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.

@Desperatelyseekinglazysusan

I am aware that banning astrology (which is a separate matter to religion, anyway) has nothing to do with where morality comes from.

I brought it up to support the fact that there are intolerant and prejudiced non-theists as well as intolerant and prejudiced monotheists. Desiring astrology to be illegal is authoritarian and violates the rights of those who desire to live as astrologers.

@Parker231

Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia

"Anecdotal evidence (or anecdata[1]) is evidence based on descriptions and reports of individual, personal experiences, or observations.

The term anecdotal encompasses a variety of forms of evidence, including personal experiences, self-reported claims,[3] eyewitness accounts of others"

Regarding pagan deities specifically, the anecdotal evidence for them is in pagan, occult and witchcraft spaces - Facebook groups, blogs, message boards, etc. Pagan and occultist polytheists discuss their experiences in shared spaces with one another and write articles about them for interested readers. Pagan and occult books are also a good source for anecdotal evidence, as the authors often share some of their personal experiences in the text.

But because non-polytheists don't go into these spaces, or read pagan and occult literature, they are not exposed to the anecdotal evidence. Pagan polytheists and occultists are a small minority, so unless everyone knew at least one pagan polytheist well enough for the pagan to share their personal experiences of deities, then they would not be exposed to personal testimonies in person.

If you actually want to see an example of anecdotal evidence yourself, pagan blogger John Beckett has blog where he will sometimes describe his personal experiences with deities.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

I appreciate it. 😊

Well, there are two ways of looking at it, I think. All the other deities have individuals who believe they have experienced them, so there is a large amount of anecdotal evidence. In the case of the FSM, it's widely understood by polytheists that this was just a joke entity made up for a laugh, and nobody, as far as we're aware, has said they seriously believe they have had an experience with the FSM.

So the anecdotal evidence and personal experiences that exist for all the other deities isn't there for the FSM.

So on that basis, I would assume that most polytheists don't believe the FSM exists as a deity.

However, there is also a belief (more commonly found in occultism, which includes a fair number of polytheists - but not all polytheists are also occultists) - that anything that is imagined can develop its own existence, on some level, if enough thought and attention is given to it. With enough attention, the idea is that the entity would eventually develop the ability to exist independently of the energy of human thought, from which it initially derived its ability to exist.

Tulpa - Wikipedia

This is more or less what a tulpa is - an imagined entity, or thought form, that is considered to have a real and independent existence of its own.

So while polytheists might not view the FSM as a deity, they may believe it exists - certainly by now - as some kind of spirit entity in its own right. That's how I myself see it.

@SorcererGaheris

Thanks for taking the time to reply and the explanation.

Sounds a lot like Manifestation, which although I also do not believe is possible, at least it is a cogent explanation for the incongruence between being sceptical of recent concepts but accepting of much older ones.

I'm also curious about how people "experience" deities. In fact, that's not quite the correct way to express my curiosity. I think it's probably better explained as being curious as to why only certain people apparently experience deity but others do not. We're all much the same physiologically, and putting my atheist hat on again for a moment, I see no reason why, if deities do indeed exist, that they would only interact with people who opt to believe that they do. There are lots of things in the world that I can't be certain exist because I've never witnessed or experienced them first hand, but they still impart some sort of influence on my life, yet with deities, nothing. I suppose you could say that they are influencing my life and I just do not recognise it because I do not accept their existence, but then I'd ask for a specific example of this which can not be explained away by something much more mundane.

I'm trying to think of a good example of something to use as an allegory and comparator for how I view Deities, something which is apparent to all people, even those with no direct experience or who do not directly encounter it, yet also something which is not disputed by that group, but I'm struggling a little bit because everything I can think of is rather banal and I don't want to be accused of belittling Faith or lampooning Religion, because that isn't my aim at all. I suppose I could even say Religion itself. I don't believe in any of it, I've never practiced one, I don't directly participate in any Religion, but Religion itself most definitely affects my life because it plays a part in shaping policy which applies to me, it plays a part in the Community in which I live, it plays a role in shaping and influencing world affairs which most definitely affect me, so even though I don't believe in Religion, I'm still perfectly happy to accept it exists because I see evidence of its existence all around me. So why are Deities not the same?

