Is monotheism a non-doctrinal rational stance?

[Trebla]

I suppose this could fit into the "Religion: The Deuce" thread, or even the "Is Atheism a Rational Stance?" thread. It seemed, however like a separate issue from the Atheism discussion, and a very specific aspect of "Religion" in general. Please merge if this thread is redundant.

---------------

A seemingly common claim is that once you have reasoned your way to Monotheism, the step to God of the Old Testament is a small (but significant one). Whether or not this argument is supportable, it seems to implicitly assume that Monotheism has been reasoned to. Clearly, if we use any religious doctrine to reason to monotheism, the step back to the doctrine in the assumption is trivial, so the argument seems to require that monotheism is supportable as the most rational explanation before any doctrines are examined.

Obviously this isn't new, there are many arguments for monotheism dating back to at least Aristotle. But do these really point to monotheism as the most rational explanation? I suppose the most likely explanation is that I don't understand a crucial step that's not being spelled out in a number of these arguments, hopefully someone here can clarify them for me. I'll address, briefly, my questions on each.

1) Ontological Argument (Being greater than any other conceivable being) - many famous objections, the most potent to me seeming to be the definition of a maximally great being. Classic example of "maximal mercy" vs "maximal justice". In any situation where a being practices maximal mercy, he is not practicing maximal justice, therefore could practice "more justice" and is therefore not maximal.

2) Cosmological Argument (Argument for an uncaused cause) - Even if we accept the argument as stated, it appears to be an argument for deism rather than theism and appears to have no preference for mono- rather than poly-. In fact, when applying a posteriori observations of causality (nothing has a single sufficient cause, but a combination of necessary causes) is a stronger argument for polydeism.

3) Teleological Argument (Argument from design) - Even if we accept the argument as stated, it appears to be an argument for deism rather than theism and appears to have no preference for mono- rather than poly-. Nothing in the argument requires the "designer" to be eternal, regardless of other properties, could have started the process and left. Nothing in the argument requires that the "designer" was singular.

Reference: This page discusses many of the following from a pro-monotheism stance but fails to address questions I have.

4) Argument from Divine Simplicity - I'll be honest, I'm not sure I understand this argument at all. It seems to create a new meaning for "Simple" and describes it using terms like "...can only appear to the finite mind as infinitely complex" and "can only be spoken of by analogy." The reference link above rejects this argument and states that many theists do as well, but I don't even seem to understand the premise, can anyone explain how the most complex being in existence can be the simplest?

5) Argument from degree/perfection - Raises the same questions about defining perfection as the Ontological Argument... a perfect being must be maximally great.

6) Argument for single designer (reference link above: section 4.1) - Summarily: If there were multiple independent creators, we would have things that appear at cross purposes or laws that behave differently in different situations. Newtonian physics vs Relativistic physics seem to demonstrate this conceptually. All sorts of things in nature appear to work at cross purposes as well. If we accept creation, observing war between societies would seem to imply that the societies had distinct creators.

7) Argument from total causality (reference link above: section 4.2) - Presupposes monotheism with "Necessarily, if anything is a god, its creative volition is the necessary and sufficient causal condition of every other concrete object." which defines "if anything as god" as "if there can be only one god". Circular argument. Logical fallacy. Or am I missing something?

8) Argument from omnipotence (reference link above: section 5) - If omnipotence is a property of god, there can't be multiple else one would necessarily be less powerful than the other. Omnipotence requires the same sort of response as the Ontological argument... "an omnipotent being would have the power to possess both maximal mercy and maximal justice". Further, omnipotence isn't required non-doctrinally. Multiple creators could exist with the functional appearance of omnipotence but with the properties that god A can create Alpha, which god B can't undo, and god B can create Beta which god A can't undo. Neither are "more powerful" than the other in the absolute sense. The strongest conclusion I can draw is that omnipotence isn't a property of god.

9) Argument from Total Devotion (reference link above: section 6) - Subset of Argument from Perfection without requiring maximal perfection, just relative perfection. Resolves the apparent paradox, but presupposes that God must be "More perfect than any other being" which is a restatement of monotheism creating another circular argument.

