Well, my point was YOU are in the 1% on the global scale so are you running the world like you're part of an international crime family?

Turns out I am WRONG about this now as wages have increased dramatically so you'd need to be earning around $700,000 a year to qualify as being in the top 1%.

Even so my point was that the few at the very top are kept there by those below them. I don't for a second think they are all criminals though. I do think they have too much potential power though. The fact that lobbying is allowed in the US make the situation worse in that country.

Well, I am valuing two things. A first cause leads to a second right? — Philosophim

Is that a 'value'? Why is it important what comes 'first' or if something does come 'first'? Do you apply more value to first or second and if so why do you do this?

But, I don't think you've succeeded in showing the premises of cause and effect aren't real. — Philosophim

Real in what way? Why does the value 'real' come into play here? Are claiming that cause and effect are real because you value them or because you value cause and effect or because you don't value them. I'm guessing you apply the term 'real' to them because you value them so when you say 'real' you mean of 'value'. The question is then 'value' how and due to what distinction?

Try to explain to me how you can type words on your keyboard without cause and effect. — Philosophim

I can show you. Here. I had no need whatsoever to type the words you said I wouldn't be able to stop myself from typing! :D

Seriously, that is part of what I'm getting at. You are reliant upon a certain means of communication to express ideas and can only, at best, vaguely adumbrate certain feels and senses about other vague feelings and senses. The problem is we're not exactly accurate and you did note that.

I can type without any real consideration towards what I am doing as a matter of 'cause and effect' so in that respect (as with walking and breathing) I do not take part in such activities due to being consciously attentive to the world as a 'causal stream' of happenings. I merely live and do for the vast majority of my actions and at certain alarms and triggers happen to draw my attention to or from one matter to another. I do not consider my general actions as being the 'cause leading to an effect' as I probably wouldn't get much done.

I'm aware of how physics models the world. Of course in that department there has been great discoveries and successes regarding cause and effect. The matter of 'time' is not something humans seem to have much of an idea about as it is part of us not apart from us ... or maybe we do have an atemporal element? Or maybe we're just caught up in the whole obsession of measuring and comparing x to y to see beyond it.

If we break down the cause and effect into the item you gave (typing) then I can just keep on dividing up any given act. For example I could say that the cause of me typing on a keyboard is my want to communicate, but then I could ask where this 'want' comes from. I could say my thoughts instigate my want, but what instigates my thoughts. Or I could move in another direction and ask what instigated that particular thought to type, or did I even think about typing or merely acted to the cause of reading your post? Where does this go? What direction do I take? Is this meaningful and if so, or not, how?

First cause makes no sense no more than 'cause and effect' makes sense out of specifically defined boundaries. Then we're back to value and distinction.

Cause and effect are brought about due to categorical distinctions. Within distinctions values are emergent.

We can ask if values beget distinctions or distinctions beget values. It is only of ‘value’ to ask not to answer.

To ask about a ‘first cause’ states that there is a first cause as ‘cause’ and ‘first’ are framed via temporal appreciation not via atemporal appreciation.

I cannot value one thing about another without two things. I can value myself above myself in terms of temporal difference (the me previously to the future me) but this is likely a trick as the ‘now’ is the accumulation of past/future me not distinct from it.

None of this likely helps the discussion though because it is meant as means of putting an end to it :)

If we're talking global scale most, of not all, people here are the 1%.

If you narrow it down to a specific country then it is easier to look with distain upon those who have a considerable amount more than you do.

He is literally the founder of phenomenology. The term you use talking about phenomenology (intentionality) is his specific to phenomenology.

