Polytheism not fitting into the binary positions some many atheists and monotheists hold in debates

[SorcererGaheris]

I read this post by polytheist G B Marian and found it very thought-provoking. Discussions/debates on theism vs atheism almost always centre upon atheism and monotheism, with polytheism often excluded.

GBM:

I've been seeing lots of posts about "theism versus atheism" lately, and they all seem rather disingenuous. The discussions in these posts are always framed as conflicts between monotheism and atheism, without fail. No other kind of theism seems to be included or accounted for, except for random occasional commenters like myself.

The monotheists in these discussions always claim that "morality is impossible without God." Meanwhile, the atheists conclude that "all religion is crap" because people don't actually need religion to be good. Neither side makes any leeway with the other, and that's not really the point anyway. These conversations tend to function more as "echo chambers" (and for both sides).

For polytheists like myself, who acknowledge and believe in many different Gods, neither side of this argument really seems to understand the actual purpose of "religion" (as we understand it at least). For us, religion and morality are two completely separate categories. "Religion" is what you do to build a relationship with one or more Gods, spirits, etc., while "morality" is how you treat other living people and creatures.

In polytheism, being a good person is just a social and natural duty. You don't have to worship any particular deity to be good. Atheists are not "sinners," and their disbelief is not a "moral failing." They're just people who don't engage with any Higher Powers, that's all. They are not predestined for hell; in fact, they are entitled to a happy afterlife just as much as anyone else, so long as they are good people at least.

Polytheists do not worship our Gods because They will "send us to hell" if we don't. Nor do we worship Them because we think it is "necessary" for us to be good people. We worship our Gods because we love Them and enjoy Their company; that's literally all there is to it. If you do not already love a God or enjoy Their company, then there is no reason for you to worship Them, and you are not expected to. End of story.

Yes, there are certain ways in which religion and morality can intersect for polytheists. Our Gods are more likely to listen to us when we are good people and we treat others with dignity. But this is very different from thinking you absolutely HAVE to believe in order to be considered "good" in the first place.
If your religious life is likewise centered around relationships, reciprocity, ritual, devotion, and presence with multiple Powers, then the standard “morality needs God" vs. "religion is unnecessary” dichotomy does not apply. When a monotheist says “morality requires God,” a polytheist can fairly respond: “That may be YOUR theology; but it isn’t the only way religion relates to ethics.”

At the same time, polytheistic religion—especially where devotion is elective, plural, and relational—does not fit neatly into the “religion = authoritarian moral policing” template that most atheists are typically reacting to. We are here to demonstrate that religion can (and, indeed, SHOULD) be about practice and relationship WITHOUT hinging on “believe this or be damned.”

Remember these things the next time you're invited to a group that presents itself as being some kind of "showdown" between "theists" (read: monotheists) and atheists.

@GasperyJacquesRoberts

I have seen examples of people equating monotheist perspectives and claims with all religions, so I do not think it is a straw man.

This happens sometimes - people assuming that all religions share the Abrahamic monotheist paradigm.

I'm not saying that all or even most non-theists think this way, but some certainly do, and it is rather commonly expressed in social media discussions.

His post was more or less to refute the idea that monotheism's paradigm applies to polytheist structures and philosophies.

@GasperyJacquesRoberts

Well, I don't know a great deal about Hindus, so you may be right about them.

I would say that it applies to the overwhelming majority of pagan polytheists, however. (Hinduism isn't a pagan religion.)

Surely atheist means absence of theology so they don't believe God exists as a starting point. Any arguments after that are incidental to the belief or not in God. The argument about morals rises from theists saying morality comes from God and atheists saying it can't because God doesn't exist. That makes no difference to the core belief that there is no God or Gods. If Pagans aren't bothered about getting atheists to believe in God then fine. They are the same as other now non prosthstelysing religions, like Judaism. Atheist arguments still apply to them because they believe in the existence of God.

@Desperatelyseekinglazysusan

The post isn't saying that there aren't any atheist arguments that apply to polytheism.

