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.

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.

So, God's just a concept! — TheMadFool

The concept of god is just a concept. However, the nature of god well and properly understood is that he/she/it/them cannot be other than a concept. Except that for a lot of people the concept of a concept, as a concept, is not enough. So they make it right by conceiving the concept as real - and then insisting on the reality. Which when you think about it is a form of insanity.

In polytheism the gods engage and interact. They are alive and never completely right or wrong. They are relatable to human life. In monotheism we are expected to believe something beyond comprehension (which is contrary) whereas in polytheism we can view the theatre of the gods as reflecting human culture and express each human item more readily and carefully. The overarching problem of the monotheistic cultures is that they are considered ‘beyond’ human experience yet we’re meant to live by the rules and doctrines of that which is literally ‘above us’. — I like sushi

You are drawing a distinction between anthropomorphic gods and non-physical gods and perfect gods and flawed gods, but you are not drawing a distinction between polytheism and monotheism. It is entirely possible for a monotheistic god to have all sorts of flaws and to be in human physical form, and it's entirely possible for a particular polytheistic god (or gods) to be omnipotent and entirely non-physical.

Yahweh is given human characteristics in the Bible and it can be argued he was far from perfect.

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?

Still the question remains as a plurality of gods allows for more specific investigation though. — I like sushi

I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of metaphysical pragmatism where you posit the existence of something because a belief in that thing might make your life more meaningful or understandable, but I would reserve such pragmatics for instances where it would not violate other beliefs I adhere to.

What I mean by that is that typically we say something exists because we have some evidence of its existence. I believe the cup exists because I see a cup. I don't say that I believe a cup exists because I one day may need to have a drink, so it would be comforting to know there is a cup out there somewhere.

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. That is, you know the cup exists by seeing it, but you don't know these gods exist by seeing them; therefore, you have no consistent standard for knowing. I would not allow for a pragmatic solution that makes no sense when compared to my overall worldview.

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.

I'd also point out that the acceptance of God for pragmatic reasons sounds as close to a secular basis for religion as might exist. It avoids mysticism or faith, but, if God is truly believed to exist for pragmatic reasons, it then must be actually believed. That is, you would say God exists in a true metaphysical sense just because you feel better thinking he exists. You would know God exists just like you know the cup exists.

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! — I like sushi

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

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

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

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

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.

I don't understand the relevance of your question. I'm addressing your claim that one deity cannot be the source of both good and evil. "Good" and "Evil" aren't things. Rather there are certain behaviours that we describe (rightly or wrong) as being good or evil. Killing someone for fun might be an example of something that is evil and saving a drowning a child might be an example of something that is good. So your argument is that if only a single deity exists then it shouldn't be possible for there to be both people who kill for fun and people who save drowning children. That seems like a non sequitur. — Michael

I don't quite understand your point. What exactly do you mean by '"Good" and "Evil" aren't things"? As far as I can tell they're qualities.

The concept of god is just a concept. However, the nature of god well and properly understood is that he/she/it/them cannot be other than a concept. Except that for a lot of people the concept of a concept, as a concept, is not enough. So they make it right by conceiving the concept as real - and then insisting on the reality. Which when you think about it is a form of insanity — tim wood

I recall listening to a Daniel Dennett lecture where he says that if you hear anyone stating "God is a concept," be assured that you're talking to an atheist.

I don't quite understand your point. — TheMadFool

That it doesn’t require two deities for it to be possible that there are both people who kill for fun and people who save drowning children.

That it doesn’t require two deities for it to be possible that there are both people who kill for fun and people who save drowning children. — Michael

Perhaps God suffers from multiple personality disorder and quite possibly it isn't a disorder. Check out how one actor plays many parts over a lifetime. We can assume various modes - I once tried to go Buddha on life but every time I tried it was like "THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE!" I asked why? and it (my brain) replied "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

There is always sufficient data for an answer. All answers are meaningful. And in case you haven't noticed - and it would seem you haven't - that's pretty much how life works. As to your wanting your beliefs to to have a corresponding reality, you do know what reality is, yes? No?

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. — I like sushi

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. — I like sushi

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?

If so, I think that depends a lot on personal view and what one think is "healthier" for development of social life on psychological level, therefore personal preferences, beliefs and influences must be excluded for valid analysis.

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.

There is always sufficient data for an answer — tim wood

What's the speed of a car that travels a distance of 45 km?

All answers are meaningful. — tim wood

Question: Why did the chicken cross the road?

Answer: The electron is negatively charged.

And in case you haven't noticed - and it would seem you haven't - that's pretty much how life works. — tim wood

:up: but I dunno why :up:

As to your wanting your beliefs to to have a corresponding reality, you do know what reality is, yes? No? — tim wood

I might but I wouldn't want to commit...not for now at least.