Some of the leading ideas of the phenomenological tradition can be traced back to this issue. Following the lead of Edmund Husserl (1900, 1913), who was both the founder of phenomenology and a student of Brentano’s, the point of the phenomenological analysis has been to show that the essential property of intentionality of being directed onto something is not contingent upon whether some real physical target exists independently of the intentional act itself. To achieve this goal, two concepts have been central to Husserl’s internalist interpretation of intentionality: the concept of a noema (plural noemata) and the concept of epoche (i.e., bracketing) or phenomenological reduction. By the word ‘noema,’ Husserl refers to the internal structure of mental acts. The phenomenological reduction is meant to help get at the essence of mental acts by suspending all naive presuppositions about the difference between real and fictitious entities (on these complex phenomenological concepts, see the papers by Føllesdal and others conveniently gathered in Dreyfus (1982). For further discussion, see Bell (1990) and Dummett (1993).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/

Although not the first to coin the term, it is uncontroversial to suggest that the German philosopher, Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), is the “father” of the philosophical movement known as phenomenology.

https://iep.utm.edu/husserl/

If we're talking about phenomenology then it makes sense to talk about, and refer directly to, Husserl. If you say 'intentionality' and talk about 'phenomenology' you are necessarily involving Husserl just as you'd be talking about Wittgenstein at the mention of language games or beetles in matchboxes.

If you’re here just to act like a dick good for you. You asked what should I do and I assumed you meant in order to attain ‘bliss’ so I answered.

‘Enlightened’ is something a buddhist might say not me. I had an experience that completely changed everything for me but I’m not, nor have I ever been, ‘religious’ in the common sense of the word. If you’re a buddhist and what I say upsets you I don’t really care. I’m not trying to upset people just stating what I know and what I’ve experienced.

Worshipping Elvis surely then is theism, as well, and Elvis fans are theists. — baker

Why? Is Elvis supernatural? If people believe that I guess it would be theism in the broader sense of the term. Reincarnation is a supernatural idea not an objective proven fact - same goes for pantheism. Buddhism is categorised more as autotheism I believe but there are some who are buddhist that believe in gods (outside of buddhism), because in eastern traditions people have no real issue with a pick and mix style ‘religion’. It isn’t all that uncommon.

A monk I met in Thailand (who was running the pagoda) had friends (fellow monks) who were both muslim and buddhist, and knew of others who were hindu, buddhist and christian.
Note: These were actual full time monks not merely ‘people in the street’.

There are also people who follow christian beliefs BUT don’t take the literally (as mentioned). They are more or less agnostic rather than theistic, and don’t hold to any of the idea of an afterlife but merely say they don’t dismiss as they don’t know (but I would still call Christianity a theism).

Glad you got it :D

I have no idea why broadly categorising buddhism under ‘theism’ (rightly and justly done by many) is so upsetting. No creator god, fine. No creation, fine. Those are NOT the sole items that make some doctrine theistic or non-theistic.

I'm not sure that means an awful lot to me. I don't really give a toss about what might be possible in reflecting upon my own conscious experience. Reflecting upon time holds almost no interest either. — Tom Storm

If you’re not interested in studying consciousness then a science of consciousness is pretty much a waste of time for you then.

Note: phenomenology isn’t really a kind of ‘idealism’ anymore than cognitive neuroscience is. What is different about it from the positive sciences is it deals with the item of experience irrespective of any dualistic notions.

His concern with psychology in general was the atomisation and reduction of psychology’s subjective nature to quantifiable objectivity. The very principle of psychology is that of subjective feel not some measured representation of a subjective experience. The over application of positive scientific method towards psychology was something he felt as a wrong move. If we’re measuring motion fair enough, the positive sciences make sense. When it comes to understanding the very cognitive function that formed the positive sciences he was not as convinced.

I think I’d agree with what someone else mentioned here. That is that in the US anything regarded as ‘continental’ is viewed with the upmost suspicion. That is why I see many categorising Husserlian phenomenology as ‘idealism’.

