I see no interaction here with what I wrote. I do understand what your position is. Rewording it is not necessary. Things like this...

In response the cry of the fond is often, "It could be! It could be!" And there could be a monster under the bed or in the closet. But there isn't. Too many beds have been looked under, too many closets opened and illuminated. — tim wood

have nothing to do with my position, though I am sure it might with other theists' posts and positions. For example.

You made some assertions. Reasserted your conclusions. You made some arguments. But you haven't responded to what I wrote. There is nothing in your responses that even lets on you read what I wrote. It is a response to theist, in general. Which is fine, but it's not a discussion, using the term loosely, for me.

So, I'll focus on other participants.

I didn't say you did say it. In fact you didn't respond to what I wrote in that post here. And emotions do not just increase speed. In fact I am not sure where any speed, slow of fast, would come from without them. Robots or AI would have us, outside them, governing their priorities and functions with our emotions motivating our choices there. There would still be emotions and desires in the causal loop. But that's getting ahead and you still haven't responded to what came before.

Are we talking about fiat banking? I am so glad we both consider it odd that banks can create money out of nothing and lend it and expect a full return on that loan, plus interest, many times over: talking about imaginary gold coins. :razz:

That said, this struck me as a kind of lazy response. I put a little work into the post you are responding. Perhaps you could directly interact with what I wrote.

Would you rather -
1) Live in a world with emotions, where people suffer and commit murder.
2) Live in a world with eternal peace, but no way of being happy.
My choice is clearly the second world.
I dont want to see anyone suffer. — Kinglord1090

People will suffer pain in a world without emotions. Would you rather there is no one alive, which is the ony guarantee of no suffering, or one where people are alive?
I find it odd that after millions of years of evolution which led to a brain with a variety of problem solving and motivational tools, or programs as you might call them, you think it is better if we have fewer, those based on emotion. This seems extremely irrational to me.

Without the limbic system people have incredible trouble making decisions. IOW emotions are part of how we make decisions.

However, saying science is ever-changing seems contradictory, as science believes there to be a single non-changing answer for everything. — Kinglord1090

Seriously, this is confused in a number of ways
1) Science cannot believe. Scientists can.
2) Please show that scientists believe there is a single non-changing answer for everything. IOW show us the relevvant research. In fact one the strengths of science is that it is open to revision. And has changed on specific issues and paradigmatically over time.

If we look at evolution, we can easily see that emotions were never meant to be a part of organisms. — Kinglord1090

This is teleological. 'were never meant' attributes intention to evolution. It meant this, it didn't mean that are nonsensical talking about evolution.

Science begs to differ.
If we go to the root of all emotions and desires, we are not that different from robots. — Kinglord1090

Science doesn't beg to differ. Emotions play a huge role in what we do and how we experience. Determinism says nothing about emotions. If that's what you mean. Even if our emotions are determined, they still play a huge role in us.

Sure I am. You're treating the fetus like it's a tabula rasa. It is not. It is striving to live. You haven't made a creature that might not want to live. You have made a creature that is striving with all its energy to live. It may change it's mind later and then it can make a decision.

The organism is trying to live and grow. That is what it is doing. It is not neutral, sitting in the womb being forced to live. EVery cells is working hard to live, process nutrients, later get comfortable in the womb. The moment it is out of the womb it will go for the nipple, complain to improve its lot and more. There is no hey I don't want to live fetus. It is aligned with your choice.

I get that. It seems to me you are making a victim out of an organism that is completely aligned with the choice the parent is making. The organism is aligned. If it could somehow not be, well that would be a different story. My imaginary waiting room idea.

No, its biological. From its cells any organism is striving to continue to live and thrive. The only possible organisms that one could argue are not in the womb would be those that are not viable. But any that comes to term has been aligned with survival and being alive.

Urge to procreate isn't the same as dire urges that lead to death. That is a tricky one for humans, and to conflate it with how things work with other animals would be misguided.

People have the urge for a lot of things that don't need to be followed through (violence perhaps as an example). — schopenhauer1

I am not arguing that all urges are good. I am saying that if you choose to have a child or have one via the urge to have sex and decide after not to stop the process, the child you create is aligned by its nature with your choice to have a new being come in the world.

I just don't get what you are saying here, especially when you mention "complicit". — schopenhauer1

The only creature you can give birth to is one that wants to live and thrive. If you could somehow drag someone out of life's waiting room who doesn't want to leave there, that would be something else. But you can only create something that down to its cells is struggling to live and thrive. It is in essence aligned with your choice. Or it would misscarry (or perhaps be miscarried?).

