Is monotheism a non-doctrinal rational stance?

[infernovia]

I am not sure if you can just say "monotheism is subjective." It's quite clear to me that Judaism and Christianity does not believe in the existence of other gods even if you could kinda sorta swing some passages to a certain way, and that would possibly be because the old testament is just that huge. The religion, in anycase, is a far cry from the greek's, the roman's, the nordic gods, the Egyptian. The existence of mythical beings in a religion does not make mythical beings god. I mean look at the description of Hermes in Wikipedia, pretty sure this isn't how people see angels (which are more like nymphs and satyrs, not gods)

Among the functions most commonly linked to him in Greek literature are messenger of the gods, and god of language, speech, metaphors, prudence and circumspection, as well as intrigues and covert reasons, fraud and perjury, wit and ambiguity. Thus he was a patron of speakers, heralds, ambassadors and diplomats, messengers and thieves. He was believed to have invented fire, the lyre, the syrinx, the alphabet, numbers, astronomy, a special form of music, the fighting arts and the gym, the cultivation of olive trees, weights and measures, and various other things.
Due to his constant mobility, he was considered the god of commerce and social intercourse, the wealth brought in business, especially sudden or unexpected enrichment, travel, roads and crossroads, borders and boundary conditions or transient, the changes from the threshold, agreements and contracts, friendship, hospitality, sexual intercourse, games, data, the draw, good luck, the sacrifices and the sacrificial animals, flocks and shepherds and the fertility of land and cattle. In addition to serving as messenger to Zeus, Hermes carried the souls of the dead to Hades, and directed the dreams sent by Zeus to mortals

Anyway, the reason polytheism exists is because the greeks, the hindu, the egyptian, the romans never thought there was just ONE way to appease the gods. In Christianity and Judaism, your interaction is kinda "you are banished or you are up there with god in the end." Whereas polytheism holds that there are multiple things a person can be interested in and he might follow one or another path but there is no one true path that will work for all cases, and the gods are created for this exact reason. A god for war! A god for music and social relationship! A god for physical fitnesse! A god for knowledge and science! A god for beauty and love which also breaks people's hearts for this exact reason! A god for fertility! A god for hunting! A god for great merriment and feasts! Comparatively, it is very different in the monotheistic side. This is the reason why monotheism was held as an aberration by the romans, and also why the birth of monotheism is kinda interesting in a psychological way.

[Griffin]

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.

Going solely by sourcework, there's no Hell to be ruled over, so yeah - religion is a personal thing, hence all the different sects and branches, and a great many (most, at least, in the US, I think) Christians believe in Satan's dominion over hell. So I think it should count for something in the discussion. Maybe dogma was the wrong word for it, though - I don't know how many people preach such things to their flock, maybe it doesn't happen.

I guess the earlier reference to "Henotheism" might best describe that sort of situation? Multiple gods, but only one worth following.

Christianity has a devil, yes. Judaism, no.

Yeah, that's why I stuck to "modern Christianity" for that line.

[yurell]

Modern Christianity is broken up into scores of sects, so I imagine you can find one for most stances.

[Technical Ben]

Spoiler:

I am not sure if you can just say "monotheism is subjective." It's quite clear to me that Judaism and Christianity does not believe in the existence of other gods even if you could kinda sorta swing some passages to a certain way, and that would possibly be because the old testament is just that huge. The religion, in anycase, is a far cry from the greek's, the roman's, the nordic gods, the Egyptian. The existence of mythical beings in a religion does not make mythical beings god. I mean look at the description of Hermes in Wikipedia, pretty sure this isn't how people see angels (which are more like nymphs and satyrs, not gods)

Among the functions most commonly linked to him in Greek literature are messenger of the gods, and god of language, speech, metaphors, prudence and circumspection, as well as intrigues and covert reasons, fraud and perjury, wit and ambiguity. Thus he was a patron of speakers, heralds, ambassadors and diplomats, messengers and thieves. He was believed to have invented fire, the lyre, the syrinx, the alphabet, numbers, astronomy, a special form of music, the fighting arts and the gym, the cultivation of olive trees, weights and measures, and various other things.
Due to his constant mobility, he was considered the god of commerce and social intercourse, the wealth brought in business, especially sudden or unexpected enrichment, travel, roads and crossroads, borders and boundary conditions or transient, the changes from the threshold, agreements and contracts, friendship, hospitality, sexual intercourse, games, data, the draw, good luck, the sacrifices and the sacrificial animals, flocks and shepherds and the fertility of land and cattle. In addition to serving as messenger to Zeus, Hermes carried the souls of the dead to Hades, and directed the dreams sent by Zeus to mortals

Anyway, the reason polytheism exists is because the greeks, the hindu, the egyptian, the romans never thought there was just ONE way to appease the gods. In Christianity and Judaism, your interaction is kinda "you are banished or you are up there with god in the end." Whereas polytheism holds that there are multiple things a person can be interested in and he might follow one or another path but there is no one true path that will work for all cases, and the gods are created for this exact reason. A god for war! A god for music and social relationship! A god for physical fitnesse! A god for knowledge and science! A god for beauty and love which also breaks people's hearts for this exact reason! A god for fertility! A god for hunting! A god for great merriment and feasts! Comparatively, it is very different in the monotheistic side. This is the reason why monotheism was held as an aberration by the romans, and also why the birth of monotheism is kinda interesting in a psychological way.

This is what I was trying to get at. That the defining factor between polytheism and monotheism is less to do with how many gods exist, but more to do with how many should be worshipped. I agree that in Judaism the other "gods" are only those considered false, imposters or imaginary. With only a single "true" or existing God. By extension, only one way to worship God. It recognises there are many things that can be worshipped, but only one that would have any value in worshipping. Hence why the usage of "god" and "God". One is considered an imitation or imposter, one the original and correct.