I’d say proof is off if he has labelled phenomenology as ‘assuming there is nothing external’. It does no such thing. It just isn’t interested in such things as the item under scrutiny is consciousness and ‘intentionality’ is necessarily ‘consciousness of …’ and the ‘thinghood’ of the … is not of any direct concern for the purposes of exploring the conscious experience. That is why Husserl talks about ‘bracketing out’ not ‘denying the existence of’.

Framing phenomenology as solipsism is missing the point. If you can say you are conscious you can explore consciousness through being conscious to some degree. One approach is to go through empirical science with experimentation in a physical setting by taking clear (or the best) measurements you can and the other is to enter a kind of meditative state by which you can articulate items of conscious experience and determine what is and isn’t fathomable. One will necessarily feed off of the other.

Personally I think it is a useful tool for some and something that others have no real concern or interest in. Just like some people will attach themselves to stoicism or morality more whereas others will be wholly consumed by logic or epistemology or something else.

The problem is you choosing to hold to a very specific and narrow definition of ‘theism’. If the vast majority of people who speak English don’t agree then you will have either repeat what you mean by theism every time you use the term OR just say buddhists don’t believe in a creator god (I’d go with the later).

I don’t much care whether some group of people accept the definition of theism or not. I don’t accept the definition of ‘religion’ as it is commonly used but I do understand roughly how almost everyone else uses it.

You mean buddhists don’t believe in a creator god. Okay, that doesn’t make it NOT theistic in the general meaning of the term theistic. It just doesn’t, sorry.

And as I stated there are groups that hold to the belief in ‘higher beings’ and just because they don’t refer to them as ‘gods’ in the more Judeochristian sense doesn’t make them any less ‘supernatural’ - same goes for Confucianism where it is more or less about ancestor worship (still theistic in that there is ‘other’ or ‘void’ - a beyond).

Not all Christians believe in an actual personification of god either. Many see it is a ‘force’ or ‘power’. That doesn’t make the foundation of Christianity non-theistic though.

Millions of people practically worship buddha (and I mean that literally) I’ve seen it and spoke to people about it who practice this. They don’t know why they are doing it most of the time though and refer to ‘tradition’.

It is the same as asking how is science of use. That was kind of my point. Husserl frames phenomenology as a science of consciousness - ask cognitive neuroscientists who use phenomenology in their work why it is of use and I imagine they’d say it helps to categirise and delineate between various cognitive functions by parsing them up via feelings of agency and comparing brains scans to persons subjective appreciation.

As a purely theoretical means of modelling conscious experience it is also useful in that the ‘lab’ is yourself. You cannot get to the ‘essence’ so to speak and it is the thought of an ‘essence’ that is revealing as it tells us something about consciousness - as does attention, awareness and our sense of time and authorship. Time is a very difficult problem to deal with and in the phenomenological sense we’re always talking about items that CANNOT be measured. As in time is not about seconds and minutes, because time is ‘felt’ differently by different people in different circumstances. This is where the phenomenological investigation can explore where the natural/positive sciences cannot.

Note: Husserl was staunchly opposed to psychologism.

Note: most religious folk have no clue what they’re doing or why they’re doing it. It is a system of perpetuating a myth more than understanding the mythic symbols. Jung is probably the only one in modern times that really opened this up more.

This points to the fundamental distinction between the uncreated and created. In theistic religions, that is represented as the relationship between creator and created. And that is a distinction which has been completely lost to modern thought. — Wayfarer

I think in all Buddhism gods are part of samsara but have been released. I haven't seen Buddhist talk about a being that is necessary existence — Gregory

Buddhism is a theism. This isn’t really up for dispute. I find it evasive to not reply and evade questions. I find this happens a lot when someone theistic guards their sect/beliefs. Buddhists believe in a ‘higher plane’ of being and some believe in higher beings. That is a description of theism and there need be no belief in and creator god to qualify a religion as a religion.

@baker If you wish to experience ‘bliss’ then I can tell you what to do but the chances are you won’t do it. Basically you need to stress yourself for a prolonged period of time. How much and for how long would be completely dependent upon your physiological makeup.

