How reasonable is monotheism, even hypothetically?

[dawny0826]

One thing before I go into specific replies:

The OP argues, certainly to my own personal satisfaction, that while monotheism is a natural occurrence for certain people at certain periods of their personal journeys, there is no chance whatsoever of it being "true" as such.

It will be true for certain people at certain circunstances. But if logic and faithfulness to the reality of facts are significant considerations, the realization must come that monotheism is not only too constraining, it is also inherently undeserving of any serious investiment of time or attention. It is demonstrably undeserving of being raised to a significant premise of any doctrine, as well.

Any person who is serious enough and reasonably skilled in his or her personal journey will either ignore monotheism entirely or eventually arrive at the conclusion that it literally does not matter whether it can be said that there is "one true god". Odds are better than good that it does not even matter whether the sacred can accurately be associated with any conceptions of deity, even.

Therefore, I will summarily disregard any suggestions that "there is a chance" that Abrahamic monotheism "might turn out to be true". No, there isn't, and if you disagree, that is a sure sign that you either don't undertand that OP or simply disagree with it. That is your right, but so is mine not to bother with a position that I have already considered and securely found wanting. In this very personal matter that is my undeniable privilege.

And please, don't even consider warning me about my immortal soul, the afterlife, or the wrath or loss of favor of God. Not to put too fine a point to it, I do not waste my time with such crapricious matters, and never will.

Are you not disregarding the essence of what truth is? Truth is not only understanding and reality as understood by all. Truth is also that which is independently accepted as fact, based upon evidence provided to an individual.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you not disregarding the essence of what truth is? Truth is not only understanding and reality as understood by all. Truth is also that which is independently accepted as fact, based upon evidence provided to an individual.

No. I am just disregarding monotheism as unworkable and, ultimately, irrelevant.

 

[dawny0826]

No. I am just disregarding monotheism as unworkable and, ultimately, irrelevant.

You're certainly entitled to believe that way.

You recognize that you can't define monotheism for others and determine for them as to how workable and relevant such is?

 

[LuisDantas]

Differences between Abrahamic faiths doesn't negate that each is rooted in the belief of one God, the God of Abraham.

I self-identify as a monotheist. Unless I'm told by a Jew or Muslim that they don't identify as monotheistic, I have no evidence or reason to assume that they aren't.

True enough. But not very significant in practice. One person's monotheism may have little to do with another's, and it can be very hard to even gauge how much.

Which, again, only goes to show how little significance the belief itself has on its own merits.

This is where the spiritual element of faith factors in. Yes, God's Word was written by people. What non believers discount often is that for a believer, that Word is a living, spiritual thing. I believe in One God because of the evidence, both spiritual and physical, that I've seen.

And that is your undeniable privilege.

Still, the privilege of others to simply disagree is just as undeniable, and often a lot sounder.

Isn't it as arrogant and demeaning when atheists or agnostics belittle a believer's perception of God?

Fair question: is it?

That will have to be answered in a case-by-case basis. I will offer that quite often I have been put into situations that demand either submission to other people's expectations of a crude form of god-belief or a straight refusal.

I hate to lie, so refusal and stern discouragement of further attempts are what are called for in those situations.

It is rather ironic, but very true, that the Qur'an specifically actually authorizes me to call it false, which I do.

Those are, in effect, situations where a sincere but misguided believer sees fit to challenge us unbelievers to call their bluffs. Are we supposed to protect them from their own lack of wisdom? What good would that even do?

That is probably a big part of why it has become good manners here in Brazil to avoid uncalled mention of one's god-beliefs. At some level, many people who are otherwise sincere monotheists realize that there is no justification for demanding others to be likewise. I wish they chose not to, though, for that is ultimately just a postponing of necessary exposition and learning.

Henotheists, polytheists and others tend to be a lot more reasonable, though.

By your own logic, it would be as asinine to assign a polytheistic or pantheistic label to God as well. Surely, there couldn't be truth to so many different versions of deity?

God-concepts are not meant to be treated as "true" in that sense. They are means, not ends.

Any rigidness in and through faith that results in the oppression and harm of others isn't justified.

Agreed, of course.

The spiritual journey is a personal journey that can't fully be defined or understood by anyone else. We have the right to our own understandings of God (or lack thereof) and can and should be confident in our beliefs and the labels for which we self-identify, as long as we are not harming others.

Quite so.

 

[LuisDantas]

You're certainly entitled to believe that way.

You recognize that you can't define monotheism for others and determine for them as to how workable and relevant such is?

I do. I so wish people stopped putting me into situations where I have to do just that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, how is it even conceivable that such an entity, presumably above any and all attempts of human classification and delimitation, somehow can only be correctly perceived as being one (as opposed to any other number, including none)?

That's interesting. Thanks.

 

[DavidFirth]

Indeed, it doesn't. It does matter if people take their beliefs too seriously.

