Note: I’m not ‘saying’ anything. I am expressing an idea :)

Principally, the purpose of religion was to explain the world, just like science does today.

Polytheistic world views are all very similar in their approach. The original creator was usually some watery primordial chaos soup - Atum (Egypt), Tiamat (Babylonian), Khaos (Greek). They beget children that get the world to move, most prominently, forces that represent the forces of nature.

Historically, monotheism emerged directly from polytheism. Being set in and around ancient Mesopotamia, the Israelites recognized multiple deities of the time. The belief however was that only YHWH should be worshipped. He was the patron deity of the Jews. Amongst the many gods, he specifically was believed to be the one looking after their folk.

I agree that polytheism offers more inspiration for people in terms of how they may want to shape their life. Yet, I'd say that the polytheistic beliefs have the same problem in being "beyond" human. The difference is just how this beyondness resolves in story. In polytheism, humanity gets caught up in the schemes of the gods, playball to the forces of nature, they have to bid as the gods please. In monotheism, instead of being phrased as two opposing forces, the calamity suddenly becomes a trial by god for the people to prove their devotion.

Last but not least, there's the third approach of simply combining monotheism and polytheism. This is prominent in Hinduism, where all is Brahman and where Brahman manifests as different aspects in all. Personally, I like this method of non-contradictions the most.

I think all of these approaches are rather sensible ways of describing the world. I'd say today science itself tends towards the monotheistic idea, attempting to find one unitary principal force that moves everything.

I agree that polytheism offers more inspiration for people in terms of how they may want to shape their life. Yet, I'd say that the polytheistic beliefs have the same problem in being "beyond" human. — Hermeticus

I don’t think so as they are not omnipotent and make mistakes.

I would also say that people reflected themselves into the pantheon of gods more and this had a psychological effect that grounded them rather than some absolute overseer of monotheism. The god of war becomes a more ready expression of human conflict and how to deal with troubles, not some being beyond any human reach. For the monotheism the god is simply ‘everything’ and mysterious. The pantheon of gods allow greater access and selection without any real need to stick hard to one principle in life. The war god will make sense for those who avoid conflict as much as those that seek it out (a kind of ancient representation of The Art of War in that it needed be about making war but merely avoiding it). A fertility god can relate to many things like how to manage a household, perfect a craft or farm land.

Obviously all these representations can, and do, interact too. We see this is all pantheons where they fall in and out of fashion, absorb each other and/or split into other fragments. Monotheism seems more or less to do away with the exploratory force of human nature. I think this is reflected well enough in the idea of a wrathful singular god that is not seen with such force in polytheism where there is the choice to favour another god when one seems not to help your current path.

I am looking at this from a psychological perspective and what seems to be a ‘healthier’ view.

I am looking at this from a psychological perspective and what seems to be a ‘healthier’ view. — I like sushi

Psychologically speaking, it's in human nature to love and be loved, to have a feeling that there is somebody who cares of you even in most dire circumstances, somebody who always listens and hears your problems, somebody who is always there, somebody who will give useful advice etc.

For this to be plausible and attractive, that somebody must have adequate powers to fulfill all off these expectations and must occasionally present it's powers to prevent suspicions with the main aim to ensure faith and to ensure sacrifice (in various forms) isn't in vain.

Polytheism splits these powers into multiple deities while monotheism has only one God.
To get my point further it's important to understand that deity is not the same thing as God.

Speaking of monotheism, in particular Christianity and most expressed in Catholicism, there are some similarities with polytheism, and these are angels and demons.

However it would be incorrect to say that angels and demons are deities, primarily because in polytheism there is no one ultimate God, therefore deities are not deputies of God (or other deities) which is true for angels but not for demons. (deities represent them self)
Secondly angels are not allowed to be worshiped in any way, which is true for deities.
In Catholicism there is a tradition where "few known" angels but mostly saints, may take words of an individual (trough prayer) and intercede (advocate) for you before God, which is false for demons. (but they're still not allowed to be worshiped like deities)
And finally angels as well as demons have ranks and obligations, ex. they don't do all the same thing.

Knowing that, psychologically speaking there is no "healthier" view because that's subjective and depends on an individual, (assuming that an individual is atheist who for some reason is in search for true or better God or an angel or saint), theist however will just stick with his belief until either doubt or attraction of other God trough exoteric teaching prevails.

Again psychologically speaking, taking into account expected powers that an individual expects from either deities, angels or saints, there is no better or more wrong way as long as it fulfils it's expectations.
One thing that however makes the difference that may affect an individuals psyche is unfulfillment of their expectations resulting in doubt which then results in weakening of faith. (which altogether acts negatively to psyche).

Weakening of faith and how it affects psyche is however subject not only to nature of an individual but also to external (social) factors.

Other things being equal in monotheism, in Catholicism that's one fundamental "advantage" where, if the particular angel or saint does not succeed to fulfil expectations, one can always turn to God directly, but that's never the case in polytheism.