The triggers for altered states of consciousness are sleep deprivation, fasting, intense concentration, trance dance, hyperventilation and/or prolonged periods of ‘pain’ in some form or another. It won’t be pretty but the chances are if you achieve something like the desired goal you won’t recall half of what really happened anyway (in terms of the negative side of it). A lot of it is about being brutally honest with yourself, getting rid of distractions and facing up to fears.

Meditation - in the philosophical sense - may get you there. Meditation in the buddhist sense won’t. It can give you glimpses though. What you should be doing is what you want to do. The problem is you don’t know that so just live of a little more instinct and exploration if you are seeking some ‘answer’. Never give up, I mean never … if you experience ‘bliss’ you’ll understand why those words are ironic :D

Humans are biased (if you're human don't believe this means everyone else is more bias than you).

It is a term that had a legitimate meaning until governments put a 'this guy's a crazy' spin on it.

It depends on what is meant by 'religion'. In terms of institutions 'religion,' 'science' and 'philosophy' have more in common than not.

As a way of understanding and viewing our place in the world none of the above do so in any one particular way and none of them do so without the existence of the other in mind (however it may be represented).

An economist will view the view differently to a teacher, and all teachers and all economists will, for the most part, have a particular shared view. Would we call this a 'religion'? I don't think so, but the systems under which economists and teachers operate will tend to give them a common frame with which to view the world.

The 'frame' is important and we spend absolutely no time looking at the frame. The frame is there and unseen. How we move and direct the frame has a lot to do with its shape and the current view it gives us.

How people choose to apply 'science,' 'philosophy' and 'religion' to this story of The Frame would be interesting to hear. I am assuming some would say the frame is X or the view is Y etc.,.

Of you ask someone what something means to them they will give you an answer even if they had never really thought about what it meant and they will believe that what they answer they have always believed.

We have to believe what we say to be true and to have mostly always been true for us. We are not at all inclined to throw off certain lived narratives and so shed our skin with words all the time believe our new skin to be the original skin.

It’s all a blur we choose to see certain images in. When the image changes we change with it so we cannot even appreciate our own progression from moment to moment nor recognise a moment passing.

I'm not implying it, I'm stating it. — Wayfarer

Yu must be using the term 'theism' as rigidly meaning 'creator' then. I don't and others don't. It is only correct for certain branches of buddhism and in the cases where it isn't it is only correct - as far as I know - in terms of 'theism' being framed as belief in a 'creator'.

Tibetan buddhism is clearly 'theistic' although they don't believe in a creator god or frame the 'beings' they talk about as gods ... just because they use different terms it doesn't mean the principles are any different from polytheistic beliefs.

I can only agree (as far as I know) that there are no distinct buddhist groups that believe in a creator god but there are distinct groups that do believe in 'higher beings' they just don't frame them as gods in what would be identical to more western traditions.

Those episodes were generally brief, but the point which struck me was that it was something entirely new, something I had never felt previously. It was like another dimension of experience. As I said, they were transient, but they left an impression.

At that time I had been reading the literature of popular spirituality - Krishnamurti, books on Buddhism and related subjects that were circulating at the time. Something clicked at that time, or came together - it an opening or awakening experience. I think maybe what is called opening of heart chakra. There are such states as meditative realisations but they're impossible to describe. The consequence was a greater sense of empathy with others and also a sense of joy. It was a permanent change, although not a permanent state, because no state is permanent. But nothing exceptional, life goes on, although I think overall it made me a better person, but certainly neither sage nor saint. If you want an exceptional example read this account from the annals of Richard M. Bucke, who solicited accounts of individuals whom he said experienced cosmic consciousness. (Nothing like that ever happened to me.) — Wayfarer

You can do better than that! The link you provided did so so why can't you? I'm very curious about this. You can send DM if you prefer

Phenomenologists still make decisions and have preferences in the world (politics, spirituality, jobs, family, schools) - how are these made? — Tom Storm

Phenomenology isn’t a ‘philosophy’ in terms of being a way of living life. That is probably why Husserl was quite explicit when framing phenomenology as a ‘science’ rather than a philosophy. There is no real ‘opinion’ involved just a regard for conscious experience upon which various different layers of investigation can take place in an endless task (as with the natural sciences).

