Perspectives on Polytheism

[Jayhawker Soule]

That sounds just like Yahweh!

No, it does not, but the descriptions of YHWH clearly reflect a primitive antecedent and context.

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.

First, I never suggested otherwise.
Second, I find ad populum arguments underwhelming to the point of being silly.

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.

Thank you, but I simply do not have time to accommodate a laundry list. What would you offer as the best text on polytheism?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Being aware of something and having read it are not at all the same. Which of the above have you read and, of that subset, which would be your first recommendation?

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

But here's the thing. I've dabbled in the whole "non-dual" thing in the past, but eventually just came right back to plain ol' polytheism (with an animistic bent, sure, but animism isn't strictly advaita).

I don't think any of them are more "advanced" (whatever that even means in this context) than any other. I've also come to discard the entire notion of "progressive evolution", as I've not seen any indication of it, whether biological, technological, linguistic, or cultural. All forms of evolution that I've seen have been purely reactive.

EDIT: I also don't equate "more complex", i.e., having more components and more features, with "more advanced". More moving parts also means more opportunities for failure.

 

[George-ananda]

But here's the thing. I've dabbled in the whole "non-dual" thing in the past, but eventually just came right back to plain ol' polytheism (with an animistic bent, sure, but animism isn't strictly advaita).

But the OP I was initially replying to was asking for MY gut feelings which I gave. My personal feelings is that Advaita thought is the highest form of theological understanding and the place where the highest forms of all the world religions start to merge into.

I don't think any of them are more "advanced" (whatever that even means) than any other. I've also come to discard the entire notion of "progressive evolution", as I've not seen any indication of progression in any type, whether biological, technological, linguistic, or cultural. All forms of evolution that I've seen have been purely reactive.

Well my best analogy would be that Einsteinian Physics is more advanced than Newtonian physics but that doesn't make Newtownian physics wrong or bad.

 

[Riverwolf]

But the OP I was initially replying to was asking for MY gut feelings which I gave. My personal feelings is that Advaita thought is the highest form of theological understanding and the place where the highest forms of all the world religions start to merge into.

Fair enough. My personal feelings are in disagreement. ^_^

I felt the need to address that disagreement, because, as I said in my reply, polytheism is part of the core of my being, so I get defensive when it's referred to in a pejorative sense, even if unintentionally.

Well my best analogy would be that Einsteinian Physics is more advanced than Newtonian physics but that doesn't make Newtownian physics wrong or bad.

I did edit my post to address this sort of thing. I'm not entirely sure I'd call the General Relativity or Special Relativity theories "more advanced" than Newtonian Laws, though they certainly involve more complex math (and I know admittedly very little about them beyond what I've seen on Youtube science shows).

 

[George-ananda]

I felt the need to address that disagreement, because, as I said in my reply, polytheism is part of the core of my being, so I get defensive when it's referred to in a pejorative sense, even if unintentionally.

I never like to discourage any reasonable religious beliefs. But when asked for my 'gut feeling' I turn my filter off. Sorry, my friend if I offended you in any way.

 

[Riverwolf]

I never like to discourage any reasonable religious beliefs. But when asked for my 'gut feeling' I turn my filter off. Sorry, my friend if I offended you in any way.

Likewise. ^_^

 

[Quintessence]

Being aware of something and having read it are not at all the same. Which of the above have you read and, of that subset, which would be your first recommendation?

I agree it's not the same.

I have read and own Greer's work. It essentially covers a lot of the territory in philosophy of religion, except without ignoring how those philosophical issues apply (or rather fail to apply, in most cases) to polytheism. It is very basic if you're familiar with philosophy of religion (which honestly should be called philosophy of classical monotheist religions with how it is typically thought , and there are points in that work where I don't quite agree with what he says, but it provides a good overview. That term I keep using? Classical monotheism? I lifted that from his work.

