Fantasy gods, religion, and philosophy

[Agback]

Suppose that 'gods'- powerful supernatural beings- were manifestly real. But suppose that they (or at least some of them) were irritable, vengeful, venal, selfish, deceitful, and lusty. I expect that people would not consider them holy. And so people might treat them as merely superhumanly powerful neighbours. If such a god gave down a moral code in a set of commandments, people would say "Why should we obey these? His omnipotence doesn't make him right!" People would ask 'but is he a good and wise god?', just the way they ask about a philosopher.

But people have a great craving for moral certainty. If gods were real, and as irritable, vengeful, venal, selfish, deceitful, and lusty as mythology often makes them out, might not communities turn elsewhere, to non-deistic ethics or to imaginary supergods, for moral authority?

Myths are not random stories, nor are they simple allegory. Rather, they express archetypal figures, relationships, and occurences that are profound elements of the human mind (a la Joseph Campbell). Further, they often communicate social standards more or less subliminally.

If gods had not acted out appropriate myths, might not people still tell the stories they had to, but tell them about someone else?

A great many ceremonies have a crucial part in regulating social relations. Graduation, confirmation, bar mitzvah, initiation, naturalisation, adoption, marriage, and other rites of passage publicly establish those who go through them in new social roles, and publicly announce their new rights and obligations. Corroborees, mysteries, and other periodic social ceremonies reaffirm group membership and the special roles defined by preceding rites of passage. So long as religion is constructed by people, these essentially secular requirements can be accommodated within religious ceremonial.

But suppose that a god had other plans, and made its requirements known. Would not people construct secular ceremonies to meet their social needs?

We are used to religion being a tight bundle of gods, myths, ceremonies, and ethics. But it need not be so. And there are reasons to believe that real fantasy-type gods might cause the bundle to come apart.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with designing a fantasy world in which the bundle has somehow stayed together. But it would be a shame to do so through laziness or a failure of imagination.

Regards,


Agback

 

[hong]

Hello, Mr Evil.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Not sure exactly what you're saying....

I mean, the Greeks basically had a pantheon of gods widely recognized as imperfect and flawed. Most of them still paid the gods homage -- omnipotence *was* a good reason to worship them. If they were mad at you, they could hurt you. If they were happy with you, they may help you.

Of course, not everyone in Greece whent for that kinda stuff. Note Plato (and many others) who basically said that because the gods aren't any more moral or respectable than mortals, they weren't worthy of our homage.

As far as I know, religion still remained the norm in Greece, even after the advent of the philosophers (though a few educated rich snobs did differ).

As far as most people were concerned, the gods didn't have to meet some bizzarre mandate of morality -- they were, in effect, humans writ large. To be "good" was to generally respect them and the rules they enforced (because, even if they weren't perfect, they were closer to it than humans). Bad people (not evil in the traditional sense, nessecarily, but people that there was something wrong with) didn't, and were punished for it.

The Greeks didn't have to turn to secular or agnostic practices, despite having gods that weren't exactly moral paragons.

I'm 95% positive more examples in other cultures exist, but Greeks are the ones I know best.

So, no, you wouldn't nessecarily have to have secular practices just because your gods ain't perfect. They don't have to be. They can be tempermental, argumentative, impulsive, and downright cruel -- they can be, basically, better humans. That's reason enough to pay them homage, recruit their help, or avert their deadly eyes.

But I could be totally misconstruing your post, so...

So I'm left with the only recourse that makes sense to me now: "What Hong said!"

 

[Black Omega]

Suppose that 'gods'- powerful supernatural beings- were manifestly real. But suppose that they (or at least some of them) were irritable, vengeful, venal, selfish, deceitful, and lusty. I expect that people would not consider them holy. .

I suspect you mean divine, here. Evil gods are considered unholy, not holy.

And so people might treat them as merely superhumanly powerful neighbours. If such a god gave down a moral code in a set of commandments, people would say "Why should we obey these? His omnipotence doesn't make him right!" People would ask 'but is he a good and wise god?', just the way they ask about a philosopher.

Actually, if through some strange quirk of fate I'm given the power of a god (God forbid ) and I do decide to hand down a set of commandments, then the first person stupid enough to say "Just because he's all powerful doesn't make him right" is getting turned into a toad in painful and memorable fashion. Ridding the Earth of such a idiot would be a public service and would not doubt only gain me followers.

