Polytheism versus Monotheism

[M. Porcius Cato]

Is monotheism ethically superior to polytheism? Maybe just the reverse, says UCLA's Mark Kleiman, in THIS exchange.

[Nephele]

To me, a debate over which is "ethically superior": monotheism or polytheism?, is like a debate over which tastes better: Coke or Pepsi?

 

-- Nephele

Who thinks that both Coke and Pepsi taste like Satan's jizz.

[marcus silanus]

To me, a debate over which is "ethically superior": monotheism or polytheism?, is like a debate over which tastes better: Coke or Pepsi?

 

-- Nephele

Who thinks that both Coke and Pepsi taste like Satan's jizz.

 

My laptop, that should be debated in this forum, won't let me into the link! I can not therefore respond in that context, but will do so otherwise.

 

I do not see how in themselves, one or the other can be ethically superior. An argument could be constructed for the relative theological merits of each, but that is all a matter of faith or the lack of it; there is no truth in this arena.

 

My understanding of Greco-Roman polytheism is that depending on the age and the individual, great emphasis might be placed on obligation to the gods. However, their ethical life was determined by virtues detached from religious obligations in a way distinctly different to those devotees of the monotheistic "Abrahamic" faiths.

 

I dislike moral equivalence for the sake of appeasing those who might disagree with me and will therefore say that on an ethical level, I would be happy to place Greco-Roman polytheism above that of Carthage that - for a certain period - demanded infant sacrifice on a large scale.

 

The monotheistic faiths for me, are mutually exclusive and one can not be superior to the other on a purely theological level. There can only be therefore, ethical questions derived from the cultures influenced by each faith. The only debate that I can see is that within the classical polytheistic religions and that within the "Abrahamic" faiths.

Edited July 28, 2009 by marcus silanus

[Nephele]

My laptop, that should be debated in this forum, won't let me into the link! I can not therefore respond in that context, but will do so otherwise.

 

I admit that I didn't watch the entire video either, MS. In fact, I didn't go much further than the bit where Mark Kleiman of U.C.L.A. takes author Robert Wright (The Evolution of God) to task for "ignoring" polytheism: "That seems to me to be a more grown-up set of beliefs."

 

Regardless of whether it's monotheism or polytheism, hearing either one compared to the other as being "a more grown-up set of beliefs" just makes me giggle.

 

-- Nephele

[Ursus]

My understanding of Greco-Roman polytheism is that depending on the age and the individual, great emphasis might be placed on obligation to the gods. However, their ethical life was determined by virtues detached from religious obligations in a way distinctly different to those devotees of the monotheistic "Abrahamic" faiths.

 

 

A fair assessment. Can't speak for all cultural polytheisms, but Greco-Roman polytheism didn't concern itself greatly with ethics. Comparing the civic cults of the Greeks and the Romans with the revealed religions of Monotheism is like comparing apples and oranges.

[sylla]

Is monotheism ethically superior to polytheism? Maybe just the reverse, says UCLA's Mark Kleiman, in THIS exchange.

This video (53:16 min) is about Mr Wright's book The Evolution of God; its subject is Abrahamic religions ("monotheism"); "polytheism" refers here to other middle East ancient religions (as the original source of the Abrahamic religions).

 

Mr Kleiman considered that Wright implicitly described monotheism as "ethically superior" (meaning more tolerant) to polytheism, but Mr Wright plainly denied having done such statement.

Mr Kleiman only tangetially dealed with classical polytheism.

 

IMHO, as stated the main conclusions of both panelists were clearly biased:

- Mr Kleiman considered polytheism more tolerant just because it acknowledges the existence of many cosmic beings instead of only one. In fact, polytheists don't acknowledge the existence of all Gods but exclusively of their own, and they can perfectly be intolerant against alien divinities; Wright in fact quoted some modern examples (Hinduism).

- Mr Wright considered Abrahamic religions as not intrinsically less tolerant than other religions; this seems to be mostly a political correct statement, hardly compatible with History, even if we admit another statement of Mr. Wright, namely that religious conflicts are fundamentally not about religion (ie, they would be explained by other social, political or economical factors).

 

As originally posted, the answer for MPC's question is easy; as ethics and religion are independent domains, no religion is "ethically" "superior" or "inferior" to any other.

[marcus silanus]

Is monotheism ethically superior to polytheism? Maybe just the reverse, says UCLA's Mark Kleiman, in THIS exchange.

This video (53:16 min) is about Mr Wright's book The Evolution of God; its subject is Abrahamic religions ("monotheism"); "polytheism" refers here to other middle East ancient religions (as the original source of the Abrahamic religions).

 

Mr Kleiman considered that Wright implicitly described monotheism as "ethically superior" (meaning more tolerant) to polytheism, but Mr Wright plainly denied having done such statement.