------------------

Obviously, some people accept these or a subset of these... so what am I missing that makes these seem "wrong" to me? I've discussed these with theist friends, but starting with a dogmatic belief makes it difficult to come at these discussions with the same assumptions. My questions have yet to be satisfied.

[LaserGuy]

Most theists that I've discussed this with tend to invoke Occam's Razor here. If you accept the premise that supernatural beings exist and can interact with us, the simplest explanation is that there is only one being. Which is nominally true, although I'm not sure that a one-being hypothesis necessarily explains the data better than a many-being hypothesis. But that's normally where I've seen the argument go.

On the other hand, I don't agree that it follows at all from "there is one god" to "there is one God, and He is the God of the Old Testament". Even if we concede monotheism, I don't see the path to the biblical God being all that much easier.

[TranquilFury]

Good luck bullying the monotheist into giving you a precise enough definition of god to make this judgement.

[jules.LT]

Most theists that I've discussed this with tend to invoke thoroughly misunderstand and distort Occam's Razor here.

FTFY

Ockham himself, though a theist, did not think that his razor could be used in favour of theism.

[DSenette]

based on the observable evidence it's MUCH more rational to land on polytheism. it's MUCH easier to assume that there's a god of this and a god of that, than one god who can control everything. we already have a model for task division, namely us. there's no one person that does everything, why should there be a god that does everything by themselves? it also makes it easier to explain why all the aspects that could be attributed to one god, don't agree. like how the God of Abraham "is love" but allows for (or causes, or encourages, depending on your reading) cancer, death, suffering, pain, torture, etc... it's much easier if there's a god of disease and a god of love. the god of disease is a dickhead and he doesn't care about you, but the god of love...man he's a great guy.

[Griffin]

Plus, man, have you ever, like, created a universe?

Shit's a lot of work! If there's help available, you're probably gonna wanna share the effort, and if there's one god-entity, no reason there can't be more. I mean, really, when you're working out the details of black hole generation, do you really want to spend time bothering with the underlying strata the universe is going to run on? I think not!

[DaBigCheez]

I'd argue that we have very little evidence for, once a thing's existence has been established, only one instance of that thing existing. For a given animal type (species) there's thousands or more of the buggers, there's billions of planets and stars and galaxies...I could see an argument based on "there's only one The Sun" and "there's only one The Moon", despite the existence of other stars and moons that aren't as important by virtue of not being Ours, but wouldn't that be more of an argument for a polytheistic pantheon in which we just don't care about the vast majority of gods/they don't care about us?

[Trebla]

The problem is that I agree with the conclusion that polytheism or atheism is supported equally well (or better) by the stated arguments for monotheism. What am I missing that causes these to be used as strong arguments for monotheism?

[morriswalters]

Monotheism is simpler in that you only have to keep one God happy,(is that Occam's Razor?) I mean look at how many Christian sub sects there are. It boggles the mind to consider polytheism in that context.

Of course all of the questions that you are asking assume that reason is involved in making the decision. I don't seem to be able to support that with evidence of any kind, if you find that I am incorrect please point me to the source. The leap from monotheism to Abrahamic Religions is no leap at all. I personally haven't seen any evidence that the belief in God or God's or the lack thereof occur in a conscious fashion at all. It seems to spring from some inner working that we don't have conscious access to, kind of like why that girl in the red dress appeals to you. We may become aware at some intermediate point that we have doubt one way or the other, and at that point we may be able to apply reason. But the reason can never be applied to the salient point, does something other than us exist as a higher power or not. So people seem to use qualitative assessments involving their personal idea about what is relevant and what is not. You know, Celestial Teapots, Miracles, and what have you. I hope this helped. Now I'll shut up.

[LaserGuy]

The problem is that I agree with the conclusion that polytheism or atheism is supported equally well (or better) by the stated arguments for monotheism. What am I missing that causes these to be used as strong arguments for monotheism?

