I think what you just described (in much more detail as always), is the parable of the blind men and the elephant. :)

That's sort of my point: the One True Way religions tend to think they've got the whole elephant. Pagan religions tend to think the best they can do is figure out how to approach the part they need at the moment.

Pagan religions, by the way, tend to think of pretty much all other religions as valid, just not for us, and there are even those who claim that they are Christian Wiccans (with Jesus as the God and Mary as the Goddess).

There certainly are an aweful lot of gods. If we could step away and look at the vast landscape of cultures, civilizations, tribes, peoples etc, we would we see a seemingly infinite proliferation of deities, spirits, gods and goddeses, and all manner of spiritual entities and powers and so on. What are we to make of all this? How do we make sense of this? The scientific method has revealed the material universe to us in remarkable detail, and yet no gods are to be found. So how do we account for this nearly universal (there are always exceptions) claim that these beings are real? Transpersonal Psychology and Consciousness Studies are both involved in these issues. After many years of reading, thinking and experiencing here is my provisional (provisional because there's always more information to be gathered)conclusion:we human beings are capable of achieving multiple states of consciousness. They can be achieved spontaneously, but cultures all over the world have developed many methods of inducing them, e.g. fasting, meditation, sleep deprivation, dancing, drumming, hallucinogenic chemicals and more. There are many states of consciousness but some of them result in mythic experiences. When you achieve these states you have visionary experiences of gods and spirits and beings of various kinds. And these experiences are powerful and compelling and filled with meaning and knowledge. These are some of the most important experiences humans can have which is why they have played such a central role in culture.

Devil's advocate, and all that ...

If the One True Way religions think they've got the whole elephant, and various Pagan religions work out various ways to approach the elephant ... aren't you still talking about one elephant?

To tell the truth, I've always had trouble with the idea of God creating gods ... the same trouble I have with the idea of God creating lesser beings. None of the "reasons" given for doing so ring true to me. I don't buy them. (I sure do like the Ainulindale, though, in which God created gods because he wanted multiple voices in his music.)

Emergent deity makes sense to me. It also makes sense to me that there are beings higher than us, that seem as gods to us ... and that leads to there being turtles all the way up.

I frequently talk myself out of the existence of gods that are actual entities. But then I can't explain the times they've talked to me ...

If you don't like the idea of "lesser beings", why have kids? They start out inferior and dependent in every way, but eventually grow up to (hopefully) match/surpass you. The idea of God creating sentient creatures that grow does not seem much different.

But my kids are going to grow up to take my place and further my race. I am breeding and raising my own replacement. They're not lesser beings, they're equivalent beings. Lesser gods, and mortals, don't grow up to be THE God.

Unless God is trying to breed a replacement, that is. :)

Sorry, but arguing logically for or against the existance of God(s) is like trying to catch a fish with a pickax. The existance or nonexistance of God(s) can't be argued logically. It can only be argued experientially. Either you have experienced an encounter with a Divinty or not.

Personally I lean toward the Modern NeoPlatonic interpretation that all God(s) are reflections of the One God, but I doubt I'll know the answer until I'm dead. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

True, a logical argument that "God Exists" is not possible, because "God Exists" is not subject to evidentiary proof. However, accepting the premise "God Exists", and then arguing logically the implications of that premise is certainly reasonable.

In this case, I was making the case that it is no less logical to posit multiple gods than to posit one god. Francis Porretto's essay stated that it was not possible to logically argue for the existence of more than one god, and my intent was to show that it is certainly possible to do so, though I suspect that within the frame of a transcendent god (that is, outside of the Universe and/or not subject to time) there can be only one.

Final point: if you read closely what I'm saying, I posit all gods as being aspects of a single Divine entity.

"In this case, I was making the case that it is no less logical to posit multiple gods than to posit one god."

Based on what evidence? Multiple gods and one god are part of the human experience, human beings actually have experiences of these deities in all their variety. We experience them as real. But what are they? Do they have an external reality? If they have an external reality then you should be able to demonstrate their existence by some method. I would like to know these gods, tell me how I can do it. Why posit any gods at all? Obviously there is a reason. There is something deep within that inclines one toward divinity. The religions we have inherited do not adequately answer this. As I said before, we as human beings have the in-born capacity for experiencing gods. Why? Why are we programed this way? We are programed for language, even mathematics, and also for gods.

Why posit any gods at all?

You answered your own question: human beings actually have experiences of these deities in all their variety. We experience them as real.

Since we experience them, we must attempt to define them. We are programed for curiosity more than anything, from which comes experience. If you don't try to define your experience, you can't learn from it, therefore we must try to define our divine experiences.

Defining a god can limit it, though. If you call a god "Father" then you immediately assign it a masculine role with all the baggage that has in human society. If you call a god "all-powerful and all-good" then you get the "problem of evil". No single definition will ever likely apply, though.

Excellent discussion!

An alternative solution for grasping polytheism is that all the Gods exist without beginning or end, perfectly individual and distinct, and that the mythic narratives recounting their filiation, births and so forth do not pertain to their absolute existence, but rather to their works.

