What does "polytheism" really mean?

[Jainarayan]

I personally know several people who believe numerous deities exist but they do not warship all of them.

Right. I think that can be said of 99% of polytheists. There's no way I can imagine that one can worship hundreds and hundreds of gods in a single pantheon. Hinduism comes to mind. Even in Heathenry it's virtually impossible. I have a book that has two pages of short 2-3 line "Hail to [insert name of god(dess) who is [insert attributes]... praises, and that's not even all of the gods. however, I was called a monotheist because I said I'm devoted to Thor. But just because Thor is the focus of my devotion, that doesn't mean I don't pray to and worship other deities.

 

[McBell]

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.

How can one worship something they do not believe exists?

 

[Vinayaka]

How can one worship something they do not believe exists?

As symbols. Many Hindus, for example, see the Gods as (mere) symbols, yet worship away.

 

[Quintessence]

Now I am confused...

It happens, but I still definitely did not define the word "worship" anywhere in this thread. It's the internet. Miscommunication happens. *shrug*

 

[Quintessence]

How can one worship something they do not believe exists?

Pretty easily considering the narrow parameters some people have with that word "exists." If you narrow your parameters of existence to mythological literalism, for example, it's pretty easy to worship things that do not "exist" by such parameters.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

How can one worship something they do not believe exists?

If one does not believe, and and yet is going through the motions of worship, approving of and participating in the collective rituals and observances of worship for that community of which they are a part, what other term would apply? Behaviorally, they are worshiping.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I have in my library Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, edited by Athanassiadi and Frede. The scholars in that are using "monotheism" in the sense that I called "soft monotheism": the belief in a Supreme Being combined with belief in other gods. By the definition being advanced here that view would be called "polytheism", but that would completely obscure the point of the book: that the religion of Maximus of Tyre and Maximus of Madaura was not quite the same as that of that of Homer.

Saying that someone who goes through the motions of a ritual is worshiping behaviourally is surely missing the point of what constitutes worship. The dictionary defines worship as "to honour as divine": you can't do that to something that you don't believe in. As for "many Hindus" seeing the gods as "mere symbols", I wonder just how many other than the Westernised ones who have lost a true faith; it makes a nonsense of the concept of darśana, for example.

 

[Vinayaka]

As for "many Hindus" seeing the gods as "mere symbols", I wonder just how many other than the Westernised ones who have lost a true faith; it makes a nonsense of the concept of darśana, for example.

In my limited experience, some liberal Hindus will actually pop back and forth between the two concepts, and answer differently depending on who they're talking to. I have one acquaintance in particular who explains it symbolically, but never to me, because he knows what I think, so I suppose he's trying to avoid argument. I think that the bottom line is that such people actually don't know what they think. Certainly with this guy I've never figured it out. He will say, "For me there is only one." as well, but never tell you which 'one' he means.

 

[Jainarayan]

Hmm... yeah, addressing the audience. Telling people what he thinks they want to hear. Or on the other hand, listening to himself to try to figure it out. Been there, done that, got the t shirt.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Saying that someone who goes through the motions of a ritual is worshiping behaviourally is surely missing the point of what constitutes worship. The dictionary defines worship as "to honour as divine": you can't do that to something that you don't believe in.

And perhaps you're missing my point: we can't directly observe belief and measure it independent of the individual's subjective account of it, because belief goes on inside a person, apparently in their mind. Yet we can directly observe behavior. We observe people kneeling in church, or burning incense before a shrine, or leaving an offering of food before a statue. And if we ask them what they are doing, they will say they are worshiping, or making an offering or whatever, and if we ask them if they believe in the deity, saint, power or whatever they are worshiping, most will probably say yes, but some will say no, and others will give a qualified answer.

The ones who don't believe: they engage in exactly the same behavior as the ones who do believe--if they are not worshiping, what is it they are doing? In the OED online, I see nothing that suggests that belief is necessary, in fact it appears that as a verb, worship denotes the act of veneration or honor toward something. Nothing about that the act has to be performed by a believer.