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

I'm also curious about how people "experience" deities

Often by developing the ability to sense non-material entities (it's the same principle with people who want to communicate with other spirits; unless they're naturally already very 'open' to the spirit world, people need to put in the work to develop their innate psychic ability.

I would say a slight degree of altered state of consciousness in usually necessary; it's why meditation is such a foundational practice. Pagans and occultists report experiencing deities during meditation (some call this 'journeying') and in dreams. If they have done a magical ritual to evoke a deity, the atmosphere in the room might feel different, and they might hear a deity speak to them internally. (The best way I can describe this, is, it's words that come into your mind, but it feels very different to your own thoughts. It feels very much like they came from elsewhere - which polytheists naturally think they did.)

My last experience of this was when I reached out to the Greek Goddess Aphrodite and the words came into my head "You're unkempt." (She was right! 😅)

I think it's probably better explained as being curious as to why only certain people apparently experience deity but others do not...I see no reason why, if deities do indeed exist, that they would only interact with people who opt to believe that they do.

In the pagan polytheist perspective, there are a few possibilities for why this would be so:

In my understanding, it seems to be only the Abrahamic God who demands that people believe in him and is very invested in that. The deities of the pagan pantheons don't demand that people believe in them; as such, if people don't believe they exist, the deities don't care. They don't have an incentive to reach out and make their presence known to you, because they don't need you to believe and don't require that you do.

Secondly, pagan polytheists do not view gods as all-knowing or all-powerful the way that Abrahamic monotheists do. It is very possible that at least some gods are unaware that you exist.

Pagan polytheists also don't conceive of deities as being innately all-loving. That's not to say that they can't be loving towards people with whom they have a relationship, but until a person makes the first move to approach them (by saying a prayer and giving an offering) the gods don't necessarily overly care about us, so have no reason to go out of their way to make the effort at first contact.

From my experience in the community, it seems like for many pagan polytheists, they are the ones who make the first move at seeking out communication with deities. Once that first effort has been made, it is up to the deities whether or not they will respond. I think in many (though not necessarily all) cases they would, but the individual would need to have developed some psychic/spiritual awareness in order to perceive it.

There are exceptions - some polytheists do feel like it was deities that made the first move towards them. In the pagan and occult communities, this is often referred to as a 'calling'. If a person starts dreaming about a particular deity/deities, for example, they may take that as evidence of the deities reaching out. If they develop an interest in deities very suddenly, and from seemingly out of nowhere, that can be taken as a sign that deities are reaching out.

So why would the deities decide to reach out to those particular people? No one knows for sure, but there are possibilities: perhaps the deities just like them and find them interesting. Perhaps the individual shares similar values and interests as the deity/deities in question. Perhaps the individual has a particular skill that a deity feels it might be able to utilize for an agenda of their own?

I'm also reminded of a comment by pagan blogger John Beckett, who said that if a person shows some skill with magic (not all pagans and polytheists practice magic, but many do) that in itself can gain the attention of some spirits. Maybe it can also gain the attention of some gods, especially those who have an interest in and association with magic.

John Beckett made that comment in this blog post here - What Is Seen Cannot Be Unseen | John Beckett - one of my favourites of his. It diverges from the subject here, a bit, but I find it an interesting (and in some ways relatable) read, anyway.

All of the statements you have made relate to arguments between theists as to their relationship with divinity though. It's nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. So atheists would still reject all of Paganism because it relates to belief in a deity.

@Desperatelyseekinglazysusan

So atheists would still reject all of Paganism because it relates to belief in a deity.

Yes, of course they would. That doesn't mean that some of them don't have false assumptions about the nature of paganism/polytheism and what it actually entails.

I mean, I would presume that's because they don't actually care about what Pagans believe above and beyond that they believe in a deity, therefore anything after that and arising from that is irrelevant. It's like Catholics saying "Atheists say we don't believe in God but what about Saints?" What about Saints? It's irrelevant.

