The Philosophy Now Forum

As an old forum jedi master once said, "a cold wind blows through Spinoza," and I don't think IC would survive the climb. Most monotheists reject Spinz outright because he terrifies them by saying all the wrong shit. God is an indifferent (no... he's not even indifferent because that, too, is an anthropomorphic error/projection), dispassionate, amoral elemental force of some sort... the irreducible stuff that would still constitute Being and space if everything about it, all its properties, were subtracted. So it's not the substance of the particle because it decays and irreducible substance wouldn't decay. It's not the size or the spin or anything about it that is physically contingent to natural laws. None of its observable features would be self-caused... they'd only be changing attributes of this irreducible and elemental self-caused substance, whatever it is. It wouldn't be material or immaterial. These terms are too rigid for it.

We can know all this because the order of our ideas is the same as the order of the effects upon our bodies... so ideas proper - which for Spinoza weren't emotive or trivial ideas about inessential aspects of the nature of substance (muddled a posteriori ideas) - would necessarily reflect absolute facts/truths about nature, or substance, or 'god' if you wanna. But there are very few important facts, eternal facts or facts 'sub specie aeternitatis'. We know that cause and effect (determinism) is real. We know that morality is relative. We know that Nature neither loves nor hates us. We know that pleasure and pain are the motivating forces of human activity and that happiness is when one has acquired a greater capacity to act... sadness when one is constrained or prohibited. How we mince all this with our moral language is neither here nor there, and changes nothing about these conditions.

To know these truths, philosophers, is a task that is as difficult as it is rare. Indeed, as are all things noble.

Go now, philosophers. Seek the Portuguese lenz grinder and take his instruction.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2026 9:06 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2026 6:16 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2026 4:24 pm No, you haven't really provided a good reason to exclude any/all polytheism.

Yeah, I have. Polytheism posits created gods -- a completely different concept from the Ultimate Creator, by their own account. So they're not even really talking about "a God," let alone "the God."

Why couldn't creation be the product of some committee/team?

Easy. Because the team would be contingent and limited. It would also be disunified and factious, plausibly...or if not, it would be merely redundant. Why posit a "committee" when all the members always agree? That would certainly seem to run afoul of Occam's Razor, and would mean the existence of the committee had no purpose.

So it would never answer the First Cause problem.

Polytheism (in general no more posits created gods than monotheism does.

Yeah, actually...it does. Polytheistic gods are necessarily contingent, temporal and limited, like Zeus or Odin and their ilk.

Might I humbly suggest that the humans who adopt a hierarchical cosmology are living in a hierarchical society, so they see that as natural. Humans who live in a non-hierarchical/cooperative society might adopt a collective/cooperative cosmology.

Where are you thinking of?

BUT --- you weren't (initially arguing polytheism was unnecessary but that it was incoherent.

No, I argued that the "committee of gods" idea was unnecessary, because redundant if they agreed, and these "gods" were merely fractious and limited, if they didn't. Neither corresponds to the First Cause problem.

But polytheism IS incoherent. If you think it's not, give an example of one that you think is not. I'll bet we'll find it is.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 12:47 am I don't think IC would survive the climb.

Do exposit Spinoza for us. I can hardly wait to hear you do it.

That which is known to exist cannot unknow this knowing.

This knowing is a concept known as God.

https://youtu.be/oskRmMRvguM?is=sbkQzeVyD7I8adqM

If God is the ultimate observer, then the universe is a consciousness-architecture running on recursive self-observation.

No adds in the video, so no excuse to not watch.

God is not what a finite human thought thinks it is. It’s much simpler than that.

Even the Bible states: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

God never needed history His Story to exist, but his story was so that he could reflect on himself over and over again, infinitely for eternity.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 2:49 am But polytheism IS incoherent. If you think it's not, give an example of one that you think is not. I'll bet we'll find it is.