It is stating that certain arguments are built upon the monotheist religious paradigm, and those particular arguments do not apply to polytheist religions.

Pagan polytheists do not believe or claim that one needs to believe in the gods in order to be a good person. As it was stated, in pagan polytheism, religion and morality are separate things. Belief isn't required in order for someone to be considered moral.

Yes but my point is that is an aside. It's not important to atheists. It's a response to what some ( not all) religious people say. The reason someone is atheist is because they don't believe God exists. They don't care which God you believe in. Their argument is that God doesn't exist. They don't care about whether morality is separate or not. That's not the point. The existence of not of God is. So basically this guy has written an article about a completely irrelevant point and invented an argument about a distinction that doesn't matter. It's an argument between theists- mono or poly.

In other words, polytheism doesn't fit in to the binary positions some polytheists hold in debates. Got it.

@GasperyJacquesRoberts

Well, perhaps I should have been more specific. I (and the person I quoted in the OP) are speaking specifically of all forms of pagan polytheism.

I know very little about Hinduism, so I don't know about the polytheistic paradigm of that particular faith.

But in pagan polytheist religions, what was described above is indeed the case. In pagan polytheist religions, morality is not equated with believing in the gods. Neither is pagan polytheism authoritarian.

@Desperatelyseekinglazysusan

It's not important to atheists

It may not be important, per se, to atheists, but he has encountered non-theists who do indeed hold the view that all religions are undermined by the fact that a person doesn't need a deity in order to be goods. So his post is a rebuttal to a particular line of reasoning taken by some non-theists, who misjudge pagan religions by presuming that pagan polytheism equates belief with morality.

The reason someone is atheist is because they don't believe God exists.

Yes, he's aware of that. His post is not about the reason that people are atheists, his post is a response to a particular criticism that some non-theists aim at all religions - a criticism that doesn't apply to the pagan polytheist ones.

They don't care which God you believe in.

For polytheists, it's not a case of believing in a single god. Pagan polytheists largely believe in all gods and goddesses from all pantheons/religions/traditions. The gods I favour personally are the Celtic Irish, Welsh and old Brittonic gods, but I also accept the existence of all others, including the god of the Abrahamic religions - I simply don't accept the claim that he is the only god.

So basically this guy has written an article about a completely irrelevant point and invented an argument about a distinction that doesn't matter.

I would say that it's not irrelevant to him and his experience, because in internet discussions/debates, he has experienced non-theists making incorrect assumptions about pagan religions because they presume that every religion conflates morality with theism. So in the context of his own experiences, it's not irrelevant and does matter.

Quote : "I disagree with the notion that 'extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence'. Who is defining what counts as extraordinary and what makes them unquestionably correct that something counts as extraordinary?"

Not a lot I can do about that. Perhaps an example is needed. Name a God and what that God can do, then we can see if we agree on if the evidence needed to prove that God to be true is ordinary or extraordinary.

Re proselyting or not, if someone makes a claim, others have the right to challenge that claim. If I claim to have a pet elephant in my kitchen, others can challenge me to provide evidence.

So the proposition laid out in your opening post is flawed.

Quote : "Meanwhile, the atheists conclude that "all religion is crap" because people don't actually need religion to be good. "

I am atheist, and I don't say all religion is crap. Nor do I equate or connect being "good" to any religion of any sort.

Of course, I am not speaking for all atheists, because like almost everything there is a bit of a sliding scale. From the "militant atheists" to the casual "never think about it" ones. For sure, some atheists might say that line quoted above, but it is missing out the basic premise of the whole thing, that there are no Gods.

Polytheists are no different from anyone else believing in a god(s). They believe and worship something which there is no evidence of existence. Which god or gods is irrelevant.

@Parker231

The existence or non-existence of gods isn't the subject of this thread, though - it's to point out that there are some major differences in the polytheist paradigm to the monotheist paradigm.

I would also say that there is evidence for the existence of deities - anecdotal evidence is a form of evidence, and there is plenty of that. If the anecdotal evidence doesn't convince you, then by all means, don't accept it - but anecdotal evidence is there.

