Where does polytheism come from?

[pocaracas]

I wonder… what leads people to establish a hierarchy on the divine realm?

 

[Cirdan_XII]

I wonder… what leads people to establish a hierarchy on the divine realm?

The Bible tell us that there exists a hierachy of angels.

If angels are godly beings it requires but a small misunderstanding to assume they are gods in their own right, just as demons or fallen angels are evil creatures competing with god.

 

[pocaracas]

So now we have, a god, saints that can be mistaken for gods and angels that can be mistaken for gods…

I’m getting lost, here…

 

[Cirdan_XII]

So now we have, a god, saints that can be mistaken for gods and angels that can be mistaken for gods…

I’m getting lost, here…

Maybe the clue lies in the meaning of the word “gods”.

The word gets bandied around quite a lot by anthropologists when looking at different cultures,

Anthopologist: what’s this building?

Tribesman: we worship here.

Anthopologist: Then it must be a temple. Remember that word and tell it to the other white guys when they ask you. So tell me, who is this statue of?

Tribesman: this is XYZ, he/she protects our tribe / the forest / the island or whatever

Anthopologist writes down: They have a temple to XYZ, their tribal god, how cute

 

[pocaracas]

Maybe the clue lies in the meaning of the word “gods”.

The word gets bandied around quite a lot by anthropologists when looking at different cultures,

Anthopologist: what’s this building?

Tribesman: we worship here.

Anthopologist: Then it must be a temple. Remember that word and tell it to the other white guys when they ask you. So tell me, who is this statue of?

Tribesman: this is XYZ, he/she protects our tribe / the forest / the island or whatever

Anthopologist writes down: They have a temple to XYZ, their tribal god, how cute

How cute, indeed…

How do people know about saints?
And about angels?

 

[Cirdan_XII]

How cute, indeed…

How do people know about saints?
And about angels?

How do people know about anything that they don’t experience first hand?

They believe the witness of others.

If God made man in his image, then man’s mind is capable of perceiving Godly things, within the limits of the imperfection of his mind and ability to understand.

 

[pocaracas]

How do people know about anything that they don’t experience first hand?

They believe the witness of others.

If God made man in his image, then man’s mind is capable of perceiving Godly things, within the limits of the imperfection of his mind and ability to understand.

But man’s mind is capable of generating perceptions of things, leading one to be truly convinced that those perceptions came from some other mind… god’s(?)…

How can we ascertain the reliability of those others, while minimizing such effects (from them and from ourselves)?

 

[Cirdan_XII]

But man’s mind is capable of generating perceptions of things, leading one to be truly convinced that those perceptions came from some other mind… god’s(?)…

How can we ascertain the reliability of those others, while minimizing such effects (from them and from ourselves)?

The perception of God was not created in man’s mind and anything that comes purely from some level of inner revelation is to be treated with suspicion. Meaningful revelation occurred through a series of prophets who taught and explained things about God. But the minds of men recognized the truth in their words because there was resonance with their inner revelation.

However, I’m probably getting out of my dept here and I guess there are others who can explain it better.

 

[steve53]

I should add: in some belief systems labelled ‘animistic’ you do apparently have the idea of a creator deity (although of course not necessarily in a Judeo-Christian monotheistic sense).

In African religions, for example, you have such an idea: there is usually a single creator deity, who creates the world directly or through the means of created lesser spirits. This creator god is usually thought to not be involved directly in earthly affairs, however (this is a ‘god’ in the deist sense: it creates the world, then leaves its creation to its own devices). Instead, the lesser spirits are the ones who are involved in the daily lives of the people: they are the ones who inspire awe and reverence and are visualized, unlike the unseen great god.

Prehispanic Filipino mythology (also another belief system labelled ‘animistic’) runs along the same lines actually: there is an unseen supreme god(dess) who is sometimes seen as generally unconcerned with earthly affairs, and then there are the lesser divinities plus the spirits of nature / the lesser divinities who are the spirits of nature who are closer to the people and are usually the ones who are given ‘worship’.

I think it is fair to say that whatever the religion, the point is to establish a social stability.

 

[pocaracas]

The perception of God was not created in man’s mind and anything that comes purely from some level of inner revelation is to be treated with suspicion. Meaningful revelation occurred through a series of prophets who taught and explained things about God. But the minds of men recognized the truth in their words because there was resonance with their inner revelation.

