What does "polytheism" really mean?

[JRMcC]

We all know: Polytheism is the belief in multiple Gods.
But it's not really clear what the word "God/s" means. In most religious/spiritual thought systems I'm aware of there is only one eternal source of being and the Universe, one prime mover. This includes each Abrahamic faith as well as each type of Hinduism I've come across There is an important difference between a god and God.

It just seems to me that when westerners call Hinduism polytheistic they are - intentionally or otherwise - misrepresenting the Hindu God concept. In my experience growing up as a westerner, I've seen that polytheism is seen as something rather primitive, and if you're a Christian you're certainly brought up to look at polytheism as outdated and incorrect (to use kind words). So I feel that western society (still strongly influenced by Christian values even today) is smearing Hinduism by labeling it "polytheistic."
Any thoughts? Am I off the mark?

ps. I'm sure the same is true for certain kinds of neo-paganism. I would've said something about it, but I feel like I don't know enough about the subject. Neo-pagans please speak up if you have thoughts!

 

[Madhuri]

I agree with you!
I tend to think polytheism means that there are many different gods of equal power/status where none have been created by another- or in other words, where there isn't one from whom all others come.

That's why I don't consider Hinduism to be polytheistic, because aside from maybe some obscure sect the main branches all believe in a One from which all others manifest (whether the One is Brahman or a particular deity eg/Shiva or Vishnu).

 

[Jainarayan]

ps. I'm sure the same is true for certain kinds of neo-paganism. I would've said something about it, but I feel like I don't know enough about the subject. Neo-pagans please speak up if you have thoughts!

I can't speak for all Pagan traditions or even for all of Germanic Heathenism but for the most part the gods (sometimes we use Gods) are as individual as you and I. At least within our own respective pantheons. Some polytheists are:

• Rock hard: all deities of all pantheons are individual. None of the "all emanate from one", or "the same deity through different cultural lens".

• Medium: Thor, Indra and Perkunas (Perun) may be the same god seen by the Norse, Hindus and Slavics in their own way. This is primarily because they are all Indo-European and have a common root. While Zeus and Jupiter are also Indo-European gods of the sky and weather, their personalities and exploits are so far removed from those of Thor, Indra and Perun as to probably be different gods, imo.

• Soft: all deities are really just one God.

There are gradations in between those, however. I'm semi-firm, somewhere between the medium may-be-the-same-god and completely different-gods, but closer to hard. But no one can really know what the gods are. It's a matter of faith and belief, a lot of upg: unverifiable (or unsubstantiated) personal gnosis.

Here's something that lends credibility to the medium/semi-firm polytheistis view Perun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Slavic mythology, Perun (Cyrillic: Перун) is the highest god of the pantheon and the god of thunder and lightning. His other attributes were fire, mountains, the oak, iris, eagle, firmament (in Indo-European languages, this was joined with the notion of the sky of stone), horses and carts, weapons (the hammer, axe (Axe of Perun), and arrow), and war. He was first associated with weapons made of stone and later with those of metal.

Perun is described as a rugged man with a copper beard. He rides in a chariot pulled by a goat buck and carries a mighty axe, or sometimes a hammer. The axe is hurled at evil people and spirits and will always return to his hand.

Sounds suspiciously familiar.

 

[George-ananda]

I agree with the OP in that Abrahamics and Atheists take too simplistic an understanding of Hindu polytheism and run with that.

 

[Quintessence]

For the most part, the functional distinction between monotheism and polytheism is as follows:

Monotheist = worships one and ONLY one deified aspect of reality
Polytheist = worships three or more deified aspects of reality

It pretty much boils down to what you actually worship, I think. Given what Hindus actually worship, no, I don't think it's misconstruing at all to call it polytheistic. I think that this rubbish idea that polytheism is "primitive" is a load of ethnocentric garbage that needs to be put in the waste bin where it belongs.

