Not really monothiests

Iris May Mcginnis

Roy King
Yes, there are many good Muslim people - probably most! But monotheism IS inherently bigoted (my god is THE GOD) and tends to preach conversion of ALL to the one, true and only way. Judaism and Christianity share this tendency, even though Christians are not really monothiests.

Sarah Wallis

Thanks for the vote on the Good Muslims ;) But I must say I disagree with Roy King - -

Iris May Mcginnis

true it is all myth.and your response is clear and valid. it was just one of those human times when annoyance bubbles over.
being a polytheist in a monotheist dominant world is sometimes frustrating.i'd say more if it wasn't so hard to write....
i cut and pasted you words cuz i really like them might wanna quote you sometime if that ok.

Sarah Wallis Be my guest! It's a very interesting conversation... do say more if you ever feel up to it - I'd love to hear :)

Brandon WilliamsCraig

The discussion is not simple, but part of it is straightforward. It is a question of scope. If one starts big it is necessary to dial in one's questions in order to bring into focus as much as possible of the entire range of the idea being thought. No matter what magnification is in use, it helps to be able to speak the language in which the answer will likely be framed.

The simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an accurate approximation for most calculations in which gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime which governs the motion of inertial objects. When you are speaking scientifically of physical (inertial) objects, and not entertaining anomalies, discrepancies, and alternative theories, gravitation has been a steady way of explaining bodies' movement since the late 16th century.

Comparing "gravity" and "God" happens to be an excellent way to convey this idea of applying the right kind of question to an idea. Both words are referrals to a spectrum of ideas rather than a thing: physical objects experience gravitation, while even contemplating this phenomena involves an understanding formed in tandem with the gravity of situations, behavior and consequences thereof. Gravity is all of this, from the tangible to the intangible, and is not divisible into "True" Gravity (related to things) and "False" Gravity (related to ideas) because even thinking about the former requires deploying that latter.

There is no such thing as "just" a metaphor or myth, as there is no other way to think/believe but through ideas which are not identical with what they suggest. In the spectrum of ideas that "religion" suggests, one may speak of both things and ideas, but one is always speaking by way of ideas. When applied to God, scientific validity, for instance, is too brief a trip for most scientifically unsophisticated thinkers, like you and me, to get any meaning out of it. It is too short a trip from "falsifiably demonstrable God?" to "Nope." Much of what "God" suggests and has suggested to millenia of human beings is lost. One can do some justice to "gravity" however, as its scope is naturally more accessible via tangible experimentation.

At least into pre-history, human beings have posited G(g)od(s) in a multitude of creative ways, in order to connect with and make meaning through experiencing mystery (impactful + unknown) greater and subtler than human power(s) seem able to control. Another way of saying this: we make myth (mythologies/belief systems expressing images through language) to make meaning.

Monotheism IS inherently bigoted (my god is THE GOD), by definition, as is anyone who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, even if it were possible to in some way prove them to be physically factual. All that is required it to be strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics to be vulnerable to a charge of bigotry, though it is especially true if one is obviously intollerant. Also, though this has gone unanswered in this exchange thus far, most monotheism demostrably leads to conversion attempts. If the believer believes in the singularity of the truth and in her faith's access to that truth, certainly there is an obligation to awaken others in what ever way possible.

When I say religious belief is a question of scope, I mean to suggest we make the test of  validity contingent on applying the right kind of questions to the same type of ideas. Metaphysical questions are notoriously tricky (but not always inappropriate) receptacles for scientific responses, and vice versa. A way to discover the gifts and dilemmas in ALL religions is to assume the believers' beliefs are based on assumptions they and their traditions judge to be valid. Religions are simultaneously valid when they activate in the participant a relationship with what is inadequately called "the divine," when they point to a kind of consciousness--the experience of belief as simultaneously pointing toward mystery (an invitation to relate to intangible realities) and a clear statement of world-view which will have physical and literal consequences in empirically measurable behavior, treatment of others, creation of institutions, and the making of culture.

To say "if one believed in them only as myths" is tantamount to mistaking the way one believes for Truth. As there is no language that is not metaphorical, even when it refers to that which is demonstrated to be objectively ACTUALLY scientific fact, to use language is to myth, even in one's heart/head as one believes.

To "believe in one creator and sustainer of the universe" is only an example of being obstinately or intolerantly devoted to one's own opinion if one believes literally. "One creator and sustainer of the universe" refers not to a thing but to an image. It must be a metaphor, because it is language, a proposal to imagine a mystery of experience which has been spoken of thousands of times in as many different ways and cannot be described in any one way with anything like what human beings might call accuracy. This would be idolatry, where the image becomes more important than what it represents. That is also what is at the heart of "polytheism", not a literal insistence on physical beings controlling astronomical and terrestrial fallings apart and rejoinings but an acknowledgment of the chorus of responses one hears with the soul when singing out echoes of archetypal meaning in the wake of the divine.

When the believer acknowledges that he cannot possibly do anything more than almost point in a direction that might lead to a bit of experience with Mystery, then there may be some truth to be found in the process of searching.