples as being inherently better that people from civilisations, while this is simply an acknowledgement that people will collect knowledge (including both "knowing what" and "knowing how") that's useful to them, especially that which is needed to survive. Modern hunter-gatherers can identify thousands of plants and animals and know what's useful about them.
That dream argument was really weird. Specifically because you can dream about other people... while they’re alive. If the “primitive human” had a dream about their friend, and woke up and talked about the events of the dream to their friend, they’d soon realize it didn’t happen. Most people learn that dreams aren’t real well before a loved one dies. Also I highly doubt that humans at some point couldn’t distinguish dreams from reality.
But yet, people today dream and hallucinate, and then think they were visited by spirits or demons or relatives ... So I find it weird that many have commented they find the dream argument really weird. I see no reason why dreaming of someone alive would make a difference...there are many that claim they can make such communications alive today.
It's just because of Darwinism and progressivism basically. They were overly concerned with the idea of humans advancing to modern european thinking. There was also another thing. Languages have basic colours and all other finer colours are subsets of these. Because these colours can vary widely, actually translating the colours of one language into another can be very hard. It's actually cultural rather than linguistic so going back in the past where the world wasn't so interconnected means the colour borders differ much more widely. So in the 'enlightened' scientific rationalism time when Darwinism was trendy, they took past writings on colours to indicate that past humans couldn't yet perceive or at least interpret the same richness of colours that moderns could.
Christian Psychonaut777 I know this is 5 months old and you probably won’t respond but do you truly believe that dreams are portals to higher realms? I don’t mean to be condescending but I have not once in my life ever felt that is the case. My Dreams never result in anything, they are nothing but fantasies that my brain has created for itself when it’s bored. Have you ever truly experienced something greater in a dream? Something that lead to a change in anything other than your own mindset or opinion? The idea that people find higher meaning in their dreams scares me.
I think it’s extremely interesting to look at religious beliefs differing from polytheism and monotheism. Pantheism, Animism, and other religious beliefs are so different than the Abrahamic and Familiar faiths, it’s amazing to see the variety of beliefs that have evolved over such a long amount of time.
I wouldn't say they are that different. The abrahamic religions emerged from an older polytheistic religion and Christianity was influenced by the roman pantheism. Take catholism for example, it claims only one God and yet it has the Virgin, angels and saints that are said to have their own powers.
Mateo Welles I understand what you mean, but I just think it’s interesting to see how far the Abrahamic faiths have “evolved” from the animistic faith, for better or for worst.
@@wave1090 It's extremely different and implies a completely different set of mentalities. I tell you this as an Indo-European polytheist and an animist. Monotheism, particularly the Abrahamic religions, are hardcore dualistic, anti-animistic, and reductionist religions, whilst Indo-European religions are monistic multiplicist, animistic and expressionist religions. To claim any similarity between Abrahamism and IndoEuropean polytheism is to not understand the IndoEuropean mind and world. However, there are nominal similarities. Just nominal.
@@alejandror.planas9802 You're right, Catholicism and its attendant saints have no relation to or component in polytheism. Back to divinity school for you I guess, "scholar".
My tribe has been following animism for thousand of years. We believe there is spirits in everything in this world. We worship land, water (river, rain), plants. We hold holy ceremony before planting crops and also during its harvest. I would rather believe in nature than god.
@The Billionaire Club What will you do without land, plants and water?? Will you be able to survive???? So instead of worshiping some imaginary so-called figure... worship the things around you that sustain your life.
@@ReligionForBreakfast I was thinking about Pascal Boyer's book 'Religion Explained', and then you started talking about hyperactive agent detection, so that was cool. I think this may extend beyond humans, as I once messed with my cat by slightly moving the handle of my vacuum cleaner when she was near it (it would slightly shift and make creaking noises). She subsequently became afraid of the vacuum cleaner even when I didn't touch it, which made me feel bad, so I stopped doing that. Fortunately, after a few days, she no longer thought it was alive.
@@ReligionForBreakfast excellent video - but I have a question. You weren't entirely clear about whether or not the consensus is that religion developed from animistic stages towards polytheist and then monotheistic models. To my mind - after at least five minutes of completely rigorous contemplation - it seems logical that as humans became more technologically advanced, and as a result divorced themselves from the natural world, the "natural" spirits too could have become less based entirely on nature in concept, eventually resolving into the projections of ourselves that classical polytheistic gods, and later modern monotheistic Gods appear to be. Did we leave nature and reinvent the gods to mirror that separation? sorry - I think that was two questions...
@jay I think that modern Christians certainly try to separate humans from the rest of nature. We are God's "special creation" , made differently to the other animals and gifted consciousness. The way that (some?most?) Christians attribute immorality, nakedness, and even pleasure to animalistic traits makes me think that they see Man and Nature as two distinct things. And let's face it, the western world has done its best to remove us from the natural world, boxed up as we are in our concrete homes and hooked up to a virtual world. My answer is no - humans are not unnatural.
ReligionForBreakfast hello I just wanted to ask Isn’t assuming ethnocentrism not entirely correct? I mean, high Buddhist theology is much more like monism/pantheism than polytheism, and Brahmin and related ideas in Hinduism. As well, a lot of Roman authors in the late republic/empire, and even before with the Greece idea of the monad, often called upon god singular as a muse and philosophical body. I’m not saying what Tyler said was true, but the general sentiment doesn’t seem necessarily incorrect in a very general sense when looking at the old world at least.
Thank you. Have usually associated Animism with a fundamental relationship towards, and respect for Nature. And even beneath the Hinduism and Buddhism in most westernized Asian countries today, there are still many rituals and celebrations derived from much more ancient Animist traditions. Once while walking around downtown Bangkok, Thailand, mainly a Buddhist country, I stumbled on a huge banyan tree, located next to a stream behind a Hilton Hotel of all places, complete with candles and dozens of 'phallus-shaped' wood carvings, all stacked like so much cordwood... apparently as offerings to the Animist spirit residing in the tree, left by 'hopeful' women, or those already pregnant, seeking a healthy pregnancy and birth.
You see similar things in Malaysia too, and it's a Muslim-majority country! A lot of people will associate those little shrines with Buddhism, but they also worship local Malay deities there that the Malay community themselves left behind when they converted to Islam.
Here in the Philippines, the strangler fig is called "balete" and is revered in a similar way as the home of spirits variously known as "anito", "diwata" or "engkanto/engkantada". They are often covered with offerings, and people still believe you need to take care around them, lest you are drawn inside, and can never leave the spirit world.
I live in the United States and my co-worker is from Algeria. He is a Berber. He says his culture's religion is one of the oldest indigenous religions and their focus is nature and freedom.
I think the evolution of species can be a good analogy of the evolution of religion. A big misconception is that evolution works towards some sort of goal or something than better than there was before. But it does not, it just...goes. Some things just work, in a particular place and time, but not in another place and time. Everything is perfect and nothing is.
Evolution has no goal,more of a eternal journey of trail and error If it had a goal of would have been to create a being able you survive and adapt in every envoirment no matter how hard,and for that lifeforms to be immortal or it's goal would be to create a god
I mean ... it makes sense to see "Animism" as "the first religion", simply because of the function. It's (like RFB said) basically the pattern recognition of the human brain including non-human into the "we can make decisions"-club. This basic thought of "the mountains might be alive" is a good base for more specific believes like "This mountain is called Baharum, who is the son of the sky and the earth." So seeing "Animism" as the baseline of religions is arguably correct. Even if the name is a bit misleading in this context.
@@HowToPnP Are you an Atheist who thinks Religion is man made, it seems like that to me, what you're saying is not true, there are many tribes found in aboriginal which were monotheistic for instance. To claim that this is because of this.... Basically problem of induction... It's just stupid. The best answer is we don't know and to assume either monotheism or Henotheism or polytheism is just being foolish. Because many times it's very different to separate these things..
@@maxpayne3628 "tribe" does not mean "most primitive/basic Form of belief". And yes, I see religion as a product of human culture. Alternatively an almighty god gave humans the one true religion, but didn't bother to do it in any useful way.
@@HowToPnP Yes I knew you would bring this and sometimes the tribe was the most primitive, whereas some advanced tribes were more henotheistic or polytheistic, many basic primitive tribes were monotheistic in aboriginals. Why can't this tendency to believe in a God be from an God, why do you assume naturalism? Naturalism of the Gaps?
@@DBCisco It's easy to attack strawmen of what you don't understand. Of course, you would have to study something to understand it, so that is quite the quandary. A lot of modern philosophers distrust metanarratives completely, so the distance between what you think and reality is pretty funny. On the other hand evolutionary psychology is much closer to your portrayal, which often relies heavily on similar metanarratives.
@@DBCisco It is also worth noting that you engage in philosophy, even if you don't know the technical terms for things. Science itself has a philosophical foundation, and things like epistemology (how you know things to be true or false) are grounded in philosophy. There is also a philosophy of history, which again, you don't need to understand on a technical level to do history, but are engaging in it nonetheless.
@@DBCisco Also a couple fun facts for you - the process now commonly referred to as 'science' used to be called 'natural philosophy', and a 'PhD' is a 'Doctor of Philosophy'. The idea that 'science' is disconnected from 'philosophy' is something that is pretty clearly false if you understand the history of science.
I was born and raised as Roman Catholic in Australia, but these days I live in Mindanao Philippines with my wife who is Lumad Higaonon. The Higaonon people recognize a creator god called Magbabaya, but they also believe that everything has spirits living within. Trees, rocks, rivers and streams all have spirits in them. Indeed, there is a spirit that lives in the hearth or kitchen of houses called "tumanud ku abu" (watcher of the ash" in Binukid language). The spirits must be respected, and failure to do so can cause trouble because they are "amoral". They may be benevolent, or malevolent, or capricious. Since living here, I have recognized how similar this belief system is to that of my Anglo-Irish ancestors. I have also come to believe that in our house we have a "tumanud ku abu". In Filipino culture the spirits of place like this are often called "anito" or "diwata" or "engkanto/engkantada". Despite the fact that most Filipinos are either Roman Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, or Muslim, many of these retain the ancient belief in the spirits of place.
@@itsmenny It's possible, but I don't know for sure. There is quite a lot of information online about the various beliefs of tribes in different parts of the Philippines., and there are Facebook groups devoted to learning about and practicing the precolonial religions. My wife is 56, and as a young girl she was trained as a "baylan" by her maternal grandmother who was also a baylan. The baylan is as important as the datu, the tribal chief. This is because she is the shaman, the healer, the masseuse, the midwife, and can lead the tribe in the absence of the datu. My wife has not taken up the position (traditionally among the Higaonon the baylan is 60 years old or older). She did assist her grandmother as a young girl in traditional birthing practices, and she also learned herb lore and "hulot" massage. Her grandmother also instructed her in making traps and other traditional hunting techniques. When they went into the forest, they would avoid large trees and rocks wherever possible, so as not to anger the spirits of place. My wife taught me to say "Tabi tabi" and this I do, along with rituals of thanks, for the tumanud ku abu in our house. I have had a lot of unusual experiences here in our house. There is a belief that some of the spirits are playful (somewhat like the sprites and leprechauns in Europe and the UK) and my experiences here would have me agree with that! My wife also told me that everyone has an "abyan", a guardian spirit, and she believes that spirit in our kitchen is my abyan. I mentioned this in one of the online groups I referred to earlier, and received flak from a number of people who said not only am I not Filipino but only a baylan can have an abyan. They interpreted an abyan as a spirit guide which only a baylan could have. What my wife said was that an abyan is a companion or guardian spirit. If you look up the meaning of the Cebuano word, it means "guardian angel, companion". What I am sure of is that the spirits don't say "Ah, that one is not Filipino so I'm not interested". The world is their home. They are one with all things.
Catholicism is a pretty interesting blend of pagan polytheism and Christian monotheism. I can see how that would fit right in with the local belief system of spirits - just look at all the Saints people still pray to.
@@vanillajack5925 That's true! Effectively the "guardian angel" that children were taught each person has when I was growing up is identical tp the belief in "tumanud" or "abyan" (companion) spirits. Undoubtedly it wasn't too hard for Catholic friars to convert many native people, as there were similar beliefs in place.
He failed horribly. It sounds like something Kirk Cameron would put together... His religious bias is pretty clear. He never tried to answer the question of the fact that with archeological evidence it does appear that animism predated all other forms of agency impression. And the stupidity of the argument that we can't get in a tube machine would doom physics, chemistry also to "speculation" it was insulting to intelligence with each word uttered.
I'm always pleasantly surprised by your content. Besides choosing interesting topics, your flawless presentation makes it very engaging. Thank you for making me more interested in knowing more about religion as whole.
I'd identify as animist. I spent most of my childhood alone in the woods. The trees became more like my home than my house. I had special trees and clearings and stumps and boulders. They felt sacred to me and I miss them dearly.
Well done! When I made my video on Animist mythology in Native American cultures, I found it best to think of “Animism” as an adjective, or a group of practices, as opposed to other strictly defined -isms.