I have also read chunks of "Deities are Many" which has a very different style in that it is more in the dry, academic style of writing. Having read only chunks of it, I can't give a proper assessment, but as the writing style is not as accessible based on what I have read of it, I'd have to lean towards Greer's work instead. The other two works I have not read, but are on my wish list. Lastly, I have to also recommend this one:

Seeking the Mystery: An Introduction to Pagan Theologies - Kindle edition by Christine Hoff Kraemer. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

This work covers more than just polytheistic theology, but a broader spectrum of non-monotheist theologies in relation to their most common religious counterpart: Paganisms. If I were to teach a class on contemporary Paganisms and their diversity, this is the one I would pick as required reading. It's objective and academic, but lacks the dry and sometimes inaccessible writing style of works written for academic audiences.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I am currently animistic in my beliefs, which my version would probably be polytheistic if I recognized "gods." I have both good and bad opinions of polytheism, because, well, I don't do God or gods right now--to me, they seem unnecessary or extra, and hence some of the negative perceptions/conceptions. If everything is/has spirit, then some of those spirits are going to be much larger/more powerful than me--and others might justly call them Gods; I however, don't. They are just my larger, more powerful kin, who live and operate on a scale that is toward (and may pass) the upper end of my perception and comprehension. There's an awful lot of baggage attached to all the different theisms and religions, and I'm trying to figure out where I fit, if at all, into those.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree it's not the same.

I have read and own Greer's work. It essentially ...

Thank you for the reply.

In what way(s) do you find polytheism compelling/necessary?

 

[Quintessence]

Thank you for the reply.

In what way(s) do you find polytheism compelling/necessary?

It could probably be boiled down to a few key components:

1. Perhaps most importantly, I simply cannot fathom deeming only a single aspect of this wondrous reality to be worthy of worship. I'm incapable of regarding only one thing as sacred; only one thing as worth giving thanks to; only one thing as worthy of reverence or adoration; only one thing as worthy of upholding as an exemplar; only one thing to inspire my life and living, from the sciences to the arts. I just can't do it.
2. Related to the above, the potential objects of worship in polytheism are functionally unlimited. This allows for great creativity, and the ability to keep one's religious practice contemporary and fresh. Polytheists get to select the gods they actively worship, and they can do so in a way that reflects their personal values instead of someone else's. Even better, what you worship can (and should) change over time just as you do. It facilitates learning and exploration of this amazing, magical world we live in!
3. As touched upon earlier, polytheism inherently encourages pluralist thinking, and thus greater tolerance of different ways of seeing and experiencing the world. "Many gods" means "many ways" rather than "one true way." Monotheistic thinking has a tendency to want to homogenize, rather than allow heterogeneity and hold a love for diversity. I'm not a fan of homogenization, and a big fan of pluralism.
4. Polytheism pretty much renders traditional arguments against god in "philosophy of religion" (aka, philosophy of classical monotheism) moot or irrelevant. Problem of evil, anyone? What problem of evil? In essence, a polytheistic framework is just plain more consistent with how we actually experience the apparent world, and to some, more consistent with how we experience the otherworlds as well.
5. It is easier to relate to polytheistic gods, which are typically immanent (that is, they're mythopoetic renditions of various aspects of reality we all know and love, like the sun) and often specific to a local area. They are things we can touch, feel, and experience on a daily basis; honoring these gods helps one make meaningful connections to the world around us.
6. Polytheistic thought tends to enchant the world. Everything is sacred, everything is magical, everything has value. Suddenly that tree in your yard is no longer "just a tree" it's a creature - a god/spirit - you can develop a relationship with. It helps one be more mindful of various relationships with things; which again gets back to that whole connection bit.
7. Simple aesthetics. The mythologies that have been born out of monotheistic theology just do not appeal to me. I don't find them interesting or compelling. And if I don't enjoy what I'm doing religiously, well... I'm doing it wrong and need to freshen it up. It needs to be inspiring! Beautiful! Something that makes you want to break out and sing a song and dance in the rain!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It could probably be boiled down to a few key components:

