animistic

Your article says that when Christianity is mixed with the local animistic religions, the result is bad, especially when money is added.

It invokes all sort of mushy animistic preconceived notions from way back when, like the concept of divine harmony.

If you want to stick it to a religion, it would have to be shintoism, an animistic, purely Japanese religion.

Now, you may argue that there isn't any or enough evidence to support animistic beliefs.

But it seems unlikely, given that most of Freudian psychology is outdated and quasi-animistic.

You only have to look at animistic religions that are all about anthropomorphizing stuff.

And that's what I mean by the animistic fallacy.

His smug tone, the apparently relentless fondness for animistic fallacies and the surface-level treatment of complex phenomena really gets up my delicate nostrils.

Sure the country has a long history of Christianity; however that part of the world has a long history of overlapping animistic traditions too.

I cannot find any animistic religions, no shamanism, virtually no polytheistic religions outside of hinduism.

It's an extension of the Animistic Fallacy[1].

> the pre-neolithic Anatolian people were nomadic animistic people with no social hierarchy.

If the point is about "humanity" and how the world cannot have non-human goals, then rejecting the inconvenient religions (oriental, animistic, whatever) is definitely not a convincing argument.

We are naturally "animistic" and personifying.

In cultures with concepts like Shinto kami (where objects can have spiritual essence) or similar animistic traditions, someone who senses that their broken tool has been "disrespected" or feels that a neglected room carries emotional weight wouldn't be pathologized.

I believe he refers to a wider concept, since he writes, "spirits": > have a range of animistic of (ED: I think he means "or") shamanistic beliefs, totemism, ancestor worship, etc so even if e.g.