im am functionally a polytheist but philosophically pantheistic. this works fine in my religions parameters. thats why i love traditional polytheism, its very versatile.
Greetings from Athens you are 100% correct some of us still believe in polytheism here the way you describe in your video .We don't have any problem with their jesus,buddha or allah but they are just 3 more gods and nothing more than that.
Buddha wasn’t exactly a god just a very accomplished spiritualist he claims as much upon his enlightenment and he belives all of us can do the same though later branches treat him as an object of worship their is also a strong ethic of rejecting the attachment of devotion all together hence the pharse “should you meet the buddha, kill him”
You have 0 evidence for these “old gods.” Tell me, which is better? Many diverse lords? Or God-the One & Only, the Ultimately Supreme. You worship nothing but mere names which you and your ancestors have come up with, which The Divine has given no authority to. Rulership & Judgement is reserved for God alone. He has called on you to serve & worship none but Him. That is the correct way of life, but most people fail to realize. Do you not see the sky above you? How it was constructed? And the consistent alternation of night & day? And the diverse animals which God has spread around throughout earth? And the rain which God sends down from above which then feeds the ground below, and grows all sorts of greenery & vegetation, giving life to a once barren land? In this, and even within your own self, there lies countless many evidences & proofs. So won’t you think & reflect? If there had ever been more than one god besides God Almighty, they would have been at odds with one another, each seeking to obtain authority & rule. There would have been colossal havoc & chaos, and the whole universe would have fallen into ruin. Therefore let it be known: that everyday you wake up and breathe like the day before, and you feel the consistent beating heart in your chest, and you see the sun & trees standing in their place, and you reflect upon the fact that the earth is rotating in our galaxy like it has for generations-let it sink into your mind that this is the inevitable reality caused only by a SINGLE Creator & Ultimate Divine Power, which would be IMPOSSIBLE by many weak, fallible, hostile and different-willed gods who you merely imagine to exist. The STABILITY and UNIFORMITY we see within our world is a testimony to the fact that there is only one Power & Mastermind behind it all. But under polytheism, nothing like this can stand. So tell me-what evidence do you have to back up your claims? Who are your gods? And what have they done to leave us some evidence of their existence? Have they created a part of the earth or sky? If so, show me. Bring us some real knowledge. All you follow is opinion and guesswork. So bring forth some evidence & proof if what you’re saying is true. But in the end, know that these “gods” will testify against you on Judgement Day that they never knew you, they never heard your prayers, and they want nothing to do with you when you all stand before the Almighty for ultimate judgement. That will be the day of humiliation for those who failed to show proper gratitude to the Divine, and arrogantly denied His signs & revelations. So repent & seek God’s forgiveness before it’s too late. But if you arrogantly turn away, then so be it. Enjoy your ingratitude for a short while. For you will soon enough find out. So just keep waiting; we too are waiting as well.
@@celestialknight2339 I have no need for your made up god with your man made scriptures and your laundry list of prophets, i don't follow a jealous god that demands blind faith and obedience, who people worship out of fear, the slave religion, so continue serving your master and kiss his feet, I have not forgotten my ancestors nor their gods, they were here long before the abrahamic god, and will be long after, eternal and immortals, I rather die standing for my gods, then live on my knees for yours.
@@celestialknight2339 If all the Gods come from one Principle, one original God, and all together generate the universe, then this uniformity would be evident. The Gods are everywhere and always. The evidence of the Gods is the same evidence as there is for your God. The Cosmos. That there is a Principle beyond time and plurality is evident. But that there are Principles (which antecede the material, and the imaginary) that are Many is also evident. For how could we have numbers if there was only One? The One necessarily creates the two. And the One is beyond such vicious and sadistic ideas as you have proposed. "Humiliation" etc etc.
Im glad you addressed atheism some. I agree that polytheism is more likely than monotheism. I just have trouble getting from atheism to polytheism. My personal experiences are very explainable naturalisticaly. And i haven't experienced others so i don't know.
I see that as totally logical as a polytheist if its not what you experienced than not believing makes sense, i appreciate the validation but so long as we can discuss it all in good faith no need to “convert” one another.
Former atheist, current polytheist : I agree with you entirely, and I think more people should take that sort of open-skeptical approach in general. I sort of think "faith" in the sense we're all familiar with is closer to a sacrilization of cognitive dissonance and submission to blind authority rather than anything related to actual consistent beliefs. It's fine to have faith in a few logical assumptions underlying your philosophy, hard to get past "i am" if you don't, but basing an entire worldview around faith itself as some sort of aspirational state seems like a big cultural mistake. I worship the gods because they are beautiful and have revealed themselves to me with a high enough p value to take seriously. (Obviously that's a misuse of terms when you're talking about subjective phenomena, but that's how it feels from my POV.) Tbh I think hermeticism, Jungian Psychology, and occultism offers a really great middle ground between scientific and religious thinking and is what I actually sort of buy into, rather than creationist polytheism, I merely need to believe our thoughts go somewhere when we're done thinking them, that you can find old thoughts somebody else made if you think enough, and the collective trends among those thoughts influence causality and subjective experience. Some of those thoughts are stories about sacred representations of natural forces, and some sort of agency often emerges from that cluster of information. Lots of clusters of information gain an emergent agency. Egregores just make too much sense to me as a lense of cultural analysis, the way ideas influence culture feels so biological to me. I genuinely think ideas are the dominant lifeform on earth, and humans are more or less their pollinators. Gods are just a way to frame your interaction with particular ideas in a way that sacrilizes terrible-and-beautiful reality in a life affirming way, and I think grounding our perception of nature in the sacred would help us thrive better as a species. We as a species tend to treat Gaia a bit better when we love her as a mother.
I'll give you my perspective as a pagan but also a materialist who only believes in naturalistic explanations for things. I can understand the human body naturalistically all its emotions all its thoughts all its intricacies I don't need a soul to be real in some tangible way. But I still treat other people as having a character a personality behaviors and the like. This allows me to build a relationship with them which then affects the way we interact materially. I don't need a person's character to exist in some metaphysical soul for it to be there and for me to have a relationship with it. Same goes with the Earth. I know She's only matter and energy, just like a person, but just like I do with people, I talk to Her, worship Her and take care of Her to build a relationship with Her. I think this is deeply important, especially in an era of constant destruction of and war against the earth
Great video. I think Greer's argument is a good one. I agree up until the "inclusive monotheism" argument. But that's because, as a Platonist/ Monist, I would make the argument that reason shows that there is a "One" above the other Principles (Gods). I'd also say that many Polytheists in antiquity were "inclusive" in the same way as Inclusive Monotheists. Namely the Greeks/Romans, who only considered a God a "new" one when they had no equivalent in their Pantheon, otherwise they would call them a "face" of one of their known Gods. I would consider myself among these types of Inclusive Polytheists. Anyhow, this is an absolutely great video. Every one that comes out is better than the last!
Many thanks! And yes, the Neoplatonists indeed defended a more sophisticated version of inclusive monotheism: one that placed the Good above all culturally-celebrated gods, as a unique divine principle--so in this sense, "monotheistic"--but at the same time allowing for the many culturally-celebrated gods to exist as the Good's first participants (or Proclus' henads), which is the "inclusive" part. The clever trick was making sure to distinguish their first principle from the Olympians, etc. It's a good move, one to which I'm quite sympathetic!
I was surprised to stumble across this video. I read Greer’s book a number of years ago. All in all this is an enjoyable video. With regards to the question at hand I absolutely am convinced of the validity of polytheism, so long as talking about gods is reasonable. Countless humans across seemingly hundreds of millennia have engaged in behavior whereby superlative experiences and epiphanies have occurred. One cannot be reasonably expected to dismiss those events as described without evidence. With regards to monism, it is possible that many different “realities” stem from many different infinite sources. Concepts like “Good” or “Greatest”, without a thinking mind, are subjective concepts void of an actual identity. The conundrum is that as soon as these concepts are thought to be defined they are no longer infinite. Infinite is by definition boundless and without numerical expression. Calling any infinite thing “One” is as meaningful as calling it “Two” or “Three” or [insert your preferred number].
@@Texasmade74 Well then there have been very few "polytheistic" religions or philosophies. The "pagan" religions from Greece to India to China to Mexico were all to varying degrees aware that the Gods were emanations of a greatest God/One.
Another issue with all types of monotheism is that their claims are unfalsifiable; with existence exclusive monotheism, it is impossible to prove or disprove that there is only one god and that every other is imaginary; with value exclusive monotheism it is impossible to prove or disprove that the god worshipped by monotheist(s) is the only real god and that others are demons ESPECIALLY because of the fact that, according to value exclusivists, demons can imitate the abilities of gods, which makes it impossible to test if a deity is a genuine god or a demon; with inclusivists, it is impossible to prove or disprove their claim because if the one god manifests himself in different, contradictory ways to different people, it is impossible to test if every single god is actually just a mask for the one true god.
