Does polytheism have any advantages over monotheism?

[LuisDantas]

Does polytheism have any advantages over monotheism? Are there any rational reasons for being a polytheist rather than a monotheist?

Definitely.

At the very least, polytheism is better suited for actual religious practice than monotheism, mainly because it does not lend itself to the IMO pointless exercises of so-called theology.

Polytheism is inherently more respectful of the diversity of situations, mindsets and practice styles. It is also far less suitable to abuse and fanaticism.

 

[Quintessence]

At the very least, polytheism is better suited for actual religious practice than monotheism, mainly because it does not lend itself to the IMO pointless exercises of so-called theology.

I'm thinking you understand what theology entails much differently than Pagans (aka, polytheists), as this reads as contradictory to me. How are you understanding theology?

Polytheism is inherently more respectful of the diversity of situations, mindsets and practice styles. It is also far less suitable to abuse and fanaticism.

I wish I could agree that last bit.

 

[Apologes]

This simply isn't the case. Don't mistake the cultural hegemony monotheism has enjoyed in Western culture for the absence of well-reasoned arguments in support of polytheistic theology. Polytheistic thought has been systematically oppressed in marginalized, thus folks are ignorant of the thoughtfulness behind polytheistic theologies.

I don't see any evidence of such discrimination taking place. It's simply the case that polytheism is not of much interest to most philosophers of religion here in the west, hence why most articles are focused on classic monotheism with a certain level of interest in pantheism and panentheism. If you think there is an argument for the truth of polytheism then you are free to share it.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't see any evidence of such discrimination taking place.

I'm not surprised. The campaign of eradicating polytheism from Western culture and thought basically already succeeded several hundred years before you or I were even born. When you are a polytheist, you definitely notice it. People still using "polytheist" and "pagan" as a snarl word or pejorative is one such example. Then there's also things like this that sadly is not uncommon (and all too often don't get treated as the hate crimes they are): http://wildhunt.org/2017/03/pagan-shop-owner-feels-targeted-ignored-in-canada.html

If you think there is an argument for the truth polytheism then you are free to share it.

In most respects, that's a poor way of framing it. Polytheistic religions are not concerned with "the truth" because they're not exclusivist "my way or the highway" traditions. Apologetics aren't really a thing for us either. But when you said there's no intellectual or rational foundation for polytheistic thought, or that it can't be arrived at through argument (aka, logical reasoning), that's just not accurate.

If you want to see examples, read upstream in the thread. I'm pretty sure I posted some of it already. The book by Greer in particular that I point to goes into much more detail on what you are asking for. There are also a few newer ones that get into it, I think, but I haven't gotten to reading them. Plus, there are a whole host of Pagans/Polytheists who write their thoughts on their personal blogs that elaborate on this stuff too, but I'd have to spend a bit of time digging some up for you. That'd take a lot of time and effort on my part, though, as I don't have a good blog roll put together for this stuff.

To present the really simple reasoning I use, though, polytheism just makes sense to me because it better reflects how I (arguably, how all humans) experience reality. We know that the sun is not the moon, the moon is not time, and that time is not love. For polytheists, these things are the gods. The gods are many because reality is composed of many different things, which to a polytheist are understood as deities or objects of worship. In practice, it means you worship a deity associated with invention and innovation differently than you'd worship a deity associated with forests and plants. Relationships with gods end up being a lot like relationships with humans in that respect - you treat them as distinct individuals and honor them according to those differences. You also get to pick and choose your relationships. My brain can't fathom monotheism in no small part because I can't imagine worshiping only one thing. I could no sooner read one book for the rest of my life!

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you think there is an argument for the truth polytheism then you are free to share it.

What is truth polytheism? Do you mean truth in polytheism? Do you have proof for truth in monotheism? I am a strong atheist, but my world consists of a majority of polytheists (Hinduism). If you are going to believe in something unproven, then polytheism is as good as monotheism; or even better; because polytheists do not say 'my way is the only way'.

 

[Apologes]

I'm not surprised. The campaign of eradicating polytheism from Western culture and thought basically already succeeded several hundred years before you or I were even born. When you are a polytheist, you definitely notice it. People still using "polytheist" and "pagan" as a snarl word or pejorative is one such example. Then there's also things like this that sadly is not uncommon (and all too often don't get treated as the hate crimes they are): http://wildhunt.org/2017/03/pagan-shop-owner-feels-targeted-ignored-in-canada.html



In most respects, that's a poor way of framing it. Polytheistic religions are not concerned with "the truth" because they're not exclusivist "my way or the highway" traditions. Apologetics aren't really a thing for us either. But when you said there's no intellectual or rational foundation for polytheistic thought, or that it can't be arrived at through argument (aka, logical reasoning), that's just not accurate.

