One God versus many

[Anomalocaris]

I find religion to be uncomplicated in the way a physicist easily understands quantum mechanics.

My goodness. Quantum physics may just as well be written in sanskrit to me.

I find religion complex in the way of a person with a degree in Social Anthropology.

Of course I'm sure it isn't always complex. It's just that so far that's how it has turned out to be with the  religions I've actually studied. They include aspects of Islam and Hinduism as well as some time studying Australian aborigine mythology and present day culture.. 

I think I'll stop here.

The reason why quantum mechanics is hard to understand is there is actually a real, measurable, but highly counterintuitive thing there to be understood. 

The reason why religion is hard to understand is there is nothing whatsoever to understand, but whole lot of committed bullshitters make muturally conflicting crap up as they go, shout at you to follow their bullshit of the day, while making outlandish promises of rewards if you do, vile and not always vailed threats if you don’t.

equating quantum mechanics’ difficulties to understand with the “difficulties” of understanding religion is like equating the difficulties in reading great work of literature in a complex writting system in which you are not tutored, with the difficulties in reading shakespearean meaning into a crayon scratches of extremely overindulged 3 year old who claims what he scratched was the greatest of all literature.

[T.J.]

I always found it a little interesting that, to my knowledge anyway, the only religions that cite to there being only one god is Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All the others to my knowledge cite there being multiple gods all with different purposes. I wonder what came to the authors of the above mention religions to decide it made more sense for one god to exist instead of many?

Discuss.

Your premise is flawed.

The great heretic of ancient Egyptian history Ahkenaten introduced monotheism to Egypt in the 14th century bce. This was in the form of the sun god, Aten.  All of his works were destroyed by his son, Tutankhamun, and all of the old gods were restored.  The Egyptian religion lasted for another 1000 years.  The Torah was not written for at least 500 years after Ahkenaten.

Hinduism is around 3500 years old. It has 30 million, 15 million, a few dozen, or one god, depending to whom one speaks. There are Hindus who claim there is only one god, that all of the other gods are simply aspects of the one god. I once ran across a man who asserted that he was both an atheist and a Hindu.

Zoroastrianism was first written about in the 6th century bce. It is still around. This religion asserts there is one creator god, Ahura Mazda.

All of the religions  mentioned above are far more complex than I've stated. However, the basic claim is correct. That there were monotheistic religions long before Judaism and the two other Abrahamic faiths, Christianity and Islam

Ah. I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me.

[Mister Agenda]

Zoroastrianism has one Creator God, but also 'emanates' seven divine entitites, the Amesha Spenta, who personify things like righteousness, good intention, and immortality. There's also a god of evil, Ahriman (no relation to a Catholic poster here, I presume). Ahura Mazda is omnibenevolent and omniscient, but not omnipotent, Ahriman has a chance.

It's hard to have just one God in charge of everything, because then they are also responsible of everything bad. Jehovah has Satan, but because Jehovah believers claim Jehovah is omnibenevolent and omnisicent, Satan can't do anything Jehovah doesn't let him do, so there's that. Zoroastrianism makes more sense, IMHO.

[Anomalocaris]

I believe many animist religions of Euroasian steppe also have just one single supreme deity, represented by the blue sky, plus many spirits who are considerably less than full deity but who have been delegated to control different aspect of the physical and spiritual world.

The notion that there really is just one unitary supreme being with nothing intermediate between it and humanity always runs into the problem that for such a being to be initially seen as worth bothering to believe in, it must be appeaseable.  yet to be appeasable it must exhibit desire and consistency  of will and purpose.   But the world is difficult to fit in the mold of predictability overseen by a covsustency of will and purpose.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

My goodness. Quantum physics may just as well be written in sanskrit to me.

I find religion complex in the way of a person with a degree in Social Anthropology.

Of course I'm sure it isn't always complex. It's just that so far that's how it has turned out to be with the  religions I've actually studied. They include aspects of Islam and Hinduism as well as some time studying Australian aborigine mythology and present day culture.. 

I think I'll stop here.

The reason why quantum mechanics is hard to understand is there is actually a real, measurable, but highly counterintuitive thing there to be understood. 