I've said this before but I think polytheists positing the argument from religious diversity -- such as Greer in *A World Full of Gods* and Steven Dillon in *The Case for Polytheism* and so on -- and monotheist theologians are talking past eachother. The definition of a god in Dillon's book is that of some mind with remarkable greatness that commands veneration. The definition of God in the many Scholastic traditions is that of Being qua Being. These are wildly different things. Indeed, by Dillon's definition, every Catholic is a polytheist due to their veneration of saints and angels and their adoration of the persons of the Trinity, and Kabbalist Jews are also polytheists due to believing in powerful angels and Sefirots.
The monotheists themselves have different and conflicting notions of their notion of God. They then argue that their sectarian notion is only correction instead of maybe they are 2 different gods
Neoplatonic pantheism/panentheism is more probable and inclusive of both monotheism and polytheism. Emanations meaning that all originates from God means that their can be different aspects of God but their is one God which rules over and precedes them. Even in most polytheism all the Gods are related to a progenitor God ouranos (or chaos) in greek myth.
I'm a Norse Polytheist and I believe every god/goddess exists, and many unknown ones even. But I only worship a few, as they are the ones I feel connected to. The others just might not care about me, and that's no biggie to me
Inclusive monotheism - I got the feeling this was the Narnia theology, at one point when they were deciding who was going to heaven, someone who worshipped something else they said it was actually the same. Anyone else remember this?
Hi! I wanted to share some thoughts on the argument of Greer. From the onset, he bases his argument on the presupposition that the multiplicity of God is rationally possible, just because we may have different religious experiences. But having such experience does not *necessitate* the existence of God/Gods. Those feelings might have been induced by psychological phenomenons or any other influences. Sometimes spiritual experiences might not take place at all.
Sure. That's indeed true. But that is true of every single religious experience. If a Christian says that I'm just crazy for worshipping Dionysos and any experience I have of Dionysos is just a delusion, what's stopping me from saying the same thing about their experience of Jesus? The point of the argument that Polytheists make is that it's illogical for Monotheists to say we're just crazy or have been deceived because there is no objective evidence that Monotheists have that couldn't also be produced by us in some way, shape, or form.
The likelihood that spiritual experiences do happen is high as even after insane or mentally unsound individuals are counted out there still is plenty of logic minded people with spiritual experiences
This argument is really constrained by the framework of the human. I mean, it's an inference from bottom to top in theological terms and also clearly anthropocentric. Is the Divine experience or theophany definable by those encosmic characteristics it might produce? I'm referring to phenomena like images, physical and natural movements, thoughts that do not transcend the mind. If the Divine experience has an ineffable cause, the theophany, at least in its essential definition, must also be ineffable. That is why this argument does not prove, by any means, the existence of various Gods, but rather reaffirms the plurality of phenomena capable of one or more Gods. A polytheist.
The problem with includive monotheism is its sheer arbitrariness: all other gods are mere facets of my god because it's MY god! Then you point out that there are gods in some pantheons that are morally ambiguous or have a dark side, and the inclusive mono will retort, "Oh, not those. Only the cool gods bro!"
I’m curious as to what you think about the seemingly new inclusive monotheism stance that the Pope recently adopted. Personally I find it to be a step in the right direction aside from the flaws you (and the video) mentioned regarding inclusive monotheism.
@@HeatherWP I don't follow the Pope closely, but considering that he is perhaps the most liberal one since Paul VI (predecessor of John Paul I), I guess it's better than nothing. Generally though, I am uninterested in what any member of any Christian denomination would think about an Aristotle-reading, Mjolnir-rocking pagan like myself. They're in their world; I'm in mine.
Interesting video, and I am considering picking up Greer's book in order to "stress test" certain monotheistic concepts. Below are several issues with the argument as presented here. 1. It assumes that the category "God" is like the category of cat, in that it is logically possible for multiple beings to belong to it. If the category "God" is described in the way that monotheists have traditionally described it, as all an all knowing, all powerful, all loving, creator being (in other words non-contingent), then the category "God" must be exclusive. It we take the characteristic of being all powerful, then this is a property which only one being could have, since if any other being had that property, then this "god" would be limited by the power of another. I think that he is smuggling in a definition of "God" which is compatible with multiple "gods," but misses the crucial ontological differences between God and a god. So a better analogy than a domesticated housecat (which may live with several others in the same neighborhood) would be a highly territorial, and solitary animal like a leopard. Leopards are large predators which require a lot of calories to survive, and because of that must maintain a large and exclusive territory. If someone claimed to have seen twelve leopards in the same area (say a neighborhood or a village), then they are likely wrong, and we must find other explanations for these other sightings. They may have in fact only spotted raccoons, rats or housecats, and mistaken them for leopards, and in fact this is more likely than having seen twelve leopards in the same area. Once we except this, then we must decide which household, if any, actually saw a leopard. While the analogy is not perfect (there could be other leopards in the same area) it helps to illustrate the point that what kind of being "God" is tells us about the plausibility (or in this case logical impossibility) of multiple "gods." 2. It assumes that religious experiences do not contradict each other. However, the experiences of the apostle Paul travelling on the road to Damascus and thereafter, contradict the experiences of a pagan who claims to have met Odin, Zeus, or some other God. The God of Christianity, and the other religious faith claims to be the only god, whereas these other deities (according to their devotees) each claim to be one among many gods. Since the religious experiences of monotheists often involve a claim by the entity encountered to be the true god, which conflicts with the claims of polytheists, the problem of religious diversity is not solved, since one must still decide which spiritual experiences are true experiences are true experiences of God, and which ones are false. 3. Connected to point 2 is the point that even in the physical world we do not credulously trust what we see, taste, hear, or smell. We always interpret these experiences through some sort of conceptual lens. When we experience something that does not match our conceptual lens, we either change that conceptual lens, or dismiss it as delusional. We see into the spiritual realm through a glass darkly, if at all, so we likely do have many false experiences. This does not mean that it is impossible to know anything about the spiritual realm, anymore than our uncertainty about things in the physical world means that we cannot know anything about it. This means that in accounting for the diversity of religious experience we do not need to treat all experiences as true, in order for some to be true. For a theistic pagan there is another difficulty, which is that these spiritual beings have an intellect and a will (otherwise they would not be 'gods'). This means that like other beings which have and intellect and a will (human beings) these spiritual beings would have the ability to lie. So when thinking about experiences of spiritual beings, one must also consider the possibility of deception, which provides another reason for not excepting every religious experience as "equally valid." Taken together I think that these are good arguments to presuppose the existence of only one God. Setting aside doctrines such as the trinity for a moment, all of the major monotheistic religions agree that God is in some sense one. He is also by necessity, the only such being which exists, since the existence of multiple "Gods" would contradict certain attributes of the divine nature (such as omnipotence). While I reject Greer's analogy, I would personally side with the values exclusive monofelists, meaning that spiritual beings do exist (such as angels, demons, and the souls of the dead), but they are not worthy of worship, because they do not have the qualities which make a being worthy of worship. However, where I think that Greer's argument goes wrong is in assuming that that decision is an arbitrary one, when it is in fact rooted in the ontological difference between these kinds of spiritual beings and God.
"It we take the characteristic of being all powerful, then this is a property which only one being could have, since if any other being had that property, then this "god" would be limited by the power of another." How so? I have never understood this line of reasoning when already Omnipotence is necessarily limited (for example, an Omnipotent being that is also Omnibenevolent cannot lie but this is not seen as an issue due to modern conceptions of Omnipotence). What about a second Omnipotent being creates a limit that makes a logical absurdity? Usually the argument boils down to 'if God 1 wants X and God 2 wants ~X then we have a problem', but this ignores the other characteristics of God. God is not just Omnipotent, but also Omniscient and Omnibenevolent. This means that God 2 will know that what God 1's will is good, and, as God 2 is also good, it would be absurd to say God 2 would want the negation of God 1's will. I honestly would recommend looking into the works of Neo-Platonists, as they hold to a polytheism of Omni-trait gods. "The God of Christianity, and the other religious faith claims to be the only god, whereas these other deities (according to their devotees) each claim to be one among many gods." This raises two questions, Is YHWH, for example, the source of the 'only one god' claim or is that something that followers of YHWH have created and placed onto YHWH? If the former, then someone having an experience of YHWH does not actually conflict with the experiences of others, it just means that people's ideas that stem from these experiences are fallible. If the latter, then can god(s) lie? If they can, then why believe YHWH when he says he is the only god? I think we can bring up a different analogy here. You and four friends have never seen the sky but have heard tales about it. You send your friends up one at a time to look at the sky and come back to report on what is in the sky to you. The first one comes back and tells you that the sky contains one thing, a balloon blowing in the wind. The second one comes back and tells you that the sky contains one thing, a hawk searching for prey. The third one comes back and tells you that the sky contains one thing, a plane flying by. The forth one comes back and tells you that the sky is empty, there is no things in the sky. All of these four claims are mutually exclusive. If there is a balloon blowing in the wind then the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th person are wrong about the state of the sky (with two of them claiming there is only one thing that is different than a balloon while the other says there is nothing). However, there is no issue if you assume that there is a balloon, a hawk, and a plane in the sky but that they are not always in a state to be able to be observed. If that is true, then all the experiences are valid. If you do not have sufficient reason to accept one person's report over another's then this is quite the logical conclusion to draw (or else you could also suspend belief entirely, taking a pure agnostic approach). "Connected to point 2 is the point that even in the physical world we do not credulously trust what we see, taste, hear, or smell. We always interpret these experiences through some sort of conceptual lens." If the experiences do not conflict with what seems to be reality to us then we do accept them as true, even if only tentatively. Any other position leads us to solipsism. Is there a reason to treat experiences of god(s) any differently?
