There is no such thing as "soft polytheism"

[1137]

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.

 

[The Hammer]

I disagree with your 2nd point. But this is a discussion not a debate.

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***
Thread moved to Religious Debates per staff consensus.​

​

 

[McBell]

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, or (3) that the gods are symbolic embodiments of nature and/or Jungian archetypes. Still, let's address all three.

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/monistic source 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/monism. Alternatively the “One” may be a more mystical force rather than a “god,” but this is still monistic reductionism.

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.

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

Does this mean that Christianity's Trinity is polytheistic?

 

[The Hammer]

Does this mean that Christianity's Trinity is polytheistic?

IMV yes it is.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Your suggestion lies ultimately in how one defines a god.

I'd like to address this point:

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/monistic source 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/monism. Alternatively the “One” may be a more mystical force rather than a “god,” but this is still monistic reductionism.

In Hindu belief, there are multiple gods, and these gods, depending on one's school of philosophy, are manifestations of the same highest principle, Para Brahman. In its true nature, Para Brahman is nirguna (without qualities or attributes). It is Maya, (time, space, and causation) that brings the appearance of multiplicity and the apparent qualities and attributes of multiple gods.

There are those that see Para Brahman as this "one ultimate God." Saguna Brahman (gods with qualities and attributes) are identical to Para Brahman, and therefore, your example, non-A is an appearance of A. Despite your suggestion of "emanationism," Hinduism is a glaring example of monistic polytheism (or polytheistic monism).

If there is a model of "soft polytheism," since I do not hold saguna brahman (gods with qualities and attributes) relevant to my worldview, my views might fit such a model.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Does this mean that Christianity's Trinity is polytheistic?

I think part of what determines polytheism is if one entity can be discarded or disregarded in favor of another. I'm not sure this is possible with the Trinity.

 

[1137]

Does this mean that Christianity's Trinity is polytheistic?

I think it's a good debate to have, but my understanding is the trinity would mostly be under #2

 

[1137]

I disagree with your 2nd point. But this is a discussion not a debate.

Sorry, it is now though!

 

[1137]

Your suggestion lies ultimately in how one defines a god.

I'd like to address this point:

In Hindu belief, there are multiple gods, and these gods, depending on one's school of philosophy, are manifestations of the same highest principle, Para Brahman. In its true nature, Para Brahman is nirguna (without qualities or attributes). It is Maya, (time, space, and causation) that brings the appearance of multiplicity and the apparent qualities and attributes of multiple gods.

There are those that see Para Brahman as this "one ultimate God." Saguna Brahman (gods with qualities and attributes) are identical to Para Brahman, and therefore, your example, non-A is an appearance of A. Despite your suggestion of "emanationism," Hinduism is a glaring example of monistic polytheism (or polytheistic monism).

If there is a model of "soft polytheism," since I do not hold saguna brahman (gods with qualities and attributes) relevant to my worldview, my views might fit such a model.

I would honestly say that Hinduism being labeled as polytheism was just a way for Christian academics to label it as "savage" or lesser than "enlightened monotheism."

 

[1137]

​

***Mod Post***​

Thread moved to Religious Debates per staff consensus.​

​

My bad I posted wrong place

 

[JustGeorge]

I would honestly say that Hinduism being labeled as polytheism was just a way for Christian academics to label it as "savage" or lesser than "enlightened monotheism."

Why's that?

 

[The Hammer]

Sorry, it is now though!

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.

 

[soulsurvivor]

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

I am a polytheist. I believe there a universal impersonal God - an overarching force or a being that pervades the whole universe (but also exists outside the universe) that created and still supervises the entire universe.

I also believe there are millions of personal Gods that manage and oversee the evolution of individual planets, star systems and Galaxies - for instance, there is an Earth God who manages life on Earth, a Solar God who manages our entire Solar System and a Galactic God who manages the Milky Way Galaxy (there are other Galactic Gods who manage the other Galaxies and other planetary Gods who manage planets outside our solar system).

Now, you can decide if I am a 'soft polytheist', a 'hard polytheist', a pantheist, a panentheist or henotheist.

 

[Quintessence]

While I don't particularly like the terms "hard" and "soft" as qualifiers with monotheism or polytheism respectively, to say there is "no such thing" as either is flattening the diversity of theology into a forced binary that risks misrepresenting its complexity. I'm not seeing a compelling argument for only seeing black and white here instead of the all the of shades of gray. Then again, I'm just not a binary either-or thinker in general to begin with, so... par for the course I suppose.

 

[1137]

Why's that?

Originally I would say because it's one source so not many gods, but I was also discussing this on reddit and realized I'm currently not equipped to address monism cause I'm not really wrapping my head around it.

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.

Yes I seem to have overlooked this and have realized I really haven't wrapped my head around monism outside of, say, reductionism. Now seeking further readings!

I am a polytheist. I believe there a universal impersonal God - an overarching force or a being that pervades the whole universe (but also exists outside the universe) that created and still supervises the entire universe.

I also believe there are millions of personal Gods that manage and oversee the evolution of individual planets, star systems and Galaxies - for instance, there is an Earth God who manages life on Earth, a Solar God who manages our entire Solar System and a Galactic God who manages the Milky Way Galaxy (there are other Galactic Gods who manage the other Galaxies and other planetary Gods who manage planets outside our solar system).

Now, you can decide if I am a 'soft polytheist', a 'hard polytheist', a pantheist, a panentheist or henotheist.

Does your view align with the one described right above (quoted in this post)? Or differ?

While I don't particularly like the terms "hard" and "soft" as qualifiers with monotheism or polytheism respectively, to say there is "no such thing" as either is flattening the diversity of theology into a forced binary that risks misrepresenting its complexity. I'm not seeing a compelling argument for only seeing black and white here instead of the all the of shades of gray. Then again, I'm just not a binary either-or thinker in general to begin with, so... par for the course I suppose.

I'm confused, isn't it hard/soft polytheism that divides the complexity of polytheism into an unnecessary binary?

 

[The Hammer]

Yes I seem to have overlooked this and have realized I really haven't wrapped my head around monism outside of, say, reductionism. Now seeking further readings!

I'm not sure if others see it this way. This is a build from personal experience.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm confused, isn't it hard/soft polytheism that divides the complexity of polytheism into an unnecessary binary?

No, considering you yourself listed four different ways one could approach "soft" polytheism. Each of which could, if one wishes, have its own distinct name/label. To be honest, I haven't even heard of some of the ones you listed being referred to as "soft" polytheism before. I've only ever considered the second one to be referencing "soft" polytheism. The others are something else entirely.

 

[1137]

No, considering you yourself listed four different ways one could approach "soft" polytheism.

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

 

[soulsurvivor]

"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."

Does your view align with the one described right above (quoted in this post)? Or differ?

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.