However, I’m probably getting out of my dept here and I guess there are others who can explain it better.

I liked that explanation.

But it doesn’t provide a mechanism to discern perceptions generated within from perceptions of something outside.
You seem to just be postulating that a particular perception is indeed from the outside, and anyone who also perceives it (or something like it) is also getting it from the outside…
Could it be that similar minds think alike and generate similar perceptions, while being convinced that those originate in some outer source?

 

[openmind77]

(for mods: not sure this is the best forum for this topic… feel free to move to a more appropriate forum)

Ok, guys, let’s say that ever since time began, there has only ever been one god.
After the big bang “creation” event things worked out pretty much like science describes them, galaxy formation, Solar System, plate tectonics, dinosaurs, mammals, Australopithecus, present man… the works! (as I’m aware, that’s the standard catholic view)
At some point, according to the holy texts, there was a great flood and the sole surviving humans didn’t just believe in the existence of a single deity, but had first hand experience of it and it’s awesome power, right? They knew! And it stands to reason that they would impress this notion on their children and it would be expected for their children’s children to do the same… after all, these were the only righteous people who deserved to survive the big human culling… oh, bad choice of words… the great flood.
And we all know that indoctrination works quite well.
So, my question is, after the flood, how would polytheism come about? And how long would it have taken (in years or just generations)?

This second question may be somewhat simpler to answer, as I know of one or two genealogies of Jesus in the NT… and, at least, one of them goes through Noah.
We then know that at the time of Moses, a polytheist religion was in full force, in Egypt. I just can’t tell who in the genealogy may have been a contemporary of Moses…
So, maybe we can know how many generations there were between Noah and Moses to see how many generations it takes to go from full knowledge of the one true god to making up a bunch of others, for whatever reason, to actually convincing a whole nation to follow this pantheon… not to mention the enslavement of a part of those who kept the belief in the original true god… a damn good part, by some accounts, 2 million slaves (?).

As a corollary question, how many generations of humans does it take to generate 2 million people, starting with one family (let’s assume inbreeding isn’t a problem)?

For a person with no religion, you seem pretty sure there is only One true God.

What if I told you that the Christ and his Father are just Gods local to the earth? What if other solar systems have their own Gods? What if nobody outside our Galaxy has even heard about the Christ we know so well?

Actually your question should not be when did polytheism come about, but when will it come back. The time is actually pretty soon. The Christ will return soon in at most a couple of years and he will tell us who the Gods are and how many of them there are - probably as many as there are star systems in the Universe.

 

[pocaracas]

For a person with no religion, you seem pretty sure there is only One true God.

That was a working assumption to engage with the good folks of the forum… most of which seem to be catholic, so believers in the existence of a single god, the One true God.

I must admit I never expected a hindu to reply!

What if I told you that the Christ and his Father are just Gods local to the earth? What if other solar systems have their own Gods? What if nobody outside our Galaxy has even heard about the Christ we know so well?

Wow… mind blown!
Is that the standard hindu view?
I honestly know very little about hinduism, so any insight is welcome!

Actually your question should not be when did polytheism come about, but when will it come back. The time is actually pretty soon. The Christ will return soon in at most a couple of years and he will tell us who the Gods are and how many of them there are - probably as many as there are star systems in the Universe.

I’ve seem some christians (not catholic) claim the “rapture” is coming later this month… Can’t wait!

 

[openmind77]

That was a working assumption to engage with the good folks of the forum… most of which seem to be catholic, so believers in the existence of a single god, the One true God.

I must admit I never expected a hindu to reply!

Wow… mind blown!
Is that the standard hindu view?
I honestly know very little about hinduism, so any insight is welcome!

I’ve seem some christians (not catholic) claim the “rapture” is coming later this month… Can’t wait!

Actually this is not a standard Hindu view - but polytheism is definitely part of Hinduism (but as someone pointed out some Hindus like to call themselves monotheists).

It is mainly my view, based on what I have read. I don’t think the earth is a very special in the Universe and there are probably billions of others like it. And each probably has its own Gods and religions which are completely unrelated to ours. I do expect the Christ to return soon, but there will be no ‘rapture’.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

I liked that explanation.