That isn't answering how it is right to allow impositions on someone else's behalf. — schopenhauer1

But one doesn't merely do that. The only someone is someone who is complicit. You cannot create someone who is not complicit in that yearning for life.

Generally people would frown on this.. But putting new people (born) to work and deal with stress.. essentially imposing. — schopenhauer1

A difference is one can move into a house, move into a neighborhood with implicity, down to ones cells be striving to be in that neighborhood. A part of any lifeform is the striving to live. You can't give birth to something that does not want to live. It's essence is bound up in striving to survive and thrive. And it certainly may not do either. But you can't drag someone out of bed, so to speak, who in essence really wants to keep on sleeping. Their very essence is aligned with your urge procreate (if you had it, you might have wanted to just have sex, though, sure, you decided to go along with the consequences).

Religious truth is, therefore, a species of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to plunge into the pool and acquire the knack by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd. — Karen Armstrong

Yes.
And here is a tricky point in these discussions. If you talk about it this way, anti-theists (as opposed to non-theists) will jump to the epistemological issues. Hey, that's all subjective, you shouldn't conclude...etc. But that is a different issue and one that can be addressed, but first it would be good if it was acknowledged that there is a vast experiential aspect to coming to, reinforcing, maintaining religious beliefs. It is as if someone heard a poor argument for God's existence and just believed it. Then from there one can say that given the experiential aspects people may have extremely good grounds to continue to participate in a religion that seems to the best of their knowledge to be working for them.

To be fair, in the Catholic Church at least, intellectual arguments for the existence of God have been pursued formally for at least 800 years. Hindus have been doing it much longer. For them, I think it was about their search for truth. I find the intellectual approach unconvincing, but then, I am not a theist. I don't think many Christians take an intellectual approach to their understanding of God. — T Clark

I'm no expert on Catholicism (bit one one on one part of Hinduism though I am not an adherant) but both those traditions include a great deal of rituals and practices. I am not sure the goal of the theological arguments is to, on its own, demonstrate the existence of God, say. But perhaps to serve as some kind of support to belief. In many parts of Hinduism the idea is to come closer to God, generally one specific god: Shiva, Vishnu, etc., via practices. You go to an ashram to become a better Hindu, you are working on experiences and skills. You are learning how to medidate, how to chant, how to serve with focus on the deity. You are training yourself, with expert advice, on how to experience God more and end your suffering etc. And beliefs form after experience, at the very least, also.

But why is the presumption, "And this is good" a true one? — schopenhauer1

There seems to be sweet spots with challenges. IOW I think we actually do feel best when challenged. But feeling one must repeatedly stuff down emotional reactions given the power of bosses and a dearth of professional options can easily be well outside that sweet spot. I think most people are not so happy if they are doing work that does not challenge them at all - unless they can do the job AND pursue some kind of (mental?) activity at the same time that does matter to them and does offer that sweet spot of challenge. Generally we don't want to play ping pong with a world champion whose serves we cannot return and who can easily slam our serves. Nor would we choose the theoretically stress free game with someone we can beat that easily.

I respect your beliefs and opinions but how you can experience something that you never seen or heard or even touched before as "God"?
I guess this is why sometimes you can have these periods of doubt. — javi2541997

As far as I can tell I have at least as much doubt about my conclusions as non-theists do about their intuitive conclusions about all sorts of things. Beliefs they have that lead to real world decisions, beliefs and actioins that affect other people.
I don't want to go too far into how my experiences lead to my beliefs because it can so easily be immediately taken as NOW I am trying to convince others they should believe.
People can and often do base beliefs on things that work for them. They have, while they may not admit it, a pragmatic epistemology. I see this as happening with non-theists as well. They have beliefs that cannot be demonstrated to be true to others, beliefs that lead to real world actions that affect other people. In my posts above I go into this in a bit more detail. But my basic position is everyone is more eclectic epistemologically than it would seem if one looked at arguments between theists and non-theists in philosophy forums.

I take your word for it that you believe something. Axiomatic with me is that within some obvious and broad limits people should be free to believe what they like. You have also written, "...is the case," and "seems to be true." Being and truth are pretty serious words when applied to the supernatural. — tim wood

I think the word supernatural is nonsensical. Of course that can be due to my ontology. But if it is the case, it is not supernatural, it is natural. If it is not the case then it is not real.
There were people who believed elephants could communicate over extemely long distances. They were poo pooed, until it was later understood how. It could have been dismissed as a claim the elephants had supernatural powers, but actually it was a claim that they had some kind of natural power. To me if there is a God, it is then natural or real.