 

[McBell]

For the most part, the functional distinction between monotheism and polytheism is as follows:

Monotheist = worships one and ONLY one deified aspect of reality
Polytheist = worships three or more deified aspects of reality

It pretty much boils down to what you actually worship, I think. Given what Hindus actually worship, no, I don't think it's misconstruing at all to call it polytheistic. I think that this rubbish idea that polytheism is "primitive" is a load of ethnocentric garbage that needs to be put in the waste bin where it belongs.

I disagree.
My problem with your definitions is the word "worship".

 

[Quintessence]

I disagree.
My problem with your definitions is the word "worship".

Which I stated in this thread where, exactly?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

For the most part, the functional distinction between monotheism and polytheism is as follows:
Monotheist = worships one and ONLY one deified aspect of reality
Polytheist = worships three or more deified aspects of reality

Then how do you classify this view put forward by Maximus of Tyre (quite typical of the Roman Empire, not to mention me):

There is one God, the ruler and father of all things, and many gods, children of God, ruling together with him.

A better classification is
> 1. Hard monotheism: accepting God (the Supreme Being) but denying gods. E.g. the secondary religions Bahá'i, Christianity (in some interpretations), the Druze, Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism.
> 2. Hard polytheism: accepting gods but ignoring or denying God. E.g. the primal religions of Mesoamerica, Mesopotamia, and Peru; the early versions of those of Egypt, Greece, and Rome; and many Neopagans (largely as a reaction against Christianity).
> 3. Soft monotheism or soft polytheism: the general belief in both God and gods. E.g. most primal religions and, in some interpretations, Christianity.

There are undoubtedly Hindus who fall in the first class, as they regard all gods as aspects of Brahman: those following the Advaita philosophy of Shankara, members of the Smartha sect, members of Brahmo Samaj. But these are minority views, often over-represented in the Westernised upper classes. (And most Indians posting here fall into that category by definition, being fluent in English).

No doubt many Christians do regard polytheism, hard or soft, as "primitive", just as I would describe their beliefs as "irrational and superstitious".

 

[Vishvavajra]

This is a good question, and it has prompted at least one classical scholar to doubt whether "polytheism" is even a meaningful term on its own. Basically, it's just a way of saying "non-monotheism." Monotheists are the ones with very particular definitions of "god," only one of which is number. Non-monotheistic people don't have such limits, so it can be argued that it's not really a case of "many gods" as it is a case of the concept of "god" being wide open, without arbitrary limits.

Put another way: Monotheists regard "god" as an ontological category that refers to the essential type of being in question. Non-monotheists have traditionally regarded "god" as signaling a kind of relationship with the worshiper, regardless of the nature of the being(s) in question. Therefore gods can be spirits, natural phenomena, dead people, living people, animals, images, and possibly even other things. Outside of monotheism there's really no concept of a "false god" in an ontological sense; practically speaking, a false god is one that doesn't deliver on promises, not one that doesn't exist. One is also unlikely to find non-monotheistic arguments over whether gods exist, but rather whether particular beings are behaving in a way that merits the term "god."

In short, "polytheist" is really just a term that monotheists invented in order to designate the other. It means nothing in and of itself, nor have traditional cultures ever defined themselves with it.

 

[Quintessence]

A better classification is
> 1. Hard monotheism: accepting God (the Supreme Being) but denying gods. E.g. the secondary religions Bahá'i, Christianity (in some interpretations), the Druze, Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism.
> 2. Hard polytheism: accepting gods but ignoring or denying God. E.g. the primal religions of Mesoamerica, Mesopotamia, and Peru; the early versions of those of Egypt, Greece, and Rome; and many Neopagans (largely as a reaction against Christianity).
> 3. Soft monotheism or soft polytheism: the general belief in both God and gods. E.g. most primal religions and, in some interpretations, Christianity.

Not "better," simply different. To be honest, I have never seen someone defining "hard" and "soft" in this manner. The classification I presented is about what people actually do or practice as opposed to what they believe. When it comes to action, it is pretty much black-and-white. You either worship one god, or you worship many gods.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

This is a good question, and it has prompted at least one classical scholar to doubt whether "polytheism" is even a meaningful term on its own. Basically, it's just a way of saying "non-monotheism." Monotheists are the ones with very particular definitions of "god," only one of which is number. Non-monotheistic people don't have such limits, so it can be argued that it's not really a case of "many gods" as it is a case of the concept of "god" being wide open, without arbitrary limits.

