Why would monotheism be a good thing, let alone a necessary one?

[loverofhumanity]

The one reason you discounted is that it may be the truth.

 

[LuisDantas]

We are so fortunate to have someone in the forum mote intelligent than Pascal. Even if we explained it at a leve even a cave man could understand it, you still would not.

Thank you for confirming the accuracy of 1 Cor 2:14.

Pascal was very intelligent indeed.

Pascal's Wager is something else entirely. It is simply not fit to be taken seriously, and I feel confident that Pascal realized that.

 

[LuisDantas]

The one reason you discounted is that it may be the truth.

Oh, it is conceivable (albeit ultimately irrelevant) that there might be a sole, omnipotent Creator God.

That does not say much about why some people believe in his existence, though. And even less about why it would be significant.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Oh, it is conceivable (albeit ultimately irrelevant) that there might be a sole, omnipotent Creator God.

That does not say much about why some people believe in hist existence, though. And even less about why it would be significant.

It can be very significant if He gave us a solution relevant to today's problems. It could make a huge difference to our very survival.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I feel the same. For me, Paganism is about celebrating THIS life. I am devoted to Artemis because I revere the woods I grew up in. She permeated my childhood, having grown up in the country. She is the goddess of the forests, where I am happy to be, among the trees. I am an animal lover, and She is Queen of animals. I worship Hermes because He is the god of speech and writing. I revere language and story-telling. As a polytheist, I have a variety of deities to call upon as the occasion sees fit. Some I worship daily, such as Artemis. Others I may only call upon or worship at less frequent intervals.

That's beautiful. I never believed in deities; but, I don't know how Pagans define deities or god(s) really. If I had your choice, I'd probably call on Hermes too since I loooooveeee the written words, poetry, and all arts with no exceptions.

I understand the woods too. I used to go to our huge county/town's park and mini hike. I haven't gone in so long since I moved further north and it'll take me about two and a half hours to get there public transport. If I'm not outside thanking the sun, I'm somewhere with no shoes on walking between the trees.

I tell ya, nature is something.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Polytheism has many voices and they all say different things. How do you determine which god is the best one to follow?

It's a community of voices and in some religions work together as a whole. So, it's not about which one god to follow, it's following multiple gods that relate to you and help you to connect with life. For example, there is the sun, moon, earth, grass, and trees spirits (or deities if one likes). We get energy from the sun, we are held by gravity by the moon, the grass and trees flourish our planet (can't remember the reason at the moment). These things are worth giving gratitude to different aspects of nature.

There are some gods whose interest and personality is love for poetry, others love for nature, while others love for war. When people pick god(s) they want to worship, it usually reflects who they are as people. Like the nature spirits reflect who I am as a person because we come from the earth, we live on the earth, and we will die to become the earth. So we are walking on a lot of people who have been deceased for many many years.

Many gods shows diversity. We don't need to worship gods. I don't, but many Pagans do. When I think of gods, or people/objects of worship, I think of how each thing and person brings into life its own personality and traits. Many Pagans do believe in gods/deities not gods in analogy or to some not gods as in spirits like I do. Actual deities.

I like diversity and diversity fosters equality. I notice many Pagan and pagan communities of faith believe in their gods or deities as a community. That's another thing I love about polytheism. If I were to practice as a Pagan (I am a pagan not Pagan) I would definitely find a community to which the gods help the community out as we would call to them.

Also, for example, in the Luckumi faith, there is only one god. However, to put an example and pretend Orishas are gods, I read and was told by a santera that practitioners call on Orishas for help. The different spirits that control different aspects of nature are given sacrifices, usually blood sacrifices, for their help. In other aspects, whichever Orisha chooses a given Santera, that Santera would give offerings to it.

When you have more than one gods and a community then you have a diversity and an equal and supportive means of relating to the gods.

In monotheism, I do not see that. I see more politics than anything else. In Christianity and many other faiths god is seen as all powerful, higher, most, or above (however it is termed). Which means there is no equality. It shows that people need to worship as servants rather than live as a community with god not below him. The all-powerful and we are "sinners" view is degrading oneself against life and nature as if life is above or has some power over you just because you can't define it and it's a mystery.

Polytheism scraps all of that and it is a visible religion with in some communities visible gods, via stories and legends they tell, and visible signs of gods interactions. It's very concrete that I don't see in monotheism of abrahamic worldview.

If anything instead of saying which god would you call on since there are so many, the question is more which god I know will help me because I know they all have something to share and support me with.

 

[LuisDantas]

It can be very significant if He gave us a solution relevant to today's problems. It could make a huge difference to our very survival.

Reality is what it is. We are discussing the belief in the existence of an Abrahamic-style God, not whether there should be one. We lack the means to "make" or "unmake" such a God.

Even taking for granted that he exists, we would need to accept that he is in effect choosing to make himself less than self-evident.

