John Michael Greer is a well-known name in the Pagan community — whether it’s from his works on magic, Druidry, or environmentalism, etc. The man is prolific. Where I first heard of him, however, was from his work on Polytheism: A World Full of Gods.

I had left seminary, Catholicism and even Christianity at the time, and encountered thinkers like Graham Oppy and Howard Sobel; Michael Martin and William Rowe, Paul Draper and Michael Tooley…etc., etc… you know, the power houses of philosophical atheism. My belief-system was tumultuous at the time; everything was so new and I was, frankly, on the rebound. But as I steeped into Naturalism, I realized something. Nobody was talking about Polytheism. At least, in any serious kind of way. Why was that?

This question started as a curious note, as I saw Polytheism mentioned in comments from these and other thinkers, but it became an itch in the back of my mind. Over time, it grew to haunt me. Why on earth was the field of philosophy of religion a sandbox for atheists and Christians? Wasn’t there… so much more to consider? Much older, widespread religious ideas?

Surely, I concluded, these aren’t discussed because they’ve been dealt with already.

But, when I looked…I was even more surprised: the literature was silent. There were no ‘Case Against Paganism’; no Great Debate where a Bill Craig slayed the Pagan dragon. Bizarrely, no one had refuted Polytheism. It had just been dismissed.

But it didn’t even need consideration because it had all the hallmarks of being primitive and unsophisticated; no more worth our time than professionals trying to prove there weren’t fairies or gremlins.

The question wouldn’t leave me, though.

If the idea of a God is treated with our greatest rigor and effort…what changes so drastically when we take this same idea but merely consider it in the plural? We don’t even have to get crazy here… let’s just say there’s three of them, like from the Trinity. Why does everything suddenly change? Like we crossed some kind of line, or changed topics from physics to the paranormal.

But what I came to realize is that nothing changed when we did this, and also that actual Polytheism had nothing to do with these people’s psychology. All it came down to was that Polytheism wasn’t relevant. The actual thinkers and institutions fueling the philosophy of religion operate within a certain paradigm, and Polytheism is not in there.

So, I set out to formulate and evaluate Polytheism on my own. In the process, I began interacting with practicing polytheists and was directed to John Michael Greer’s A World Full of Gods.

This book was a major game changer for me. Finally, I thought, someone was really inquiring into Polytheism! And he even interacted with thinkers like Plantinga! It was like Christmas for me. Ultimately, Greer made two points that really stuck with me: first, that the arguments for theism did not favor monotheism any more than they did polytheism; and, second, that religious experiences strongly point toward polytheism.

I brought everything I had at the time to bear on the subject, and published my own findings in 2015.

So, when I heard that JMG was releasing a new edition of A World Full of Gods this month, I just had to get a copy. What would I think now? 10 years later; 10 years of change, and sustained, immersive philosophical research and practice?

Let’s see.

Readers of the original will notice that the new edition kept the same structure and table of contents. I like this, there is a logic to the progression of chapters. The cover is beautiful, as well.

Readers will also note that JMG makes it clear this is not a work written for professional philosophers. Indeed, he almost seems to lament that he is having to do this sort of work because they aren’t. I feel you John!

My overall evaluation is that this is a very readable, and memorable introduction to Polytheism, especially for those who — like me all those years ago — don’t really know anything about Polytheism. It will leave you with the impression that there is a lot more to the story: far from being a fringe or weird religious orientation in today’s world, as our deeply ignorant culture likes to portray it, Polytheism is an ancient, global phenomenon.

Moreover, Polytheism makes sense of human experience, especially considered across time and space: we’ve always experienced a plurality of divine beings. This latter point makes the book commendable to practicing polytheists: JMG is witty and has many clever analogies and points that will enrich your own practice and perspective.

Something I noticed this time around is that it does not try to secure a place for Polytheism in the philosophy of religion, contrary to what I thought all those years ago. I mean, for sure, it involves the philosophy of religion! But it does not try to be something it is not, like a work along the lines of Swinburne’s The Existence of God.