1. Perhaps most importantly, I simply cannot fathom deeming only a single aspect of this wondrous reality to be worthy of worship. I'm incapable of regarding only one thing as sacred; only one thing as worth giving thanks to; only one thing as worthy of reverence or adoration; only one thing as worthy of upholding as an exemplar; only one thing to inspire my life and living, from the sciences to the arts. I just can't do it.
2. Related to the above, the potential objects of worship in polytheism are functionally unlimited. This allows for great creativity, and the ability to keep one's religious practice contemporary and fresh. Polytheists get to select the gods they actively worship, and they can do so in a way that reflects their personal values instead of someone else's. Even better, what you worship can (and should) change over time just as you do. It facilitates learning and exploration of this amazing, magical world we live in!
3. As touched upon earlier, polytheism inherently encourages pluralist thinking, and thus greater tolerance of different ways of seeing and experiencing the world. "Many gods" means "many ways" rather than "one true way." Monotheistic thinking has a tendency to want to homogenize, rather than allow heterogeneity and hold a love for diversity. I'm not a fan of homogenization, and a big fan of pluralism.
4. Polytheism pretty much renders traditional arguments against god in "philosophy of religion" (aka, philosophy of classical monotheism) moot or irrelevant. Problem of evil, anyone? What problem of evil? In essence, a polytheistic framework is just plain more consistent with how we actually experience the apparent world, and to some, more consistent with how we experience the otherworlds as well.
5. It is easier to relate to polytheistic gods, which are typically immanent (that is, they're mythopoetic renditions of various aspects of reality we all know and love, like the sun) and often specific to a local area. They are things we can touch, feel, and experience on a daily basis; honoring these gods helps one make meaningful connections to the world around us.
6. Polytheistic thought tends to enchant the world. Everything is sacred, everything is magical, everything has value. Suddenly that tree in your yard is no longer "just a tree" it's a creature - a god/spirit - you can develop a relationship with. It helps one be more mindful of various relationships with things; which again gets back to that whole connection bit.
7. Simple aesthetics. The mythologies that have been born out of monotheistic theology just do not appeal to me. I don't find them interesting or compelling. And if I don't enjoy what I'm doing religiously, well... I'm doing it wrong and need to freshen it up. It needs to be inspiring! Beautiful! Something that makes you want to break out and sing a song and dance in the rain!

Excellent, Quintessence!

I'd add (and this is not a well-developed thought at this point) that at least in my version of polytheism, my belief and actions are about the immanence of spirit, something that permeates all of my living and actions. It's not just for Wednesday evening and Sunday morning, and for a few seconds before a meal...it is ALL THE TIME. This is something that I know a lot of people practicing Christianity strive to have, but also many don't strive for, or have even if they do. And for me, the focus on the Other, and the Later, make monotheism not work (despite the years of trying), and try as I might, I just can't in the end accept the modernist/materialist worldview as a complete description of reality (although I tried that as well).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It could probably be boiled down to a few key components:

1. Perhaps most importantly, I simply cannot fathom deeming only a single aspect of this wondrous reality to be worthy of worship. I'm incapable of regarding only one thing as sacred; only one thing as worth giving thanks to; only one thing as worthy of reverence or adoration; only one thing as worthy of upholding as an exemplar; only one thing to inspire my life and living, from the sciences to the arts. I just can't do it.
2. Related to the above, the potential objects of worship in polytheism are functionally unlimited. This allows for great creativity, and the ability to keep one's religious practice contemporary and fresh. Polytheists get to select the gods they actively worship, and they can do so in a way that reflects their personal values instead of someone else's. Even better, what you worship can (and should) change over time just as you do. It facilitates learning and exploration of this amazing, magical world we live in!
3. As touched upon earlier, polytheism inherently encourages pluralist thinking, and thus greater tolerance of different ways of seeing and experiencing the world. "Many gods" means "many ways" rather than "one true way." Monotheistic thinking has a tendency to want to homogenize, rather than allow heterogeneity and hold a love for diversity. I'm not a fan of homogenization, and a big fan of pluralism.
4. Polytheism pretty much renders traditional arguments against god in "philosophy of religion" (aka, philosophy of classical monotheism) moot or irrelevant. Problem of evil, anyone? What problem of evil? In essence, a polytheistic framework is just plain more consistent with how we actually experience the apparent world, and to some, more consistent with how we experience the otherworlds as well.
5. It is easier to relate to polytheistic gods, which are typically immanent (that is, they're mythopoetic renditions of various aspects of reality we all know and love, like the sun) and often specific to a local area. They are things we can touch, feel, and experience on a daily basis; honoring these gods helps one make meaningful connections to the world around us.
6. Polytheistic thought tends to enchant the world. Everything is sacred, everything is magical, everything has value. Suddenly that tree in your yard is no longer "just a tree" it's a creature - a god/spirit - you can develop a relationship with. It helps one be more mindful of various relationships with things; which again gets back to that whole connection bit.
7. Simple aesthetics. The mythologies that have been born out of monotheistic theology just do not appeal to me. I don't find them interesting or compelling. And if I don't enjoy what I'm doing religiously, well... I'm doing it wrong and need to freshen it up. It needs to be inspiring! Beautiful! Something that makes you want to break out and sing a song and dance in the rain!

Thank you. There is much here that reinforces my preference for monotheism, but I feel that you did an excellent job.

