What makes Monotheism more plausible than the other types of Theism?

[Philomath]

Roughly more than half the world's religious adherents are Monotheistic or claim to be Monotheistic. My question is what makes Monotheism more plausible than Polytheism, Henotheism, and etc?

 

[savagewind]

Fo me to believe in the Oneness is to exclude anyone or anything else that might deserve my loyalty.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I wouldn't say it is more plausible. While I'm mostly monotheistic I'm not entirely a monotheist, my theology is a whole bunch of knots and screws.

But I'd say that monotheism is more popular is because:

1) Civilization's major religions are monotheistic, the polytheistic ones are often times seen as outdated or are featured in fiction.

2) Polytheism will often lead to henotheism, and after so long the other gods sort of become useless.

3) Easier to remember names!

4) Don't have to pick which god is your favorite, which god you want to take comfort in, etc.

5) And finally, the concept of just one Ultimate tends to be more favored than many individuals making up an Ultimate, it shows the god to be more powerful, independent, sort of like a superman

 

[Quintessence]

Hey, you stole my other thread idea!

Honestly, when we get right down to it, the only thing that makes one set of ideas "more plausible" than some other set of ideas is because some human or group of humans says so. It's a subjective assessment of worth, value, and validity.

 

[Vinayaka]

Roughly more than half the world's religious adherents are Monotheistic or claim to be Monotheistic. My question is what makes Monotheism more plausible than Polytheism, Henotheism, and etc?

Plausible to whom? The term plausible is subjective, no?

 

[Philomath]

Hey, you stole my other thread idea!

Great minds think alike

Honestly, when we get right down to it, the only thing that makes one set of ideas "more plausible" than some other set of ideas is because some human or group of humans says so. It's a subjective assessment of worth, value, and validity.

I agree with that statement.

 

[Quintessence]

I've observed that there's a categorical dismissal of non-monotheistic ideas throughout much of Western theology and philosophy of religion. In fact, these two disciplines - Western theology and philosophy of religion - are overwhelmingly dominated by dialogues and discussions of classical monotheism. The monotheisms were very successful in convincing people that there is only one god and that all other gods are necessarily false or idols. This kind of rigid exclusivism and intolerance shuts down any consideration or discussion of alternatives, for there is no room for compromise. There is one god, period; I get the sense that many never really question this idea. Once an idea takes hold in a culture and dominates it, everyone else tends to follow the cultural norm and it alters how one understands and perceives events. And, it becomes extremely hard to think outside of that box as the other ways of thinking are so utterly foreign.

I say this in part based on personal experience. One of the hardest struggles for me once I discovered contemporary Paganism was theology. Ideas about gods in Paganisms are so radically different from the mainstream classical monotheism that it took a massive paradigm shift. Slowly, progressively, other theological ideas (mostly polytheism, pantheism, and animism) started making sense... more sense than monotheism ever made to me. I'd only been a monotheist as a child because that's what I was told and I accepted it on blind faith.

 

[Philomath]

Plausible to whom? The term plausible is subjective, no?

Plausible to the people who are Monotheists.

 

[Vinayaka]

I've observed that there's a categorical dismissal of non-monotheistic ideas throughout much of Western theology and philosophy of religion. ...(snip)

You make too much sense.

 

[sandandfoam]

I understand God to be beyond my minds grasp, for me, God is ineffable.
God or Gods isn't going to impact that ineffability.
Indeed that ineffability means I'm not sure whether the words we use to signify God are even that relevant.

 

[illykitty]

I'd only been a monotheist as a child because that's what I was told and I accepted it on blind faith.

Maybe sometimes it's not "dismissal". Do you not think that some people might have just the intuition, reasoning and feeling that monotheism works better for them? That no one that's now monotheistic came to their own conclusions and must have been influenced or something similar?

Also depends how you view divinity. I view it as the origin of everything. How would it, with this understanding, work with more than one?

If you have a different idea of divinity then sure multiple gods can work.

 

[InfiniteBeloved]

Maybe sometimes it's not "dismissal". Do you not think that some people might have just the intuition, reasoning and feeling that monotheism works better for them? That no one that's now monotheistic came to their own conclusions and must have been influenced or something similar?

Also depends how you view divinity. I view it as the origin of everything. How would it, with this understanding, work with more than one?

If you have a different idea of divinity then sure multiple gods can work.

I agree.

I think some things can be hard to explain in terms of intellectual description. I know (have seen) that this forum see's a lot of intellectual, reason-based debates and discussions but sometimes, it will be hard to reach a comfortable answer, by those measures.

To me, monotheists are unlikely to empathize with the viewpoint of polytheists, and polytheists are unlikely to empathize with the viewpoint of monotheists..... not in a negative connotation, just in essence.

None of us can point to god, in a condition where he/she is unambiguously seen as god, and thus, our hearts rather than our eyes, act as guide.

 

[Sees]

Quintessence expressed some of my thoughts already.

People often tend to focus on abstract, transcendent, absolute....so God for some is basically the super exaggeration of any concept or ideal deemed necessary or positive... and the end result of what is the Best of all the besting...the Super Exaggeration of all exaggerating.

