Why polytheists need to go back to counter-apologetics

[Gnostic Seeker]

Counter-apologetics of course being rebuttals to Abrahamic apologetics.

Such apologetics are bound to come up when we engage in a debate with a monotheist. The polytheists of old like the Romans and Egyptians used to write counter-apologetics against Christians, not only to rebut arguments, but to make everyone think more about what it is to be a polytheist.

When I read the works of Apion, Porphyry, and the emperor Julian I find them to still contain good and deep questions for our opponents. These writings still brim with life and a kind of zeal for paganism.

I think pagans today need to be writing more (treatises, essays, etc.) on our views, our counter-arguments to a largely monotheistic world, as well as what being pagan means to us.

I hope to hear your thoughts.

 

[gsa]

I seem to recall reading about some modern attempts at this. You can certainly find it online, and Jordan Paper wrote "The Deities Are Many: A Polytheistic Theology" in 2005. There are also a number of Hindu apologists who answer criticisms of Abrahamic apologists, both Islamic and Christian.

Personally, I think that abstract theology gets very dry and pointless. I think that both polytheists and monotheists have a far more compelling adversary in the form of atheism and secularism including, but not limited to, the so-called "New Atheists." Because at root, this opposition says that the beliefs and practices are both irrelevant and unnecessary, even dangerous. And this critique is far more substantial than any religious critique, because it denies the continuing legitimacy of religion as such. Consider this critique by Bryan Caplan, who argues that religious belief is irrational and, utilizing economic analysis, suggests that the only reason people continue to hold this belief is because the material cost of doing so is actually very low. In other words, religion is inconsequential. Very few people, he argues, will actually lay down their lives for these beliefs. And I think it a safe extension to argue that those who do (i.e., the Islamist extremists in Syria and Iraq) are actually engaged in militant political work that is roughly parallel to the kind of revolutionary and counter-revolutionary activity we saw in the interwar period in Europe.

So my question is not, why do you believe in gods instead of a god, or worship gods instead of a god, but why do you worship? What justifies the practice of paganism? And what difference does it make to do so? How do you respond to the same scientific and historical critiques that have reduced the social and political power of monotheistic religions, at least in what used to be predominantly Christian nations?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Wonderful idea!

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Justification for a belief in many gods is only part of it simply because there's a point where logic ends in belief. It can only take us so far, and then we have to acknowledge things about the gods we can't entirely know. That being said, I've made an argument that polytheism is consistent with reality's plural nature, while monotheism is not. Polytheism also doesn't have some of the dilemmas a omnimax deity belief comes with. I know this is kind of an ad pop fallacy, but monotheists often appeal to it: they say we were all monotheists in the beginning. History and archaeology tell a different story and we can counter that humans are initially polytheist. A polytheistic worldview is more natural I think and begins in childhood- if allowed to run its course.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

As for scientific and theological dilemmas that have weakened Christianity (like the problem of evil) simply don't apply in a pagan worldview. Pagans ancient and now don't fight against scientific discovery, we embrace it. Egypt, Babylon, etc. all sponsored science in their time.

 

[Riverwolf]

So my question is not, why do you believe in gods instead of a god, or worship gods instead of a god, but why do you worship? What justifies the practice of paganism? And what difference does it make to do so? How do you respond to the same scientific and historical critiques that have reduced the social and political power of monotheistic religions, at least in what used to be predominantly Christian nations?

It gives me context for my place in the cultural lineage I'm part of (through being compelled to learn Old and Middle English, as well as the art of Song), gives me context for Old and New Stories, and gives me context for my life.

Context, context, context. Without context, I am nothing.

So it really doesn't matter if Wights don't exist objectively. I worship them regardless, because they do exist for me.

 

[Riverwolf]

Justification for a belief in many gods is only part of it simply because there's a point where logic ends in belief. It can only take us so far, and then we have to acknowledge things about the gods we can't entirely know. That being said, I've made an argument that polytheism is consistent with reality's plural nature, while monotheism is not. Polytheism also doesn't have some of the dilemmas a omnimax deity belief comes with. I know this is kind of an ad pop fallacy, but monotheists often appeal to it: they say we were all monotheists in the beginning. History and archaeology tell a different story and we can counter that humans are initially polytheist. A polytheistic worldview is more natural I think and begins in childhood- if allowed to run its course.