 

[Quintessence]

Thank you. There is much here that reinforces my preference for monotheism, but I feel that you did an excellent job.

Your welcome. Our religious and theological persuasions really are a preference. It depends on what one is looking for to bring meaning into one's life. I'd had this sense of the sacredness inherent in the world since I was young, but didn't know there was a framework for that until much later in life. Others don't have that sense, and that's okay. I have great respect for Judaism in particular, though I wager some of that is because of my Jewish parent.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your welcome. Our religious and theological persuasions really are a preference.

Unless they are an inference.

But know this: I see great value in your points 3 & 4, and appreciate the opportunity to see polytheism through such a lens. Thanks again.

 

[Vishvavajra]

It makes more intuitive sense to me than monotheism, as far as that goes. If you've got a bunch of beings who are doing their best, you might end up with a world like this one. Monotheism seems to require special pleading at every turn to explain the state of the world, and there's a huge danger of people's just projecting their own egos onto their god. Plus, I don't see the appeal of having one big god to rule them all. It strikes me as inherently monarchist (or worse, fascist), and I don't swing that way politically.

Modern polytheists can indeed be annoying dilettantes when they arrive at it out of rejection of their culture's monotheism, often passing through miles of New Age nonsense on the way. However, there are still plenty of cultures that never embraced monotheism to begin with, including some major world religions

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It makes more intuitive sense to me than monotheism, as far as that goes. If you've got a bunch of beings who are doing their best, you might end up with a world like this one. Monotheism seems to require special pleading at every turn to explain the state of the world, and there's a huge danger of people's just projecting their own egos onto their god. Plus, I don't see the appeal of having one big god to rule them all. It strikes me as inherently monarchist (or worse, fascist), and I don't swing that way politically.

Modern polytheists can indeed be annoying dilettantes when they arrive at it out of rejection of their culture's monotheism, often passing through miles of New Age nonsense on the way. However, there are still plenty of cultures that never embraced monotheism to begin with, including some major world religions

Being one of those modern polytheists that has arrived by rejecting my culture's monotheism (without, to my way of thinking, going through much in the line of New Age stuff) , I quite agree. The push in Western culture especially to have a universal deity or a universal physics Theory of Everything are just two versions of the same drive. Even if at some tremendous level of temperature and pressure all the known physical forces are unified, for all practical purposes there are FOUR forces. Even if there is some transcendent universal deity, for all practical purposes, there may be a near infinity of "gods" that are larger/more powerful than humans, but are less than the supreme deity. And if the universe is really in some sense "alive," as many polytheists seem to believe, then there is even a greater potential for multiplicity.

 

[The Hammer]

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.

I seemed to have pretty similar views to yours. I never had any problem believing in multiple Gods, even as a christian. I still to an extent fall under the Hindu view, but I am much more complicated then that .

 

[JoStories]

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 believe all the faces of God are true. No matter what name or names one puts to God, they are all parts of the same. Sort of like Paulo Coelho wrote in God the the Fifth Mountian.

 

[JoStories]

I agree it's not the same.

I have read and own Greer's work. It essentially covers a lot of the territory in philosophy of religion, except without ignoring how those philosophical issues apply (or rather fail to apply, in most cases) to polytheism. It is very basic if you're familiar with philosophy of religion (which honestly should be called philosophy of classical monotheist religions with how it is typically thought , and there are points in that work where I don't quite agree with what he says, but it provides a good overview. That term I keep using? Classical monotheism? I lifted that from his work.

I have also read chunks of "Deities are Many" which has a very different style in that it is more in the dry, academic style of writing. Having read only chunks of it, I can't give a proper assessment, but as the writing style is not as accessible based on what I have read of it, I'd have to lean towards Greer's work instead. The other two works I have not read, but are on my wish list. Lastly, I have to also recommend this one:

Seeking the Mystery: An Introduction to Pagan Theologies - Kindle edition by Christine Hoff Kraemer. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

This work covers more than just polytheistic theology, but a broader spectrum of non-monotheist theologies in relation to their most common religious counterpart: Paganisms. If I were to teach a class on contemporary Paganisms and their diversity, this is the one I would pick as required reading. It's objective and academic, but lacks the dry and sometimes inaccessible writing style of works written for academic audiences.

A very good book. I took a course with, or rather, as her as the prof some years ago. Very good prof and very good course. She's a tough instructor btw. She demands very rigorous research from her students.