Saturday, December 5, 2020

Monotheism stands or falls with Supergod

Rank a-the-ists put a for the
and spell me with a little g,
for their conceit is to refer
to Great I Am as if I were
but an almighty, nothing more
than Pan, Poseidon, Thoth, or Thor.
Jehovah's one with Jove or Zeus--
so they'd imply with this their use
of a and an, but they blaspheme -- a
curse upon their an/a thema!
-- Yes and No

As everyone knows, Jews, Christians, and Muslims are monotheists, while pagans are polytheists. So when, in Book V of the Odyssey, Zeus sends Hermes to convey a message to Calypso, all three of these characters are gods. When Calypso asks Hermes why he has come, he replies (in A. T. Murray's translation)
Thou, a goddess, dost question me, a god, upon my coming, and I will speak my word truly, since thou biddest me. It was Zeus who bade me come hither against my will. Who of his own will would speed over so great space of salt sea-water, great past telling? . . . But it is in no wise possible for any other god to evade or make void the will of Zeus, who bears the aegis.
In Luke 1, when the God of the Hebrews wishes to convey messages to Zacharias and to Mary, he also sends an immortal heavenly messenger to carry out his will.
I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.
Gabriel, though, is not a god; nor, despite the cult that would later grow up around her, is Mary a goddess. Monotheism is widely considered to be extremely important, and entirely different from polytheism -- so what is this essential and fundamental difference between, say, Hermes and Gabriel that makes the one a god and the other a mere saint and angel?

Is it that Gabriel is entirely subordinate to God? But Hermes, as he explains to Calypso, is entirely subordinate to Zeus and is, no less than Gabriel, playing the role of an angelos -- that is, a messenger or envoy. And anyway, even beings that are not subordinate to God are still considered to be "angels"; Set and Loki are gods, but Satan is not.

Is Hermes considered a god because, unlike Gabriel, he was worshiped? Well, first of all, this is a difference in the religious behavior of human beings, not an intrinsic difference between Hermes and Gabriel themselves. (It may reflect some such difference, of course, but cannot be the difference.) Secondly, the supposed distinction between the "worship" of Hermes and the mere "veneration" of Gabriel is by no means an obvious one. If there were Temples of Hermes, hymns to Hermes, and so on, it is also true that there are prayers to St. Gabriel the Archangel and several houses of worship called St. Gabriel's Church. Catholicism considers the dulia due to Gabriel (and the hyperdulia paid to the Virgin) to be entirely different from the latria proper to God alone -- but for all the talk of how that difference is "infinite and immeasurable," "one of kind and not merely of degree," no one seems to be able to say clearly in what this supposedly infinite difference consists. What specific behaviors are proper when directed toward God but not when directed toward the Virgin, Gabriel, or any of the other saints? Every explanation I've read simply states that the objects of the different forms of servitus are infinitely different and seems to take it for granted that the two forms of servitus must therefore themselves be (in some unspecified way) infinitely different.

Suppose we leave Hermes out of the picture and simply ask why God is a god but Gabriel is not. If we accept the Supergod premise (that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and created everything out of nothing; see The Supergod delusion for details), obviously there can only be one Supergod, and he is qualitatively different from everything and everyone else. If being a god means being Supergod, then of course Gabriel is not a god. But then neither is Calypso, or Hermes, or even Zeus before he was reconceptualized by the philosophers -- or, for that matter, Yahweh before he was reconceptualized by the philosophers. If nothing short of Supergod can be called a "god," then polytheism has never existed. Some post-Platonic pagans -- those who adopted the "Superzeus" conception -- were monotheists in precisely the same way that Supergod-believing Christians are, but most forms of paganism were, by this definition, atheistic; they believed in "angels" but not in God.


If Supergod is rejected, monotheism loses its meaning. There is a continuum of increasingly godlike beings, from ordinary men and women all the way up to God the Father, and deciding where along that continuum to draw the line between gods and mere saints is as arbitrary as the paleontological convention that separates the mammal-like reptiles from the reptile-like mammals.

6 comments:

Bruce Charlton said...

That seems a valid analysis and conclusion. I have read several people (e.g. CS Lewis) who say that the pagan Gods were indeed (IRL) angels - angels good and bad.

Personally, I have found that the clearest way to think about God/s is in terms of creation, rather than power. A god is one who is a creator. But of course, that means that there be a concept of creation.

And for modern Man that is difficult, because creativity has been extended to include subversion and destruction (think of 20th century art - and I have seen the same in science) - which is actually the opposite of what creativity used to mean.

But clearly it is vital for many Christian theologians, going back to what is recorded from the early church (which is not that early) to base Christianity in monotheism. They even go so far as to assume monotheism first, and fit Christianity into that assumption; indeed that is the norm.

And - of course - that way of reasoning leads directly to the tortured (non-)reasoning of the Nicene Trinity theory with its tri-monotheism...

Surely, this must have blocked Christianity for more people than anything else? And probably led many in the Middle East 'back' to the (much more coherent) mono-monotheism of Islam.

(Yet this is found explicitly nowhere in the Bible! - I mean 'strict' monotheism is not derived-from the Bible - as I read it. Indeed, the OT Hebrews could not even have conceptualised philosophical monotheism.)

Anyway... Have you moticed that an emphasis on monotheism within Christianity goes-with a more typically mono-monotheist emphasis on both Supergodness and the non-personhood and incomprehensibility of God? The infinite and unbridgeable gulf between (contrary to the Fourth Gospel, of course).

For example, the long tradition of asceticism and negative theology; with its Hindu/ Buddhist-like idea of the individual person ('ego', self) being *almost* (but not quite) assimilated back-into God, to be ruled wholly by God's will. No other possible source of creativity for Men in that view...