Before we do THAT, we need to decide WHAT we are going to call "polytheism". A SINGLE polytheistic religion or a combination of several polytheistic religions (which of course would result in a "unified" polytheist pantheon).

I would not dream of trying to present a coherent example of the latter. But I think you misunderstand what the latter are and what their purpose.


There is a fundamental difference between when a monolithic culture invades another culture and when a polytheistic culture does so. The monotheistic culture will not accept the area's existing god or gods. It will supplant/suppress or at least reduce to less than full deity status as many local gods ended up as Christian saints (sorry IC, you can't say "but that was just the Catholics" because 500 years ago your "brand" of Christianity had not yet split off). But when the invaders are polytheist, since they consider multiple deities natural, they just incorporate these local gods into their pantheon, fitting them in somewhere or other.

That result will always look like an incoherent mess, but it is just "political". It doesn't mean all people in the merged culture will be worshiping all the gods. For quite a while, descendants of the invaders will be worshiping just theirs, and descendants of the invaded theirs (THEY might have been monotheist, might not accept that their god (God) had been dragged into a polytheist pantheon, but they aren't the dominant element in the merged cultures).

Willing for the example to be a SINGLE polytheistic religion? And might I suggest perhaps your difficulties with committee/team projects might be related to personal experiences or lack of them. For example, as a child, did you ever take part in a collective, constructive activity like a group of boys going onto the woods and constructing a "club tree house"? Of course one boy could go off and build one all for himself, but not the same thing, is it? Please reconsider your objections to committee/team creation in this light.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 5:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 2:49 am But polytheism IS incoherent. If you think it's not, give an example of one that you think is not. I'll bet we'll find it is.

Before we do THAT, we need to decide WHAT we are going to call "polytheism".

Any religion that posits multiple "gods," rather than the Supreme Being.

Go.

Polytheism?

Jimmy Buffett fans are called "parrot heads," but they don't worship parrots

who needs crackers when Polly can have a cheeseburger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PfZ4QVqCs8

-Imp

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 6:03 pm
Before we do THAT, we need to decide WHAT we are going to call "polytheism".

Any religion that posits multiple "gods," rather than the Supreme Being.

Go.
[/quote]

Careful, do you mean "rather than" literally?

Example ---- suppose the supreme deity "emanated" (separated off) seven divine beings. Why? Who's to question what the supreme deity chooses to do. Notice, these divine beings are not being "created"in the sense we usually use that term.

The supreme being then creates the heavens, the stars, the sun, and planets going around it. On this planet the supreme being creates seas, dry land with mountains and plains, lakes and rivers, green growing plants on the land, animals in the seas and on the land.

The supreme being gathers the divine beings, and tells them to you I give responsibility for this Earth I have created. To you (one of the seven) I give charge of the sea, to another, the hills and mountains, to another, charge of the wind and rain, to another, the lakes and rivers, to another, the plants, to another, the animals. To the seventh, you shall watch over the six, and if any come into conflict, you will mediate between them. And there is one special animal to which I have given judgement to know right from wrong. You will watch over these, observe their conduct, and if they repent wrong doing, forgive them as I have forgiven you << I am skipping the myth where the seventh rebelled and was cast down into a fiery hell. But once there truly repented, whose tears of repentance put out the fires of Hell. At which point, the Supreme being, whose powers of mercy and forgiveness were infinite, restored the seventh to former position >>

The Supreme being then went off to do what supreme beings do (maybe create other Earths, who knows, who knows what supreme beings choose to do). Naturally people of this religion prayed to whichever of the divine beings was in charge of the activity at hand. Thus if going on a journey by boat, the ones in charge of the sea and the wind/storms. Etc.

This is only a partially made up cosmology/religion << I am borrowing heavily from a real one >>

a) First of all, is this really "polytheism" or a form of monotheism. The divine beings are not a substance other than that of the supreme one.
b) If you say"still monotheism", stop.
c) But if you say "polytheism", explain what is incoherent about it.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 8:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 6:03 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 8:33 pm Before we do THAT, we need to decide WHAT we are going to call "polytheism".

