There is no such thing as "soft polytheism"

[1137]

"The Hammer said: If said Unifying force that the Gods emanate from has no consciousness and will of its own, but is just a force of nature, it's not a God. Imo. Which is how I view the unity that the Gods come from."

The view quoted above view seems to say the universal impersonal God has no consciousness or will of its own. This is untrue. Hinduism says the brahman is unknowable, so we do not know what it is and we cannot say what qualities it has or does not have. Only thing know about it, is that it is a non-person, so we cannot have a relationship with it. But we do know three things about it - SatChitAnanda - it exists, it is conscious and it is bliss. So, I would say my view differs.

BTW the other millions of Gods are fairly autonomous and independent and capable of handling all activities on the celestial body they manage, although they do take direction from higher Gods.

This is so interesting to me and so far out of my frame of reference, definitely planning to dive way deeper into monism.

 

[Quintessence]

I've described 4 different paths, each with distinct labels, one of which is polytheism. What am I missing?

That there are other ways to look at it than your way. Polytheism just means many gods. It seems to me that every path you described involves worship of multiple gods. That's polytheism. Other terms can be appended to that if one wants (e.g., polytheism combined with substance monism, as in #4). Words are just label/things humans choose to slap on things anyway. It's all made up however we want to make it up.

I had a professor of religion once that said the real, substantive difference between monotheism and polytheism is this - what is actually worshipped? One thing, or many things? If it is one thing, monotheism. If it is many things, polytheism. Reason being, both monotheistic and polytheistic religions all contain elements of both unity and multiplicity, so looking at that alone isn't that helpful. It's especially not helpful in religions that aren't about what you believe (as is often the case with polytheistic religions in particular) but what you do and what you practice. But from there, there's nuance. And efforts to go what the "real" monotheism and "real" polytheism are is mostly just purity test gatekeeping mechanisms by various social communities.

 

[1137]

That there are other ways to look at it than your way. Polytheism just means many gods. It seems to me that every path you described involves worship of multiple gods. That's polytheism. Other terms can be appended to that if one wants (e.g., polytheism combined with substance monism, as in #4). Words are just label/things humans choose to slap on things anyway. It's all made up however we want to make it up.

I guess my concern then is, where do we apply logic, and where do we let it slide?

I had a professor of religion once that said the real, substantive difference between monotheism and polytheism is this - what is actually worshipped? One thing, or many things? If it is one thing, monotheism. If it is many things, polytheism.

I thought you opposed this differentiation...?

 

[1137]

I have updated #4 to fit the feedback regarding polytheistic monism.

 

[Quintessence]

I guess my concern then is, where do we apply logic, and where do we let it slide?

I don't think there's going to be any "we" on the question - each is going to come to their own conventions for different circumstances and perspectives. Language isn't really a logical exercise to begin with given how polysemic words are and how fluid and contextual their meaning often is as well. You can try to put it in a rigid box if you want for certain purposes - say, an operational definition of a term for research - but beyond that I'm not sure what the point would be. Well, I suppose the other point would be gatekeeping. I'm not really into gatekeeping.

I thought you opposed this differentiation...?

Not really - there's diversity and nuance within the monotheistic and polytheistic buckets. Which is where qualifiers like "soft" and "hard" come in, even as I'm not a fan of those terms. Plus there's terms ranging from autotheism, henotheism, pantheism, and so on... however many word/labels you wanna make up of the territory, I guess.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is no such thing as "soft polytheism"

And what is hard "hard " of it, please, and " soft" from its founder and his name, please, right?

Regards

 

[McBell]

There is no such thing as "soft polytheism"

And what is hard "hard " of it, please, and " soft" from its founder and his name, please, right?