This goes to All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Good....the best and most exaggerated knowing, power, goodness.

But what is the reality of the expression of this in the cosmos as we know it. We can kinda think of the super abstract, absolute, transcendent ideals, ideas, concepts but how does this relate to truth.

With the impersonal, supreme, abstract Good we have the expressions/faces/manifestations of Good realized in multiplicity.

With the impersonal, supreme, abstract Divine we see and comprehend multiple expressions/faces/manifestations of Divine.

The Truth is a real thing that is concrete or ever-changing concept completely abstract? We have multiple faces/expressions/manifestations of Truth.


How real is the abstract One vs Multiple expressions?

Is there The Truest, Bestest, Holiest, Knowingly, Awesome Supreme Exaggeration anywhere outside of our minds ability to fathom such?

Is it just a Utopian deity like all Utopian perfection ideals that doesn't actualize with nature and existence as we know it?

Usually this exaggerated monotheism causes more confusion and problems than answers. It stirs us Problem of Evil and all sorts of goodies.

 

[Vinayaka]

Monotheism itself varies. Exclusive monotheism is 'and no other gods but me'. Whereas inclusive monotheism allows God to create other helper gods, so then it's God and gods. Both reconciled into one.

 

[Astravalon]

Roughly more than half the world's religious adherents are Monotheistic or claim to be Monotheistic. My question is what makes Monotheism more plausible than Polytheism, Henotheism, and etc?

I don't know whether it's necessarily more plausible, but
just speaking for myself it's more manageable. I can only
handle one deity at a time, and the one I've got leaves me
wanting no other.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Hmmn to me it would seem to be a question of how many gods would there need to be - I start off personally with the belief there need not have been any gods so I must put that aside for the moment. Purely through intuition increasing the number of gods increases the complexity of the divine scope of existence; to my rational mind I then interpret this as a kind of question: is divine complexity a barrier to its plausibility or even potentially a requirement to achieve the mundane complexity.

Is it for example possible that gods can only do so much, so that without different gods to monitor and control different aspects, that the depth of complexity in the mundane (the natural scope of existence all around us) is only possible (let alone plausible) because there are sufficiently many gods to supervise and potentially intervene? Or on the other hand, does the increased number gods increase the divine complexity that needs to be examined for its divine plausibility or would a single general god able to do as much as all of the more specific gods be similarly complex?

Personally I do not see a difference in their plausibility, and that is assuming that within a divine scope of existence the concept of individuality applies (such as to allow gods to be counted - whether to 1 or to 1 trillion).

 

[Contemplative Cat]

It probably stems back to the One.

Like in Buddhism, the little gods are caught in life's grip the same as anyone else. Only the Monad(which is nondual in meditation) is the Big God.

These sort of realizations lead Muhammad to create Islam, although only the Sufis preserved the mystical monism side of that faith.Probably.

 

[Adept]

Roughly more than half the world's religious adherents are Monotheistic or claim to be Monotheistic. My question is what makes Monotheism more plausible than Polytheism, Henotheism, and etc?

Honestly, I don't find any of them more plausible than the others. I don't really find them plausible at all. Monotheism, in the common sense (Christian) doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense since their God is incomplete (all good, all love, all light, but not the opposite). The Christian devil, in my opinion, is a God himself. If I had to pick, I'd choose polytheism as a huge lover of Ancient Egyptian religion. That way you can explain all the different forces of nature while still having scapegoats, solutions to th problem of evil, pretty much explanations for everything.

In a mystical sense, the semi-monotheistic of the All or Nothing is more sensible.

 

[LuisDantas]

Roughly more than half the world's religious adherents are Monotheistic or claim to be Monotheistic. My question is what makes Monotheism more plausible than Polytheism, Henotheism, and etc?

It is not at all more plausible than other forms of theism. If anything, it is considerably less plausible than any other, and perhaps the only one that can be refuted outright.

But it does hold an unique appeal, because one of the main reasons for people to seek a faith is to find release from the hardships of dealing with the wild variety of religious stances and convictions that exist.

Deep down, it is all too human and at least understandable that people want one specific True Way to exist so that they do not have to choose. Many people do not particularly enjoy having to decide whether they are on the "wrong path" or whether most other people are instead, which is not only also understandable and human, but comendable as well.

In that sense, I sincerely believe that Monotheism exacerbates the problem all the while also offering the appearance (but not generally speaking the reality) of solving it.

 

[savagewind]

Monotheism itself varies. Exclusive monotheism is 'and no other gods but me'. Whereas inclusive monotheism allows God to create other helper gods, so then it's God and gods. Both reconciled into one.

I believe the Hebrew God is 'no other gods like' God. I believe there are helper 'gods'. Jesus is one. Moses, Noah, Mary, John the Baptist. There are also gods that do harm. Hitler was one who had power over others to do harm. Money is a god too. Isn't it? Fear is a god. I think what someone said on forum is true that the Bible is a god to many.