@@philosophicaljay3449 I think that the difference between the kind of limitation that you proposed, and the kind of limitations which monotheistic religions require for God is where the limitation comes from. In cases like the one you propose, it is not an outside force which limits God, it is his own nature (his consistency/goodness) and his own choice (x and not ~x). The example that you mention of two Gods with infinite goodness choosing the same outcome is interesting, because it is very close to an argument given by Richard Swineburne in "the Christian God" for the trinity. In his argument these persons necessarily share an essence, and a will (as you mention). (Chapter 8). He also argues based on a general ethical intuition that there should be no more than three persons in the godhead "There is a qualitative difference between sharing and cooperating in sharing, and hence overriding reason for divine acts of both kinds; but as it seems to me no similar qualitative differences between co-operating with one in sharing and co-operating with two." (Swineburne 179). This is based on the idea that for the first person of the godhead to have omnibenevolence, he must share himself with a second person, and they must coshare with a third. If we compare this to our finite human existence, we have certain relationships which involve two people (ex. the vast majority of romantic relationships). We also have relationships which involve more than two people, belonging to a family, a friend group, a nation-state, or a species. Each of these relationships provide us with an opportunity to show our (albeit imperfect) love. God is a perfect, and simple being compared to us, and so we must only include enough persons that he can both share and cooperate in sharing, but not so many as to add unnecessary entities. So you end up with the Christian God, which is three persons, with one essence and one will (Monotheism). If you subscribe to the view that there are multiple Gods with omni traits, then do you believe that they share the same essence? If they share the same essence doesn't that undermine any sort of hard polytheism (assuming you subscribe to hard polytheism)? Finally, if you agree with the argument above, but reject the cap at three persons, how do you avoid infinite regress (not just many, but infinite Gods)? If the above argument holds, then a better analogy than my first analogy, or your analogy is one involving the Queen of England. If I am in town x in the American Midwest, you are in town Y in Mexico, and our mutual friend John Michael Greer is in town z in Hawaii. At 2:15 pm I tell you (over the phone) that I saw her at the hockey match in Milwaukee. You tell me that that cannot be the case, since you saw her in Cancun working on her tan (Yuck, I'm sorry you had to see that bro) at the exact same time. Finally, our mutual friend John Michael Greer calls us to inform us that he too saw the queen in Hawaii, eating an entire large Hawaiian pizza. We argue amongst ourselves for some time about who actually saw the queen of England, and eventually our friend Greer suggests that we all actually saw "our own" Queen of England. We all understand what is wrong with that, it is logically impossible for there to be more than one, "queen of England." I liked you analogy of the hawk, the balloon, the plane and the empty sky, but I think that that example is still loaded in favor of the polytheist's claims. It is conceivable for there to be a bird, a plane, a balloon, and an empty spot in the sky at the same time, which makes you first suggestion, that they are all there, but not all observed possible. It is not possible for there to be more than one Yahweh in the "sky" (so to speak), because he is the kind of being which there can only be one of. A polytheist could claim that Yahweh is lying, but then they would need to find a way to determine this, which does not undermine their trust in what their gods claim to be. On what grounds would a polytheist determine that it is Yahweh who is lying and not Odin, or Zeus? As for the Christian God in particular, I think that it is very clear scripturally that both early Christians and the prophets of the old testament were monotheistic. "You shall have no other Gods before me." (Exodus 20:3). This is, Moses (14th-13th century bc) claims, a direct message from God. The rest of Exodus confirms this, when we see Yahweh curse Egypt with ten plagues (each plague being an implicit demonstration of his power over the Egyptian gods). It is also clear that by the time of king David (1000 bc) at least, that the prophets saw an ontological difference between Yahweh, and the pagan gods writing "For all the Gods of the nations are demons, but the Lord made the heavens..." (Psalm 95:5). Also from the New Testament, the apostle Paul states that "Rather, things which the gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons." (1 Corinthians 10:20). You may not accept the bible as an accurate guide to history and may contest the authorship of these books, but I don't think that we have any reason to believe it is not an accurate representation of the beliefs and experiences of the people who wrote it. I think this claim can be buttressed by the claims of modern Christians, who either had visions or other signs from God warning them against certain types of idolatry, or witchcraft or whatever. You do not have to believe that all of these experiences are legitimate (I certainly don't), but you do have to provide a good criteria for rejecting them.
@@curtherring7732 First, sorry if my response isn't thorough. I have been up for almost 28 hours now and want to make sure I make some kind of response. "I think that the difference between the kind of limitation that you proposed, and the kind of limitations which monotheistic religions require for God is where the limitation comes from." Yes, that is a difference, but the question is why think that an external limit is necessarily incoherent when internal limits are not. You need to justify why one type of limit is not an issue and the other is. "In his argument these persons necessarily share an essence, and a will (as you mention)" I never said they share a will. I said that one would know that what others are doing is also good and thus not interfere, that does not require singular will. "If the above argument holds, then a better analogy than my first analogy, or your analogy is one involving the Queen of England." No, it isn't. You are fundamentally changing the nature of the analogy without justification. Even if there is only one god there is religious experience of many. To go back to my analogy, even if there is only a balloon in the sky there is experience of non-balloon things in the sky as well. By trying to change the fundamental nature of the analogy you are creating an analogy that does not properly express the diversity of experience that actually happens. "On what grounds would a polytheist determine that it is Yahweh who is lying and not Odin, or Zeus?" Most neo-pagans (though not Neo-Platonists) hold that the gods can lie, but if Odin is lying there is still an Odin that exists (as otherwise there would be no Odin to lie). "As for the Christian God in particular, I think that it is very clear scripturally that both early Christians and the prophets of the old testament were monotheistic." Which does not refute the point I made (even if I grant it as accurate).
I’ve never met a polytheist before or had the pleasure of discussing their beliefs with them. I’d like to quickly lay out some questions and concerns I have. Is every god ever literally real? That seems to be a maximalist interpretation of supposedly divine experiences which would be untenable, for the simple reason that contradictory versions of the same character cannot logically exist at the same time. Example, the biblical god who is also Jesus, and the biblical god who is not cannot both exist. In addition, it could render an explicitly invented conception like Marvel’s Thor a real god, as much a part of the true being of Thor as the original myths he came from. I could imagine you might say contradictory versions of a god do not disprove the god, but they are held by people who argue the nature of the god themself. But the problem with that would seem to be that if nobody can agree on the nature of a god anyway, among those features being it’s existence, then surely the test of existence shouldn’t produce a positive result every time. Some number of gods must be invented, such as whatever versions of the Christian god are incorrect about his nature. That would appear to be the same sort of special pleading where one Christian and the others aren’t. I could also imagine you might say that fictional characters do not count, but that again would seem to exclude some experiences as not sufficiently divine, for what is currently by my lights an unknown or arbitrary reason. If a person comes up with a version of Thor that acts and looks like a superhero, why is that experience not divine where other versions of Thor are? If the subject of the experience, the god, is the thing that exists, and they all exist, then one cannot say that one they find to be laughable doesn’t exist simply due to personal incredulity. If anybody has anything to add, I’d love to hear it.
I supposed if I answered your question as a polytheist "is every god literally real?" My answer would be yes, and I find the argument of having contradictory characters of same god being unable to exists as irrelevant. It is putting human constrictions onto divinity and doesn't account for human interpretation bias (a god may say the same thing to two humans who then interpret it differently) and so it is not the gods fault that there are two conflicting versions of its character. In terms of using fictional characters I would simply class it as that persons UPG and move on. I hope I understood what you were trying to say but I do have a processing disorder so please correct me if I misunderstood your argument :)
@@nyssa853 well from what I’ve understood so far, the slam dunk argument for polytheism is that if you believe in only one god based on experiences interpreted as divine, you’re specially pleading for your god. So polytheism, at least for some people, maybe not you, accepts the proposition that all divine experience is equally valid. So the question then is if all divine experience is valid, is conflicting experience about the same god also valid? And saying that they’re merely subjective interpretations of the gods would appear to contradict the idea that we can take subjective experience as evidence for the gods to begin with. So again, if this isn’t a position you hold them maybe I’m arguing with nobody, but if you do hold it, then you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say on the one hand subjective experience people interpret as divine is evidence for objectively real divine beings, and on the other hand say subjective experience people interpret to conflict with other interpretations of the divine is evidence that humans are fallible. I hope that makes sense.
@@silverlightsinaugust2756 I'm sorry if I misunderstand but I don't know what you mean? Divinity means "of or like God" so anything you put your personal faith into then becomes your gods. I suppose this is a little more nuanced such as the argument of soft verses hard polytheism. But divinity is within everything and so (in my view) gods are merely names to reference a particular collection of things rather than beings within themselves, and that to call for specific things you must contact an epithet of the deity. For example praying and offering to Zeus Klarios when asking for wealth or anything you want in great amounts. This is not a physical entity like you or I, but a name with power and a way to single out what you are asking for? It's hard to explain. But essentially what I'm trying to explain is that conflicting evidence is valid because divinity isn't tied down to a human form or human personalities. Divinity can change and swell like the sea and while the sea is the same as it has always been it is constantly changing and providing an environment for its inhabitants to survive and thrive in. There is no difference between objectively divine beings and subjective experiences because there is no objectivity in religion.
@@nyssa853 so I think I’m getting closer to understanding what you’re going for here… allow me to try and steel man this and you tell me what I’ve gotten wrong or right. The subjective divine is what’s important to a particular person. Gods are the idealized goal of a particular person. Wealth was your example. If somebody desires more abundance in their life, the ritual of prayer or sacrifice to a god is sort of like a meditation on the goal itself, an attempt to understand it, a rededication to strive for it even more. Gods under this framework of polytheism need not be real entities. They’re only more or less real in a person’s view. Their importance to the individual person is what matters here. It’s sort of like the power of suggestion (or in a less demonstrated view, the power of positive thinking), you’re acting like this thing exists to try to make yourself more conscious of what it represents, and bring it about, kind of tricking your subconscious and inducing a placebo effect. I have follow up questions if this is right or wrong, and I may have gotten some of it wrong but some right, so feel free to pick that apart.
In monotheism is not just about the validity of the existence of these deities, but are they worthy to be called god? That's why in pure monotheism you never see the "face" of god or in anthropomorphic way. Second, regarding the tolerance of polytheism; now you tell me about the epic of mahabarat, or ares the god of war... really? Is it all about tolerance? These gods not just "hugging" each other, but they also in competition with each other. Even in monotheism there still be diversity as other people have their own culture and heroes. But to call "super-heroes" as god..? That's the crux of the matter lies.
Yes, more than the so called "creatrod of everything" that has few to no relationship with the daily life of the people. The Gods interact with each other, that doesn't mean we are called to kill followers of other religions. Only abrahamics do that.
The Gods are not "super heroes". They are not culture heroes. They are beyond time and space. Those stories you've ready are a mix of allegory and the interventions of their intermediaries on their behalf. The Gods are the object of all true wisdom. Abstract, more-real-than-real, and antecedent to the material world. That first God, you speak of, in "pure monotheism" is the greatest, but do not diminish his emanations, the Gods to superheroes.
Monotheism and polytheism fundamentally differ in the objective of their mythologies. I am a Hindu, and the Mahabharata works as a cautionary tale in which even the gods can err. Polytheists do not look up to gods as perfect figures, but as representations of human traits, flaws included. For eg, although Yudhisthira, whose name literally means 'someone who is calm even in a war', slips up and indulges himself in gambling to the extent where he partakes in gambling his wife away. That's an allegory saying that despite all of your positive traits, an error can bring you down. In Ramayan, the antagonist, Ravana, has everything. He's strong, has a gift from the gods, smart, etc, but one fault, hubris, becomes the cause for his downfall. Monotheists believe usually in a single source of truth, ipso facto everything else is false. That's why Christians calls everyone else heathens, Mulims call them kafirs, Jews call them gentiles. There is no word for someone who's not a Hindu. That's why upon the creation of Buddhism, Jainism or Sikhism, there were no wars unlike those fought over Jerusalem. That's why when the Greeks went to Egypt, they worshipped also the Egyptian gods. When Alexander invaded India, there may have been Xenophobia, but there were no religious wars fought, instead there was cultural assimilation. The Greeks didn't destroy temples, but the Islamic invaders did.
@@ruturajgole1850 The Romans didn't destroy temples? Alexander destroy a whole city of Persepolis... no violence huh... Now in India majority still Hindus... Muslim conquerer force them to convert?? And you forget warring periode between Hindus and Buddhist in 6th-7th century. Remember you guys the one who claim to be the pacifist.. Now in terms of theology, if your Gods have flaws then why consider them as Godlike? Even in Hinduism there's the concept of ultimate God = Brahman... the difference is you guys think God works with avatars, but we say that God sends prophets. Then we have no problem with prophets make mistakes, but you guys live in conflation & contradiction when those avatars making mistakes.
I reject Greer's first premise because i do not believe that monotheists rely on special pleading in response to religious diversity. Firstly i do not know any monotheist that takes 'religious experience' as a proof of their religion. It might strengthen their personal conviction but it's only personal and not a proof. Secondly, at 15:42 regarding sacred texts, in your example it might be special pleading if you stop there, but in reality scholars/apologists will analyse and scrutinise the texts to know if it's from (a) God so no special pleading needed. Thirdly, at 16:03 with regard to miracles, many scholars/apologists will analyse and scrutinise reports of miracles to understand if this event actually occurred in history. Claims do not suffice; proof is needed therefore no special pleading. Fourthly, at 16:05 regarding prophets, these stories are usually part of scripture or other texts and, again they will be studied to determine if these people existed, if the events are true, etc. And no special pleading takes place. 16:24 highlights the problem. The 'evidence' provided by different faiths is not usually evenly matched. The Christian minister, for example will not simply present the bible, they will also try to prove its truthfulness and disprove other scriptures (whether or not the bible or other proofs are true is another topic).
I disagree that polytheism requires no special pleading. In fact, it's very simplistic to say that ploytheists used to be tolerant. The best they could do was imply that all the other different gods were in fact just different aspects of their own gods. Otherwise, you have to recpncile the fact that the guy in front of you is telling you that it was Marduk who created the world when you know fpr a fact that the world was created when Gia emerged from the primordial chaos. You can't both be right and generally one thing has to go: your myth, or the other guy's gods. There's also just the problems of the one and the many and how there can be many perfect and eternal things and if they are not that then why are they gods? And why do the gods oppose each other morally (many neopagans deny this but neopaganism is a completely modern fabrication anyway. They are like people who speak latin: not their mother language).
The presenter here places way you much explanatory power on on subjective experience. All experience should be treated the same way and not used as evidence or proof of any given Deity. All should be tested and vetted in various ways and the truth will win out. Hint it's a monotheistic paradigm that rhymes with Christian.
im am functionally a polytheist but philosophically pantheistic. this works fine in my religions parameters. thats why i love traditional polytheism, its very versatile.
Greetings from Athens you are 100% correct some of us still believe in polytheism here the way you describe in your video .We don't have any problem with their jesus,buddha or allah but they are just 3 more gods and nothing more than that.
Ah, how excellent to hear! Many thanks for watching!
Buddha wasn’t exactly a god just a very accomplished spiritualist he claims as much upon his enlightenment and he belives all of us can do the same though later branches treat him as an object of worship their is also a strong ethic of rejecting the attachment of devotion all together hence the pharse “should you meet the buddha, kill him”
@@doktordanomite9105 there is no god,we as hellenes made the human nature of the god
@@ΚώσταςΠ-κ1ω that's absolute nonsense
@@ΚώσταςΠ-κ1ω as a polytheist i disagree :)
I was recommended this video about a year ago and I finally got around to watching it. Brilliant! I love it! I probably need to buy Greer's book now
The analogy with cats is amazing, made even better with paper-doll cutouts from Darkest Dungeon, quite the punitive Lovecraftian game.
"Hey, there are many paths t worshiping Cthulhu" I just spit out my drink. That was such a weird phrase.
The old gods live! Monotheists relabel other deities as evil or lesser beings/nonexistent to fit their little box of beliefs.