Rather it's that the deities they worship are not recognised as such by monotheism. Buddhism is not theistic in the sense of relying on God or gods, the basis of the religion is the recognition of dependent origination - emptiness. Of course, it turns out there's quite a lot of convergence between Buddhism and Christianity in terms of ethics and conduct, but the principles are nevertheless distinct. — Wayfarer

It is still incorrect to imply that buddhism is not theistic because there are examples of this.

I don’t know what you mean (personally) by ‘bliss’ and I’m also interested to know whether you think there are other means of experiencing ‘bliss’. How would you describe the moment you had in the supermarket? You said it was more of glimpse, so how long did this fleeting experience last? Minutes? Hours? Days? After it had subsided what had changed for you?

In what ways are phenomenology and solipsism alike, in what ways are they different? — baker

Phenomenology (Husserl) is meant as a scientific method of studying consciousness. Solipsism isn’t anything like that at all. Phenomenology does not take the stance that the physical world doesn’t really exist it just ‘brackets out’ that and focuses purely on the experience - to investigate consciousness.

Solipsism is a pure kind of idealism and phenomenology isn’t (although too many pigeon hole phenomenology as idealism).

Buddhism is not a theistic religion, though, and would never use that terminology. — Wayfarer

That’s not true. There are quite clearly buddhist practices that believe in deities. Of course you may not refer to these as ‘true buddhism’ but that doesn’t matter to those who practice that particular kind of buddhism.

Btw have you experienced ‘bliss’? Just curious because it seems a bit daft for anyone to ask for advice from you if you haven’t.

Don't know and don't really care.

Science deals with facts. Philosophers often question what facts are based on ... but scientists don't care and continue with facts.

Basic point being Science is that done by scientists and Philosophy is that done by philosophers. Some people can, amazingly (sarcasm), do both at different times.

In more common terms philosophy is more concerned with the validity of questions and science is more concerned with answering questions. Needless to say they can at times make the other look rather stupid.

Mary has never felt any severe in pain her whole life. She's lived in a nice comfortable room yet has studied everything there is to know about 'severe pain' other than experiencing it - obviously.

I walk into her room and punch full on in the face shattering her nose and fracturing her cheek bones. She falls to the ground wailing and screaming then leave.

Has she learnt anything new about pain due to my brief visit?

That's because we're geniuses. Or not. — frank

We're 'geniuses' of a sort. Who isn't!

The protocol broadcast by monotheism includes projection and shadow, all that stuff Jung was all over. — frank

Very much. As far as I can recall he didn't make a big deal about any differentiation between poly/mono ... I should probably look for that! ...

At a quick glance he certainly does have something to say about this. It does relate to the Self and individuation as you mention.

The monotheistic God can't accept part of his own creation, as if he doesn't realize he made that. — frank

You mean this (from the psychological perspective) as a kind of willed belief in a paradox so as to disown it and revere it? I'm going WAY out on a limb there :D

It leaves the journey toward individuation, which I'm not sure I totally understand. — frank

This was so obvious (Individuation) I never really registered it as part of my thought. I do like Jung's framework but as far as I can tell (in this area specifically) he did little more than pass it over briefly than go for a deep dive.

In very basic terms of the human capacity and inclination towards fashioning narratives a more readily way of examining the human psyche (purposefully or otherwise) would be through a multi-charactered personification of such items. That is the thrust behind why I would put polytheism above monotheism in terms of a guide for psychological development. Jung seems to equate monotheism with the Self (and hence the process of 'individuation').