This is going to be a gross generalization, but... most religious people's "reasons" for their faith are, in fact, post hoc justifications for something that they accepted on an emotional level, or, more likely, something that was simply culturally ingrained at an early age. These rationalizations are only developed later, and aren't terribly objective since you're starting from the conclusion and working back to try to build up premises to support it. Confirmation bias does wonders here--since you already know what you're looking for, alternative explanations or interpretations are rather dismissed out of hand.

[Alias1632]

(first time poster, long time ghost. much thanks for the food for thought over the years)

Looking at the broad questions here, I see two questions being probed;

1. Nothing -> Montheism

The problem with trying to trace this is its hard to find examples of this transition occurring. Its kind of like asking if you would invent an omelet if you had never cooked anything before. Most cultures seem to have gone like; [Nothing] -> [Animism/Ancestor Worship] -> [Poly-Thei/Dei] and then sometimes [Mono].

Once you have accepted the [Something] part, its now possible to argue about what path is more rational. The core logic here seems to be "There has to be a Biggest!" and then "IF there is a Biggest THEN the rest aren't big enough to count as Gods". Historically, it was usually argued most effectively as part of a "our god is the Biggest! and the rest aren't really gods - and we just kicked your armies in the nuts, so whose to say we are not the chosen people?" sort of way.

The problem with pinning down the [Nothing] -> [Something] part is that stuff happened in pre-history. Clearly, it happened, but we are short on witnesses. We can guess that there was a time before "religion" and that at point we start having "history" all the cultures that were around had some. This seems to suggest that it was a good idea at one point, seeing as the guys without it got hosed or assimilated. Even so, this tells us very little about how or why it originally happened.

When you take someone in the modern context who goes from "lack of faith" to "faith" its not really the same journey at all, because even if your not into cooked food, there are examples of cooked food all around you.

Basically, I suspect Monotheism is derivative.


2. Montheism -> Old Test

If you want to weigh inconsistencies in doctrine as "bad value" in religion, the Old Test makes more sense then many other options. In anything, additional layers of doctrine generally muddy the water.Without giving it much thought, I'd say Deist Agnosticism would be the most logical choice at that point, kinda like the smallest kid was hard to hit in dodge ball.

Here's a concept I got somewhere (I think it was a bus driver when I was a kid, but I'm not sure, so no reference);

"The 2 Out of 3 God"-

The core of the argument is that conceptualizing a being that is all powerful, all knowing, and benevolent is impossible. Keeping it simple, you can conceptualize a being that is any two out of three. Basically, for there to be "value" (good or evil) there has to be freedom of choice and a being that is all powerful and all knowing excludes freedom of choice. Freedom of choice requires the potential for error.

I think you can squeeze that concept over the Old Test if you try a little.... but the New Test just gets awkward.

Something that might be worth speculation on is; "Did monotheism offer competitive advantage to cultures that embraced it?" and you might be able to make a good argument for monotheism's rational from there.

[krogoth]

I would think any theism is an emotional stance, rather than rational. But it depends on what you are willing to accept as evidence and what your axioms are.

[yurell]

Trebla, as others have already said, you're not missing something in those arguments — they don't prove a monotheism.
For example, the Ontological argument can be used to point out an individual characteristic and assert that the being that maximally demonstrates that characteristic is your definition of God. But there's no compelling reason to not choose another set, and define the individual that maximally demonstrates that characteristic as a god, too, and as you pointed out there exist mutually exclusive sets, so you can't have one being that is the supremum of all sets. If anything, the ontological argument is more compelling for a polytheism, and perhaps more amusingly can have humans as 'gods' if they're the ones who maximally exhibit one trait.

I can't think of a single compelling argument for monotheism that weren't made from emotional appeals or by accepting axioms that I reject (e.g. the Bible is literal truth).

[infernovia]

The problem is that I agree with the conclusion that polytheism or atheism is supported equally well (or better) by the stated arguments for monotheism. What am I missing that causes these to be used as strong arguments for monotheism?

