Dismantling the "gods"

[Question123]

Is there any way to prove that polytheism is false without resorting to St. Thomas? Including his proofs on why God must be omnipotent. I don’t want to get too reliant on Thomas so I thought it would be nice to have a rebuttal that’s not based on his philosophy. I don’t know why polytheism would necessarily be false if you presuppose an eternal universe if you don’t rely on Aquinas.

 

[vames]

Common sense: polytheism is an attempt to explain the universe by anthropomorphizing (or attributing animal spirits to) each natural phenomenon. This is a mark of primitive, pre-scientific thinking. There must be a god responsible for thunder and ligthning, another responsible for water and oceans, another for fire, another for plants and harvests, others for human love or death and so on. So if you want to avoid a natural disaster or to obtain a good harvest, you have to worship a particular god. Also, the unpredictability of natural phenomena is attributed to the caprices of various deities who often fight amongst themselves. This kind of thinking is reflected in children’s talk when they refer to the sea, the night or the sun as if they were conscious beings. Poetry and folklore preserve this language. As humankind grows up and becomes more knowledgeable about natural science, its thinking evolves towards abstractization and generalization, so polytheism becomes obsolete and the idea of a single Creator displaces it.

 

[Contarini]

Is there any way to prove that polytheism is false without resorting to St. Thomas? Including his proofs on why God must be omnipotent. I don’t want to get too reliant on Thomas so I thought it would be nice to have a rebuttal that’s not based on his philosophy. I don’t know why polytheism would necessarily be false if you presuppose an eternal universe if you don’t rely on Aquinas.

Thomas’ argument is the best for doing what it does. The problem is that it really doesn’t address any actual form of polytheism. It proves that several Ultimate Beings can’t exist. But polytheists don’t believe in several ultimate beings.

All polytheism, it seems to me, ultimately resolves into atheism or monotheism. In other words, either there is a single ultimate Being or there isn’t. Whether there is or there isn’t, there may be various superhuman beings who are worthy of veneration, and these may or may not be called “gods.” Philosophically, the point isn’t terribly important.

Edwin

 

[Just_Lurking]

In an online class I watched, the professor made the claim that early man did believe in an overarching, universal God, but viewed it as being above all the petty problems they were facing. Thus, they prayed to lesser godlike beings who might actual care whether they got hit by lightening or not.

 

[Grym]

Common sense: polytheism is an attempt to explain the universe by anthropomorphizing (or attributing animal spirits to) each natural phenomenon. This is a mark of primitive, pre-scientific thinking. There must be a god responsible for thunder and ligthning, another responsible for water and oceans, another for fire, another for plants and harvests, others for human love or death and so on. So if you want to avoid a natural disaster or to obtain a good harvest, you have to worship a particular god. Also, the unpredictability of natural phenomena is attributed to the caprices of various deities who often fight amongst themselves. This kind of thinking is reflected in children’s talk when they refer to the sea, the night or the sun as if they were conscious beings. Poetry and folklore preserve this language. As humankind grows up and becomes more knowledgeable about natural science, its thinking evolves towards abstractization and generalization, so polytheism becomes obsolete and the idea of a single Creator displaces it.

Just a thought. Might not the (almost) same argument be used to deny a Monetheistic God in favor of Science?

And thus contraproductive to the purpose?

/Victor

 

[Grym]

In an online class I watched, the professor made the claim that early man did believe in an overarching, universal God, but viewed it as being above all the petty problems they were facing. Thus, they prayed to lesser godlike beings who might actual care whether they got hit by lightening or not.

That pretty much sums up Hinduism.

Cheers
Victor

 

[Contarini]

That pretty much sums up Hinduism.

Cheers
Victor

No, not really, because Hinduism believes that divinity is found within both “gods” and humans–indeed within everything. This is rather different from the “deus otiosus” view that this professor is ascribing to “early man” (and which was clearly held by many ancient Greco-Roman pagans as well as by adherents of many traditional African religions).

Furthermore, the majority “devotional” forms of Hinduism believe that God seeks out contact with human beings through avatars, etc. This is quite different, again.

It isn’t that God is “remote” in Hinduism so much as that God pervades everything, in many forms.

Edwin

 

[ccmnxc]

Maybe I am totally abusing the principle, but all things being equal, couldn’t we just use Ockham’s Razor to say that it is more parsimonious to believe in one Supreme Being than one Supreme Being + a bunch of smaller, weaker gods?

