Board index ‹ God

[Pro Camera]

Polytheism is more rational than Monotheism, Monism or Pantheism

My thesis is that Polytheism is the most rational form of belief in gods/goddesses, because of the following points:

1. Polytheism has no moral and ethical contradiction

Because there are different gods, there is no unified moral, ethics or punishment. The world is good and pleasant, but also to the most part bad and cruel, because different forces are fighting for their existence and the favor of the people. The suffering on earth is grounded in the lack of an almighty creator, that would have the compassion and might to stop violence and suffering. If Pantheism would be real, the Pantheist god would have to be not better than the average human in a moral sense, because he/she would be to the most part ruthless and cruel. There would be no reason to worship him/her, because worshiping a compassionate human being, would make more sense. The different deities of different religions have different characters and stages of compassion, so therefor humans can choose the most lovingly deities, who have good intentions towards people. This is more rational, than worshiping an mostly evil pantheist, monist or monotheist god.

2. Polytheism explains why there are different religions and different gods

While monotheism has to negate that other gods exists, polytheism doesn't have to negate their existence. The actual reality shows, that there are different kinds of gods, religions and revelations, which can by monotheism only explained with lies and evil(Satan, Demons), while polytheism can accept all forms of belief as an expression of divine diversity.

3. Polytheism is more in line with evolution

Polytheist creation stories explain evolutionary processes as ancestor lineages and the becoming of the conscious, out of the unconscious. This is reflected in for example the Norse or Greek creation myths.

Polytheism knows deity families and lineages, also ancient ancestors like the Titans, while Monotheism negates evolution and claims there always had been a god that created the unconscious and conscious. But consciousness requires unconscious matter as a reason to rise up, so polytheist, non-creationist deities out of matter, are more realistic.

History and archaeology today makes it possible to trace back the evolution of gods and religious concepts, there is no doubt, that all that is based on the principles of evolution and not on a single revelation by one or few persons.

4. Polytheism requires no almightyness

While Monotheism, Monism and Pantheism leads to acceptance of an almighty god, Polytheism does not require it. If a single god is almighty, he is not able to make mistakes. He would be a perfect programmer and everything he/she does, would be perfect. But we know from the Christian scriptures, that Yehova is angry, jealous and in bad mood. But an almighty being could not create something, that would make him angry, because anger is a product of evolution and a mechanism to cope with challenges and find a way of resolution. An almighty being, cannot be challenged, because it does not require evolution. Evolution is a sign of imperfection.

If a Pantheist god/goddess would be almighty, he/she would have the qualities of the actual world, which would make him/her not better than the average human, so therefor not worth to worship or listen to, because of his/her cruelty and ignorance which exceeds the good things.
If an almighty Monistic god would have created the actual situation (Over-presence of suffering in the world) to have a divine play with the living beings, he/she would need a lesson in compassion, not his/her victims. It would also not be a good idea to worship him/her, because this would lead this deity to believe, he/she is doing the right thing.

If a single god is not almighty, there must be more than one god, or this god must have weaknesses and imperfection, which would mean, that his creations, could once become a better being than him/herself. So Apotheosis would be a spiritual goal, which would ultimately lead to polytheism.

So therefore, imperfect, multiple gods are more realistic, than a single, almighty one.

5. Polytheism is the most ethical choice

Taking into account the previous points I made, polytheism is the most ethical choice, because one can choose which deity has qualities, that are good for humanity, animals and the whole planet. This would people force to choose a compassionate, friendly and parenting deity, instead of choosing an angry punisher, or sadistic divine player. Pantheism, Monotheism and Monism on the other side, don’t have a choice, because there is only one deity, who as to be accepted and worshipped with all his/her failures, ruthlessness and evil.

[Oblov]

If we move away from abstract or "ideal" polytheism and examine factual polytheistic religions, we

• find a variety of different ideas of afterlife judgement or punishment or afterlife concepts that are not necessarily positive.
• find that all actual polytheistic religions are ethnic religions which imply a given set of gods of the city, tribe, nation which aren't to be chosen to worship, but are obligatory to be worshipped by the whole community. Worshipping you "deity of choice" like in mystery cults are at best an add-on to the communal cults.
• find that actual polytheistic religions are tolerant against "beliefs," but intolerant against practice, i.e. worshipping the gods of the city, tribe, nation etc. is obligatory and any negligence is up to punishment. Socrates was put to death in 4th century BC Athens because he was accused of teaching the youth to neglect the gods of the city.
• find that imperfect gods can come with a plethora of problems, which is demonstrated by the discourse in Greek philosophy which developed either a godless ethics or ethics which depends on a single being. Ancient critics of religion mainy despised their pantheon of gods for being immoral and not a role model for morality.

Also important to address is the violent competition among deities, which can become violent competition among humans, insofar as human 1 invokes the power of god A to harm human 2 and human 2 invokes god B in revenge to harm human 1 (magical practices, harm spells).

It should also be noticed that the first theodicy was developed by Epicurus in response to the widespread fear among his contemporaries of the gods.

The factual polytheistic religions are no counter-evidence against an abstract idealistic construction of a polytheistic religion. They are, however, proof that polytheism does not genuinely or necessarily have the characteristics and advantages you ascribe to it.

[jimwalton]

Polytheism is self-contradictory because multiple deities are inevitably going to be in competition with each other since not one of them has full or complete power. What is to motivate us to believe that these multiple gods cooperate closely and conform their powers and wills to each other in such harmony? Therefore these alleged deities are not only in competition, they are also all less than divine on the basis of less-than-complete anything: power, presence, morality, or knowledge. If there are more than one god, then no god is truly god—at best, only what we might call "divinities." There are no true gods in polytheism, and therefore to consider it a "theism" is a self-contradiction.