That supports the sort of "theology" I more or less came up with on my own during childhood. I used the term "angel", and they were quite specifically people who died, but they were effectively Gods. I was, effectively, a polytheist, if not in strict name, then in spirit. Nobody thrust that on me (I grew up in an agnostic household).

 

[gsa]

It gives me context for my place in the cultural lineage I'm part of (through being compelled to learn Old and Middle English, as well as the art of Song), gives me context for Old and New Stories, and gives me context for my life.

Context, context, context. Without context, I am nothing.

So it really doesn't matter if Wights don't exist objectively. I worship them regardless, because they do exist for me.

But it is also true, is it not, that you have context as a member of a nation-state, linguistic group, etc? I also wonder, with cultural lineage, how that excludes the Christian or monotheistic ones? That is also part of the cultural make up, isn't it?

I agree that all humans are born socially situated. I agree furthermore that we long for meaning. I just wonder, mostly for myself, how that justifies participation in religion in the absence of any belief in something that is beyond the mundane. And if I embrace that something beyond the mundane, how is it justified? And how does it make a difference?

 

[Riverwolf]

But it is also true, is it not, that you have context as a member of a nation-state, linguistic group, etc? I also wonder, with cultural lineage, how that excludes the Christian or monotheistic ones? That is also part of the cultural make up, isn't it?

It is. And others can choose to find their personal context within that aspect of the lineage (whether that be Christian, modern Anglo-American, or some combination of the two). Before I'm a polytheist, I'm a pluralist. We can choose our contexts, and I only encourage people to have one for themselves; while there are "wrong" ones (specifically ones that violate the laws of the land), there aren't "right" ones.

I, personally, have too many grievances with many modern US cultures, and so don't generally associate with any of them. I've also never had a monotheistic mindset, and so it would go against a major part of my childhood upbringing to shift into one that fits the Christian mindset. As a person with Asperger's Syndrome, such a transition would be far, far more difficult and painful than it would be for others, and probably more than necessary given the ambiguity of the topic. But I still appreciate Christian art, and reference Biblical stories all the time. I LOVE many of the classic Christmas carols and when Christmas-time comes, I'll sing them with full heart, and I won't tweak them to have more Pagan-friendly lyrics. Bugger that the words are in conflict with my own theology; it's some of the most beautiful music out there.

EDIT: ...instead of "more than necessary", which carries with it an emphasized necessity, I'm trying to communicate an emphasized lack of necessity. Bloody poor sleep...

I agree that all humans are born socially situated. I agree furthermore that we long for meaning. I just wonder, mostly for myself, how that justifies participation in religion in the absence of any belief in something that is beyond the mundane. And if I embrace that something beyond the mundane, how is it justified? And how does it make a difference?

Excellent question, and I appreciate it being asked. Honestly, I'll have to think about that one. ^_^ (That is to say, I "feel" an answer, but have to find the words.)

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

You know, I don't think polytheism has ever truly died out in the western heart or soul, its just been kept quiet a long time. Westerners still love the stories of the gods and heroes- all gods. People have tried, but you just can't kill polytheism out of humans.

 

[Riverwolf]

You know, I don't think polytheism has ever truly died out in the western heart or soul, its just been kept quiet a long time. Westerners still love the stories of the gods and heroes- all gods. People have tried, but you just can't kill polytheism out of humans.

The way I like to put it is this: the Old Way never truly died out. Like it had almost certainly done hundreds, if not thousands, of times before, it simply changed clothes.

I mean, how much of our popular poetry makes references to Gods rather than just God?

"I am one with the gods and Heaven is near!" declares Marius in the 1970s musical Les Miserables, for example.

 

[gsa]

You know, I don't think polytheism has ever truly died out in the western heart or soul, its just been kept quiet a long time. Westerners still love the stories of the gods and heroes- all gods. People have tried, but you just can't kill polytheism out of humans.

I definitely agree with that. I think that the emergence of the Trinity is probably an example of accommodation with pagan sensibilities, for example. Catholicism as practiced strongly elevates saints as intermediaries, with all kinds of functions that mirror the gods that preceded them. Western syncretism has plenty of analogs in earlier forms of religious practice among pagans.