Judaism defiantly has one creator, right? So one God. But does that mean it ignores all other creative works after that point? It believes in one universal authority, right? So one God. But dies it mean it ignores all other authority? It recognises one all powerful one, right? So one God. But does it ignore all others who have power? Dow we not have to be careful we only rule out other "gods" from a monotheism? We don't rule out other "authorities", "powers" or "creators", that may exist below a God. Say for example, "humans" who have all of the above abilities to some degree.

Where does the idea of an imposter to a God fall? Monotheism or polytheism? Or where does the idea of a God who delegates power and authority fall? Monotheism or polytheism?

[torontoraptor]

[
Where does the idea of an imposter to a God fall? Monotheism or polytheism? Or where does the idea of a God who delegates power and authority fall? Monotheism or polytheism?

"Sir, someone is on the line, saying he is the President of the United States!"
Don't be ridiculous, I'm sitting next to the President right now!
Well I guess there are two Presidents then.

See the problem?

I'm the President! I'm going to make you my Secretary of Defence!
Does this mean there are two Presidents now?

Again, problem.

So President delegating authority, and can be faked, monotheism (or monopoliticism? I don't know)

Roman Triumvirate, multiple people in positions of power, with no one above them, polytheism.

[Trebla]

Where does the idea of an imposter to a God fall? Monotheism or polytheism? Or where does the idea of a God who delegates power and authority fall? Monotheism or polytheism?

Seems to be a salient question. Monotheism seems to state, at its most basic level without any supposition of creation, omnipotence, etc, that whatever hierarchy exists terminates at a single source of authority. To stick with government analogies...

Monotheism - There may be many Lords with absolute power over their properties, but there's a single King with absolute power over all the Lords.
Polytheism - There are many Kings with absolute power over all their lands, and each is distinct and does not have a ruler with power over him.

At it's simplest form (if I understand the terms correctly) it's simply a matter of how many entities are at the highest level with no actual entity above them. In the polytheism analogy, all kings could be ruled by a global emperor, but that doesn't mean such an emperor must exist. So even if we assume many gods, it can be conceivable that there's a single one that rules them all, which would (functionally) elevate that god to God status and the rest to some sub-god terminology. Thomas Aquinas' claim seems to be that such a God must exist and the arguments in the initial post are ones that claim to demonstrate that. These arguments often posit other qualities that also "must" be attributes of God. In some cases, they even posit singularity right away ("There exists a single being that is both necessary and sufficient for every other being") and use that to prove singularity.

Worship seems to be completely irrelevant to the question of "Is monotheism (i.e., The existence of a single node at the top of the existence tree) the most logical conclusion one can draw from a priori and a posteriori reasoning?"

[yurell]

Polytheism - There are many Kings with absolute power over all their lands, and each is distinct and does not have a ruler with power over him.

How do you reconcile this with polytheisms with a king god, but other subservient beings which are also recognised as deities in their own right?

[Technical Ben]

Thanks Trebla. I agree that with the definition of Monotheism being able to include: "There may be many Lords with absolute power over their properties, but there's a single King with absolute power over all the Lords."
It seems only the extreme end of the scale to Monotheism fails to notice that other authorities or "Lords" exist.

Granted, we could not call these other authorities "Gods". Although the term "god" might apply, with the understanding that in context, we would only mean "god like". That is, someone with authority, is acting like a god in some respects. Just as someone with power could be, or someone using their ability to create could also be.

The Jewish scripture (and by extension the Jews back then) included this description. Psalms 82:6 "I said, You are gods [or godlike beings]..."

[Griffin]

Historically, though God != creator. That's a Judaic thing, that the creator god is the only God.

In many cultures, the creators are overthrown, or have no authority over other gods, and other gods can be equal or even more powerful, even if the creator made them.

I think the key of the pantheons with "king gods" is that there's often an implicit belief that they can be overthrown. In Greek tradition, they were! Several times. No one being had absolute authority, though there beings powerful enough to exert their authority over others.

There may be one King, but that doesn't mean the other god-beings are actually lesser in any particular or meaningful way - except, perhaps, ambition.

[mosc]

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.

Ok, lets stop trying to be such a smartass all the time with the Jewish name for god. God doesn't have a name in Judaism, or a gender for that matter. Yahwah, or Jehova, or whatever you want to say is really a mispronunciation of the common word for god in the Torah. The Correct pronunciation is Adonai. The spelling is Yud, Hey, Vuv, Hey. If you want to LITERALLY pronounce that, even though a Jew wouldn't, it would sound like Yehveh. Not Yahweh or Jehova. Is this the name of god to Jews? NO! God is expressed in may different words in addition to Adonai, most with a Gender. For example, Shekhinah (sp is difficult in english) is a feminine name for god, usually used when expressing god's presence. There are plenty of other times a word like Emet (truth) is used for god as well.

I find this entire thread a little amusing discussing monotheism by a bunch of folks that don't seem monotheistic. I guess what you're "missing" is the concept of limited understanding. Most Deists believe in a being that exists beyond human understanding so inherent in the definition is some level of stuff we don't understand. For example, "god is unknowable" is a rather circular statement by nature. It also expresses the core assumption a Deist makes when describing a divine being. It is a being that exists in a manner we cannot explain or understand. Similarly, the aspects of god may seem polytheistic from a human perspective, but that does not rule out that they are monotheistic in true nature. Thus a human being's rational stance is quite incapable of validating or invalidating the divine.

[Zamfir]

Mosc, aren't you backprojecting the tradition of modern Jews to the past? Yahweh is a guess what the people said who wrote the texts, who might well have been vaguely polytheistic with that word as actual name for a particular deity they liked most. Modern Romans write dio, say dee-oh, which usually refers to a single nameless god, who is also often referred with words meaning lord, creator, shepherd. That doesn't change that ancient Romans wrote the same word as deus, probably pronounced it something like day-oos, and used it for a whole pantheon of named deities.

