Perspectives on Polytheism

[Quintessence]

As part of our cultural upbringing, we develop both conscious and subconscious associations with particular words, symbols, and ideas. This thread is mostly to satisfy my curiosity regarding the instinctual reaction people have to polytheism amongst the members of RF.

With respect to the poll, the idea here is not to overanalyze what you think about polytheism. What we're looking for is your off-the-cuff, gut-level reaction to that idea. Is your initial reaction to it pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral? Put another way, when thinking about polytheism, do mostly positive things come to mind, do mostly negative things come to mind, or is your instinctive feeling a bit of both or neither?

After you've answered the poll, where do you think these attitudes you hold came from? What are they based on? Are they something that was passed on to you from your parents? Friends? The overculture we live in? Are these attitudes based on personal research or exploration about this type of theism? Are you a polytheist yourself, perhaps? Have you always had this attitude, or has it changed over time?

Feel free to expand beyond this and discuss your perspective on polytheism. I put this in the debate section, so feel free to get messy.

 

[Jainarayan]

Even before I was a full-blown card-carrying out-of-the-closet polytheist I had generally positive views of it. I think maybe I was always a polytheist because even as a Christian I believed in other gods. I had the garden variety Hindu view that all the gods were but manifestations of one God.

 

[Nakosis]

My attitude comes from personal interaction with Wiccans and my research into Druidism. The occasional Heathen I run into seems to be pretty nice folks as well.

 

[George-ananda]

After you've answered the poll, where do you think these attitudes you hold came from? What are they based on? Are they something that was passed on to you from your parents? Friends? The overculture we live in? Are these attitudes based on personal research or exploration about this type of theism? Are you a polytheist yourself, perhaps? Have you always had this attitude, or has it changed over time?

I voted 'Neutral'. I used to think polytheism was more primitive than monotheism. I now think monotheism is more primitive than non-dualism (God and creation are not two). Non-dualism exposed me to Hinduism and its many gods and their teachers explained how the many gods can be thought of as the many faces of the one God; people are benefitted by having a name and form to associate with the infinite. I became comfortable with all three; polytheism, monotheism and non-dualism.

 

[Breathe]

Neutral. I often quite like it, but it's not for me personally. I just can't, you know, accept it.
Though I suppose as I believe in "one God in many aspects [Shiva, Durga, Waheguru, etc all as cultural anthromorphic manifestations of the One]", I border close to soft polytheist according to some, but I consider myself a panentheistic monotheist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As part of our cultural upbringing, we develop both conscious and subconscious associations with particular words, symbols, and ideas. This thread is mostly to satisfy my curiosity regarding the instinctual reaction people have to polytheism amongst the members of RF.

With respect to the poll, the idea here is not to overanalyze what you think about polytheism. What we're looking for is your off-the-cuff, gut-level reaction to that idea. Is your initial reaction to it pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral? Put another way, when thinking about polytheism, do mostly positive things come to mind, do mostly negative things come to mind, or is your instinctive feeling a bit of both or neither?

After you've answered the poll, where do you think these attitudes you hold came from? What are they based on? Are they something that was passed on to you from your parents? Friends? The overculture we live in? Are these attitudes based on personal research or exploration about this type of theism? Are you a polytheist yourself, perhaps? Have you always had this attitude, or has it changed over time?

Feel free to expand beyond this and discuss your perspective on polytheism. I put this in the debate section, so feel free to get messy.

To tell you honestly, I never knew or really thought that there were polytheists. I am so used to "One God or No-God" approach to beliefs that considering people who believe in multiple God's was more of a concept of One God many personas of that one God. Maybe, One God, many Gods under that one God. It always center around One God not more than one.

I said neutral since I only know people who are polytheist here in RF. I don't have a real opinion about it. I guess the attitudes or opinions above I received from environment. My intermediate family are not religious. My mother used to practice Witchcraft. The rest of her side are Christian. My father is an atheist. His siblings and mother and father are hard core Christians.