You have 0 evidence for these “old gods.” Tell me, which is better? Many diverse lords? Or God-the One & Only, the Ultimately Supreme. You worship nothing but mere names which you and your ancestors have come up with, which The Divine has given no authority to. Rulership & Judgement is reserved for God alone. He has called on you to serve & worship none but Him. That is the correct way of life, but most people fail to realize.
Do you not see the sky above you? How it was constructed? And the consistent alternation of night & day? And the diverse animals which God has spread around throughout earth? And the rain which God sends down from above which then feeds the ground below, and grows all sorts of greenery & vegetation, giving life to a once barren land? In this, and even within your own self, there lies countless many evidences & proofs. So won’t you think & reflect?
If there had ever been more than one god besides God Almighty, they would have been at odds with one another, each seeking to obtain authority & rule. There would have been colossal havoc & chaos, and the whole universe would have fallen into ruin.
Therefore let it be known: that everyday you wake up and breathe like the day before, and you feel the consistent beating heart in your chest, and you see the sun & trees standing in their place, and you reflect upon the fact that the earth is rotating in our galaxy like it has for generations-let it sink into your mind that this is the inevitable reality caused only by a SINGLE Creator & Ultimate Divine Power, which would be IMPOSSIBLE by many weak, fallible, hostile and different-willed gods who you merely imagine to exist. The STABILITY and UNIFORMITY we see within our world is a testimony to the fact that there is only one Power & Mastermind behind it all. But under polytheism, nothing like this can stand.
So tell me-what evidence do you have to back up your claims? Who are your gods? And what have they done to leave us some evidence of their existence? Have they created a part of the earth or sky? If so, show me. Bring us some real knowledge. All you follow is opinion and guesswork. So bring forth some evidence & proof if what you’re saying is true.
But in the end, know that these “gods” will testify against you on Judgement Day that they never knew you, they never heard your prayers, and they want nothing to do with you when you all stand before the Almighty for ultimate judgement. That will be the day of humiliation for those who failed to show proper gratitude to the Divine, and arrogantly denied His signs & revelations.
So repent & seek God’s forgiveness before it’s too late. But if you arrogantly turn away, then so be it. Enjoy your ingratitude for a short while. For you will soon enough find out. So just keep waiting; we too are waiting as well.
@@celestialknight2339 I have no need for your made up god with your man made scriptures and your laundry list of prophets, i don't follow a jealous god that demands blind faith and obedience, who people worship out of fear, the slave religion, so continue serving your master and kiss his feet, I have not forgotten my ancestors nor their gods, they were here long before the abrahamic god, and will be long after, eternal and immortals, I rather die standing for my gods, then live on my knees for yours.
@@celestialknight2339 If all the Gods come from one Principle, one original God, and all together generate the universe, then this uniformity would be evident.
The Gods are everywhere and always. The evidence of the Gods is the same evidence as there is for your God. The Cosmos. That there is a Principle beyond time and plurality is evident. But that there are Principles (which antecede the material, and the imaginary) that are Many is also evident.
For how could we have numbers if there was only One? The One necessarily creates the two. And the One is beyond such vicious and sadistic ideas as you have proposed. "Humiliation" etc etc.
Yep, that is because they are.
@@anousseeker smoke less weed.
Im glad you addressed atheism some. I agree that polytheism is more likely than monotheism. I just have trouble getting from atheism to polytheism. My personal experiences are very explainable naturalisticaly. And i haven't experienced others so i don't know.
Same here
I see that as totally logical as a polytheist if its not what you experienced than not believing makes sense, i appreciate the validation but so long as we can discuss it all in good faith no need to “convert” one another.
Former atheist, current polytheist : I agree with you entirely, and I think more people should take that sort of open-skeptical approach in general. I sort of think "faith" in the sense we're all familiar with is closer to a sacrilization of cognitive dissonance and submission to blind authority rather than anything related to actual consistent beliefs. It's fine to have faith in a few logical assumptions underlying your philosophy, hard to get past "i am" if you don't, but basing an entire worldview around faith itself as some sort of aspirational state seems like a big cultural mistake. I worship the gods because they are beautiful and have revealed themselves to me with a high enough p value to take seriously. (Obviously that's a misuse of terms when you're talking about subjective phenomena, but that's how it feels from my POV.)
Tbh I think hermeticism, Jungian Psychology, and occultism offers a really great middle ground between scientific and religious thinking and is what I actually sort of buy into, rather than creationist polytheism, I merely need to believe our thoughts go somewhere when we're done thinking them, that you can find old thoughts somebody else made if you think enough, and the collective trends among those thoughts influence causality and subjective experience. Some of those thoughts are stories about sacred representations of natural forces, and some sort of agency often emerges from that cluster of information. Lots of clusters of information gain an emergent agency. Egregores just make too much sense to me as a lense of cultural analysis, the way ideas influence culture feels so biological to me. I genuinely think ideas are the dominant lifeform on earth, and humans are more or less their pollinators. Gods are just a way to frame your interaction with particular ideas in a way that sacrilizes terrible-and-beautiful reality in a life affirming way, and I think grounding our perception of nature in the sacred would help us thrive better as a species. We as a species tend to treat Gaia a bit better when we love her as a mother.
I'll give you my perspective as a pagan but also a materialist who only believes in naturalistic explanations for things. I can understand the human body naturalistically all its emotions all its thoughts all its intricacies I don't need a soul to be real in some tangible way. But I still treat other people as having a character a personality behaviors and the like. This allows me to build a relationship with them which then affects the way we interact materially. I don't need a person's character to exist in some metaphysical soul for it to be there and for me to have a relationship with it. Same goes with the Earth. I know She's only matter and energy, just like a person, but just like I do with people, I talk to Her, worship Her and take care of Her to build a relationship with Her. I think this is deeply important, especially in an era of constant destruction of and war against the earth
Polytheism doesn't exclude naturalistic explanations; they just get incorporated into the overall worldview.
I love the darkest dungeon references in these, it’s one of my favorite games. Great lectures
Soothed, sedated.
The Cat analogy is great! One human could never contain all qualities of humanity. One God could never contain all the qualities of Divinity.
I adore this video. I’m a polytheist that interprets reality through a Greek translation of reality… I would love to talk.
This video was so informative and easy to understand. Thank you!
Great video.
I think Greer's argument is a good one. I agree up until the "inclusive monotheism" argument. But that's because, as a Platonist/ Monist, I would make the argument that reason shows that there is a "One" above the other Principles (Gods).
I'd also say that many Polytheists in antiquity were "inclusive" in the same way as Inclusive Monotheists. Namely the Greeks/Romans, who only considered a God a "new" one when they had no equivalent in their Pantheon, otherwise they would call them a "face" of one of their known Gods. I would consider myself among these types of Inclusive Polytheists.
Anyhow, this is an absolutely great video. Every one that comes out is better than the last!
Many thanks!
And yes, the Neoplatonists indeed defended a more sophisticated version of inclusive monotheism: one that placed the Good above all culturally-celebrated gods, as a unique divine principle--so in this sense, "monotheistic"--but at the same time allowing for the many culturally-celebrated gods to exist as the Good's first participants (or Proclus' henads), which is the "inclusive" part. The clever trick was making sure to distinguish their first principle from the Olympians, etc. It's a good move, one to which I'm quite sympathetic!
I was surprised to stumble across this video. I read Greer’s book a number of years ago. All in all this is an enjoyable video.
With regards to the question at hand I absolutely am convinced of the validity of polytheism, so long as talking about gods is reasonable. Countless humans across seemingly hundreds of millennia have engaged in behavior whereby superlative experiences and epiphanies have occurred. One cannot be reasonably expected to dismiss those events as described without evidence.
With regards to monism, it is possible that many different “realities” stem from many different infinite sources. Concepts like “Good” or “Greatest”, without a thinking mind, are subjective concepts void of an actual identity. The conundrum is that as soon as these concepts are thought to be defined they are no longer infinite. Infinite is by definition boundless and without numerical expression. Calling any infinite thing “One” is as meaningful as calling it “Two” or “Three” or [insert your preferred number].
Monism isn't polytheism
@@DrBowersOfficeHours platonism isn't really polytheism in essence
@@Texasmade74 Well then there have been very few "polytheistic" religions or philosophies.
The "pagan" religions from Greece to India to China to Mexico were all to varying degrees aware that the Gods were emanations of a greatest God/One.
Hail to the Gods of all nations!
That was really entertaining and informative, thank you! I should finally read the republic...
Another issue with all types of monotheism is that their claims are unfalsifiable; with existence exclusive monotheism, it is impossible to prove or disprove that there is only one god and that every other is imaginary; with value exclusive monotheism it is impossible to prove or disprove that the god worshipped by monotheist(s) is the only real god and that others are demons ESPECIALLY because of the fact that, according to value exclusivists, demons can imitate the abilities of gods, which makes it impossible to test if a deity is a genuine god or a demon; with inclusivists, it is impossible to prove or disprove their claim because if the one god manifests himself in different, contradictory ways to different people, it is impossible to test if every single god is actually just a mask for the one true god.