[mosc]

I'm inclined to agree, but I think monotheism itself is a concept in today's religion not in the history of the religion. The evolution of Judaism and the religion's own annuls are somewhat contradictory on these points too, which I was trying to avoid. Monotheism as a "rational stance" has to do with how we define it today.

It is a valid point about language though, and words for god are no exception. Things change over the millennia no doubt. I don't think Belial was referring to a form of Judaism that hasn't been practiced since the destruction of the second temple though, he was talking about Jews now.

Even talking about the historical "YHWH" (however you want to say it) and it's meaning in the temple service so many centuries ago, it was not the only name of god. It was just a more intimate and direct way of referring to god directly, rather than a humanly observed aspect of god (like god's presence, shekhinah). It was used basically when begging for one's life for the year to come. It's a little out of context to treat it like a first name for your buddy.

[Technical Ben]

Mosc your correct that there are many terms for God. Why is this one particularly a problem? A president may also be called by his sir name, first name or title. Does it matter which one is used? Which one is more common? What if we use a "nick name"? If it's a historical name, and the pronunciation is unsure, why argue over a trivial aspect? I understand it may be offensive to some, held as too holy to speak of. However, it was used by those who wrote it in scripture or used it in worship.

Would you say Moses was a monotheist or polytheist? Would he count as a modern Jew, or an original Jew? What about Abraham? How about King David? How about someone who practices Judaism today, they are monotheistic too, right? So would Belials comment apply to both modern and historic Jews? I think it does.

I don't know of a time in the past or the present where Judaism was not monotheistic. I'd argue that Christianity was monotheistic originally. Christ was a Jew, right? But most modern Christians follow something very different to what was originally written down.

The examples you give Griffin, would they be rational to reach if we consider the available evidence? Which would be the more rational conclusion to get to: That a god created another god he could not control, and was overthrown. Or that a God created something less powerful than himself, to prevent such a thing happening? Or perhaps a third option as has been mentioned, that multiple gods co-created or existed?

[Griffin]

The examples you give Griffin, would they be rational to reach if we consider the available evidence? Which would be the more rational conclusion to get to: That a god created something another god he could not control, and was overthrown. Or that a God created something less powerful than himself, to prevent such a thing happening? Or perhaps a third option as has been mentioned, that multiple gods co-created or existed?

You've got... this weird obsession with rationality.

None of them are rational conclusions. They are all [insufficient information]. As suppositions, they all seem equally viable. The first is certainly common enough - either through arrogance, desire for peers and a willingness to accept the risks that come with, or simply a lack of foresight. I can imagine many gods that wouldn't even particularly mind being overthrown - what if they enjoy creating universes a lot more than running then? But I can easily see the desire of a hypothetical god to create equals, which by definition would be beings he could not control, if it was in his power. Further, it might be a group of lesser deities that overthrow one strong one and crown one of their own.

(b) is also a perfectly viable supposition, depending on the attitude of the god in question. However, this implies a certain amount of foresight, control over the creative process, and willingness to be surrounded by subordinate beings that not all god concepts share, that's for sure. And he'd have to make them not only weaker than him individually, but weaker /collectively/.

(c) is obviously viable, and would probably be a common result of (a). After all, if a god created one peer, why not more? And if the god came from somewhere, or nowhere, why couldn't others? Should any god exist, (c) seems like the most likely supposition to be true.

[mosc]

Would you say Moses was a monotheist or polytheist? Would he count as a modern Jew, or an original Jew? What about Abraham? How about King David? How about someone who practices Judaism today, they are monotheistic too, right? So would Belials comment apply to both modern and historic Jews? I think it does.

Q: What is the name of the Jewish god?
A: 1- God doesn't have a name, 2-God has several names 3-God is an abstract concept most often referred to by an unpronounceable word which is said "adonai", literally written Yud, Hey, Vuv, Hey 4-The name of god changes with the intended meaning of the interaction WITH god. 5-Whatever you personally want it to be

I would accept any of those answers, not "Yahweh". It's factually incorrect, I'm sorry. It is also not correct to say that in history, this was ever the (singular) name of the Jewish God.

To your questions directly, I would say that Judaism grew up in a polytheistic world and is by nature not concerned with other people's faiths. It tends to err on the side of elitism and superiority, not telling others what to think. For example, Jonah's story includes his interactions with non-jews on a ship talking about Gods and he does not correct them or denounce them for being polytheistic. Acceptance of other people's Deity could be interpreted as Polytheistic to some, but I don't think tolerance implies agreement. Abraham's spiritual beliefs are defined almost purely by being monotheistic and against idolatry. I would go further and say he is a characture of these concepts so of course he is monotheistic. Moses, similar to Jonah, interacted substantially with non-Jews and is described with the same tolerance, but I do not think of this as polytheistic. I don't think Moses would have refered to god as Yahweh, or anything close to that. I don't read the ten commandments that way.

King David was a political leader as well as a religious figure and in many accounts was responsible for institutionalizing monotheism into Judaism, removing the traces of polytheism that remained. Archaeological discoveries in recent years have uncovered first-temple era relics which are believed to be idols. More than this, they appear to be polytheistic idols. God may have had a wife, for example. It seems natural that ancient Canaanites were polytheistic like most of the world and adopted monotheism gradually during this period. At what point do you call them Jews though? The name implies a set of modern religious concepts so I would be reluctant to call these polytheists anything more than proto-jews or somesuch. Jews are monotheistic by definition.

Probably a more literal answer than you wanted, yes?

[yurell]

Q: What is the name of the Jewish god?

