Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

No serious anthropologist would ever consider such rubbish. The theory is theological not anthropological.

Well, I'm neither a serious anthropologist nor particularly familiar with Schmidt's work. But he did found the journal Anthropos, which is still a leading anthropological journal. He was a student of Franz Boaz and Fritz Graebner. And he was named chairman of the Fourth Inernational Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, in 1952. So (although neither you nor I qualify as serous anthropologists, especially you with your penchant for non-serious laughter) some people who actually were serious anthropologists considered Schmidt to be one, too.

Of course no benighted Catholic priest could ever add anything to the world of science or philosophy -- Copernicus, Erasmus, Mendel and Bacon included.

Yeah well Boaz would have been horrified by such cant.

[Ecurb]

Yeah well Boaz would have been horrified by such cant.

Myabe, maybe not. Both Boaz and Schmidt opposed evolutionary theories about cultural development. I imagine Boaz may have read Schmidt's books on the development of religion (they were translated, but Boaz was German and could have read the originals). Of course Schmidt's books (which I haven't read) are old-fashioned by modern standards, but his 12 volume work on the history of religion is still read, and represents the Continental equivalent to England's "Golden Bough".

Your anti-intellectual bigotry is showing, Sculptor.

[Sculptor1]

Yeah well Boaz would have been horrified by such cant.

Myabe, maybe not. Both Boaz and Schmidt opposed evolutionary theories about cultural development. I imagine Boaz may have read Schmidt's books on the development of religion (they were translated, but Boaz was German and could have read the originals). Of course Schmidt's books (which I haven't read) are old-fashioned by modern standards, but his 12 volume

work on the history of religion is still read,

I doubt it is still read, except as a curiosity.

.. and represents the Continental equivalent to England's "Golden Bough".

Your anti-intellectual bigotry is showing, Sculptor.

Your ignorance precedes you.
I have a Master's degree in Intellectual History. But I read much of the Golden Bough as well as many other anthropological texts as background for my degree in Ancient History and Archaeology. So the claim of anti-intellectualism is way off beam. It's value is more about understanding the historiography of anthropology but not of much use as anthropology, since its methods of enquiry were not explicit and informal.
There is simply zero basis for any claim that prehistory was originally monotheistic. All the evidence points the other way. Your claim is utterly absurd.
Such a claim can only be religious prejudice from a person that cannot see the world without the obsession of a single god.
Why would you even bring it up?
SO how much time have you spent in the formal study of anthropology?

[Ecurb]

I doubt it is still read, except as a curiosity.

.. and represents the Continental equivalent to England's "Golden Bough".

Your anti-intellectual bigotry is showing, Sculptor.

Your ignorance precedes you.
I have a Master's degree in Intellectual History. But I read much of the Golden Bough as well as many other anthropological texts as background for my degree in Ancient History and Archaeology. So the claim of anti-intellectualism is way off beam. It's value is more about understanding the historiography of anthropology but not of much use as anthropology, since its methods of enquiry were not explicit and informal.
There is simply zero basis for any claim that prehistory was originally monotheistic. All the evidence points the other way. Your claim is utterly absurd.
Such a claim can only be religious prejudice from a person that cannot see the world without the obsession of a single god.
Why would you even bring it up?
SO how much time have you spent in the formal study of anthropology?

If you studied intellectual history, you should know that the development of ideas is fitful. The modern anthropologists who crticize The Golden Bough remind me of a pack of jackals attacking a lion. Of course Frazier was an "armchair anthropologist" and much of his ethnography was incorrect, but he was also a seminal thinker. I know less about Schmidt, but apparently he was a seminal thinker, too. You appear to have joined the pack of jackals attacking him, but since you have no idea what you are talking about, you are simply being anti-intellectual. Whether Schmidt's theories were incorrect or not, he was an important thinker (as was Frazier) and dismissing him out of hand is both bigotted and anti-intellectual.

Since you have no idea what evidence constitutes the basis for Schmidt's theories, your claim that, "There is simply zero basis for any claim that prehistory was originally monotheistic" is shockingly anti-intellectual, as well as being conceited (implying that if you don't know the basis,there must be none).

[Sculptor1]

I doubt it is still read, except as a curiosity.

.. and represents the Continental equivalent to England's "Golden Bough".

Your anti-intellectual bigotry is showing, Sculptor.