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of deities, no, but scientific evidence is not the only form of evidence.

So polytheism is no different to monotheism then.

There is no scientific evidence for either. The thread title is : "Polytheism not fitting into the binary positions some many atheists and monotheists hold in debates"

Atheists do have a binary position on if A- God or Gods do exist. or B- Gods do not exist. It's B. It is pretty much the definition of atheist.

I am an Atheist. Why does polytheism not fit in with my binary position ?

@RedTagAlan

Stating a belief is not the same thing as making a claim. A claim is akin to a statement of fact, whereas stating a belief is a personal opinion. While I believe deities exist, I accept that that is just my own view and not an established fact.

The Burden of Proof – Belief vs Claim – Court Room Analogy » Answers In Reason

The difference is, IMO, well-explained here (by an atheist, I think, incidentally.)

I quote from it below:

"Claim
A claim is something you are asserting IS true, essentially saying this is a FACT.

Belief
Something accepted as true, you think most probable, a positive attitude towards a proposition (or claim).
You are not saying it IS a fact, just that you think it could be."

“But a belief is a claim!”
No… at least not exactly. The only claim you are making is that it is your current mental state reflects that. It is your attitude towards the claim/proposition.
“I believe gods do not exist” is a claim that I think it is most likely that gods do not exist. I’m not asserting gods do not exist as a fact, just that my current mental state leans that way."

So - I am not making a claim that deities exist as a fact. I am expressing my personal belief that they do. In which case, my "claim" would be that I hold a particular opinion, not that that opinion in undeniably correct.

Everyone else has a right to challenge the idea that deities exist, but like I've said - since (A) I'm not making a factual claim but simply expressing personal belief and (B) not trying to change the minds of non-theists, I am under no obligation to provide any evidence. What evidence there is, is all experiential and anecdotal - I doubt you would find it convincing, and there's no reason why you should.

In any case, the question of whether or not deities exist isn't actually the subject of this thread - the subject is the difference in the theistic paradigm of polytheists to the paradigm of monotheists, which means that some arguments used by both monotheists and non-theists do not apply to the way pagan polytheism is understood and practiced.

I've been seeing lots of posts about "theism versus atheism" lately, and they all seem rather disingenuous. The discussions in these posts are always framed as conflicts between monotheism and atheism, without fail. No other kind of theism seems to be included or accounted for

So... herding people into two teams through the anonymous medium of social media, and then repeatedly setting up fights between the two teams.

Hmm... Technique seems familiar...

@RedTagAlan

There are significant differences between polytheism and ( in particular, Abrahamic) monotheism when it comes to their theistic paradigms.

Monotheism states that there is just one deity. Polytheism states that there are many. That is a difference.

Abrahamic monotheism views deity as all-powerful, all-knowing, all-benevolent. Polytheism especially pagan polytheism, does not view deities as all-powerful, all-knowing and all-benevolent. That is another big difference.

Some forms of Abrahamic monotheism equate morality to belief in deities. Pagan polytheism does not equate morality to belief in deities. That is another difference.

I am atheist, and I don't say all religion is crap.

The author of the post was making a (probably too) generalised comment about what some atheists have said in social media debates. I (and I suspect he) are aware that that is not a view shared by every atheist. I should have done more in my original post to make clear that this was about the specific views of some individual non-theists, not all non-theists as a whole.

I think my thread title was poorly worded, and I probably didn't do a good job of clarifying in my first post - the specific binary position that is the subject of this thread is the theism=morality issue, which the author has seen some monotheists insist upon, which then leads some atheists to respond that all religions are totally invalid because belief in deity is not needed for someone to be moral.

That is the only binary position under discussion here. Other binary positions are not the subject.

Atheists do have a binary position on if A- God or Gods do exist. or B- Gods do not exist. It's B. It is pretty much the definition of atheist.
I am an Atheist. Why does polytheism not fit in with my binary position ?

Polytheism does fit in with that binary position, but that is not the binary position that is under discussion here. The existence or non-existence of deities is not the topic of the thread.

