The Problem with Monotheism?
For a long while I have had the stance that monotheism was a misstep - or taken too early. I say this because it makes more sense to me that the complex human psyche cannot be parcelled up into one deity.
In polytheism deities are able to be viewed as interacting entities that have power over others in various areas yet have no supreme jurisdiction over the others. They embody human qualities and offer up options to humans as to which path to take under different circumstances. The monotheism has the feel of ‘one size fits all’ to it that I find kind of abhorrent.
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’.
Where Socrates would argue that the gods shouldn’t be followed because they err I wouldn’t agree. To blindly follow is stupidity/laziness. To observe and learn what the gods show us through narrative interactions, to understand how they become more relatable and to aspire to certain characteristics that inspire us as a individual is precisely the point of the polytheistic view of the cosmos.
Conflict, War, Murder, Death and Destruction are not wholly negative, yet they are now regarded as `holy’ negative without any Sympathy (which is ironic!). Monotheism is stagnant, unresponsive and the death and birth of morality in one foul swoop.
In polytheism deities are able to be viewed as interacting entities that have power over others in various areas yet have no supreme jurisdiction over the others. They embody human qualities and offer up options to humans as to which path to take under different circumstances. The monotheism has the feel of ‘one size fits all’ to it that I find kind of abhorrent.
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’.
Where Socrates would argue that the gods shouldn’t be followed because they err I wouldn’t agree. To blindly follow is stupidity/laziness. To observe and learn what the gods show us through narrative interactions, to understand how they become more relatable and to aspire to certain characteristics that inspire us as a individual is precisely the point of the polytheistic view of the cosmos.
Conflict, War, Murder, Death and Destruction are not wholly negative, yet they are now regarded as `holy’ negative without any Sympathy (which is ironic!). Monotheism is stagnant, unresponsive and the death and birth of morality in one foul swoop.
Comments (57)
Polytheistic world views are all very similar in their approach. The original creator was usually some watery primordial chaos soup - Atum (Egypt), Tiamat (Babylonian), Khaos (Greek). They beget children that get the world to move, most prominently, forces that represent the forces of nature.
Historically, monotheism emerged directly from polytheism. Being set in and around ancient Mesopotamia, the Israelites recognized multiple deities of the time. The belief however was that only YHWH should be worshipped. He was the patron deity of the Jews. Amongst the many gods, he specifically was believed to be the one looking after their folk.
I agree that polytheism offers more inspiration for people in terms of how they may want to shape their life. Yet, I'd say that the polytheistic beliefs have the same problem in being "beyond" human. The difference is just how this beyondness resolves in story. In polytheism, humanity gets caught up in the schemes of the gods, playball to the forces of nature, they have to bid as the gods please. In monotheism, instead of being phrased as two opposing forces, the calamity suddenly becomes a trial by god for the people to prove their devotion.
Last but not least, there's the third approach of simply combining monotheism and polytheism. This is prominent in Hinduism, where all is Brahman and where Brahman manifests as different aspects in all. Personally, I like this method of non-contradictions the most.
I think all of these approaches are rather sensible ways of describing the world. I'd say today science itself tends towards the monotheistic idea, attempting to find one unitary principal force that moves everything.
I don’t think so as they are not omnipotent and make mistakes.
I would also say that people reflected themselves into the pantheon of gods more and this had a psychological effect that grounded them rather than some absolute overseer of monotheism. The god of war becomes a more ready expression of human conflict and how to deal with troubles, not some being beyond any human reach. For the monotheism the god is simply ‘everything’ and mysterious. The pantheon of gods allow greater access and selection without any real need to stick hard to one principle in life. The war god will make sense for those who avoid conflict as much as those that seek it out (a kind of ancient representation of The Art of War in that it needed be about making war but merely avoiding it). A fertility god can relate to many things like how to manage a household, perfect a craft or farm land.
Obviously all these representations can, and do, interact too. We see this is all pantheons where they fall in and out of fashion, absorb each other and/or split into other fragments. Monotheism seems more or less to do away with the exploratory force of human nature. I think this is reflected well enough in the idea of a wrathful singular god that is not seen with such force in polytheism where there is the choice to favour another god when one seems not to help your current path.
I am looking at this from a psychological perspective and what seems to be a ‘healthier’ view.
Psychologically speaking, it's in human nature to love and be loved, to have a feeling that there is somebody who cares of you even in most dire circumstances, somebody who always listens and hears your problems, somebody who is always there, somebody who will give useful advice etc.
For this to be plausible and attractive, that somebody must have adequate powers to fulfill all off these expectations and must occasionally present it's powers to prevent suspicions with the main aim to ensure faith and to ensure sacrifice (in various forms) isn't in vain.
Polytheism splits these powers into multiple deities while monotheism has only one God.
To get my point further it's important to understand that deity is not the same thing as God.
Speaking of monotheism, in particular Christianity and most expressed in Catholicism, there are some similarities with polytheism, and these are angels and demons.
However it would be incorrect to say that angels and demons are deities, primarily because in polytheism there is no one ultimate God, therefore deities are not deputies of God (or other deities) which is true for angels but not for demons. (deities represent them self)
Secondly angels are not allowed to be worshiped in any way, which is true for deities.
In Catholicism there is a tradition where "few known" angels but mostly saints, may take words of an individual (trough prayer) and intercede (advocate) for you before God, which is false for demons. (but they're still not allowed to be worshiped like deities)
And finally angels as well as demons have ranks and obligations, ex. they don't do all the same thing.
Knowing that, psychologically speaking there is no "healthier" view because that's subjective and depends on an individual, (assuming that an individual is atheist who for some reason is in search for true or better God or an angel or saint), theist however will just stick with his belief until either doubt or attraction of other God trough exoteric teaching prevails.