They aren't, and a lot of those up there are presupposed assumptions more than anything. The desire to believe in a god/monotheism/polytheism/deism or w/e, are vast and numerous. Those arguments come from a desire to force those personal emotional necessities into philosophy/logic. If you come from the assumption that god exists, moreover want them to exist, then they make some sense. There is not much else to gain from studying those claims selectively like that, as they are stupid by themselves.

I think the only interesting one that I ever came across was Pascal's wager.

[nitePhyyre]

The problem is that I agree with the conclusion that polytheism or atheism is supported equally well (or better) by the stated arguments for monotheism. What am I missing that causes these to be used as strong arguments for monotheism?

The thing you are missing is that there are no large sets of serious practitioners of polytheism. The argument goes like this:

1) Those arguments argue for *-theism.
2) I've only ever heard of monotheism.
3) Therefore, the arguments argue for monotheism.

Anyone making the arguments have basically only ever argued monotheism vs atheism. The fact that the arguments do nothing in the mono vs poly debate is simply an oversight.

Plus, man, have you ever, like, created a universe?

Shit's a lot of work! If there's help available, you're probably gonna wanna share the effort, and if there's one god-entity, no reason there can't be more. I mean, really, when you're working out the details of black hole generation, do you really want to spend time bothering with the underlying strata the universe is going to run on? I think not!

Well, wouldn't the group of god-entities just build a universe building machine? So from the perspective inside the universe, there would only be one god.

[Griffin]

Well, wouldn't the group of god-entities just build a universe building machine? So from the perspective inside the universe, there would only be one god.

So you're saying the machine itself would be god?

Though actually, the machine would be more the physical strata... god would be the instruction set, the program?

Hm... would the creators also be gods, though? What if there's an interface to allow them to directly meddle with/guide the world over time?

[Trebla]

So you're saying the machine itself would be god?

Though actually, the machine would be more the physical strata... god would be the instruction set, the program?

Hm... would the creators also be gods, though? What if there's an interface to allow them to directly meddle with/guide the world over time?

That gets to a different line of thought. If we are inside this machine, created by it as a singular source, that would functionally fit our view of "God" by various definitions, but not by the strictest, for this "God" would have had a source itself. I don't think any "major" religion would accept this as even a possible definition of God... which doesn't invalidate it, just makes it not fit the concept of a "God = supreme being" which seems important for monotheism.

[Griffin]

I dunno, I'd see the machine/program as the tool that "god" used to create the universe.

Maybe God isn't even the programmer, just the one one who pushed the button, who decide "I will make a Universe!", and pressed the button.

[Technical Ben]

Would you be surprised to know that the Jewish scripture and the Christian scripture both talk about a God that furnished "help" in producing the universe? Else why does it quote "God said" if He had no one to say it to? It mentions the one who worked beside God, for example (Proverbs 8:23, 26, 27, 30. Specifically verse 30. The other translations are more accurate than the old English King James version).

So, does a God that creates helpers to make this universe, count as a monotheism still? As Griffin said, would anything in addition be seen as the "tool" or helper or a god?

[LaserGuy]

If one god creates another god, then there are two gods, and you are polytheist. All of the Greek gods, for example, are children descend from the mother goddess Gaia (or Chaos, depending on your tradition), yet even though all gods were originally born of one, we still treat Greek mythology as polytheistic because they have many gods.

[Technical Ben]

But what is the defining difference between "God" and "gods" then? Do polytheists require those gods to be equal? For example, a grandfather can have 2 sons. Those 2 sons can be fathers. But there is only 1 grandfather (of them all).
As an example, do we not have multiple "rulers" in some nations? There could be many local councils, a few states, and one nation. Each step has it's authority, but there would be one president or prime minister. There is still only "one authority" even though there may be a delegation of it in between me and that authority.

Which is a more probable or reasonable in that case? Would the multiple authorities (or gods) naturally work under a single over reaching authority (or God)?

[morriswalters]

Angels anyone, the Trinity.

[LaserGuy]

But what is the defining difference between "God" and "gods" then? Do polytheists require those gods to be equal?