Any religion that posits multiple "gods," rather than the Supreme Being.

Go.

Careful, do you mean "rather than" literally?

Don't obscure the obvious. Just answer, if you have an answer. Where is your example of rational polytheism?

But if you say "polytheism", explain what is incoherent about it.

I already did. It's your chance at refutation, if you can do it. Show that polytheism can be made rational.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 10:07 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 8:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 6:03 pm
Any religion that posits multiple "gods," rather than the Supreme Being.

Go.

Careful, do you mean "rather than" literally?

Don't obscure the obvious. Just answer, if you have an answer. Where is your example of rational polytheism?

But if you say "polytheism", explain what is incoherent about it.

I already did. It's your chance at refutation, if you can do it. Show that polytheism can be made rational.

I don't know what you mean by "obscure the obvious", just don't see it. Of course I was intentionally proposing an example where the "other gods" were emanations of the one, of the some substance. That part was from the actual religion, not what I made up.

And no, you have said nothing about why you found the example incoherent, not rational. I wouldn't consider it any less RATIONAL than say Christianity.

Straight answer please. A form of monotheism (the divine beings are OF the one, parts of the one) or polytheism. If the latter, you are in agreement with Islam. Polytheism (and Satanism)

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 10:40 pm I was intentionally proposing an example where the "other gods" were emanations of the one, of the some substance.

Well, that's Gnosticism.

Is that your candidate for a "rational" polytheism?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2026 5:33 pm...from the very start, science was originally an investigation of the works of God.

That depends on the cherries and the order you pick them in. Mr Can, a batshit crazy creationist, ignores any fact that doesn't support his batshit crazy creationist agenda. It is of no interest to him that Thales of Miletus and the broader Ionian School, also have a claim to being the very start of science. What distinguished their thinking is that they sought explanations for natural phenomena that didn't involve gods.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2026 6:27 pm Here's Sir Isaac Newton, on that subject...
“He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.”

Newton didn't write that. It's the sort of bullshit that batshit crazy creationists repeat without any care for truth. Newton certainly believed natural philosophy* (Mr Can is confusing this with natural theology) was a study of his god's creation, but as he actually wrote:
"...whatever is not deduc’d from the phaenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy."
https://isaac-newton.org/general-scholium/
What Newton means is that while God, in Newton's view, did create the universe, metaphysical explanations of observable events, God for example, have no place in science. Newton was humble enough to admit that his god is more subtle than even his science could demonstrate; a humility totally lacking in batshit crazy creationists.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2026 5:33 pmAnd here's Sir Francis Bacon, inventor of the scientific method...

Well he was the inventor of the Baconian Method, which was very influential but again, Mr Can is cherry picking. Bacon's emphasis on careful observation and painstaking recording is really just recommending that scientists, including his contemporary Galileo, should do what they had been doing for centuries. The first step of the Baconian Method is to free yourself of 'idols of the mind'. These are confirmation biases that Bacon attributes to 'The Tribe', 'The Cave', 'The Marketplace' and 'The Theatre'. Mr Can clips every one of those hurdles hard enough to send him arse over tit. As Bacon said:
"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true."
New Organon: Book 1, aphorism 49
*Newton's most famous work is Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica - The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.

Although Newton didn't write that specific quote, it probably does reflect his thinking.

He did think that God routinely intervened in the the universe to keep it running properly.

And he did spend a large portion of his life looking for hidden meanings in the bible.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 10:49 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2026 10:40 pm I was intentionally proposing an example where the "other gods" were emanations of the one, of the some substance.

Well, that's Gnosticism.

Is that your candidate for a "rational" polytheism?

I had a dog once, not only would he fetch but he would gnaw sticks as well

-Imp

What I hate is when people say "naw" so dismissively when you aks em for stuff. The "naw" sticks with you even if there's gnostics with you.