If you want to see examples, read upstream in the thread. I'm pretty sure I posted some of it already. The book by Greer in particular that I point to goes into much more detail on what you are asking for. There are also a few newer ones that get into it, I think, but I haven't gotten to reading them. Plus, there are a whole host of Pagans/Polytheists who write their thoughts on their personal blogs that elaborate on this stuff too, but I'd have to spend a bit of time digging some up for you. That'd take a lot of time and effort on my part, though, as I don't have a good blog roll put together for this stuff.

To present the really simple reasoning I use, though, polytheism just makes sense to me because it better reflects how I (arguably, how all humans) experience reality. We know that the sun is not the moon, the moon is not time, and that time is not love. For polytheists, these things are the gods. The gods are many because reality is composed of many different things, which to a polytheist are understood as deities or objects of worship. In practice, it means you worship a deity associated with invention and innovation differently than you'd worship a deity associated with forests and plants. Relationships with gods end up being a lot like relationships with humans in that respect - you treat them as distinct individuals and honor them according to those differences. You also get to pick and choose your relationships. My brain can't fathom monotheism in no small part because I can't imagine worshiping only one thing. I could no sooner read one book for the rest of my life!

I never said anything about practical issues such as social discrimination so I am unsure why you felt inclined to devote most of your post replying to an issue I haven't raised.

What goes for the intellectual circles, I doubt discrimination has anything to do with polytheism not being payed much attention. If anything, I'd say it's your own confession that polytheism seems uninterested in truth which isn't really true considering how I'm talking about monotheism and polytheism as ontological commitments which is to say they all posit an existence of a certain number of entities which an atheist rejects and are as such making truth claims (which is also the way a lot of other people here understood the topic hence them bringing up philosophical issues such as the problem of evil which is an alleged threat to monotheism but not polytheism and to who I responded with my post).

Having said that, my claim still stands seeing how you haven't provided a way to reach polytheism comparable to that of natural theology, instead simply asserting that it matches up to how you experience reality. This, however, is not a sensible objection.

What is truth polytheism? Do you mean truth in polytheism? Do you have proof for truth in monotheism? I am a strong atheist, but my world consists of a majority of polytheists (Hinduism). If you are going to believe in something unproven, then polytheism is as good as monotheism; or even better; because polytheists do not say 'my way is the only way'.

Typo, now edited into "truth of polytheism". My arguments in favor of monotheism are those of natural theology, as I already said. I feel disinclined to share them here, however, since I am much more interested in whether a similar thing can be done for polytheism which I am convinced hasn't been done yet.

Also, polytheism isn't necessarily universal and certainly not non-exclusivistic. Regardless, whether one claims exclusivity to truth or not doesn't have any impact on whether they are in fact right. After all, an atheist such as yourself is in an overwhelming minority when it comes to beliefs in deities yet you consider the overwhelming majority of people to be wrong and you right. This, ofcourse, doesn't have any impact on the truth of your position.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My arguments in favor of monotheism are those of natural theology, as I already said.

Also, polytheism isn't necessarily universal and certainly not non-exclusivistic. .. After all, an atheist such as yourself is in an overwhelming minority when it comes to beliefs in deities yet you consider the overwhelming majority of people to be wrong and you right. This, of course, doesn't have any impact on the truth of your position.

Polytheism also is a product of natural theology, a God or water, a goddess for Agriculture, a God for air, a Goddess for family, etc.

Actually monotheism is unnatural and it was propagated by individuals, which satisfied the ego of some of them or benefited them or their progeny in a material way.

There may be a few exceptions but the old world was majorly polytheistic. I am a Hindu and among Hindus it is difficult to classify theists and atheists. I believe in a non-God entity which constitutes the universe and all things in it without any exception. This view is known as 'Advaita' (non-duality). Among Hindus it is not considered wise or civil to find flaws in other Hindu views. I have my views, others have their views. I am correct in my place, they are correct in their place. Opinions, we term them matā's.

 

[Quintessence]

Having said that, my claim still stands seeing how you haven't provided a way to reach polytheism comparable to that of natural theology, instead simply asserting that it matches up to how you experience reality. This, however, is not a sensible objection.

I'm going to say I don't really know what "natural theology" is, but skimming a wiki page, how is what I said not an argument in keeping with "natural theology?"

Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology, is a type of theology that provides arguments for the existence of God based on reason and ordinary experience of nature.
Natural theology - Wikipedia​

I talked about how my experience reality (aka, nature, the universe, and everything) provides a rational case for the existence of multiple gods. It seems to me I did exactly what you asked.

 

[Apologes]

Polytheism also is a product of natural theology, a God or water, a goddess for Agriculture, a God for air, a Goddess for family, etc.