Other than that, maybe tell us more about polytheism? How does it differ from monotheism? Not particular Abrahamic beliefs, but monotheism in general?

 

[Riverwolf]

As part of our cultural upbringing, we develop both conscious and subconscious associations with particular words, symbols, and ideas. This thread is mostly to satisfy my curiosity regarding the instinctual reaction people have to polytheism amongst the members of RF.

With respect to the poll, the idea here is not to overanalyze what you think about polytheism. What we're looking for is your off-the-cuff, gut-level reaction to that idea. Is your initial reaction to it pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral? Put another way, when thinking about polytheism, do mostly positive things come to mind, do mostly negative things come to mind, or is your instinctive feeling a bit of both or neither?

After you've answered the poll, where do you think these attitudes you hold came from? What are they based on? Are they something that was passed on to you from your parents? Friends? The overculture we live in? Are these attitudes based on personal research or exploration about this type of theism? Are you a polytheist yourself, perhaps? Have you always had this attitude, or has it changed over time?

Feel free to expand beyond this and discuss your perspective on polytheism. I put this in the debate section, so feel free to get messy.

I've always had a polytheist-type mindset, so for me, polytheism is almost completely positive. It's who and what I am fundamentally.

 

[Riverwolf]

I voted 'Neutral'. I used to think polytheism was more primitive than monotheism. I now think monotheism is more primitive than non-dualism (God and creation are not two). Non-dualism exposed me to Hinduism and its many gods and their teachers explained how the many gods can be thought of as the many faces of the one God; people are benefitted by having a name and form to associate with the infinite. I became comfortable with all three; polytheism, monotheism and non-dualism.

Could you explain what you mean by the word "primitive"? The word has negative connotations, after all, but I'm not sure if you intended them.

When I hear something being called "primitive", that means it's unclean, ignorant, mindless, childish... it's a very condescending term.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

With respect to the poll, the idea here is not to overanalyze what you think about polytheism. What we're looking for is your off-the-cuff, gut-level reaction to that idea. Is your initial reaction to it pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral?

Given the above, my initial, gut-level reaction is that I am confronting something that is primitive or unserious and/or intellectually shallow.

 

[George-ananda]

Could you explain what you mean by the word "primitive"? The word has negative connotations, after all, but I'm not sure if you intended them.

When I hear something being called "primitive", that means it's unclean, ignorant, mindless, childish... it's a very condescending term.

Notice the two times I used the word 'primitive' I preceded it with the words 'used to think'. I meant it more in the sense of an antiquated predecessor.

 

[Nietzsche]

Pleasant or negative for whom?

 

[Riverwolf]

Notice the two times I used the word 'primitive' I preceded it with the words 'used to think'. I meant it more in the sense of an antiquated predecessor.

Well, for polytheism yes, but the monotheism being "more primitive" than non-dualism was preceded with a "now", indicating that it's your current belief.

Antiquated also has negative connotations, even though they're not as severe. It implies that something is obsolete, or no longer necessary having been replaced by something that's better; that anyone using this obsolete thing is basically just being a metaphorical Luddite.

 

[George-ananda]

Antiquated also has negative connotations, even though they're not as severe. It implies that something is obsolete, or no longer necessary having been replaced by something that's better; that anyone using this obsolete thing is basically just being a metaphorical Luddite.

Well, I do believe non-dualism is the most advanced thinking of the three (polytheism, monotheism and non-dualism). I do see it as a progressive evolution but I still support polytheism and monotheism as they can still be used to lead their followers forward on the path.

 

[Quintessence]

I voted 'Neutral'. I used to think polytheism was more primitive than monotheism. I now think monotheism is more primitive than non-dualism (God and creation are not two). Non-dualism exposed me to Hinduism and its many gods and their teachers explained how the many gods can be thought of as the many faces of the one God; people are benefitted by having a name and form to associate with the infinite. I became comfortable with all three; polytheism, monotheism and non-dualism.

Monotheism doesn't have to be dualistic, remember. As an example, some forms of pantheism are monotheistic, and are, additionally, non-dualist.

