Polythiesm Vs Monothiesm

  • Thread starter Thread starter HickmanJosh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HickmanJosh

Guest
Ive been having these discussions with a friend about religion and he was wondering why monotheism is a more logical faith than polytheism, i couldn’t really come up with a definitive answer so i am interested in what answers might come up here.
 
Polytheism is a very natural way to think–as natural as assuming the sun goes around the earth. It’s based on what we perceive in nature and has many forms. Even the monotheism of Akhenaten wasn’t true monotheism, but a negation of the other gods in favor of the one he desired to worship.

True monotheism was revealed by God himself to man. First to Adam, then Noah, then Abraham, then Israel (Jacob). Jesus Christ founded the Church on the one God in three Persons, once again, a revelation to man from God himself.
 
Ive been having these discussions with a friend about religion and he was wondering why monotheism is a more logical faith than polytheism, i couldn’t really come up with a definitive answer so i am interested in what answers might come up here.
Read GK Chesterton’s book The Everlasting Man, which talks about this quite well. It is one of the books that convinced C.S. Lewis out of atheism into Christianity. You can read it online, along with Chesterton’s other works, here.

A couple of excerpts:

There is very good reason to suppose that many people did begin with the simple but overwhelming idea of one God who governs all; and afterwards fell away into such things as demon-worship almost as a sort of secret dissipation. Even the test of savage beliefs, of which the folk-lore students are so fond, is admittedly often found to support such a view. Some of the very rudest savages, primitive in every sense in which anthropologists use the word, the Australian aborigines for instance, are found to have a pure monotheism with a high moral tone. A missionary was preaching to a very wild tribe of polytheists*, who had told him all their polytheistic tales, and telling them in return of the existence of the one good God who is a spirit and judges men by spiritual standards. And there was a sudden buzz of excitement among these stolid barbarians, as at somebody who was letting out a secret, and they cried to each other, ‘Atahocan! He is speaking of Atahocan!’

*Note: Mr. Chesterton qualified later that in this instance he was talking about a tribe of American Indians.

…

It is implied, for instance, in the fact that even polytheism seems often the combination of several monotheisms. A god will gain only a minor seat on Mount Olympus, when he had owned earth and heaven and all the stars while he lived in his own little valley. Like many a small nation melting in a great empire, he gives up local universality only to come under universal limitation. The very name of Pan suggests that he became a god of the wood when he had been a god of the world. The very name of Jupiter is almost a pagan translation of the words ‘Our Father which art in heaven.’ As with the Great Father symbolised by the sky, so with the Great Mother whom we still call Mother Earth. Demeter and Ceres and Cybele often seem to be almost capable of taking over the whole business of godhood, so that men should need no other gods. It seems reasonably probable that a good many men did have no other gods but one of these, worshipped as the author of all.
 
To expand a bit on nuntym’s GKC quotes, the revelation of God to man given to Adam was fractured by sinful man into “spirit gods” they worshiped instead of the one true God. It’s why Paul says the pagans were accountable before God since they knew there was one supreme God who they ought to be worshiping. The mythologies were a part of the fracturing because the farther men got from the revelation of Adam and then Noah the more they divided the divine attributes among their gods until they forgot there was one God. It’s complicated, but isn’t that a reflection of man himself? We have a need to make everything complicated all the while yearning for the simplicity found only in our one, true God.
 
Ive been having these discussions with a friend about religion and he was wondering why monotheism is a more logical faith than polytheism, i couldn’t really come up with a definitive answer so i am interested in what answers might come up here.
Even in the period of early Christianity, while it’s common to assume that pagans (Romans, Greeks, what have you) were polytheistic (which they were) there were also may contemporary philosophic/religious thoughts that acknowledged “monotheism” in a sense at least. Meaning, behind all the particular and individual gods/beings that were worshipped, many also acknowledged ONE ultimate deity or rational principle.
 
Even in the period of early Christianity, while it’s common to assume that pagans (Romans, Greeks, what have you) were polytheistic (which they were) there were also may contemporary philosophic/religious thoughts that acknowledged “monotheism” in a sense at least. Meaning, behind all the particular and individual gods/beings that were worshipped, many also acknowledged ONE ultimate deity or rational principle.
you mean a king god like Zuse?
 
you mean a king god like Zuse?
Not necessarily. Remember, Paul wrote about their shrine to the “Unknown God”. Polytheism is a fracturing of God into many gods or spirits. The “head god” under such a belief system isn’t omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, so there isn’t a direct correlation between Zeus and God.
 
Not necessarily. Remember, Paul wrote about their shrine to the “Unknown God”. Polytheism is a fracturing of God into many gods or spirits. The “head god” under such a belief system isn’t omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, so there isn’t a direct correlation between Zeus and God.
The “Unknown God” was a a just-in-case concept created by the Greeks though, they worshipped and gave offerings to this god just in case they had missed a god in their pantheon to keep him from getting angry at them.
Even the monotheism of Akhenaten wasn’t true monotheism, but a negation of the other gods in favor of the one he desired to worship.
The technical term for that is Hennotheism, the belief that there are more gods than one worships, it was quite a common belief in the ancient world.
 