Which leaves the ancient question, do you believe because it's true? Or true (for you) because you believe? It's my bias that it ultimately has to be one or the other. — tim wood

I think I agree. But we all are in that situation. If you focus on the word supernatural, ti can seem like those people over there operate with an epistemology I do not. If we black box that, then we can look at how we actually decide things are true. As far as I can tell everyone is eclectic epistemologically. They all have a diverse set of ways of deciding something is true AND (importantly) make decisions that affect themselve and other people based on conclusions arrived at via a variety of epistemologies. Assessments of other people, beliefs about the presence or lack of certain qualities (or the belief there are not differences) related to the sex of a person, ideas about how to be successful socially, political beliefs, beliefs about when to use intuition and when to use rational analysis (on what issues, how much in relation to each other and more), how to raise a child and a great deal more. I see theists and non-theists alike (and both are obviously very diverse groups) making real world decisions that affect people using intuition and others with more rational analysis (and a variety of mixtures of these) and also both following tradition in many cases about some or many of these issues. I think in philosophy forums it becomes very binary, as if non-theists use, for any important decision, some kind of empirical research and theists use gut feeling and habit. Then the theists pretend often, that actually they have reasoned their way to certain beliefs based on deduction. While implicitly the other team presents themselves as having one consistant epistemology. They conclude things only via X. But I think both groups are misrepresenting themselves (not all of each group, but many in each group).

There supposed to be what the Psychologists call "Religious Experiences" which happen to some people in their lives such as hearing God's voice, seeing apparitions of divine images and witnessing inexplicable phenomena and feeling holy energies around them etc. But private and subjective experiences like these are challenging to be proved and explained objectively in scientific ways. — Corvus

Sure, but that's a different issue. And most people, heck I'll stick my neck out and say all people, make decisions based on subjective experiences and certainly based on interpretations/conclusions that would be impossible to prove to others, decisions that lead to real world consequences for people near one and even in wider society. But my point is that dicussions in philosophy forums, often given posts by people on the main opposed sides, can make it seem like the experiential aspects and not important or central. That theists are drawing poor conclusions and the issue is one related to logical and illogical analysis. And then, just to repeat that point - that non-theists, even some of them - don't make decisions or have beliefs based on things that cannot be demonstrated in some kind of repeatable empirical format to others.

I think if you interviewed the best detectives, scientists, whatever, that they would be people that while trusting their intuitions, are also humble and skeptical of their abilities, which would be one of the reasons they have gotten so good. — Yohan

I think it depends on what facets of the work we are talking about. Clearly the better scientists are not going to assume they don't need to do the research. And the better detectives will of cource be looking ofr evidence to support their intuitions and yes, both will have an eye out for false assumptions. But I think they will also have great confidence in their intuitive skills, especially those that focus on them. And there are portions of the process of both groups that rely more on intuition than rational analysis. Any skilled detective or scientist will be good at both types of processes. And while many of them will be officially humble, at least in many contexts, my guess is that most in private or in themselves have a great deal of confidence in their intuitive abilities. And that this is helpful not harmful for them. That's my intuition and yes, I see you have a different intuition.

1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes? — Corvus

Not through theoretical proofs. Via experiences. Via working with a tradition and finding that much of what I have been told is the case, and things not obvious, have turned out to at least seem to be true. Of course my belief goes up and down and there are times of doubt.

2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus

Me, I wouldn't.

I think a non-believer, were they to move to being a believer, would likely need to have experiences. To participate in a theist belief system and see what happens. They might come to, over a longer period of time, find themselves believing, or not. Much like one learns many things, via practice and experience and sometimes guidance from people with more experience. I find it a very Abrahamic idea that it is faith vs. science or reason. You gotta do stuff. You gotta experience stuff. It takes time. If you grew up in a religion or theist belief system, well, that's another thing, but even there many non-abrahamic religions emphasize experiential approaches, with practices and rituals and develop skills and change the self over time.

I think it is very hard to avoid the illusion of being certain as well. I'm not sure if I would say such is a problem, actually I think problems are just subjective judgment on a neutral reality, — Yohan

I think it can be an advantage, even, especially if you are good at something or have the potential to be. If the goal is never to make a mistake, then it's a problem. But if you commit to a hypothesis or theory or belief, it allows you to move forward. If you are detective and when you think someone is guilty or withholding information, for examples, and, yes, are wrong once in a while, it still can make you a better police that you trust your intuition and are certain. Of course it can make for a bad detective also. If we shift to tying shoelaces, I am certain each time that I will manage. Of course, over my lifetime I may fumble it and mess up, once in a great while. But I lose nothing thinking I will do it right every time, unless my ego leads me deny I didn't manage and I walk outside and trip.