I think I finally got what you mean, correct me if wrong.

You position is hat polytheism is sort of more "democratic" compared to monotheism which seem to be more "autocratic"?
And, how these 2 affects development of social life and psychology at large? — SpaceDweller

I wouldn't have thought of putting it like that but I have to admit it makes some sense to frame it that way as long as we keep both "democratic" and "autocratic" in heavy parenthesis. The "autocratic" is analogous to the idea of 'Self' but I would say the path to Self is generally dangerous and why I would say monotheism was a step too far too quickly (as many accidents of human 'progress' tend to be).

I think polytheism as "multiple perspectives" toward anything are source of division among society.
You answer to that will surely be that deities don't influence or interact with each other and as such can't be source of division?

If so, however while that may be true for deities it's far from true for society, because not everybody in society is reasonable enough to overcome influence or opinions.
Society was, is and always will be divisible. — SpaceDweller

I kind of would answer like that and only say that the infighting within a pantheon of gods is common enough. Neither would I necessarily view 'division' as something to avoid and I'd say precisely the same for 'conflict'. In this sense polytheism allows for meaningful conflict and division whereas mono is mono. There is a lack of growth involved.

I'm more than happy to admit there are potential advantages in one that don't exist in the other. That is precisely why I posted this.

The author will demonstrate why ethics has been an elusive philosophical concept. The great ethicists, from classical Greek to seventeenth- and nineteenth century European thinkers, to present day philosophers, talk about morality and ethics as if it were a probably very clear and well-defined concept. They talk about it as if it were a given that everyone understands what it is. The author will shine light on why this assumption is false and wrong. Then the author will attempt to show how ethics can be easily defined and understood to be what it is by introducing an evolutionary concept of ethics, which distinguishes between autonomous ethics and socially learned ethics. — god must be atheist

I can see why they didn’t bother to publish it ^^

This is poorly written and one sentence doesn’t even make sense (italics). You should probably get people to proof read before attempting to get something published.

Talk to your wife.

Plato’s The Republic is as good a place as any to start. In terms of fiction 1984 is also a very nice window into philosophy.

Overall I think an eclectic interest is more useful than than a direct ‘introduction’ to philosophy. If you are interested enough in the sciences, history, film/theatre, literature, language, psychology, economics, politics and art (or most of them) then you should have a good base to start from. If you’re not interested in most of those philosophy probably isn’t worth your time right now but might tickle our fancy more in the future.

Your idea that the problem is painting with a broad brush is genius. — Athena

It really isn’t as I’m far from the first person to point this out. It’s kind of obvious. Why it is happening is likely due to multiple reasons including mass ‘communication’ (social media), general technological advancements (paired with dissipation of religious views) and the general upheaval of world views (the axis mundi) caused by such interactions leading to the projection of an existential threat anywhere and everywhere it can get a toe hold (manifesting in group mentality and focus of nationalistic/patriotic drivel).

There are enough positive signs though ( as usual mostly ignored) not to worry too much about all this.

As for a US civil war it could happen, but it is far more likely it will just be a civil split not a complete severing. Either way I’m more and more convinced by the end of this century the idea of nation will have lost its current, and fleeting, fashionable appeal.

What you've done is to say you have no particular evidence of various competing gods existing in the world, but it would helpful in your understanding of the world to think that such gods do exist, so you therefore do. Such is pragmatism. The problem is that if you posit these actual physical gods engaging in battle with one another and existing in human form, you need to show them to me, tell me where they live, explain their reproductive systems, and all sorts of other matters. Because you can't do that, your positing their existence violates the epistemological system you use for knowing other similar matters. — Hanover

There seems to be a blind spot here. I am guessing you accept the evidence for pantheons being believed in at various points in human history. That is all the ‘evidence’ I need because I’m not arguing for or against the actual existence of any god/s.