 

[polytropos]

Granting that God is the creator of all that is not-God, any other gods would just be creatures of God (like us). In short, polytheism is not really consistent with the existence of God as conceived by Catholics, since any other gods are necessarily 100% ontologically dependent on God. I don’t see why such entities should be called “gods” if they are fully dependent on another being–God–for their existence and causal efficacy.

Do such creatures exist? Well, maybe it’s possible that the Greek pantheon is sitting on Olympus, as long as it was created by God. Do unicorns exist? Perhaps we just haven’t seen them. But without evidence or argument, there seems to be little need to suppose that they do.

This response seems Thomistic in spirit, but I don’t feel like it’s cheating since the notion of a simple God on which all else is dependent just is the Catholic conception of God.

If you’re willing to indulge in a little Aquinas, I think you could formulate this argument:
1). Definition: An entity is divine if and only if the entity is a divine substance.
2). Premise: God exists and is divine.
3). Premise: The divine substance is purely actual.
4). Premise: If an entity is not divine, then it is neither a god nor God.
5). Premise: A purely actual substance is unique.
6). Excluded middle: Any entity is either divine or not divine.
7). If an entity is divine, then it is unique. (hypothetical syllogism, 1, 3, 5)
8). Therefore, any entity is either God or neither God nor a god. (constructive dilemma, 4, 6, 7)

Skimmed over a few logical steps, but the basic structure is there. 1). seems plausible to me. 2). is conceded for the sake of argument. 3). is a plausible Thomistic premise (it seems like someone would have to grant it if they were going to bother making an argument that Catholicism does not rule out polytheism). 4). is analytic.

5). is the important premise, but can be argued for reasonably in my opinion. It is analytic that a purely actual substance has no potentialities. Suppose there are two distinct purely actual substances. To be distinct one must have some potentiality relative to the other. But this is impossible. So any purely actual substance must be unique.

 

[vames]

Just a thought. Might not the (almost) same argument be used to deny a Monetheistic God in favor of Science?

And thus contraproductive to the purpose?

/Victor

Sure, but this is how things are; this is not the Apologetics forum. As long as you don’t believe in multiple gods anymore, you have only 2 choices (post #3). More interesting IMO is how does science really influence the belief in one single deity: for ex. there is a huge difference between the God of the OT, who was fully anthropomorphized and placed “above all the other gods”, and the “emerging” Christian beliefs in a panentheistic God, seen as the “ground of being”. But this is already offtopic, I guess.

 

[Question123]

Granting that God is the creator of all that is not-God, any other gods would just be creatures of God (like us). In short, polytheism is not really consistent with the existence of God as conceived by Catholics, since any other gods are necessarily 100% ontologically dependent on God. I don’t see why such entities should be called “gods” if they are fully dependent on another being–God–for their existence and causal efficacy.

Do such creatures exist? Well, maybe it’s possible that the Greek pantheon is sitting on Olympus, as long as it was created by God. Do unicorns exist? Perhaps we just haven’t seen them. But without evidence or argument, there seems to be little need to suppose that they do.

This response seems Thomistic in spirit, but I don’t feel like it’s cheating since the notion of a simple God on which all else is dependent just is the Catholic conception of God.

If you’re willing to indulge in a little Aquinas, I think you could formulate this argument:
1). Definition: An entity is divine if and only if the entity is a divine substance.
2). Premise: God exists and is divine.
3). Premise: The divine substance is purely actual.
4). Premise: If an entity is not divine, then it is neither a god nor God.
5). Premise: A purely actual substance is unique.
6). Excluded middle: Any entity is either divine or not divine.
7). If an entity is divine, then it is unique. (hypothetical syllogism, 1, 3, 5)
8). Therefore, any entity is either God or neither God nor a god. (constructive dilemma, 4, 6, 7)

Skimmed over a few logical steps, but the basic structure is there. 1). seems plausible to me. 2). is conceded for the sake of argument. 3). is a plausible Thomistic premise (it seems like someone would have to grant it if they were going to bother making an argument that Catholicism does not rule out polytheism). 4). is analytic.

5). is the important premise, but can be argued for reasonably in my opinion. It is analytic that a purely actual substance has no potentialities. Suppose there are two distinct purely actual substances. To be distinct one must have some potentiality relative to the other. But this is impossible. So any purely actual substance must be unique.

What I mean though is say for example someone hypothetically accepts a nonThomistic or Aristotelian based argument like the argument from design after perceiving order and the laws of nature, sort of like various points the previous Pope made about God being Logos. Now that’s great and all they say, but they say they don’t know why it would have to only be one God designing rather than a couple or a bunch of socalled gods of differing intelligences who are united in will to fashion from matter (b/c you can’t prove that the world was created) order and the laws of nature.