WEre you just thinking about belief in God or would you apply this to all beliefs?
I work with a vast range of beliefs that I am convinced enough to make decisions based on, decisions that affect me and others. But I am not certain. There is a wide range of levels of certainty. And, for example, beliefs that seem unlikely to hurt someone either way, I give much more slack with. But have beliefs about individual people, people in general, politics, psychology, what it is that helps and hurts other people and much much more. And much of this is not based on science say, though some of can be influenced and perhaps slightly justified via science. I don't see a problem with this or how it can be avoided.

If we take agnosticism as one cannot in any way experience a deity if there was one then it would be extremely odd to be an agnostic theist. If however the agnosticism is based on the idea that one cannot know, it is not so odd. And, as I said, and gave examples, believing in things that cannot be demonstrated to others is not only endemic, but even in many cases, useful. We can have useful beliefs that are not knowledge, as knowledge is generally defined in the secular modern world.

Well, there are agnostic theists. Further you might believe without thinking that the existence of God can be known. IOW, as an example, you participate in a religion. You have experiences that are predicted - perhaps stages of growth in a specific hindu subgroup. These experiences you have cannot be used to demonstrate to others that God exists, but you find yourself believing more and more in God. One could say that it works for you to believe, not that you necessarily take a pragmatic epistemological view of truth. But hey, you find you believe.

But you do not think this can be demonstrated to others inductively or deductively (that there is a God). And you do not consider yourself completely free of doubt.

And in real life we have many such beliefs. All sorts of conclusions around other people, from employees to friends to romantic relations. We believe that Joe is less trustworthy than Mary, but we cannot demonstrate this (yes, in some cases we have evidence, but some we don't. And also the way we use evidence, often, is based on intuition. But then sometimes it comes down to vibe or other intangibles ((which by the way one can better at noticing than other people))). Yet, nevertheless we allow such conclusions to guide decisions and how we relate to people. IOW these beliefs that we do not, at this time, or sometimes ever, think can/will be demonstrated to be the case or even statistically more likely to be true
have real world effects.

I think sometimes in these discussions - not responding here to you - there can be this, often implicit idea, that one should never believe something that cannot be demonstrated to others. But then, we all have these beliefs. Most atheists and agnostics, at least those identifying as such and engaging in discussions would tend to, when waxing epistemological anyway, focus on science, and good deduction from generally accepted secular truths, etc. There can be an attendant illusion that they themselves do not believe things that actually do not meet their own posited epistemology. But, so far, I haven't met anyone who bases all their beliefs, including important ones like political ones, social and professional life beliefs, where in fact it is values, intuition, guesswork are actually at work.

Another way to put this is I think people are epistemologically eclectic. Which is fine, but it needs to be recognized.

I think N was against pity, with its inherent condescension and dishonest secondary gain - feeling better than the other person, feeling proud of expressing a kind of twisted compassion, etc. Pity is not compassion. Pity is not simple kindness.

He was also against the prioritizing of pity and perhaps compassion so it is used when it should not be. When one is abused by someone, there is no reason the focus on feeling pity or even compassion for the other, at least not until one is out from under the thumb of that person.

He disliked, may wild paraphrase, placing guilt and shame on pedestals as if there is something morally good about these and confusing these with, say, love or respect.

Zizek actually improved the accuracy of the 'quote' - "If there is a god then anything is permitted."

E.g., burning witches, heretics, unfaithful wives, non-virgin daughters who marry, people who blaspheme. — Tom Storm

Well, without a god, all things are permitted also.

Really it is, if there are humans, any sort of interpersonal or group violence or mistreatment will be permitted by a significant number.

I think it is even weaker (or confused) than you are pointing out (correctly). God could be good, but not all powerful. There could be complicated deity situations with good and evil entities in struggle. This is a bit like God lacking omnipotence - if one of the deities is called God and considered more central somehow - but it is an important subcategory. Even Christianity has a version of this. Then you could have a deity that has made mistakes and this deity could even be working on correcting them.

