paganusgnosis-blog

[paganusgnosis-blog]

Some Arguments for Polytheism

This is a subject that has been playing through my mind for most of the evening. Not for the first time- it has occurred to me that one can actually make a strong case for polytheism.

Now I understand that not all pagans are polytheistic. I figured I'd better get that out of the way first.

However, it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that polytheism is the root of most pagan religions. Theology and concepts can indeed evolve, so not all modern pagans will find polytheism to their taste.

This post is only my attempt to bring some considerations for the reader to ponder. Then everyone will have to make up their own mind.

Now all things considered- polytheism is one of the oldest theological positions humans entertain. It could even be argued that polytheism is THE oldest, although that's certainly contestable...

In examining polytheism's merits we start at the same place any theological position does- the reality we observe.

Here we already find good evidence for building the case. We find a world that seems to have order. However, it isn't a uniform order.

Now when I say evidence, I mean of the philosophical kind that any theist deduces through argumentation and reason. Some would argue that it isn’t empirical that the world has an underlying order to it.

To avoid pursuing that argument, I need only say- it can be suggested. It is not outside the realm of possibility...

Accepting as a believer that the seeming order isn't merely speculation- I would like to carry the case a bit further.

Now the belief that the world has an order is usually divided into two main theological categories: polytheism and monotheism.

Naturally, there are several sub-categories of these like henotheism and pantheism- but most theistic stances fall under one or the other in the strictest sense.

Monotheism looks at the order through the lens of there being a single deity with a correct, preferred order. In monotheism, anything that goes against the deity's order is typically labeled 'evil'.

This idea of evil isn't without justification- for even monotheists must attempt to explain why reality does not appear uniform. Monotheists find themselves in the position of having to explain why a reality ordered by one deity can be complex enough to seem contradicting.

Now a polytheist would not necessarily deny evil can have something to do with reality's paradoxes, but it isn't the first conclusion we would go running toward.

I submit to the reader that monotheism finds itself in a rather interesting predicament with only a single deity. In that framework, everything in reality is subjected to one deity's preferences about correct and incorrect.

As such, monotheistic theology finds itself faced with some rather large philosophical dilemmas and contradictions. The most notable dilemma is the fact that in any given situation- more than one course of action can be good to the reasonable mind. There is not necessarily just one 'right way' to go about a thing.

Now for the sake of the argument, let us assume we all agree with the monotheists that 'real good' cannot be mixed with any bad. For a reference point- compare this to Epicurus's idea of real pleasure being unmixed (without suffering).

Going on this definition- we could find situations in which monotheists would be forced to call good actions evil. Imagine that we find ourselves confronted with a problem and there is more than one good way of resolving the issue. Because monotheists submit to us that there is only a single, personal god with a fixed law- only one of the actions can be the actually good one in resolving the problem.

We find that monotheism introduces a new kind of evil action through it's theology. Because even entirely good actions can be bad if the one deity doesn't approve.

I submit to the reader that this is a rather odd notion- is it not? Let us consider the case of marriage and divorce.

Indeed, if the one god thinks marriage is good, it follows that the other action is bad for the sake of being objective.

I hold that divorce can in fact be good, such as- one spouse finding themselves in an abusive or overbearingly miserable situation.

Now rather I am right or not, I can at least consider the position and not be inconsistent.

A monotheist cannot consistently say that two opposites are both good. To do so, they must deviate from actual monotheistic ideology and be subjective.

Remember that objectivity within a uniform reality is the entire premise of monotheism. When a monotheist brings subjectivity into it, their worldview is compromised. They are beginning to saw off the very limb upon which they stand.

To say that subjectivity has a place in monotheism is to undermine the very premise of it.

These are problems polytheists do not find ourselves faced with. We do not have to conclude that only one course of action is truly good in situations, while the others are bad on the basis of divine command.

It is also not necessarily subjective that polytheists choose different courses of action and call them good- since we don't build objectivity on a monotheistic foundation.

One divinity can find a thing preferable, while another deity can think a thing undesirable. This can in fact be the case. It isn't subjective if this is indeed the case.

Very well then- monotheism tries to account for the fluid nature of reality in a way some would find questionable. This is me trying to be kind...

The monotheistic worldview might at least be more convincing if it wasn't forced to cast good actions as bad. That there can be more than one 'right way' suggests from the get go that one deity cannot be behind it all.

One deity will have his or her idea of good, but another might have a different one. This appears in reality exactly as we would expect it to if many gods were behind the order. We find that there are many good courses of action in most cases.

But at the danger of making this blog post a mile long- I will only touch briefly on another point. I'll save any other points for another post. My other point touches on what we can deduce is possible through observation of reality- and what is impossible.

If there are gods, it is reasonable reality would reflect their reaching down to touch the world. We find that reality does not reflect anything remotely suggestive of monotheistic theology.

Monotheism holds ideas that are reasonably and logically impossible. It is one thing to believe in the supernatural, but another to entertain what cannot be. God's omnipotence, which is a core precept of all three Abrahamic religions is simply not possible. Why? Because of what power is...

Power is not boundless. The word power has a very clear definition. It only goes to power's utmost potential. I mean the maximum voltage possible with electricity or something like that.

To speak of a being with 'all-power' is possible. However, power without limits is incoherent. Power is something measurable by it's very nature.

I fear this blog post will run on forever, so I leave the reader with just that one point. The monotheistic idea of omnipotence is impossible. There are many other aspects of their theology that upon examination- is impossible.

Gods must not defy what is possible by all reasonable accounts. Indeed, they cannot, or we have truly entered the territory of the unreal.

I hope this post provides some good things to consider, at very least. Bright blessings!

[paganusgnosis-blog]

Let’s Make This Short and Sweet

I really didn't want to write a drawn out introduction. There will be plenty of lengthy articles on this blog in the future- and I don’t like long introductions.

So here's the short and sweet of it...

I'm a Hellenist. In broad terms that means I follow a Greek path. In narrower terms it means I am devoted primarily to the Twelve Olympians and identify as polytheist.

Please note that the twelve gods are not my only divinities, but they do come first. They occupy the chief place in my spirituality, but I also venerate others.

Besides venerating other spirits that the Greeks recognized (such as the four winds and Helios)- I also have a few divinities from other pantheons.

I know that this is questionable to some pagans and one pantheon is certainly enough.

Simply put: I was informed by my patron Olympian that I shouldn't put other deities that I once recognized out of my life. I understand that this is personal gnosis, so take it as you will.

I should also mention that Hellenism is not my only path. I also identify Unitarian Universalist and it is an important aspect of my spirituality. I do my utmost to live up to the Seven Principles and am active in my local UU congregation.

As far as Hellenism goes- I consider myself somewhat philosophical and do not usually treat our myths as literal. However, I do treat them seriously.

I look to the myths and epics for insight about the gods, for personal reflection, for pondering moral questions, and for a variety of other things.

I take seriously the justice of the gods, especially Zeus- believing that the Olympian sees charity and friendship as high virtues.

I consider my values both liberal and humanist. I hold as many of the ancient philosophers did- that being good to our fellow humans so far as we can is what the gods desire. I strive with many others to create a society of fair and just laws.

Holding Zeus to be my only king, I believe in the democratic process- however, I feel that is enough at present.

Thank you for reading this brief introduction. I kept it as short as I could, since there will be plenty of occasion to write longer articles. I hope that this blog will be useful and inspirational.

Blessed be!