Mr Kleiman only tangetially dealed with classical polytheism.

 

IMHO, as stated the main conclusions of both panelists were clearly biased:

- Mr Kleiman considered polytheism more tolerant just because it acknowledges the existence of many cosmic beings instead of only one. In fact, polytheists don't acknowledge the existence of all Gods but exclusively of their own, and they can perfectly be intolerant against alien divinities; Wright in fact quoted some modern examples (Hinduism).

- Mr Wright considered Abrahamic religions as not intrinsically less tolerant than other religions; this seems to be mostly a political correct statement, hardly compatible with History, even if we admit another statement of Mr. Wright, namely that religious conflicts are fundamentally not about religion (ie, they would be explained by other social, political or economical factors).

 

As originally posted, the answer for MPC's question is easy; as ethics and religion are independent domains, no religion is "ethically" "superior" or "inferior" to any other.

 

Thanks for the summary and analysis of the clip. As I said, my old laptop wouldn't let me take a look. I happen to dislike the relatively modern definition of 'tolerance' to denote acceptance as it has superceded somewhat the more traditional one of endurance. When applied to religious beliefs, the implications of being tolerant are in these contexts markedly different.

 

The Abrahamic religions, or those ministers within them, I feel sure would say that their respective faiths have most definitely influenced the ethics of the regions or states in which they predominate. This however is largely an attempt to debunk the ethics of the classical, pantheistic west. Many of the 'ethics' promoted by Christianity, for example, can be found in Plato and the Stoic philosophers including Marcus Aurelius. The monotheists did not introduce the idea that, for example, theft was unethical to anybody whatsoever.

 

The difference is that whilst the classical world accepted the 'ethic' that they should honour the gods, their moral life was derived from other sources. The Judeo-Christian and Islamic faiths have promoted the idea that only by following their ethical course, will your spirit be reconcilled with god. Certainly Christianity and Islam, not Judaism, have evangelised in a way that suggests that they believe themselves to be the only true path. That being the case and if tolerance means acceptance and if acceptance means ethical, then perhaps we should fall on the side of polytheism as the more 'ethical'.

Edited July 20, 2009 by marcus silanus

[sylla]

...The difference is that whilst the classical world accepted the 'ethic' that they should honour the gods, their moral life was derived from other sources. The Judeo-Christian and Islamic faiths have promoted the idea that only by following their ethical course, will your spirit be reconcilled with god.

This is the lavish but in all likelihood reliable description of Polybius on the personal ethics of the Roman state religion:

 

" But the quality in which the Roman commonwealth is most distinctly superior is in my opinion the nature of their religious convictions.

I believe that it is the very thing which among other peoples is an object of reproach, I mean superstition, which maintains the cohesion of the Roman State.

These matters are clothed in such pomp and introduced to such an extent into their public and private life that nothing could exceed it, a fact which will surprise many.

... as every multitude is fickle, full of lawless desires, unreasoned passion, and violent anger, the multitude must be held in by invisible terrors and suchlike pageantry.

For this reason I think, not that the ancients acted rashly and at haphazard in introducing among the people notions concerning the gods and beliefs in the terrors of hell, but that the moderns are most rash and foolish in banishing such beliefs.

The consequence is that among the Greeks, apart from other things, members of the government, if they are entrusted with no more than a talent, though they have ten copyists and as many seals and twice as many witnesses, cannot keep their faith; whereas among the Romans those who as magistrates and legates are dealing with large sums of money maintain correct conduct just because they have pledged their faith by oath. . . "

Edited July 21, 2009 by sylla

[Maty]

Seems to me there's a danger of tangling two different threads.

 

Does monotheism make people more ethical?

and

Is monotheism more ethical?

 

And whose ethics are we talking about anyway?

 

To call one religion more ethical than another is like comparing their height or yellowness. The comparison does not make sense unless you compare a religion against a set of ethical standards derived from outside that religion, and therefore from outside the culture which produced it. To misquote Kipling 'What may be fair in Berkley Square is taboo in Timbuctoo'- ethics are a moving target.

 

Anthropologists reckon the Greeks had a 'shame culture' - where the main issue lay in your faults being publicly exposed, whereas today we have a 'guilt' culture based on the perception we have 'sinned'. This is entirely aside from whether the respective religions are monotheistic or polytheistic, yet lead to very different ethical standards. There's nothing to stop a polytheistic religion from having a hell and enforcing ethical behaviour that way - its just that classical religion did not.

 

(Perhaps due - as Nephele mentions - to an inability to find an arch-fiend capable of producing the right flavour of fizzy drink?)

[sylla]

Seems to me there's a danger of tangling two different threads.

 

Does monotheism make people more ethical?

and

Is monotheism more ethical?

 

And whose ethics are we talking about anyway?

