I am aware that there is some controversy among the Abrahamics on this matter.
Many people consider the worship of Saints in some segments of Christianity to be a form of polytheism and therefore a deviation from supposedly necessary monotheism.
Some consider Trinitarianism itself a form of polytheism.
Islaam specifically seems to place a good deal of significance to keeping proper monotheism, to the point of insisting that politheism is automatically idolatry and, to the best of my understanding, insisting that we should understand that "God has no partners, no associates" and that it is not proper nor desirable to have intermediaries between a Muslim's relationship with God.
That seems at first glance to imply on disapproval of the regard for the Qur'an as scripture and even of worship of God, but apparently that is not what is meant even by the most extreme interpretations of those principles. Fair enough, although I find the language inaccurate, even misleading, particularly given how seriously Muslims seem to take the matter.
What I ask here is for some hint or help on why this specific (and IMO rather minor, as all matters that come too close to relying on the belief of the existence of a deity for their significance tend to be) matter is perceived as so significant by many Christians and Muslims.
Word has it that whole denominations refuse to acknowledge specific others as being "true" Christians / Muslims supposedly because they are Trinitarians or are understood for some other reason to be polytheistic. It is, literally, a deal breaker for many people, and I am told that it requires a considerable effort from some in order to keep their faith that others keep true to apparently important monotheism despite what is perceived as indications to the contrary.
Try as I might, I have so far failed to conceive better explanations for so much worry beyond two very weak reasons.
1. Peer pressure and social bonding needs.
People will often attempt to build a sense of community by producing issues and lending them significance, underscoring how misled the outsiders who fail to value it are.
Monotheism is as good an issue to be lent significance as any, I suppose, although I don't think that explains the intensity of the passions that some people have on the issue.
2. Pascal's Wager and its variants.
It is all-out contradictory that a sincere monotheist would lend any significance to this glorified joke that is the claim that you better "at least try" to believe "in the right God" in order to avoid "punishment in the afterlife". Yet so many people assure me that they mean it that I can't help but assume that they are sincere. Presumably polytheism, even when not conscious, would be grounds for such punishment.
It makes no sense. Then again Pascal's Wager was never to be taken seriously, as pretty much any serious analysis by any perspective will immediately show.
It makes no theological sense, no religious sense, no rational sense, no moral sense, lacks internal coherence and does not take anthropological reality into consideration. Yet variations of it keep popping up, presumably as significant arguments for belief even, from people that I have no reason to believe to be lying or consciously trolling as they do so.
Even taken together, those two factors seem way too weak to explain the insistence on monotheism and the passions attached to that insistence. Yet I have utterly failed to conceive of any other explanation.
Any ideas on what I may be missing? Maybe it is just that there are indeed many people who take Pascal's Wager seriously, unlikely as that seems to me?
Edited to add: after creating this thread it occurred to me that there may be a third, somewhat more understandable (but not much better) reason.
Belief in monotheism or monocracy may be appealling for people who find in it relief from the terrible stress that is dealing with the diversity of beliefs and ideological stances around.
In a way, it implies that there is no particular need to listen and deal to other people's perspectives, because it is all somehow part of God's plan and he will step in as he sees fit.
I think it is a particularly strong appeal among the Bahais and Ahmadiyya Mulsims, but by no means limited to them.
Many people consider the worship of Saints in some segments of Christianity to be a form of polytheism and therefore a deviation from supposedly necessary monotheism.
Some consider Trinitarianism itself a form of polytheism.
Islaam specifically seems to place a good deal of significance to keeping proper monotheism, to the point of insisting that politheism is automatically idolatry and, to the best of my understanding, insisting that we should understand that "God has no partners, no associates" and that it is not proper nor desirable to have intermediaries between a Muslim's relationship with God.
That seems at first glance to imply on disapproval of the regard for the Qur'an as scripture and even of worship of God, but apparently that is not what is meant even by the most extreme interpretations of those principles. Fair enough, although I find the language inaccurate, even misleading, particularly given how seriously Muslims seem to take the matter.
What I ask here is for some hint or help on why this specific (and IMO rather minor, as all matters that come too close to relying on the belief of the existence of a deity for their significance tend to be) matter is perceived as so significant by many Christians and Muslims.
Word has it that whole denominations refuse to acknowledge specific others as being "true" Christians / Muslims supposedly because they are Trinitarians or are understood for some other reason to be polytheistic. It is, literally, a deal breaker for many people, and I am told that it requires a considerable effort from some in order to keep their faith that others keep true to apparently important monotheism despite what is perceived as indications to the contrary.
Try as I might, I have so far failed to conceive better explanations for so much worry beyond two very weak reasons.
1. Peer pressure and social bonding needs.
People will often attempt to build a sense of community by producing issues and lending them significance, underscoring how misled the outsiders who fail to value it are.
Monotheism is as good an issue to be lent significance as any, I suppose, although I don't think that explains the intensity of the passions that some people have on the issue.
2. Pascal's Wager and its variants.
It is all-out contradictory that a sincere monotheist would lend any significance to this glorified joke that is the claim that you better "at least try" to believe "in the right God" in order to avoid "punishment in the afterlife". Yet so many people assure me that they mean it that I can't help but assume that they are sincere. Presumably polytheism, even when not conscious, would be grounds for such punishment.
It makes no sense. Then again Pascal's Wager was never to be taken seriously, as pretty much any serious analysis by any perspective will immediately show.
It makes no theological sense, no religious sense, no rational sense, no moral sense, lacks internal coherence and does not take anthropological reality into consideration. Yet variations of it keep popping up, presumably as significant arguments for belief even, from people that I have no reason to believe to be lying or consciously trolling as they do so.
Even taken together, those two factors seem way too weak to explain the insistence on monotheism and the passions attached to that insistence. Yet I have utterly failed to conceive of any other explanation.
Any ideas on what I may be missing? Maybe it is just that there are indeed many people who take Pascal's Wager seriously, unlikely as that seems to me?
Edited to add: after creating this thread it occurred to me that there may be a third, somewhat more understandable (but not much better) reason.
Belief in monotheism or monocracy may be appealling for people who find in it relief from the terrible stress that is dealing with the diversity of beliefs and ideological stances around.
In a way, it implies that there is no particular need to listen and deal to other people's perspectives, because it is all somehow part of God's plan and he will step in as he sees fit.
I think it is a particularly strong appeal among the Bahais and Ahmadiyya Mulsims, but by no means limited to them.
Last edited: