PHIL 1402 Journal 3
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of the People *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1402
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by lavane1963
1. What are the key differences between monotheism and polytheism?
The human experience has long been intertwined with the search for meaning and purpose, often leading to the formation of religious beliefs. Two dominant systems of belief have emerged throughout history: monotheism and polytheism. While both share a commonality in seeking answers beyond the tangible world, they diverge significantly in their conceptualization of the divine. Monotheists believe in one singular God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. This God is the creator and ultimate authority of the universe. (Farnell, 1925). Judaism, Christianity, and Islam stand as prime examples of monotheistic religions, each with their distinct interpretations and narratives surrounding this single, all-powerful God (Baaren, 2023). Polytheism, on the other hand, embraces a diverse pantheon of deities, each with its domain of influence and sphere of responsibility. These gods and goddesses may interact with humans, intervene in their affairs, and possess varying levels of power and influence. Ancient Greek and Roman religions exemplify polytheistic systems, where Zeus, Poseidon, Athena, and a host of other deities played distinct roles in the lives of the people (Smart, 2023).
Beyond the fundamental difference in the number of deities, Fairbanks, in his lecture "Literary Influence in the Development of Greek Religion,"(1898) highlights several other key distinctions between monotheism and polytheism. He notes that monotheistic religions often place greater emphasis on morality and ethical conduct, with their single God serving as a moral standard and lawgiver. Polytheism, in contrast, may exhibit a more relaxed attitude towards morality, with the actions of individual deities sometimes contradicting ethical principles. Additionally, monotheistic religions tend to have a more linear and historical focus, emphasizing
a single creation event and a clear narrative of salvation or redemption. Polytheism, on the other
hand, may have cyclical and recurrent themes, with deities engaging in ongoing interactions with
the natural world and human affairs. Determining which system of belief is "better" remains a subjective and personal decision. Each approach offers unique insights and perspectives on the divine, and, the choice depends on individual interpretations and values. Some individuals may find solace and comfort in the singular, omnipresent God of monotheism, while others may be drawn to the diverse and multifaceted nature of polytheistic deities. Personally, I find myself drawn to a more nuanced approach, recognizing the potential value in both monotheistic and polytheistic perspectives. The concept of a single, all-powerful God offers a sense of security and order in the face of uncertainty. However, the vastness and complexity of the universe often seems incompatible with the idea of a single individual creator. The polytheistic view, with its diverse pantheon of deities each representing various aspects of the natural world and human experience, resonates with my appreciation for the multifaceted nature of reality. The question of whether one system is superior to the other is less important than the quest for personal meaning and understanding. Each must navigate the vast landscape of religious belief and choose the path that best resonates with their own heart and mind.
Do you think there are good arguments explaining why a purely good God would allow bad
things to happen to good people?
The coexistence of suffering and a benevolent God poses a fundamental challenge to religious faith. The problem of evil, as it is commonly known, questions how a perfectly good and omnipotent deity could allow for the existence of suffering and evil in the world. This paradox
has plagued theologians and philosophers for centuries, sparking countless debates and interpretations within various religious traditions. The Gifford Lectures (1925) explores the concept of theodicy, which attempts to address the problem of evil and suffering in the context of a benevolent God and the Book of Job in the Hebrew Bible grapples with this question, presenting a dialogue between Job and God about the suffering of the righteous.
While there is no single, universally accepted answer to this complex theological question, various arguments have been proposed to reconcile the existence of suffering with the presence of a benevolent God. One common explanation suggests that suffering serves a pedagogical purpose, allowing individuals to learn valuable lessons about resilience, compassion, and the fragility of life. This interpretation emphasizes the potential for suffering to promote personal growth and spiritual development.
Another perspective posits that free will plays a significant role in the existence of suffering (Wrenn, n.d.). By granting humans the ability to choose their own paths, God allows for the possibility of both good and evil to manifest in the world. This approach acknowledges the inherent limitations of omnipotence, suggesting that God cannot prevent suffering without infringing on human agency.
Furthermore, some theologians argue that suffering is a necessary component of a perfect universe. They contend that the presence of evil allows for the appreciation of good, highlighting
the contrast between darkness and light. This perspective suggests that suffering plays a crucial role in creating a world with meaningful experiences and moral distinctions. Ultimately, reconciling the existence of suffering with a benevolent God remains a complex and ongoing
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
theological endeavor. While various arguments attempt to provide explanations and justifications, the question remains a source of personal struggle and doubt for many individuals.
Although a humanist, Paine believed in God and the afterlife. Explain his reasoning and offer your own. Support your own reasoning with your personal example.
While Humanism emphasizes reason, logic, and the potential of humanity, its compatibility with religious belief remains a point of discussion. This essay aims to explore this question through the lens of Thomas Paine, a staunch humanist who also held theistic views, and through my own personal experience.
Thomas Paine, renowned for his revolutionary writings like "Common Sense" and "The Rights of Man," identified as a humanist. However, he also held strong beliefs in God and the afterlife. In his work "The Age of Reason," (Prochaska,1972) Paine argues against organized religion and traditional interpretations of the Bible, but maintains a belief in a supreme being and a moral universe. Paine's views demonstrate that humanism and theistic belief are not mutually exclusive.
As a person who embodies both humanist and religious beliefs, I believe they can coexist harmoniously. My faith provides me with a sense of purpose and meaning, while my humanist values guide my ethical decisions and actions. This combination allows me to approach life with both hope and reason, focusing on improving the human experience while remaining grounded in
my spiritual beliefs.
The compatibility of humanism and religious belief lies in their shared emphasis on ethical behavior and improving the world. Both humanism and many religions promote compassion, justice, and the pursuit of knowledge. However, potential conflicts arise when religious doctrines
contradict scientific evidence or restrict individual freedom. In such cases, humanism encourages
critical thinking and questioning, advocating for reason and individual autonomy over rigid dogma.
While humanism and religious belief may appear incompatible at first glance, the case of Thomas Paine and my own experience illustrate that they can coexist and even complement each
other. Both perspectives offer valuable insights into the human experience and can guide us towards a more just and meaningful world. Ultimately, the compatibility of these two viewpoints
rests on individual interpretation and the willingness to embrace critical thinking, compassion, and the pursuit of truth.
References
Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://iep.utm.edu/evil-log/
.
Baaren, T. P. van (2023, November 10). monotheism. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/monotheism Fairbanks, A. (1898). Literary Influence in the Development of Greek Religion. The Biblical World,11(5), 294-305. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3137300 Farnell, R.L. (1925). Attributes of God: The Gifford Lectures. (64-101). Oxford Press. https://web.archive.org/web/20220216135924/https://www.giffordlectures.org/books/
attributes-god
Prochaska, F. K. (1972). Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason Revisited. Journal of the History of
Ideas, 33(4), 561–576. https://doi.org/10.2307/2708857 Smart, N. (2023, November 3). polytheism. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/polytheism
Wrenn. C. (n.d.). Logical Problem of Evil. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-
0002, https://iep.utm.edu/|
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help