What it entails is irrelevant. Whether it’s worshipping one god or multiples - they don’t exist. The outcome is identical.

I mean, I would presume that's because they don't actually care about what Pagans believe above and beyond that they believe in a deity

Polytheist pagans don't just believe in a deity, we believe in the existence of all of them.

Yes, I agree that the reason why they have false assumptions is probably because they have zero interest and have spent little, if, any, time finding out anything about it.

But if a person's false assumptions lead to them making inaccurate statements about paganism/polytheism, it is reasonable for pagans and polytheists to contest and correct them.

What I was trying boil the OP down to was that - some non-theists hold the view that Pagan religions equate morality with belief in the gods (the way some denominations of Christianity do.) Some non-theists will express that statement about the pagan religions.

Pagan religions don't equate morality with belief in deities, so when somebody assumes or says they do, they are incorrect.

@Parker231

It is relevant if the non-theist is making incorrect statements about what paganism or polytheism entail.

It entails worshipping gods?

@Parker231

Yes, but there are other incorrect statements that some non-theists make. For example (and I'm admittedly paraphrasing here, as I haven't looked back to check ) @RedTagAlan made a comment earlier on about pagans only believing in the gods of their particular pantheon.

That's incorrect. Polytheist pagans don't restrict their belief to the gods of their favoured pantheon, they believe in all other gods and goddesses of all other pantheons. Which is why polytheist pagans believe the Abrahamic God also exists, though we don't worship him or engage with him.

Other incorrect statements that I have seen some non-theists make (not in this thread:)

They state that the gods demand that people worship them (not true of pagan gods.)

They state that the gods threaten eternal punishment for non-belief (not true of pagan gods.)

They assume that polytheists regard gods and goddesses as all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving. (Not true of how polytheists conceive of the gods.)

As an atheist - it’s irrelevant how you parcel it up - one god or another god.

What outcome are you expecting?

@Parker231

It may not be relevant to you, but it is relevant when engaging in communication with a non-theist who makes such incorrect statements.

The very subject of this thread is about the fact that some atheists hold incorrect assumptions about polytheist pagan religions and their underlying philosophy. They assume that the philosophy of these religions are the same as monotheist traditions, when they are not. So what I am saying is relevant to the subject of this thread.

It may not be relevant to the question of whether gods exist or not, but like I've said a few times - that question is not the topic of discussion here.

Why is it relevant though? Some atheists make all sorts of assumptions about people who believe in any God or God's, because they don't believe God exists so dismiss many actions made while believing in God or God's. A theists view of what an atheist thinks about their religion is not important. Atheists quite rightly couldn't care less what theists think of them. Why do you care what beliefs some atheists have about your beliefs? So what if they talk about religion in monotheistic terms. Most of them are Westerners. They know about Christianity because many were brought up as Christians or at least we're culturally Christian. They have mainly rejected Christianity. They don't have to go around rejecting all religious beliefs on individual bases after investigating each and every one. The whole 'I don't believe God exists' is the exact opposite view to " Not only do I believe God exists but I believe there are loads of them!' The minutiae of who thinks what about what God thinks is irrelevant once you reject the existence of and God or God's. You said Pagans don't care about persuading anyone to believe in their Gods, so why does it matter what they believe about Paganism?

@Desperatelyseekinglazysusan

Why is it relevant though?

It's relevant because that is the topic of this thread - the fact that some non-theists make statements about pagan polytheism that are incorrect.

A theists view of what an atheist thinks about their religion is not important.

I don't agree.

Why do you care what beliefs some atheists have about your beliefs?

I believe that non-theists should ideally have an accurate understanding of what paganism and polytheism actually are, if they are going to critique it. A person can't give an accurate critique of something that they don't understand and know little or nothing about.

And when I am in a personal conversation with them - if they have incorrect assumptions of paganism and polytheism, then they also have an incorrect idea of my own position as a pagan polytheist. They have an incorrect view of what my beliefs entail.