Really appreciated how you would read/state the allegorical examples then follow up with a more literal one. Awesome video
I've said this before but I think polytheists positing the argument from religious diversity -- such as Greer in *A World Full of Gods* and Steven Dillon in *The Case for Polytheism* and so on -- and monotheist theologians are talking past eachother. The definition of a god in Dillon's book is that of some mind with remarkable greatness that commands veneration. The definition of God in the many Scholastic traditions is that of Being qua Being. These are wildly different things. Indeed, by Dillon's definition, every Catholic is a polytheist due to their veneration of saints and angels and their adoration of the persons of the Trinity, and Kabbalist Jews are also polytheists due to believing in powerful angels and Sefirots.
The monotheists themselves have different and conflicting notions of their notion of God. They then argue that their sectarian notion is only correction instead of maybe they are 2 different gods
Neoplatonic pantheism/panentheism is more probable and inclusive of both monotheism and polytheism. Emanations meaning that all originates from God means that their can be different aspects of God but their is one God which rules over and precedes them. Even in most polytheism all the Gods are related to a progenitor God ouranos (or chaos) in greek myth.
I'm a Norse Polytheist and I believe every god/goddess exists, and many unknown ones even. But I only worship a few, as they are the ones I feel connected to. The others just might not care about me, and that's no biggie to me
Inclusive monotheism - I got the feeling this was the Narnia theology, at one point when they were deciding who was going to heaven, someone who worshipped something else they said it was actually the same. Anyone else remember this?
Great vid, thanks.
What's the name of the painting shown in the beginning of the video?
Hi! I wanted to share some thoughts on the argument of Greer. From the onset, he bases his argument on the presupposition that the multiplicity of God is rationally possible, just because we may have different religious experiences. But having such experience does not *necessitate* the existence of God/Gods. Those feelings might have been induced by psychological phenomenons or any other influences. Sometimes spiritual experiences might not take place at all.
Sure. That's indeed true. But that is true of every single religious experience. If a Christian says that I'm just crazy for worshipping Dionysos and any experience I have of Dionysos is just a delusion, what's stopping me from saying the same thing about their experience of Jesus? The point of the argument that Polytheists make is that it's illogical for Monotheists to say we're just crazy or have been deceived because there is no objective evidence that Monotheists have that couldn't also be produced by us in some way, shape, or form.
He never once made any argument for the multiplicity of God he argues for multiple gods
The likelihood that spiritual experiences do happen is high as even after insane or mentally unsound individuals are counted out there still is plenty of logic minded people with spiritual experiences
@@Texasmade74 Not to mention the methods pagans are using to verify their spiritual experiences.
@@DarthT15 are you really siding with me or trolling?
This argument is really constrained by the framework of the human. I mean, it's an inference from bottom to top in theological terms and also clearly anthropocentric.
Is the Divine experience or theophany definable by those encosmic characteristics it might produce? I'm referring to phenomena like images, physical and natural movements, thoughts that do not transcend the mind.
If the Divine experience has an ineffable cause, the theophany, at least in its essential definition, must also be ineffable. That is why this argument does not prove, by any means, the existence of various Gods, but rather reaffirms the plurality of phenomena capable of one or more Gods.
A polytheist.
The problem with includive monotheism is its sheer arbitrariness: all other gods are mere facets of my god because it's MY god! Then you point out that there are gods in some pantheons that are morally ambiguous or have a dark side, and the inclusive mono will retort, "Oh, not those. Only the cool gods bro!"
I’m curious as to what you think about the seemingly new inclusive monotheism stance that the Pope recently adopted. Personally I find it to be a step in the right direction aside from the flaws you (and the video) mentioned regarding inclusive monotheism.
@@HeatherWP I don't follow the Pope closely, but considering that he is perhaps the most liberal one since Paul VI (predecessor of John Paul I), I guess it's better than nothing. Generally though, I am uninterested in what any member of any Christian denomination would think about an Aristotle-reading, Mjolnir-rocking pagan like myself. They're in their world; I'm in mine.
Interesting video, and I am considering picking up Greer's book in order to "stress test" certain monotheistic concepts. Below are several issues with the argument as presented here.
1. It assumes that the category "God" is like the category of cat, in that it is logically possible for multiple beings to belong to it. If the category "God" is described in the way that monotheists have traditionally described it, as all an all knowing, all powerful, all loving, creator being (in other words non-contingent), then the category "God" must be exclusive. It we take the characteristic of being all powerful, then this is a property which only one being could have, since if any other being had that property, then this "god" would be limited by the power of another. I think that he is smuggling in a definition of "God" which is compatible with multiple "gods," but misses the crucial ontological differences between God and a god.
So a better analogy than a domesticated housecat (which may live with several others in the same neighborhood) would be a highly territorial, and solitary animal like a leopard. Leopards are large predators which require a lot of calories to survive, and because of that must maintain a large and exclusive territory. If someone claimed to have seen twelve leopards in the same area (say a neighborhood or a village), then they are likely wrong, and we must find other explanations for these other sightings. They may have in fact only spotted raccoons, rats or housecats, and mistaken them for leopards, and in fact this is more likely than having seen twelve leopards in the same area. Once we except this, then we must decide which household, if any, actually saw a leopard. While the analogy is not perfect (there could be other leopards in the same area) it helps to illustrate the point that what kind of being "God" is tells us about the plausibility (or in this case logical impossibility) of multiple "gods."
2. It assumes that religious experiences do not contradict each other. However, the experiences of the apostle Paul travelling on the road to Damascus and thereafter, contradict the experiences of a pagan who claims to have met Odin, Zeus, or some other God. The God of Christianity, and the other religious faith claims to be the only god, whereas these other deities (according to their devotees) each claim to be one among many gods. Since the religious experiences of monotheists often involve a claim by the entity encountered to be the true god, which conflicts with the claims of polytheists, the problem of religious diversity is not solved, since one must still decide which spiritual experiences are true experiences are true experiences of God, and which ones are false.
3. Connected to point 2 is the point that even in the physical world we do not credulously trust what we see, taste, hear, or smell. We always interpret these experiences through some sort of conceptual lens. When we experience something that does not match our conceptual lens, we either change that conceptual lens, or dismiss it as delusional. We see into the spiritual realm through a glass darkly, if at all, so we likely do have many false experiences. This does not mean that it is impossible to know anything about the spiritual realm, anymore than our uncertainty about things in the physical world means that we cannot know anything about it. This means that in accounting for the diversity of religious experience we do not need to treat all experiences as true, in order for some to be true. For a theistic pagan there is another difficulty, which is that these spiritual beings have an intellect and a will (otherwise they would not be 'gods'). This means that like other beings which have and intellect and a will (human beings) these spiritual beings would have the ability to lie. So when thinking about experiences of spiritual beings, one must also consider the possibility of deception, which provides another reason for not excepting every religious experience as "equally valid."
Taken together I think that these are good arguments to presuppose the existence of only one God. Setting aside doctrines such as the trinity for a moment, all of the major monotheistic religions agree that God is in some sense one. He is also by necessity, the only such being which exists, since the existence of multiple "Gods" would contradict certain attributes of the divine nature (such as omnipotence). While I reject Greer's analogy, I would personally side with the values exclusive monofelists, meaning that spiritual beings do exist (such as angels, demons, and the souls of the dead), but they are not worthy of worship, because they do not have the qualities which make a being worthy of worship. However, where I think that Greer's argument goes wrong is in assuming that that decision is an arbitrary one, when it is in fact rooted in the ontological difference between these kinds of spiritual beings and God.
"It we take the characteristic of being all powerful, then this is a property which only one being could have, since if any other being had that property, then this "god" would be limited by the power of another."
How so? I have never understood this line of reasoning when already Omnipotence is necessarily limited (for example, an Omnipotent being that is also Omnibenevolent cannot lie but this is not seen as an issue due to modern conceptions of Omnipotence). What about a second Omnipotent being creates a limit that makes a logical absurdity?
Usually the argument boils down to 'if God 1 wants X and God 2 wants ~X then we have a problem', but this ignores the other characteristics of God. God is not just Omnipotent, but also Omniscient and Omnibenevolent. This means that God 2 will know that what God 1's will is good, and, as God 2 is also good, it would be absurd to say God 2 would want the negation of God 1's will.
I honestly would recommend looking into the works of Neo-Platonists, as they hold to a polytheism of Omni-trait gods.
"The God of Christianity, and the other religious faith claims to be the only god, whereas these other deities (according to their devotees) each claim to be one among many gods."
