Recently I listened to a friendly exchange (definitely not a debate) between two atheists, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, and two theists, Francis Collins and Benjamin Carson[1]. The reader may go online and check the credentials and peer respect that all four of these men have earned.
During the informal discussion an objection was voiced that often comes up. If Zeus and Jupiter were gods and were mythological, then why isn’t Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, also mythological? If all gods have been gotten rid of one, then take the next logical step and get rid of the last one.
Though there is a natural flow to that argument, there are problems with it. In summary, there are such differences between the literature of Zeus and other gods versus Jehovah that any generalization of them into the same pot of meaning simply makes no sense whatsoever.
As mentioned in other essays, I had no real religious upbringing or environment. Christianity was not scoffed at; it simply was not mentioned. I knew it existed, but little else. The few times I had gone to church (well, Sunday school) I had heard about God, the usual children’s story; but I cannot recall a single one in particular. Yet, I am sure I heard the typical statements about God (Jehovah).
In comical contrast are the mythological gods of the Greek. I recall reading The Iliad and The Odyssey as a preteen, and the gods were an absolute joke. What I mean is that I laughed as a young kid. These gods seemed to be very big humans with super powers who were sexual perverts, bullies, adulterers, and unbelievably messed up.[2] I grew up in the days of The Lone Ranger (who never shot anyone), Ozzie and Harriet (a superb family), and Father Knows Best (just good decisions by Dad instead of the nincompoop of today’s shows). Compared to them, the Greek gods were monsters. This was not because I had the indoctrination of “the right God.” If I had been asked, “Is Christianity the only true religion,” I would not have had the slightest idea what that might have meant. The neighbor’s son was more real to me than God’s son.
Later after becoming a Christian (age 21 in the US Navy) I faintly recall the first time I heard the criticism that the gods of the ancient world were as real (or fake) as the God of the Bible. My initial reaction was, “Are you serious? Have you read anything about these drunken, in-bred, adulterous sots of Olympus?”
Besides the absurd social behavior of the gods of the ancient world, there are several other problems that markedly and unalterably distinguish the gods from God. The first and foremost is Ultimate Being, First Cause, Supreme Authority. Though Zeus and other “head” gods were the strongest, they answered to a higher power. Staying with Zeus, he was subject to the Fates[3]. In other words there was a higher power (or powers if the trio is considered). I have never understood why the God of the Bible is compared to the lesser gods of mythological pantheons. The ancient world understood the ultimate power of the Fates.
But then, the Fates, though having control over the gods, were born themselves. So the Fates had ultimate power, but they were not eternal. The breakdown in the nature of God when compared with the mythological gods reveal the same distinction over and over: God is clearly superior in intelligence, power, control, moral distinction.
Anselm also illustrated this difference quite well in his key comment in his Proslogion: God is a “being than which no greater can be conceived.” Very little imaginary effort is needed to consider how the gods of mythology could be greater that what they were … in a number of areas. Candidly it does seem impossible that anything could be greater than a self-existent, eternal being which created all physical matter and energy[4]. The gods of mythology are far, far less than self-existent and certainly not eternal.
Another difficulty was the lack of urgency for the gods. For instance, the philosophers did not hesitate to argue their position on truth, justice, good, beauty, etc. Philosophers would name peers and disagree with them, explain what was wrong in their arguments, dismiss their position for cause, etc. In other words, they were intensely apologetic about philosophy and would argue forcefully for what they believed was the truth … as we do today for what we believe. Yet, there is no urgency or interest in defending the gods, contrasting them with false gods (which was the originally meaning of the word “atheist”), defending them, promoting them, attacking false ones, etc.
For men who believed deeply in knowledge, logic, and truth, they were pathetically indifferent to the gods, either in praising them or criticizing them. Except for an occasional comment now and then, the philosophers ignored the gods. The question is why? Of course it is understandable why a writer would not criticize the gods in his own culture, but why the silence on others? Why not a vigorous, hearty philosophical attack or defense? No, essentially … silence.
The reader may decide for himself, but the only credible answer for me to the silence is that the mythological gods were simply not important to the philosophers. There was no meaning worth discussing. If these god were believed to truly exist, this belief did not create any urgency in thought.
Along with this philosophical silence is the lack of military silence. That is, there was little if any “spreading the faith” by conquest. Judaism established Jehovah in the Promised Land by conquest. Christianity was spread by military conquest (certainly the defense of Christianity during the Crusades), and Islam was definitely a religion of the sword after the death of Mohammad. The use of the military to spread the faith has been leaped upon by atheists. Though I do disagree with evangelism by conquest, what it illustrates is belief in an ultimate God and the urgency to spread the truth.
Alexander the Great was not concerned about which gods were worshipped. Rome allowed any gods to be worshipped as long as allegiance was given to Rome and eventually the emperor. The only exception were the Jews, “the second race,” who were allowed to only worship Jehovah. Again, no urgency. If the gods were true, why weren’t there philosophical evangelism, military evangelism, and personal evangelism? There was no truth element to the gods.
A hallmark of monotheism is the urgency that the one God is true; it is not so with polytheism. Why? I fail to see any compelling reason aside from the simple observation that the ancients saw the gods for exactly how we see them … mythological.
[2] No, I didn’t use those words back then. But as a young boy I could tell they were petty, sex maniacs, and comically dysfunctional.
[3] In Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology the Fates were comprised of three female immortals who had ultimate control over gods and humans. No god could break the decrees from the Fates.
[4] I am not suggesting the reader has to believe that God exists because of Anselm’s a priori argument. I’m merely suggesting that it is not possible to conceive of anything greater that a self-existent, eternal entity that created all physical matter and energy. Certainly, confirmed evolutionist will simply reply that matter/energy itself is eternal and self-existent. And that merely confirms the statement that nothing greater can be conceived. Whatever is eternal and self-existent from which all else is derived is the greatest entity that can be conceived. Whether the entity has to have mind (God) or not have mind (matter/energy) is a different argument altogether and is not addressed in this essay.