Put another way: Monotheists regard "god" as an ontological category that refers to the essential type of being in question. Non-monotheists have traditionally regarded "god" as signaling a kind of relationship with the worshiper, regardless of the nature of the being(s) in question. Therefore gods can be spirits, natural phenomena, dead people, living people, animals, images, and possibly even other things. Outside of monotheism there's really no concept of a "false god" in an ontological sense; practically speaking, a false god is one that doesn't deliver on promises, not one that doesn't exist. One is also unlikely to find non-monotheistic arguments over whether gods exist, but rather whether particular beings are behaving in a way that merits the term "god."

In short, "polytheist" is really just a term that monotheists invented in order to designate the other. It means nothing in and of itself, nor have traditional cultures ever defined themselves with it.

Very, Very, Extremely Good Point!

 

[McBell]

Which I stated in this thread where, exactly?

The post I quoted

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I disagree.
My problem with your definitions is the word "worship".

Could you elaborate please: what is the problem with the word worship?

 

[McBell]

Could you elaborate please: what is the problem with the word worship?

Theism and atheism are about beliefs.
Not actions.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Theism and atheism are about beliefs.
Not actions.

Thank you; agreed, that is the common, dictionary definition of the term.

Interestingly, the Oxford English Dictionary online gives as the definition of polytheism: "The doctrine or belief that there is more than one god; worship of several gods."

So perhaps theisms can be about action, too.

However, I will point out Vishvavajra's post above, which discusses the origin of the term (and this is my formulation, not V's): created by western monotheists to explain what they observed in all other religions in comparison to their own, perfect, monotheism. I find further support for this is the usage examples in the Oxford English Dictionary online, as well as recent scholarship on animism and folk religion that I've been reading.

From a scientific perspective (that is, if I as a social scientist were to try to set up a study of belief), I would realize that belief is a construct that exists within the individual mind; it cannot be observed directly--in the same way that love and patriotism and interest in baseball cannot be directly observed. To be studied, one would have to look to indirect measures of belief--responses to questions on surveys, responses to various stimuli in experimental situations, observable patterns in behavior, such as worship behavior or attending baseball games and reading the sports section, and so on.

"Theism" may be about beliefs, but it is an artificial category that non-Western practitioners (and some Western practitioners, of course) of non-monotheistic religions don't appear to care about, perhaps because the monotheists who came up with the term are concerned about certain things (such as belief, and an absolute god) while non-monotheists are concerned about things other than belief (such as relationship and behavior).

The OP asked "What does polytheism really mean," but it was clear in that post the OP was wanting to go deeper than the dictionary definition. At least it seemed that way to me.

 

[Vinayaka]

There is no such thing as 'real' polytheism? Adding the word 'real' in front of any religious concept, and then wishing to debate it is a denial of the diversity of belief.

What is a 'real' Christian? gets you to the same place.

What there is, is a variety of understandings of what polytheism is. Why not just leave it at that?

 

[Quintessence]

The post I quoted

Er... okay. Except I didn't. You've really lost me here.

Thank you; agreed, that is the common, dictionary definition of the term.

Interestingly, the Oxford English Dictionary online gives as the definition of polytheism: "The doctrine or belief that there is more than one god; worship of several gods."

So perhaps theisms can be about action, too.

Well, I say what I say in this thread partly because of something taught to me by a professor of religion back in my undergrad days that I, for the most part, agree with. He observed, and rightly so, that theistic religions all tend to contain elements of unity and multiplicity when it comes to their god-concepts or god-like concepts, or that all theistic religions contain, when you get right down to it, something of the essence of both monotheism and polytheism. Because of that, it is more useful and practical to distinguish between monotheistic and polytheistic religions on the basis of what is actually worshiped (aka, actions and practice), rather than what is believed in. The second strand in my thinking here with distinguishing based on practices is that defining god(s) is difficult, especially from the standpoint of comparative religion, as is pinning down precisely what it means to "believe in" something. There is use to considering something from a more concrete standpoint, such as behaviors and actions.