Overlaying your reality with an animilistic lense helps people interface with nature better. You’ll treat your rivers and mountains with more consideration if you see them as people.
Yooo, it's rare to encounter a fellow sámi online, small world, the religion's pretty fascinating to research, and how it ties into folklore is really fun
Personally, I've always speculated that the first kind of religious practice to develop would have been Ancestor Veneration, based on how early archaeological evidence places human burial, but that is just that: speculation. On animism, I say this: on the material level, animism is simply the personification of the world around us. I love that this video focuses on that near the end.
Actually Religion as we know it didnt exist as a conceot till the 1500's. ANcients worshipped gods sure, but mn on calld this Religion. The word Religion only began to exst in Late ROman Imperal Latin. The term is largely invented.
@@skwills1629 Being a student of Indo-European religion and culture, with a focus on the Celtic and Norse but also with a good basis of Greek and Roman, I fully disagree with that statement. Assuming religion only existed after the word did is foolish reductionism; I think it's more likely that most people did not conceptually separate religious practices from culture. Assuming that religion only includes "religion as we know it" is focusing too much on one culture at the expense of pretty much the rest of the world.
@@gaarik Religion doesn't even exist now. Its a Category we invented. The entire point is there is no separation between Religion and POhilosophy and Culture.
@@gaarik Its even more preposterous to miss the point in order to leavein a huff to assert sdominance. You do realise my actual point is, there is no one Thing called Religion, and no one tracable History for how it evovoled, Right? That Religion is a Catagory we invented for convncince whn discussing such matters?
I think you might have a misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution isn't necessarily about evolving into a superior entity, but becoming better adapted. Older branches can die out, change over time, or even stay roughly the same depending on the environmental pressures.
@@maxpayne3628 Yes and natural selection revolves around the premise for the struggle to perserve one's life which are enviornmental pressures which is what OP is saying.
@@maxpayne3628 have you not heard of the _THEORY_ of evolution? And yes, Wallace and Darwin both came up with the theory of evolution, Darwin defined it as "descent with modification," the idea that species change over time, give rise to new species, and share a common ancestor."
Always good coming back to this video every once in a while. You're really competent in not patronizing or ridiculing religious experiences. I'd REALLY love a deep dive into African diasporic religions especially here in Brazil. It's so complex, I feel you'd be a good person to sort through all the discourse about it.
I would also like to add that evolution doesn't really work that way either. Organisms don't really progress from "primitive" to "complex", so much as they just take what they have adapt it to the environment. There are weird anachronisms everywhere in biology, like how vertebrate eyes have a blind spot because of how our optical nerves grow. In that population, having sight at all was an advantage, evolution does not "care" about the complexity of the thing. And likewise, when comparing contemporary living animals like humans and chimpanzees, or flowering plants to ferns, one isn't "more or less evolved", rather they have differing ancestry and traits that mean they are more or less adept at surviving in different ways in certain ecological systems. It also assumes that the out group doesn't under go any changes after splitting from a last common ancestor. It would be like calling Hinduism more primitive and Buddhism evolved because the basis for modern versions both stem from the ancient Vedas, but both have changed as they have developed over the years. Or likewise, the Baháʼí faith would somehow be the most complex or by some accounts superior, not because of its merits, but because it emerged latest from other a form of Islam, which had inspiration from the Christian faith, and Jewish prophets. And to the later point it would be assuming that Judaism hasn't changed since early Christianity, Christianity hadn't changed since the emergence of Islam, and Islam hasn't changed since the Baháʼu'lláh.
There is a certain truth to that thou, since modern organisms are in certain ways more "complex" than ancient organisms, it's true that a lot of evolution is simply about adaptation to a certain environment and there are a lot of side steps on evolution, but a human is definetly far more advanced and complex than a trilobite for example, part of that i feel is because of the kind of "arms race" that exists between organisms, because not all factors ina environment are just about climate or terrain, there are also things that have a huge impact on evolution like competing animal species, viruses, that most food is alive can and will fight back, etc, this creates some kind of arms race where the best adaptes organism wins and as such this pushes certain evolutionary traits, like eyes for example Now evolution is something incredibly complex, but i don't think is correct at all to say that there isnt at the very least some límited linear progress towards more complex and advanced organisms
I was thinking this as soon as I got to actually thinking about the evolution comparison. Bacteria, as a thing within the category of single-celled organisms, are part of a category that predates the category of complex organisms, but single-celled organisms didn't just stop evolving then and there; they're still going. It also brought to mind another flaw in the research, which the video touched on, the fact that he was looking at contemporary religion, assuming that "lesser races" must have some previous, less advanced form of religion, and assumed that whatever they believed in must be ordered chronologically as the researcher would subjectively order the cultures in terms of "advancement". Similarly with the bacterium and the human, advancement doesn't just point in one direction, and neither is more advanced than the other. The Abrahamic religions as you mentioned are a pretty good example of how something doesn't just cease evolution the moment it splits into distinct branches; Christianity now, for example, would be almost unrecognizable to the Christianity before the beginning of Islam (not to mention all the new branches). Without access to a historical record, as in the case of the researcher, it'd be hard to deduce how, or even if Islam came from Christianity, and if one applied the same imposed chronology based on which "race" is "lesser" (read: "which culture is less similar to my own") one might potentially come out thinking Christianity came out of Islam.
well i think some organisms definatley evolve to become more complex, as in their body has more and more cells that do different specific functions, but yea I also agree that complexity is not equal to how much a line of organisms has evolved over the years, because as Anadice put it, bacteria dont stop evolving, they continue to change and mutate, but some dont become more complex, because the environment doesn't pressure them to do so, but some single celled organisms have become more complex over time and thats how we got here, there was nothing with as many specified cells and functions billions of years ago as we have today.
Very interesting. I always found the topic intriguing, largely because of how Japan had a mix of animism, of Shinto with Buddhism, for some time into the modern era (to WWII). Not sure how many people truly believe in Shinto or local anamistic concepts since the 1950s, but another example of a state/society that became very modern, but had beliefs quite different from Christianity. Would be interesting to see a video on why polytheistic cultures, or segments of populations of polytheistic cultures, moved to monotheism (Christianity and Islam), or some sort of dualism (Manicheaism, Gnosticism, etc.), between 100 AD to 800 AD.
@Mullerornis Judaism has polytheistic roots, and was massively changed because of events following the Babylonian conquest of Palestine (and the Babylons subsequent defeat to Persia), which led to Jews being exposed to Zoroastrianism, which led to massive changes in their religion. Judaism and Christianity are more henotheistic than monotheistic, too, as 'angels' are pretty similar to the lesser gods of other religions. Christianity was the Jewish version of a mystery religion, which were already incredibly popular in the region at the time. There were Greek and Egyptian mystery religions, for instance, which Jews would have been exposed to at the time Christianity started. Christianity was a late-comer to the scene, not a trend-setter.
Mullerornis not entirely true. Many veins of Neoplatonism and other monotheistic, or mon-centric religions like sol invictus were also gaining prominence in Roman imperial times.
@Mullerornis The key question would be: Why did Christianity roll along? And in certain ways become a counterculture as well as a religion, that grew from a small sect to possibly 15 to 20% of the empire's population over a 200+ years time frame?
Mullerornis I disagree. The Pythagorean’s way before Christ had a developed sense of the monad. And Plato, and the various sects of platonic influence also had an idea of God singular in the philosophical sense. A Good example of this is in Timaeus. Even in Cicero, he calls upon a singular God for his more academics persuaded and used the polytheistic ones in a more mythological/poetic sense. And the idea of Brahman existed from at least the second millennium bc.
@Mullerornis Actually it's the other way around. Christianity originally had just polytheism-type god that rejected all others. The later Christian god is one that takes on the philosophical ideas of pagan Europeans and whittles away the original Semitic polytheist source. Those pagans usually thought their gods as kind of aspects or pillars of reality or just some other powerful beings unrelated to metaphysical talk, while still having a notion of what would later be appropriated by Christianity as 'God'. This is particularly clear when there's heaps of gods that are many-faced or have many identities and forms. There were no gods of something in particular (like saying a 'war god' is just nonsense. simplistic systematisation of modern times.) as they were characters with all the complexity that comes with that, not personified material concepts, but even on top of that they were often identified as many characters and objects. Now when you get into the modern period god is further reduced to philosophical distinctions and eventually to not needing to exist as a central being or concept at all. Although everyone's secular ideology is thoroughly Christian, they don't seem to see that they can invent their own philosophically legitimate morality and moral concepts (as can anyone else in rejecting theirs). Which is quite funny when they're the quickest to hate on Christianity.
"Why are these people inferior?" "Because their religion is primitive" "How do you know it's primitive?" "Because these people practice it" Hello catch 22
@@s_c_u_m3172 First off, When we usually judge primitive and advanced, we clearly judge it based upon historical timeline, and putting things in a comparative evolutionary time line with what's similar to it.. In both cases, anamism is infact primitive.. it's literally the first stuff to show up in terms of spirituality, right up there with primitive cave scribbles. Take chinese characters for example.. Sure, the characters used today are pictographic, just like the more ancient, less refined, and infact PRIMITIVE forms of the characters.. But today's characters are INFACT more refined, better, and useful than the PRIMITIVE versions that came before it. It's just simple facts, why can't you people get it?! Did ANY invention EVER start better than their later updates?! Is that how the world works? Do you get ideas today, then tomorrow apply them worse?! Or don't you live, learn, add, and make things better~ Same thing applies to everything.. What's the whole mystery or bigotry about that?! Fact of the matter is, spiritualities ARE different, and unequal in how they changed the destinies of so many people, and changed history itself. Why do you think natural selection only works in f""king?! It works in everything, from biology, to geology, and yes, even in the realm of ideas. History chooses which ideas become more relivant, and survive, and drive it's progress.. And the only places anamism survives is literally the very isolated places that history had abandoned~ And it shows in everything about the people themselves! Their medicine, their political structures, their technological capacities.. Everything that's literally so stuck at the initial stages that everyone had already gone through, and got over, and developed passed long long ago.. Don't forget that ALL OF US were anamists at some point.. right? Then history~ Any questions?
@@goingmonotheist783 ok but what is it that makes a religion advanced or sophisticated other than how long it's been around because it not like a computer or a physical tool you can't judge how effective and sophisticated it is by like testing it out the way you would a physical tool and you can't judge by age because animism is more then one religion it's a catch all term for religions that assign personhood to non living things there is nothing stopping a new religion from falling under the classification of animism.
Yes, finally a video of Animism!! I think this branching categorization of religions and Taylor’s thinking of “Primitive” religions is a reflection of past colonial tendencies to further discount newly encountered societies as the “Other”. This line of thinking extends to big things too such as kinship, trade, customs and religion but also extends to everyday such as dress, food and other tools. I think that we, as a monotheistic religious culture, find it interesting that still have people who think our actions cause disasters (hurricanes caused by homosexual behavior for example). This doesn’t make that thinking right but it’s an interesting example on how the faithful find opportunities to cling to other ways of thinking in a spiritual sense. Btw, until I stopped and read the thumbnail, I thought the title of this video was Atheism: the World’s First Religion :P
I see what the creators of the graph wanted to accomplish, but I always found that trees are not very effective to represent cultural phenomenons, as they are very fluid and have too many influences for a tree to represent. The development of religion is not that linear
I'd say religion evolves, just not in that way. It changes with its environment. The example of beliefs held by indigenous groups during the colonial period illustrates this pretty well.
I started believing in Animism after studying different religions and realized that there was much more to life and God than what religion describes it as. Everything is different but the same as well.
Well animism is a lot of things I'm afraid, and what he described is as good as anything you're gonna get because "Animism" is less a single organized religion (like not even close, at all) but a useful catch-all for multiple types of religions with little to no unifying characteristics. He actually described it pretty well to be honest
He talked exactly the appropriate amount about each, I think, considering Animism is a vague term for an attribute of certain religions. What animism is, is simple, but the tree confuses it as a thing unto itself and so the fact that it *isn't* is the relevant discussion.
Sometimes when dealing with a complex subject with so many confusing aspects, rather than talk about what something IS, which often results in cliches and simplistic definitions, it’s sometimes helpful to talk about what something ISN’T. Par away the BS surrounding something to better understand it, much in the way Michelangelo believed that his sculptures already existed inside the block of marble or stone and when he got to work, he was merely carving away what was keeping the sculpture hidden. There’s a brand of Christian theology that’s similar to this concept called Apopathetic Theology or Negative Theology which, despite the name, often winds up being a very positive mindset. It’s basically the same thing: rather than trying to define God by saying what they are, scholars try to define God by saying what God isn’t. By subtracting the ISN’T, the hope is that we gain a better understanding of the IS, even if we don’t understand it completely.
Just found your channel. I’m a religious studies major at the university of Richmond and I’m intending to go on and get a higher degree (🤞🏼doctorate hopefully!). I am absolutely fascinated with religion and I really appreciate a channel like yours. I also like how you refute that snobby anthropologist. I was reading Emil Durkheim in the Fall on his famous book on aboriginal religion in Australia. He’s known as the founder of modern sociology, and I thought his argument of their totemic rituals was completely reductionist and lacked credible evidence. (Paraphrase: He claimed it was basically only worship of the society). The best way to study religion is to understand that the people who practiced it, fully believed it! Don’t disregard their beliefs just to get at the people and don’t do the inverse either. But anyway, I’m excited to binge watch your videos! 😁
"Primitive" is not a negative term, it just means that something came first and later things developed from it (just like the Latin root word "primus"). Something primitive can still be complex, advanced, alive, and contemporary compared to that which descended from it. From your video, animism does seem like it may be a primitive religion.
I get what you're saying and you're not wrong but I think it's pretty clear what these people from a couple hundred years ago meant by it. Especially with their often use of the term "lesser races" as something practically interchangeable with the term "primitive". Just because a term doesn't mean anything harmful when placed in a void, that doesn't mean it was not used to be harmful. A teacher said something one time which was "it is impossible to clearly define every word, since the use of a word can be changed by context, words do not exist in a void in any situation other than in a dictionary". They went on to explain that the way you defended the word here is stupid and it's usually just someone defending their own use of it. I'm not trying to say you're a bad person for saying this, and I'm sure you're not the type of person to say it in a harmful way and then defend it with that definition. Just something to note.
@@IOwnKazakhstan No it is a proper academic term for 'first' in contrast with 'derived' it's used in both evolutionary biology and anthropology. The other option is to say base/basal/basic, which literally sounds worse on English language. No one means negative when they say primitive in these contexts, they drill it into you that it means first ie with less derived features. Also he in incorrect in animism bring associated with all indigenous religion, it is specifically that of hunter-gatherers, regardless of where ie Africa or Europe. It just so happens that we still have hunter gatherers in Africa and not so in Europe. (and mores the pity as hunter gatherers tend to universally be both animistic and egalitarian regardless of where you find them in time or geography). Evolution whether biological or cultural is not progressive, it simply means change. The issue was due to influence of traditional Christianity, people 200 yrs ago thought evolution was a ladder with primitive at the bottom and advanced at top leading to man and then to angels and God. We now know it means no such thing. We don't need to change all the terms used. The problem wasn't the terms but rather the misunderstanding of the entire concept of changes over time.
That graph can't even be accurate. It disassociates all connection between Hellenism, Roman Polytheism and Christianity. While Christianity did have its roots in Judaism, it's so entwined with polytheist Greece and Rome, to separate it is plain dishonest. Or Egyptian religion is not connected to anything while Herodotus says the Greek Mysteries originated in Egypt. That's just two major issues in this "evolutionary" tree. I wonder how many more there are...
@@bobman-li2xd Thou shall have no other Gods before me - A strange commandment if there is only one God? The trinity? Lesser Gods renamed as angels or demons? I know you will dismiss it, but it is quite interesting.
@@truthseeker2275 You're so right. If people don't want to see it, they'll believe the lies and dogma they've been told without thinking for themselves. That's why polytheism is making a comeback. People love their native cultures and they are learning it's not as primitive as they thought!
@@bobman-li2xd I forgot to add, in 2nd Kings Yahweh was actually defeated by Chemosh, a polytheist God. He overturned "all powerful" yahweh's prophecy on its head. Then in Job god calls a meeting "of the Gods" in the original Dead Sea Scrolls. Even in the Bible it admits many Gods. Finally, if god is jealous of other Gods, why? If they don't exist, it's not hurting anyone.
@@truthseeker2275 gods*. Context is important here. Israel has just gotten out of Egypt (a civilization that openly practices polytheism) and has been introduced to a Covenant with God. After being under the rule of Egypt for so long, it is no surprise that their beliefs have rubbed off on the Israelites, especially since they are a new nation. So no, it's not a strange commandment, "Do not worship idols or false gods", is what this means. the commandment was given to Israel because they were His chosen people and would bless the whole world. They were meant to be set apart from the world, meaning they could not partake in the polytheistic and idol worship that was happening all around them. No where in that verse does talk about other "Gods" that are on the same level as YHWY in cosmic authority. The "gods" that are before him are false gods and forms of idol worship. I hope I have cleared this up for you.
Fascinating overview of animism. It's amazing how this language older than words reawakens when we unplug ourselves from the modern world and tune back into the natural world for a few days.
Wow that modern animism definition is interesting. Seeing agency and personhood in non-human entities. Like going "come on, come on" at a malfunctioning electronic device.
I just discovered your channel & have already binged several videos. You make excellent content -- particularly your intro to Islam video hooked me. I would love to see similar "Intro to -" style videos for other major religions; Hinduism, Taoism, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. You could make a series of it & really help us all to better understand each other.
It's a full circle. Animism - Polytheism - Monotheism - Sci-Rationalism - art of Personification and Anthropomorphism to Quantum Physics and Nature in form of storytelling to make it meaningful to us so we will be more compassionate, mature and advance - Back to Animism
I am definitely animistic. Thank you for this video. I think we are all a heck of a lot more diverse in our beliefs than we think. And evolution...it’s not about mental superiority in this aspect. Tyler was of his time and it’s learning. I think animism is accepting a fundamental truth people have “evolved” to think is primitive, but it’s as normal and essential to me as needing oxygen, sleep and food. As our world has been so corrupted by humans, animism also gives back some respect to Nature.
@@seal9390 yes it has, we're even seeing it today. Evolution is simply the process of adapting and changing over time. It's a verrrrry slow process. We can even look at a group of humans (can't recall their name ATM) who spend most of their time in the water, and biologically their bodies have adapted and changed in order to accommodate them in which everyone else around the world don't have those features as we have never needed to change for them. And that's just the physical adaptation. Infact we could use dogs as a speeded version of evolution because instead of nature weeding out what is unnecessary for survival - we were able to push certain characteristics that don't really hold dogs today live on their own without the support of a human. Not only have we been able to change physical appearances but also mental appearances aswell. Certain dog breeds working best for certain jobs that was what they were bred for. And that is us deciding what works for us rather than nature deciding what works over time as things in nature naturally change slowly aswell
I imagine an atheist might conclude that even monotheistic belief in a personal god is still just another for of animism: attributing personhood to something that is not a person. I do like the connection made between animism and the "tendency of humans to see the world as social". Projection. Makes a lot of sense.
as an atheist here, Yes, I can confirm your assumption is correct. Further, we(I) see monotheism simply renaming or retitling polytheistic lesser gods as angels or demons. The personal aspect is another interesting component, it is facinating how the inner speech mechanism gets co-opted to form a 'relationship' with a fictional character. Children have imaginary friends which they outgrow due to social pressure, adults have a personal god which gets reinforced by social affirmation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_the_Greek_gods
@@truthseeker2275 I should clarify that, while I do not personify that "something" I do not consider myself to be an atheist. I do not deny the existence of some "higher power" or "ultimate reality" but I highly doubt it is a "personal" "being". Something more like an all pervading impersonal force, energy, or power like the Force in Star Wars or the Tao.
@@lshulman58 Energy exists, it is measurable, it is impersonal and we know nature, life and people are sustained by it. BUT why call it a God? If we look at all the history of the gods, we see them starting off as persons and as we understand nature more an more the personhood of the gods are diminished...by the point you get to highly doubt it is a "personal" "being" why still call it a god? For all intent and purpose, you are then an atheist even if you feel uncomfortable with the label.
TruthSeeker All energy comes from the One which you could call it God, the Universe, Infinite Consciousness, Supreme Reality or what-have-you. Hindus call it Brahman
Personally I think the whole idea of spirits and souls came about out of human's need to have some form of control over their surroundings. The idea that it when it rains or when the river floods is completely out of their control was probably a very scary prospect for early humans, especially when their lives depended on things like rain and the river not flooding. So to give the rivers and clouds some form of personhood, to turn them into something that can be persuaded or bargained with was likely a very comforting thought and one many people would be willing to invest into.
This is a great video. I think by our nature animism is natural for us, despite many wanting to see it as some primitive belief system. It is so common for humans to anthropomorphize and form connections with things that have meaning to us, be it a beloved pet/animal, or even inanimate objects. I don't see these two things as being too far off from each other, and in some ways is the same. If it is so easy for us to imagine the thoughts or emotions we think our pets are having/feeling, it doesn't seem like a stretch that many humans over the course of our existence had reverence for and believed that ancient mountains, trees, rocks and bodies of water had spirits/feelings/souls.
Please do an episode on Druze. They are rarely mentioned, yet I think they deserve more recognition. They are not even found on the Evolutionary Tree of Religion
I think it's fair to call Taoism animistic, it conceptualizes agency in the natural world (via 'qi'), but it sounds odd to say it thinks of the natural elements as having 'personhood', but rather it's usually described as having more abstract 'energy'. Same thing with Shinto ('Kami') or Polynesian religion ('Mana').
I practice the Occult, specifically Thelema, so my style is very eclectic, borrow a little of this, a pinch of that... so I love to learn about old and new system of belief! Thank you so much for the work you do on this channel!
Great explanation of animism and how it fits into the history of religion! I appreciate the way you broke down Tylor’s theory and showed how modern scholars view animism differently. It’s important to respect indigenous beliefs and understand how they see the world as full of life and spirit. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you for your work on this channel. I discovered it through a class I'm taking, and I know I will come back to it frequently, even after the class is over. This is one of my favorite videos so far. As an Orthodox Christian, the paradigm of modernism is very problematic from my point of view, and this concept of "animism" is a fantastic example. Agency cannot be limited to the material world, and it was a big mistake to think it could. "Monotheism" assumes that the "gods of the nations" do not exist, but second temple Jews and early Christians never made such an assumption. Just because a people had not received the Torah or the Gospel, did not mean they totally lacked a real understanding of spiritual reality. In many ways, their understanding was superior to that of our own...we who find ourselves lost in a scientistic paradigm of cold, flat, secular materialism.
what world knows as HINDU people, but we have been worshipping natural stuff for a long long time. Nature worship also called naturism in that and animism worshipping these, Ancestors / पितृ पूजा Martyrs / सुरधन पूजा / शहीद पूजा Cow / गौ पूजा River Ganga / गंगा पूजा Mountain Govardhan / गोवर्धन पूजा Holy basil Tulsi / तुलसी पूजा South indian ocean worshiping by ram / दरिया देव वरुण पूजा Banyan tree / वड पूजा etc... lots of other stuff.
In defense of Animisim, panpsychism has recently gained some traction among certain circles in neuroscience, especially when it comes to the mystery of consciousness.
Same. It's absolutely intriguing to me. Deep down, there are psyco-social roots of animism. This form of religion is IMHO one of the oldest traditions from our hunter gatherer days that we carried over to modernity in some form whatsoever and much in morphed form. Also, best of luck with the Manga.
This is a late comment since this video is old but I wouldn't say that MOST scholars today reject the idea that polytheism evolved from Animism. This theory is still acknowledged as a major possibility in peer reviewed History textbooks used in universities today. These textbooks don't consider Animism inferior in any way but they do consider the possibility that it is the earliest religion because of its connection to hunting-gathering societies while polytheism has a connection to later agricultural societies. It's the idea that agricultural societies evolved from non-agricultural societies, and their Animistic religions evolved into complex polytheistic religions that reflected the hierarchies of their new "civilizations", while the societies that remained as tribal hunting-gathering communities continued to evolve into their own unique and separate religious beliefs (the Animistic tribal religions of today that were used to construct theory). I feel like this video takes into consideration the original theorizer's version of Animism but overlooks the research that has been done since then. The argument that today's religions aren't descended from Animism because the idea asserts that the tribal religions used to conceptualize it were inferior is, to me, like trying to argue that agricultural societies and later industrial societies couldn't have possibly evolved from hunting-gathering societies because that would imply modern nomadic communities are savage. It is possible to acknowledge that polytheism evolved from Animism without separating them as "civilized" and "uncivilized".
In fact, seeing evolution as demonstrating higher and lower forms generally is an error. At best evolutionary theory defines better and lesser fit forms. Great video and this is a compliment and not a complaint!!
when you think of something you give it meaning, a vibe, a spirit simply by the patterns that it evoques within you and other people. Commun patterns seen by commun people gives a common soul to everything within humans
Take a Polynesian sailor from a thousand years ago, a Russian sailor from the 1700s, a Japanese Sailor from the future, a New England sailor from the present, and a Greek sailor from 2000 years ago and the funny thing is they’re all pretty much going to agree the sea is alive.
What do you think about Durkheim’s claims in elementes of religious life about totemism being the more possible first form of religion? I know some things said in the video could also apply to this case.