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.

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. — I like sushi

In this sense polytheism allows for meaningful conflict and division whereas mono is mono. There is a lack of growth involved. — I like sushi

I can't speak of advantages of "poly" or "multiple views" but it's obvious that "mono" (whether in religious, political or cultural aspect) is what is behind success of "western society" starting from roman empire toward modern day reality.

This may sound like too political but it is not, because even though roman empire had senate and modern day west is democratic there was always some kind of mono behind.
Feel free to call this conspiracy, but monotheistic views are not contradictory to "democratic" views, instead I think they complement each other and that is the source of success of development.

To express this in tabular way:
1. mono + autocratic
2. mono + democratic
3. poly + autocratic
4. poly + democratic

The choice compared to reality when it comes to success of development is obvious.
It's complementary what's is the driving force because without complementation we have 2 extremes none of which can nor did ever lead to success.

After all we are talking about development of society and how it affects psyche right?
So there must be some sort of weight to avoid extremes.

I might but I wouldn't want to commit...not for now at least. — TheMadFool

It would seem you don't realize you're already committed. Open your eyes and take a look around.

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 — I like sushi

In the Iliad we're watching a conflict among the gods and this plays out in human life as a bloody war.

MI Finley says the early Greeks took this literally. So any individual human is tossed about by forces in the world. When a person makes a terrible mistake, it's due to the anger of a goddess who's been offended.

There are no good or evil gods, not in the Judeo-Christian sense, because every god has his or her place. When divinity is pulled up into one ego, now we get evil as we know it: as a thing that is fundamentally rejected. All negative feelings are directed toward it and it's literally blamed for all pain, sorrow, and grief. We must medicate to get rid of these things. We must pray to be purified.

What at first seemed to be integration is something else altogether. The prize is psychic dynamism that can't exist in a polytheistic framework. The individual is supercharged in motion between heaven and hellfire.

Or maybe I'm going overboard.

Why do you favor a polytheistic framework?

It would seem you don't realize you're already committed. Open your eyes and take a look around. — tim wood

So it would seem...so it would seem. I follow, more accurately try to follow (I'm not sure) in the footsteps of (is that the right expression?) Pyrrho (didn't he found skepticism?) :grin:

Yahweh is given human characteristics in the Bible and it can be argued he was far from perfect. — Hanover

A quick comment about the existence and characteristics of gods. If you think about gods with common sense, why would beings compared to which humans are basically ants be completely absorbed in making billions of humans perpetually happy and safe, especially if it would require stamping out the aspect of humans in our ant farm that must be most interesting, our spontaneous decision-making, so-called "free will"?

Interpreting gods as irrationally jealous and angry seems like a projection of our own selfishness. The truth is that if gods exist, they don't have to care about us at all, but many humans experience the fact that they do, and if these humans are not delusional the world could be a much worse place in the grander scheme of things without the gods' help. We should be pleased with what seems to be our occasional good fortune, learn from our mistakes, and make the most of our vulnerable fates rather than erroneously thinking help from the gods is a necessity of nature, as if gods are our servants.

Seems like our problem is hardheaded and self-absorbed human prejudice, not some god's neglect.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4252/pyrrhonism

Why do you favor a polytheistic framework? — frank

Pretty much for the reason you outline above. Realism. A bunch of interacting entities (that are neither good or bad) is more comparable to humans than some ideal.

Realism. A bunch of interacting entities (that are neither good or bad) is more comparable to humans than some ideal. — I like sushi

IOW, political correctness.


To say that the development of god-belief should have taken a different course is to argue against the Theory of Evolution. Do you really want to go there ...

Monotheism doesn't exist. Even in the most popular monotheistic religions there are more than one god in their dogmas.Great example Christianity..we have god his son, the mother of his son, saints, angels, ghosts etc.

No idea what you’re talking about. It doesn’t look relevant to the thread.

You've been criticizing the order in which the various forms of theism developed, from polytheism to monotheism. Evolutionarily, there must be a reason for why it happened this way. How could it be otherwise?

That isn't what I've said at all. I said that I think maybe monotheism came too soon not that it should've come before. Not that this has anything to do with evolution as you frame it (as what 'reason' there is may simply be chance because evolution isn't about some 'best path' stuff just happens and somethings don't last where others do).

My pondering was that it seems to me like polytheism is more psychologically tangible than monotheism, yet others have pointed out that monotheism does kind of present itself as Jungian Individuation to a degree (which is a fair point).

My general view is that all elements of human thought are more tangible seen as separate rather than merely a whole singular entity. It is understandable to see how altered states of consciousness can bring about a feeling of unity and how expressing this - in mythical terms - could easily be framed as a monotheistic item.