One consequence is that whatever message he may or may not have decided to leave for humanity would in essence have to sustain itself on its own merits as opposed to on the strength of theistic belief proper. And significantly, it would be so because he chose to make it so.

 

[RedDragon94]

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.

Ever read Thomas Aquinas' five proofs for God? I think they're convincing. However, they in no way point to the Christian God as the one that exists but they do make a good argument for some sort of spiritual entity out there.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ever read Thomas Aquinas' five proofs for God?

Yes, I have.

But they are just aesthetical claims with no attempt at being arguments, let alone proofs.

I think they're convincing. However, they in no way point to the Christian God as the one that exists but they do make a good argument for some sort of spiritual entity out there.

I have to emphatically disagree.

 

[RedDragon94]

Yes, I have.

But they are just aesthetical claims with no attempt at being arguments, let alone proofs.

Define aesthetical claims.

 

[LuisDantas]

Define aesthetical claims.

All five are variations of "I can't conceive of existence without an entity that consciously provides a reference for _____ and I want to call that entity God".

Despite Aquinas' own judgment, those are hardly proofs of anything except of his own attachments and preferences.

It is his privilege to want to believe in a First Causer, etc. But that only tells us something about he, Aquinas, and nothing whatsoever about whether those entities are at all likely to actually exist.

He just did not make the attempt to dwell in that area.

 

[RedDragon94]

All five are variations of "I can't conceive of existence without an entity that consciously provides a reference for _____ and I want to call that entity God".

Despite Aquinas' own judgment, those are hardly proofs of anything except of his own attachments and preferences.

It is his privilege to want to believe in a First Causer, etc. But that only tells us something about he, Aquinas, and nothing whatsoever about whether those entities are at all likely to actually exist.

He just did not make the attempt to dwell in that area.

How do you account for causation in the universe?

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you account for causation in the universe?

I don't. How do I know that there was causation?

To think that there must have been is just an arbitrary, unfounded expectation.

 

[RedDragon94]

I don't. How do I know that there was causation?

To think that there must have been is just an arbitrary, unfounded expectation.

You can't see that we do things because of events and conditions that have come before us?

 

[icehorse]

You can't see that we do things because of events and conditions that have come before us?

This is a pretty well known (and weak), argument and:

1 - It's not the argument that Luis made
2 - It's black and white, it doesn't allow for a middle ground. Sometimes we observe causation, sometimes we don't.

 

[LuisDantas]

You can't see that we do things because of events and conditions that have come before us?

I sure can. I can just as easily adopt other models.

And I most definitely can see existence itself and other presumably absolute or transcendental references as exceptions.

As a matter of fact, so do Aquinas' Five Ways. He feels the need to call those exceptions divine for his own reasons. I do not share that need, perhaps for no reason at all.

 

[omega2xx]

You're making two incorrect assumptions here:

1. That polytheism deals in Absolute Truths - it does not and;
2. That polytheists must pick one god to worship which is wrong. The clue is in the term 'polytheist'!

That i have assumed either of what you said, is only your assumption.

The clue is that a voice for what each one says, does mean what the voice says is the truth.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Reality is what it is. We are discussing the belief in the existence of an Abrahamic-style God, not whether there should be one. We lack the means to "make" or "unmake" such a God.

Even taking for granted that he exists, we would need to accept that he is in effect choosing to make himself less than self-evident.

One consequence is that whatever message he may or may not have decided to leave for humanity would in essence have to sustain itself on its own merits as opposed to on the strength of theistic belief proper. And significantly, it would be so because he chose to make it so.

That's what the Word of God is. It's creative power works in this fashion. God says 'Be' and it 'is'.

His Presence is overwhelming to those who know what to look for, which are the effects of His 'Be' and 'it is' in the world of creation.

God does not hide. The effect of His Word is astounding. Some have just not learned to read it's signs. God spoke a Word and all the sciences and technologies came into existence which brought about the internet.

His Word sets in motion 'processes' which play themselves out in the world of man. Currently, untold processes are playing themselves out in the world. We can match His latest Words with many processes currently underway.

Until He spoke that Word, we had been isolated from each other for 1,000's of years. A Word may be a sentence or just a Word spoken by His Manifestation.

When God spoke the Word "the earth is but one country" , all the forces of heaven and earth united to make the earth as one country and thus we are here now communicating over many leagues as if next door. God's Word is influencing the world daily and we are going along with it unaware it is the Word of God.

Another sign is the status of women. Since He proclaimed women to be equal to man, women's movements have arisen all over the world, not before He spoke but since.

 

[omega2xx]

Pascal was very intelligent indeed.

Pascal's Wager is something else entirely. It is simply not fit to be taken seriously, and I feel confident that Pascal realized that.

It makes perfect sense if you understand logic.

Let me put it another way. If what you believe about God is right, it doesn't' matter what I believe. If what I believe about God is right, it is critical what you believe.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Why would monotheism be a bad thing, let alone an unnecessary one?