But it doesn’t provide a mechanism to discern perceptions generated within from perceptions of something outside.
You seem to just be postulating that a particular perception is indeed from the outside, and anyone who also perceives it (or something like it) is also getting it from the outside…
Could it be that similar minds think alike and generate similar perceptions, while being convinced that those originate in some outer source?

It is indeed possible that similar minds can think alike and that a mass delusion can occur.

The same could be said of any scientific or philosophic theory or observable fact. Sometimes the flaws in a given logic are so subtle that fewer than one mind in a million can spot them, but once revealed, everybody wonders why they didn’t see that themselves.

But let’s get back to basics. Most religions have some variant of the Golden Rule, don’t do to another what you wouldn’t want done to you.

Religious people might argue, that this rule contains a truth and that because different religions agree on it strengthens the rule’s claim to be true.

Now the truth is no democracy, therefore the number of people agreeing on something does not make that fact any truer. So can we be sure we are not deluded about this?

You could maybe use the empirical argument. Societies who live by this rule tend to be more peaceful and happier. But you quickly getting onto very thin ice here because societies who agree with this rule in principle do go to war nevertheless. And even if you do demonstrate a causality or explain away the exceptions, then you are simply running into another essentially normative assumption, ie, that peace is objectively desirable. The empirical proof breaks down. It’s one assumption supporting another.

So what makes the assertation true?

Because we want it to be true? Because we believe it to be true?

Our inner voice tells us that peace is good and it’s good if we can get on in a civilised way. We therefore tend to agree with people who assert this more than we agree with people who contradict this. Ever atheist would agree with this assertation, even if they say the inner voice that is telling them this is balderash and that the person they are agreeing with is equally groping in the dark…

So how can the atheists be so sure that they are right, rather than being the blind led by the blind?

There is a difference between agreeing with a guy in the pub or some TV celebrity who seems to be saying the same as you are thinking, but objectively doesn’t know more than you do, and agreeing with a prophet who we are not concurring with purely because their words resonate but also because their overall lifestyle displays a higher level of consistency maybe even going into the miraculous or angelic and therefore indicates that some Godly support or intervention is present with them.

 

[pocaracas]

It is indeed possible that similar minds can think alike and that a mass delusion can occur.

The same could be said of any scientific or philosophic theory or observable fact. Sometimes the flaws in a given logic are so subtle that fewer than one mind in a million can spot them, but once revealed, everybody wonders why they didn’t see that themselves.

Are you wanting to equate the message from several prophets with the results that scientists provide?
As far as I’m aware, scientists have to show every single step of reasoning that got them to their results, and in no step is any non-natural event allowed.
Revelations are counted as non-natural.
You can’t have an equation and then just state the end result and claim you had an epiphany that told that result is the correct one.

But let’s get back to basics. Most religions have some variant of the Golden Rule, don’t do to another what you wouldn’t want done to you.

Religious people might argue, that this rule contains a truth and that because different religions agree on it strengthens the rule’s claim to be true.

Now the truth is no democracy, therefore the number of people agreeing on something does not make that fact any truer. So can we be sure we are not deluded about this?

You could maybe use the empirical argument. Societies who live by this rule tend to be more peaceful and happier. But you quickly getting onto very thin ice here because societies who agree with this rule in principle do go to war nevertheless. And even if you do demonstrate a causality or explain away the exceptions, then you are simply running into another essentially normative assumption, ie, that peace is objectively desirable. The empirical proof breaks down. It’s one assumption supporting another.

Even in maths, there are certain axioms - propositions which cannot be proven.
One must start at some point and it seems that you arrive at a more robust result when you start with the least suppositions possible.

So what makes the assertation true?

Because we want it to be true? Because we believe it to be true?

Let me get this straight, here: you’re saying that the golden rule is true?
“don’t do to another what you wouldn’t want done to you” is true?

What does this mean? What does it mean for a rule to be true?
Here’s an example of another rule: do not kill.
What would it mean for this rule to be true?

I think you may be wanting to say that it is true that society works better when you follow these rules.
Which seems to be objectively true, if we define what does it mean for a society to be better… more healthy individuals, happier individuals, less concerned individuals…what else?