Where Socrates would argue that the gods shouldn’t be followed because they err I wouldn’t agree. To blindly follow is stupidity/laziness. To observe and learn what the gods show us through narrative interactions, to understand how they become more relatable and to aspire to certain characteristics that inspire us as a individual is precisely the point of the polytheistic view of the cosmos. — I like sushi

Which makes little sense given modern scientific discoveries because in the end it all leads to one God one way or the other.
Also mixing nature and how it unfolds in reality has little to do with religious belief, you either believe one or the other unless there is God that creates other beings that handle nature, but I'm not aware of such religion. (just my opinion)

Which makes little sense given modern scientific discoveries because in the end it all leads to one God one way or the other. — SpaceDweller

I don’t know what you mean by that. If you’re a religious follower yourself I guess what I’m saying is fairly moot to you anyway.

I have a theory that what made the Jewish religion "innovative" was its connecting ethical standards with a deity's mandate. From what I've seen other religions didn't really tie morality with the deities so much as mytho-history, tribal identity, aspects of life, etc. Gods beforehand were more capricious. Demands of sacrifice and ritual but not much in the way of systematic behavior.

When Greek philosophy became more about systems (lets say starting with Pythagorianism and moving through with things like Stoicism and Neoplatonism), it seemed to have the standards but really it seemed to be about conforming to an abstract natural "way" or simply "best practice" rather than a mandate tied to a deity.

What does human psyche have to do with the existence of one or more deities?

What does human psyche have to do with the existence of one or more deities? — Michael

They're the same thing from different perspectives.

They're the same thing from different perspectives. — frank

No they're not. One is about the psychology of a particular species of animal life, one is about supernatural entities that are responsible for the creation and management of the physical world (and a supposed afterlife).

The idea of deities exists. Psychologically I just think ONE deity seems like an oversimplification as I don't believe they really 'Exist' only that they are a reflection if humanity trying to understand its place in/about the world.

Having a god of War or a god of Love makes sense rather than god as it seems restrictive in terms of an individual's exploration of themselves and their place in/about the world.

I'm not saying the jump to monotheistic was 'wrong' just that maybe it hasn't had much time to bed in compared to polytheism. I guess we could argue that today humanity is polytheistic in the sense that there are multiple iterations of god but I wasn't talking about a multiplicity of monotheistic views as opposed to a singular monotheistic view. The narrowing of options and confinement of religious perspectives was more or less what I am getting at.

Monotheism seems less flexible and less forgiving.

Monotheism seems less flexible and less forgiving. — I like sushi

That has nothing to do with whether or not monotheism is correct. Any facts about the supernatural and religious cosmology are entirely separate to human introspection.

My friend wrote a paper that exposed me to the terms of universal pantheism and universal panentheisim. I understood the former to be like polytheism and the later like polytheism but with the notion of one true god being manifest in different iterations for different people. Thus, the latter was really a monotheism that made room for people to understand the same God in different ways.

My problem with monotheism/universal panentheism is that they are not as magnanimously inclusive as they would like to think of themselves. The impression I get is like: "Oh, you silly infidels, dancing around your fires; sure, you can have your god. But really, your god is really 'our' God, the one true God, reaching out to you in his loving kindness for your innocent, ignorant, unsaved little souls.'"

Naturally, that made me want to say "FU."

Besides, I have a view of God as All, which would not only account for the absence of itself, but it would account for all the Gods as actual Gods. And not.

So, I'm not sitting back and arguing that my God is bigger than your god. The reason that I am not arguing that is not because he isn't. He is indeed bigger than your god. But I can't argue it because he is, simultaneously, not.

In short, monotheism is BS. And not. Oh, and all that stuff about omnibenevolent? It's BS. And not. It's relative, and not.

I like Yuval Noah Harari's (Israeli historian) views on monotheism. It, simply put, makes zero sense. How can one entity (God) be the source of , grabbing the low hanging fruit here, both good and evil. At a minimum we need two deities. More the merrier of course. Polytheism easily avoids this inconsistency with its orgy of deities.

No they're not. One is about the psychology of a particular species of animal life, one is about supernatural entities that are responsible for the creation and management of the physical world (and a supposed afterlife). — Michael

Moses Finley says they're the same (pretty much). We think of the psyche as something an individual owns. Ancient people saw the psyche plastered over the whole world and called the elements divine.

Yes, there's the mythology of the world's beginning. That's a small part of what divinity once was.

When you've actually experienced a god and aren't just bs'ing about what you prefer, what seems logical, what society condones, what is imposed by humans so as to play god, it narrows down the options quite a bit. I imagine the Israelites originally believed in their god because they experienced that god directly, he had power, and he seemed to help them. That's why I believe in spirits that transcend the biological order without making any claim as to whether my beliefs should be given precedence. Myths and institutions probably obscure that simple fact.

