Kaufmann's Characterizations of Pagan Religion and God

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Lately I've been watching a series of Yale video lectures that deal with religion and both Testaments of the Bible.  The video I just finished watching deals with the theological arguments made by the late Jewish scholar Yehezkel Kaufmann.  I find myself agreeing with most, but not all, of his points, even though they sound as if they stem from John Calvin's teachings, mostly because they emphasize on the sovereignty of God, even though Kaufmann himself was not a Christian.

Obviously most folks here aren't Pagan, but I thought I'd copy and paste the notes I took from the lecture and ask how others felt about Kaufmann's arguments, particularly if they are sound and logical.  Feel free to post competing ideas or rebuttals.

Kaufmann's points:
Logical consequences of metadivine realm/polytheism:
1. Polytheistic gods are limited; no supreme or divine will
2. Mythology is basic to Pagan religions
3. Fluid boundary between divine/human/material world
4. Power is naturally conceived

• There is an element of magic in Pagan cults
• If no gods are omniscient, then there are no moral absolutes
• Evil is built into the structure of the universe, autonomous from the omnipotent and just
• Pagan worldview is one of an amoral universe; this view is challenged by the monotheistic revolution of ancient Israel
• God is sovereign, bound to no metadivine realm; nature is the expression of God's will, but not God
• Magic is recast as a witness of God's sovereignty in the New Testament
• Magic and divinity presuppose existence of metadivine realm, and therefore violate the sovereignty of God
• Cults have no automatic or material power

My main problem lies within his fourth point: that evil is built into the structure of the universe.  I'm not sure what his views were on free will, but I would suppose that he did not hold that view given the nature of the argument.

[Kitteh]

Hmm, interesting arguments. Of note to me because I'm actually writing (or procrastinating on writing, deadline weeks in the future=no incentive to write now without more self-discipline than I have etc etc) a paper about polytheism among ancient Israelites for my religion class.

According to wiki (yeah yeah I know), his views about the history of monotheism in Israel seem a little strange:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

IANAexpert, but this seems to be very contrary to what most experts believe about this topic-that there was very clearly a good about of polytheistic worship among the Israelites in the times of Moses and for centuries later, that the religious elites of those times were at most monolatristic, that monotheism came very much from the top down, and was an official/elite thing tied to the formation of a united Israelite monarchy and later the exile to Babylon. It was my understanding that there's pretty much a consensus around all that nowadays, maybe there just wasn't at the time he was writing? It doesn't even really make sense to me that there wouldn't be foreign influence after the time of Moses or that Judaism would emerge spontaneously out of nothing without any outside influence. I can't think of any time in history where a religion hasn't been influenced by the cultures surrounding and preceding it.

w/r/t his points, I'm not sure how to interpret some of them. What does he mean by "mythology" in point 2 for example? The Bible seems equally "mythological" as many "pagan" religions to me. Point 3 is similar; how is the division between the material and the divine world any less fluid in the Bible/Abrahamic religions than in any pagan religions? What could be more fluid than God literally sending his own son (who is also God himself-trinity etc) down to Earth to save humanity? And how is he defining "magic" and differentiating it from the acts of God in the Bible?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Kitteh, I think by "mythological," Kaufmann means the traditional Greek myths about gods - you know, in which they all lived together, had families, fought villains, etc.  Christianity and Judaism give God human characteristics, but they do not teach that God exists as a family of humanistic entities.  (It is noteworthy, however, that monotheism does not necessarily imply the belief in one existing God, but rather the acknowledgement and worship of one supreme creator God Who may or may not reign over other gods.  It depends on what branch of monotheism we're talking about.)  So, the Bible is not mythological in that sense.

Also, keep in mind that Kaufmann was Jewish; he did not believe that God sent Himself down to save humanity.  I'm not sure what his exact views on Christianity were.  However, you raise a valid point on Kaufmann's definition of magic.  The lecture was fairly vague on those points, sad to say.

(Either that, or I took really crummy notes... but I don't think I did.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As for his point that "Evil is built into the structure of the universe, autonomous from the omnipotent and just", evil is an inevitable consequence of free will.  You cannot have one without the other.  Free will implies choices, and those choices will not have equal moral value, tho the differences may be beyond human perception. If we were not able to choose any option that was not the most good, then we would not possess free will. While an omnipotent God could deny us free will, since man is a reasoning creature made in the image of God, it would not be just to deny him free will, thus a God who is both omnipotent and just has no choice but to allow free will. (Indeed, it can be argued, that while man in his imperfections has free will, God in his perfection has none, because he fully knows the consequences of his actions and thus will inevitably choose the good choice.)

As for his point "If no gods are omniscient, then there are no moral absolutes" here is my take on it. There are two possible routes to moral absolutism. One is that morality is simply defined by the preferences of God.  If God likes it, it is good and if God hates it, it is evil. While that works reasonably well for a monotheism, obviously it cannot work for a polytheism. The other is that morality is defined by the universe and exists external to any consciousness or being. However, as I pointed out above in passing, one needs a certain level of perception to be able the just the good and evil of all actions. If there is no being who is omniscient, then even tho there be an absolute definition of good and even, it cannot be used, for there is no one who can perceive all the consequences of our actions and thus no one who can inform us with absolute certainty of the good or evil of any particular action.