It may also be worth remarking that since mainstream Abrahamic religions tends to be faith-based and orthodoxic, our standard dictionaries reflect this. We think of religions, and consequently theisms as well, as being more about beliefs and ideas. This does not reflect religions and theisms as a whole, however, as mystical religions and non-Abrahamic religions can be experience-based and/or orthopraxic. Standard dictionaries really are inadequate for understanding subjects with any depth, so it is a bad idea to hinge ourselves to them when having more specialist or nuanced discussions of a topic.

 

[McBell]

Thank you; agreed, that is the common, dictionary definition of the term.

Interestingly, the Oxford English Dictionary online gives as the definition of polytheism: "The doctrine or belief that there is more than one god; worship of several gods."

So perhaps theisms can be about action, too.

However, I will point out Vishvavajra's post above, which discusses the origin of the term (and this is my formulation, not V's): created by western monotheists to explain what they observed in all other religions in comparison to their own, perfect, monotheism. I find further support for this is the usage examples in the Oxford English Dictionary online, as well as recent scholarship on animism and folk religion that I've been reading.

From a scientific perspective (that is, if I as a social scientist were to try to set up a study of belief), I would realize that belief is a construct that exists within the individual mind; it cannot be observed directly--in the same way that love and patriotism and interest in baseball cannot be directly observed. To be studied, one would have to look to indirect measures of belief--responses to questions on surveys, responses to various stimuli in experimental situations, observable patterns in behavior, such as worship behavior or attending baseball games and reading the sports section, and so on.

"Theism" may be about beliefs, but it is an artificial category that non-Western practitioners (and some Western practitioners, of course) of non-monotheistic religions don't appear to care about, perhaps because the monotheists who came up with the term are concerned about certain things (such as belief, and an absolute god) while non-monotheists are concerned about things other than belief (such as relationship and behavior).

The OP asked "What does polytheism really mean," but it was clear in that post the OP was wanting to go deeper than the dictionary definition. At least it seemed that way to me.

Who worships a deity they do not believe exists?
I personally know several people who believe numerous deities exist but they do not warship all of them.
According to the "worship more than one deity" definition, they are monotheists.
Interesting that they consider themselves poly theists.

Please note I did not say using the word "worship" in the definition is wrong.
Merely that I disagree with it.

 

[McBell]

Er... okay. Except I didn't. You've really lost me here.

Now I am confused...

Monotheist = worships one and ONLY one deified aspect of reality
Polytheist = worships three or more deified aspects of reality

I disagree.
My problem with your definitions is the word "worship".

Which I stated in this thread where, exactly?

The post I quoted

Er... okay. Except I didn't. You've really lost me here.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Who worships a deity they do not believe exists?

From my recent readings in animism, I would say that it's probably frequent that people worship without believing. In one article in particular, the anthropologist discussed his experiences with a people in Africa, in which what the elders of the community cared about was that he in particular, but also members of the community in general, approve of and take part in the rituals and observances of the "religion" of the community. Belief is viewed by members of the community as an entirely private matter, not for public discussion or debate.

It's been observed for quite some time in America and Europe that a significant number of declared Christians "belong without believing" to their churches; this is apparently prevalent in Europe, where there are state denominations of Christianity. I've heard it's something of a crisis in the Anglican Church in England, where a sizable fraction of both the clergy and the laity declare themselves agnostic or atheist. But it's also been observed here in the US as well--and one would expect to observe it happening in families and communities where membership is rewarded and nonmembership is punished--those who wish to remain part of the community will remain quiet and go through the motions of worship--behavior that is observationally indistinguishable from believing.

If what people say and what people do lead to completely different classifications, maybe it's the classifications that make for that interesting result of nonbelievers worshiping and monotheistic polytheists and polytheistic monotheists. Maybe we need to consider changing our terms, our definitions, rather than continue trying to shoehorn people into categories that just don't make sense.