Wouldn't Polytheism be the true opposite of atheism?

[Gnostic Seeker]

Most polytheists accept there could be any number of deities, as many gods as are stars.

By contrast, monotheists usually deny all gods except their own, making them effectively atheistic toward all other deities.

Doesn't this make polytheism atheism's true opposite in worldviews?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Pretty much. It's a completely different worldview that sacralizes all of existence, recognizing divinity everywhere. Monotheism is a kind of in-between.

 

[Thana]

That's not necessarily true, Some just deny the divinity of other Gods, Not their existence.

 

[Riverwolf]

An argument I've sometimes seen is that religious people are all basically atheistic to other peoples' Gods, and that atheists just go one God further.

I raise my eyebrow every time I see it. (Unless the arguer specifically names monotheism, or monotheistic religions. Then they're basically right.)

 

[Riverwolf]

That's not necessarily true, Some just deny the divinity of other Gods, Not their existence.

But wouldn't that mean denying their Godhood? That is, their status as God is denied?

 

[gsa]

Might there be multiple forms of atheism contra polytheism though? Sometimes one believes in Zeus but not Enil, Ishtar but not Thor, etc.

Atheists in ancient pagan societies sometimes believed in vaguely supernatural things, they just denied the gods, or particular gods, pantheons, etc. modern self identified atheists typically reject supernatural or paranormal phenomena found in non theistic religions.

 

[Jainarayan]

That's not necessarily true, Some just deny the divinity of other Gods, Not their existence.

How can a god(dess) exist, yet not be divine? I shake my head at the phrase "false gods". I think it's illogical. I don't know how one can acknowledge the existence of other gods, yet say they are false.

 

[Jainarayan]

Doesn't this make polytheism atheism's true opposite in worldviews?

Nah, polytheists are just picking up the atheists' slack and filling in the gap.

 

[Iti oj]

i see it as a square Atheism/theism/polytheism/animism

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How can a god(dess) exist, yet not be divine? I shake my head at the phrase "false gods". I think it's illogical. I don't know how one can acknowledge the existence of other gods, yet say they are false.

They would probably say that, instead of being Gods, they're "demons" or jinn lying to humans to get us to worship them instead of "the one true god".

 

[Jainarayan]

Might there be multiple forms of atheism contra polytheism though? Sometimes one believes in Zeus but not Enil, Ishtar but not Thor, etc.

I think it goes back to an Indian (south Asian) saying that loosely translates as "Everyone sees God in their own way", or "God shows Him/Her/Itself in a way meaningful to the believer". People forget that and take the "my god is real but yours isn't" attitude.

 

[Jainarayan]

They would probably say that, instead of being Gods, they're "demons" or jinn lying to humans to get us to worship them instead of "the one true god".

You know, that makes so much sense it's scary.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, it just means you worship one god. 'Recognizing' divinity is either or, doesn't really affect the definition.

How can a god(dess) exist, yet not be divine? I shake my head at the phrase "false gods". I think it's illogical. I don't know how one can acknowledge the existence of other gods, yet say they are false.

 

[LuisDantas]

Most polytheists accept there could be any number of deities, as many gods as are stars.

By contrast, monotheists usually deny all gods except their own, making them effectively atheistic toward all other deities.

Doesn't this make polytheism atheism's true opposite in worldviews?

If one's decisive consideration is the simple measure of number of deities believed in, probably.

But that is just not an important consideration.

In practice, polytheism is a lot more accepting of disagreement and a lot less controlling of non-believers than monotheism. Polytheists rarely lose any sleep feeling the need to convert others or to show them the error of their ways. And for that very reason, atheists give them a lot less attention than they do monotheism.

Were Christianism and Islam not quite so influential, atheists would probably turn their attention towards the questioning of polytheism to some degree. But it would be a much less passionate and less convincing questioning, because the stakes are so much lower. It is most unusual for us to be pressured into accepting, say, Isis before our time runs out...

 

[gsa]

In practice, polytheism is a lot more accepting of disagreement and a lot less controlling of non-believers than monotheism. Polytheists rarely lose any sleep feeling the need to convert others or to show them the error of their ways. And for that very reason, atheists give them a lot less attention than they do monotheism.

