Comments on: Monotheism http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/193 Ian Lance Taylor Sun, 7 Sep 2008 13:34:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on Monotheism by: Ian Lance Taylor http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/193#comment-13859 Wed, 21 May 2008 04:38:37 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/193#comment-13859 Thanks for the note. I think that the abstraction of religion that you are talking about follows monotheism. You're right that most pantheons have a head god. But there is really a big difference. Zeus was born from a father, whom he killed, and split the world up with his brothers, and had children with mortal women. That's very different from the Christian god who created the world and is omnipresent and omniscient. Thanks for the note. I think that the abstraction of religion that you are talking about follows monotheism. You’re right that most pantheons have a head god. But there is really a big difference. Zeus was born from a father, whom he killed, and split the world up with his brothers, and had children with mortal women. That’s very different from the Christian god who created the world and is omnipresent and omniscient.

]]> Comment on Monotheism by: Manu http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/193#comment-13847 Tue, 20 May 2008 23:18:56 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/193#comment-13847 Honestly speaking, people talk about polytheistic vs. monotheistic religions all the time but that is a theological concept. And, as most theology, it is just philosophical rubbish such as the discussion of the substance of god, the concept of the limbo, the mistery of the trinity, etc. The truth is that even in the so-called polytheistic religions, there was typically a superior being, the god of gods, (Zeus for example) less powerful but still quite powerful beings (the "other gods" such as Mars) and minor characters with some particular miraculous power or feature (like hercules). The so-called monotheistic religions just change the balance of power a tiny bit. Now you have a all-powerful god (although many christians have the trinity), a respectable amount of incredibly powerful beings (all kinds of angels and demons), and thousands of miracle-makers minor characters (the faithfully worshipped and independent-acting virgins and saints). I don't see such a big difference from the typical polytheist religion. Is the angel Gabriel a god? Not by today standards you may say (if you say anything else, you just agree with my point anyway). But then, can we honestly say that Hermes is a god by today standards? I am willing to bet that "our lady of fatima" can kick the ass of Hera any time. After all, the former modified the trajectory of a bullet to save the pope. I don't think that Hera (or even Thor!), despite being called gods, could do such thing. On the other hand, what really has happened is an abstraction of religion. Religions of early civilizations are strongly attached to reality: gods look like animals and humans, everything is explained through the supernatural (in fact there is no such difference). As civilizations evolve, religions become more abstract, gods are less dehumanized, they are moved out of the real world into abstract heavens and hells, there is a differentiation between supernatural and natural things. As a civilization advances, anything that can be shown false by strong evidence has to be abandoned. (Of course, this is not all that there is about the evolution of religions. Some religions are more successful because they are more appealing, they connect more deeply with the fears and emotions of humans. They don't need to be more "reasonable", but that helps.) Honestly speaking, people talk about polytheistic vs. monotheistic religions all the time but that is a theological concept. And, as most theology, it is just philosophical rubbish such as the discussion of the substance of god, the concept of the limbo, the mistery of the trinity, etc. The truth is that even in the so-called polytheistic religions, there was typically a superior being, the god of gods, (Zeus for example) less powerful but still quite powerful beings (the “other gods” such as Mars) and minor characters with some particular miraculous power or feature (like hercules).

The so-called monotheistic religions just change the balance of power a tiny bit. Now you have a all-powerful god (although many christians have the trinity), a respectable amount of incredibly powerful beings (all kinds of angels and demons), and thousands of miracle-makers minor characters (the faithfully worshipped and independent-acting virgins and saints). I don’t see such a big difference from the typical polytheist religion.

Is the angel Gabriel a god? Not by today standards you may say (if you say anything else, you just agree with my point anyway). But then, can we honestly say that Hermes is a god by today standards? I am willing to bet that “our lady of fatima” can kick the ass of Hera any time. After all, the former modified the trajectory of a bullet to save the pope. I don’t think that Hera (or even Thor!), despite being called gods, could do such thing.

On the other hand, what really has happened is an abstraction of religion. Religions of early civilizations are strongly attached to reality: gods look like animals and humans, everything is explained through the supernatural (in fact there is no such difference). As civilizations evolve, religions become more abstract, gods are less dehumanized, they are moved out of the real world into abstract heavens and hells, there is a differentiation between supernatural and natural things. As a civilization advances, anything that can be shown false by strong evidence has to be abandoned.

(Of course, this is not all that there is about the evolution of religions. Some religions are more successful because they are more appealing, they connect more deeply with the fears and emotions of humans. They don’t need to be more “reasonable”, but that helps.)

]]> Comment on Monotheism by: ncm http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/193#comment-13707 Sat, 17 May 2008 09:05:43 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/193#comment-13707 A reduction from N to one, on the way to zero, is progress, presuming you don't stop before you get there. At the time the advantage was that you needed only to assuage one deity, and did not risk offending each by acknowledging jurisdiction of another, or a dozen others. There were direct financial consequences, too: how many priesthoods must you support? (Arguably these are two restatements of the same problem.) Polytheism makes for a very complicated life. Arguably that's a big part of the appeal of occultism among the idle rich -- life seems too predictable without it. It's amusing how many centuries it took to settle on the "died for our sins" line. It seems to me that any of the other early contenders could easily have won out, but for unspecifiable fluctuations of the ectoplasmic ether. A reduction from N to one, on the way to zero, is progress, presuming you don’t stop before you get there.

At the time the advantage was that you needed only to assuage one deity, and did not risk offending each by acknowledging jurisdiction of another, or a dozen others. There were direct financial consequences, too: how many priesthoods must you support? (Arguably these are two restatements of the same problem.) Polytheism makes for a very complicated life. Arguably that’s a big part of the appeal of occultism among the idle rich — life seems too predictable without it.

It’s amusing how many centuries it took to settle on the “died for our sins” line. It seems to me that any of the other early contenders could easily have won out, but for unspecifiable fluctuations of the ectoplasmic ether.

]]>