Answer from Exodus 34:14: "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:"

As for Yahweh not being factually correct ... why not? I don't understand Hebrew, but I was given to understand that:

... אהיה אשר אהיה ... כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם: ... יהוה אלהי אבתיכם ... זה־שמי לעלם ...

From Exodus 3:13-15 contained the name YHWH, and that Biblical Jewish dropped vowels ('Yahweh' probably from the Canaanite El-Yahweh, the evolution of which the video linked by Infernovia goes into). Also, there's a wikipedia page on the matter (isn't there on every matter) ... why is it wrong, or am I misunderstanding it/you?

[Technical Ben]

Thanks Griffin. I do not disagree with what rationality is. Just that I think there is enough information and evidence to come to a conclusion. (Although I would not assume my conclusion is the correct one, but that the correct answer can be found)

Mosc. You are correct that there was tolerance of others. However, just as Jonah did to the Ninevites, there was also a warning to worshipping false or imaginary gods when it was appropriate. As to Moses, what name was he told to give to the Israelites for a God? Bear in mind, that there are 10 gods* that were proven "imaginary" to Pharaoh, but one that had an effect on his life, and that of the Israelites (in the story). Was it not rational for Moses and others to remove the multitude of gods when they proved not to exist? Did Moses, Abraham or the other prophets use rational deduction or evidence to decide on such factors?



*For example the god of the Nile, god of fertility, god of the domestic beasts etc were proven powerless to stop the plagues.

[Griffin]

Ben, your question literally had nothing to do with rationality. You pretty much asked:

Which is more rational? That someone named Tony went to the store to buy some oranges? Some meat? Some pizza?

There is no rational answer to that question (though there are answers we can deduce as rationally unlikely. He probably didn't go there to buy a camel). It depends on us literally being able to know the mind of god. And that is something even the Christians don't believe they can do. If god is powerful, he can very likely do any of the three, and thus it is down to what he /decides/. And we have no particular reason to believe a god would decide one way or another.

[Technical Ben]

Is it that we cannot know "any part" of the mind of God, or just that we cannot know "all the parts" of the mind of God? As I am certain I can comprehend a mind in it's simplest form, so the phrase "you cannot know any part of the mind of God" is false.

So it's not an impossibility to consider such a thing. Even you admit we can deduce "He probably didn't go there to buy a camel" in the example you gave. We can see what Tony brought back from the shops in your example, right? We can look and see he got oranges. The scriptures suggest they saw what God did and thus could make a conclusion from those actions. Would you consider that open for interpretation or an example of how to get a definite result?

Is there evidence to see if we have an orange, meat or a pizza? What would we expect to see from a multitude of gods, a less powerful god, or an all powerful God? We know what such systems look like when people are involved. How do they decide who a ruler is? If there is a contested rule, an imposter, a shared rulership. Is there a difference with these that can be observed?

So, there is a multitude of gods proposed (a polytheism) and some of those gods are found to be imaginary or false. Would someone then reason it correct to remove them from their beliefs?

[Griffin]

Is it that we cannot know "any part" of the mind of God, or just that we cannot know "all the parts" of the mind of God? As I am certain I can comprehend a mind in it's simplest form, so the phrase "you cannot know any part of the mind of God" is false.

So it's not an impossibility to consider such a thing. Even you admit we can deduce "He probably didn't go there to buy a camel" in the example you gave. We can see what Tony brought back from the shops in your example, right? We can look and see he got oranges. The scriptures suggest they saw what God did and thus could make a conclusion from those actions. Would you consider that open for interpretation or an example of how to get a definite result?

Woah, man. You just tore up those goalposts and ran out of the stadium with them. The question was about "A god" not specifically the Christian god! And my comment on Christians was about knowing the /mind/ of god. You can't know what god decided, you can only know what he's told you. No one was around to see him create anything, after all -even the bible is all after the fact.

For the Christian god, yeah, duh, the only rational conclusion, on the part of someone who holds the Bible to be accurate, looking back, is he didn't create anyone equal to or greater in power than him. Of course, say for a minute God DID create someone, and get overthrown. Even destroyed! How would we know? We wouldn't. Everything else would be pretty much exactly the same, assuming the new God was fairly similar to the old. Unless he had some desire to gloat about overthrowing his daddy, like Zeus did, but that doesn't seem likely (for the Christian god). But that wasn't what you asked me, and wasn't the question I answered! If we're talking generic possible gods, we've got no evidence he brought back oranges, as you were. And if we're talking omnipotent beings, there's no real camel-level limitations we can impose - a man can't get camels form the grocery store, because they have no camels. A god can do whatever he wants, pretty much!

Is there evidence to see if we have an orange, meat or a pizza? What would we expect to see from a multitude of gods, a less powerful god, or an all powerful God? We know what such systems look like when people are involved. How do they decide who a ruler is? If there is a contested rule, an imposter, a shared rulership. Is there a difference with these that can be observed?

In some traditions, yeah. Greek tradition, multiple gods was a "duh" thing, because evidence of them is clear. Whole world looks to be full of conflicting influences! Clearly these are merely the clashing boundaries of different beings influence. This is why the Christians created the devil, after all. To explain away evil, they had to create a conflicting deity, even if a significantly weaker one. In some, of course, he's only a demigod, a servant of god, but in other traditions he is god's arch-nemesis. Either way, there's good evidence, should we accept divine influence, of conflicting divine influence, and thus multiple gods.

Even if he did create other beings of equal power, how would we know? What if they just sort of chill with him, or generally do his work, or don't do his work but share his goals so there isn't issue?

