Isaiah Roman

Comparative Religions: Monotheism pt.1

So, from where then do we receive the concept of monotheism? The actual term monotheism comes to us from one Henry More, the english philosopher. It is a description put to those religions who’s source for the origins of the universe lie in a singular entity, as opposed to multiple entities. Plato is attributed with arguing for a single entity, known as The One. In fact, there are some who believe that Plato invented the concept of one god based on his thoughts on the meaning of the origin of cosmos. Plato is not the first instance of monotheism, or the idea of a singular entity as a controlling force.

The problem of many gods finds itself expressed in the Euthyphro dilemma proposed by Plato in his work Euthyphro, which describes a conversation between Socrates and Euthyrpho. The question is asked “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” The question brings forward several logical problems in the existence of many gods within an ordered cosmos. If there are many gods, each with a piece of the natural universe under their control, how is it possible for each god to act in harmony with the greater whole? Is what is pious to one god, also pious to another? From what we know of the assigned attributes of the gods of Greece, they seem to have as much caprice as humans. In fact, the gods of Greece are renowned for their human-like qualities. If they are so human like, then how is it possible to have such a precisely ordered cosmos with such conflict of ego. The question must be asked, what is good? Is it good for Ares, but not for Zeus?

The question would seem to deny the existence of absolute good, of absolute morals. It also sets up a secondary argument for the non-existence of god(s) at all. The solution to the Euthyprho dilemma is found in only one place; monotheism. If good is neither a decision of the gods, nor is it held to by the gods, but rather it is intrinsic to the character of a God, then good is absolute. If a standard of good is held to by the gods, then the gods subscribe to a higher standard than themselves. This means that the gods are not the highest force of will in the the universe, and by definition, are no longer gods. Whatever is the highest force of will, then becomes god. However, if the highest standard of good is merely the caprice, the temporal decision of one of many gods, then that caprice can be countermanded by another god, or for that matter, by that same god at a later date, for a different purpose.

But, if the standard of good is God, is intrinsic to the character of a single God, then that standard cannot be abrogated by another deity, because there are no other deities. If the standard of good is part of the character of a singular entity, then it is not a matter of caprice, or decision, it is simply the basic character of that being. However, in order for this argument to maintain it’s validity, there must be a singular condition. That being, whatever it is, cannot be subject to change. In other words, the being must be eternal, and eternally the same. Otherwise, change over time would certainly put us back into the idea that the standard of good itself must change, because the source for the standard has then changed.

Monotheism is the only logical conclusion when one decides that there must be a god, and that god must fit a reasonable sense of what is known about existence. However, that is not to say that all monotheistic representations of god(s) are all correct, or even logically satisfactory.

Monotheism is the term used to define the belief in a singular god-like entity. Usually monotheism is used to indicate a higher power, a supreme being that is not man made. The specific understanding is that in a monotheistic philosophy there is only one definition of god, to the exclusion of all other gods. Furthermore, that singular entity preexisted all creation. It is important to note that if there is a creator god, that god is, without the need for this universe. The idea of a singular entity, regardless of whether it’s Plato’s The One, or Aristotle’s uncaused first cause, or even Ahura Mazda is that the entity is self described, self existent. We, as humans, have no say whatsoever on that deity’s attributes or existence.

All other concepts of god or deity allow us to self describe deity. We get to assume certain traits and behaviors as we see fit. So, to continue with this discourse we must start by making a clear division. We must begin by grouping all theistic beliefs into two classifications. The first classification we will call “Mantheism.”

Mantheism is where man, or mankind as a whole or an individual, becomes either the representation of, or origin for god. The second classification we will call “Monotheism.” Monotheism, by contrast is the thought that God exists outside of humanity and was before humanity and is the origin of the traditions and words concerning that God. This way we can separate developed theism from revealed theism.

Unfortunately this is a one or zero proposition. It would be nice to pick and choose the pieces of each a la carte, but that’s just not possible. To begin by making your own rules means that you have already begun the process of mantheism. Monotheism by contrast, relies upon an external, benevolent being that you cannot influence, but rather influences you. If there is a singular God, then you simply don’t get to choose who, or what that God is; it simply is. The simplest analogy is the artisan, or the craftsman. The craftsman creates the pot. The craftsman works hard and puts all of their skill, experience, and dedication into making the best pot possible. However, no matter how well the craftsman works, the pot will never, ever be the pot-maker. The pot is the object of the making, and can never itself be the maker.

In the realm of mantheism, we have chance. In monotheism we have intention. The distinctions are not subtle. Monotheism specifically strives to show that everything in existence was caused by an exterior influence, and has been created for the purpose of that influence. The cause is a creator; a singular, uncaused, first cause. If, therefore, there is a cause, and an intellect behind that cause, then there was purpose behind the cause as well. Purpose indicates a sense of design, and design infers orderliness. Thus, the universe was created with a sense of order. The debate over whether or not that first cause has continual influence in the universe, or simply “started the ball rolling” and stepped aside is a discussion for a later time. The assertion of monotheism is that the beginning had purpose, and design.

Mantheism specifically strives to show that we must strive for our own sense of cause and purpose. We arrived by chance, or by our own volition, but inevitably we are responsible for providing our own sense of order and meaning for existence. Futhermore, mantheism allows us to pick and choose from, as well as invent our own versions of religions in order to satisfy our own sense of well being about either ourselves, or our condition. Both of these thought processes rely on a singular force of will to define their essence. Manthesim relies on the will of a human, or humankind as a whole, monotheism relies on the will of God.