 

To call one religion more ethical than another is like comparing their height or yellowness. The comparison does not make sense unless you compare a religion against a set of ethical standards derived from outside that religion, and therefore from outside the culture which produced it. To misquote Kipling 'What may be fair in Berkley Square is taboo in Timbuctoo'- ethics are a moving target.

 

Anthropologists reckon the Greeks had a 'shame culture' - where the main issue lay in your faults being publicly exposed, whereas today we have a 'guilt' culture based on the perception we have 'sinned'. This is entirely aside from whether the respective religions are monotheistic or polytheistic, yet lead to very different ethical standards. There's nothing to stop a polytheistic religion from having a hell and enforcing ethical behaviour that way - its just that classical religion did not.

 

(Perhaps due - as Nephele mentions - to an inability to find an arch-fiend capable of producing the right flavour of fizzy drink?)

The short answer first:

Ethics and Religion are independent domains.

I'm not aware of any research that compares the perceived ethical quality of diverse religious groups with the number of deities revered by them.

 

Now the long one:

Even if ethics and related philosophy may be largely subjective, they are always based on hard facts that may (and should) be the object of the regular rules of evidence.

As Ethics is so relevant for both daily life and metaphysics, most religions have highly developed ethical doctrines on their own: however, Ethics by itself is not religious.

In fact, religious dogma inevitably cripples ethical research; ritual mutilation, diet restriction and other taboo are then, by definition, right. The opposition of the Catholics and other churches against reproductive control is a paramount example.

Presumably many true believers of any religion actually believe true Ethics are fundamentally restricted to their religion; that is of course pure naive jingoism.

By its own nature, religion (any religion) most naturally tends not to be tolerant.

Besides, poly and monotheism are not well-defined mutually exclusive categories, mainly because there is no unanimous definition for "God"; arguably, any monotheism is the cult of a polytheist divinity with an attitude.

For example, Catholics might well be perceived as "polytheistic" relative to Presbyterians, both relative to Jehovah's witnesses and all relative to Islam; and the purportedly "dualistic" Zoroastrianism might be even more "monotheistic", because the supposedly "evil God" is in fact no God, as it is not revered at all.

Many classical cults were basically monotheism (even if non-Abrahamic); just check out Appuleius on Isis. Or Mithras.

And of course, eternal ultraterrestrial punishment ("Hell") is not required by many religions (in fact, most of them) for the preservation of their respective religious ethics.

Edited July 29, 2009 by sylla

[Tribunicus Potestus]

Rome prospered while they respected the gods of their ancestors. Things went down the Cloaca Maxima after they abandoned them. Just sayin'.

[Ursus]

Rome prospered while they respected the gods of their ancestors. Things went down the Cloaca Maxima after they abandoned them. Just sayin'.

 

As much as I despise Constantine's religious policies, I point out things were becoming dark for Rome long before that. The weaknesses of the Empire were beginning to show themselves around the time of Commodus. And it weren't for Aurelian, the empire as we know it would have ceased to exist in the third century.

[Tribunicus Potestus]

Rome prospered while they respected the gods of their ancestors. Things went down the Cloaca Maxima after they abandoned them. Just sayin'.

 

As much as I despise Constantine's religious policies, I point out things were becoming dark for Rome long before that. The weaknesses of the Empire were beginning to show themselves around the time of Commodus. And it weren't for Aurelian, the empire as we know it would have ceased to exist in the third century.

 

Yes, however the riff raff were already abandoning the pantheon. As early as Nero non-believers were being blamed for the fires in Rome. Could it be that the growth of the religion I shall not name paralleled the instability in the Empire? As the gods became increasingly irritated would they not meddle with the order within and without the Empire?

[GhostOfClayton]

Yes, however the riff raff were already abandoning the pantheon. As early as Nero non-believers were being blamed for the fires in Rome. Could it be that the growth of the religion I shall not name paralleled the instability in the Empire? As the gods became increasingly irritated would they not meddle with the order within and without the Empire?

 

I can't help thinking that, had Christianity never existed, there wouldn't have been any huge tectonic shift in the politcal landscape in the Roman Empire throughout the rest of it's lifespan. Just my opinion.

[Tribunicus Potestus]

Is monotheism ethically superior to polytheism? Maybe just the reverse, says UCLA's Mark Kleiman, in THIS exchange.

 

I don't have an opinion as to which is more ethical. But to a practical point. The pantheon was a hodge podge of older religions from many groups and much as Hinduism does by incorporating popular cults from many sources no single cult (most romans had their personal favorite) was able to gain ascendency and the state was not threatened. So from a purely political and social standpoint polytheism is the wiser course.

 

One might say that my last statement is a Consequentialist position and therefore an ethical position. So therefore I do have a position on the ethical merits. Dratz...

Edited September 28, 2011 by Tribunicus Potestus