In addition, since one God is sufficient to explain the source and order of the universe, postulating many gods is just multiplying causes without necessity, which is contrary to true philosophy (according to David Hume).

Monotheism, in contrast, is logically consistent and not self-contradictory. It is no contradiction to have a single deity that is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, creator, sustainer, and sovereign. Monotheism is the simpler explanation and therefore has greater explanatory power.

You mentioned the problem of evil. This has been dealt with thousands of times throughout history and has been proved to not be a contradiction. If God and the existence of evil are self-contradictory, you have to identify which of these premises is a lie:

• God exists
• God is omnipotent
• God is omniscient
• God is omnibenevolent
• Evil exists

These 5 propositions do not by themselves formally entail a contradiction. Something would have to be added to create that. No one has ever succeeded in producing this additional proposition. While people struggle with the problem of evil and suffering, it's certainly not a logical contradiction, let alone a blatant one.

> Polytheism explains why there are different religions and different gods

There are other explanations as to why there are different religions, the primary one being that people have a notorious capacity to want to find their own way and to believe what they want to believe. Many people seem to have an inner stubbornness to not want to be told what to believe.

> Polytheism is more in line with evolution

Monotheism has no problem with evolution.

> Polytheism is the most ethical choice

As the previous contributor wrote, "imperfect gods can come with a plethora of problems, which is demonstrated by the discourse in Greek philosophy which developed ... a godless ethic." An observation of polytheistic systems in antiquity did not lead to a just and moral society.

[Purple Scarab]

> Polytheism is self-contradictory because multiple deities are inevitably going to be in competition with each other since not one of them has full or complete power. What is to motivate us to believe that these multiple gods cooperate closely and conform their powers and wills to each other in such harmony? Therefore these alleged deities are not only in competition, they are also all less than divine on the basis of less-than-complete anything: power, presence, morality, or knowledge. If there are more than one god, then no god is truly god—at best, only what we might call "divinities." There are no true gods in polytheism, and therefore to consider it a "theism" is a self-contradiction.

This entire argument is basically monotheistic propaganda. "It's either the only god or not god!" No... maybe monotheists are just wrong about what makes a god.

> In addition, since one God is sufficient to explain the source and order of the universe, postulating many gods is just multiplying causes without necessity, which is contrary to true philosophy (according to David Hume).

It's not though, the universe is full of competing forces which very much matches what you just said about competing deities.

> Monotheism, in contrast, is logically consistent and not self-contradictory. It is no contradiction to have a single deity that is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, creator, sustainer, and sovereign.

Problem of Evil, Problem of Divine Experience, QED

[Pro Camera]

> Polytheism is self-contradictory because multiple deities are inevitably going to be in competition with each other since not one of them has full or complete power.

But that's the reality we are all living in, look around you. Nobody has full power in human histroy.

> What is to motivate us to believe that these multiple gods cooperate closely and conform their powers and wills to each other in such harmony?

They don’t do, they competed with each other like we do with other humans or like all livings beings do. Alliances, hostility, assimilation, evolution.

> Therefore these alleged deities are not only in competition, they are also all less than divine on the basis of less-than-complete anything: power, presence, morality, or knowledge. If there are more than one god, then no god is truly god—at best, only what we might call "divinities." There are no true gods in polytheism, and therefore to consider it a "theism" is a self-contradiction.

That would imply that theism is a Christian-only concept, but this is contradictory to the worldwide view about gods. There are local gods, gods that where once humans, mortal gods like in the Indian and Tibetan religions. Like I said, many religions view the gods as mortal, born out of unconscious matter, able to have children and die. So this concept is more near reality, than an almighty creator.

> In addition, since one God is sufficient to explain the source and order of the universe, postulating many gods is just multiplying causes without necessity, which is contrary to true philosophy (according to David Hume).

But this negates the experienced reality that is now existent. There is no divine order, but much chaos and conflict, much suffering, few joy. The physical laws of nature, are without mercy and compassion. Most parts of the known reality are deadly for any form of compassionate life. Life has only evolved on a very very small planet. Space observation shows us, that the vast mayority of places around us, are deadly. Why doesn't make a single god this better? For what a useless space wasteland?

> It is no contradiction to have a single deity that is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, creator, sustainer, and sovereign. Monotheism is the simpler explanation and therefore has greater explanatory power.

But even if this would be true, there is no reason to worship such a god, because he does not treat his children right. The reason for letting all beings suffer, including the animals that where brutally and painful killed by other animal and humans would be lack of compassion. Satanism(Working against Gods law) would then be a more humane way of life, because it would include to make a better world for all beings, out of God´s disaster.

> God exists... God is omnipotent...God is omniscient...God is omnibenevolent...Evil exists

You could just rewrite the word God with Gods, it would make the same sense.

> There are other explanations as to why there are different religions, the primary one being that people have a notorious capacity to want to find their own way and to believe what they want to believe. Many people seem to have an inner stubbornness to not want to be told what to believe.

But then there would be no way to find the true religion, without being confronted with gods or a single god for every single human, because all other things fall under your description of stubbornness. The Quran, the Bible, Bahagavad Gita, they cold be all just products of stubborn humans. The gods or the god would have to reveal him/herself to every human being personal.

> Monotheism has no problem with evolution.

Not the concept, but all monotheist teachings. Because they speak of emotions and judgement. And an almighty being doesn't need emotions or judgement, because it doesn't have to react to problems, because it is not challenged by evolution. Evolution of a god would indicate, that there are forces outside of the deity that challenge him to change.