The reason why religion is hard to understand is there is nothing whatsoever to understand, but whole lot of committed bullshitters make muturally conflicting crap up as they go, shout at you to follow their bullshit of the day, while making outlandish promises of rewards if you do, vile and not always vailed threats if you don’t.

equating quantum mechanics’ difficulties to understand with the “difficulties” of understanding religion is like equating the difficulties in reading great work of literature in a complex writting system in which you are not tutored, with the difficulties in reading shakespearean meaning into a crayon scratches of extremely overindulged 3 year old who claims what he scratched was the greatest of all literature.

Bollocks once again.

The raison d'etre of Social Anthropology is to understand what cultural practices, including myths and religion, mean to believers. 

The approach you're using is known as 'the quaint custom' method usually used by we the people. Pretty much invented by James Frazer  in the nineteenth  century. His 2 volume book, 'The Golden Bough' was first published in 1890. For reasons passing all understanding, it remains in print. Yes, I've read it, or at least a great chunk of the abridged version.

To simply simply dismiss an argument or a person's beliefs as nonsense is an ad hominem fallacy, simplistic and intellectually lazy imo.

I think I need to agree to differ.

---

The reason why quantum mechanics is hard to understand is there is actually a real, measurable, but highly counterintuitive thing there to be understood. 

The reason why religion is hard to understand is there is nothing whatsoever to understand, but whole lot of committed bullshitters make muturally conflicting crap up as they go, shout at you to follow their bullshit of the day, while making outlandish promises of rewards if you do, vile and not always vailed threats if you don’t.

equating quantum mechanics’ difficulties to understand with the “difficulties” of understanding religion is like equating the difficulties in reading great work of literature in a complex writting system in which you are not tutored, with the difficulties in reading shakespearean meaning into a crayon scratches of extremely overindulged 3 year old who claims what he scratched was the greatest of all literature.

Bollocks once again.

The raison d'etre of Social Anthropology is to understand what cultural practices, including myths and religion, mean to believers. 

The approach you're using is known as 'the quaint custom' method usually used by we the people. Pretty much invented by James Frazer  in the nineteenth  century. His 2 volume book, 'The Golden Bough' was first published in 1890. For reasons passing all understanding, it remains in print. Yes, I've read it, or at least a great chunk of the abridged version.

To simply simply dismiss an argument or a person's beliefs as nonsense is an ad hominem fallacy, simplistic and intellectually lazy imo.

We're talking at different levels. I think I need to agree to differ.

[Ranjr]

The great heretic of ancient Egyptian history Ahkenaten introduced monotheism to Egypt in the 14th century bce. This was in the form of the sun god, Aten.  All of his works were destroyed by his son, Tutankhamun, and all of the old gods were restored.  The Egyptian religion lasted for another 1000 years.  The Torah was not written for at least 500 years after Ahkenaten.

Another interesting thing about Ahkenaten  (Amenhotep IV) and his destruction of the other temples and seizure of their wealth is that he proclaimed only he could pray directly to Aten, leaving the populous to pray to him as an intermediary.  Thus, we have not only the guide for shifting power from the clergy to a ruler but the prototype for praying to god in the name of an intermediary.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The great heretic of ancient Egyptian history Ahkenaten introduced monotheism to Egypt in the 14th century bce. This was in the form of the sun god, Aten.  All of his works were destroyed by his son, Tutankhamun, and all of the old gods were restored.  The Egyptian religion lasted for another 1000 years.  The Torah was not written for at least 500 years after Ahkenaten.

Another interesting thing about Ahkenaten  (Amenhotep IV) and his destruction of the other temples and seizure of their wealth is that he proclaimed only he could pray directly to Aten, leaving the populous to pray to him as an intermediary.  Thus, we have not only the guide for shifting power from the clergy to a ruler but the prototype for praying to god in the name of an intermediary.

 Yeah, he was smart in his obsession. I seem to remember reading that Nefertiti, the great royal wife was also allowed to pray to the Aten.

I've also read somewhere that the wonderful chair from Tutankamun's  tomb is of Akhenaton and Nefertiti. It shows the light of the Aten shining on them. It's beginning to look like great many things found in Tutankamun's tomb were meant for someone else, including that amazing mask and in fact the tomb also.

[Anomalocaris]

The reason why quantum mechanics is hard to understand is there is actually a real, measurable, but highly counterintuitive thing there to be understood. 