We very very very much do not have enough information to decide that any of these options would make a more rational belief than the others. (The rational belief here would be to assume no gods exist at all, since that's the null hypothesis)

Personally, if there are gods, I'm going with the option of there being a lot of them from the get-go. Because its experientially and experimentally aberrant to be one of any class of thing. This isn't a whole lot of good at the level we're operating on, but its the best sort of evidence we've got. If you want to impose monotheism on that, you can say there's a fuckton of gods, but only one of them is interested in us, and you'll have pretty much the same interactions record as what we've got.

Maybe the others just have some sort of fascination with blackholes, or each god got its own planet, etc. and so.

So, there is a multitude of gods proposed (a polytheism) and some of those gods are found to be imaginary or false. Would someone then reason it correct to remove them from their beliefs?

If this a reaction to the Egyptian god thing, I was under the impression it wasn't so much that the other gods were found false as that the hebrew god was shown to be significantly more powerful. After all, the Egyptian gods had been doing there things for a long time, but it was pretty normal Egyptian tradition for newer, more powerful gods to elbow the old ones out of the way.

[LaserGuy]

If this a reaction to the Egyptian god thing, I was under the impression it wasn't so much that the other gods were found false as that the hebrew god was shown to be significantly more powerful. After all, the Egyptian gods had been doing there things for a long time, but it was pretty normal Egyptian tradition for newer, more powerful gods to elbow the old ones out of the way.

Judaism wasn't ever a particularly important religion in Egypt, actually. Egypt's religious traditions definitely evolved, but the gods that they ended up with were characters like Ra and Osiris and Isis, and jumped from polytheism to Christianity through the Christian conversion of the Roman Empire in the late 300s.

[Technical Ben]

Just a quick reply for now. If one of the Egyptian gods was "Pharaoh", he died and proved powerless to resist a simple shepherd who was not a god (Moses). Well, would it be right to take Pharaoh off the list of gods? I don't think he fits the term at all. How about the 10 failed gods? I don't think the "god of the river" (Hapi?) fits the term "god", if another God or god is actually controlling the river. Is that a strong indication that the particular polytheism the Egyptians followed was incorrect?

I think that is a rather clear way to help them decide if their polytheism is correct or the monotheism was more correct. As the thread title says, was that a "non-doctrinal" change? They saw the answer with their own eyes.

(Remember though that in the main the question is about the Jews and Israelites, not the Egyptians. But both are covered in the example.)

[Soralin]

Well if we actually lived in a polytheistic world, wouldn't you expect to see stuff like that? Lots of gods in those worlds were capable of dying. And it would seem reasonable that you can end up with gods with a wide range of abilities or powers. Some gods might be powerful rulers, other gods might deal with some local river, just as some human might be president, and another human might work at the local water treatment plant.

Gods are largely just mirrored on humans after all, humans with additional powers, or the idea that features of nature are actually more human than they really are, or have some human-like traits. So it would make sense that you could mirror human society onto them as well. Not to mention, there are numerous stories, where mortals have defeated or killed gods. Or look at superheros for a modern example, where people create a variety of characters with wide ranges of abilities and power levels. Give a wide number of people the ability to make stories, and they aren't all just going to end up the same. And then people can come along and try to combine various sets of them into the same world, and try to make it work together in some coherent whole.

Not to mention, in many such stories the gods could produce offspring with mortals. So not only are you going to have demigods, you're probably going to end up with 1/1000th gods, someone who had a god or two in their ancestry 10 generations back or so. Or vice-versa, gods could have the occasional mortal in their ancestry. Even more pointing to the idea that you're going to end up with a smooth continuum, rather than 2 discrete points.

[Technical Ben]

Which brings me back to my question before. What makes those "gods" and not just powerful people or things? What makes the sun a god rather than "just a thing" to the Egyptians? What made those powerful beings in myth gods rather than just creatures or people? Was it their power or that they were worshipped?

Which ever aspect we use to define a god, is it not because it is seen the have the most of that aspect? Perhaps power or authority? If it's got less power or authority, do we define it as a god? One that would be worshipped or recognised? If a person decides they have more power, does it make them a god too?

Perhaps the question is "should someone follow many gods or look for the highest god to follow?" If we take out the word "god" and just use "authority", we get the question: Should we try to follow all authority or look for the highest authority to follow?

[qetzal]

Which brings me back to my question before. What makes those "gods" and not just powerful people or things? What makes the sun a god rather than "just a thing" to the Egyptians? What made those powerful beings in myth gods rather than just creatures or people? Was it their power or that they were worshipped?

Which ever aspect we use to define a god, is it not because it is seen the have the most of that aspect? Perhaps power or authority? If it's got less power or authority, do we define it as a god? One that would be worshipped or recognised? If a person decides they have more power, does it make them a god too?

This is a huge recurring issue in all these threads, and the fact is that different people and cultures have different criteria for what constitutes a god. There is no broad agreement on what constitutes a god, so there is no universal answer to your question. You can stipulate which criteria define a god in your opinion, or for the sake of a given discussion, but I think that's about it.

Perhaps the question is "should someone follow many gods or look for the highest god to follow?" If we take out the word "god" and just use "authority", we get the question: Should we try to follow all authority or look for the highest authority to follow?

Depends on what you believe, I guess. What if there were one highest, most powerful authority (god), but it said we should do things that seem awful (e.g. sacrifice living babies)? What if there were also a lesser authority/god who opposed that highest power, saying human sacrifice was wrong? Should we do what the highest authority says, even if it seems wrong to our limited, human sense of morality?

[infernovia]

Which brings me back to my question before. What makes those "gods" and not just powerful people or things? What makes the sun a god rather than "just a thing" to the Egyptians? What made those powerful beings in myth gods rather than just creatures or people? Was it their power or that they were worshipped?

And what makes YOUR god a "god" and not just a powerful tyrant or something that you worship because of his power?

Gods are "mythical being" (in the sense that every god is mythical) that are imagined with great power, powers beyond humanity. Satyr and nymphs were never thought of as superior to humans, or as leaders. As monsters to be avoided maybe, but not as someone you would follow and ask for a favor.