After having empirical evidence that societies which follow such rules are better, why would mankind desire to maintain individuals which go against these rules? Such individuals would tend to be banished from the tribes, thus failing to propagate their genes… those who would follow these rules would get to propagate and keep the rule, eventually becoming an intuitive state.

Our inner voice tells us that peace is good and it’s good if we can get on in a civilised way. We therefore tend to agree with people who assert this more than we agree with people who contradict this. Ever atheist would agree with this assertation, even if they say the inner voice that is telling them this is balderash and that the person they are agreeing with is equally groping in the dark…

So how can the atheists be so sure that they are right, rather than being the blind led by the blind?

The atheist isn’t so sure that they are right… the perception is usually the other way around… the theists are sure that they are right and the atheist is called up to show that things may not be so…
We effectively know little about the thoughts of pre-written-history man, so we must guess.
Given what we see around us, today, given all the wealth of information we have about human and animal psychology, which guess makes more sense? That those peoples suddenly got some insight from some divine entity, or that it was developed through many successive generations of culling people with socially negative behaviors and rewarding those with positive behaviors?

There is a difference between agreeing with a guy in the pub or some TV celebrity who seems to be saying the same as you are thinking, but objectively doesn’t know more than you do, and agreeing with a prophet who we are not concurring with purely because their words resonate but also because their overall lifestyle displays a higher level of consistency maybe even going into the miraculous or angelic and therefore indicates that some Godly support or intervention is present with them.

Or maybe that prophet merely believes it to be so and acts accordingly. Belief can be a powerful tool for behavior control.

Human history is rife with prophets - many have been lost to memory, yet some have endured. Perhaps, those who have endured are the ones passing on a message that appeals to the most people… or the most powerful people…or some special mix of power and popularity.

As you may see, I prefer to use the ingredients more at hand, when attempting to account for any phenomenon.
A divine interventionist entity is, as far as I’m aware, not an ingredient at hand.
Human imagination, empathy, desire for power, desire for control over others, desire for order among his peers, ability to deceive others, gullibility… these are far more at hand.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Are you wanting to equate the message from several prophets with the results that scientists provide?
As far as I’m aware, scientists have to show every single step of reasoning that got them to their results, and in no step is any non-natural event allowed.
Revelations are counted as non-natural.
You can’t have an equation and then just state the end result and claim you had an epiphany that told that result is the correct one.

Scientists use peer review, which at the end of the day means that out of a very limited group of people (albeit highly trained ones) none could see what was wrong with this theory. But that actually comes pretty close to saying the truth is democratic.

Even in maths, there are certain axioms - propositions which cannot be proven.
One must start at some point and it seems that you arrive at a more robust result when you start with the least suppositions possible.

But that is in itself an assumption. Somebody said, we need axioms. Others nodded their heads and said, right, lets propose some. If you try to construct from first principles whether or not you need axioms, or which axioms are accepatble and which are not, you fall down, firstly because you don’t know what “first principles” is, and secondly because if you do establish those “first principles”, they themselves become axioms. At the end of the day, the present axioms in mathematics are considered correct only because of empirical reasons. Thios works, so let’s stick with it.

Let me get this straight, here: you’re saying that the golden rule is true?
“don’t do to another what you wouldn’t want done to you” is true?

What does this mean? What does it mean for a rule to be true?
Here’s an example of another rule: do not kill.
What would it mean for this rule to be true?

I think you may be wanting to say that it is true that society works better when you follow these rules.

No, “society works better” is itself a wishy washy claim. What is “better”? For something to be better you need an absolute scale of good and that in turn presupposes a Godly or man-made judgement or metric. Things that “just are” cannot be good or evil absolutely but are merely annoying to some or useful to some. Even murder without an absoluite scale of right and wrong is just locally negative for the victim and those around him but otherwise meh. If you say we just randomly made a law against murder, that does not in itself make murder morally wrong, it just makes it illegal, which is not the same thing. Maybe there is even a subjective functional advantage for other emmebers in a community if people don’t get murdered all the time. But one should not confuse utility with right.

After having empirical evidence that societies which follow such rules are better, why would mankind desire to maintain individuals which go against these rules? Such individuals would tend to be banished from the tribes, thus failing to propagate their genes… those who would follow these rules would get to propagate and keep the rule, eventually becoming an intuitive state.

