Polytheism vs. Monotheism

[lilithu]

What would be the advantages / disadvantages of both?

Wow, interesting question! I am monotheistic but not because I see it as more "true" than polytheism. That's simply the way that I prefer to look at it. And I do engage in "polytheistic practices." There are "graven idols" on my altar, but I personally never see them as anything but a part of and a way to the larger whole.

Is God one or are gods many? That's like asking is light a wave or particles?

I think MV got at the gist of the advantages for polytheism and No*s got at it for monotheism.

Monotheism allows for a "central unifying theory" for the way things work. Polytheism implies a universe that is chaotic. There are random deities running around and sometimes they work in cooperation with each other and sometimes they may work in opposition to each other. Monotheism implies a universe that is ordered. Creation reflects the will of one being. It is more neat; has greater explanatory power. And the inherent paradoxes that arise (often, tho not always) lead believers to a deeper analysis of their beliefs. Monotheistic theology is always more complex than polytheistic theology (which can be either good or bad).

However,

Monotheism naturally leads to a view of God that is transcendant, distant, remote, inhuman. How could the God that created all and controls all be relatable to us finite human beings? We either remain estranged from God or we personalize only some aspects of God and mistake it for all of God. Or we say that one of us - a human being - was God and relate to God thru that human, a concept that many of us can't accept. Polytheism does away with this problem. We finite humans can relate to finite deities (or personifications of nature or personifications of human ideals like wisdom and compassion) and we never mistake the deity for "all." Polytheism is much more ammenable to a personal relationship with god.

 

[lilithu]

This is another reason why monotheism is not in my liking. It shows a connection between humans and the divine but all other creations fall by the wayside. Especially judaism and christianity, man is made in gods image. What a bunch of crap in my opinion. I'm sure you respect them and keep them in good stewardship, but I for one find them more pure than humans, and see them as sacred.

MV, do you see Taoism and/or (some forms of) Buddhism as polytheistic. It seems to me that if so, they are only polytheistic in the way that Hinduism is, which is both polytheistic and monotheistic.

 

[Master Vigil]

Sorry Melody, you said you didn't find sacred in things.

as stated here "I do not think a river or tree is sacred"

I didn't mean to imply that you were too blind to see it, just that you chose not to.

No's, I assume that you know most polythiests have a source diety where everything came from, if you do, you must of forgot about it when you posted your last post. And about the universe, for all we know, the universe could have always been here and not created. So for one, the universe can be seen as god. You just choose to use a different name.

 

[Master Vigil]

"MV, do you see Taoism and/or (some forms of) Buddhism as polytheistic. It seems to me that if so, they are only polytheistic in the way that Hinduism is, which is both polytheistic and monotheistic."

I see taoism at its heart a philosophy, not a religion. I believe the religion chooses to be polythiestic with the 8 immortals and such, but is still monotheistic. I don't believe buddhism has any gods at all. While I believe that there can be only one "god" or tao, I also believe that we can understand it by use of polythiestic approaches.

 

[Melody]

I didn't mean to imply that you were too blind to see it, just that you chose not to.

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes? I think all of God's creations are to be revered because they are deserving if for no other reason than that they are God's creations. To me this implies respect, but to see them as sacred in the way I see God as sacred, no, you're correct that I do not.

 

[No*s]

No's, I assume that you know most polythiests have a source diety where everything came from, if you do, you must of forgot about it when you posted your last post. And about the universe, for all we know, the universe could have always been here and not created. So for one, the universe can be seen as god. You just choose to use a different name.

I didn't forget. Most polytheistic source deities are contained within the universe in the pantheons I've studied. When they, also, are contained, then it doesn't quite fit the definition I explained. In others, the universe is an emanation or some such, and everything is part of God, which brings it back to the preceding.

The only polytheistic philosophy I've found which doesn't neccessarily have to work itself back to that position in my mind is the Hindu philosophy of the world being God's dream. That, however, is largely designed for just that point.

 

[Druidus]

I don't know whether I'm polytheistic or monotheistic. Sure, I do have "Deities", but they all stem from one central Source, just as I do. Given enough rebirths, I could "become" one of these "Deities". They aren't omnipotent/omnisentient, or even immortal. They just do the best they can, and have the ability to affect the lower "realms" like the one we live in. Eventually, they too, will die and be reborn, with the same goal as I. To reach the Source. Monotheistic or Polytheistic? I suppose that's up to the Druid to decide.