This made me think of the Canticle of Brother Sun and Sister Moon by St. Francis of Assisi. "Praised be You my Lord with all Your creatures, especially Sir Brother Sun, Who is the day through whom You give us light... Praised be You, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars, In the heavens you have made them bright, precious and fair..... Praised be You, my Lord through Sister Death, from whom no-one living can escape. Woe to those who die in mortal sin! Blessed are they She finds doing Your Will." And so on
Shouldn't the first religions have features in common of all religions? So I don't see why the idea that animism is incestral is untestable. Also something being primitive doesn't mean it's less complex. It means it is more similar to some ancestral condition.
Love your work! A deep dive into Julian Jaynes' 'bicameral mind' theory comes to mind given the subject of this video essay. A theory that I think deserves a fresh exploration. It's quite the rabbit hole, though.
I think animism is an interesting belief. Not because you can factually uphold it, but because of its effect. I’m not generally a Consequentialist in the school of philosophy. However. if the result of a person being an animist is that they’re more in tune with their environments and have a closer emotional connection to the world, I can think of more positive outcomes than negative ones. If my theory is right, animism probably stems from our capacity for empathy and personification as social creatures.
meanwhile, one of the latest Inspiring Philosophy's video demonstrates how Monotheism was (way back then) a religion structure of herders & nomads, while polytheism was that of cities & "development".
@Nom Anor Monotheism actually developed in Judaism largelt independently. Judaism actually went through its transition from its original polytheism to its current monotheism while the Hebrew bible was being written and remnants of that remain in the bible to this day.
@Nom Anor The exodus is entirely a myth. Judaism developed from polytheism to monotheism entirely inside the Levant, without Egyptian influence. Moses did not exist. Atenism had no lasting influence.
JoaoG R Inspiring Philosophy hasn’t got a clue. Herders and nomads were idols worshippers, each tribe had its own gods, with one of them usually being the most important. There’s plenty of hints of that in the Bible. Monotheism was pushed in a later more “developed” stage of society to help reinforce the power of the kingdom. Altars built on top of mountains all over the place were difficult to control that’s why they were banned and the cult was centralized to the temple in Jerusalem. The story of the golden calf is an example of a piece of propaganda meant to spread the idea that worshipping your own idol is very bad, worshipping Yahweh is good. Monotheism was about consolidating power, as the example of Aton - emerged from the polytheistic, developed and urbanized Egypt - clearly shows.
I do think that the idea of different levels of religion and some being objectivly more advanced is rediculas ethnocentrism, the same problem happened in discussions of cultural levels as well. However, fundementaly, Polytheism does somewhat come out of animism. Polytheistic gods are, basicaly, Animist spirits that have been given more charecter, more development, and have probably been combined a couple times to reach the level of development they are at when we can see their evidence. I'm saying this both as an Animist/Polytheist and as an Anthropology student.
Oh man, I remember that religion family chart. It's terrible. Says my religion, the Baha'i Faithx is a combination of Reform Judaism, Protestantism, and Sufism. What nonsense.
@@lucasblaise11 it came out of Bábism, which itself came out of Shi'a Islam. It also incorporated some aspects of Buddhism with their concept of "Manifestations of God", which includes significant religious figures from several different religions.
@Now Behold The Baha'i Faith was born out of the Babi movement which was itself born out of the Shayki movement of Shia Islam. We confirm the Twelve Imams of the Twelver Shia. So our biggest religious influence and relationship is just missing on this chart. Quite a bit of Sufi ideas were commented on by our prophet when he spent time in Azerbaijan among the Sufis, so one could also point to influence there in the terms that this chart is trying to do. While we confirm Christianity and Judaism like how Islam does, there's no contact or influence on our doctrines from Reform Judaism or Protestant Christianity as the chart shown implies. All the influence from Judaism and Christianity were essentially filtered through Islam, so drawing a line between Judaism and the Baha'I Faith like the chart does is like saying your great grandparent is your parent. :p Likewise while the Faith confirms Buddhism, Hinduism, and Zoroastrianism, there aren't really many theological ideas borrowed from it enough to establish some sort of familial relationship. Ignore what the other poster said, the idea of manifestations of God comes from Islam, not Buddhism lol. There's also a bunch of other problems I noticed with other religious entries on the chart back in the day. I assume whoever made it just did basic googling and guesswork to fill in the details of whatever they didn't really know.
The Whanganui River in New Zealand and the Magpie River in Canada are recognized as a Legal Persons for their protection. Animism has great utility in secular cultures.
You shouldn't use such a broad/meaningless thing as 'western/white' that is no a perspective but a large grouping of interrelated cultures. Edit: also ironically Abram seems to impose the same nature-respect, noble savage nonsense on animism that is entirely unique to western european culture and completely inaccurate.
Well done! I remember Tylor’s name from Anthro 101, back in the Paleolithic, but I never really knew what he did. (I must have guessed right on the test, because I got an A in the class.) PS - My religious beliefs include animism.
Besides, pre-contact, a lot of South American Indigenous cultures were polytheistic, and a lot of North American Indigenous cultures were monotheistic. Does the name Gitche Manitou look familiar to anyone? The Great Spirit? I do believe that's specifically a Huron name, but a lot of Nations have the concept of Creator.
For those not familiar on how evolution and gene transfer works, besides the usual parent-progeny of eucaryotic organisms, here's an introduction on horizontal gene transfer, which is very much similar on how culture and religion are transmitted within human populations/groups. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
@@wendelynmusic I agree, I think the psychedelic influence is way overestimated, I think a dark night, a campfire, life-threatening animals and a trance dance is more than enough to hallucinate, tell stories, form strong social cohesion and common beliefs.
A fantastically articulated explanation. I loved your point about humans naturally wishing to expand the social sphere into our environments since so many can identify with that even if they aren't spiritual. Even as an adult I ascribe personalities onto effigies, masks, and paintings that resonate with me and I would feel quite alone without their 'company.'
even scientists use animism like language like "atoms like to be in lower energy state", it is not that we actually think they do, but giving objects agency helps us think about the world, the human brain is evolved to model social interactions
This chart has almost every variation of native american (US and Canada) shamanism developing out of the Anasazi religion. I know the Anasazi is just an exonym for Ancestral Puebloans but didn't they descend from the plains tribes and settle in the southwest, not the other way around?. Also I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Inuit culture and language has more in common with North Eurasian cultures than it does with other North American cultures.
Animism is also common in pop culture. Watch my analysis of religion in the Mario series: th-cam.com/video/xhXHl2iMnOs/w-d-xo.html
Are you jewish?
Very good video, I just wanted to inform that HADD was first described by Justin Barrett and only then used by Stewart Guthrie. Good work anyway!
As far as mario goes, wouldn't that be because animism is an aspect of Shinto?
@@chaincat33 at on point they may have thought shrine maidens shaman on some and buryat shamans brought Siberian shamanism through japan which may have given some religion shamanistic aspects
What you think or what think the scholars about the book "Divine Animal"
People still ascribe emotions to object, especially when googly eyes are involved
👀
👀
👄
Kids do that with every toy they own
@@aqua5758 das d joke
Googly eyes =
language ascribes agency to inanimate objects or abstract things. masculine feminine nouns adjectives
Anyone who spends any amount of time in the woods will be shocked at just how fast you naturally fall into animistic thoughts.
Atheism and temple-religions thrive in cities.
@@barefootanimist in civilization you mean.
Or as in certain areas in Southern California, time in the desert.
Amen says the agnostic ;)
@@ceasefire2825 no, in cities
As much as people might dismiss animism intellectually on a gut level in our daily lives many people embrace it. How many people assign gender or even proper names to their cars? Or their knives? I dated a girl who would apologize to her car after hitting a pothole really hard!
Ahh yes... Toyota Tanya.
As someone who is studying Spanish, that is a fascinating idea!
That's just weird. I've never done that and I've never known anyone that actually treats inanimate objects as having feelings. Animals? Sure. If I accidentally kick by dog while walking, I'll apologize profusely, even though I understand that he doesn't know what I'm saying. But my tonw and gestures help him know.
Animism is stupid and anyone that ACTUALLY believes in that crap needs help
@@danielburleson563 how do people need help with that? Like what is dangerous about it? You sound like the one who needs help.
@@mr.osamabingaming2633 it's dangerous thinking, actually believing in that crap with literally no evidence. Accepting that stuff as fact is a dangerous mind set. Now, this is different from people who say that kind of stuff, but don't actually believe it's true. But if someone ACTUALLY believes that cars and other inanimate objects feel something or are conscious in any way, then they need to get help. Period.
I am an Anthropology student in Iran and i cant describe how vile educational system here is. As a result we literally dont learn anything valuable in our classes and i cant thank you enough for this information you sharing. You are teaching me what i had to learn in university but i dont!
Hello, I am a Brazilian of Indian descent (I suppose Tupi-Guarani) unfortunately due to the strong Christian upbringing, he does not listen to my family's interest in knowing for sure where indigenous descent, I dream of being an anthropologist but I have a question about indigenous religions, what is a shaman? i know the pajé is considered one but what differentiates a shaman from an animist priest or traditional healers?I also know that shamanism as well as Animism have pejorative and eurocentric terms, but are they still used? Or not? If so, how do you refer to other spiritual leaders (apart from what they are called in your culture)?
@@darkhorde6926 Google it lol.
@@jordannijjar5414 ????? '_')
I hope you’re ok
All the best, hope the situation there evolves towards the freedom you deserve.
I've always been fascinated by how intensely social humans are. We're so inclined to view the world in terms of people and relationships that even those actively committed to scientific rationalism can't help but describe nature as acting with agency. Imagine if a less social alien came to visit and heard us saying things like "nature abhors a vacuum" or "ugh, my computer just refuses to work today" as if 'nature' or a computer were an independent entity with desires and volition. They'd think we were mad!
Do you think it might be possible that we have evolved as such for a particular reason?
@@qboxer well, sort of. Behavioral evolution can be something of a blunt instrument, e.g. humans evolving to be excited about brightly colored fruits resulted in a fondness for bright cors generally. So I think it's mostly side effects of our very useful pack instincts
But those side effects do seem to be adaptive. This hypersociality certainly helped us domesticate animals, and feeling like we have a relationship with land and plants probably contributes to agriculture. And it's arguably why we're able to have larger civilizations, as it allows us to.form "personal" relationships with abstract concepts like nations and ideologies
I've always been fascinated how modern humans are so materialistic, everything is cause and effect for them evolution has come to be more like a religion; like catholicism, however what fascinates me the most is the way humans live paradoxically in total opposite to this idea even though they are very conscious about it.
Astrum I see this as evidence that despite our attempts to be rational, ultimately, we tend to make decisions according to our nature and not our logic.
@@TheNightWatcher1385 I'll say that total Materialism is as dangerous and unnatural as total superstitiousness
Reading: "Braiding Sweetgrass", where an native American biologist is reconciling her ancestral tongue, which sees the trees, forest, river, as her brothers, with her scientific background, was really fascinating. It showed me that scientific enlightenment has something to gain from a familiar and holistic approach to its subject, rooted in respect.
I just finished reading that work, that's actually how I was brought to this video lol. Braiding Sweetgrass definitely deepened by understanding of nature spirituality as something that can (and should imo) fruitfully coexist with science.
Love this book SO MUCH! It really shows how much we would gain if our capitalist society didn’t see everything non-human as mere resources to be used and an unyielding hunger to grow infinitely despite our world’s obvious limitations.
@@daniellaportal2021 Can it be scientifically proven with the scientific method? Lol
Love that book. This comment section makes me happy. Will give another book recommendation for Richard Powers' The Overstory. Listened to an interview from the author, he said writing it basically changed him spiritually, and now identifies as an animist
@@BlueRidgeBubble literally yes, that's what a lot of the book brings together.
Ancient peoples had a bond with the land that most people today can’t even fathom. They were deeply tuned in to the passing of the seasons and the changes occurring all around them in such a world it’s quite possible to see how someone would build a deep spiritual relationship with the world around them. I think this is where the root of animism is.
I agree especially after listening to this guys work on it th-cam.com/video/bIAlfoIE9Ic/w-d-xo.html
This is "noble savage" romanticism.
@@marvalice3455it's really not, all they said was people in the past were more aware of the seasons and other changes happening around them, not exactly a leap when a lot of human developments have been geared towards isolating ourselves from such things for our comfort and safety. You shouldn't put people down for trying to empathize with those who have had different experiences of the world, whether it's modern people or those of the past. You may have good intentions, but by saying that a connection to sky, seasons, and soil is somehow more romantic than a connection to computers, cars, and concrete, you are yourself making a massive value judgement.
@@marvalice3455 Not really. "Noble savage" romanticism paints prehistorical and aboriginal peoples as being inherently better that people from civilisations, while this is simply an acknowledgement that people will collect knowledge (including both "knowing what" and "knowing how") that's useful to them, especially that which is needed to survive. Modern hunter-gatherers can identify thousands of plants and animals and know what's useful about them.
isn't Shinto a form of animism?
Shinto has animist practices, yes.
It's one aspect of Shintoism.
Most of the pagan religions in Europe before Christianity had animism too.