Now of course if a person doesn't believe and goes through the motions, they are perhaps being hypocritical, or wasting their time, or trying to avoid the negative consequences of not being a believer in a believing community, or trying to get the benefits of appearing to be a believer in a believing community. Are these not also "points" of what constitutes the social construct of worship? Are these not also reasons for engaging in worshipping behavior without believing?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

And perhaps you're missing my point: we can't directly observe belief and measure it independent of the individual's subjective account of it, because belief goes on inside a person, apparently in their mind. Yet we can directly observe behavior.

I'm not missing the point, I'm rejecting it. You cannot observe behaviour in any meaningful way. You can observe actions, but you can only know what the person is doing when you are told. That's why many philosophers have dismissed "social science" as pseudoscience.

Now of course if a person doesn't believe and goes through the motions, they are perhaps being hypocritical, or wasting their time, or trying to avoid the negative consequences of not being a believer in a believing community, or trying to get the benefits of appearing to be a believer in a believing community. Are these not also reasons for engaging in worshipping behavior without believing?

They may indeed be doing any of the things you mention, but they are not worshiping. To use a less contentious example, I may, when interviewing someone, take notes or I may, for some reason, pretend to take notes. Pretending to take notes is not engaging in "note taking behaviour": it's pretending to take notes.

 

[Maponos]

Polytheism itself basically means 'many gods' from 'poly' and 'theos' (I think).

Within the Indo-European religion, there are deities common to all Indo-European cultures but also deities that are unique to each Indo-European culture.

What can be gleaned from historical sources today shows that most ancient Indo-European faiths in Europe were medium to hard polytheism. There was never any true belief that there was one high-up omnipotent god. There were deities of ranging power and influence that were as individual from each other as we are to other people.

Personally, I believe there is an underlying unconscious spiritual energy that permeates all things and that all in existence emanates from it.

 

[McBell]

It happens, but I still definitely did not define the word "worship" anywhere in this thread. It's the internet. Miscommunication happens. *shrug*

No, you didn't.
You used the word worship in defining polytheism and monotheism.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'm not missing the point, I'm rejecting it. You cannot observe behaviour in any meaningful way. You can observe actions, but you can only know what the person is doing when you are told. That's why many philosophers have dismissed "social science" as pseudoscience.

Of course, when asked what they are doing, people NEVER lie, do they? Even when told what people are doing, you cannot be sure what they say is really what they are doing. You can of course assume...

And many philosophers have not rejected social science as pseudoscience. So?

The natural science, including physics, chemistry, etc., got their start the same way social science works: observing the world in action, noticing and measuring patterns, and running experiments to try to understand what is going on. The people who study people--pseudoscientists, according to your terminology--long ago noticed that asking people about what they are doing or thinking or feeling or perceiving, etc., is often not the best way to find out or understand what they are really doing. People behave, and we can observe it (of course you find it meaningless to do so). We impute motives and intent. We can ask, be we cannot rely on the questioned individual to give a true or meaningful answer--they may, but they may also choose not to--not to respond at all, not to respond truthfully--and indeed, they may not know for certain why they are doing certain things. But asking alone tells you nothing reliable.

[/QUOTE]They may indeed be doing any of the things you mention, but they are not worshiping. To use a less contentious example, I may, when interviewing someone, take notes or I may, for some reason, pretend to take notes. Pretending to take notes is not engaging in "note taking behaviour": it's pretending to take notes.[/QUOTE]

So, I observe you appearing to take notes. Afterwards, I ask you if you were taking notes. You say yes. So as far as I know, you were taking notes, because it appeared you were, and you confirmed it. But you pretended and then you lied about it. The only way I can know if you actually took notes is to ask to see them: if you refuse, I may suspect you of attempting to hide that you didn't take notes, if you show me the doodles you made instead of notes, then I know that you did not take notes, and that you lied.

We don't have any equivalent check for whether someone is worshiping or pretending to worship. Observationally the two are indistinguishable. We can ask, of course, and some people may answer truthfully, but others may lie. Okay, I'll go with YOUR interpretation of worship: some are really worshiping, others are pretending to worship, making it LOOK like they are worshiping, but they aren't. Certainly, no one would worship something they don't believe in; but they may pretend to worship for a variety of reasons, and may never admit to anyone that they are pretending, and then lying about it. So if asked, they would be counted among the worshipers. But they were only pretending. To anyone outside of their mind, they would think they were worshiping.