The reason why religion is hard to understand is there is nothing whatsoever to understand, but whole lot of committed bullshitters make muturally conflicting crap up as they go, shout at you to follow their bullshit of the day, while making outlandish promises of rewards if you do, vile and not always vailed threats if you don’t.

equating quantum mechanics’ difficulties to understand with the “difficulties” of understanding religion is like equating the difficulties in reading great work of literature in a complex writting system in which you are not tutored, with the difficulties in reading shakespearean meaning into a crayon scratches of extremely overindulged 3 year old who claims what he scratched was the greatest of all literature.

Bollocks once again.

The raison d'etre of Social Anthropology is to understand what cultural practices, including myths and religion, mean to believers. 

The approach you're using is known as 'the quaint custom' method usually used by we the people. Pretty much invented by James Frazer  in the nineteenth  century. His 2 volume book, 'The Golden Bough' was first published in 1890. For reasons passing all understanding, it remains in print. Yes, I've read it, or at least a great chunk of the abridged version.

To simply simply dismiss an argument or a person's beliefs as nonsense is an ad hominem fallacy, simplistic and intellectually lazy imo.

I think I need to agree to differ.

---

Bollocks once again.

The raison d'etre of Social Anthropology is to understand what cultural practices, including myths and religion, mean to believers. 

The approach you're using is known as 'the quaint custom' method usually used by we the people. Pretty much invented by James Frazer  in the nineteenth  century. His 2 volume book, 'The Golden Bough' was first published in 1890. For reasons passing all understanding, it remains in print. Yes, I've read it, or at least a great chunk of the abridged version.

To simply simply dismiss an argument or a person's beliefs as nonsense is an ad hominem fallacy, simplistic and intellectually lazy imo.

We're talking at different levels. I think I need to agree to differ.

indeed we are talking at different levels.

You seem to be talking at the level of why believers believe should obscure whether the belief is well founded.   Apparently the idea is If the reason for belief seems pleasing enough, falsity doesn’t matter.

I talking at the level of whether the belief is well founded, then, or now.

Why those people who did not care to verify their own claims but yet may really have believed their own claims to be true could be worthy subjects of social anthropology.    

Why those people who did not care to verify their own claims but may yet insist others believe their claims could be worthy subject of social anthropoplgy.

But first things first.  Did those belief arise out of well founded observation and reasoning then, and do they constitute to exert influence now because their foundation is still sound. 

And no, getting to the core of the problem is not intellectually lazy.   Rather letting supposition about the why obscure what actually is, is intellectually self-delusional.

[Belacqua]

multiple gods all with different purposes

To change the topic a little bit, it might be relevant to bring up the view, held by many historians, that monotheism allowed the conditions which make modern science possible. 

If the world is run by many gods, then the way the world works might vary from place to place, according to their local dictates. Or they might move around or compete with one another, changing the local laws of nature as they do so. 

Monotheism posits a single transcendence which holds the laws of nature consistent always and everywhere. For Christians, there is God the Father, who is the Ground of Being, and then there is Jesus, who (according to John 1:1) is the Logos. "Logos" is a Greek term, lifted from the Stoics and others, who used it to refer to the set of principles, order, and logic by which the world operates. 

Science depends on the metaphysical assumption that behind our subjective experiences of things, there is a "real" order to things which is universal and consistent. Truth isn't what I think it is in Tokyo after three glasses of wine, or what you think it is after a four-day video game binge. It is what a totally unsubjective viewer would hold to be true, after all personal desire, distortion, and ideology is removed. Since this is impossible for human beings, the ideal viewer for science, the viewpoint which science aspires to, is that of God. 

This is why Nietzsche holds that most of us aren't fully atheists yet. If we hold that there is a non-subjective transcendent capital-T truth over and beyond what people experience, then we are still believing in a monotheistic view of things. 

As always, I have to add that this is not the angry changeable sky-daddy God which people here argue against. This is the God of the theologians, which is what educated people talk about. Remember that it was Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century, who began to write again about Aristotle's empirical epistemology, and posited that since God was omnipresent and the world acted through his Logos, that the study of how the natural world works constitutes the study of how God acts. This set the stage for the revival of empirical research in the work of Leonardo and others. Not that science had shut down before that -- far from it! -- but Thomas provided new metaphysical grounding for why empirical science was good. It also allowed a revival of what Neoplatonists like Hypatia of Alexandria had taught -- that the study of mathematics was the most direct way of knowing the Divine Mind -- short of direct revelation.

[brewer]

Then Thomas was performing a smoke and mirrors act. Claiming that a metaphysical concept impacted the natural world was/is a false narrative. But kudos for promoting it Bel, very educated.