Ive been having these discussions with a friend about religion and he was wondering why monotheism is a more logical faith than polytheism, i couldn’t really come up with a definitive answer so i am interested in what answers might come up here.
I’m not entirely sure if you can prove it is more logical per se, but obviously there is only one Truth and there are other plural gods or one God, there can’t be both. I think monotheism is more realistic because why would there be more than one God? That doesn’t make sense to me, what would the purpose be? It’s kind of a deep question when you think about it, seems superficial but it’s not.
 
I believe this conversation between Socrates and the respected religious pagan authority Euthyphro sheds some light on the answer. Socrates is surprised to find that Euthyphro is prosecuting his own father for murdering a slave. Euthyphro says he did so out of piety (i.e., holiness or righteousness). So Socrates asks him to define what is pious (i.e., holy or righteous):

Euthyphro. Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them.

Socrates. Very good, Euthyphro; you have now given me the sort of answer which I wanted. But whether what you say is true or not I cannot as yet tell, although I make no doubt that you will prove the truth of your words.

Euth. Of course.

Soc. Come, then, and let us examine what we are saying. That thing or person which is dear to the gods is pious, and that thing or person which is hateful to the gods is impious, these two being the extreme opposites of one another. Was not that said?

Euth. It was.

Soc. And well said?

Euth. Yes, Socrates, I thought so; it was certainly said.

Soc. And further, Euthyphro, the gods were admitted to have enmities and hatreds and differences?

Euth. Yes, that was also said.

Soc. And what sort of difference creates enmity and anger? Suppose for example that you and I, my good friend, differ about a number; do differences of this sort make us enemies and set us at variance with one another? Do we not go at once to arithmetic, and put an end to them by a sum?

Euth. True.

Soc. Or suppose that we differ about magnitudes, do we not quickly end the differences by measuring?

Euth. Very true.

Soc. And we end a controversy about heavy and light by resorting to a weighing machine?

Euth. To be sure.

Soc. But what differences are there which cannot be thus decided, and which therefore make us angry and set us at enmity with one another? I dare say the answer does not occur to you at the moment, and therefore I will suggest that these enmities arise when the matters of difference are the just and unjust, good and evil, honourable and dishonourable. Are not these the points about which men differ, and about which when we are unable satisfactorily to decide our differences, you and I and all of us quarrel, when we do quarrel?

Euth. Yes, Socrates, the nature of the differences about which we quarrel is such as you describe.

Soc. And the quarrels of the gods, noble Euthyphro, when they occur, are of a like nature?

Euth. Certainly they are.

Soc. They have differences of opinion, as you say, about good and evil, just and unjust, honourable and dishonourable: there would have been no quarrels among them, if there had been no such differences-would there now?

Euth. You are quite right.

Soc. Does not every man love that which he deems noble and just and good, and hate the opposite of them?

Euth. Very true.

Soc. But, as you say, people regard the same things, some as just and others as unjust,-about these they dispute; and so there arise wars and fightings among them.

Euth. Very true.

Soc. Then the same things are hated by the gods and loved by the gods, and are both hateful and dear to them?

Euth. True.

Soc. And upon this view the same things, Euthyphro, will be pious and also impious?

Euth. So I should suppose.

Soc. Then, my friend, I remark with surprise that you have not answered the question which I asked. For I certainly did not ask you to tell me what action is both pious and impious: but now it would seem that what is loved by the gods is also hated by them. And therefore, Euthyphro, in thus chastising your father you may very likely be doing what is agreeable to Zeus but disagreeable to Cronos or Uranus, and what is acceptable to Hephaestus but unacceptable to Here, and there may be other gods who have similar differences of opinion.

classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

What I learned from this dialog is why Monotheism is more logical than Paganism: The Pagan gods cannot possibly all be wise, because they are like you and I–they disagree on morality. Therefore, there must be another source of wisdom besides them. That source of wisdom was the God above all pagan gods that Socrates himself said he worshiped in Plato’s *Phaedo *and in other dialogs. Some say that Socrates was the first Greek Monotheist.
 
The “Unknown God” was a a just-in-case concept created by the Greeks though, they worshipped and gave offerings to this god just in case they had missed a god in their pantheon to keep him from getting angry at them.
Yes. So, Paul used this “just-in-case” god to help the people see they needed only one God. It was his way of getting around the law forbidding the introduction of new gods. And that law tells us how untenable the whole system of polytheism had become in an increasingly multi-cultural society, doesn’t it? 🙂
The technical term for that is Hennotheism, the belief that there are more gods than one worships, it was quite a common belief in the ancient world.
Thank you. It’s always good to learn new terms. 👍
 
I am no philosopher, but it seems to me that is more logical to think that the universe was designed and ordered by one supreme intellect than to think a pantheon of different intellects put it all together and managed to achieve it’s perfect balance and harmony.
 
I am no philosopher, but it seems to me that is more logical to think that the universe was designed and ordered by one supreme intellect than to think a pantheon of different intellects put it all together and managed to achieve it’s perfect balance and harmony.
Yes, including the creation of the gods themselves. For example, Zeus was the son of Cronos, so he did not always exist. Cronos, likewise, was not eternally existent, so he had a father, or creator. If there are gods, there must be one God who always was and created them, or made the first of them.

👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top