This would pre-suppose that evolution does actually select for people with certain morals and that these morals are genetically predisposed. So maybe white people have a genetic predisposition for believing in Christ whereas Asiatic people have a genetic predsiposition for believing in Buddah - after milennia of eliminating all those who disagree, this would seem to be a plausible assumption. But this assumption breaks down when you see there are also Christians in Asia and Buddhists in Europe for example. It would also fail to explain atheists, or how atheists overcome this genetic moral code and can be so sure that they are outside of it.

 

[ichabode]

Catholics do not have to believe the flood is literally true.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13142950#post13142950

That is simply not true. You cannot make such a statement. As a Catholic you can believe the flood occurred over the entire world as we know the world today, or you can believe (because scripture does not tell us either way) that the flood occurred over the world that Noah knew about. The latter is more likely and is not opposed to scripture. You have pagan accounts as well that record the flood. God was working through his people, and if He was dealing with Noah and the world Noah knew He did not have to flood parts of the world that Noah knew nothing about. Noah for instance would not have been able to get animals on the Ark that were in different parts of the world that he had no knowledge of.

Polytheism springs from natural religion. That ego-personality of man without any help outside of man’s own nature. This has its basis in fear and imagination. Note: I did not say intellect as even Socrates came to conclusion that there is only on God, yet at the end of his (fear) he started to pray and seek aid or comfort from the common view of polytheist gods.

From Animism bringing about mythology to the social form of Totemism it is logical jump to polytheism.

To truly understand God. God would have to reveal Himself to man, and that it what he has done in partial through the prophets, and fully in and through Jesus Christ. To revert back to profane beliefs in God and passing through the height of varying religious ideas about God or gods is akin to finding comfort in a false reality of the shadows on the cave walls.

 

[pocaracas]

Scientists use peer review, which at the end of the day means that out of a very limited group of people (albeit highly trained ones) none could see what was wrong with this theory. But that actually comes pretty close to saying the truth is democratic.

Reality is what it is.
Science is mankind’s best attempt at describing reality. It endeavors to be devoid of any bias - surely, some is bound to seep in, but, if discovered, it is minimized, or eliminated.
What is this truth you speak of?
The description of reality is as truthful as possible… it is also ever improving.

Considering all the psychological pitfalls of the human mind, all the possible biases, revelation cannot be honestly considered as adequate at determining such a description.
But you seem to wish it were… why?

But that is in itself an assumption. Somebody said, we need axioms. Others nodded their heads and said, right, lets propose some. If you try to construct from first principles whether or not you need axioms, or which axioms are accepatble and which are not, you fall down, firstly because you don’t know what “first principles” is, and secondly because if you do establish those “first principles”, they themselves become axioms. At the end of the day, the present axioms in mathematics are considered correct only because of empirical reasons. Thios works, so let’s stick with it.

Yes, that’s right.
The problem being?..

No, “society works better” is itself a wishy washy claim. What is “better”?

I remember presenting a tentative list of subjects which must go in a definition of “better” right after what you quoted.
For some reason, you removed that bit from your quote…

For something to be better you need an absolute scale of good and that in turn presupposes a Godly or man-made judgement or metric. Things that “just are” cannot be good or evil absolutely but are merely annoying to some or useful to some. Even murder without an absoluite scale of right and wrong is just locally negative for the victim and those around him but otherwise meh. If you say we just randomly made a law against murder, that does not in itself make murder morally wrong, it just makes it illegal, which is not the same thing. Maybe there is even a subjective functional advantage for other emmebers in a community if people don’t get murdered all the time. But one should not confuse utility with right.

A man-made metric would be reliant on what works… the utility you speak of.

Man is even capable of building mental constructs in which scenarios can play out, thus being able to evaluate the utility of an action, prior to(or instead of) carrying out such action… it is even able to communicate the outcome of such mental experiment with other, so they, too, can carry it out in their minds, each individual bringing his own point of view and biases into the imagined scenario. Let’s call this Philosophy.
Using this capability, man can derive rules of what he perceives may work out well for his community and what may spell disaster.

Another mechanism to arrive at some of these rules may have been brought down through a trial and error procedure - for example, I can devise of no possible mental scenario, from millennia ago, for a rule that prevents siblings from having sexual intercourse, if not for the observation that it tends to have nasty results in the offspring.

