Tolerance/plurality in polytheism

[SorcererGaheris]

This article from White Rose magazine gives a good appraisal of polytheism and its inherent plurality (due to the premise of the multiplicity of the divine/multiple, limitless numbers of deities.) It analyses the difference between monotheist fundamentalism and, IMO, makes a good case for polytheism generally being more inclusive.

White Rose Magazine: When God Becomes Fragile

Some pertinent passages which I like:

This inquiry begins with a longstanding paradox: polytheistic cultures routinely absorb new deities, while exclusivist monotheisms consistently resist them. In Hindu, African, and other pluralistic contexts, the presence of Jesus, Allah, or local gods produces no theological rupture; the divine is understood as intrinsically plural.

In stark contrast to the stagnation attributed to fundamentalism, the polytheistic field exhibits a remarkable circulatory dynamism: ideas, rituals, and personae traverse traditions with comparative ease.

Equally significant is the inclusion of heterodox and even atheistic positions within this pluralist framework. The hedonistic strands of ancient Greece and the materialist Cārvāka-Lokāyata current in classical India are not sociological anomalies but recognized interlocutors within broader intellectual ecosystems. Polytheism, properly understood, is not simply the worship of many gods but the institutional and philosophical tolerance for multiple, incommensurable accounts of the world. Disagreement and gradation of belief persist while debate, contestation, and hierarchy remain real, yet these do not usually aim at the total eradication of dissent. Rather, plurality admits the coexistence of contradiction

The charge of “infidelity” itself discloses the conceptual error at the heart of the monotheistic (in this case, Islamic) critique. It rests upon a taxonomic invention internal to monotheistic thought, a classificatory device designed to secure the supremacy of a single, exclusive truth by criminalizing all forms of plurality. Such a category has no parallel within polytheistic traditions, for the simple reason that difference has never constituted a theological or civic threat within them. Polytheism does not require the fabrication of a “false god” in order to stabilize its own identity; it operates on the assumption that the divine may manifest through many names, functions, and contexts.

More passages that I enjoy:

This distinction reveals the instability social inherent in monotheistic systems when they come into contact with others. A single divine center—absolute, non-relational, and jealously singular—cannot sustain the pressures of genuine plurality. When confronted with religious differences, such a system does not expand; it contracts. It seeks to defend itself through exclusion, demarcation, and the linguistic strategies of superiority. Polytheism, by contrast, thrives under those very conditions. The presence of multiple sacred forms does not undermine its coherence; it constitutes its coherence. It is structurally incapable of collapsing under diversity, because diversity is the medium through which it understands the world. Multiple divine centers (polytheism) allow flexible coexistence (see Bettini, chapters 4 and 12). Thus polytheism is structurally more resilient.

“Infidel” is not a descriptor we ever required, nor a category that emerges from our own intellectual or ritual traditions. It is a word born from a system that cannot abide plurality, a system that must divide the world into truth and error in order to stabilize its singular claim. Polytheists, by contrast, never fashioned a term to condemn the religious “other,” for the simple reason that the category of “other” never bore the weight of suspicion or hostility in our worldview.

So basically what it is saying, is that likes of Christianity had to invent a new anti-God, Satan, when they changed their god from an angry father figure to an all loving merciful entity. Because how else to explain bad things.

But with lots of Gods, there is no need for a new bad God, because they can already explain when bad things happen.

Is that the gist ? If so, I agree.

@RedTagAlan

I don't think that's what it's saying, no (it's worth reading the full article if you haven't done so.)

Its central premise is that monotheism is exclusivist whereas polytheism is inclusive. Because the premise of polytheism is that there are multiple gods and goddesses - a limitless number - the presence of other gods and goddesses from different religions/pantheons is not a threat to polytheist cultures and civilisations. These other gods and goddesses are accepted as existing alongside the deities of their own particular pantheon.

Some polytheists choose to honour deities from multiple pantheons.

Plurality and diversity are baked into polytheism; whereas that is not the case in monotheism.

Catholic syncretism is inclusive by design. It also, arguably, makes the church polytheistic 😂at least from the congregation's point of view!

It is effectively still the Roman Empire really ? That's how I see it.

I can't really speak much to Catholicism. And syncretism can obviously still occur even with a religion that is exclusivist in nature.

The plethora of saints in Catholicism resembles polytheism, but it's still monotheistic in nature because it only recognises one deity as valid and rejects the existence of any others.

As a polytheist, I accept the existence of all gods and goddesses from all pantheons. I accept that the God of the Abrahamic religions exist, but I reject the claim that he is the only one.

Hello OP. I am a Catholic. I genuinely know nothing about polytheistic beliefs. I am interested in what you mean when you say you believe in the God of the Abrahamic religions. So do you believe that He exists, in conjunction with many other God's? Do you worship the Abramhamic God? If so, how? Thank you.

Religious pluralism also exists within monotheistic faiths (look at the work of theologians like John Hick, for example). Heavens, even Vatican II talked about other religions containing rays of truth.

Inclusivity is the norm among the Christians I know. I think it's v different for Christian fundamentalists though.

@Ipsevenenabibas

I am interested in what you mean when you say you believe in the God of the Abrahamic religions. So do you believe that He exists, in conjunction with many other God's?

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. I believe that God exists, but I believe all others do as well.

I don't worship the Abrahamic God. It's the deities of pagan pantheons that hold the most interest for me - particularly the Irish and Welsh ones. Although in more recent times, it's been Gods of the Greek and Roman pantheons that I've been petitioning/making contact with.

I wouldn't say that I actively worship any Gods so far, even those with whom I feel I've had some communication. I've honoured and respected them and given them offerings, in-keeping with the value of reciprocity.

@SparklingWater0Calories

That is true. Religious pluralism does exist within monotheistic faiths, but I think there is a case to be made that it's in a more limited sense than polytheism, because monotheism rejects the deities of the other pantheons. Polytheists easily accept the deities of other religions (though they may not be interested in engaging with them) because polytheism is predicated on their being multiple deities.