What's the point of all this? That at least some people find the definitions of theism based in how many gods a person believes in to be a less-than-useful distinction. Sure, that's the dictionary definition, but those definitions do not reflect the reality of belief for many people. Those definitions were created by people who think in terms of Western Judeo-Christian Monotheism, and maybe atheism, not any of the other theisms. For many people, the Judeo-Christian universal all-powerful all-knowing God is a deity of a very different sort than what most "polytheists" believe in and worship, and the definitions of these Western terms just don't fit.

I am arguing here that a better alternative definition might be based in the actual practices people engage in--whether they believe or not is irrelevant (just as whether they actually worship is irrelevant to the definition based on belief). Yet another alternative definition, requiring creation of additional terms, could be constructed that includes both belief and practice. Or maybe we need some entirely new terms to describe people's beliefs and practices regarding deity/ies, based on something other than belief or practice.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

People behave, and we can observe it (of course you find it meaningless to do so). We impute motives and intent. We can ask, be we cannot rely on the questioned individual to give a true or meaningful answer--they may, but they may also choose not to--not to respond at all, not to respond truthfully--and indeed, they may not know for certain why they are doing certain things. But asking alone tells you nothing reliable.

But asking is the only way to discover meaning. Consider gestures, like nodding the head. They have no inherent meaning and the only way to discover the meaning in any culture is to ask. If someone give you a thumbs-up sign, they may be signaling approval (UK) or insult (Australia). Yes, some people lie, but most don't -- indeed, lying only works because most people tell the truth.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

But asking is the only way to discover meaning. Consider gestures, like nodding the head. They have no inherent meaning and the only way to discover the meaning in any culture is to ask. If someone give you a thumbs-up sign, they may be signaling approval (UK) or insult (Australia). Yes, some people lie, but most don't -- indeed, lying only works because most people tell the truth.

It is one way to discover meaning, but meaning can also be learned from watching the gestures and reactions, the body language, the tone of voice, etc. It's all information, and if you are careful and systematic in your observations and tests--and yes, questions--you can learn a lot about what goes on inside peoples' heads--even things they may not be consciously aware of or think they have hidden. Not everything, of course, at least not yet. And you may still get some things wrong, even when you ask.

But whether people are pretending to worship when they really aren't (because they don't believe), or are engaging in the act of worshiping when they don't believe, it seems like it's the same to me: those individuals are engaging in that behavior (pretending or worshiping without belief) for a reason. That fact that some people don't believe but act like they do has meaning, and that means it has implications for the terms we use to describe religious beliefs and practices. In a culture where practice is more important than belief, people will engage in worship even if they don't believe, because the act has meaning, not the belief. Thus a definition of polytheism or worship based solely on belief doesn't fit well with that culture.

 

[McBell]

... many philosophers have dismissed "social science" as pseudoscience.

The Irony...

 

[Nietzsche]

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



Sounds suspiciously familiar.

Fun fact;

The earliest depictions of Mjolnir have one end as a hammer and the other as an axe-head.

 

[Jainarayan]

Fun fact;

The earliest depictions of Mjolnir have one end as a hammer and the other as an axe-head.

This is why I think some deities are the same, but not all of them. For example, one person on another site who has a Balto-Slavic practice equates Laima and Lakshmi; Thor, Perun, Perkunas may be the same. But I can't think of a European counterpart to Saraswati. I think she is indigenous to India because she is the personification of the Saraswati River. That's why I call myself a Jarlsberg Polytheist... semi-firm.

 

[Nietzsche]

This is why I think some deities are the same, but not all of them. For example, one person on another site who has a Balto-Slavic practice equates Laima and Lakshmi; Thor, Perun, Perkunas may be the same. But I can't think of a European counterpart to Saraswati. I think she is indigenous to India because she is the personification of the Saraswati River. That's why I call myself a Jarlsberg Polytheist... semi-firm.

Mm. Loki is in a similar boat. Only find him in the Norse bits of the faith, never down south.