That is also true in any other situation regarding the existence of such a deity.


No, I am explaining why his existence is ultimately of little consequence even if it turns out to be true.

We'll have to disagree on that last statement. If He is going to judge you He is infinitely important.

 

[DavidFirth]

Uh, would it?

Are we talking about that entity described in the Christian Bible?

Such an entity's existence, if conceivable, would be many things. Awesome is not one that makes the list.

Opinion noted. And rejected.

 

[dawny0826]

I do. I so wish people stopped putting me into situations where I have to do just that.

That's understandable, but, wasn't disclosed as a premise of your OP.

 

[Raj V]

Many people talk of monotheism as if it were a given that it is a good thing, worth presuming as true and somehow pursuing.

But is that at all true?

I don't think so, and here is why.

First of all, I don't think monotheism - the mainstream versions of its Abrahamic variety, at least - can be both true, accurate and important all at once. There is a serious logical contradiction in the attempt to give it all three atributes.

Why? Because in order to quantify an entity we have to delimit it by some form of parameters. And yet those same doctrines that insist that there is just One True God also emphasize its supreme transcendence, the classic example being the claim that everything that exists needs a creator, the sole exception being their creator God himself.

So, how is it even conceivable that such an entity, presumably above any and all attempts of human classification and delimitation, somehow can only be correctly perceived as being one (as opposed to any other number, including none)? How can the claim be even attempted without presuming some form of human authority to decide what is proper divine form and what is not? And if we do accept that such human authority exists, what is then left of the transcendental nature of that deity?

It seems to me that there is a core mistake in attempting to have a rigid, well-defined conception of deity and then building a doctrine that relies on the accuracy of that conception.

For one thing, that is not very useful. Human beings are simply not likely to hold very similar conceptions of deity - or as I personally prefer to call it, of the sacred - and insisting that we nevertheless should act as if we did will only lead to pointless anxiety, fear, even moral dishonesty or at least the temptation to fall into it.

And that leads to a far greater problem than simple inaccuracy of doctrine. Insistence on the claim of universal truth and significance of such a minor and deeply personal matter as conceptions of deity compromises the very worth of any doctrine. All too quickly it becomes too busy in defending itself from the fragility of its own premises and the unavoidable consequences, and the validity of the teachings of even its most skilled, best meaning adherents is put to waste.

We all should be at peace with the simple contemplation that it is not for humans to act as wardens of specific, rigid, limited understandings of the sacred. Such an effort is both arrogant and demeaning, regardless of whatever some speculative truth about the nature of the sacred might be.

Surely, if even reasonably average human beings can easily be skilled enough to have various aspects according to the people that they interact with and the situations that they find themselves in, then there should be no doubt that a true deity (if such exists) can hardly be limited in its manifestations in ways that would be unreasonable even to humans?

I think doctrine/theology is not the important thing. What is most important is what/how we think aka our mind and what/how we feel aka heart. The actions will take care of themselves as our thoughts and feelings are the causal agents.

But we can and have to (Must) draw parameters. It is the lack of clear parameters that cause confusion.

Well as with anything, more of Good is always welcome. So if God is Good , why not more the merrier. The issue could be control and conflict or not One but Oneness for if there is Oneness there is not conflict and pretty much more than One maybe required for Love. The objective of Monotheism could also have been to limit the followers from things foreign to that particular school of thought and to avoid conflicts that would ensue when multiple schools of thought are followed. There is so much confusion even within a single school of thought. I would suggest one to have Christ as the standard of reference. A reference with which you can compare you thoughts and feelings. You do not have to assume Christ is True for Truth is not an assumption. Taste Him by eating His words and see if they are sweet.

Per Christ, God is a spirit. Can we count a spirit?

This spirit has dimensions of Love, Truth, Righteousness, Wisdom ....

I think we have our earliest attempts at God, starting with omni this and omni that, and we run into logical contradictions. If we define God with best possible parameters but constrained within logical limitations, We could define Him the most high (Rather than omnipotent) , and completely Loving, Righteous, Truthful, Wise and like principalities. That is max limit that God can be. Is He (existence) is another question and as I strive to have Faith in the expert Jesus, I should strive to have Faith in God. We need to understand God is in our Faith domain and not Truth. The teachings of Christ though fall largely in Truth domain which are verifiable. They are sound, universal teachings. Only purer and deeper and authoritative.

The very fact people do not have similar conceptions point to Falsehood. In Truth there is unity or oneness or consistency.

There is one doctrine above all doctrines and that was given by Christ. This is the True doctrine per my wisdom. Truth being universal exists pretty much everywhere. The problem is how clear it is and how much garbage that goes along with it.

This doctrine is not about deities (Lord, Lord), but us. Our Salvation. A salvation that is simply by turning good from bad. How good? Look at Jesus on the cross, His Walk and talk (Teachings).