Then there is the whole: in some way perhaps incomprehensible to us there is a reason there must be evil and suffering. A lot of arguments against God or against God's goodness seem to presume that we can use deduction to KNOW that God is messing up morally or practically. I don't think this shuts down problem of evil arguments, especially since many theist apologists will act like they CAN in fact see the good that is hard for other humans to see in the presence of evil and suffering and if relevant the existence of Hell. But there is an assumption that we would know. Children can often logically conclude things that adults should or should not do and even use quite solid logic from their limited (in comparison to adults) perspective. Perhaps we are children in relation to the deity.

In practical terms I don't buy that argument. IOW I don't accept that it is all good really and I should accept that. But I think putting forward the argument that one can KNOW given X, God can't be good, is problematic if presented as a certainty (deduction).

And then of course the thread is extremely Abrahamic. Hinduism can't get hit in this way so easily by the problem of evil type stuff.

Further even within Abrahamism there are many believers who are not focused on all the omni- categories. Some medieval or later theologians started to come up with these perfect infinite qualities, but the kinds of language in the Bible say, can simply mean that God is, for example, unimaginably powerful. But there is no reason to assume this means God can bust logic.

Of course even logic depend on knowledge. We might have once ruled out category mixes that have been found in QM, at least many think they have. (this is not an argument that qm supports deities. It is an argument saying that what seems like a contradiction and thus deduction can demonstrate a certain conclusion around, may in fact not be a contradiction but it seems like one to our limited perspective.)

Except there are many theists who think they worship the same God as other theists. From there they can have all sorts of nuances. But we have a better way of worshipping. Or we have interpreted the word of that deity better. Many abrahamists believe that they have a shared god across religions, and in Hinduism this can also be the case in relation to other religions and other seemingly distinct sect within Hinduism. The two families of a bigamist may each think, when finding out the existence of the other family and meeting them, that they understand what the bigamist is really like, his personality and proclivities, better than the other family. But they can acknowledge it's just one guy.

I don't know what the 'can' means in Hitchen's razor means.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Of course it can, in the sense one has the ability. Is it a moral can? an epistemological one?

If someone runs into a supermarket and says he needs help getting a kid out from under a car and has no photos of this kid, I can certainly dismiss the assertion that there is a kid stuck under a car. It might be better to say I have no compelling evidence for the belief. But I think it's a potentially messy razor. Because dismissing something interpersonally is one thing, but I think it can be easily conflated with doing it in general. IOW if person A tells me there is a God, I can dismiss any sense Person A has that I should now believe there is a God. But I dont think it makes sense to then dismiss the truth of that assertion. Assertions without evidence are not compelling (at all). This shorter razor leaves out what becomes a neo-claim that the assetion is necessarily false or dismissible in and of itself.

You took that rather literally. I was pointing out the absurdity of your explanation of your goals, given your actions.. It's not talking big to do that. But I can see your strong interest in avoiding god games and in serious discussion. Of course you may add 'sock' but you'd be incorrect. I don't know who you think I am (also) but I am only posting in this forum and this thread as bylaw. You make a lot of assumptions. I think the tangent has gone far enough for me. Good luck with your goal of avoiding games.

Even more neutralizing is to not make any moves. This also avoids moves that might be insults or might not be, like your last. Which then avoids being incorrect, also.

It seems like you are interested, but just for the occasional single move.

This is the etymology of agnostic: "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" ,and can be seen here . — skyblack

I think it interesting that something that sounds like not committing to a belief either way, in this case, entails believing quite a bit, say about epistemology and, even, the facets/abilities a God must have and/or could not have. IOW what seems cautious to me at first glance is actually make a rather hard to demonstrate claim with great certainty. How does one know what a God would be capable of proving?

I hope I am not misplacing the context. IOW there were potentially good reasons to support the CCP line, because of people, read US citizens, not realizing that important research like this can be carried out well in the US for example. Here however we have a situation where one of the key people deciding to support the CCP line was Fauci, who was supporting research in that Chinese lab, which included gain of function research that is illegal in the US. Someone else, who could not be judged as having made errors in collaborating with an unsafe lab, should have made that call. And then also, if it wasn't gain of function research (on Corona viruses in bats), shouldn't he have pushed to do the research in the US? where it would be safer? And there were warnings from two US state dept. officials before the pandemic started that the lab did not follow or did not have good safety protocols. IOW it would have been several mistakes, not just the choice to do the research there in the first place, but also to continue.