Shinto is animism at its root
Exactly!
That dream argument was really weird. Specifically because you can dream about other people... while they’re alive. If the “primitive human” had a dream about their friend, and woke up and talked about the events of the dream to their friend, they’d soon realize it didn’t happen. Most people learn that dreams aren’t real well before a loved one dies. Also I highly doubt that humans at some point couldn’t distinguish dreams from reality.
But yet, people today dream and hallucinate, and then think they were visited by spirits or demons or relatives ... So I find it weird that many have commented they find the dream argument really weird. I see no reason why dreaming of someone alive would make a difference...there are many that claim they can make such communications alive today.
@@anahata3478 and People who claim that prophetic dreams are a reality are kind of stuck up.
It's just because of Darwinism and progressivism basically. They were overly concerned with the idea of humans advancing to modern european thinking.
There was also another thing. Languages have basic colours and all other finer colours are subsets of these. Because these colours can vary widely, actually translating the colours of one language into another can be very hard. It's actually cultural rather than linguistic so going back in the past where the world wasn't so interconnected means the colour borders differ much more widely. So in the 'enlightened' scientific rationalism time when Darwinism was trendy, they took past writings on colours to indicate that past humans couldn't yet perceive or at least interpret the same richness of colours that moderns could.
Blame the Abrahamic religions.
Christian Psychonaut777 I know this is 5 months old and you probably won’t respond but do you truly believe that dreams are portals to higher realms? I don’t mean to be condescending but I have not once in my life ever felt that is the case. My Dreams never result in anything, they are nothing but fantasies that my brain has created for itself when it’s bored. Have you ever truly experienced something greater in a dream? Something that lead to a change in anything other than your own mindset or opinion? The idea that people find higher meaning in their dreams scares me.
I think it’s extremely interesting to look at religious beliefs differing from polytheism and monotheism. Pantheism, Animism, and other religious beliefs are so different than the Abrahamic and Familiar faiths, it’s amazing to see the variety of beliefs that have evolved over such a long amount of time.
I wouldn't say they are that different. The abrahamic religions emerged from an older polytheistic religion and Christianity was influenced by the roman pantheism. Take catholism for example, it claims only one God and yet it has the Virgin, angels and saints that are said to have their own powers.
Mateo Welles I understand what you mean, but I just think it’s interesting to see how far the Abrahamic faiths have “evolved” from the animistic faith, for better or for worst.
@@wave1090 It's extremely different and implies a completely different set of mentalities. I tell you this as an Indo-European polytheist and an animist. Monotheism, particularly the Abrahamic religions, are hardcore dualistic, anti-animistic, and reductionist religions, whilst Indo-European religions are monistic multiplicist, animistic and expressionist religions.
To claim any similarity between Abrahamism and IndoEuropean polytheism is to not understand the IndoEuropean mind and world.
However, there are nominal similarities. Just nominal.
@@alejandror.planas9802
You're right, Catholicism and its attendant saints have no relation to or component in polytheism.
Back to divinity school for you I guess, "scholar".
@@lockandloadlikehell I said there are nominal similarities, but the mindset is completely different. And I do mean completely.
My tribe has been following animism for thousand of years. We believe there is spirits in everything in this world. We worship land, water (river, rain), plants. We hold holy ceremony before planting crops and also during its harvest.
I would rather believe in nature than god.
@Vidar Gartz I dont believe in the personified gods but the elements themselves.
Whats's your tribe? Where are you from?
What is a "spirit" and why do you believe that "there are spirits in everything in this world"?
@The Billionaire Club What will you do without land, plants and water?? Will you be able to survive???? So instead of worshiping some imaginary so-called figure... worship the things around you that sustain your life.
@The Billionaire Club 😂😂 read the comments thoroughly, you will know my answer. Thank you!
We were just discussing this a few weeks ago in my anthropology of religion class. Perfect timing
Awesome. Perfect timing indeed!
@@ReligionForBreakfast I was thinking about Pascal Boyer's book 'Religion Explained', and then you started talking about hyperactive agent detection, so that was cool.
I think this may extend beyond humans, as I once messed with my cat by slightly moving the handle of my vacuum cleaner when she was near it (it would slightly shift and make creaking noises). She subsequently became afraid of the vacuum cleaner even when I didn't touch it, which made me feel bad, so I stopped doing that. Fortunately, after a few days, she no longer thought it was alive.
@@ReligionForBreakfast
excellent video - but I have a question. You weren't entirely clear about whether or not the consensus is that religion developed from animistic stages towards polytheist and then monotheistic models. To my mind - after at least five minutes of completely rigorous contemplation - it seems logical that as humans became more technologically advanced, and as a result divorced themselves from the natural world, the "natural" spirits too could have become less based entirely on nature in concept, eventually resolving into the projections of ourselves that classical polytheistic gods, and later modern monotheistic Gods appear to be.
Did we leave nature and reinvent the gods to mirror that separation?
sorry - I think that was two questions...
@jay
I think that modern Christians certainly try to separate humans from the rest of nature. We are God's "special creation" , made differently to the other animals and gifted consciousness. The way that (some?most?) Christians attribute immorality, nakedness, and even pleasure to animalistic traits makes me think that they see Man and Nature as two distinct things. And let's face it, the western world has done its best to remove us from the natural world, boxed up as we are in our concrete homes and hooked up to a virtual world.
My answer is no - humans are not unnatural.
ReligionForBreakfast hello I just wanted to ask
Isn’t assuming ethnocentrism not entirely correct? I mean, high Buddhist theology is much more like monism/pantheism than polytheism, and Brahmin and related ideas in Hinduism. As well, a lot of Roman authors in the late republic/empire, and even before with the Greece idea of the monad, often called upon god singular as a muse and philosophical body. I’m not saying what Tyler said was true, but the general sentiment doesn’t seem necessarily incorrect in a very general sense when looking at the old world at least.
Thank you. Have usually associated Animism with a fundamental relationship towards, and respect for Nature. And even beneath the Hinduism and Buddhism in most westernized Asian countries today, there are still many rituals and celebrations derived from much more ancient Animist traditions.
Once while walking around downtown Bangkok, Thailand, mainly a Buddhist country, I stumbled on a huge banyan tree, located next to a stream behind a Hilton Hotel of all places, complete with candles and dozens of 'phallus-shaped' wood carvings, all stacked like so much cordwood... apparently as offerings to the Animist spirit residing in the tree, left by 'hopeful' women, or those already pregnant, seeking a healthy pregnancy and birth.
You see similar things in Malaysia too, and it's a Muslim-majority country! A lot of people will associate those little shrines with Buddhism, but they also worship local Malay deities there that the Malay community themselves left behind when they converted to Islam.
Here in the Philippines, the strangler fig is called "balete" and is revered in a similar way as the home of spirits variously known as "anito", "diwata" or "engkanto/engkantada". They are often covered with offerings, and people still believe you need to take care around them, lest you are drawn inside, and can never leave the spirit world.
@@TooLittleInfo not converted but reverted to Islam
@@Dhruv-Kumar N O 💖
@@TooLittleInfo according to Islam, eveyone came from Adam and Eve so all were muslims so Malaysians reverted to Islam
I live in the United States and my co-worker is from Algeria. He is a Berber. He says his culture's religion is one of the oldest indigenous religions and their focus is nature and freedom.
I think the evolution of species can be a good analogy of the evolution of religion. A big misconception is that evolution works towards some sort of goal or something than better than there was before. But it does not, it just...goes. Some things just work, in a particular place and time, but not in another place and time. Everything is perfect and nothing is.
Evolution has no goal,more of a eternal journey of trail and error
If it had a goal of would have been to create a being able you survive and adapt in every envoirment no matter how hard,and for that lifeforms to be immortal or it's goal would be to create a god
Exactly, nothing is more or less evolved than anything else.
I mean ... it makes sense to see "Animism" as "the first religion", simply because of the function. It's (like RFB said) basically the pattern recognition of the human brain including non-human into the "we can make decisions"-club. This basic thought of "the mountains might be alive" is a good base for more specific believes like "This mountain is called Baharum, who is the son of the sky and the earth."
So seeing "Animism" as the baseline of religions is arguably correct. Even if the name is a bit misleading in this context.
Lot of Logical circular reasoning fallacies here.
@@maxpayne3628 like?
@@HowToPnP Are you an Atheist who thinks Religion is man made, it seems like that to me, what you're saying is not true, there are many tribes found in aboriginal which were monotheistic for instance. To claim that this is because of this.... Basically problem of induction...
It's just stupid. The best answer is we don't know and to assume either monotheism or Henotheism or polytheism is just being foolish. Because many times it's very different to separate these things..
@@maxpayne3628 "tribe" does not mean "most primitive/basic Form of belief".
And yes, I see religion as a product of human culture.
Alternatively an almighty god gave humans the one true religion, but didn't bother to do it in any useful way.
@@HowToPnP Yes I knew you would bring this and sometimes the tribe was the most primitive, whereas some advanced tribes were more henotheistic or polytheistic, many basic primitive tribes were monotheistic in aboriginals.
Why can't this tendency to believe in a God be from an God, why do you assume naturalism? Naturalism of the Gaps?
That’s an interesting jump in deductive power Tylor makes-that a “barbarian” wouldn’t be able to distinguish between a dream and being awake
THAT is called Philosophy and why I got degrees in history and anthropology. lol
Anthropology: "They painted animals in the caves" Philosophy: "They thought they were gods"
@@DBCisco It's easy to attack strawmen of what you don't understand. Of course, you would have to study something to understand it, so that is quite the quandary. A lot of modern philosophers distrust metanarratives completely, so the distance between what you think and reality is pretty funny.
On the other hand evolutionary psychology is much closer to your portrayal, which often relies heavily on similar metanarratives.
@@DBCisco It is also worth noting that you engage in philosophy, even if you don't know the technical terms for things. Science itself has a philosophical foundation, and things like epistemology (how you know things to be true or false) are grounded in philosophy. There is also a philosophy of history, which again, you don't need to understand on a technical level to do history, but are engaging in it nonetheless.
@@DBCisco Also a couple fun facts for you - the process now commonly referred to as 'science' used to be called 'natural philosophy', and a 'PhD' is a 'Doctor of Philosophy'. The idea that 'science' is disconnected from 'philosophy' is something that is pretty clearly false if you understand the history of science.
I was born and raised as Roman Catholic in Australia, but these days I live in Mindanao Philippines with my wife who is Lumad Higaonon. The Higaonon people recognize a creator god called Magbabaya, but they also believe that everything has spirits living within. Trees, rocks, rivers and streams all have spirits in them. Indeed, there is a spirit that lives in the hearth or kitchen of houses called "tumanud ku abu" (watcher of the ash" in Binukid language). The spirits must be respected, and failure to do so can cause trouble because they are "amoral". They may be benevolent, or malevolent, or capricious. Since living here, I have recognized how similar this belief system is to that of my Anglo-Irish ancestors. I have also come to believe that in our house we have a "tumanud ku abu". In Filipino culture the spirits of place like this are often called "anito" or "diwata" or "engkanto/engkantada". Despite the fact that most Filipinos are either Roman Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, or Muslim, many of these retain the ancient belief in the spirits of place.
Yes there are so many tribes in the philippines that practice animism. I wonder if there's alrea book discussing this
@@itsmenny It's possible, but I don't know for sure. There is quite a lot of information online about the various beliefs of tribes in different parts of the Philippines., and there are Facebook groups devoted to learning about and practicing the precolonial religions. My wife is 56, and as a young girl she was trained as a "baylan" by her maternal grandmother who was also a baylan. The baylan is as important as the datu, the tribal chief. This is because she is the shaman, the healer, the masseuse, the midwife, and can lead the tribe in the absence of the datu. My wife has not taken up the position (traditionally among the Higaonon the baylan is 60 years old or older). She did assist her grandmother as a young girl in traditional birthing practices, and she also learned herb lore and "hulot" massage. Her grandmother also instructed her in making traps and other traditional hunting techniques. When they went into the forest, they would avoid large trees and rocks wherever possible, so as not to anger the spirits of place. My wife taught me to say "Tabi tabi" and this I do, along with rituals of thanks, for the tumanud ku abu in our house. I have had a lot of unusual experiences here in our house. There is a belief that some of the spirits are playful (somewhat like the sprites and leprechauns in Europe and the UK) and my experiences here would have me agree with that! My wife also told me that everyone has an "abyan", a guardian spirit, and she believes that spirit in our kitchen is my abyan. I mentioned this in one of the online groups I referred to earlier, and received flak from a number of people who said not only am I not Filipino but only a baylan can have an abyan. They interpreted an abyan as a spirit guide which only a baylan could have. What my wife said was that an abyan is a companion or guardian spirit. If you look up the meaning of the Cebuano word, it means "guardian angel, companion". What I am sure of is that the spirits don't say "Ah, that one is not Filipino so I'm not interested". The world is their home. They are one with all things.