The pagan Neoplatonist Proclus is quite explicit about this when he says in his commentary on Plato's 'Parmenides' (IP 936) that, unlike the situation among us, among the Gods an offspring (say, Athena considered as the offspring of Zeus) "exists 'for itself,' and only then derives from something else."

In other words, Athena is the offspring of Zeus not because this accounts for her origins; as a Goddess, she has, strictly speaking, no origin whatsoever other than herself. Rather, being in a particular relationship to Zeus is simply part of Athena's pattern of manifestation, part of her revelation of her nature to us.

(For those who may be interested, I discuss these matters in an article, "The Theological Interpretation of Myth," in the latest issue of the Pomegranate.)

In looking again at your post, I must say that I think your "solution", which makes the Gods merely parts of a single transcendent God -- and not even genuine parts, but merely reflections of the limitations of human consciousness -- is not an attempt to articulate polytheism, but simply a surrender. The position you advocate is just monotheism, as far as I can see. (I know that some people might call this "monolatry" but that is a misuse of the term.)

The notion that there is a logical problem involved in polytheism is greatly oversold. I wrote a doctoral dissertation on the metaphysics of polytheism, and so I should know. The argument in the piece you quote is certainly not to be taken seriously at all. It is, rather, simply a pack of biases and presuppositions on the author's part.

This sort of presumption is precisely the problem. Too many people presuming that polytheism is somehow profoundly incoherent and not being challenged to bring their actual arguments to that effect to the table -- not rhetoric, but real argumentation.

The so-called logical problems involved in polytheism have really to do with the critics of polytheism, who, having developed their conceptual set in a context of unquestioned monotheistic hegemony, have never clarified the different modes of unity and multiplicity which they habitually conflate in their discourses on the subject. This state of affairs has not been without unfortunate consequences in entirely unrelated spheres of thought, incidentally.

I agree that Francis Porretto's statement was simply a premise being presented as a conclusion. Fran is a very logical guy, but falls down on religion outside his own, just like Steven Den Beste does with non-Windows computers. I don't think that the way I presented things is in any way "surrender" or a disguised monotheism. It isn't truly polytheism, either, though, but pantheism. A lot, I think, depends on what you consider to be god. If god is immanent, as I believe, than there is no conflict in saying that there are many gods which are aspects of one Divine force (as, for that matter, many Asian religions hold).

If you believe in transcendent gods, as I believe "all the Gods exist without beginning or end, perfectly individual and distinct, and that the mythic narratives recounting their filiation, births and so forth do not pertain to their absolute existence, but rather to their works" indicates, then it is the case that polytheism would require separate Divine forces, because otherwise the gods are not distinct.

So it would be a different case to make than mine, but it could certainly be made.

There are several different schools of god-form. They come from three questions:

One Divine source, one Divine entity that is that source, and transcendent: pure monotheism, such as Judaism. Even the semi-divine angels and demons emanate from the one Divine source.

One Divine source, multiple Divine entities that source comprises, and they are transcendent: nominal monotheism, such as Christianity. For reasons discussed in the main body of the post, this is not really monotheism, though adherents would describe it as such.

Multiple Divine entities, and they are immanent, whether or not there is a single source: pantheistic, such as Wicca or Hinduism (single source) or some indigenous American beliefs (multiple sources).

Multiple Divine sources and thus multiple divine entities, whether or not they are immanent: polytheism, such as Hellenism (transcendent) or Shintoism (immanent). [note: I could be wrong about Shinto; I haven't studied it and might be mixing it up with a different religion from the same area]

I think that just about covers it. I am sure there are some other cases that I haven't considered. For example, I'm unaware of any religion that states that there is one Divine source and one Divine entity, but that entity is immanent in the Universe. (Perhaps this is inherent in deism? I don't think so, but it could be.)

I am not so sure that "many Asian religions hold that the many Gods are aspects of one Divine force" -- Shinto does not, as you mention; and with respect to Hinduism or Taoism, one must bear in mind that there has been an extraordinary pressure upon those who have spoken on behalf of these religions for the last two hundred years to present them in as monotheizing a fashion as possible. After all, polytheism is synonymous with barbarism, our minders have told us. Something very similar could be said with respect to the indigenous religions of the Americas, the Pacific, or Africa.

You speak of "forces," "sources," and "entities" in a very vague fashion. "Polytheism would require separate Divine forces, because otherwise the gods are not distinct," -- this amounts to a tautology; in polytheism the Gods are distinct, therefore there must be something in respect to which they are distinct. There are two questions it is incumbent upon the polytheist to answer: what do the Gods have in common (what is the principle of divinity) and what makes them distinct (what is their principle of individuation)?

Proclus, in his "Platonic Theology" (Book I, chap. 3), explains that whoever has treated of theology has always regarded "things first according to nature, Gods; and have said that the theological science concerns these." In accord with their theories of nature, therefore, the Gods have been for Stoics a certain kind of body, and in this their divinity lies; for Anaxagoreans, the best of souls; for Aristotelians, a certain kind of intellect. What, then, are Gods according to the Platonic theology? What makes the Gods, Gods?