Which ever aspect we use to define a god, is it not because it is seen the have the most of that aspect? Perhaps power or authority? If it's got less power or authority, do we define it as a god? One that would be worshipped or recognised? If a person decides they have more power, does it make them a god too?

Perhaps the question is "should someone follow many gods or look for the highest god to follow?" If we take out the word "god" and just use "authority", we get the question: Should we try to follow all authority or look for the highest authority to follow

God, as a concept, has been throughout history used as something that cannot be questioned or debated or put at stake. The concept simply IS, and it was made divine. With polytheism, you may have a bunch of things that were enshrined as valuable "in itself", with monotheism, you follow only one and forbid others to follow other paths as if led by a dictator. So if you are a follower, these beings could become gods, that is beyond criticism and a zealous attack on anyone who thinks otherwise. If you are a creator, as someone who wishes to put their teachings at stake, then there is no use of speaking of them in that manner.

Btw, you are just playing around with words to try to pre-emptively get to your conclusion that god can only be of one thing. Well, you aren't going to get it. A hierarchy of gods doesn't mean you only follow the LEADER. In the same way that we have political, economical, scientific, militaristic, artistic powerhouses and don't demand that they all be focused on only ONE aspect of humanity.

[Technical Ben]

Thanks qetzal. It's a valid question though, to know what someone defines as their god/God. Most would only consider a god if the god had an effect on their life and had some form of (rightful) authority. Would we still call a being that does not act and is never worshipped a "god"?

That's the only reason I thought of the example of Moses and Pharaoh, did they find out what a "god/God" could be? I would have to agree only in part with Infernovia. Most religion does want to hide behind a wall of unquestionable authority and dogma. But was that always the case? If Pharaoh thought he was a "god", then how can we say "Gods are mythical being[s]"? Because Pharaoh existed and was not mythical. He had power and authority. Did that make him the God or a god? Could he be questioned? Could the God of Moses be questioned? The 10 gods of Egypt were questioned, what answer did they have? The God of Moses was questioned (by Moses and Pharaoh). What answer was given? Was it a dogmatic answer or were they given physical evidence?

As to a political system, there can still be a single overriding aspect. That could be a law, leader or group of people. I don't think it's impossible to consider those things when it comes to people. It may not mean you only follow the leader, but it is a possibility. If you see any contradictions, you always go to the top of the chain. Is there any contradictions in religion? Do we observe any contradictions in the physical makeup of the universe?

If there is a shared authority, does it not look different than a single authority? If both systems worked the same, or had the same results, why would we talk about them being different?

[Copper Bezel]

Would we still call a being that does not act and is never worshipped a "god"?

Aristotle certainly did.

For the rest, please read the Wikipedia article. There are a lot of points of factual inaccuracy or uncertainty in this thread that are being treated as ambiguous points of discussion where they just ... aren't.

[Soralin]

Which brings me back to my question before. What makes those "gods" and not just powerful people or things? What makes the sun a god rather than "just a thing" to the Egyptians? What made those powerful beings in myth gods rather than just creatures or people? Was it their power or that they were worshipped?

Which ever aspect we use to define a god, is it not because it is seen the have the most of that aspect? Perhaps power or authority? If it's got less power or authority, do we define it as a god? One that would be worshipped or recognised? If a person decides they have more power, does it make them a god too?

Perhaps the question is "should someone follow many gods or look for the highest god to follow?" If we take out the word "god" and just use "authority", we get the question: Should we try to follow all authority or look for the highest authority to follow?

What makes you assume that "gods" isn't just something that refers to powerful people or things? Or that the word "god" necessarily has something to do with power or authority at all?

Personally, I wouldn't ever use the word "god" to refer to anything that exists. It's simply a word that has too many differing connotations, too much baggage, that if I were to use it to describe something to someone, it would bring with it many, likely false, connotations, which would vary greatly from person to person, and often be contradictory even, making it useless for communication, to actually describe anything. Because of that, it's not even a useful word for me to think with, because it brings in too many connotations with it, a large portion of which would largely likely end up false in practice, even if you found something that got somewhere close on others. Other than in fantasy at least, where you can make your own world to fit the definitions of your choice, and where that definition only applies to that world.

[infernovia]

I would have to agree only in part with Infernovia. Most religion does want to hide behind a wall of unquestionable authority and dogma. But was that always the case? If Pharaoh thought he was a "god", then how can we say "Gods are mythical being[s]"? Because Pharaoh existed and was not mythical. He had power and authority. Did that make him the God or a god? Could he be questioned?

And why was the pharoh considered divine? Because they wanted his power to be absolute, and beyond criticism, beyond question (well, as long as the civilization was prospering and he could "validate" his supernatural power). Anyway, you are [pedantically] correct, but I don't see why it matters. I don't see what your questions have to do with anything, they seem to be all over the place with no clear direction to it.

[Griffin]

Which brings me back to my question before. What makes those "gods" and not just powerful people or things?

Because they were divine, obviously. Unconstrained by the mortal world, existing on a level higher than us as independent and powerful beings in their own rights, for whom the human world was something to which they could, but did not need to, turn their attention.

Why are you a human when the president is more powerful than you? Doesn't that just make you some slightly smarter mammal? It certainly doesn't make you human, right? Man, I don't want to see the next time you talk with your boss, saying you don't have to do what he says because he's not the highest authority - after all. the president is more powerful than him!

No, because the line of questioning is absurd.