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Many people talk of monotheism as if it were a given that it is a good thing, worth presuming as true and somehow pursuing.

But is that at all true?

I don't think so, and here is why.

First of all, I don't think monotheism - the mainstream versions of its Abrahamic variety, at least - can be both true, accurate and important all at once. There is a serious logical contradiction in the attempt to give it all three atributes.

Why? Because in order to quantify an entity we have to delimit it by some form of parameters. And yet those same doctrines that insist that there is just One True God also emphasize its supreme transcendence, the classic example being the claim that everything that exists needs a creator, the sole exception being their creator God himself.

So, how is it even conceivable that such an entity, presumably above any and all attempts of human classification and delimitation, somehow can only be correctly perceived as being one (as opposed to any other number, including none)? How can the claim be even attempted without presuming some form of human authority to decide what is proper divine form and what is not? And if we do accept that such human authority exists, what is then left of the transcendental nature of that deity?

It seems to me that there is a core mistake in attempting to have a rigid, well-defined conception of deity and then building a doctrine that relies on the accuracy of that conception.

For one thing, that is not very useful. Human beings are simply not likely to hold very similar conceptions of deity - or as I personally prefer to call it, of the sacred - and insisting that we nevertheless should act as if we did will only lead to pointless anxiety, fear, even moral dishonesty or at least the temptation to fall into it.

And that leads to a far greater problem than simple inaccuracy of doctrine. Insistence on the claim of universal truth and significance of such a minor and deeply personal matter as conceptions of deity compromises the very worth of any doctrine. All too quickly it becomes too busy in defending itself from the fragility of its own premises and the unavoidable consequences, and the validity of the teachings of even its most skilled, best meaning adherents is put to waste.

We all should be at peace with the simple contemplation that it is not for humans to act as wardens of specific, rigid, limited understandings of the sacred. Such an effort is both arrogant and demeaning, regardless of whatever some speculative truth about the nature of the sacred might be.

Surely, if even reasonably average human beings can easily be skilled enough to have various aspects according to the people that they interact with and the situations that they find themselves in, then there should be no doubt that a true deity (if such exists) can hardly be limited in its manifestations in ways that would be unreasonable even to humans?

Deism is somewhat reasonable, but belief in a "pocket god" so to speak that answers prayers for missing car keys while ignoring the prayers of starving children is inconsistent, self-serving and childish IMO.

 

[DavidFirth]

Deism is somewhat reasonable, but belief in a "pocket god" so to speak that answers prayers for missing car keys while ignoring the prayers of starving children is inconsistent, self-serving and childish IMO.

How many people are praying for starving children? Who is actually trying to feed them?

 

[whirlingmerc]

I disagree with the core thought of the thread. It does not consider that God could reveal himself on his own terms in various manners.

 

[Jumi]

I disagree with the core thought of the thread. It does not consider that God could reveal himself on his own terms in various manners.

Those of us who don't believe in any god have never experienced such revelation or have come to the conclusion that it was an illusory experience.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's understandable, but, wasn't disclosed as a premise of your OP.

It is not. It is a feature of our world as it exists now.

 

[LuisDantas]

We'll have to disagree on that last statement. If He is going to judge you He is infinitely important.

Don't you see that there is an inherent contradiction in that claim?

 

[LuisDantas]

I disagree with the core thought of the thread. It does not consider that God could reveal himself on his own terms in various manners.

That is conceivable.

That he would do so in a way that would emphasize monotheism while still being a true and significant God is not.

The very idea that it could happen is self-contradictory to a deep degree. It implies a God that somehow both supreme and transcendental, yet also in dire need of human validation.

 

[idav]

That is conceivable.

That he would do so in a way that would emphasize monotheism while still being a true and significant God is not.

The very idea that it could happen is self-contradictory to a deep degree. It implies a God that somehow both supreme and transcendental, yet also in dire need of human validation.

The monotheistic aspect says more than whether a god exists and can breed a deeper understanding of needed cooperation . A god breeding humans for sport doesn't give me fuzzy feelings even if the claim is monotheistic, a god like that is making itself separate from its creation and kinda leaves out core monotheistic aspects that Hindus observe in their theology.

 

[Kemosloby]

That is quite the argument for atheism, since God is such an absentee and we have our consciences and our reason to fulfill every single significant role that he is supposedly necessary for.

Who gives the squirrel the instinct to gather nuts? If man was made in Gods image, perhaps fullfilling roles, which God is necessary for, is just an instinct God gave man. God being the supreme authority decided man should have that, and it was so.

 

[LuisDantas]

Who gives the squirrel the instinct to gather nuts?

Why do you think it was consciously given?

If man was made in Gods image, perhaps fullfilling roles, which God is necessary for, is just an instinct God gave man. God being the supreme authority decided man should have that, and it was so.

Maybe it is just me, but I just don't see a lot of sense in that. It sounds somewhere between self-contradictory and all-out fantasious.