How can one entity (God) be the source of , grabbing the low hanging fruit here, both good and evil. At a minimum we need two deities. — TheMadFool

For one thing, you're reifying. For another thing, why would two deities be required?

Moses Finley says they're the same (pretty much). We think of the psyche as something an individual owns. Ancient people saw the psyche plastered over the whole world and called the elements divine.

Yes, there's the mythology if the world's beginning. That's a small part of what divinity once was. — frank

I have no idea what you're saying here. Can you speak literally and not in metaphor.

For one thing, you're reifying. — Michael

So, God's just a concept! :ok:

So, God's just a concept! — TheMadFool

Good and evil are just concepts.

Something like killing someone for fun and saving a drowning child are real things, but why must at least two deities exist for both to be possible?

No, good and evil are concepts. — Michael

How does that make reifying relevant? Where did I go wrong?

How does that make reifying relevant? Where did I go wrong? — TheMadFool

You seemed to reify good and evil. They're not things in their own right.

But more to the point is my second question: killing someone for fun and saving a drowning child are both real things, but why must at least two deities exist for both to be possible?

I have no idea what you're saying here. Can you speak literally and not in metaphor. — Michael

I wasn't speaking metaphorically. Ancient people didn't own the elements of the human psyche the way we do.

They thought a divinity created fire and gave it to us. We think humans invented it by ingenuity. It's the same story, but ancients called ingenuity divine.

That's one of the roots of the idea of divinity. Monotheism is integrating all the elements of the psyche into a single ego.

You seemed to reify good and evil. — Michael

Does the "fact" that good and evil are just concepts have any consequences that I/we should be worried about? Since these are just concepts, am I now at liberty to murder, rape, pillage, plunder, etc?

Oh, you answered my question! We're good. It's distinction without a difference.

That has nothing to do with whether or not monotheism is correct. — Michael

So? What are you talking about? You've lost me. Maybe you're taking this thread as something it isn't at all.

Any facts about the supernatural and religious cosmology are entirely separate to human introspection. — Michael

I think I'm right. you don't seem to even have hold of the same stick let alone the wrong end of it. If you're a religious person yourself I'm not belittling 'religion' only looking at it as a human phenomenon (an anthropological perspective) and viewing how it applies to human life and psychology.

That is all.

Does the "fact" that good and evil are just concepts have any consequences that I/we should be worried abotut? Since these are just concepts, am I now at liberty to murder, rape, pillage, plunder, etc? — TheMadFool

I don't understand the relevance of your question. I'm addressing your claim that one deity cannot be the source of both good and evil. "Good" and "Evil" aren't things. Rather there are certain behaviours that we describe (rightly or wrong) as being good or evil. Killing someone for fun might be an example of something that is evil and saving a drowning a child might be an example of something that is good. So your argument is that if only a single deity exists then it shouldn't be possible for there to be both people who kill for fun and people who save drowning children. That seems like a non sequitur.

I as not asking about it in this way. I was simply thinking about how relatable such 'ideas' are to a developing human society. A plural of perspectives from which to approach human life just seems more tangible to me.

Whenever I post something and there is only ONE person who understands what I'm getting at, asking or playing with it's always YOU!

Maybe you don't get it though? Either way surprise me and throw in your thoughts about this as mine are biased toward what I put forward in the OP but by no means firmly established.

I would necessarily see a progression towards a monotheistic set up but I don't think there was, or has been, much time for it come to full fruition (in terms of what it could offer PURELY as a psychological edifice of guidance and reference).

I would necessarily see a progression towards a monotheistic set up but I don't think there was, or has been, much time for it come to full fruition (in terms of what it could offer PURELY as a psychological edifice of guidance and reference). — I like sushi

I don't think religion has much possible clout beyond its almost totally antiquated role as authority structure, cultural keystone and on occasion emotional inspiration apart from direct experience of god. Would religion even exist if adherents didn't believe they have direct experience of the supernatural? From my point of view, seems like you've got to address the question of what gods actually exist and how they are experienced so as to comprehend the psychology of religion.

I'm not going there. My aim for this thread us quite specific. I am assuming there are no actual gods and that they are a manifestation of human experience projected and interacting with the immediate world. It doesn't matter if you agree with this or not or whether I believe it or not IF we are analysing the possible psychological benefits of, mistakenly or otherwise, following a monotheistic line or a polytheistic line given the variety of human social activity.

A War god makes sense to a soldier and more readily than a monotheistic entity as the former is a direct meaningful line for them. Tangentially such pantheons that contain War gods necessarily interact with other gods within the mythos so favouring one is not denial of another, and may lead to switching perspectives and learning.

That is all I was thinking.

only looking at it as a human phenomenon (an anthropological perspective) and viewing how it applies to human life and psychology. — I like sushi

Then I don't know what you're trying to argue. That polytheism is easier to understand than monotheism?