Skip to content

Jesus and “God” – Part 9 – What is monotheism?

Obama - A man, and a god?

What is monotheism, anyway? This may seem like a stupid question, one with a trivial answer: belief in one god, or in one divine being.

But we’ve seen in this series that it is by no means obvious what the concept of a god / divine being is. I hazarded an analysis of the concept of a divine being / god, an analysis which is supposed to help us understand various kinds of god-talk. My analysis: to be a “god” is to be a somehow provident/influential/controlling being which in some sense must be honored, by someone or other.

So monotheism says: there’s only one of those. The problem is, what you want to say are the paradigm cases of monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – all would not be monotheist on the above definition, as they all acknowledge more that one thing which satisfies the concept of a god.

In an interesting entry on “Monotheism” in this book, history professor Baruch Halpern says,

…the line between monotheism and polytheism shouldu not be too precisely drawn. Akhnaton and Nabonidus, the two great [allegedly “monotheistic”] religious reformers of Near Eastern antiquity, focused the cult on their respective gods. Not dissimilar are the monotheistic traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: all admit the existence of subordinate divinities – saints, angels, demons, and, in Christianity and Islam, Satan… But if these traditions are not monotheistic, no religion… is. The term monotheism loses its meaning.
Monotheism… postulates multiple deities, subordinated to the one; it tolerates myths of primordial struggle for cosmic supremacy. Two elements distinguish it from polytheism: a conviction that the one controls the pantheon, and the idea of false gods. (p. 525, emphases added)

So both monotheism and (your typical) polytheism have a “high god”  – a chief god, who in some sense governs the rest of the gods, and perhaps the origin of the others as well. It seems clear that this alone doesn’t distinguish monotheism from high-god polytheism. Did not many Zeus-worshippers think him in some sense the governor and father of the other gods?

It seems to me the key is really the concept of a false god. But what is that? It is something which is thought to satisfy the concept of a god, but does not. How could something which is thought a god turn out to be in fact a pseudo-god?

  • It could not exist!
  • It could exist, but not be provident in the way supposed.
  • It could exist, but not be such that it “must” be honored – i.e. it honoring isn’t legally sactioned, or morally fitting, or both, etc.
  • It could exist, be provident, and require honor by others – but not by me. So a thing could, conceivably, be a god to others, but a false god to me.

Thus to simply denounce something as a “false god” is very ambiguous. What is clear is that you’re asserting that X is outside the realm of gods (however many there are). And presumably, you’re taking this X down a notch, so as to focus things (attention, time, money, affection) that would be given X onto some other thing or things. It seems to me that a zealous nationalist polytheist, say, an Egyptian, could denounce the polytheistic deities of some other culture, say Greece, as “false gods” (either simplicer, or false relative to the Egyptians). Of course, they more often too the easier route of identifying the deities in the two rival pantheons, but perhaps insisting on the local names and customs.

If X is in fact a “false god” then we ought not believe it to be a god. But does it also follow that we ought not honor X? It seems not – someone may falsely take their ancestor to be a god, but after they change their mind about that, it seems they still ought to honor their ancestor. Some people probably idolize Barak Obama right now, but in any case, if he’s my president, I ought to honor him. (Congrats, Mr. President-elect.)

We still haven’t defined monotheism, although monotheism paradigmatically involves these claims: (1) our god is the one high god, and (2) some other things thought to be gods are in fact false gods. Note that this allows one to consistently say this: Religion R is monotheistic yet R holds there are many gods.

But if X is a false god does it follow that we ought not worship X? Isn’t worship just a kind of honoring? Moreover, is our definition of the concept of deity too weak? Mustn’t a deity be not only honored but worshiped? And why not define “monotheism” as, there’s only one worship-worthy being?

Next time: what is worship?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 thoughts on “Jesus and “God” – Part 9 – What is monotheism?”

  1. Ikhlas,

    I think you’ll find many like-minded friends on this site who are not Muslims and who see no need to become Muslims either. Since the Bible is a strictly monotheistic book which also encourages us to be open to God breaking through and revealing himself in nature and in humans, seeking anything else to “improve” on that is utterly unnecessary.

    “That may be the greatest proof that proves the Qur’an is more right. Not to mention the Qur’an shows more respect for monotheism. More respect for all the Prophets. From Adam to Jesus to Muhammad peace be to them as only Prophets/Messengers/holy men. More respect for the heart. More respect for the innocent against sinners/sins. Truer respect for repentance.”

    These are merely statements devoid of proof. I think the content and effect of the Biblical text are overwhelmingly sufficient.

    Thanks,

    Jaco (Yaqoob)

  2. Birth and death only prove we’re all no more than vulnerable creations.

    Only One Creator has no death (ending) nor (beginning) birth. If you believe G-d is only G-d, say: G-d is One. Absolute and Eternal. G-d never begets and was never begotten. And none can come near in position to the Greatness of G-d. G-d is only Unseen. How Perfect is G-d.

  3. One G-d = One G-d. No addition and no subtraction. That’s why Islam is a whole monotheistic religion.

    This is different. trinity + monotheism = polytheism. That’s why Christianity has has the smallest population of monotheists. It’s true.

    G-d, L-rd is only G-d, L-rd. Not ego, nor man. Right. Men also are Jesus and Muhammad who were no more than noble men/Prophets. 5:72 Most Christians utter blasphemy who say G-d is one of three in a trinity. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

    What makes one holy book more right than the other? Its same original (monotheistic) language. The original (Aramaic) language of the Gospel is different/lost. Please consider this. A different/lost language is a different/lost message. That’s how important language is. The original (Arabic) language of the Qur’an was saved and remains the same. The same language proves the same message.

    Qur’an 14:4 For those who ask why Qur’an is not revealed in another language as a miracle! God has always sent His words to each nation on their own language so that they may get the message clearly. [The message thus being clear], God then lets those who disbelieve walk on the wrong path and Guides those who believe to join the right path and G-d is the All Mighty, the Wisest.

    That may be the greatest proof that proves the Qur’an is more right. Not to mention the Qur’an shows more respect for monotheism. More respect for all the Prophets. From Adam to Jesus to Muhammad peace be to them as only Prophets/Messengers/holy men. More respect for the heart. More respect for the innocent against sinners/sins. Truer respect for repentance.

    The best virtue is true humbleness. Humbleness is Islam/G-dliness. The Qur’an is indeed the surest book of G-d’s Guidance.

Comments are closed.