This has absolutely nothing to do with natural theology which is arguing for the existence of a deity based on phenomena observed in the natural world, not ontologically linking deities to aspects of nature...

I'm going to say I don't really know what "natural theology" is, but skimming a wiki page, how is what I said not an argument in keeping with "natural theology?"

Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology, is a type of theology that provides arguments for the existence of God based on reason and ordinary experience of nature.
Natural theology - Wikipedia​

I talked about how my experience reality (aka, nature, the universe, and everything) provides a rational case for the existence of multiple gods. It seems to me I did exactly what you asked.

I asked for an argument, not an assertion.

 

[Quintessence]

This has absolutely nothing to do with natural theology which is arguing for the existence of a deity based on phenomena observed in the natural world, not ontologically linking deities to aspects of nature...

I asked for an argument, not an assertion.

I don't usually do this, but... I'm sorry...

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. not ontologically linking deities to aspects of nature.

Now, what is this 'ontological linking'? And how that 'ontological linking' is more natural?

 

[Joshua Pryce]

What "advantages" does monotheism have?

How does the Henotheism in Christianity effect the alleged "advantages" polytheism has over monotheism?

Its truth that there is a God Who is all powerful, and needs no one and is full of oneness and complete individual ability. The fact that we can see we have ability, different types of growing, mental, finanical, physical health, experience, etc and Independence being one person. Shows there is only one God. Yahweh/Jesus Christ.

 

[paarsurrey]

No. A Hindu priest is called a Brahmin. Just one letter difference but very important difference

One means Brahman is One-True-G-d, and Brahmin is the priest, right?

Regards

 

[Ella S.]

Eeeeeh... that is complicated to answer because it depends on the specific mythology you are looking at. Beyond that, what you describe sounds a lot like soft polytheism, and although it is relatively popular among contemporary Paganism, it was NOT the traditional way of understanding things to Pagans and polytheists of antiquity. To say there is an "original god" is nonsense in polytheism. Yes, there are often creation stories discussing divine heritage and these sometimes trace back to a singular something, but I would be very careful interpreting that through a monotheistic lens. It risks misunderstanding the polytheistic mindset to call it an "original god."

Take, for example, Greek mythology. Yes, in Greek mythology, we can trace back the heritage of the various gods to Chaos. However, to say all the other gods are somehow facets or fragments of Chaos would be just plain wrong. A soft polytheist might be comfortable saying that, but traditionally this isn't how it would have been understood. Saying the gods that emerged from Chaos are simply facets of Chaos is like saying the child of a man and a woman is purely derivative of its parents instead of having its own unique identity. That's a no-no in polytheism as it is understood traditionally.

Well, actually, both Orphism and Platonism, two of the major movements within unified ancient Greek theology, there was a Supreme God who was the substance of all gods underneath them. Many of the gods were understood as personifications of natural forces like Death, Darkness, Night, Sleep, Dreams, etc.

That's why we had interpretatio graeca where the gods of other pagan peoples were reinterpreted to be whatever Greek god personified the concept strongly associated with the other pagan gods, such as associating Odin with Hermes due to both being considered tied to wisdom.

Christianity and Judaism actually took their concept of supreme monism from Platonism. It was a pagan idea to begin with.

 

[Agent Smith]

Some eminent philosophers thought polytheism had an advantage over monotheism, the reasons however are obscure; perhaps deducible from works on the subject.

 

[wellwisher]

Does polytheism have any advantages over monotheism? Are there any rational reasons for being a polytheist rather than a monotheist?

Polytheism was full of specialty gods, who were each one was proficient at a one or a few things. This is similar to how science works; specialization. Science is based on rational and statistical polytheism.

Monotheism is more like one person being a jack of all trades, able to move about all the specialties, therefore able to develop integrating theories, than can bring specialties together. That is much harder to do. Polytheism is easier to do, which is why science and science education is broken down that way.

In terms of psychology, polytheism is like a multiple personality disorder, which like specialties, are each autonomous and not exactly connected to each other. Monotheism brings all these personalities under one flag, so they can merge and overlap to become more like the different moods of a single person, rather than stay separated as many different personalities with different names. The advancement to monotheism enhanced mental health.

In monotheism, one God creates the heaven and earth; integrated theory of everything under a single umbrella. In polytheism, we have one god for water and oceans, another for fire, another for love, etc. They all are needed to make this universe work. However, by being autonomous, sometimes one god does not know what the other is doing. This results in the whims of the gods; statistical uncertainty. This is another symptom of science reverting to rational polytheism. Early science was more integrated. Newton dabbled in all and everything was expected to be rational. Newtonian ideas are now used by a wide range of applied specialties.