Ok
Catholicism is a pretty interesting blend of pagan polytheism and Christian monotheism. I can see how that would fit right in with the local belief system of spirits - just look at all the Saints people still pray to.
@@vanillajack5925 That's true! Effectively the "guardian angel" that children were taught each person has when I was growing up is identical tp the belief in "tumanud" or "abyan" (companion) spirits. Undoubtedly it wasn't too hard for Catholic friars to convert many native people, as there were similar beliefs in place.
I like how well thought out your information is. Thank you for trying extremely hard to be neutral.
He failed horribly. It sounds like something Kirk Cameron would put together... His religious bias is pretty clear.
He never tried to answer the question of the fact that with archeological evidence it does appear that animism predated all other forms of agency impression.
And the stupidity of the argument that we can't get in a tube machine would doom physics, chemistry also to "speculation" it was insulting to intelligence with each word uttered.
I'm always pleasantly surprised by your content. Besides choosing interesting topics, your flawless presentation makes it very engaging. Thank you for making me more interested in knowing more about religion as whole.
That means a lot to me. Thank you! Some of my topics aren’t necessarily “sexy,” but I like researching episodes that I personally find interesting.
The perfect length too. Not to long or short but just right.
I'd identify as animist. I spent most of my childhood alone in the woods. The trees became more like my home than my house. I had special trees and clearings and stumps and boulders. They felt sacred to me and I miss them dearly.
😹
You and this guy haha th-cam.com/video/bIAlfoIE9Ic/w-d-xo.html
It must be nice to have such a dear special place. Your childhood must have been full of wonder and good memories :)
Well done!
When I made my video on Animist mythology in Native American cultures, I found it best to think of “Animism” as an adjective, or a group of practices, as opposed to other strictly defined -isms.
Overlaying your reality with an animilistic lense helps people interface with nature better.
You’ll treat your rivers and mountains with more consideration if you see them as people.
I’m sámi and our religion is called animism by a lot of people. great video
Yooo, it's rare to encounter a fellow sámi online, small world, the religion's pretty fascinating to research, and how it ties into folklore is really fun
So is Cuban Santeria this artist I think is practicing! th-cam.com/video/bIAlfoIE9Ic/w-d-xo.html
Personally, I've always speculated that the first kind of religious practice to develop would have been Ancestor Veneration, based on how early archaeological evidence places human burial, but that is just that: speculation. On animism, I say this: on the material level, animism is simply the personification of the world around us. I love that this video focuses on that near the end.
Actually Religion as we know it didnt exist as a conceot till the 1500's. ANcients worshipped gods sure, but mn on calld this Religion. The word Religion only began to exst in Late ROman Imperal Latin. The term is largely invented.
@@skwills1629 Being a student of Indo-European religion and culture, with a focus on the Celtic and Norse but also with a good basis of Greek and Roman, I fully disagree with that statement. Assuming religion only existed after the word did is foolish reductionism; I think it's more likely that most people did not conceptually separate religious practices from culture. Assuming that religion only includes "religion as we know it" is focusing too much on one culture at the expense of pretty much the rest of the world.
@@gaarik Religion doesn't even exist now. Its a Category we invented. The entire point is there is no separation between Religion and POhilosophy and Culture.
@@skwills1629 To say that something doesn't exist because humans invented it is preposterous. Good day.
@@gaarik Its even more preposterous to miss the point in order to leavein a huff to assert sdominance. You do realise my actual point is, there is no one Thing called Religion, and no one tracable History for how it evovoled, Right? That Religion is a Catagory we invented for convncince whn discussing such matters?
I think you might have a misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution isn't necessarily about evolving into a superior entity, but becoming better adapted. Older branches can die out, change over time, or even stay roughly the same depending on the environmental pressures.
This is an Hypothesis which is not taken seriously by unbiased academia
@@maxpayne3628 It's quite literally darwin's theory. Are you implying his theory is a bust?
@@supahjadi8944 Darwinism is natural selection and random mutation, not this. This is an evolutionary hypothesis
@@maxpayne3628 Yes and natural selection revolves around the premise for the struggle to perserve one's life which are enviornmental pressures which is what OP is saying.
@@maxpayne3628 have you not heard of the _THEORY_ of evolution? And yes, Wallace and Darwin both came up with the theory of evolution, Darwin defined it as "descent with modification," the idea that species change over time, give rise to new species, and share a common ancestor."
Spirits inhabit masks? I saw a movie about that.
Showtime!
When I was a kid, my parents had a wood-carved African mask in the sitting room...I never went in there... I think their plan worked.
there is a game about that
a rather old game
@@ldblokland463 splatter house
The mask with Jim Carrie right (not sure I spelled correctly)
Always good coming back to this video every once in a while. You're really competent in not patronizing or ridiculing religious experiences. I'd REALLY love a deep dive into African diasporic religions especially here in Brazil. It's so complex, I feel you'd be a good person to sort through all the discourse about it.
I would also like to add that evolution doesn't really work that way either. Organisms don't really progress from "primitive" to "complex", so much as they just take what they have adapt it to the environment. There are weird anachronisms everywhere in biology, like how vertebrate eyes have a blind spot because of how our optical nerves grow. In that population, having sight at all was an advantage, evolution does not "care" about the complexity of the thing. And likewise, when comparing contemporary living animals like humans and chimpanzees, or flowering plants to ferns, one isn't "more or less evolved", rather they have differing ancestry and traits that mean they are more or less adept at surviving in different ways in certain ecological systems. It also assumes that the out group doesn't under go any changes after splitting from a last common ancestor.
It would be like calling Hinduism more primitive and Buddhism evolved because the basis for modern versions both stem from the ancient Vedas, but both have changed as they have developed over the years. Or likewise, the Baháʼí faith would somehow be the most complex or by some accounts superior, not because of its merits, but because it emerged latest from other a form of Islam, which had inspiration from the Christian faith, and Jewish prophets. And to the later point it would be assuming that Judaism hasn't changed since early Christianity, Christianity hadn't changed since the emergence of Islam, and Islam hasn't changed since the Baháʼu'lláh.
There is a certain truth to that thou, since modern organisms are in certain ways more "complex" than ancient organisms, it's true that a lot of evolution is simply about adaptation to a certain environment and there are a lot of side steps on evolution, but a human is definetly far more advanced and complex than a trilobite for example, part of that i feel is because of the kind of "arms race" that exists between organisms, because not all factors ina environment are just about climate or terrain, there are also things that have a huge impact on evolution like competing animal species, viruses, that most food is alive can and will fight back, etc, this creates some kind of arms race where the best adaptes organism wins and as such this pushes certain evolutionary traits, like eyes for example
Now evolution is something incredibly complex, but i don't think is correct at all to say that there isnt at the very least some límited linear progress towards more complex and advanced organisms
I was thinking this as soon as I got to actually thinking about the evolution comparison. Bacteria, as a thing within the category of single-celled organisms, are part of a category that predates the category of complex organisms, but single-celled organisms didn't just stop evolving then and there; they're still going.
It also brought to mind another flaw in the research, which the video touched on, the fact that he was looking at contemporary religion, assuming that "lesser races" must have some previous, less advanced form of religion, and assumed that whatever they believed in must be ordered chronologically as the researcher would subjectively order the cultures in terms of "advancement".
Similarly with the bacterium and the human, advancement doesn't just point in one direction, and neither is more advanced than the other.
The Abrahamic religions as you mentioned are a pretty good example of how something doesn't just cease evolution the moment it splits into distinct branches; Christianity now, for example, would be almost unrecognizable to the Christianity before the beginning of Islam (not to mention all the new branches). Without access to a historical record, as in the case of the researcher, it'd be hard to deduce how, or even if Islam came from Christianity, and if one applied the same imposed chronology based on which "race" is "lesser" (read: "which culture is less similar to my own") one might potentially come out thinking Christianity came out of Islam.
well i think some organisms definatley evolve to become more complex, as in their body has more and more cells that do different specific functions, but yea I also agree that complexity is not equal to how much a line of organisms has evolved over the years, because as Anadice put it, bacteria dont stop evolving, they continue to change and mutate, but some dont become more complex, because the environment doesn't pressure them to do so, but some single celled organisms have become more complex over time and thats how we got here, there was nothing with as many specified cells and functions billions of years ago as we have today.
Very interesting. I always found the topic intriguing, largely because of how Japan had a mix of animism, of Shinto with Buddhism, for some time into the modern era (to WWII). Not sure how many people truly believe in Shinto or local anamistic concepts since the 1950s, but another example of a state/society that became very modern, but had beliefs quite different from Christianity.
Would be interesting to see a video on why polytheistic cultures, or segments of populations of polytheistic cultures, moved to monotheism (Christianity and Islam), or some sort of dualism (Manicheaism, Gnosticism, etc.), between 100 AD to 800 AD.
@Mullerornis Judaism has polytheistic roots, and was massively changed because of events following the Babylonian conquest of Palestine (and the Babylons subsequent defeat to Persia), which led to Jews being exposed to Zoroastrianism, which led to massive changes in their religion. Judaism and Christianity are more henotheistic than monotheistic, too, as 'angels' are pretty similar to the lesser gods of other religions.
Christianity was the Jewish version of a mystery religion, which were already incredibly popular in the region at the time. There were Greek and Egyptian mystery religions, for instance, which Jews would have been exposed to at the time Christianity started. Christianity was a late-comer to the scene, not a trend-setter.
Mullerornis not entirely true. Many veins of Neoplatonism and other monotheistic, or mon-centric religions like sol invictus were also gaining prominence in Roman imperial times.
@Mullerornis The key question would be: Why did Christianity roll along? And in certain ways become a counterculture as well as a religion, that grew from a small sect to possibly 15 to 20% of the empire's population over a 200+ years time frame?
Mullerornis I disagree. The Pythagorean’s way before Christ had a developed sense of the monad. And Plato, and the various sects of platonic influence also had an idea of God singular in the philosophical sense. A Good example of this is in Timaeus. Even in Cicero, he calls upon a singular God for his more academics persuaded and used the polytheistic ones in a more mythological/poetic sense. And the idea of Brahman existed from at least the second millennium bc.
@Mullerornis Actually it's the other way around. Christianity originally had just polytheism-type god that rejected all others. The later Christian god is one that takes on the philosophical ideas of pagan Europeans and whittles away the original Semitic polytheist source. Those pagans usually thought their gods as kind of aspects or pillars of reality or just some other powerful beings unrelated to metaphysical talk, while still having a notion of what would later be appropriated by Christianity as 'God'. This is particularly clear when there's heaps of gods that are many-faced or have many identities and forms. There were no gods of something in particular (like saying a 'war god' is just nonsense. simplistic systematisation of modern times.) as they were characters with all the complexity that comes with that, not personified material concepts, but even on top of that they were often identified as many characters and objects. Now when you get into the modern period god is further reduced to philosophical distinctions and eventually to not needing to exist as a central being or concept at all. Although everyone's secular ideology is thoroughly Christian, they don't seem to see that they can invent their own philosophically legitimate morality and moral concepts (as can anyone else in rejecting theirs). Which is quite funny when they're the quickest to hate on Christianity.
"Why are these people inferior?"
"Because their religion is primitive"
"How do you know it's primitive?"
"Because these people practice it"
Hello catch 22
Not catch 22. It's circular reasoning, or begging the question.
The only catch 22, or circular reasoning is in your heads..
Anamism IS primitive.
@@goingmonotheist783 why and how is it primitive?
@@s_c_u_m3172
First off,
When we usually judge primitive and advanced, we clearly judge it based upon historical timeline, and putting things in a comparative evolutionary time line with what's similar to it..
In both cases, anamism is infact primitive.. it's literally the first stuff to show up in terms of spirituality, right up there with primitive cave scribbles.
Take chinese characters for example..
Sure, the characters used today are pictographic, just like the more ancient, less refined, and infact PRIMITIVE forms of the characters..
But today's characters are INFACT more refined, better, and useful than the PRIMITIVE versions that came before it.
It's just simple facts, why can't you people get it?! Did ANY invention EVER start better than their later updates?! Is that how the world works?
Do you get ideas today, then tomorrow apply them worse?!
Or don't you live, learn, add, and make things better~
Same thing applies to everything.. What's the whole mystery or bigotry about that?!
Fact of the matter is, spiritualities ARE different, and unequal in how they changed the destinies of so many people, and changed history itself.
Why do you think natural selection only works in f""king?!
It works in everything, from biology, to geology, and yes, even in the realm of ideas.
History chooses which ideas become more relivant, and survive, and drive it's progress..
And the only places anamism survives is literally the very isolated places that history had abandoned~
And it shows in everything about the people themselves! Their medicine, their political structures, their technological capacities..
Everything that's literally so stuck at the initial stages that everyone had already gone through, and got over, and developed passed long long ago..
Don't forget that ALL OF US were anamists at some point.. right?
Then history~
Any questions?