Your ignorance precedes you.
I have a Master's degree in Intellectual History. But I read much of the Golden Bough as well as many other anthropological texts as background for my degree in Ancient History and Archaeology. So the claim of anti-intellectualism is way off beam. It's value is more about understanding the historiography of anthropology but not of much use as anthropology, since its methods of enquiry were not explicit and informal.
There is simply zero basis for any claim that prehistory was originally monotheistic. All the evidence points the other way. Your claim is utterly absurd.
Such a claim can only be religious prejudice from a person that cannot see the world without the obsession of a single god.
Why would you even bring it up?
SO how much time have you spent in the formal study of anthropology?

If you studied intellectual history, you should know that the development of ideas is fitful. The modern anthropologists who crticize The Golden Bough remind me of a pack of jackals attacking a lion. Of course Frazier was an "armchair anthropologist" and much of his ethnography was incorrect, but he was also a seminal thinker. I know less about Schmidt, but apparently he was a seminal thinker, too. You appear to have joined the pack of jackals attacking him, but since you have no idea what you are talking about, you are simply being anti-intellectual. Whether Schmidt's theories were incorrect or not, he was an important thinker (as was Frazier) and dismissing him out of hand is both bigotted and anti-intellectual.

Since you have no idea what evidence constitutes the basis for Schmidt's theories, your claim that, "There is simply zero basis for any claim that prehistory was originally monotheistic" is shockingly anti-intellectual, as well as being conceited (implying that if you don't know the basis,there must be none).

It's pointless bandying words with a person who has just looked all this up on Wiki.
Schmidt had nothing to say about Neanderthals because his dogma insisted that God created the world in seven days in 4000 BC.

[Ecurb]

It's pointless bandying words with a person who has just looked all this up on Wiki.
Schmidt had nothing to say about Neanderthals because his dogma insisted that God created the world in seven days in 4000 BC.

Actually, I looked Schmidt up in Encyclopedia Britannica. But at least I'd heard of him before doing so. I suppose all those intellectual history degrees didn't mention that Bishop Usher (who dated the creation to 4004 BC) was an Anglican,not a Catholic. The Catholic church never taught that the earth was created in 4000 B.C. Your on-line correspondence course in intellectual history didn't go into that, apparently. I only hope you don't start touting your Grade Point Average, from 50 years ago. Please spare us!

[Sculptor1]

It's pointless bandying words with a person who has just looked all this up on Wiki.
Schmidt had nothing to say about Neanderthals because his dogma insisted that God created the world in seven days in 4000 BC.

Actually, I looked Schmidt up in Encyclopedia Britannica. But at least I'd heard of him before doing so. I suppose all those intellectual history degrees didn't mention that Bishop Usher (who dated the creation to 4004 BC) was an Anglican,not a Catholic. The Catholic church never taught that the earth was created in 4000 B.C. Your on-line correspondence course in intellectual history didn't go into that, apparently. I only hope you don't start touting your Grade Point Average, from 50 years ago. Please spare us!

Oh dear Enc Brit is often worse that Wiki these days.
My Masters was at the best university in the UK, outside Oxbridge for such a course; it was 10 years ago, and there was so little Intellectual content in the childish myths of obscure German theologians that no one bothered to mention Schmidt.

So you offered Schmidt as being able to contribute to this discussion.
Please let the thread know what were his views on the religious beliefs of Neanderthals and what was his evidence for those views
If you can't do that then please cease and desist.

[Ecurb]

You were the one who claimed that no hunters and gatherers were monotheistic, and that monotheism didn't exist before 3000 years ago. I merely cited a famous anthropologist who disagreed. You then dismissed his disagreement with an idiotic ad hominem about his position in the Church.

I can imagine Sculptor's Intellectual History Course:

Professor: Now we turn to an influential philosopher in the High Middle Ages, Thomas Acquinas.

Sculptor: Acquinas!? He believed the Earth was 5000 years old! His idiotic philosophy is risible. I've seldom read anything so hilarious!

Professor: This is an intellectual history course, and he was an important intellectual.

Scultpor: That's the funniest thing I've ever heard! Bring on the sky daddy!

Professor: If we give you a Masters Degree in intellectual history, will you promise never to darken the doors of this University again?

Scultpor: It's a deal.

The truth about Scultor's degree comes out!