"God" is the common name for a very specific deity, namely Yahweh/Jehovah, the Christian/Jewish God. The term "gods" is a generic term referring to other gods that are not the Christian God, but are not necessarily lesser beings, or even beings that exist in the same traditions. Polytheism does not require the gods to be equal, no. Zeus was king of the Greek Gods (despite not being the creator god). But the other gods were not bound to follow his rules, necessarily, and some of them fought with him or attempted to undermine his authority. Moreover, people were not necessarily followers of Zeus. They could be followers of Aphrodite, or Athena, or Poseidon, or Hades, or whatever. Or perhaps multiple gods--giving tribute to Poseidon when they traveled by sea, giving tribute to Aphrodite when they needed help with love. On the other hand, in many polytheist traditions, the creator gods have little interaction with the world, and it is only subsequent generations of gods who take any interest in our affairs.

Polytheism, though, is a very generic term. It literally means "someone who believes in more than one god". That's it. It does not say anything about the hierarchy or relations between the gods.

For example, a grandfather can have 2 sons. Those 2 sons can be fathers. But there is only 1 grandfather (of them all).
As an example, do we not have multiple "rulers" in some nations? There could be many local councils, a few states, and one nation. Each step has it's authority, but there would be one president or prime minister. There is still only "one authority" even though there may be a delegation of it in between me and that authority.

Which is a more probable or reasonable in that case? Would the multiple authorities (or gods) naturally work under a single over reaching authority (or God)?

Depends on which polytheist tradition you subscribe to. Not all polytheist traditions have the gods working together for a common purpose, indeed, most don't. Not all polytheistic traditions have a single creator god either. The Egyptians had eight, representing the female/male halves of the four primal forces, for example.

[Trebla]

The Egyptians had eight, representing the female/male halves of the four primal forces, for example.

Greek mythology had four "equal" initial gods as well, Gaea, Eros, Chaos and Tartarus. Though Greek mythology is generally seen as treating them as being congruent with the universe, not creators of it.

I dunno, I'd see the machine/program as the tool that "god" used to create the universe.

This maintains monotheism (but doesn't inherently argue for it) if we posit a single being creating the machine, but not if multiple beings contribute to it. And really all this does is add another layer... instead of "A created *" we have "A created B which created *" and requires the same explanation as "A created *"

And the suggestion doesn't seem to require (or even prefer) a single to multiple creators. Taking a strictly a posteriori view, any machine that's complicated enough to serve a complex purpose (and the universe appears complex to me) has had multiple contributors, often across multiple generations.

[Griffin]

And the suggestion doesn't seem to require (or even prefer) a single to multiple creators. Taking a strictly a posteriori view, any machine that's complicated enough to serve a complex purpose (and the universe appears complex to me) has had multiple contributors, often across multiple generations.

That is ultimately the point I was making, yes. That even if there was one project lead, he probably didn't do it by himself, and the tools themselves probably couldn't be described as god, so the poly-bits seem most likely.

In fact, I'd argue any being that exists at that level, hand in the creation of the universe or no, would probably be classifiable as a god.

[Technical Ben]

Thanks. So would it be clear to say that both monotheism and polytheism can believe in multiple "gods". The difference between them is how many are worshipped. Is that right?
Even someone who believes in polytheism (say the ancient Greeks?) could decided to only worship one. Or someone who is Monotheistic could decide to worship "money", instead of the God they know of.

Even Atheists know "gods" exist. There are defiantly imaginary gods! Sometimes people are worshipped as gods too. Do those types of gods count?

I think this is important, because even if you believe in a multiple of gods, how can you follow all of them? A much wiser man than me said "No one can slave for two masters". Would that make monotheism more rational?

I guess that's reasoning to do with number 9 in the first post. Not just for "perfection" but for practicalities sake?

[LaserGuy]

Thanks. So would it be clear to say that both monotheism and polytheism can believe in multiple "gods"? But the difference between them is how many are worshipped?
Even someone who believes in polytheism (say the ancient Greeks?) could decided to only worship one. Or someone who is Monotheistic could decide to worship "money", instead of the God they know of.

A monotheist believes that one god exists. A polytheist believes that more than one god exists.