And the idea of Heaven (and resurrected life) as consisting of massed ranks of souls praising God. Because, what else would there be to do in the perfect, hence unchanging, world wholly-ruled by Supergod? And what is the point of being resurrected in this case? No wonder Supergod Christians 'forget' or explain-away the need or value for actual bodily resurrection. They prefer to think of eternal life as a spirit - e.g. the idea that resurrection is into a 'spirit body'. If so, why bother with a body at all?

(Again, absolutely contrary to the nature of Life Eternal as described in the Fourth Gospel.)

A said...

It is recognized within Roman Catholicism that the Saints possess more of the nature of God, or are closer to God.

Dr. Charlton's observations about the unique nature of each being and their role in creation is certainly also recognized, hence the seemingly endless multitude of saints were are permitted to pray to.

You're more learned and intelligent than me, but the distinction does appear to me much stronger and not as gray as you're implying.

As Christians we recognize that God is goodness itself - and therefore the source of all good. If I pray to a saint, I recognize that he is both much closer to God than I am, and an essential part of this is that his will is more aligned to that of God - and in that same sense a better servant of God (of goodness).

Do I get that from praying to Athena vs Poseidon vs Zeus? I certainly don't see any of that. You're looking at warring gods among equals, frivolous, and prone to error. You basically invoke them for hope of material gain, no?

Though we may all pray to the saints at times hoping for material aid, the deeper nature is bringing our souls closer to the ultimate good and eternal life. A very distinct hierarchical nature with a source (which we recognize as above) from which all goodness flows down. Very different!

A said...

Of course, you could just quote Aquinas and point out that, yes, we do become gods after all...

“The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc., 57:1-4).

Wm Jas Tychonievich said...

@Bruce

"I have read several people (e.g. CS Lewis) who say that the pagan Gods were indeed (IRL) angels - angels good and bad."

I've encountered this idea before, but that means there is no such thing as polytheism -- only atheistic angelolatry. If it is maintained that Hermes and company were in fact angels but the the pagans misunderstood them to be gods, in what does the misunderstanding consist? What incorrect things did they actually believe about these beings? Certainly no one was laboring under the misapprehension that Hermes was Supergod!

@Mr. Andrew

"It is recognized within Roman Catholicism that the Saints possess more of the nature of God, or are closer to God."

But this is not possible under the Supergod assumption. Just as no finite number can be any closer to infinity than any other -- the difference is infinite in every case -- so no finite being can be any closer to Supergod than any other. As Peter Kreeft has put it, a man has much more in common with a poached egg than either has with "God" (i.e., Supergod).

"As Christians we recognize that God is goodness itself"

I do not recognize that. God is fundamentally a person and cannot be identified with any abstraction.

"Do I get that from praying to Athena vs Poseidon vs Zeus? I certainly don't see any of that. You're looking at warring gods among equals, frivolous, and prone to error. You basically invoke them for hope of material gain, no?"

This is a caricature of the Greek religion, and the Bible lends itself to similar caricatures -- if one chooses to emphasize, and take literally, such episodes as God's bet with Satan in the Book of Job, the 'war in heaven" between rival factions of angels, etc.

Be that as it may, your characterization of the Greek gods as "frivolous, prone to error," etc. actually strengthens my point. On what grounds do we say that such "frivolous" beings were gods -- i.e., that the Greeks were polytheistic -- but that the seemingly much more god-like saints are not?

"Of course, you could just quote Aquinas and point out that, yes, we do become gods after all."

Mormons have a similar saying -- "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become" -- and the perceived authority of Aquinas is sometimes appealed to when other Christians call this doctrine heretical. However, Aquinas -- unlike the Mormons -- cannot possibly have meant what he said. His theological system simply cannot deal with polytheism. It can only be a metaphor, not a literal assertion that we can become the same sort of Being that God is.

Bruce Charlton said...

I accept your general point, I didn't mean to seem to disagree.

Probably one vital aspect of the Supergod is that only he is capable of creation ex nihilo/ from nothing; which has implications that God is outside creation, time and so on - and qualitatively unique. This is probably what ultimately means there can only be one God.

(This leads onto important questions about creation itself, which are linked to free agency.)

I personally reject that too - but that was something new, abstract, philosophical that came from the Ancient Greeks; and very few civilizations have ever had that idea of creation. Pretty obviously the Old Testament Jews did not; and I don't see any explicit sign of it in the Gospels either.

In sum, I see creation from nothing and monotheism as linked; and if that package is rejected then I suspect everybody is a polytheist, of some kind. But polytheism is, like reincarnation, a variety of different things.

The philosophical rationale for polytheism is pluralism, as described by William James - but probably first articulated by Joseph Smith. For pluralism is a deep truth, which solves all the most important metaphysical difficulties of Christianity - but extremely few people seem ever to have been thorough, conscious and explicit philsophical pluralists.

cae said...

@Wm - The above blog post made me think you might be interested in the work of Historian/Biblical Scholar - Dr. Michael Heiser, Phd.

The link takes you to the "About" page on one of his blogs, specifically the extensive research he has done on references in the Old Testament to God having a "Divine Council" made up of 'Sons of God' who are a higher order of 'angels' given the status of 'gods'...
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/?page_id=15

If the link doesn't work, a search of 'Michael Heiser Divine Council' should get you there.

And that's only his 'early' work in ancient history - he's got some amazing research on other topics as well, which would also interest you (debunking "Ancient Aliens" theories, for one)
Happy Reading!
Carol

K. West, five years or hours, and spiders

I was listening to some David Bowie last night and was struck by the album art for  Ziggy Stardust . Right above Bowie is a sign that says ...