Regards

"Soft" polytheism is the belief that different gods may either be psychological archetypes, personifications of natural forces, or as being one essential god interpreted through the lenses of different cultures (e.g. Odin, Zeus, and Indra all being the same god as interpreted by Germanic, Greek, and Indic peoples respectively) – known as omnitheism.[10] In this way, gods may be interchangeable for one another across cultures.[9]​

​

"Hard" polytheism is the belief that gods are distinct, separate, real divine beings, rather than psychological archetypes or personifications of natural forces. Hard polytheists reject the idea that "all gods are one essential god" and may also reject the existence of gods outside their own pantheon altogether.[9]​

​

Polytheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[1137]

"Soft" polytheism is the belief that different gods may either be psychological archetypes,​

So atheism.

personifications of natural forces,​

So pantheism.

or as being one essential god interpreted through the lenses of different cultures (e.g. Odin, Zeus, and Indra all being the same god as interpreted by Germanic, Greek, and Indic peoples respectively) – known as omnitheism.[10] In this way, gods may be interchangeable for one another across cultures.[9]​

One god is monotheism.

​

"Hard" polytheism is the belief that gods are distinct, separate, real divine beings, rather than psychological archetypes or personifications of natural forces. Hard polytheists reject the idea that "all gods are one essential god" and may also reject the existence of gods outside their own pantheon altogether.[9]​

​

It's just called polytheism.

 

[McBell]

So atheism.

So pantheism.

One god is monotheism.

It's just called polytheism.

Hard and soft are merely ways to distinguish between the various types of polytheism.
You do not have to agree or even like them.

 

[1137]

Hard and soft are merely ways to distinguish between the various types of polytheism.
You do not have to agree or even like them.

Can you give an example of "soft polytheism" that is actually polytheism, and explain what traits make it "softer"?

 

[McBell]

Can you give an example of "soft polytheism" that is actually polytheism, and explain what traits make it "softer"?

No, I can not.

 

[firedragon]

The gods are all facets of one ultimate God.

This is one of the definitions of Soft Polytheism. Thus, although your topic is very interesting, with all due respect, you are contradicting yourself.

 

[1137]

No, I can not.

Because it doesn't exist.

This is one of the definitions of Soft Polytheism. Thus, although your topic is very interesting, with all due respect, you are contradicting yourself.

One god is monotheism. MONO = ONE. No contradiction at all, belief in one god is monotheism.

 

[McBell]

Because it doesn't exist.

I can not because I simply do not know, or care, enough to do the research required to find an example you will merely deny.

Interesting that post #27 does in fact offer up an example that you hand waved away.

So really no need to present anything else.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Soft" polytheism is the belief that different gods may either be psychological archetypes, personifications of natural forces, or as being one essential god interpreted through the lenses of different cultures (e.g. Odin, Zeus, and Indra all being the same god as interpreted by Germanic, Greek, and Indic peoples respectively) – known as omnitheism.[10] In this way, gods may be interchangeable for one another across cultures.[9]​

​

"Hard" polytheism is the belief that gods are distinct, separate, real divine beings, rather than psychological archetypes or personifications of natural forces. Hard polytheists reject the idea that "all gods are one essential god" and may also reject the existence of gods outside their own pantheon altogether.[9]​

​

Polytheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These classifications are the Philosophical ones, from the truthful Religion's perspective these may be equally not truthful and distant from G-d, need to be corrected, please, right?

Regards

 

[1137]

I can not because I simply do not know, or care, enough to do the research required to find an example you will merely deny.

Interesting that post #27 does in fact offer up an example that you hand waved away.

So really no need to present anything else.

I addressed that post haha

 

[McBell]

I addressed that post haha

Yes you did.
Your "addressing it" was to dismiss it.

Then you ask for more examples to dismiss.
I am not interested in playing that game.

 

[firedragon]

Because it doesn't exist.

One god is monotheism. MONO = ONE. No contradiction at all, belief in one god is monotheism.

Yep. Everyone knows that.

I was address "soft polytheism" in my comment. Not monotheism.

 

[1137]

Yep. Everyone knows that.

I was address "soft polytheism" in my comment. Not monotheism.

"The gods are all facets of one ultimate God"

This is called monotheism, there is one god that manifests in different ways. Otherwise, Kabbalah is polytheism.

 

[Bear Wild]

Update 2:


There's a very common, and equally false, distinction floating around that there are two forms of polytheism: hard and soft polytheism. Let me explain why this distinction is invalid.