It is an intermediate level work with wide application, that will, if nothing else, impress upon one that Polytheism has more going for it than our culture could ever admit. I love this message. It is part of what has enchanted me for over a decade now. And for this reason, I whole heartedly recommend it to my philosophy of religion friends and associates who may be intrigued by the idea of Polytheism.

It was nostalgic and re-energizing to see this work again.

It also confirmed in my mind the need to carry the project of inquiring into Polytheism on to more academic and focused levels. And my philosophy of religion friends and associates will no doubt agree that the discussion could be deepened.

For example, on p. 47, JMG says that atheists have responded to Swinburne’s Cumulative Case argument for Theism by noting that multiple leaky buckets do not suddenly hold water when filled at the same time, or in conjunction.

But, who said that? I can’t imagine any professional philosopher would, because it would be to fundamentally misunderstand how probabilistic arguments work. An argument which raises the probability of an hypothesis to more than it would otherwise be, yet not to the level of being probably true, is not a “leaky bucket.” A better analogy would be to envisage different weights being placed on a scale. Just because each weight in a group is not enough all by itself to tip the scale does not mean that when they are all placed on there at the same time, the scale will not tip. Evidence accumulates. Weight adds up. And this is something Swinburne went into great detail with in his referenced book.

Imagine a prosecution team presenting a swath of evidence against the defendant. His finger prints are on the murder weapon. Witnesses place him at the scene moments before the murder occurs. Time stamped text messages between them confirm they not only spoke before the defendant arrived on scene, but argued. In fact, they were threatening to kill each other. Now, taken individually, each piece of information is not conclusive. But, suppose, when taken all together, they’re damning.

Imagine the defense gets up there in response and says “These are each leaky buckets. They’re not gonna all the sudden start holding water when you fill them at the same time.”

A second example, is on p. 51. JMG says that Neoplatonism draws a sharp distinction between the ground of Being and the Gods. The reader is referred to Proclus’ ‘Elements of Theology’. But, this is wild to me, and ya’ll already know. Far from making any such distinction, the late antique Platonists suggested the One is each Henad, and nothing else, over and above them. Proclus tells us that “each of the Gods is nothing else than the One in its participated aspect,” (Proclus, in Parm. 6.1069. 5-6).

Guys, Proclus is in the top 5 best preserved ancient authors. He had a lot to say on this. To make this sort of statement with only a single reference, to a single work, without any explanation? In spite of one of the world’s leading Platonist scholars working in the polytheist community, voluminously documenting to the contrary? C’mon.

And that leads me to JMG’s definition of a God. To him, Gods are finite. It’s not that there is a plurality of lower-case g gods under God, it’s that there is no ‘God’. If there is a Ground of Being, a sort of First Principle, it is one thing, and the gods are another.

This is one common way of formulating Polytheism.

But, I submit it is not the best way to do it. It is like a describing atheism in terms of its least plausible formulation, as if Naturalism isn’t there.

To date, the most rigorous and powerful formulation of Polytheism is the Platonic henadology, or polycentricity — which is tradition-neutral, and so applicable to any theology.

On this view, what is being perceived as finitude on the part of the Gods can easily be understood as the finitude on the part of the level of Being at the God is active. In other words, Gods can’t be reduced to the sites at which they are encountered: they’re pure individuals who manifest where they please.

The mythic roles they play and take on are not arbitrary, literal limitations, but symbolic displays of sovereignty.

In this sense, I only disagree with JMG where the finitude posited is take reductively.

Whatever the case, we should be very wary of this widespread narrative that ‘classical’ Polytheism endorsed only finite Gods: it’s simply not true.

Some closing thoughts.

First, inquiry into Polytheism should be ongoing. This is a fantastic work for people today of all backgrounds, and JMG’s energy should serve to encourage us to keep inquiring. Be as critical of Polytheism as you can be, but be just as creative.

Second, we as a community should be supportive of projects like this. Not in an uncritical way, of course, but in an enthusiastic way: we’re exploring our Gods and making discoveries through reason along the way.

Finally, I am so happy that Greer re-issued this material, and props to ADF for the beautiful work. I hope a new generation can experience A World Full of Gods how I did: eye opening, and enchanting.