If there is going to be a meaningful conversation between a non-theist and I, and they are going to analyse or critique my beliefs, then it is important that they have an accurate idea of what my beliefs actually are.

So what if they talk about religion in monotheistic terms.

There is nothing wrong with that; the issue is when the apply the monotheist paradigm to polytheist religions.

They don't have to go around rejecting all religious beliefs on individual bases after investigating each and every one.

I never said they did.

The minutiae of who thinks what about what God thinks is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant if the conversation is about the nature of the religion and what the religious beliefs actually are. If non-theists are going to be involved in the discussion of the nature of pagan polytheistic religions, then it's important for them to understand what that nature actually is, rather than sticking to incorrect ideas that they have about it.

To be honest I can understand why someone might feel that is important.

As an Atheist myself, I completely concur that if the starting premise is "Deities do not exist", then any follow-on discussions which suppose the existence of them are completely moot, but I still think that it's important that if you are going to indulge in poo-pooing what someone else believes, which is something a lot of atheists feel the need to do, you should at least be familiar with the reasons why other people come to the conclusions they do and how they justify it to themselves.

Whether someone else believes in something which runs contrary to my own view is neither here nor there to me, because I'm comfortable enough with my position that I feel no need to defend it, and someone else believing in something contrary does not diminish my position or make me doubt it, but if they do want to challenge and debate, then I am happy to explain the logic behind my conclusion and cite the facts and reasons why I have come to that point. The "evidence" if you like.

Atheists are often found challenging people who believe in Deities for "evidence", which I find rather odd personally because there is nothing which can be presented which will satisfy an atheist. What I find far more interesting is asking people with a faith, a belief, or a religion to explain the mechanics behind how they arrive at their own conclusions. Not the "proof" of their claim, but the logic they use to reconcile what they believe with what is empirical.

This was my purpose in asking about FSM, because to me, it's abundantly clear FSM is nothing but a very recent construct of the human mind, so if someone purports to be accepting of all Gods, they really need to justify how they can be accepting of FSM as a God, and as far as I can see @SorcererGaheris kindly indulged me and explained that. So now at least, I can comprehend how @SorcererGaheris can believe the things they do, even though I do not share the same position and I don't necessarily believe the explanation is robust or survives scrutiny.

From an atheist, yet scientific pov, I do think paganism more as a religious science than a faith. Of course there are gods, goddesses and mythical creatures, but if you look at these polytheistic religions, it was a good way (at that time) of explaining the world. At least some of it is based on things proven by seeing and experiencing them. To give a basic idea, humans linked rain and sun with growth of food, therefore created deities to represent them.

I understand how paganism might be a more science -based theism than the monotheistic Christianity, or other Abrahamic religions. Somehow one God created the earth etc in 7 days. I can't get my head around that one. It's too fantastical.

I am an atheist and firmly believe the sciences are the best way for discovery and knowledge, which must always be tested and challenged.

Atheists are often found challenging people who believe in Deities for "evidence", which I find rather odd personally because there is nothing which can be presented which will satisfy an atheist. What I find far more interesting is asking people with a faith, a belief, or a religion to explain the mechanics behind how they arrive at their own conclusions. Not the "proof" of their claim, but the logic they use to reconcile what they believe with what is empirical.
Yes I agree with this, but I would say both these conversations are fruitless because a belief is something that exists without proof. People who believe in God will never, in my experience, be able to satisfactorily explain to an atheist what the logic is behind their faith because it is not logical. It is by definition a matter of faith in something they have no logical evidence for.

@Desperatelyseekinglazysusan

Another point I forgot to add was that, sometimes, in such conversations, incorrect assumptions about paganism and polytheism can sometimes lead to inaccurate assumptions about me - i.e. someone might believe I act a certain way or harbour certain prejudices due to their lack of knowledge on the nature of paganism and polytheism.

So it's also important to ensure that they don't have a false (and generally) negative assumption of who I am as a person.

Polytheism must be quite an interesting topic. Not too many religions these days have this belief. Atheism no God. Polytheism lots of Gods. Hmm.