Quote from the OP opening statement :

"For polytheists like myself, who acknowledge and believe in many different Gods, neither side of this argument really seems to understand the actual purpose of "religion" (as we understand it at least). For us, religion and morality are two completely separate categories. "Religion" is what you do to build a relationship with one or more Gods, spirits, etc., while "morality" is how you treat other living people and creatures."

The underlined bit.

So by your post above, the OP is building a relationship with an entity they accept does not exist ?

Also from that link you supplied : "Of course, if you are 100% certain about your belief, then you are effectively making a claim it is factual. What I am trying to explain is you can’t instantly assume someone who believes something is saying so with 100% certainty."

Would that not mean agnostic ?

We are all atheists, those of us referred to as 'atheists' just go 1 god further.

@SickandTiredofEverything

That isn't true. Not all of us are atheists. Pagan polytheists typically believe in the existence of all gods and goddesses; we are not atheists regarding any of them.

I am getting lost here.

So you are saying a Viking Pagan, who only believes in Viking Gods, also believes in the Christian God too ( of whatever variety of Christian God of course, because Christians don't agree on that).

I know you said "typically", but I can't really process that. Seems a bit like a get out of jail free card.

So by your post above, the OP is building a relationship with an entity they accept does not exist ?

No, because the person in the OP believes that it is more likely than not that the entities do exist. Believing that their existence is the much more likely option is very different to "accepting they do not exist."

I can't speak with certainty to all the inner thoughts and feelings of that individual, but my presumption would be that he probably allows for the possibility that he could be wrong, but thinks that possibility is very minimal/unlikely.

Would that not mean agnostic ?

I wouldn't say so. I see agnosticism as having a higher degree of neutrality. A theistic or atheistic position leans either in favour or against, whereas, I see agnosticism as a more middle ground.

It should be noted that some (perhaps many) atheists say that the non-existence of deities is not an established fact and that they do not know for certain that deities do not exist. 100% percent certainty is not possible with such matters.

I think the pagan polytheist worldview in general is okay with there not being 100% certainty. Fundamentalists (both monotheists and non-theists) seem (at least some of them) not to be okay with anything less than 100% certainty, which is why they tout their views as the only single valid truth/only single way. Pagan polytheists largely do not do that.

@RedTagAlan

Yes, and they would believe in the existence of all the other deities as well.

Modern-day Viking pagans don't only believe in the Viking Gods, those are just the gods that they favour.

As a pagan polytheist, I believe that the Abrahamic god exists, and I also believe that the gods and goddesses of all other pantheons exist.

Pagan polytheism is inclusive, in that it does not deny the existence of any deity. Since polytheism is predicated on multiple deities existing, it doesn't make sense to deny the existence of other deities that fall outside of a particular pantheon that we might favour (many pagan polytheists seek to engage with deities across multiple pantheons, in any case.)

The whole philosophy underlying polytheism is that deities are numerous and multiple - denying the existence of any deity doesn't make sense within a polytheist worldview. There's no reason why that deity cannot exist as well as the other deities.

Note that believing in the existence of the Abrahamic God does not mean that we believe all of the claims that are made about that God, and it does not mean that seek to actively engage and honour that god. Polytheists view the Abrahamic God as existing, but (obviously) do not accept the claim that he is the only god.

I deal in evidential facts - there is no evidence of the existence of any god or gods. If there was perhaps there would be less atheists.

@Parker231

The reason the term "anecdotal evidence" exists is because the plural of anecdote is defined by society as a form of evidence.

If you said that there was no scientific/no physical, tangible evidence of deities, then that would be accurate.

But anecdotal evidence is a form of evidence, and that form does exist.

@RedTagAlan

I think where the confusion largely stems is that you seemingly presumed that pagan polytheists only believe in the deities of their particular pantheon of focus.

But that is not the case.

Pagan polytheism is inclusive. Just because a particular pagan might focus or favour one particular pantheon, that does not mean that they deny the existence of other deities from other pantheons. Many pagans look to engage with deities from multiple pantheons.