This raises two questions,
Is YHWH, for example, the source of the 'only one god' claim or is that something that followers of YHWH have created and placed onto YHWH? If the former, then someone having an experience of YHWH does not actually conflict with the experiences of others, it just means that people's ideas that stem from these experiences are fallible. If the latter, then can god(s) lie? If they can, then why believe YHWH when he says he is the only god?
I think we can bring up a different analogy here. You and four friends have never seen the sky but have heard tales about it. You send your friends up one at a time to look at the sky and come back to report on what is in the sky to you.
The first one comes back and tells you that the sky contains one thing, a balloon blowing in the wind.
The second one comes back and tells you that the sky contains one thing, a hawk searching for prey.
The third one comes back and tells you that the sky contains one thing, a plane flying by.
The forth one comes back and tells you that the sky is empty, there is no things in the sky.
All of these four claims are mutually exclusive. If there is a balloon blowing in the wind then the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th person are wrong about the state of the sky (with two of them claiming there is only one thing that is different than a balloon while the other says there is nothing).
However, there is no issue if you assume that there is a balloon, a hawk, and a plane in the sky but that they are not always in a state to be able to be observed. If that is true, then all the experiences are valid. If you do not have sufficient reason to accept one person's report over another's then this is quite the logical conclusion to draw (or else you could also suspend belief entirely, taking a pure agnostic approach).
"Connected to point 2 is the point that even in the physical world we do not credulously trust what we see, taste, hear, or smell. We always interpret these experiences through some sort of conceptual lens."
If the experiences do not conflict with what seems to be reality to us then we do accept them as true, even if only tentatively. Any other position leads us to solipsism. Is there a reason to treat experiences of god(s) any differently?
@@philosophicaljay3449 I think that the difference between the kind of limitation that you proposed, and the kind of limitations which monotheistic religions require for God is where the limitation comes from. In cases like the one you propose, it is not an outside force which limits God, it is his own nature (his consistency/goodness) and his own choice (x and not ~x). The example that you mention of two Gods with infinite goodness choosing the same outcome is interesting, because it is very close to an argument given by Richard Swineburne in "the Christian God" for the trinity. In his argument these persons necessarily share an essence, and a will (as you mention). (Chapter 8).
He also argues based on a general ethical intuition that there should be no more than three persons in the godhead "There is a qualitative difference between sharing and cooperating in sharing, and hence overriding reason for divine acts of both kinds; but as it seems to me no similar qualitative differences between co-operating with one in sharing and co-operating with two." (Swineburne 179). This is based on the idea that for the first person of the godhead to have omnibenevolence, he must share himself with a second person, and they must coshare with a third. If we compare this to our finite human existence, we have certain relationships which involve two people (ex. the vast majority of romantic relationships). We also have relationships which involve more than two people, belonging to a family, a friend group, a nation-state, or a species. Each of these relationships provide us with an opportunity to show our (albeit imperfect) love. God is a perfect, and simple being compared to us, and so we must only include enough persons that he can both share and cooperate in sharing, but not so many as to add unnecessary entities. So you end up with the Christian God, which is three persons, with one essence and one will (Monotheism). If you subscribe to the view that there are multiple Gods with omni traits, then do you believe that they share the same essence? If they share the same essence doesn't that undermine any sort of hard polytheism (assuming you subscribe to hard polytheism)? Finally, if you agree with the argument above, but reject the cap at three persons, how do you avoid infinite regress (not just many, but infinite Gods)?
If the above argument holds, then a better analogy than my first analogy, or your analogy is one involving the Queen of England. If I am in town x in the American Midwest, you are in town Y in Mexico, and our mutual friend John Michael Greer is in town z in Hawaii. At 2:15 pm I tell you (over the phone) that I saw her at the hockey match in Milwaukee. You tell me that that cannot be the case, since you saw her in Cancun working on her tan (Yuck, I'm sorry you had to see that bro) at the exact same time. Finally, our mutual friend John Michael Greer calls us to inform us that he too saw the queen in Hawaii, eating an entire large Hawaiian pizza. We argue amongst ourselves for some time about who actually saw the queen of England, and eventually our friend Greer suggests that we all actually saw "our own" Queen of England. We all understand what is wrong with that, it is logically impossible for there to be more than one, "queen of England." I liked you analogy of the hawk, the balloon, the plane and the empty sky, but I think that that example is still loaded in favor of the polytheist's claims. It is conceivable for there to be a bird, a plane, a balloon, and an empty spot in the sky at the same time, which makes you first suggestion, that they are all there, but not all observed possible. It is not possible for there to be more than one Yahweh in the "sky" (so to speak), because he is the kind of being which there can only be one of. A polytheist could claim that Yahweh is lying, but then they would need to find a way to determine this, which does not undermine their trust in what their gods claim to be. On what grounds would a polytheist determine that it is Yahweh who is lying and not Odin, or Zeus?
As for the Christian God in particular, I think that it is very clear scripturally that both early Christians and the prophets of the old testament were monotheistic. "You shall have no other Gods before me." (Exodus 20:3). This is, Moses (14th-13th century bc) claims, a direct message from God. The rest of Exodus confirms this, when we see Yahweh curse Egypt with ten plagues (each plague being an implicit demonstration of his power over the Egyptian gods). It is also clear that by the time of king David (1000 bc) at least, that the prophets saw an ontological difference between Yahweh, and the pagan gods writing "For all the Gods of the nations are demons, but the Lord made the heavens..." (Psalm 95:5). Also from the New Testament, the apostle Paul states that "Rather, things which the gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons." (1 Corinthians 10:20). You may not accept the bible as an accurate guide to history and may contest the authorship of these books, but I don't think that we have any reason to believe it is not an accurate representation of the beliefs and experiences of the people who wrote it. I think this claim can be buttressed by the claims of modern Christians, who either had visions or other signs from God warning them against certain types of idolatry, or witchcraft or whatever. You do not have to believe that all of these experiences are legitimate (I certainly don't), but you do have to provide a good criteria for rejecting them.
@@curtherring7732
First, sorry if my response isn't thorough. I have been up for almost 28 hours now and want to make sure I make some kind of response.
"I think that the difference between the kind of limitation that you proposed, and the kind of limitations which monotheistic religions require for God is where the limitation comes from."
Yes, that is a difference, but the question is why think that an external limit is necessarily incoherent when internal limits are not. You need to justify why one type of limit is not an issue and the other is.
"In his argument these persons necessarily share an essence, and a will (as you mention)"
I never said they share a will. I said that one would know that what others are doing is also good and thus not interfere, that does not require singular will.
"If the above argument holds, then a better analogy than my first analogy, or your analogy is one involving the Queen of England."
No, it isn't. You are fundamentally changing the nature of the analogy without justification. Even if there is only one god there is religious experience of many. To go back to my analogy, even if there is only a balloon in the sky there is experience of non-balloon things in the sky as well. By trying to change the fundamental nature of the analogy you are creating an analogy that does not properly express the diversity of experience that actually happens.
"On what grounds would a polytheist determine that it is Yahweh who is lying and not Odin, or Zeus?"
Most neo-pagans (though not Neo-Platonists) hold that the gods can lie, but if Odin is lying there is still an Odin that exists (as otherwise there would be no Odin to lie).
"As for the Christian God in particular, I think that it is very clear scripturally that both early Christians and the prophets of the old testament were monotheistic."
Which does not refute the point I made (even if I grant it as accurate).
I’ve never met a polytheist before or had the pleasure of discussing their beliefs with them. I’d like to quickly lay out some questions and concerns I have.
Is every god ever literally real? That seems to be a maximalist interpretation of supposedly divine experiences which would be untenable, for the simple reason that contradictory versions of the same character cannot logically exist at the same time. Example, the biblical god who is also Jesus, and the biblical god who is not cannot both exist. In addition, it could render an explicitly invented conception like Marvel’s Thor a real god, as much a part of the true being of Thor as the original myths he came from.
I could imagine you might say contradictory versions of a god do not disprove the god, but they are held by people who argue the nature of the god themself. But the problem with that would seem to be that if nobody can agree on the nature of a god anyway, among those features being it’s existence, then surely the test of existence shouldn’t produce a positive result every time. Some number of gods must be invented, such as whatever versions of the Christian god are incorrect about his nature. That would appear to be the same sort of special pleading where one Christian and the others aren’t.
I could also imagine you might say that fictional characters do not count, but that again would seem to exclude some experiences as not sufficiently divine, for what is currently by my lights an unknown or arbitrary reason. If a person comes up with a version of Thor that acts and looks like a superhero, why is that experience not divine where other versions of Thor are? If the subject of the experience, the god, is the thing that exists, and they all exist, then one cannot say that one they find to be laughable doesn’t exist simply due to personal incredulity.