 

[Draco Paladin]

Gods.

I'm currently building a campaign world, and among other things, I have Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth and The Way of the Seeded Earth, Neil Gaiman's American Gods and issues of The Sandman, and tons and tons of Planescape material.

My take on it is thus: outsiders are primarily creatures of belief, and the more powerful they are, the more dependent they are on belief and on faith. Thus an arcanoloth looks like a jackal and is scheming not only because of evolution and psychology, but because on some level, a large group of people across the multiverse fear jackals and lies and deception. In the outer planes, that fear takes arcanoloth form.

Thus, the gods, begin as archetypical forces sprung from the needs, hopes, desires, and terrors of sentient peoples everywhere. And they change along with society.

The interplay of divine dependence on belief and the will of individual gods is an interesting seed for many ideas. I like the idea of Gods having to conduct 'market surveys' or having to 'advertise' among their faithful when they want to venture into new territory. I also like the repercussions of Gods in conflict in this system.

I'll use an example in my campaign in the works. In ancient times, when conquest and warfare were the human way of life, the Horned Lord Xard, God of Fire and Blood, (N, Greater God) was a favored being. His twin sister Xara, Goddess of Courage, Wisdom, and Mercy, (NG, Lesser God) was a relatively minor divinity, revered by midwives and often invoked in childbirth.

Since then, humans have settled and built cities and established state borders. War has become increasingly tactical and political. Where are Xard and Xara? Around the time of the first cities, Xard's expansionist and bloodthirsty ways were no longer quite appropriate. But Xard refused to change. He therefore fell out of favor, except among some scattered mystery cults of blood and fire. Around this time, Xard rebelled against the Gods, and was cast down from the Holy Mountain, after his twin sister, Brave and Wise Xara defeated him in battle. Xara (now a LG Intermediate Goddess), Wise and Merciful, became a more and more popular deity, and is now considered Queen of the Archons and Goddess of Justice. Xard (now a LE Lesser God) is a fugitive god, worshipped in secret by mercenaries and malcontents. He is said to reign in the Infernal Plains, where the damned and the Devils dwell in blood and fire.

Another example. In the far North dwell two distinct cultures who worship two distinct pantheons. The Nord dwell upon the Sea of Ice in their vast longships and worship the Asa, an exuberant and warlike pantheon. The Nordans dwell in basalt citadels upon the tundra, and they worship the Ardana of the Haradall, a dispassionate pantheon. In past ages, the Nord and Nordans were intermittently in conflict. The Nord raided Nordan citadels. The Nordans plundered Nord ships. And their Gods were at war as well.

But after many years, thanks to advances in magic and technology, (and the efforts of Gerda of the Asa and Dana of the Ardana, both goddesses of motherhood and the home) the peoples of the far North live in relative peace, and have begun to mingle. And their gods are mingling as well. Some have already merged, others have disappeared, many have gained or lost power.

Of course, all these changes take thousands of years.

 

[Agback]

I mean, the Greeks basically had a pantheon of gods widely recognized as imperfect and flawed.

I'm not sure that they did. Plato, Epictetus and others decried the 'silly stories told about the gods' on the grounds that they held the gods to be perfect and unflawed.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Agback]

Hello, Mr Evil.

Hello there! How's it hanging?

Regards,


Agback

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Just as an aside...

Joseph Campbell = debunked Jungian crank.


All serious scholars of religion take Campbell with a large pinch of salt.

I am consistently amazed by the godlike reverance with which this man is regarded on these boards, as if he held the final word in the analysis of myth.

(EDIT: I am also a Jungian crank, but that doesn't make me right.)

 

[Vaxalon]

"Debunked" generally carries the connotation of "divested of popular authority". I have never heard a serious counterargument to his assertions, and I doubt many people on the boards here, have, either.

He may, in fact, be full of it, but I wouldn't call him "debunked" yet.

Eric von Daniken, he's debunked.

 

[Samnell]

Just as an aside...

Joseph Campbell = debunked Jungian crank.

I've heard that he's been debunked, but never heard the debunking itself. Care to share?