I don't tend to see things in terms of being some great-chain-of-being, with certain types of thinking being more "advanced" than others. It feels too pejorative to me, and it also reminds me of the ethnocentric biases that used to plague the discipline of anthropology. It seems our desire to paint other beliefs as "primitive" and ours as more "advanced" stems from our need to maintain a positive self-image and affirm our own righteousness. Or worse, we do it to malign and sabotage the things that we do not agree with. This was certainly the case with polytheism in the Western world; the very idea of it has been deliberately besmirched as part of the campaign to eradicate different ways of life and rich cultural traditions. I'd like to think that we've moved past that, but in many cases, we haven't. We still have this tendency to put things we agree with on a pedestal and put down anything that disagrees with us.

 

[Quintessence]

To tell you honestly, I never knew or really thought that there were polytheists. I am so used to "One God or No-God" approach to beliefs that considering people who believe in multiple God's was more of a concept of One God many personas of that one God. Maybe, One God, many Gods under that one God. It always center around One God not more than one.

I was the same, honestly. I think that's a perspective that many people have, because the classical monotheisms were so successful in their smear and eradication campaign of indigenous polytheisms (aka, Paganisms). It's not seen as a "live" theological option, even though it is. The cultural dialogue is dominated by two voices: the classical monotheist, and the atheist who disagrees with the classical monotheist theology. It's curious, because although my country purports itself to be multicultural, in practice, it seems pretty blind to multiculturalism with respect to religion and theology.

Other than that, maybe tell us more about polytheism? How does it differ from monotheism? Not particular Abrahamic beliefs, but monotheism in general?

There are different ways in which monotheism and polytheism express themselves, so any comparison should take that into account. Both of these groups can have immanent god-concepts or transcendent ones, both can be supernaturalistic or non-supernaturalistic, among other things. But there are a few general things that can be said that will always hold true.

Polytheism never posits any sort of omnimax god-concept, because it is incompatible with the notion of there being more than one deity. There is no such thing as an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, or all-anything deity in polytheistic theologies. That's a stark contrast to the most prevalent form of monotheism in the West, which specifically posits that the god is an omnimax. On a related note, as polytheistic gods are not omni-max, they also lack other attributes common in classical monotheism. Classical monotheism also posits the one-god is eternal and unchanging, wheras polytheistic gods not only change, but many mythic narratives include death/birth of various gods.

The other thing is that monotheism, at least when interpreted in the strict sense, is inherently intolerant of non-monotheist theologies. It posits that there is only one god and therefore, that any other opinion is wrong; that the "gods" of polytheistic religions are false and not true gods. You don't find that kind of intolerance in polytheistic theologies, because any new god-concept encountered is just accepted as yet another deity in someone's pantheon. It has been said that (IIRC, in the book "God against the Gods" by J. Kirsch) monotheism, and in particular classical monotheism, invented religious intolerance. Exclusivist attitudes of "my gods are the only right gods, and my religion is the only right religion" are just foreign to polytheistic theologies and religions. It's something that arose with monotheisms. None of this is to say that contemporary monotheists can't be respectful of other theological positions. They can be, and frequently are in my country.

Another thing worth remarking is that it is not uncommon for theistic religions to contain elements analogous to both monotheistic and polytheistic thought in their makeup. What makes them more distinct is what the objects of worship are. Monotheistic religions like Christianity have a whole host of other semi-divine and mythic beings like angels and saints, but they are not the objects of worship. Where they are, we might argue Christianity is deviating from true monotheism, and is in practice behaving more like polytheism. Similarly, where a polytheist starts worshiping something they feel us a universal principle, they're behaving more as a monotheist than a polytheist. The idea of a universal principle isn't foreign in polytheisms, but it is not the object of worship.

 

[Quintessence]

Give the above, my initial, gut-level reaction is that I am confronting something that is primitive or unserious and/or intellectually shallow.

Where do you think that attitude emerged from? What's that attitude based on?

Pleasant or negative for whom?

