# animism / paganism



## Scott (May 19, 2006)

Is anyone aware of any online presuppositional critiques of animism or paganism?

Also, how would you guys go about critiquing animism? For purposes of this discussion, let's define Animism (from this source) as the belief that all natural life is inhabited by souls of spirits, i.e. trees, rivers, animals, stones, and men. These spirits can exist in a separate state. Animists believe that the spirit is the sole organizing principle of the physical universe.

Animists believe that reality is all one piece. There is no clear-cut distinction between human beings and animals, between animate and inanimate matter, or spirit and matter. Ultimately, there is a unity to all of life. The cosmos is but a continuum of spirit and matter. Animals may be ancestors of men, people may change into animals, trees and stones may possess souls. The universe is a symbiotic (interdependent) system. Seeing this inter-connectedness, or oneness in nature, is the ultimate religious experience. It may come while meditating alone in the wild, in a dream, or in a religious ceremony.


The natural universe is inhabited by countless spiritual beings. These spiritual beings are manifestations of a general life-force. Without this life-force nothing could exist. The true character and power of any object is found in this non-material substance. This includes inanimate objects as well as animate objects. This "spirit stuff" or life-force, can exist in varying concentrations. A great man is said to have a greater concentration of it. The stronger gods (or spirits) have more of it; a strong charm or revered fetish may have more of it. The secret to success, fame, or victory, is to acquire more of this force. This is done by magic of various means.

[Edited on 5-19-2006 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (May 20, 2006)

Nobody here is able to defeat paganism / animism?

What do you guys think about this critique from Norm Geisler?


> AN EVALUATION OF NEOPAGAN POLYTHEISM AND FEMINISM
> 
> There are many obvious condemnations of neopagan polytheism in the Bible, but my evaluation here will be strictly philosophical. In the interest of fairness I will limit my criticisms to questions of coherence or internal consistency. The first four criticisms apply to polytheism in general. The rest are directed at the neopagan feminist forms.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vytautas (May 22, 2006)

> The Denial of Ultimate Unity. There is also a self-defeating nature to the polytheistic denial of ultimate unity. Everything cannot be radically pluralistic. We live in a uni-verse not a multi-verse. Indeed, the polytheistic position is offered as a unified system of thought. But in presenting a unified thought about ultimate reality, they deny the very philosophy they are advocating. If reality were radically polytheistic we could not even know it. Any claim to know ultimate reality betrays a more basic commitment to a unity of thought that denies the polytheistic view.



The form of polytheism evaluated here is that nature is made up of divinities because this would define pluralism. However, it is asserted that a pluralistic view cannot be known because it denies unity in thought. If it is self-defeating to deny ultimate unity, then ultimate unity of nature is axiomatic because it is self-evident. In other words, if the indirect proof of ultimate unity assumes the denial of ultimate unity and concludes with a contradiction, then the opposite is true which would occur because it is self-defeating to deny ultimate unity. By advancing that everything cannot be radically pluralistic, it is not the case that some things are radically pluralistic. The ultimate unity of nature is another way of presenting pantheism or monism because unity means that everything is made of the same thing.


----------