@@goingmonotheist783 ok but what is it that makes a religion advanced or sophisticated other than how long it's been around because it not like a computer or a physical tool you can't judge how effective and sophisticated it is by like testing it out the way you would a physical tool and you can't judge by age because animism is more then one religion it's a catch all term for religions that assign personhood to non living things there is nothing stopping a new religion from falling under the classification of animism.
Yes, finally a video of Animism!! I think this branching categorization of religions and Taylor’s thinking of “Primitive” religions is a reflection of past colonial tendencies to further discount newly encountered societies as the “Other”. This line of thinking extends to big things too such as kinship, trade, customs and religion but also extends to everyday such as dress, food and other tools.
I think that we, as a monotheistic religious culture, find it interesting that still have people who think our actions cause disasters (hurricanes caused by homosexual behavior for example). This doesn’t make that thinking right but it’s an interesting example on how the faithful find opportunities to cling to other ways of thinking in a spiritual sense.
Btw, until I stopped and read the thumbnail, I thought the title of this video was Atheism: the World’s First Religion :P
I see what the creators of the graph wanted to accomplish, but I always found that trees are not very effective to represent cultural phenomenons, as they are very fluid and have too many influences for a tree to represent. The development of religion is not that linear
I'd say religion evolves, just not in that way. It changes with its environment. The example of beliefs held by indigenous groups during the colonial period illustrates this pretty well.
I started believing in Animism after studying different religions and realized that there was much more to life and God than what religion describes it as. Everything is different but the same as well.
Man, you're a literal genius. Never stop astounding us with such insightful explanations of simple and complex things of yours
You talked a lot of what animism isn't but not enough about what animism is
Well animism is a lot of things I'm afraid, and what he described is as good as anything you're gonna get because "Animism" is less a single organized religion (like not even close, at all) but a useful catch-all for multiple types of religions with little to no unifying characteristics. He actually described it pretty well to be honest
He talked exactly the appropriate amount about each, I think, considering Animism is a vague term for an attribute of certain religions. What animism is, is simple, but the tree confuses it as a thing unto itself and so the fact that it *isn't* is the relevant discussion.
Sometimes when dealing with a complex subject with so many confusing aspects, rather than talk about what something IS, which often results in cliches and simplistic definitions, it’s sometimes helpful to talk about what something ISN’T. Par away the BS surrounding something to better understand it, much in the way Michelangelo believed that his sculptures already existed inside the block of marble or stone and when he got to work, he was merely carving away what was keeping the sculpture hidden. There’s a brand of Christian theology that’s similar to this concept called Apopathetic Theology or Negative Theology which, despite the name, often winds up being a very positive mindset. It’s basically the same thing: rather than trying to define God by saying what they are, scholars try to define God by saying what God isn’t. By subtracting the ISN’T, the hope is that we gain a better understanding of the IS, even if we don’t understand it completely.
@@SPDYellow Nice.
Simple. It's the belief that everything in nature has a spirit. That's animism in a nutshell.
Just found your channel. I’m a religious studies major at the university of Richmond and I’m intending to go on and get a higher degree (🤞🏼doctorate hopefully!). I am absolutely fascinated with religion and I really appreciate a channel like yours. I also like how you refute that snobby anthropologist. I was reading Emil Durkheim in the Fall on his famous book on aboriginal religion in Australia. He’s known as the founder of modern sociology, and I thought his argument of their totemic rituals was completely reductionist and lacked credible evidence. (Paraphrase: He claimed it was basically only worship of the society). The best way to study religion is to understand that the people who practiced it, fully believed it! Don’t disregard their beliefs just to get at the people and don’t do the inverse either. But anyway, I’m excited to binge watch your videos! 😁
"Primitive" is not a negative term, it just means that something came first and later things developed from it (just like the Latin root word "primus"). Something primitive can still be complex, advanced, alive, and contemporary compared to that which descended from it. From your video, animism does seem like it may be a primitive religion.
It has been used negatively for a long time, so it's just natural to avoid using it in some circunstances
I get what you're saying and you're not wrong but I think it's pretty clear what these people from a couple hundred years ago meant by it.
Especially with their often use of the term "lesser races" as something practically interchangeable with the term "primitive".
Just because a term doesn't mean anything harmful when placed in a void, that doesn't mean it was not used to be harmful.
A teacher said something one time which was "it is impossible to clearly define every word, since the use of a word can be changed by context, words do not exist in a void in any situation other than in a dictionary". They went on to explain that the way you defended the word here is stupid and it's usually just someone defending their own use of it.
I'm not trying to say you're a bad person for saying this, and I'm sure you're not the type of person to say it in a harmful way and then defend it with that definition.
Just something to note.
@@IOwnKazakhstan No it is a proper academic term for 'first' in contrast with 'derived' it's used in both evolutionary biology and anthropology. The other option is to say base/basal/basic, which literally sounds worse on English language. No one means negative when they say primitive in these contexts, they drill it into you that it means first ie with less derived features. Also he in incorrect in animism bring associated with all indigenous religion, it is specifically that of hunter-gatherers, regardless of where ie Africa or Europe. It just so happens that we still have hunter gatherers in Africa and not so in Europe. (and mores the pity as hunter gatherers tend to universally be both animistic and egalitarian regardless of where you find them in time or geography). Evolution whether biological or cultural is not progressive, it simply means change. The issue was due to influence of traditional Christianity, people 200 yrs ago thought evolution was a ladder with primitive at the bottom and advanced at top leading to man and then to angels and God.
We now know it means no such thing. We don't need to change all the terms used. The problem wasn't the terms but rather the misunderstanding of the entire concept of changes over time.
im constantly astonished by the level of objectivity and overall love and appreciation of humanity on display in everyone of this channels videos.
That graph can't even be accurate. It disassociates all connection between Hellenism, Roman Polytheism and Christianity.
While Christianity did have its roots in Judaism, it's so entwined with polytheist Greece and Rome, to separate it is plain dishonest.
Or Egyptian religion is not connected to anything while Herodotus says the Greek Mysteries originated in Egypt.
That's just two major issues in this "evolutionary" tree. I wonder how many more there are...
Give me one example of polytheism in Christianity.
@@bobman-li2xd Thou shall have no other Gods before me - A strange commandment if there is only one God? The trinity? Lesser Gods renamed as angels or demons? I know you will dismiss it, but it is quite interesting.
@@truthseeker2275 You're so right. If people don't want to see it, they'll believe the lies and dogma they've been told without thinking for themselves.
That's why polytheism is making a comeback. People love their native cultures and they are learning it's not as primitive as they thought!
@@bobman-li2xd I forgot to add, in 2nd Kings Yahweh was actually defeated by Chemosh, a polytheist God. He overturned "all powerful" yahweh's prophecy on its head.
Then in Job god calls a meeting "of the Gods" in the original Dead Sea Scrolls. Even in the Bible it admits many Gods.
Finally, if god is jealous of other Gods, why? If they don't exist, it's not hurting anyone.
@@truthseeker2275 gods*. Context is important here. Israel has just gotten out of Egypt (a civilization that openly practices polytheism) and has been introduced to a Covenant with God. After being under the rule of Egypt for so long, it is no surprise that their beliefs have rubbed off on the Israelites, especially since they are a new nation. So no, it's not a strange commandment, "Do not worship idols or false gods", is what this means.
the commandment was given to Israel because they were His chosen people and would bless the whole world. They were meant to be set apart from the world, meaning they could not partake in the polytheistic and idol worship that was happening all around them.
No where in that verse does talk about other "Gods" that are on the same level as YHWY in cosmic authority. The "gods" that are before him are false gods and forms of idol worship.
I hope I have cleared this up for you.
Fascinating overview of animism. It's amazing how this language older than words reawakens when we unplug ourselves from the modern world and tune back into the natural world for a few days.
Wow that modern animism definition is interesting. Seeing agency and personhood in non-human entities. Like going "come on, come on" at a malfunctioning electronic device.
I just discovered your channel & have already binged several videos. You make excellent content -- particularly your intro to Islam video hooked me.
I would love to see similar "Intro to -" style videos for other major religions; Hinduism, Taoism, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. You could make a series of it & really help us all to better understand each other.
I've been working on a story about Paleolithic peoples, so this helps put things in perspective for the religious side of things.
It's a full circle.
Animism - Polytheism - Monotheism - Sci-Rationalism - art of Personification and Anthropomorphism to Quantum Physics and Nature in form of storytelling to make it meaningful to us so we will be more compassionate, mature and advance - Back to Animism
I’ve always interpreted animism to mean, “if it moves, it’s alive and has a soul.”
Animism is more like "If it's a part of nature, it has a soul" that includes rivers, rocks and plants and even the sun
Thank you for this video! You put out a comprehensive definition of animisim and debunked an ethnocentrist "theory" in one go.
I am definitely animistic. Thank you for this video. I think we are all a heck of a lot more diverse in our beliefs than we think. And evolution...it’s not about mental superiority in this aspect. Tyler was of his time and it’s learning. I think animism is accepting a fundamental truth people have “evolved” to think is primitive, but it’s as normal and essential to me as needing oxygen, sleep and food. As our world has been so corrupted by humans, animism also gives back some respect to Nature.
Marco evolution had never been proven. you are larping.
@@seal9390 yes it has, we're even seeing it today. Evolution is simply the process of adapting and changing over time. It's a verrrrry slow process.
We can even look at a group of humans (can't recall their name ATM) who spend most of their time in the water, and biologically their bodies have adapted and changed in order to accommodate them in which everyone else around the world don't have those features as we have never needed to change for them. And that's just the physical adaptation.
Infact we could use dogs as a speeded version of evolution because instead of nature weeding out what is unnecessary for survival - we were able to push certain characteristics that don't really hold dogs today live on their own without the support of a human. Not only have we been able to change physical appearances but also mental appearances aswell. Certain dog breeds working best for certain jobs that was what they were bred for. And that is us deciding what works for us rather than nature deciding what works over time as things in nature naturally change slowly aswell
I imagine an atheist might conclude that even monotheistic belief in a personal god is still just another for of animism: attributing personhood to something that is not a person.
I do like the connection made between animism and the "tendency of humans to see the world as social". Projection. Makes a lot of sense.
as an atheist here, Yes, I can confirm your assumption is correct. Further, we(I) see monotheism simply renaming or retitling polytheistic lesser gods as angels or demons. The personal aspect is another interesting component, it is facinating how the inner speech mechanism gets co-opted to form a 'relationship' with a fictional character. Children have imaginary friends which they outgrow due to social pressure, adults have a personal god which gets reinforced by social affirmation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_the_Greek_gods
@@truthseeker2275 I should clarify that, while I do not personify that "something" I do not consider myself to be an atheist. I do not deny the existence of some "higher power" or "ultimate reality" but I highly doubt it is a "personal" "being". Something more like an all pervading impersonal force, energy, or power like the Force in Star Wars or the Tao.
@@lshulman58 Energy exists, it is measurable, it is impersonal and we know nature, life and people are sustained by it. BUT why call it a God? If we look at all the history of the gods, we see them starting off as persons and as we understand nature more an more the personhood of the gods are diminished...by the point you get to highly doubt it is a "personal" "being" why still call it a god? For all intent and purpose, you are then an atheist even if you feel uncomfortable with the label.
TruthSeeker
All energy comes from the One which you could call it God, the Universe, Infinite Consciousness, Supreme Reality or what-have-you. Hindus call it Brahman
Believing in a higher power that permeates nature seems the definition of animism to me.
The fact he calls out colonial influences in our collective, world history is fantastic! Bell notification clicked.
Personally I think the whole idea of spirits and souls came about out of human's need to have some form of control over their surroundings. The idea that it when it rains or when the river floods is completely out of their control was probably a very scary prospect for early humans, especially when their lives depended on things like rain and the river not flooding. So to give the rivers and clouds some form of personhood, to turn them into something that can be persuaded or bargained with was likely a very comforting thought and one many people would be willing to invest into.
This is a great video. I think by our nature animism is natural for us, despite many wanting to see it as some primitive belief system. It is so common for humans to anthropomorphize and form connections with things that have meaning to us, be it a beloved pet/animal, or even inanimate objects. I don't see these two things as being too far off from each other, and in some ways is the same. If it is so easy for us to imagine the thoughts or emotions we think our pets are having/feeling, it doesn't seem like a stretch that many humans over the course of our existence had reverence for and believed that ancient mountains, trees, rocks and bodies of water had spirits/feelings/souls.
Your channel and content are extremely intriguing. Always look forward to watching your stuff. Thanks for all the time you take to explain all this
Please do an episode on Druze. They are rarely mentioned, yet I think they deserve more recognition. They are not even found on the Evolutionary Tree of Religion
That was a wonderful and effective roast of Tyler my dude. People like that are still around and I hope they get the message.
I think it's fair to call Taoism animistic, it conceptualizes agency in the natural world (via 'qi'), but it sounds odd to say it thinks of the natural elements as having 'personhood', but rather it's usually described as having more abstract 'energy'.
Same thing with Shinto ('Kami') or Polynesian religion ('Mana').