First, there is not even a solid definition of soft polytheism. The more common ones tend to be (1) belief that gods in one culture may be the same as in another culture but with a different name, (2) belief that the gods are all facets of one ultimate God, (3) belief that the gods are symbolic embodiments of nature and/or Jungian archetypes, or (4) belief that everything, including the god, reduces to one source (monism). Still, let's address all four.


(1) Gods in one culture may be the same as in another culture but with a different name. This is literally just called “polytheism.” There is nothing “hard” or “soft” about it, it is by definition polytheism. Even if there is just one big pantheon where gods are given different names by different cultures, there's still more than one god, otherwise we get to (2). Egyptians, Greeks, Romans… many, many polytheistic societies accepted this. So (1) is not “soft polytheism,” it's just polytheism.


(2) The gods are all facets of one ultimate God. This is probably the most frustrating, and appears to require a basic crash course in the laws of logic and language. Polytheism is more than one god, and monotheism is one god. This is the meaning of “poly” and “mono.” Logic comes in because if there is more than one god, there cannot also only be one god, A cannot be Non-A. The idea that all gods reduce to one god contradicts there being many gods, there's only the illusion of many. This is closer to the Emanationism seen in paths like Kabbalah, which is quite far from polytheism. So (2) is not “soft polytheism” or polytheism at all, it is monotheism.


(3) The gods are symbolic embodiments of nature and/or Jungian archetypes. In other words there are not many gods, in fact there are no gods, just nature and the human psyche, which is known as atheism. Looking back to (2) we can see that “many gods exist” and “no gods exist” contradict. To reduce polytheism to symbolic LARPing more or less is beyond insulting, which makes (3) the worst offender imo. So (3) is not “soft polytheism” or polytheism at all, it is atheism.


(4) The belief that everything, including the gods, reduces to or stems from one source (monism). Originally I had labeled this as not polytheism, but I've been corrected in that polytheistic monism is an active and valid path. It seems many here distinguish between “the gods” and “the source,” so there is not, in fact, “one god” as in (2). This means (4) is indeed polytheism, but you may have already caught the label of “polytheistic monism.” Again this is not “soft polytheism” because, like (1), it's just a form of polytheism, but with the addition of monism. The monism part doesn't change the polytheistic part to make it “softer,” so once again this is not soft polytheism, just polytheistic monism.


There is no such thing as “soft polytheism” here, just polytheism, monotheism, atheism, and polytheistic monism.

My understanding of the terms reflects what others have said. The term hard refers to the stance that the gods and goddesses are numinous entities in their own right. They exist independently and exist beyond the human psyche. Saying they are the same but different names in different cultures is too simplistic. Yes, a thunder god is common in different cultures but not identical because and reflects different cultural perceptions and relationship. Thus, the numinous entity they are experiencing may be the same but the relationship to that being may vary. This represents the variation in humans more than the numinous being itself. As for the gods being facets of one god it might be better to say that they are of the fabric of the universe rather that facts of one god (which leads back to monotheism).

This is in contrast to seeing gods as personifications of nature or archetypes which implies they are made up by humans and not entities in their own right. I do not hear this term used as much as tolerance of polytheism allows for a greater acceptance of variation in the views held. But basically, the soft polytheist sees the relationship to the gods as a human construct rather than actual entities.

I tend to side with what would be called hard polytheism but believe this distinction has more importance to the individual and is less important to the whole of polytheism where the experiential effect of the numinous beings whether seen as real or manmade can both have profound effects on the individual.

The same problem is reflected in "shamanic" journeying. Is the journey only into the unconscious which creates the sprits you connect with or is your soul actually reaching out beyond the limits of the body to connect with spirits outside of the human psyche. Traditional indigenous would say the spirits, gods and goddesses are outside of the human mind and one can connect with the spirits of the land which are not a part of the human but still imminent with the land. The soft polytheism may be more of a compromise of our rational cultural surroundings with the desirie to find something greater than the limits of the human.

Separating oneself from years of cultural rational training for most of our lives growing up in the west to consider things existing in the irrational but intuitive world is not easy at all. In our current society there are lots of psychologists who would consider opening up to the irrational as a pathological disorder, however that trend is now being tempered by other psychologists who are starting to question some of the basic western rational assumption.