The problem is that if there is any WHAT at all that makes the Gods, Gods, then it is that WHAT (that essence, in Platonic terminology) which is truly divine and not they. The other theologies are thus not "theologies" in a pure sense because for Stoics the study of Gods is just a section within the study of body, for Anaxagoreans of psyche, and for Aristotelians, of intellect. The Platonic theology, for Proclus, is unique inasmuch as it treats the Gods as "whos" instead of as "whats". It does this through the doctrine of the One Itself.

Wait just a moment, you and others reading this will be saying, isn't the doctrine of the One just what makes Neoplatonism monotheistic? No -- it's just what makes real Neoplatonism polytheism. Because for any Neoplatonism which has not been utterly bowdlerized the One is not one thing. "The One neither is, nor is one": this is the cardinal truth about the One. This doctrine is commonly treated as a bit of "mysticism" or perhaps paradox mongering, but it is actually rigorously logical and strikingly straightforward. The One is the principle of absolute, unique individuality. Now, the principle of uniqueness cannot be something whose very existence makes everything less unique, can it? No; and therefore it must not be anything other than the ultimate individuals. Not if it is going to be the supreme principle, that is. A principle only fails to impart its character out of weakness. The One Itself, therefore, must be immanent in each and every God and Goddess. So, to answer the question, what makes Athena divine, or, a Goddess, one replies, strictly speaking "Athena". Saying, "a God is a God on account of the One Itself" is just a way of saying this same thing generically, that is, without using any proper names.

This should not be regarded as a paradoxical result. Think of the process whereby one carries out a logical analysis on an entity, separating off in our minds, one by one, all of the qualities that entity possesses which can be shared, until we arrive at that quality which cannot, by definition, be held in common: the quality of being just this one, and no other. Does one reduce this quality, in turn, to some other order of being which has already been counted off in this process? If one does so, then individuality has no ground of its own. This would leave one with the following options: either individuality is ultimately illusory, or synthesis is. The former is monism, the latter atomism, whether materialistic (Lucretius) or empiricist (Hume).

Thus it is not the polytheist who has a logical problem; it is the monotheist who, by virtue of having perverted metaphysics in order to support his sectarian chauvinism, has rendered metaphysics itself aporetic and self-annihilating.

Actually, I can see a case for pure monotheism, of the Judaic sort. In that view, the differentiation occurs simply between Divine (of which there is only one entity) and mundane, of which there are many types and many entities of each type. It's Christianity's ideology of the Trinity that throws me completely: one entity, with three different incarnations, distinct but not separate. Umm...what?

I realize that I was using the terms loosely; it's inherent in coming at this from an experiential rather than academic background. Let's see if I can define things a little more.

For Divine entity, you can just substitute god, gods, or gods and demi-gods or some similar formation; that is, a Divine entity is something that is Divine. But are all Divine entities capable of being Divine independent of all other entities? If you look at Christian mythology, Jesus cannot exist without God; but in, say, Hellenic mythology, Athene could exist without Zeus without creating any theological problems. So in Christianity, there is one Divine source for the Trinity, and for all I know it is the same source that gives Divinity to Satan and the angels. So a Divine source, then, would be that - would "koinon" be the right word here? - that grouping, in any case, which does not have independent existence as gods, but derive their godhood from some greater entity (whether or not it instantiates as a god, per se).

It's no crime to use terms loosely; it just makes it more difficult to engage in argumentation because it usually means that the goalposts get moved around in the course of the dialogue.

It's surprising, though, that you should characterize your approach here as "experiential", because it seems to me that so often the move away from a polytheistic position is a move away from the experiential dimension and toward a position that someone has determined, somehow, to be more "reasoned". William James pointed out long ago that were one's study of religion to be based entirely upon experience, only polytheism could claim to be a "scientific" position.

With respect to the other issue that you raise, I would say that my earlier remarks give the Neoplatonic response to this question. The divine "source" would be the One; but the One "unpacks" as simply the unique individuality of each God or Goddess. It is only hypostatized as a singular entity in the intellect.

The "koinon" of the Gods is a different matter, the coming together of the Gods to constitute the cosmos. This shared work of cosmogenesis is what myths are about, and takes place within the structures of national pantheons.

The ultimate result of cosmogenesis, however, is the intellectual standpoint from which one can reach a level of abstraction sufficient to speak, in a purely formal sense, of "All the Gods" in a fashion transcending national pantheons.

The point of this standpoint is not, however, to turn around and claim that the same limited set of Gods is manifest in all the different national pantheons, but rather to recognize that the individuality of Gods transcends their roles in the cosmic models generated by their activity within the context of a pantheon. These cosmic models can be compared without the Gods in them being identified with one another (in other words, we don't have to think of Zeus and Ba'al as the same God just because they have similar functions within their respective cosmic maps or models.)