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.

And the Greek Gods did demand worship didn't they? Isn't that why Zeus stuck Promethius to Mount Olympus?

@RedTagAlan

I did read the article.

In that case, I would have thought it would have been clear that the article was addressing forms of intolerant monotheism/monotheists, rather than atheists. So I'm not sure why you took the last sentence as being addressed to you.

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.

My personal reading of it wasn't that they were saying that historical Paganism has always been 100% inclusive to everyone. What it was saying is that pagan polytheism isn't exclusivist of other deities; they accept the existence of other deities in the way that monotheisms don't.

It's commonly accepted that the Romans didn't persecute Christians just because they believed in another God. The Romans were famously tolerant (in general) of the religious practices of the countries they conquered. When the Romans took over Britain, they allowed the Britons to continue worshipping the Gods and even syncretised some of those gods with their pantheon.

The Roman slaughtered the Ancient Druids, yes, but that wasn't due to the Druids' religion, it was because the Druids were fighting against the Romans colonising Britain. Same with the other old Celtic British tribes. The Romans fought them not because of religion, but because the Britons were refusing to roll over and let the Romans march in and take over.

With Christians, the Roman persecution was not because the Christians worshipped and believed in another God, per se. The Romans would have been okay with that in itself. What ignited the Romans' hostility to Christians was the fact that Christians were refusing to take part in civic rituals to the Roman Gods, which the Romans saw as treasonous to the Empire (they believed that the success of the Empire depended upon the deities being honoured and satisfied.)

If Christians had honoured the Abrahamic God but also agreed to pay lip service to the Roman Empire by participating in such civic rituals and practices, they likely would have been largely left alone. But the monotheistic nature of Christianity meant that they refused to even pay lip service to other deities, which the Romans thought threatened the well-being and security of the Roman Empire as a whole.

I'm not condemning the ancient Christians for refusing to take part in civic rituals and practices which honoured other deities; I'm pointing out that it wasn't a case of Romans persecuting Christians because they honoured a different deity. The Romans were probably happy enough to accept that that deity existed as well as theirs. For the Romans, it wasn't about theism/theology, it was about (in their eyes) the Christians' lack of loyalty to the Roman Empire - they were seen as traitors.

Interestingly enough, the Romans made an exception with the Jews and did not demand that Jewish people take part in Roman theistic rituals or pay any lip service to the Roman Gods. (They did persecute the Jews during uprisings against the Romans, but as with the British Celts, that was an issue of Roman power and domination over them, rather than religious differences.) It appears that because Judaism was such an old tradition even then, the Romans had some respect for it, and the Romans probably respected the fact that the Jews did not seek converts. The Jews also honoured the Roman Emperor by praying for him, so in turn the Romans did not demand that the Jews participate in any ritual sacrifices to the Emperor.

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

I'll quote some of what it says, then:

"Anecdotal evidence (or anecdata[1]) is evidence based on descriptions and reports of individual, personal experiences, or observations,[2][3] collected in a non-systematic manner.[4]
The term anecdotal encompasses a variety of forms of evidence, including personal experiences, self-reported claims,[3] eyewitness accounts of others,[5] and those from fictional sources, making it a broad category"

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.

I'm not sure if there is a "best" kind; as anecdotal evidence encompasses people's personal testimonies, and I'm not sure how I would judge one person's personal experiences as being better than another?

If you want, I can take a look and dig up some personal testimonies, though. I doubt you'll be impressed, but then, you don't need to be. Atheists should remain atheists, unless they somehow become convinced of the alternative view, for some reason.

@Desperatelyseekinglazysusan

The Greek Gods as whole, didn't demand belief. In Greek polytheism, there was (and is, since Hellenistic Paganism is still practiced today) no threat of punishment for people who didn't believe in them or honour them.

In my understanding, that's not the reason for Zeus's punishment of Prometheus. In the tale, Prometheus stole fire from the Gods and gave it to humans (as a way of helping them advance technologically.) Zeus saw this as an act of betrayal (and he also wanted to keep humans from advancing, which fire helped them do.)