Same could be said of other arguments that one might come up with eg the moral argument that seems to be used a lot.

I feel that only Thomas can answer those potential objections and the other arguments don’t which is why I made the thread.

 

[polytropos]

What I mean though is say for example someone hypothetically accepts a nonThomistic or Aristotelian based argument like the argument from design after perceiving order and the laws of nature, sort of like various points the previous Pope made about God being Logos. Now that’s great and all they say, but they say they don’t know why it would have to only be one God designing rather than a couple or a bunch of socalled gods of differing intelligences who are united in will to fashion from matter (b/c you can’t prove that the world was created) order and the laws of nature.

Same could be said of other arguments that one might come up with eg the moral argument that seems to be used a lot.

Hmm, all right. Well, the way you respond is definitely dependent on what sorts of argument you’ve presented for God’s existence. I don’t know how someone defending a standard design argument would be able to respond to the objection, for (to take William Paley’s example) a watch could be created by one person or by two people–“irreducible complexity” won’t tell you.

Indeed, we can suppose that God created two lesser entities, which in turn created the world (like two demiurges), which is exactly like God actually created the world. God sustains the world through the two distinct demiurges. In such a case, the world is the same, but there it has two direct “causes” (though God remains the ultimate cause).

(That said, Aquinas’s argument from governance, ie. the Fifth Way, is a “design” argument, but still gets you to pure act, and so you can still run my sort of argument.)

 

[LoveGod102]

No, not really, because Hinduism believes that divinity is found within both “gods” and humans–indeed within everything. This is rather different from the “deus otiosus” view that this professor is ascribing to “early man” (and which was clearly held by many ancient Greco-Roman pagans as well as by adherents of many traditional African religions).

Furthermore, the majority “devotional” forms of Hinduism believe that God seeks out contact with human beings through avatars, etc. This is quite different, again.

It isn’t that God is “remote” in Hinduism so much as that God pervades everything, in many forms.

Edwin

I could be wrong. but I think there is more than one form of Hinduism, one of which believes what you describe, and one of which believes the what the other poster said.

 

[Contarini]

I could be wrong. but I think there is more than one form of Hinduism, one of which believes what you describe, and one of which believes the what the other poster said.

There are many forms of Hinduism. I’m not aware of any modern forms that believe what was described, but I may be wrong. Certainly my description was oversimplified.

Edwin

 

[Grym]

Even though there are many types of Hinduism and many levels on which people worship or veneratethe gods Edwin is right about Hinduism IMO. I was oversimplyfiyng in favour of humor. Sorry for the disruption.

Lets get back to the more interesting agenda at hand!

/Victor

 

[Grym]

What I mean though is say for example someone hypothetically accepts a nonThomistic or Aristotelian based argument like the argument from design after perceiving order and the laws of nature, sort of like various points the previous Pope made about God being Logos. Now that’s great and all they say, but they say they don’t know why it would have to only be one God designing rather than a couple or a bunch of socalled gods of differing intelligences who are united in will to fashion from matter (b/c you can’t prove that the world was created) order and the laws of nature.

Same could be said of other arguments that one might come up with eg the moral argument that seems to be used a lot.

I feel that only Thomas can answer those potential objections and the other arguments don’t which is why I made the thread.

What is it that need to be disaproved?

1. That there are beings that may be experienced as gods by people even if they are not Creator Gods but rather powerfull beings? i.e their existance is to be disaproved?
2. That these gods created the world or created order in the world?
3. What these gods offer. I.e. Valhalla or the like.

Or do you believe that these beings exist but want to show that they are not worthy of veneration from humans?

/Victor

 

[Question123]

What is it that need to be disaproved?

If there necessarily needs to be one deity instead of multiple in non cause and effect argument about God. As far as I know and can tell there doesn’t need to be so the arguments that aren’t cause and effect based are more about showing how belief in a deity is rational, and then inserting how this or that argument makes sense of x religion.

I mean if it can’t really be proved I don’t really care but I thought it might be nice to not have a proof or argument for one God that doesn’t rely on St. Thomas.

1. That there are beings that may be experienced as gods by people even if they are not Creator Gods but rather powerfull beings? i.e their existance is to be disaproved?
2. That these gods created the world or created order in the world?

Sort of this since if you look at other arguments for God that aren’t Aristotelian or Thomist why does God need to be all powerful? As far as I know you can’t prove from philosophy that the world was created so if someone accepts for example that there is order in the world as proof of God then why couldn’t multiple powerful but not allpowerful beings be responsible for this order? If you can’t prove creation then it’s not necessary that God is all powerful. Maybe the person who said occam’s razor was right.