Godly judgement… if it exists… should have gotten everything right from day 1… instead… well… let’s just say things haven’t been without a few hiccups.

This would pre-suppose that evolution does actually select for people with certain morals and that these morals are genetically predisposed.

Have you looked into the experiments with silver foxes, and how they are “turned” into domesticated animals, capable of replacing a dog as a pet?
Behaviors (or aversion to certain behaviors) are predisposed.
Can some moral rules be seen as an aversion to certain behaviors?

So maybe white people have a genetic predisposition for believing in Christ whereas Asiatic people have a genetic predsiposition for believing in Buddah - after milennia of eliminating all those who disagree, this would seem to be a plausible assumption. But this assumption breaks down when you see there are also Christians in Asia and Buddhists in Europe for example. It would also fail to explain atheists, or how atheists overcome this genetic moral code and can be so sure that they are outside of it.

What?!
What is observed is that genetic predisposition will give you an enhanced ability to believe in non-natural events, like an afterlife, which then gets filled by the engulfing culture and religion.
Analogy time: It’s like talking - we have a predisposition to utter pretty complex sound sequences from our mouths and throats… then local customs train that predisposition into a language.
Here, too, your predisposition to belief is trained into a particular religion or culture.

Atheists… I don’t know… evolution apparently didn’t end (will it ever end?) and there are still many genetic possibilities that make people not accept certain things, in spite of the level of indoctrination imposed on them.

 

[pocaracas]

That is simply not true. You cannot make such a statement. As a Catholic you can believe the flood occurred over the entire world as we know the world today, or you can believe (because scripture does not tell us either way) that the flood occurred over the world that Noah knew about. The latter is more likely and is not opposed to scripture. You have pagan accounts as well that record the flood. God was working through his people, and if He was dealing with Noah and the world Noah knew He did not have to flood parts of the world that Noah knew nothing about. Noah for instance would not have been able to get animals on the Ark that were in different parts of the world that he had no knowledge of.

Thanks for your contribution!
But, if you look closely, you said the same thing that thistle said, but with far more words!

Polytheism springs from natural religion. That ego-personality of man without any help outside of man’s own nature. This has its basis in fear and imagination. Note: I did not say intellect as even Socrates came to conclusion that there is only on God, yet at the end of his (fear) he started to pray and seek aid or comfort from the common view of polytheist gods.

From Animism bringing about mythology to the social form of Totemism it is logical jump to polytheism.

Yep, makes sense…

To truly understand God. God would have to reveal Himself to man, and that it what he has done in partial through the prophets, and fully in and through Jesus Christ.

Did he really?

To revert back to profane beliefs in God and passing through the height of varying religious ideas about God or gods is akin to finding comfort in a false reality of the shadows on the cave walls.

And yet, people have done it… are people that dumb?

 

[ichabode]

Thanks for your contribution!
But, if you look closely, you said the same thing that thistle said, but with far more words!

Pocaracas, I do not believe I said the same thing as Thistle. I did not look up the link earlier, but did to gain a context after you pointed it out. Out of 3 points that Father had made concerning our beliefs on the flood points 1 and 3 both state there was a flood which you are correct I stated. The second point could be true, but is lacking information by its brevity. For instance you must believe there was a Noah i.e. an actual person. Many who would read point 2 would most likely conclude that you do not have believe that Noah existed.

1. That the story is not literally true but is included in the Scriptures to teach us valuable theology about who we are and God’s relationship to us.

Thistle, stated, “Catholics do not have to believe the flood is literally true.” I think I stated that you do have to believe the flood is true just not the entire world was flooded (as we know the world mapped out today). I would disagree with point 2 as it is written above only because to much is left out of that understanding.

Thank you for pointing that out, and causing me to go and read the link that Thistle had posted.

As Jesus said, “If you have seen me you have seen the Father”. a longer discussion for sure, but I do believe Jesus revealed as much as possible about an infinite being to finite beings. See John chapters 14-17 for more information.

I would refrain from calling people dumb on this subject, ignorant yes. There are many reasons why people would reject Jesus and His church. The priest scandals, the sins of the laity, governments, false history being taught. The list goes on and on. It would be rare to reject based on sane arguments. The rejection most often comes from emotions and people being hurt by others or lies not investigated.