Zeus can be said to have wanted humans to remain weak, but he didn't demand they humans believe in him - like I said, there is no concept in Hellenic Paganism of punishment in the afterlife for non-belief.

Hello there! @RedTagAlan pointed me to this thread, I'm not 100% sure why but here I am. Yesterday was so hot I was just reading it, today I can comment a little. I am a monotheist (Christian) so this has been pretty interesting to read.

Yes I'd agree most belief-centered posts on MN tend to be monotheist vs atheist, polytheism doesn't get much of a look in or is just swept aside.

I don't think morality comes from knowing God, I believe all people are born with an innate knowledge of right and wrong (I believe that's given by God but you don't need to 'know' Him to have those values, if you see what I mean), but I'm no philosopher! I'm certain atheists still have morality! You could say a religion 'shapes' morality but it doesn't bestow it like a gift.

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.

Well you can imagine I'm going to disagree with some of this. The issue is, humanity cannot be 'good' all the time because of our fallen nature. We often fail to choose to be good, or do the right thing. No matter how much we struggle or try to be better, we'll always fail. Try harder? No it still won't be enough. Do you know anyone who is perfect all the time? No.

Do polytheists believe in life after death, and if so, where and what sort of life?

Polytheists do not worship our Gods because They will "send us to hell" if we don't.

It's a misconception that this is the reason why people who believe in God do so. Sure you can preach hellfire sermons and scare people but that actually doesn't produce faith in God. Or threaten them with punishment if they don't go to Church or the Mosque. It might produce a lifetime of seeming devotion, but there would be no real faith underlying that. Perhaps that's why @RedTagAlan brought me here, as I commented on another thread you cannot coerce people into faith, it's simply not possible. There has to be a change in a person's heart to repentence. As a polytheist or even an atheist, my leading line to you wouldn't be 'YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE OR YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!' because I know that doesn't work, and let's face it, it's not actually a great selling point, is it!

That does bring me on to idea that you may be persecuted for beliefs outside of standard Christianity - such as occultism. Now in my dim, distant past I practised a lot of astrology. It was very interesting. If someone had come along and legislated that astrologers much be thrown into prison then I would have been outraged, dismayed and upset. Would it have lessened my interest in it? No. If anything, I'd likely have resisted more. As I went through my life and understood my faith better, I realised why practising astrology isn't compatible with Christianity and as I understand this, I gave it up of my own free will. So I am not in support of imprisoning people who are involved in the occult or similar, as I don't believe this is the right approach. Besides, haven't Christians already been persecuted enough to know how dreadful that is, and that persecuting others isn't the way to change them.

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.

Again, if I'm understanding you correctly, you think Christians (or monotheists generally) must believe in God to be considered 'good'? No, this is erroneous. So, when we come to Him initially we are nowhere near 'good'. The way we can come before God is via His son Jesus Christ. Christianity is a religion of blood sacrifice (sorry to shock some readers!). You only need to read the old testament to see this over and over, and of course Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice, the perfect lamb, given to cover ALL the sins of those who come in repentence to God. My believing in Jesus doesn't make me 'good'. His blood 'covers' my sins (which are still ongoing btw!) so that I am acceptable in God's sight. I am redeemed, not 'good'. It's a whole different thing. Plus, God will listen to us before we come to Him if we cry out to Him sincerely, even in the depths of our 'not good-ness' if you will. He is merciful and extends grace to us, ie. forgiveness we do not deserve, so that we are made righteous through faith (not through our own efforts).

There's probably more to say but that's a long enough post to start!

I’m very interested in your post . I understand it , I think. However, I don’t know which religions are polytheistic. Do you mean, for example, Hinduism? If so, what would be the other ones?

I’ll never understand this. I’m not a sinner - don’t believe in the concept. I know right from wrong. Why some people wrap this into a religious statement I’ll never know.

@SixtySomething

There are plenty of other ones. All the theistic pagan religions, for example:

To list just a few:

Modern Druidry

Celtic Paganism

Norse Paganism

Hellenic Paganism

Roman Paganism

Egyptian Paganism (often called Kemetic Paganism)

Slavic Paganism

Many others besides.