 

[painted wolf]

I havent heard of a source Deitiy for the Egyption panthion... they seem to be truely polythiest. Same goes for many of the Meso-American religions. (though I admit I may be wrong, there may be a source diety I havent heard of yet.)

My faith has many powerful spirits that hold influence (Earth, Sun and so forth) on the world around us but they are not gods in and of themselves. Is my faith mono or poly-thiestic? Many have grouped it in with polythism, thinking that these spirits are 'gods'. At what point is the line drawn between poly and mono-theism?

It seems that there are many flavors of both monthism and polythiesm. One could easily argue that branches of Christianity that holds Satan to be a powerful force/source of Evil in the world are Polytheistic. That branches of Christianity approach polythism with the debate over the trinity. Is it one or three gods? Is this a loose form of polytheism?
Likewise at some point as Druidus said his 'deities' blend into a source diety. Different aspects of the same 'God'. Is this a loose form of monotheism?

There are more flavors of religion than Vanilla vs. Cocholate, poly vs. mono. Each religion has its own flavor and thus its own way of looking at the one/many debate.
Each religion does what works for its peoples outlook on the world around them.

*edit* wooh... I accidently used pan instead of poly... my bad
wa:do

 

[lilithu]

Each religion does what works for its peoples outlook on the world around them.

And influences their outlook as well. Most of the members here probably chose the religion that works best for their outlook. But most people in the world are born into their religion, shaped by it and stay with it the rest of their lives.

With regard to personal preference, I prefer the way that Hinduism handles the mono-pan dichotomy. Not only is there a rich pantheon of devas and a "source," Param-Atman, but Hinduism recognizes that different people will be inclined to approach the divine differently. Those with an intellectual bent can pursue unity with Atman thru wisdom - study, contemplation, meditation. Those who relate with their hearts can practice devotion to a particular deva. And those who prefer action can focus on ritual. And Hinduism doesn't condemn the intellectual for being too "up in the head" nor the devotee for being too emotional nor the ritualist for focusing on the smells and bells. And of course, one can combine these approaches to fit one's personal way of relating to the world. It allows a personal relationship with god (for those who want it) and has a rich theology.

If it weren't for the caste system, I'd proabably be Hindu.

 

[No*s]

One could easily argue that branches of Christianity that holds Satan to be a powerful force/source of Evil in the world are Pantheistic. That branches of Christianity approach panthism with the debate over the trinity. Is it one or three gods? Is this a loose form of pantheism?

As an adherant of one of those branches, I couldn't resist responding here .

We really aren't pantheistic in the least. Though Satan (and those following him by extension) are a powerful force, I am separate from him, and I can (and do) make my own decisions. The Trinity, likewise, makes a hard separation between God and creation. He is everywhere present, but everything is separate.

If you meant polytheism when you said "pantheism," then it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. In that, we come close by many people's definitions, but we aren't. Satan is always lower than God, and is nowhere near an equal force. Likewise, the Trinity is one God with one being (ousia) in three persons (hypostasis). We're not strict monads, but we aren't tritheists either.

Sorry, I read this and felt the urge on the inside .

 

[painted wolf]

ah, but most religions change (some subtle some not) as thier followers ideals change. Old dogmas giving way to new ones.

Most religions also have the same choices between intelectualism and devotionalism in differnt braches of the religion.
One advantage to polytheism is that you can pick specific aspects of 'god' to worship. Like choosing you own toppings on a pizza.

wa:do

 

[No*s]

ah, but most religions change (some subtle some not) as thier followers ideals change. Old dogmas giving way to new ones.

This is quite true in many ways, and even if the dogmas don't, some customs will.

Still, I have to repeat a joke. The most powerful phrase in debate in Orthodoxy is "But...we've never done it that way before!"

Most religions also have the same choices between intelectualism and devotionalism in differnt braches of the religion.
One advantage to polytheism is that you can pick specific aspects of 'god' to worship. Like choosing you own toppings on a pizza.

I'd like to think they aren't always opposed in any religion. I'd like to think I really don't neglect either side. They do frequently oppose each other, though.

I don't think I'll simply pick and choose in the spiritual realm any more than I will mushrooms in the forest. For me, they are quite similar .

 

[lilithu]

ah, but most religions change (some subtle some not) as thier followers ideals change. Old dogmas giving way to new ones.

They don't usually change all that much within a person's lifetime.


There's a dynamic tension going on here:

If religion goes against what people know in their hearts to be true, then it will lose its authority. There was a time when many religions (not just Christianity) condoned slavery. But (most) people now know in their hearts that slavery is wrong, and religions have changed to reflect that. If they hadn't, they would no longer represent the truth to people and their followers would have left them. In that case, religions got it wrong and had to change to correct themselves.