Your line of thought doesn't result in worshipping the most powerful being (which may not care about being worshipped), or the most relevant being (who is most likely to respond to your prayers, but may not be the most powerful, because the most powerful god couldn't give a damn about YOU - he's got far better things to be doing with all that power). Heck, it may just be that the Egyptian pantheon supported getting rid of the Hebrews, and so let their god do whatever he wanted for a while. And even if every last one of them was "fake" or "false", while the Hebrew god was real - if he was all-powerful, how did his chosen people ever get into that situation to begin with? How do you know he wasn't just one of the Egyptian gods that wanted out? I mean, historically, the Abrahamic god spent a lot of time /accumulating/ power. He started out as part of a pantheon himself, after all! And not even as a particularly powerful member of it. It is strange how many of his powers harken back to his days as the God of Water, though. Maybe he just proved the most ambitious god. Is mere ambition enough of a reason to worship something?

Having the most authority is not the same as having the most impact, and I'd argue impact is a far more valid a means of deciding who to worship than authority, unless and until the higher authority decides to replace or negate the impact. (Doesn't mean the other being becomes less a god, simply a god less worth worshipping)

Finally - You seem to have what amounts to zero understand of the whole Pharaoh thing. Let me turn the question on you to help you understand better. Jesus Christ was killed by the Romans, proving powerless before them. Does this not mean the Romans are more powerful than your god, and thus a greater authority?

[Technical Ben]

Well, if we are asking about polytheism against monotheism, which proved to be correct in the example of Pharaoh and the God of Moses? Granted, we are not in the same situation, but could we make similar examinations or observations today?

Was it a doctrinal decision to become monotheistic in that example? Or was it rational and evidence based? The original question was, can we get to a monotheistic belief without doctrine (un-questionable assumptions)? However, is the example of Pharaoh and Moses an example of questions being asked about the beliefs? I think it is. It also had two types of question, and two results.

It had the wrong questions, the dogmatic one of sticking your fingers in you ears and ignoring the evidence. To me, that's what Pharaoh did. Then it had the right questions (perhaps "who" and "why" and "how") that ask for evidence and require the questioner to take an action (although possibly not one considered an "experiment"). Moses did just that.

As to the definition of "gods" and the words today, well, even the wiki writes it as: (Italics mine, for emphases)

Henotheism (Greek εἷς θεός heis theos "one god") is the belief and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities.

As to "dieties":

A deity is a recognized preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers.

A deity, is not necessarily a god. We have two words with clear and different meanings. I also see a clear distinction between gods, deities and supernatural. If the word "god" is problematic, then we can say "is it worship, authority, creator, power, etc that we want to look for". What do you think the original poster was looking for (they gave 9 examples )?

PS, Griffin, I turn my boss down every day when they ask me to do illegal things (things the authority of the country decides I cannot do)! I agree both authority and impact (that is effective results from the authority) is needed. Your example of Jesus is one of these. Even in not reacting, he had more impact than the action of the Romans! If I decide not to burn down a house, when I have the power to create fire, does that make me powerless?

[Griffin]

...

Seriously, your argument now rests on gods and deities being different things?

Seriously?

Deity, literally, etymologically, and pretty much every other denotational way, means "god". The only difference is in connotations - calling something a god implies you worship it, calling it a deity means it does not. The word only reflects anything about the person using it, not the being in question. Deities is also generally more used for the pluralities and god for the singular, for whatever reason.

"capital G" God is more in line with what you're describing (and, by definition precludes polytheism, so its a good thing that's not what we're talking about). And some polytheistic religions have one of those, too, the 'all-deity' or 'creator', but that doesn't stop the others from being gods.

PS, Griffin, I turn my boss down every day when they ask me to do illegal things (things the authority of the country decides I cannot do)! I agree both authority and impact (that is effective results from the authority) is needed. Your example of Jesus is one of these. Even in not reacting, he had more impact than the action of the Romans! If I decide not to burn down a house, when I have the power to create fire, does that make me powerless?

There's the point, sailing away over your head. 1st part I already fucking addressed - read my posts. And then, actually answer the question in the way intended, in the way YOU framed. You argued that you should not listen to him AT ALL, because he wasn't the highest authority. Not just you should avoid listening to him when he conflicts with the law (which, by the way, doesn't even come from the president, and can exist despite his express opposition. It only comes from "lesser" politicians, right? HMMMMM.)

Since you agree both authority an impact is needed, if there was some local deity, a god who protected some small town from various effects, made it peaceful and successful despite having no wider impact, but was able to exert significant authority and impact over its inhabitants despite the existence of a stronger worldwide god (maybe he doesn't care, or doesn't mind, or simply hasn't noticed), would it be worth worshipping as a god?

And you example about Jesus... makes my point for me, exactly? So I guess you concede on that front?

[Zamfir]

A deity, is not necessarily a god. We have two words with clear and different meanings.

But that's just a quirk of the English language. Other languages don't make the distinction, or draw the lines different. And the meaning of those words in English is highly tied to Christianity, since for a long time that was the nearly universal religion of English-speakers.

As example, it is not self-evident to translate the word god (As in the bible) into Chinese. I think even nowadays, catholic and protestant translations use different words, and even different protestant groups use different translations.

[Technical Ben]

Sorry if it's not been clear Griffin. I did not say I should always ignore my boss (or all authority) just that I would when it goes against the highest authority. Would you agree with that?

If we question those who believe in monotheism or those who believe in polytheism, what is the defining difference in those peoples lives? A belief may have no effect on their lives (they could believe in fairies, but it would have no effect), right? However, how and what they worship (the authority they recognise) would have a large effect on their lives. Would this not be one of the most important things to consider when we ask the questions posed in the beginning of the thread?

Since you agree both authority an impact is needed, if there was some local deity, a god who protected some small town from various effects, made it peaceful and successful despite having no wider impact, but was able to exert significant authority and impact over its inhabitants despite the existence of a stronger worldwide god (maybe he doesn't care, or doesn't mind, or simply hasn't noticed), would it be worth worshipping as a god?