I think the reactions from theists and non-theists here shows the gulf in understanding and the unwillingness to engage with each other unless one comes to the meeting bristling with swords and shields.

And this is actually one very good reason for monotheism and a highly abstracted god. By not demanding any physical property or anything that would otherwise be provable in the mundane universe, a belief in such a god avoids violating the epistemological system you use to know other things in the universe. God, under this definition, would be unlike all else in the universe and could therefore be accepted as existing for pragmatic reasons without violating my epistemological system and so could be believed just because his existence makes your life more understandable. — Hanover

From the believer perspective this might make some sense. It well be easier to believe in something more abstracted (which is an interesting point). That isn’t really dealing with the benefit of one over the other though only addressing the longevity of one over the other. I guess you could then propose that the longevity leads to durability and therefore any knowledge held within endure better than in a polytheistic framework. Seems like too much of a stretch though.

That makes no sense to me whatsoever. If it aligns with your beliefs and experiences though I’m not going to argue.

Fair enough. I was making a broad generalisation as in a pantheon the gods interact quite readily in a 'human' manner. Still the question remains as a plurality of gods allows for more specific investigation though. If you think otherwise how and why?

Then I don't know what you're trying to argue. That polytheism is easier to understand than monotheism? — Michael

That would be something of an oversimplification I feel. The gist is close enough though. Easier doesn't mean better, I just see more scope for exploration with polytheism than with monotheism (introspectively or otherwise). I do view 'exploration' as generally a good thing for a developing society.

I looking at it as if it is beneficial to human society to have theism and that polytheism allows for a more expansive view of the world at large, but that monotheism does benefit from a 'togetherness' of thought (possibly?).

I think we can both agree that through history the major religions have shifted from polytheistic origins to a monotheistic form. My argument (if there is one) is that we'd have been better off sticking to polytheistic views in order to develop a more sound psychological state from which to pass more smoothly into a more monocultural ideology - I don't think we were psychologically mature enough as a species to deal with monotheism yet some individuals clearly were and may not have recognised the problems it could lead to (social division rather than social unity).

It is a highly speculative thought but it is one I've been carrying around for a while so thought I may as well put it out here and see if anyone could add anything or take it somewhere else.

I'm not going there. My aim for this thread us quite specific. I am assuming there are no actual gods and that they are a manifestation of human experience projected and interacting with the immediate world. It doesn't matter if you agree with this or not or whether I believe it or not IF we are analysing the possible psychological benefits of, mistakenly or otherwise, following a monotheistic line or a polytheistic line given the variety of human social activity.

A War god makes sense to a soldier and more readily than a monotheistic entity as the former is a direct meaningful line for them. Tangentially such pantheons that contain War gods necessarily interact with other gods within the mythos so favouring one is not denial of another, and may lead to switching perspectives and learning.

That is all I was thinking.

Whenever I post something and there is only ONE person who understands what I'm getting at, asking or playing with it's always YOU!

Maybe you don't get it though? Either way surprise me and throw in your thoughts about this as mine are biased toward what I put forward in the OP but by no means firmly established.

I would necessarily see a progression towards a monotheistic set up but I don't think there was, or has been, much time for it come to full fruition (in terms of what it could offer PURELY as a psychological edifice of guidance and reference).

I as not asking about it in this way. I was simply thinking about how relatable such 'ideas' are to a developing human society. A plural of perspectives from which to approach human life just seems more tangible to me.

That has nothing to do with whether or not monotheism is correct. — Michael

So? What are you talking about? You've lost me. Maybe you're taking this thread as something it isn't at all.

Any facts about the supernatural and religious cosmology are entirely separate to human introspection. — Michael

I think I'm right. you don't seem to even have hold of the same stick let alone the wrong end of it. If you're a religious person yourself I'm not belittling 'religion' only looking at it as a human phenomenon (an anthropological perspective) and viewing how it applies to human life and psychology.

That is all.