Again psychologically speaking, taking into account expected powers that an individual expects from either deities, angels or saints, there is no better or more wrong way as long as it fulfils it's expectations.
One thing that however makes the difference that may affect an individuals psyche is unfulfillment of their expectations resulting in doubt which then results in weakening of faith. (which altogether acts negatively to psyche).
Weakening of faith and how it affects psyche is however subject not only to nature of an individual but also to external (social) factors.
Other things being equal in monotheism, in Catholicism that's one fundamental "advantage" where, if the particular angel or saint does not succeed to fulfil expectations, one can always turn to God directly, but that's never the case in polytheism.
Quoting I like sushi
Which makes little sense given modern scientific discoveries because in the end it all leads to one God one way or the other.
Also mixing nature and how it unfolds in reality has little to do with religious belief, you either believe one or the other unless there is God that creates other beings that handle nature, but I'm not aware of such religion. (just my opinion)
I don’t know what you mean by that. If you’re a religious follower yourself I guess what I’m saying is fairly moot to you anyway.
I have a theory that what made the Jewish religion "innovative" was its connecting ethical standards with a deity's mandate. From what I've seen other religions didn't really tie morality with the deities so much as mytho-history, tribal identity, aspects of life, etc. Gods beforehand were more capricious. Demands of sacrifice and ritual but not much in the way of systematic behavior.
When Greek philosophy became more about systems (lets say starting with Pythagorianism and moving through with things like Stoicism and Neoplatonism), it seemed to have the standards but really it seemed to be about conforming to an abstract natural "way" or simply "best practice" rather than a mandate tied to a deity.
They're the same thing from different perspectives.
No they're not. One is about the psychology of a particular species of animal life, one is about supernatural entities that are responsible for the creation and management of the physical world (and a supposed afterlife).
Having a god of War or a god of Love makes sense rather than god as it seems restrictive in terms of an individual's exploration of themselves and their place in/about the world.
I'm not saying the jump to monotheistic was 'wrong' just that maybe it hasn't had much time to bed in compared to polytheism. I guess we could argue that today humanity is polytheistic in the sense that there are multiple iterations of god but I wasn't talking about a multiplicity of monotheistic views as opposed to a singular monotheistic view. The narrowing of options and confinement of religious perspectives was more or less what I am getting at.
Monotheism seems less flexible and less forgiving.
That has nothing to do with whether or not monotheism is correct. Any facts about the supernatural and religious cosmology are entirely separate to human introspection.
My problem with monotheism/universal panentheism is that they are not as magnanimously inclusive as they would like to think of themselves. The impression I get is like: "Oh, you silly infidels, dancing around your fires; sure, you can have your god. But really, your god is really 'our' God, the one true God, reaching out to you in his loving kindness for your innocent, ignorant, unsaved little souls.'"
Naturally, that made me want to say "FU."
Besides, I have a view of God as All, which would not only account for the absence of itself, but it would account for all the Gods as actual Gods. And not.
So, I'm not sitting back and arguing that my God is bigger than your god. The reason that I am not arguing that is not because he isn't. He is indeed bigger than your god. But I can't argue it because he is, simultaneously, not.
In short, monotheism is BS. And not. Oh, and all that stuff about omnibenevolent? It's BS. And not. It's relative, and not.
Moses Finley says they're the same (pretty much). We think of the psyche as something an individual owns. Ancient people saw the psyche plastered over the whole world and called the elements divine.
Yes, there's the mythology of the world's beginning. That's a small part of what divinity once was.
For one thing, you're reifying. For another thing, why would two deities be required?
I have no idea what you're saying here. Can you speak literally and not in metaphor.
So, God's just a concept! :ok:
Good and evil are just concepts.
Something like killing someone for fun and saving a drowning child are real things, but why must at least two deities exist for both to be possible?
How does that make reifying relevant? Where did I go wrong?
You seemed to reify good and evil. They're not things in their own right.
But more to the point is my second question: killing someone for fun and saving a drowning child are both real things, but why must at least two deities exist for both to be possible?
I wasn't speaking metaphorically. Ancient people didn't own the elements of the human psyche the way we do.
They thought a divinity created fire and gave it to us. We think humans invented it by ingenuity. It's the same story, but ancients called ingenuity divine.
That's one of the roots of the idea of divinity. Monotheism is integrating all the elements of the psyche into a single ego.
Does the "fact" that good and evil are just concepts have any consequences that I/we should be worried about? Since these are just concepts, am I now at liberty to murder, rape, pillage, plunder, etc?
Oh, you answered my question! We're good. It's distinction without a difference.
So? What are you talking about? You've lost me. Maybe you're taking this thread as something it isn't at all.
Quoting 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.
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.
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 don't think religion has much possible clout beyond its almost totally antiquated role as authority structure, cultural keystone and on occasion emotional inspiration apart from direct experience of god. Would religion even exist if adherents didn't believe they have direct experience of the supernatural? From my point of view, seems like you've got to address the question of what gods actually exist and how they are experienced so as to comprehend the psychology of religion.
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.
Then I don't know what you're trying to argue. That polytheism is easier to understand than monotheism?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quoting 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 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.
Quoting 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.
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.
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."
Quoting 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.
What's the speed of a car that travels a distance of 45 km?
Quoting tim wood
Question: Why did the chicken cross the road?
Answer: The electron is negatively charged.
Quoting tim wood
:up: but I dunno why :up:
Quoting tim wood
I might but I wouldn't want to commit...not for now at least.
We're 'geniuses' of a sort. Who isn't!
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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
Quoting 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').
Quoting 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).
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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?
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:
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.
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.
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 ...
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.