I should point out that adherents of those individuals religions also believe in all other gods and goddesses from all other pantheons and religions as well. We just pay particular attention and focus to an individual pantheon. But we don't reject the existence of all the other gods and goddesses - including the Abrahamic God.

@GentleSheep

Thanks for coming along. I thought a Christian would be good in this chat, because it does appear the polytheist is outnumbered by atheists.

It is a good chat, but I struggling to really understand what the OP wants. With your good self here I was hoping to get a better idea on that.

Sorry if not your thing. But you do know your Christianity.

@RedTagAlan

I don't "want" anything in particular; my only point was to discuss the fact that pagan polytheism is accepting of the existence of other gods and goddesses in addition to the ones that they focus upon.

Some people have the misconception that pagan polytheists only believe in the deities of their own pantheon. But that isn't true.

It's simply to show that a plurality of deities is the basis upon which polytheism is founded upon. The existence of the deities of others are not denied, they are just accepted as additional deities. That doesn't mean that they'll be honoured and worshipped; they are simply accepted as additional existing entities.

That's why pagan polytheists accept the existence of the Abrahamic God. We simply don't pay him any attention.

You say Roman Paganism above. And you said before that polytheists are sort of all embracing and non violent.

But the Roman Pagans were notoriously violent towards Christians.

How do you explain this ?

Edit, sorry it was OP who said polytheists were all embracing. So this is really to them.

@RedTagAlan

You say Roman Paganism above. And you said before that polytheists are sort of all embracing and non violent.

I didn't say that all polytheist pagans are all-embracing of all people and non-violent. I've never mentioned violence at all.

I said that polytheist paganism is inclusive of all deities, in the sense that they accept their existence.

But the Roman Pagans were notoriously violent towards Christians.

I never said there was never any violence in historical Paganism.

I addressed it in an earlier response to you, but I will copy and paste it again here:

My personal reading of it wasn't that they were saying that historical Paganism has always been 100% inclusive to everyone. What it was saying is that pagan polytheism isn't exclusivist of other deities; they accept the existence of other deities in the way that monotheisms don't.

It's commonly accepted that the Romans didn't persecute Christians just because they believed in another God. The Romans were famously tolerant (in general) of the religious practices of the countries they conquered. When the Romans took over Britain, they allowed the Britons to continue worshipping the Gods and even syncretised some of those gods with their pantheon.

The Roman slaughtered the Ancient Druids, yes, but that wasn't due to the Druids' religion, it was because the Druids were fighting against the Romans colonising Britain. Same with the other old Celtic British tribes. The Romans fought them not because of religion, but because the Britons were refusing to roll over and let the Romans march in and take over.

With Christians, the Roman persecution was not because the Christians worshipped and believed in another God, per se. The Romans would have been okay with that in itself. What ignited the Romans' hostility to Christians was the fact that Christians were refusing to take part in civic rituals to the Roman Gods, which the Romans saw as treasonous to the Empire (they believed that the success of the Empire depended upon the deities being honoured and satisfied.)
If Christians had honoured the Abrahamic God but also agreed to pay lip service to the Roman Empire by participating in such civic rituals and practices, they likely would have been largely left alone. But the monotheistic nature of Christianity meant that they refused to even pay lip service to other deities, which the Romans thought threatened the well-being and security of the Roman Empire as a whole.

I'm not condemning the ancient Christians for refusing to take part in civic rituals and practices which honoured other deities; I'm pointing out that it wasn't a case of Romans persecuting Christians because they honoured a different deity. The Romans were probably happy enough to accept that that deity existed as well as theirs. For the Romans, it wasn't about theism/theology, it was about (in their eyes) the Christians' lack of loyalty to the Roman Empire - they were seen as traitors.

Interestingly enough, the Romans made an exception with the Jews and did not demand that Jewish people take part in Roman theistic rituals or pay any lip service to the Roman Gods. (They did persecute the Jews during uprisings against the Romans, but as with the British Celts, that was an issue of Roman power and domination over them, rather than religious differences.) It appears that because Judaism was such an old tradition even then, the Romans had some respect for it, and the Romans probably respected the fact that the Jews did not seek converts. The Jews also honoured the Roman Emperor by praying for him, so in turn the Romans did not demand that the Jews participate in any ritual sacrifices to the Emperor.