[Technical Ben]

So, are the Jews, and by extension the Christians, monotheistic or polytheistic? (IYHO)

[Jonesthe Spy]

The thing you are missing is that there are no large sets of serious practitioners of polytheism.

A few hundred million people in India would like to speak to you. Likewise a number of Buddhist sects, and a rather large amount of Japanese followers of Shinto. Just sayin'.

[Griffin]

Thanks. So would it be clear to say that both monotheism and polytheism can believe in multiple "gods". The difference between them is how many are worshipped. Is that right?

No, Monotheists, by definition, believe in a single god.

So, are the Jews, and by extension the Christians, monotheistic or polytheistic? (IYHO)

Monotheistic, though many Jews, and more strict Judaic sects (of any of the three branches), believe the trinity espoused by some churches to be inherently polytheistic and thus in opposition to the commandments. One of the primary tenants of Christianity is that there are NO other gods. (And also that you can't make any images of god, but look how well THAT one worked out. Christian churches have long had difficult keeping things consistant, and will often change the rules if it will convince new people to join.)

Even someone who believes in polytheism (say the ancient Greeks?) could decided to only worship one. Or someone who is Monotheistic could decide to worship "money", instead of the God they know of.

You can worship money, but if you worship as a god while still believing in the Christian God, you are no longer monotheist. I don't think anyone does that, though.

Even Atheists know "gods" exist. There are defiantly imaginary gods! Sometimes people are worshipped as gods too. Do those types of gods count?

You have a strange definition of both gods and exists here. If the person doesn't believe they are gods, then they are not polytheistic, no.

I think this is important, because even if you believe in a multiple of gods, how can you follow all of them? A much wiser man than me said "No one can slave for two masters". Would that make monotheism more rational?

What does something being easier have to do with it being more rational? That doesn't make any sense at all. It's perfectly possible to be a slave to two masters, its just very likely to be fucking miserable. Especially if they decide to fight over you. Generally, Polytheisms deal with this by not having their gods care about or desire worship, by not requiring worshipers to be "subservient" except-so-far as the gods interest were concerned and not all the time (saying prayers, making offerings, yearly festivals in honours), or by declaring ownership over certain areas or peoples or fields, so that people knew which god they were paying service to at any given time.

You realize not all gods have self-esteem issues that require people to worship them, right? Those sorts of gods fit pretty comfortably into polytheistic pantheons without any sort of problem! Even the greek gods traditionally didn't care about worship all much, beyond those whose lives were dedicated to the purpose. Though they would fuck you up if you did something to piss them off.

[infernovia]

I think this is important, because even if you believe in a multiple of gods, how can you follow all of them?

The same way we have multiple people involved in creating a movie and we might praise and follow the various people that were part of the crew. We might, for example follow a director like a Scorcese and an actor like Leonardo Di Caprio because they are both good at what they do. Replace movie with the universe and the people to gods. It's really not that hard and actually quite normal. The greeks for example can follow both the god of war and the god of music depending on the situation.

So this isn't supposed to be a complete analysis that is accepted of the bible today, but it's still a pretty decent overview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg Explains polytheism (belief in multiple gods) -> Henotheism (there are multiple gods, but one you can hold highly and one you can follow solely) -> Monolatrism (that there were multiple gods, but believed in the complete superiority of one god) -> monotheism (there are no other gods, there is only one god). I urge you to watch it if you don't understand the difference between the various different theism.

[Belial]

Monotheistic, though many Jews, and more strict Judaic sects (of any of the three branches), believe the trinity espoused by some churches to be inherently polytheistic and thus in opposition to the commandments.

Depending on the translation, the commandments only say that one is not to worship any god but yahweh, or that one is not to worship any god before yahweh. They say basically nothing about the existence of those gods, and one could even read that as yahweh confirming their existence.

But then, the idea of not just preferring one's own gods but actively disbelieving the existence of others' didn't really become a thing until way later.