Were Christianism and Islam not quite so influential, atheists would probably turn their attention towards the questioning of polytheism to some degree. But it would be a much less passionate and less convincing questioning, because the stakes are so much lower. It is most unusual for us to be pressured into accepting, say, Isis before our time runs out...

I agree that is true today and to lesser extent historically. Where I would disagree is this: Polytheism was not originally a modern religion. It was pre-modern. If you did not worship the gods, you risked their judgment. Divine judgment was not always well calibrated and was just as likely to be communal as individual. People actually subject to community reprisal, from what I can see, were usually guilty of other state crimes (i.e., opposing Athenian democracy). But I think the threat to atheists in ancient societies was real; today's polytheists are moderns and don't have the same views of divine reprisal (nor do today's monotheists, by and large, at least in the West).

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

That would depend where one was in the ancient world. There were true atheists in the ancient world that believed in nothing. Most of them were admittedly the elite, and regarded the state rites as common. I'll definitely agree some demonization probably went on. Most of the Roman populace was very distrustful of atheism, but back then atheism could mean denial of any god, as with Christians.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree that is true today and to lesser extent historically. Where I would disagree is this: Polytheism was not originally a modern religion. It was pre-modern. If you did not worship the gods, you risked their judgment.

Rigorously speaking, polytheism is a descriptor that applies to various beliefs, not a religion proper.

And while the idea that divine judgement is a primary consideration for religious practice is probably present in polytheism, it was monotheism that put it so front and center and in so doing bought such a strife with atheism.

Divine judgment was not always well calibrated and was just as likely to be communal as individual. People actually subject to community reprisal, from what I can see, were usually guilty of other state crimes (i.e., opposing Athenian democracy).

I think you are implying something here that would be worth stating in full.

But I think the threat to atheists in ancient societies was real; today's polytheists are moderns and don't have the same views of divine reprisal (nor do today's monotheists, by and large, at least in the West).

Which threat?

 

[gsa]

Rigorously speaking, polytheism is a descriptor that applies to various beliefs, not a religion proper.And while the idea that divine judgement is a primary consideration for religious practice is probably present in polytheism, it was monotheism that put it so front and center and in so doing bought such a strife with atheism.
I think you are implying something here that would be worth stating in full.
Which threat?

1. I agree polytheism, as a label, applies to beliefs. I would also suggest that the modern concept of religion can't be easily forced on ancient practices.

2. I think that paganism today is a reconstruction and follows modern (or at least "post" modern) norms. I think that popular practice (and not elite practice) of polytheism was not as qualified or enlightened. And I think it illustrates the actual problem for freethinkers (not necessarily atheists) in those societies: If you find a belief or practice repugnant or irrational, you will still be under pressure to observe it. Socrates' crime, for example, was not atheism as we understand it today, but it was socially, politically and ideologically transgressive.

3. Finally, I am not absolving elites. I think they manipulated religion in very predictable ways. I would just suggest we not confuse their approach to the gods with the one that dominated daily ritual practice. It probably varied considerably, in both liberal and conservative directions.

I agree that ancient polytheism was more tolerant than Christianity specifically, as well as Islam. I just doubt that it is the functional equivalent of modern polytheism, which is much more tolerant and rational than any of them.

 

[LuisDantas]

1. We are talking about polytheism, not necessarily religion anyway.

2. You seem to be operating under the assumption that modern society is more tolerant of divergent thinking than ancient society. I don't think that is really a given.

 

[gsa]

1. We are talking about polytheism, not necessarily religion anyway.

2. You seem to be operating under the assumption that modern society is more tolerant of divergent thinking than ancient society. I don't think that is really a given.

1. Fine.

2. Not a given but at least theoretically empirically demonstrable based on surviving evidence. Parrhesia, our equivalent of free speech, was limited in venue and by speaker, and probably even by topic as a practical matter. The fact that women have the power to diverge in thought and speech today is a radical expansion of the concept.

Again, this isn't so much about what it means today as about what it meant historically. Today's monotheists have equally absurd romantic thoughts about being the first to conceive of opposition to infanticide or even plain murder. Rhetorically appealing, maybe, but not sourced in reality.