 

[Jainarayan]

I do not believe, as someone else said, that monotheism is the in-born belief of man. I believe man's in-born belief system is polytheistic. Man separates, assigns, ascribes, compartmentalizes and categorizes things. If he were not so adept at that, language and grammar would not exist. Language is built on categorizing. I believe the same holds true for religious beliefs. When you think about it, there is really one one monotheistic system that has ever gotten off the ground. An Egyptian pharaoh tried it, and it was a dismal failure. Most of the world's religions are polytheistic.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Christianity was reluctantly forced to be accommodating at times when the peasantry wouldn't give up things like Beltane or All Souls Day. It shows how unrelenting the western spirit is about the old ways, which obviously I think a good thing.

 

[Jainarayan]

Not to mention the Norse taking to wearing hammer pendants and making the sign of the hammer in defiance of, or in mockery of Christianity, which the Norse tried desperately to resist.

 

[Riverwolf]

I agree that all humans are born socially situated. I agree furthermore that we long for meaning. I just wonder, mostly for myself, how that justifies participation in religion in the absence of any belief in something that is beyond the mundane. And if I embrace that something beyond the mundane, how is it justified? And how does it make a difference?

Ultimately, I think it depends on the mindset of the individual in general.

Let's take fiction. Which type of these do you prefer: fantastic (not necessarily the fantasy genre specifically) or realistic? In terms of Superheroes, would you prefer the Superman to look up to, or the Spider Man to relate to? Semi-quoting my greatest movie of all time, Amadeus, would you rather listen to your hairdresser or to Hercules?

For myself, I prefer the fantastic, Superman, and Hercules. The Mundane, the everyday, is boring. I prefer to wander into the Realm of the Weird, where anything is possible. There, I can be a Dragonborn Nord, a powerful Super Saiyan, and summon the Creator God Arceus to do battle for me. (...at least I would if I had one. ).

For me, that makes all the difference. It's in such contexts that I find my meaning and build my identity. Without those, I basically have no place to test my identity, or my skills.

That's more or less the mundane. For me, embracing things beyond the mundane is justified by the positive effect it has on me, and the negative effect that comes when such embracing is lacking.

Lacking any belief in things beyond the mundane, participation in a religion that still has such conceptions can still have its benefits. Participating in such rituals with that kind of mindset might cynically be regarded as a form of LARPing, but even actual LARPing clearly has benefits; otherwise, people wouldn't do it. For those who don't know what LARPing is, LARP stands for "live-action role-play", and basically means playing a D&D-type game, but with costumes and running around, generally outside. Historical reenactments can also be regarded as a type of LARP.

Ritual, in my mind, is meant to be an active recreation of Lore. So, participation in such a ritual can provide closer connection to, and greater understanding of, the story in question, even if you regard it as fiction. That understanding can then be applied to your life. I wholeheartedly reject the modern implications that stories and art are to be regarded as consumables.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

II think that both polytheists and monotheists have a far more compelling adversary in the form of atheism and secularism including, but not limited to, the so-called "New Atheists."

Not really. Those types of people tend to be very ignorant when it comes to spiritual topics. They're like the atheist version of Christian fundies. In fact, they're the other side of the coin and a product of Christianity.

 

[Pleroma]

You know, I don't think polytheism has ever truly died out in the western heart or soul, its just been kept quiet a long time. Westerners still love the stories of the gods and heroes- all gods. People have tried, but you just can't kill polytheism out of humans.

True indeed. They're not all the same : Meet some hard polytheists

Hard polytheism by its very definition shows that monotheistic religions like Islam, Christianity, Judaism and atheistic religions like Jainism and Theravada Buddhism are outright false. It also shows that atheists are on the wrong side of the truth. What more apologetics can you ask for from the Pagan side? Just we need to proudly assert that we are hard polytheists, that's all.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think pagans today need to be writing more (treatises, essays, etc.) on our views, our counter-arguments to a largely monotheistic world, as well as what being pagan means to us.

Pagans or atheists, it is futile to write against the monotheists. Whatever you say, they are not going to change their beliefs. Therefore, IMHO, let us be happy with what we think and let them be happy with what they think.

Monotheists are like corporations. They want all the riches for themselves.

 

[Quintessence]

I never responded to this thread earlier because I have mixed feelings about the idea. That word "apologetics" bothers me, because I recognize that this word is best applied specifically to the Christian religion and, in particular, religious and/or theological exclusivism. It's the exercise of convincing everybody else that your theology and/or religious practices are right, and others are wrong. That's not what Paganisms are about.