It's an interesting topic to be sure. I think the OP is trying to explain that there is another way to look at religion and belief other than from either a monotheistic viewpoint or indeed as an atheist.

I did check out whether polytheists have some kind of 'systematic theology' and it appears yes they do. Apparently Neoplatonic Polytheism (originating in the late Roman Empire) is one, or Modern Philosophical Polytheism is a more modern one.

So I do know a bit about some of these. Could go into details but it would be potentially outing which I don’t want.
I’m still wondering whether Hinduism would be included. I’m wondering because it’s a major religion widely practiced in the UK. The ones you mention , at least the ones I know about, belong to other times and places (don’t know anything about the Celtic one).

@SixtySomething

Hinduism is polytheistic, so yes, it is included.

All other religions I mentioned are still being practiced currently - so they exist in this time and place as well.

Hindus have terrorist groups.

Does that not make your premise wrong ?

India’s Hindu extremists are calling for genocide against Muslims. Why is so little being done to stop them? | CNN

@RedTagAlan

Again - I have never said or claimed that all polytheists are inclusive of all peoples and all religions themselves.

What I have said is that polytheism - as a philosophy - is inclusive of all deities.

Believing in a god's existence doesn't mean that someone necessarily likes or follows the religion that has been formed around it. I've come across a fair few Pagan polytheists who feel hostility towards Christianity (I personally find that a bit tiresome.) But those Pagan polytheists accept that the Abrahamic God of Christianity exists - they just don't like that god and don't like the religion that has been built up around it.

If you read through all my most recent responses to you, you should see where I have addressed the questions you asked.

When I say that polytheism - and I should say that in particular I mean pagan polytheism (Hinduism isn't pagan) is inclusive of all deities - ALL that means is that pagan polytheism accepts that all those other deities exist. They do not deny the existence of any deities.

That is what I mean by theistic inclusivity. That they accept that other deities exist.

I am not saying that all pagan polytheists are accepting and tolerant of all the adherents of those other religions or that they are all inclusive and tolerant of the other religions themselves.

All I am saying is that pagan polytheism does not deny any deity's existence.

I think of religions as cultural institutions. So I can accept ones with ancient roots but have been continuously practiced and adapted over time. I would struggle with someone who was a ‘believer’ in an ancient religion which had died out. I would think you could be influenced by an ancient religion but not be a believer.

Would you also apply that to the ones that are documented as having been "made up" ? Mormonism for example. It's pretty difficult to read the history of that and not conclude that Joseph Smith made it all up.

Well Smith didn't actually make it up - he said a being of light told him various things and he took that as being the visitation of an angel. Only who masquerades as a being of light? None other than Satan, the master of deception. Smith was deceived and as a result many were led astray. How can we know it was a deception? The 'teachings' received run counter to Biblical Scripture.

So if you think Smith was controlled in some way by a supernatural entity, does that not make you a polytheist ?

He did make it up as it’s an impossibility!

The whole Joseph Smith thing is an almost amusing story. He was a snake oil guy. Before he started the religion he was a treasure hunter. He charged people for him to divine their land.

The gold plates with Egyptian, His seeing stones to translate it. And of course, this was about the same time that the Rosetta stone was being used to unlock Egyptian Hieroglyphs. But Smith never knew that. The Egyptian he produced was gibberish.

No, because it was Satan who isn't a god. He wants to be one, though! 😂

Come on now. You know what I am going to say to that.

You could have cut the middle bit out by explaining why Satan is not a God. This might be one for you and @SorcererGaheris to sort out, and hopefully explain.

Why is Satan not a God ?

He's not a god because he was created. He's not omnipresent (thankfully). Satan can only be in one place at one time, unlike God. He's not all-knowing, either, nor eternal. God limits what he can do in this world.

It may depend on how @SorcererGaheris defines what a god is.