I am not sure what would make it a god, and not just a person who protects and makes peace? Are you saying it is a god because it has super human power? Ok, lets say it is a "god" for now, what would that mean then? To me, it would be the same as my boss and the president (or national courts who decide laws). We would follow the advice and requests of the one protecting the town, until it breaks the authority or protection from the higher authority. We still have to recognise and observe the national laws and boundaries though. Do we get to ignore those just because a local one is active? If we do, then what happens?

If the national authority "doesn't care, or doesn't mind" then we are not going against it, are we? We are working along with it. They gave us the choice or boundaries to work with and within. It's only when there is a conflict of law that there would be a decision to make, who to listen to, the local or the national authority. What happens when there are two conflicting laws, say local and national?

[LaserGuy]

Was it a doctrinal decision to become monotheistic in that example? Or was it rational and evidence based? The original question was, can we get to a monotheistic belief without doctrine (un-questionable assumptions)? However, is the example of Pharaoh and Moses an example of questions being asked about the beliefs? I think it is. It also had two types of question, and two results.

You are aware that the Exodus never actually happened, right? It's not a historical event, so there's no reason for us to expect that it would have any effect on how religion in Egypt actually developed.

[Griffin]

Sorry if it's not been clear Griffin. I did not say I should always ignore my boss (or all authority) just that I would when it goes against the highest authority. Would you agree with that?

But you do acknowledge that you should, generally, obey your boss. Essentially, that a man can have two masters, even when one of those masters is more powerful than the other. This is in pretty stark opposition to your earlier arguments, but a good sign of philosophical growth.

If we question those who believe in monotheism or those who believe in polytheism, what is the defining difference in those peoples lives? A belief may have no effect on their lives (they could believe in fairies, but it would have no effect), right? However, how and what they worship (the authority they recognise) would have a large effect on their lives. Would this not be one of the most important things to consider when we ask the questions posed in the beginning of the thread?

No. Can you explain how any of that is relevant? I mean, you don't need to worship anyone at all to be a monotheist, and the OP explicitly mentioned deism, so... colour me confused. I've got no idea how that is relevant. It was a question about belief, not worship.

Ok, lets say it is a "god" for now, what would that mean then? To me, it would be the same as my boss and the president (or national courts who decide laws).

Right. Lesser god (divine, supernatural authority), but still a god.

We would follow the advice and requests of the one protecting the town, until it breaks the authority or protection from the higher authority.

Okay, yup, everything is good so far.

We still have to recognise and observe the national laws and boundaries though. Do we get to ignore those just because a local one is active? If we do, then what happens?

We would only ignore those if we were monotheists, silly! Since we're talking polytheists, of course not! Just like we don't ignore federal law when we're working for a specific employer. So you seem to to be following along.

If the national authority "doesn't care, or doesn't mind" then we are not going against it, are we?

Right.

We are working along with it.

Wrong. We are not working against it, but that doesn't imply we are working with it. We just... aren't working against it.

They gave us the choice or boundaries to work with and within. It's only when there is a conflict of law that there would be a decision to make, who to listen to, the local or the national authority. What happens when there are two conflicting laws, say local and national?

Right. Usually you'd go with the one that would cause you more trouble. Sometimes, if you think the higher authority won't act on it, you'll go along with the local one since it leaves you better off. If you think the higher authority will notice, and protect you from the repercussions, of course you side with him. If neither of these are true, you get fucking screwed - oddly enough, there's lots of polytheistic stories with people getting screwed in this exact manner. No one said polytheism was pretty.

Anyways, .... wait, is that all? What was the point to all that? Was it just a demonstration that you understand how polytheism could be perfectly rational, then?

[EdgarJPublius]

Couldn't 'God' be a sort of gestalt? that seems to be what some Christians are about with their 'three-in-one' doctrine.
To go back to the 'machine god' idea, 'God' may actually be a gestalt of the designers/builders/users of the machine, and to us there's no really way to differentiate one user from another, or from the machine itself. Perhaps 'God' isn't the president, 'God' is the whole government.

Conversely, if you have a group of entities that together can create a universe, or can create a machine that can create a universe, why stop there? Why not make a multiverse instead, or multiple machines which together create a multiverse?
In that case, there may well be multiple 'Gods', but only one that ever interacts with us or our universe, and so only one 'God' worth considering.

[infernovia]

Right. Usually you'd go with the one that would cause you more trouble. Sometimes, if you think the higher authority won't act on it, you'll go along with the local one since it leaves you better off. If you think the higher authority will notice, and protect you from the repercussions, of course you side with him. If neither of these are true, you get fucking screwed - oddly enough, there's lots of polytheistic stories with people getting screwed in this exact manner. No one said polytheism was pretty.

Power dynamics 101. :p

Anyway, I will say it again technical ben, come out and say what your position is and reasons behind your belief. Right now we could rename this thread to "answer and solve technical ben's problems with understanding polytheism and the semantic language used to describe religion." And while that's fine and all, 2 pages of it certainly makes this a comedic discussion rather than a serious one.

[Trebla]

This question about "What does monotheism mean?" seems pretty disingenuous. It doesn't need to be something that everyone agrees on, even... whatever it means, if it's the logical (I shouldn't have used the word rational) conclusion, then it should follow directly. And anyone arguing for it, obviously has an idea of what it means.

The arguments in the original post demonstrate that. For instance one posits "Perfection is an attribute of a god" and then attempts to deduce that if it is an attribute then it cannot be the attribute of multiples, and concludes monotheism... I find the argument self-defeating in that it's unable to define "perfection" in such a way that makes it possible to be an attribute. And thus where my question arose. Every argument seems to have a pitfall like that.

Not that the digression about the difference between an "angel" and a "deity" isn't interesting.