|A physical chemist attempt to understand the phenomena depicted in deanthropomorphized terms, namely those of chemical thermodynamics.|
The deanthropomorphize model is one of the stages of human belief system development, following the anthropomorphizing stage of theorizing about nature, e.g. the Egyptians conceiving of universe creation/formation, i.e. the Ennead of Heliopolis, in terms of the generations of god families (see: Anunian theology), Johannes Kepler thinking that each planet was ridden by an angel, or Rene Descartes’ human automaton actuating itself, etc., is the “deanthropize” or de-anthropomorphizing stage of theorizing about nature, according to which the human mind looking at nature has to dehumanize its point of view.  To deanthropomorphize, in short, means to free from anthropomorphic attributes or notions; or to rid philosophy or science of anthropomorphic beliefs or anthropomorphism. 
In 1882, American theologian Charles Shields referred to the “deanthropomorphizing tendency” of modern science. 
In the 1920s, Australian-born British philosopher Samuel Alexander (1859-1938), noted space-time human existence theory philosopher, explained how humanity has had to “deanthropize” itself, in regards to many of its belief systems. 
In the 2011, Canadian chemists Peter Mahaffy, Bob Bucat, Roy Tasker, et. al., in their textbook Chemistry: Human Activity, Chemical Reactivity, explicitly outline their chemical language philosophy as follows: 
“We have taken great care in our use of language, terminology, chemical notation, and artwork to avoid confirming, or worse still, generating misconceptions. We avoid, for example, language that suggests that a chemical species can ‘attack’ another molecule in some pre-destined way.”
A modern example of a deanthropomorphism or a "deanthropomorphism process" is the 21st century ridding or jettisoning of the notion of ‘life’ (or theory of life) from the science, philosophy, and the humanities (see: defunct theory of life) and residual effect classification of the ‘biology’, and its related bio- prefixed derivatives, as a defunct term, upgraded or rather deanthropomorphized to chnopsology.
The following are related quotes:
“There is only one method of apprehending the real nature of causality. This method is to begin with the world of data which we possess, i.e. our experiences, to generalize, to eliminate as far as possible all anthropomorphic elements and thus cautiously to elaborate an objective conception of causality. The many attempts which have been made in this direction show us that the best approach to the concept of causality consists in attaching it to the capacity of foretelling future events which we have acquired and tested in daily experience. And indeed there is no better means of demonstrating the causal connection between two events than to show that the occurrence of the one event can regularly permit us to forecast the occurrence of the other.”— Max Planck (1936), The Philosophy of Physics 
“Our sixteenth-century Fernel viewed the body as a tenement for faculties. One faculty was that which actuated the various bodily movements. Then came Descartes with is robot [see: Cartesian automata], a mechanism actuating itself. Such too had been Descartes’ thought with respect to the motions of the macrocosm. For Kepler still, a century later than Fernel, each planet was ridden by an angel. Then later with the ‘reign of law’ that guidance became a ‘force’, e.g. gravitational. Today that ‘force’ has in turn disappeared. There remains a curvature of space. The human mind looking at nature has had to dehumanize its point of view—it has, using Samuel Alexander’s word, to ‘deanthropize' itself. It has to dispense with ‘causation’, which is regarded as an anthropism, but is yet a final cause. It is more faithful to William of Occam.”— Charles Sherrington (1938), Man on His Nature 
1. (a) Sherrington, Charles. (1940). Man on His Nature (pg. 169). CUP Archive.
(b) Samuel Alexander – Wikipedia
2. (a) Whitney, William D. and Smith, Benjamin E. (1906). The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia (pg. 1473). The Century Co.
(b) Deanthropomorphism – Dictionary.com.
3. Shields, Charles S. (1882). The Order of the Sciences (pg. 93). C. Scribner’s Sons.
4. Mahaffy, Peter, Bucat, Bob, and Tasker, Roy, Kotz, John C, Weaver, Gabriela, C. treichel, Paul M., and McMurry, John E. (2011). Chemistry: Human Activity, Chemical Reactivity (philosophy). Nelson Canada.
5. (a) Planck, Max. (1936). The Philosophy of Physics (pg. 44). Publisher.
(b) Zucker, Morris. (1945). The Philosophy of American History: The Historical Field Theory. Arnold-Howard Publishing Co.
● Deanthropomorphism – Wordnik.