1. What these gods offer. I.e. Valhalla or the like.

Don’t care about this.

Or do you believe that these beings exist but want to show that they are not worthy of veneration from humans?

I don’t believe these exist unless you mean angels because I’m Christian and find the disciple’s testimony convincing. But I mean if you take the order or design type arguments again that seem to be used that aren’t cause-effect related seem to show that there is a God or at least a spiritual being who is able to kind of manipulate matter, but beyond that they are more religion based arguments to assume one God should be venerated instead of multiple.

unless occam’s razor should be applied.

 

[Grym]

If there necessarily needs to be one deity instead of multiple in non cause and effect argument about God. As far as I know and can tell there doesn’t need to be so the arguments that aren’t cause and effect based are more about showing how belief in a deity is rational, and then inserting how this or that argument makes sense of x religion.

I mean if it can’t really be proved I don’t really care but I thought it might be nice to not have a proof or argument for one God that doesn’t rely on St. Thomas.

1. That there are beings that may be experienced as gods by people even if they are not Creator Gods but rather powerfull beings? i.e their existance is to be disaproved?
2. That these gods created the world or created order in the world?

Sort of this since if you look at other arguments for God that aren’t Aristotelian or Thomist why does God need to be all powerful? As far as I know you can’t prove from philosophy that the world was created so if someone accepts for example that there is order in the world as proof of God then why couldn’t multiple powerful but not allpowerful beings be responsible for this order? If you can’t prove creation then it’s not necessary that God is all powerful. Maybe the person who said occam’s razor was right.

Don’t care about this.

I don’t believe these exist unless you mean angels because I’m Christian and find the disciple’s testimony convincing. But I mean if you take the order or design type arguments again that seem to be used that aren’t cause-effect related seem to show that there is a God or at least a spiritual being who is able to kind of manipulate matter, but beyond that they are more religion based arguments to assume one God should be venerated instead of multiple.

unless occam’s razor should be applied.

I do not think that I have the answer to this in any case really. One thing though. Occams razor is like any other tool. It can be used in a good way and in a bad way.

Most people using it do not seem to see the difference. In short. Occams razor seems easy and efficient when thinking dualistically but becomes unsolvablely complex as soon as it is applied to real world problems.

Best of luck to you though.

/Victor

 

[balto]

What I mean though is say for example someone hypothetically accepts a nonThomistic or Aristotelian based argument like the argument from design after perceiving order and the laws of nature, sort of like various points the previous Pope made about God being Logos. Now that’s great and all they say, but they say they don’t know why it would have to only be one God designing rather than a couple or a bunch of socalled gods of differing intelligences who are united in will to fashion from matter (b/c you can’t prove that the world was created) order and the laws of nature.

Same could be said of other arguments that one might come up with eg the moral argument that seems to be used a lot.

I feel that only Thomas can answer those potential objections and the other arguments don’t which is why I made the thread.

Well I think the Aristotelian-Thomistic proof is probably the strongest, but maybe this will help (not sure if it is what you are looking for though). Let’s suppose there are multiple gods. Consider two gods A and B. If A and B are indeed different gods, then there must be some quality Q by which they differed. If there was no such quality then A and B refer to one god. Then either its the case that A or B, but not both, are not limited by Q, or Q itself is a higher order of being. Applying this principle recursively will land at one unconditionally-existing necessary being, namely God. So there may exist so-called “gods” but they are not God as theists understand Him. These gods would really just be created beings with powers more advanced than our own.

N.B. The doctrine of the Trinity does not invalidate this argument as it states that three divine Persons possess the one divine nature of God fully.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t believe these exist unless you mean angels because I’m Christian and find the disciple’s testimony convincing.

What do you mean by “angels”? Presumably you also include demons, so you mean beings with superhuman power and knowledge, which may either serve God or rebel against Him.

I think it’s possible–especially if you get outside a Thomistic framework–that some such beings might have a moral character more like our own rather than the binary “totally obedient to/totally opposed to God” that characterizes what we call “angels and demons.” But this is certainly a non-traditional and highly speculative opinion.

Furthermore, what about aliens? Or, in ancient terms, fauns and elves and beings of that sort? Augustine is open to the possibility that such beings might exist, and doesn’t seem to class them automatically with demons.

In other words, it seems to me that it’s theologically possible for there to be all sorts of nonhuman beings in the world, some of which might correspond to what polytheists call “gods.”

Edwin