A secondary weakness, I think, with this defense is...it leads to more distrust. If all this was a kind of noble lie, and the people arguing that (thinking more of any government official arguing it rather than someone like you) the have to take some serious responsibility for conspiracy theories. You can't sell bat soup as a well grounded, rational hypothesis while not only immediately the Wuhan lab hypothesis as mere conspiracy theory AND do this with either your request or tacit expectation that digital media will remove posts and videos about the lab hypothesis AND publish fact checker denials that this is a mere conspiracy theory

and not consider yourself responsible, in part, for many conspiracy theories to come.

From them, and not from you, this becomes a kind of 'hey, I had to lie, because you are irrational excuse. But then since rational arguments and statement were treated as irrational. Fact checkers used faulty logic and acted as if they knew for sure that this had been debunked, you have undermined a fundamental trust on many levels. It would be short term gain for long term losses. which of course is a pretty common formula in politics and business.

The last point I would make is this defense assumes it knows the motives of the people involved. Which at this point would be mind reading. Kind of a reverse conspiracy theory. These people meet in secret and make benevolent decisionsl. Or email in secret. There's no need for smoke filled rooms anymore.

My point was if someone were to consider nature to be Divine it would be far easier to see divinity in animals then in the sun. — Gregory

I have no idea how you measure that one, and sun cults were really quite popular, and especially if we are talking about something being God-like, something like the sun and well beyond humans ability to control seems more God-like than creatures humans can kill. I can't see why they would or did considered animals the highest expression of mother nature.
These certainly seem granted a position in nature on a par with humans, and more often than rocks, but not more so that places, rivers, storms.

Animism encompasses the beliefs that all material phenomena have agency, that there exists no categorical distinction between the spiritual and physical (or material) world and that soul or spirit or sentience exists not only in humans but also in other animals, plants, rocks, geographic features such as mountains or rivers or other entities of the natural environment: water sprites, vegetation deities, tree sprites, etc. Animism may further attribute a life force to abstract concepts such as words, true names, or metaphors in mythology

Other 'things' and life forms have soul or spirit like we do. They are on a par. As are other phenomena and chunks of the world.

Totemism create kinship ties to animals and even plants. But I don't see it putting them, in general, as deities. Often they are considered to have a common ancestor with a family or kinship group. Much more like peers in a multi-species and substance society than God-like.

I feel like I have been chasing you on that original sentence for long enough. I can't find any justification for it. And you don't seem to justify it, except to repeat it in different ways. IOW reassert it.

OK, that's what you believe.

I'll move on to others.

So how does that relate to or rebut or support (I add for completeness. though doubtfull it is this last) what I wrote.

I never said animism comes from the word "animals". — Gregory

Ah, sorry. I just don't see where the idea, supported by what animists do/did gives such centrality to animals, then. Could you justify this quote

I think animism actually regards animals as the highest expression of mother nature and holds them as God-like, hence the connections with environmental concerns

especially in light of the various points I've made. And especially that part I bolded above.

Totems expressed how we are connected to animals and most reincarnation accounts say we can come back as an animal but not as a piece of iron. — Gregory

I don't think we have a great deal of knowledge or reincarntion in indigenous animisms, though we do for religions like Jainism and Hinduism, say. Further there may be categories spirits can shift between, but we need not conflate that with importance. And if you are talking about being God-like, suns and stars and mountains and special places (not the only ones with life force, but those that are considered more powerful, say) can certainly compete with animals if not often surpassing them Especially at an individual animal level.

The social element is important and if the river and your pet are divine a healthy religion is going to give more care and thought to the pet as it expresses the divine to us more clearly. — Gregory

Pets? And again, where is this coming from? One major point in animism is precisely that things most Westerners do not and/or did not think so much as having relations with and certainly not with the degree of importants animists give it, are thought of as having relations with. They are social or perhaps better put relational with things we consider inanimate. And I am not sure why pets is coming in? Most totem animals are not pets at all and are not related to socially in any Western sense. In fact they are related to in overlapping ways that what Westerners (most at least) would be likely to call inanimate. And in those animisms, for example, that consider the sun and moon animate, I doubt most totem animals are as important. Perhaps your clan animal, though, here setting a hierarchy is tricky since they would be important in different ways.

I think we'd have to define science. Are we referring to the epistemology, the implicit ontology(ies), the practice of science in general. I think a good case can be made that it is a tool, but since the tool has implicit ideas both about reality (ontology) and Truth and how to find it, it is expanding the idea of tool radically. A heuristic I think can be viewed as a tool, even if it is a kind of abstraction and cognition, but Science is a very complicated process with built in attitudes.

I think a case can be made that certain tools are bad (for humans). I think bioweapons are bad (for humans). The specific chain/manacles made for slavery. IOW not chains per se.