HOWEVER...

If religion merely changes to reflect the needs of the society in which it exists, then it is nothing more than a cultural phenomenon. It has no inherent truth value of its own. That is basically the atheist view of religion. There are times, many times actually, where popular opinion is wrong, and it is up to religion, if it indeed is a "true" religion, to be the moral guide.

This may not make as much sense outside of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, but this is where the idea of the prophet comes in. Prophecy isn't just about predicting the future; in fact that's just a tiny part of it. Prophecy is about "speaking truth to power" - speaking what is right even when kings or democratic majorities disagree.

The truth does not change just because the people think that it has. When religions and their followers conflict, the trick is to know who in that case actually holds the truth, and a good religion will change when it's supposed to and stand fast when it is supposed to.

Most religions also have the same choices between intelectualism and devotionalism in differnt braches of the religion.
One advantage to polytheism is that you can pick specific aspects of 'god' to worship. Like choosing you own toppings on a pizza.

Yeah, we have the same thing in UU, only we get to chooose from entire belief systems.

For as much as I talk about "choice" on these forums, I prefer to think that I don't just choose my spiritual practices like the flavor-of-the-week. I did "sample" a lot of different options, but in the end, my choice was constrained but what I felt was right. There is nothing at stake in a pizza topping. You can choose mushroom today and olives tomorrow. But as Kierkegaard said, when you choose your religion, your whole life is at stake. And he didn't mean that if you choose poorly you'll end up in hell. He meant that (ideally) your religion is what you will devote your whole life to - you will live it. Imagine coming to the end of your life and realizing that you should have been eating olive everyday, not mushroom. That the person that you are - the person that your spritual practice has made you - is not who you wish to be.

 

[Master Vigil]

"We really aren't pantheistic in the least. Though Satan (and those following him by extension) are a powerful force, I am separate from him, and I can (and do) make my own decisions."

Don't panthiests believe they are separate from their gods as well? I think so, so I don't understand your point here. Are you one with god, and not with satan? Or are you separate from both? Can you make your own decisions without god as well? If so, then there is not much more power in him than there is in satan.

 

[lilithu]

Don't panthiests believe they are separate from their gods as well?

There's two different definitions of 'pantheist.' It can mean someone who believes in a pantheon of gods, in which case he would be separate from his gods. Or it can mean someone who believes that the universe/world is God, in which case she would not be separate from her God. pan- meaning "all", either meaning is implied in the word. I think No*s is using the second definition, which is why he makes a distinction between pantheism and polytheism.

ahh... semantics.

 

[Master Vigil]

Gotcha, I understand now. I agree, I hate semantics!!!!!

 

[No*s]

There's two different definitions of 'pantheist.' It can mean someone who believes in a pantheon of gods, in which case he would be separate from his gods. Or it can mean someone who believes that the universe/world is God, in which case she would not be separate from her God. pan- meaning "all", either meaning is implied in the word. I think No*s is using the second definition, which is why he makes a distinction between pantheism and polytheism.

ahh... semantics.

Yes, that is quite right. I'm going for your second definition. It has two advantages over the first definition you listed. It is etymologically correct . The second is that it preserves the distinction between polytheism and pantheism, but without that distinction, we would have to admit a definition for the latter. As such, I use "pantheism" the way I do, and I've even been known to advise other people to do so.

Semantics can be frustrating...but a good grasp of word meanings can allow us to express thoughts and intentions not possible otherwise.

Gotcha, I understand now. I agree, I hate semantics!!!!!

Nah, I actually like it to a point. It allows me to express myself more clearly. Of course, it becomes obscure if I start making personal divisions in words that are either uncommon or wholly arbitrary. In that case, semantics becomes a detriment .

 

[lilithu]

Yes, that is quite right. I'm going for your second definition. It has two advantages over the first definition you listed. It is etymologically correct . The second is that it preserves the distinction between polytheism and pantheism, but without that distinction, we would have to admit a definition for the latter. As such, I use "pantheism" the way I do, and I've even been known to advise other people to do so.

The other reason for making the distinction between pantheism and polytheism is so that one can make the distinction between pantheism and panentheism.

 

[No*s]

OK, that was hilarious. You get frubaled for that.

 

[lilithu]

OK, that was hilarious. You get frubaled for that.

Well, I wasn't trying to be hilarious, just cute and clever. But I'll take! I haven't been fruballed all day. Was starting to feel unloved!