For you, personally.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My reaction to it is more-or-less the same as my reaction to any other form of theism: erring on the side of negative.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Where do you think that attitude emerged from? What's that attitude based on?

Primitive peoples mythologized that which they did not understand, which was much. Dreams, storms, thunder, lightening -- all became the stuff of gods who, predictably, were a capricious, unruly, and highly hierarchical bunch. Most polytheists I've encountered today strike me as shallow dilettantes whose 'religion' is more an affectation and who appear to be far more interested in being different than in being informed.

And, yes, I'm fully aware that this is a bias, but it's offered in an honest effort to respond to the OP. If you would like to offer anything in the way of serious, modern, polytheistic scholarship that I should consider I will gladly do so.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Dreams, storms, thunder, lightening -- all became the stuff of gods who, predictably, were a capricious, unruly, and highly hierarchical bunch.

That sounds just like Yahweh!

Most polytheists I've encountered today strike me as shallow dilettantes whose 'religion' is more an affectation and who appear to be far more interested in being different than in being informed.

And how many have you met? There are about 2 billion of us, mostly in China, India, Japan, and Africa. I suspect your sample may be unrepresentative.

If you would like to offer anything in the way of serious, modern, polytheistic scholarship that I should consider I will gladly do so.

For books by practicing pagans on their faiths you could try
- the works of the Hindu Alain Danielou (Officier du Merite National)
- Shinto: the kami way, by Professor Sokyo Ono
- the works of Professor Jordan Paper, like
-- The spirits are drunk: comparative approaches to Chinese religion
-- The deities are many: a polytheist theology
- Pagan theology, by Dr Michael York

Thinking of some Pagans and Neopagans whose works I know, there's Ronald Hutton (professor at Bristol), Vivianne Crowley (lecturer at King's College, London), Graham Harvey (Reader at the Open University), Prudence Jones (formerly lecturer at Cambridge University) - hardly a bunch of intellectual lightweights.

 

[Quintessence]

Primitive peoples mythologized that which they did not understand, which was much. Dreams, storms, thunder, lightening -- all became the stuff of gods who, predictably, were a capricious, unruly, and highly hierarchical bunch.

Kind of like real life, huh?
That's actually one of the things I like about polytheistic theology. It's... well... more true to life. With all of its bits we find beautiful and ugly.

Most polytheists I've encountered today strike me as shallow dilettantes whose 'religion' is more an affectation and who appear to be far more interested in being different than in being informed.

Interesting. That has not been my experience. Those people have been the exception rather than the rule, and I'd say that across religious demographics. There's much ado about the so-called fluffs and posers, but when we really research what these folks have to say in an academic lens, the picture ends up being much different. I used to have this stereotype too about a number of contemporary Pagans, but then I read this book:

Teenage Witches: Magical Youth and the Search for the Self - Kindle edition by Helen Berger, Douglas Ezzy. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

And, yes, I'm fully aware that this is a bias, but it's offered in an honest effort to respond to the OP. If you would like to offer anything in the way of serious, modern, polytheistic scholarship that I should consider I will gladly do so.

The irony is because of the strong biases against polytheistic theology in Western society, there is relatively little in the way of modern scholarship on it. There are a few works out there, here and there, some of which I've read, some of which I haven't. I appreciate your honesty, and by no means do I expect to change yours (or anyone else's) perspective in this thread or in the future. Here are a few of the works I'm aware of:

A World Full of Gods: An Inquiry into Polytheism - Kindle edition by John Michael Greer. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
The Case for Polytheism - Kindle edition by Steven Dillon. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
A Million and One Gods: The Persistence of Polytheism: Page duBois: 9780674728837: Amazon.com: Books
The Deities Are Many: A Polytheistic Theology (S U N Y Series in Religious Studies) - Kindle edition by Jordan D. Paper. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

There are some others that cover Paganism on the whole, but not necessarily polytheism specifically. In many respects, it is difficult to separate a theistic orientation from the religions within which they are found, as I'm sure you're aware.