Yes I agree with this, but I would say both these conversations are fruitless because a belief is something that exists without proof. People who believe in God will never, in my experience, be able to satisfactorily explain to an atheist what the logic is behind their faith because it is not logical. It is by definition a matter of faith in something they have no logical evidence for

I agree that as an atheist the statement "I believe in God/Gods" is illogical, because I'm of the view that Gods do not exist, but there is a usually a lot more to a believer's position than the simple proposition "Gods exist" even if that is what underpins it, so it's still interesting to me to hear their explanations for how they come to the conclusions they do.

You can probably fairly sum up atheism as "Gods do not exist, end of discussion", and with a lot of us it really isn't any more complex than that, but as I say, faith and religion usually involve much more than just being accepting of the proposition "God exists", so I don't think it's as easy to understand the "other side" because their position is nowhere near as simple . That doesn't mean I'm lending it undue credence, I'm not, I'm simply highlighting that atheism can be very much a simple "yes/no" proposition if you want it to be, but faith, belief, and religion are very rarely ever that simple or straightforward, so their drivers are more difficult to fully comprehend and not as easily deciphered.

The reason I'm curious about this is that I once was of the view that religious people were delusional and their faith is a form of illness. The two share some remarkable similarities in terms of outlook and behaviour. I am no longer of this view because when people are genuinely in the grip of a delusional mania or psychosis it manifests itself in practically every aspect of their lives, and yet the bulk of people who claim to be religious can apparently switch their delusion off at will, and materialise it only when an expression or display of faith is appropriate. So clearly to me they are not in any way ill so it's inappropriate to couch faith in those terms. This is why I'm intrigued by the thought process even though I completely disagree with the premise that Gods exist. It's a "make it make sense" thing for me, nothing else.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

If you are going to indulge in poo-pooing what someone else believes, which is something a lot of atheists feel the need to do, you should at least be familiar with the reasons why other people come to the conclusions they do and how they justify it to themselves.

Yes, and I'd add that they need to know what it is someone actually believes.

Which was my underlying message, if you like, behind all of this. Non-theists cannot critique a religion or theological position accurately unless they understand the philosophy behind it.

Otherwise, it's like criticising a book you haven't read, or a film you haven't watched. The critique either has no value, or its value isn't as high as it could be, as parts of it are based on false presumptions.

Over in another thread in AIBU, someone made the false statement that "all religions are misogynistic." I challenged that and named some religions (Wicca and contemporary Druidry) that are not misogynistic.

So if a non-theist was critiquing Wicca and calling it a misogynistic faith, they would simply be wrong. When people don't have sufficient knowledge of what they are critiquing, it undermines their critique.

I would think that non-theists would largely be happy to find out where their presumptions regarding paganism and polytheism are incorrect, because that surely means they are better able to formulate a more accurate critique.

I wonder if maybe I haven't explained myself as well as I could have, because I feel like some people are reading into my posts stuff that I'm not actually saying, or making presumptions about what I'm intending. Like when @RedTagAlan said I was proselytising after I suggested they read a particular article - that wasn't what I was trying to do. I was not, and have not, tried to convert @RedTagAlan to polytheism; I told them that they should be an atheist if that is the conclusion they have come to. The reason I suggested they read the article was because they had made an inaccurate statement regarding pagans' beliefs, which indicated to me that they didn't understand the theistic plurality and inclusiveness of pagan polytheism - the article I linked had a good explanation of that, I felt, and so I thought it would do a good job of clearing up the confusion for RTA (as they had previously said they couldn't understand how a pagan could also believe in the Abrahamic God.)

I did read the article. And it was like any other religious article really.

The message that polytheism is some sort of all understanding all welcoming thing does not really fit. The Romans were Pagans after all, and they were rather famous for persecuting Christians.

Re anecdotal evidence. Wiki is banned where I am sorry so can't open your link.

Why not give it a shot though. Post the best bit of anecdotal evidence in existence for any Gods being real and let us evaluate it.