If anybody has anything to add, I’d love to hear it.
I supposed if I answered your question as a polytheist "is every god literally real?" My answer would be yes, and I find the argument of having contradictory characters of same god being unable to exists as irrelevant. It is putting human constrictions onto divinity and doesn't account for human interpretation bias (a god may say the same thing to two humans who then interpret it differently) and so it is not the gods fault that there are two conflicting versions of its character.
In terms of using fictional characters I would simply class it as that persons UPG and move on.
I hope I understood what you were trying to say but I do have a processing disorder so please correct me if I misunderstood your argument :)
@@nyssa853 well from what I’ve understood so far, the slam dunk argument for polytheism is that if you believe in only one god based on experiences interpreted as divine, you’re specially pleading for your god. So polytheism, at least for some people, maybe not you, accepts the proposition that all divine experience is equally valid. So the question then is if all divine experience is valid, is conflicting experience about the same god also valid?
And saying that they’re merely subjective interpretations of the gods would appear to contradict the idea that we can take subjective experience as evidence for the gods to begin with. So again, if this isn’t a position you hold them maybe I’m arguing with nobody, but if you do hold it, then you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say on the one hand subjective experience people interpret as divine is evidence for objectively real divine beings, and on the other hand say subjective experience people interpret to conflict with other interpretations of the divine is evidence that humans are fallible. I hope that makes sense.
@@silverlightsinaugust2756
I'm sorry if I misunderstand but I don't know what you mean?
Divinity means "of or like God" so anything you put your personal faith into then becomes your gods.
I suppose this is a little more nuanced such as the argument of soft verses hard polytheism. But divinity is within everything and so (in my view) gods are merely names to reference a particular collection of things rather than beings within themselves, and that to call for specific things you must contact an epithet of the deity.
For example praying and offering to Zeus Klarios when asking for wealth or anything you want in great amounts. This is not a physical entity like you or I, but a name with power and a way to single out what you are asking for? It's hard to explain.
But essentially what I'm trying to explain is that conflicting evidence is valid because divinity isn't tied down to a human form or human personalities. Divinity can change and swell like the sea and while the sea is the same as it has always been it is constantly changing and providing an environment for its inhabitants to survive and thrive in.
There is no difference between objectively divine beings and subjective experiences because there is no objectivity in religion.
@@nyssa853 so I think I’m getting closer to understanding what you’re going for here… allow me to try and steel man this and you tell me what I’ve gotten wrong or right.
The subjective divine is what’s important to a particular person. Gods are the idealized goal of a particular person. Wealth was your example. If somebody desires more abundance in their life, the ritual of prayer or sacrifice to a god is sort of like a meditation on the goal itself, an attempt to understand it, a rededication to strive for it even more. Gods under this framework of polytheism need not be real entities. They’re only more or less real in a person’s view. Their importance to the individual person is what matters here. It’s sort of like the power of suggestion (or in a less demonstrated view, the power of positive thinking), you’re acting like this thing exists to try to make yourself more conscious of what it represents, and bring it about, kind of tricking your subconscious and inducing a placebo effect.
I have follow up questions if this is right or wrong, and I may have gotten some of it wrong but some right, so feel free to pick that apart.
@Marax Aram so can I ask what gods you believe in, and why?
Life is polymorphic!
In monotheism is not just about the validity of the existence of these deities, but are they worthy to be called god? That's why in pure monotheism you never see the "face" of god or in anthropomorphic way.
Second, regarding the tolerance of polytheism; now you tell me about the epic of mahabarat, or ares the god of war... really? Is it all about tolerance? These gods not just "hugging" each other, but they also in competition with each other.
Even in monotheism there still be diversity as other people have their own culture and heroes. But to call "super-heroes" as god..? That's the crux of the matter lies.
Yes, more than the so called "creatrod of everything" that has few to no relationship with the daily life of the people. The Gods interact with each other, that doesn't mean we are called to kill followers of other religions. Only abrahamics do that.
The Gods are not "super heroes". They are not culture heroes. They are beyond time and space. Those stories you've ready are a mix of allegory and the interventions of their intermediaries on their behalf.
The Gods are the object of all true wisdom. Abstract, more-real-than-real, and antecedent to the material world. That first God, you speak of, in "pure monotheism" is the greatest, but do not diminish his emanations, the Gods to superheroes.
@@anousseeker platonism has it's share of pitfalls
Monotheism and polytheism fundamentally differ in the objective of their mythologies. I am a Hindu, and the Mahabharata works as a cautionary tale in which even the gods can err. Polytheists do not look up to gods as perfect figures, but as representations of human traits, flaws included. For eg, although Yudhisthira, whose name literally means 'someone who is calm even in a war', slips up and indulges himself in gambling to the extent where he partakes in gambling his wife away. That's an allegory saying that despite all of your positive traits, an error can bring you down. In Ramayan, the antagonist, Ravana, has everything. He's strong, has a gift from the gods, smart, etc, but one fault, hubris, becomes the cause for his downfall.
Monotheists believe usually in a single source of truth, ipso facto everything else is false. That's why Christians calls everyone else heathens, Mulims call them kafirs, Jews call them gentiles. There is no word for someone who's not a Hindu. That's why upon the creation of Buddhism, Jainism or Sikhism, there were no wars unlike those fought over Jerusalem. That's why when the Greeks went to Egypt, they worshipped also the Egyptian gods. When Alexander invaded India, there may have been Xenophobia, but there were no religious wars fought, instead there was cultural assimilation. The Greeks didn't destroy temples, but the Islamic invaders did.
@@ruturajgole1850 The Romans didn't destroy temples? Alexander destroy a whole city of Persepolis... no violence huh...
Now in India majority still Hindus... Muslim conquerer force them to convert?? And you forget warring periode between Hindus and Buddhist in 6th-7th century. Remember you guys the one who claim to be the pacifist..
Now in terms of theology, if your Gods have flaws then why consider them as Godlike? Even in Hinduism there's the concept of ultimate God = Brahman... the difference is you guys think God works with avatars, but we say that God sends prophets. Then we have no problem with prophets make mistakes, but you guys live in conflation & contradiction when those avatars making mistakes.
I reject Greer's first premise because i do not believe that monotheists rely on special pleading in response to religious diversity.
Firstly i do not know any monotheist that takes 'religious experience' as a proof of their religion. It might strengthen their personal conviction but it's only personal and not a proof.
Secondly, at 15:42 regarding sacred texts, in your example it might be special pleading if you stop there, but in reality scholars/apologists will analyse and scrutinise the texts to know if it's from (a) God so no special pleading needed.
Thirdly, at 16:03 with regard to miracles, many scholars/apologists will analyse and scrutinise reports of miracles to understand if this event actually occurred in history. Claims do not suffice; proof is needed therefore no special pleading.
Fourthly, at 16:05 regarding prophets, these stories are usually part of scripture or other texts and, again they will be studied to determine if these people existed, if the events are true, etc. And no special pleading takes place.
16:24 highlights the problem. The 'evidence' provided by different faiths is not usually evenly matched. The Christian minister, for example will not simply present the bible, they will also try to prove its truthfulness and disprove other scriptures (whether or not the bible or other proofs are true is another topic).
Lol, this is a much better and more concise response than mine. Hats off.
Every idol must be destroyed
Come and try it then...
by the hammer and by city in the sky , by the psalms and by the songs the dividers will be casted away , there is one Divine essence thus one God
I disagree that polytheism requires no special pleading. In fact, it's very simplistic to say that ploytheists used to be tolerant. The best they could do was imply that all the other different gods were in fact just different aspects of their own gods. Otherwise, you have to recpncile the fact that the guy in front of you is telling you that it was Marduk who created the world when you know fpr a fact that the world was created when Gia emerged from the primordial chaos. You can't both be right and generally one thing has to go: your myth, or the other guy's gods. There's also just the problems of the one and the many and how there can be many perfect and eternal things and if they are not that then why are they gods? And why do the gods oppose each other morally (many neopagans deny this but neopaganism is a completely modern fabrication anyway. They are like people who speak latin: not their mother language).
The presenter here places way you much explanatory power on on subjective experience. All experience should be treated the same way and not used as evidence or proof of any given Deity. All should be tested and vetted in various ways and the truth will win out. Hint it's a monotheistic paradigm that rhymes with Christian.
All your experiences that lead you to the divine will be subjective, even if its physical, you have to trust your sense or be a solipsist
Christianity is OBJECTIVELY TRUE because I can PROVE it 😉
Facts.
@@curtherring7732 Your personal best proof?
down with Dualist Monotheism of Islam and Christianity.
Hail Odin
hail Indra
Hail Zeus
Hail Amun ra
Hail Amateratsu
Hail Vishnu
Hail Jade Emperor.