And beyond that, any system for delineating polytheism from monotheism also has to decide what qualifies as a "god", since the word itself is just how we translate any number of other words in other languages. For example, a system that deems hermes (a guy whose power extends to running really fast and possibly turning into stuff) a god but the various archangels and lucifer as non-gods has to really answer for how exactly it's arriving at that. If you chose to throw out judaism/christianity's own labelling system and just compare stories, either the angels are gods (just lesser gods than yahweh) or vast swaths of the various polytheistic pantheons *aren't* gods.

So basically, monotheism is pretty subjective unless you have a belief system that contains one god and no other supernatural entities at all

[yurell]

That's a fascinating video, Infernovia ... the only ting I knew about the origin of Judeo-Christian mythology before that was 'Ba'al Zevul' (Ba'al the Exalted) -> 'Ba'al Zevuv' ('Lord of Flies') -> Beelzebub.

[torontoraptor]

Monotheistic, though many Jews, and more strict Judaic sects (of any of the three branches), believe the trinity espoused by some churches to be inherently polytheistic and thus in opposition to the commandments.

Depending on the translation, the commandments only say that one is not to worship any god but yahweh, or that one is not to worship any god before yahweh. They say basically nothing about the existence of those gods, and one could even read that as yahweh confirming their existence.

I was just about to point that out.

And beyond that, any system for delineating polytheism from monotheism also has to decide what qualifies as a "god", since the word itself is just how we translate any number of other words in other languages. For example, a system that deems hermes (a guy whose power extends to running really fast and possibly turning into stuff) a god but the various archangels and lucifer as non-gods has to really answer for how exactly it's arriving at that. If you chose to throw out judaism/christianity's own labelling system and just compare stories, either the angels are gods (just lesser gods than yahweh) or vast swaths of the various polytheistic pantheons *aren't* gods.

So basically, monotheism is pretty subjective unless you have a belief system that contains one god and no other supernatural entities at all

I'd have to disagree with this part though. Different religious systems can have radically different structures. So the Greek system has Hermes and all the rest of the Pantheon as Gods, and possibly the Titans as well, but the Jewish system has there only being one god (or one god that you should worship), who happens to have a bunch of angels as semi-sentient extensions of his will. If we were to just compare the stories, a more apt comparison would be between Odin's raven's (I know, different mythology, but still) and angels. The Greek system often assigns each god a particular area to rule over, for instance, Hermes was the god of among other things, commerce. If we look at the system through that view, then the Judeo-Christian god simply grabs all the areas of influence to rule over, leaving no room for other gods.

[Griffin]

Except in modern Christian dogma, god gave dominion over hell to the devil, for whatever reason, and put him in charge of sinning, so technically it's got at least two gods then, right?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Would you be surprised to know that the Jewish scripture and the Christian scripture both talk about a God that furnished "help" in producing the universe? Else why does it quote "God said" if He had no one to say it to? It mentions the one who worked beside God, for example (Proverbs 8:23, 26, 27, 30. Specifically verse 30. The other translations are more accurate than the old English King James version).

Bro, scroll up. The verses to which you are referring are a part of a poem, and they are being attributed to Wisdom. As in a personification of Wisdom, the abstract ideal. By no stretch of the imagination is this a claim that some other god was present at the creation of the universe.

But what is the defining difference between "God" and "gods" then?

On some level, it doesn't matter. Traditional Christianity makes it quite clear, both through its holy book and its creed, that there is only one god. So, however you draw the line, if you're describing Christianity you must draw it so that you don't end up with more than one of them.

Except in modern Christian dogma, god gave dominion over hell to the devil

No, I'm quite certain this isn't true. The devil "prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8) and then later gets his ass kicked/consigned to hell in the Apocalypse of John. He's never in charge of the place.

[LaserGuy]

Except in modern Christian dogma, god gave dominion over hell to the devil, for whatever reason, and put him in charge of sinning, so technically it's got at least two gods then, right?

Christianity has a devil, yes. Judaism, no. My understanding is that there is a satan or possibly satans in Judaism (not necessarily a capitalized), but they are servants of god like the angels. The satan act as a prosecutor (the word transliterates to "accuser") of sorts, with God being the judge.

