tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (12/10/84)
> In article <20980015@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: > > Monotheistic religions tend to be more superstitious than po- > > lytheistic, in that they tend to consider their absurd models as > > literal fact, whereas polytheistic religions often have a far > > more symbolic approach to their absurd models. It is perfectly > > easy to reconcile the two in a variety of ways: (1) Monotheism is > > a variant of polytheism in which the ruler god (Zeus, etc.) has > > come to dominate the religion and drive out other symbols. (2) > > Polytheism is a variant of monotheism in which the various as- > > pects of divinity are given independent existence. (3) "God" is > > a symbol of the underlying unity and motive force of the > > universe, whereas polytheistic deities are symbols for other > > parts of experience. Others may be devised at will, including > > the Baha'i: but to insist that a religion must serve a monotheis- > > tic, polytheistic, or atheistic underlying model (as the Baha'is > > do) is not real eclecticism. > Are you arguing that the solution is that they are all wrong? Yes, of course they are all wrong. Every existing religious system is wrong, without exception, including the eclectic ones, and atheism and agnosticism. An eclectic system differs in that it attempts to overcome the individual limitations of each by balancing it with others, and by sorting out tribal prejudice from inspiration. Thus it aspires to more truth than the limited and fundamentalist approaches can deliver. > If you are going to claim that monotheistic systems are more superstitious > than polytheisms, I suggest you read the Elder Edda. I'm hard pressed to > think of a surviving polytheistic system; certainly Hinduism isn't, since > it has harmonized out its gods into the Godhead. Monotheism seems to be > the wave of the present and the future. Even atheism is sort of a degenerate > monotheism. The notion that the universe is controlled by a number of > totally independent all-powerful beings somehow doesn't appeal to people any > more. > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Sigh. Please make an effort to read what I say, not what you want me to say. Have I ever advocated the belief that any being or collection of beings controls the universe? Do you believe that the classical polytheists thought that? I consider all such speculation absurd (although every so often literal theistic models come up with some notion of philosophical interest) unless it can be shown, rather than merely suggested as a pretty nifty idea or decided as an axiom. By the way, Charles, I suggest you dip again at the wells of anthropology and current events if you can't think of any existing non-monotheistic societies. I also suggest that you study Hinduism more (like, at least the major Upanishads) before you call it monotheistic. It most definitely is not, even if there does exist within it a symbol which includes all other symbols. Of course, maybe you've just read Christian stuff on Hinduism, which often exagerrates the centrality of "Atman" in practice and scripture. It took the West a long time to realize that "Budd" was not just another name for God in nearby regions as well, just as the ancient Romans considered all other religions to be just inferior variants of their own. Speaking of Buddhism, there's yet another example of a surviving and thriving non-monotheistic religion. Nor is atheism any sort of "degenerate monotheism" -- it is just as negative towards polytheistic religions. But the point is that you've set me up as asking "Should eclecticism be monotheistic or polytheistic?" and saying "polytheistic", where my answer would be "no". Once again, please READ what I say: "to insist that a religion must serve a monotheistic, polytheistic, or atheistic underlying model (as the Baha'is do) is not real eclecticism." I hope I will not have to repeat myself again in this discussion, since I will probably choose to terminate it instead if so. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (12/12/84)
>Buddhism, I might point out, is at base atheistic; the "Gods" are >representations of priniciples, and are not considered real. My reading of Buddhism is that it takes an agnostic position towards the existence of God(s). This was one of the questions that the Buddha refused to answer on the grounds that it did "not lead to enlightenment". -- "When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve" Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)