ReligionForBreakfast, indeed. This is the 2nd video I watched from your channel (discovering it yesterday) while eating breakfast.
I practice the Occult, specifically Thelema, so my style is very eclectic, borrow a little of this, a pinch of that... so I love to learn about old and new system of belief! Thank you so much for the work you do on this channel!
I think you would get along with this guy th-cam.com/video/bIAlfoIE9Ic/w-d-xo.html
So you mean to say you don't believe any of it.
Great explanation of animism and how it fits into the history of religion! I appreciate the way you broke down Tylor’s theory and showed how modern scholars view animism differently. It’s important to respect indigenous beliefs and understand how they see the world as full of life and spirit. Thanks for sharing!
I use animism as a part of my personal branch of Wicca. Blessed be!
Thank you for your work on this channel. I discovered it through a class I'm taking, and I know I will come back to it frequently, even after the class is over. This is one of my favorite videos so far. As an Orthodox Christian, the paradigm of modernism is very problematic from my point of view, and this concept of "animism" is a fantastic example. Agency cannot be limited to the material world, and it was a big mistake to think it could. "Monotheism" assumes that the "gods of the nations" do not exist, but second temple Jews and early Christians never made such an assumption. Just because a people had not received the Torah or the Gospel, did not mean they totally lacked a real understanding of spiritual reality. In many ways, their understanding was superior to that of our own...we who find ourselves lost in a scientistic paradigm of cold, flat, secular materialism.
This really helped me for my 3rd year anthropology test
what world knows as HINDU people, but we have been worshipping natural stuff for a long long time.
Nature worship also called naturism in that and animism worshipping these,
Ancestors / पितृ पूजा
Martyrs / सुरधन पूजा / शहीद पूजा
Cow / गौ पूजा
River Ganga / गंगा पूजा
Mountain Govardhan / गोवर्धन पूजा
Holy basil Tulsi / तुलसी पूजा
South indian ocean worshiping by ram / दरिया देव वरुण पूजा
Banyan tree / वड पूजा
etc... lots of other stuff.
In defense of Animisim, panpsychism has recently gained some traction among certain circles in neuroscience, especially when it comes to the mystery of consciousness.
Appreciate the reference to Latour. His work helped frame my own growing interest in animistic thinking.
As an atheist I find animism to be extremely interesting and has in fact been an inspiration for the manga series I'm making.
Same. It's absolutely intriguing to me. Deep down, there are psyco-social roots of animism. This form of religion is IMHO one of the oldest traditions from our hunter gatherer days that we carried over to modernity in some form whatsoever and much in morphed form.
Also, best of luck with the Manga.
@@tasnimulsarwar9189 Thanks
This is a late comment since this video is old but I wouldn't say that MOST scholars today reject the idea that polytheism evolved from Animism. This theory is still acknowledged as a major possibility in peer reviewed History textbooks used in universities today. These textbooks don't consider Animism inferior in any way but they do consider the possibility that it is the earliest religion because of its connection to hunting-gathering societies while polytheism has a connection to later agricultural societies. It's the idea that agricultural societies evolved from non-agricultural societies, and their Animistic religions evolved into complex polytheistic religions that reflected the hierarchies of their new "civilizations", while the societies that remained as tribal hunting-gathering communities continued to evolve into their own unique and separate religious beliefs (the Animistic tribal religions of today that were used to construct theory). I feel like this video takes into consideration the original theorizer's version of Animism but overlooks the research that has been done since then. The argument that today's religions aren't descended from Animism because the idea asserts that the tribal religions used to conceptualize it were inferior is, to me, like trying to argue that agricultural societies and later industrial societies couldn't have possibly evolved from hunting-gathering societies because that would imply modern nomadic communities are savage. It is possible to acknowledge that polytheism evolved from Animism without separating them as "civilized" and "uncivilized".
Shinto! The Japanese are an advanced culture and animism has always been at the core of their culture and theological and moral structure
What does an advanced culture mean?
@@gazibizi9504 non tribal
thanks, sir, for deconstructing eurocentric anthropological 'knowledge' production.
My 3 yo daughter asks how you can make a whole video about animism and not mention Frozen 2 even once?
XD
Hey, maybe she should just...let it go
@@spencerkoelle184 Yeah, go Show Yourself.
how does a 3 year old know or understand what animism is
@@lurji He is the 3 year old. "I am asking for a friend called "not me""
In fact, seeing evolution as demonstrating higher and lower forms generally is an error. At best evolutionary theory defines better and lesser fit forms. Great video and this is a compliment and not a complaint!!
After listening to this informed, eloquent, organized presenter, shall I now read comments from random web surfers?
when you think of something you give it meaning, a vibe, a spirit simply by the patterns that it evoques within you and other people. Commun patterns seen by commun people gives a common soul to everything within humans
Take a Polynesian sailor from a thousand years ago, a Russian sailor from the 1700s, a Japanese Sailor from the future, a New England sailor from the present, and a Greek sailor from 2000 years ago and the funny thing is they’re all pretty much going to agree the sea is alive.
Thanks for all your hard work, man.
Great work! Non biased and data based as always.
I'm really happy I found your Channel.
What do you think about Durkheim’s claims in elementes of religious life about totemism being the more possible first form of religion? I know some things said in the video could also apply to this case.
This made me think of the Canticle of Brother Sun and Sister Moon by St. Francis of Assisi. "Praised be You my Lord with all Your creatures, especially Sir Brother Sun, Who is the day through whom You give us light... Praised be You, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars, In the heavens you have made them bright, precious and fair..... Praised be You, my Lord through Sister Death, from whom no-one living can escape. Woe to those who die in mortal sin! Blessed are they She finds doing Your Will." And so on
Shouldn't the first religions have features in common of all religions?
So I don't see why the idea that animism is incestral is untestable.
Also something being primitive doesn't mean it's less complex. It means it is more similar to some ancestral condition.
Love your work! A deep dive into Julian Jaynes' 'bicameral mind' theory comes to mind given the subject of this video essay. A theory that I think deserves a fresh exploration. It's quite the rabbit hole, though.
The religion in which we believe in Anime 🙏🙏🙏
I think animism is an interesting belief. Not because you can factually uphold it, but because of its effect. I’m not generally a Consequentialist in the school of philosophy. However. if the result of a person being an animist is that they’re more in tune with their environments and have a closer emotional connection to the world, I can think of more positive outcomes than negative ones. If my theory is right, animism probably stems from our capacity for empathy and personification as social creatures.
meanwhile, one of the latest Inspiring Philosophy's video demonstrates how Monotheism was (way back then) a religion structure of herders & nomads, while polytheism was that of cities & "development".
@Nom Anor Monotheism actually developed in Judaism largelt independently. Judaism actually went through its transition from its original polytheism to its current monotheism while the Hebrew bible was being written and remnants of that remain in the bible to this day.
@Nom Anor The exodus is entirely a myth. Judaism developed from polytheism to monotheism entirely inside the Levant, without Egyptian influence. Moses did not exist. Atenism had no lasting influence.
@Nom Anor Zoroastrianism certainly did, Atenism absolutely not.
JoaoG R Inspiring Philosophy hasn’t got a clue. Herders and nomads were idols worshippers, each tribe had its own gods, with one of them usually being the most important. There’s plenty of hints of that in the Bible. Monotheism was pushed in a later more “developed” stage of society to help reinforce the power of the kingdom. Altars built on top of mountains all over the place were difficult to control that’s why they were banned and the cult was centralized to the temple in Jerusalem.
The story of the golden calf is an example of a piece of propaganda meant to spread the idea that worshipping your own idol is very bad, worshipping Yahweh is good.
Monotheism was about consolidating power, as the example of Aton - emerged from the polytheistic, developed and urbanized Egypt - clearly shows.
I do think that the idea of different levels of religion and some being objectivly more advanced is rediculas ethnocentrism, the same problem happened in discussions of cultural levels as well.
However, fundementaly, Polytheism does somewhat come out of animism. Polytheistic gods are, basicaly, Animist spirits that have been given more charecter, more development, and have probably been combined a couple times to reach the level of development they are at when we can see their evidence.
I'm saying this both as an Animist/Polytheist and as an Anthropology student.
Oh man, I remember that religion family chart.
It's terrible.
Says my religion, the Baha'i Faithx is a combination of Reform Judaism, Protestantism, and Sufism. What nonsense.
Where did the Baha'i faith decend from?
@@lucasblaise11 it came out of Bábism, which itself came out of Shi'a Islam. It also incorporated some aspects of Buddhism with their concept of "Manifestations of God", which includes significant religious figures from several different religions.
@@lucasblaise11 Twelver Shia and Sufi makes the most sense.
@@adult456zig No, there is no direct Buddhist influence in that sense. The concept of manifestations comes from Islam, definitely not Buddhism.
@Now Behold The Baha'i Faith was born out of the Babi movement which was itself born out of the Shayki movement of Shia Islam. We confirm the Twelve Imams of the Twelver Shia. So our biggest religious influence and relationship is just missing on this chart.
Quite a bit of Sufi ideas were commented on by our prophet when he spent time in Azerbaijan among the Sufis, so one could also point to influence there in the terms that this chart is trying to do.
While we confirm Christianity and Judaism like how Islam does, there's no contact or influence on our doctrines from Reform Judaism or Protestant Christianity as the chart shown implies. All the influence from Judaism and Christianity were essentially filtered through Islam, so drawing a line between Judaism and the Baha'I Faith like the chart does is like saying your great grandparent is your parent. :p
Likewise while the Faith confirms Buddhism, Hinduism, and Zoroastrianism, there aren't really many theological ideas borrowed from it enough to establish some sort of familial relationship. Ignore what the other poster said, the idea of manifestations of God comes from Islam, not Buddhism lol.
There's also a bunch of other problems I noticed with other religious entries on the chart back in the day. I assume whoever made it just did basic googling and guesswork to fill in the details of whatever they didn't really know.
The Whanganui River in New Zealand and the Magpie River in Canada are recognized as a Legal Persons for their protection. Animism has great utility in secular cultures.
David Abram's "The Spell of the Sensuous" has the most interesting interpretation of animism I've seen from a western/white perspective so far.
And Daniel Quinn's and Derrick Jensen’s and that’s it. In that order.
You shouldn't use such a broad/meaningless thing as 'western/white' that is no a perspective but a large grouping of interrelated cultures.
Edit: also ironically Abram seems to impose the same nature-respect, noble savage nonsense on animism that is entirely unique to western european culture and completely inaccurate.
I like the description of animism as being a religious manifestation of the human tendency to make things “social”. That’s kinda nice
Well done! I remember Tylor’s name from Anthro 101, back in the Paleolithic, but I never really knew what he did. (I must have guessed right on the test, because I got an A in the class.)
PS - My religious beliefs include animism.
Besides, pre-contact, a lot of South American Indigenous cultures were polytheistic, and a lot of North American Indigenous cultures were monotheistic. Does the name Gitche Manitou look familiar to anyone? The Great Spirit? I do believe that's specifically a Huron name, but a lot of Nations have the concept of Creator.
Are you telling me an animist isn't just someone that really like Naruto?!
pretty wild, eh? 'animism' and 'anime' have the etymologically same root
For those not familiar on how evolution and gene transfer works, besides the usual parent-progeny of eucaryotic organisms, here's an introduction on horizontal gene transfer, which is very much similar on how culture and religion are transmitted within human populations/groups. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
You should make a video on the possible connection between pschadelics like mushrooms and DMT and the beginnings of early religion
This is a false assumption. There are many places where the indigenous people have visions without incorporating psychedelics.
Wendi martin I didn’t make any assumption, I said possible connection. I just think it’s a interesting idea for a video
If you’re into that, you might be interested to look more into Soma, a hallucinogen used in early Hindu/Vedic practice.
@@wendelynmusic I agree, I think the psychedelic influence is way overestimated, I think a dark night, a campfire, life-threatening animals and a trance dance is more than enough to hallucinate, tell stories, form strong social cohesion and common beliefs.
Dmt and extreme meditation get the same experiences
A fantastically articulated explanation. I loved your point about humans naturally wishing to expand the social sphere into our environments since so many can identify with that even if they aren't spiritual. Even as an adult I ascribe personalities onto effigies, masks, and paintings that resonate with me and I would feel quite alone without their 'company.'
I just looked up what animism was
yesterday
even scientists use animism like language like "atoms like to be in lower energy state", it is not that we actually think they do, but giving objects agency helps us think about the world, the human brain is evolved to model social interactions
This chart has almost every variation of native american (US and Canada) shamanism developing out of the Anasazi religion. I know the Anasazi is just an exonym for Ancestral Puebloans but didn't they descend from the plains tribes and settle in the southwest, not the other way around?. Also I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Inuit culture and language has more in common with North Eurasian cultures than it does with other North American cultures.
I would not expect such an infographic to be that accurate...probably many complex facts are simplified to the point of being plain wrong.
Samuel Hartman
Inuits are more connected with Polynesians