[Technical Ben]

Spoiler:

Monotheistic, though many Jews, and more strict Judaic sects (of any of the three branches), believe the trinity espoused by some churches to be inherently polytheistic and thus in opposition to the commandments.

Depending on the translation, the commandments only say that one is not to worship any god but yahweh, or that one is not to worship any god before yahweh. They say basically nothing about the existence of those gods, and one could even read that as yahweh confirming their existence.

But then, the idea of not just preferring one's own gods but actively disbelieving the existence of others' didn't really become a thing until way later.

And beyond that, any system for delineating polytheism from monotheism also has to decide what qualifies as a "god", since the word itself is just how we translate any number of other words in other languages. For example, a system that deems hermes (a guy whose power extends to running really fast and possibly turning into stuff) a god but the various archangels and lucifer as non-gods has to really answer for how exactly it's arriving at that. If you chose to throw out judaism/christianity's own labelling system and just compare stories, either the angels are gods (just lesser gods than yahweh) or vast swaths of the various polytheistic pantheons *aren't* gods.

So basically, monotheism is pretty subjective unless you have a belief system that contains one god and no other supernatural entities at all

Thanks Belial. That's spot on! Wish I could articulate like that.
With there being many different "types" of god, would we need to define which ones we mean? Are we talking about creator gods? To have authority? To have power? To be worshipped?
So, is the belief in the existence of a god or gods more important than the action of worship or devotion?


TheGrammarBolshevik, that seems about right for the Devil as described. Judaism has the one challenging God and Job (Job 1:6). This one is described as "Gods enemy", right? They may not have power or authority, but people could worship them. Are these the "gods" forbidden from worship by the Law? Taking both the Jewish scripture and the Christian then, as you said, we have an "accuser" and a "resister". Sounds like an opposition, not an assistance, does it not?

Job 38:4-7 mentions that there were "sons of God" who could give applause at the creation of the earth. So could it be read that the creation accounts where God is speaking, he is speaking to actual personages? Did God create mankind first or the angles first in the bibles description?

[bentheimmigrant]

Except in modern Christian dogma, god gave dominion over hell to the devil

No, I'm quite certain this isn't true.

Yes and no. Doctrinally it is not true, but in terms of common belief it is. There are many Christians who believe the devil rules over hell, as is evidenced by its ubiquitous occurrence in culture (if I may be not so serious... Bill and Ted, many Far Side comics, a multitude of horror movies, etc.). So I suppose it would be more accurate to describe it as a modern Christian meme.

[Zamfir]

TheGrammarBolshevik, that seems about right for the Devil as described. Judaism has the one challenging God and Job (Job 1:6). This one is described as "Gods enemy", right? They may not have power or authority, but people could worship them. Are these the "gods" forbidden from worship by the Law? Taking both the Jewish scripture and the Christian then, as you said, we have an "accuser" and a "resister". Sounds like an opposition, not an assistance, does it not?

The story of Job is, in its core, far older than the particular version that became part of the bible. It might predate anything resembling Judaism, let alone the strong monotheism we associate with it.

So if you ask what "Judaism" means with the devil figure in Job, who do you mean? Judaism (or any other religion) is not a monolithic entity with a single mind.

Some people might have taken the devil figure as a pure allegory for bad things. The oldest storytellers of the story might have intended him as a true dualistic equal of the good god, or at least a similarly powerful being. Or a subservient creature who is eventually part of god's plan, or who is allowed by the single god to roam free. The writer or writers of the particular Job story in the bible might have considered different again, and the people who decided to include it as formal text might be others yet again.

Many readers and listeners throughout time (both judaic and christian) might have understood the story as essentially dualistic, even if formal doctrine denied that possibility. And formal doctrine itself changes throughout time, and between different streams.

The same is true for similar questions: a religion doesn't have a single authorative opinion on such things. It's a fuzzy social phenomenon. There is some coherence throughout the phenonemon, and relatively authoriative sources within it (like the Vatican). But it's misleading to take such sources for the religion as a whole.