What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case for Polytheism
The philosophy of religion has been dominated by monotheists and atheists for centuries now. But, polytheism deserves to be restored to its respected position, and The Case for Polytheism sets out some reasons why. By developing a notion of godhood and employing a set of novel and neglected arguments, the author constructs a rigorous but accessible case for the existence of multiple gods.
97 pages, Paperback
First published February 27, 2015
18 people are currently reading
106 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
April 16, 2016
The premise for this book is written more like a legal defense of polytheism (hence the title). It is written from a very high, academic point of view - similar in nature to a Masters level thesis or a legal proof. While the author did a great job of presenting his perspective, complete with examples and logic statements related in a step by step process, it is writing such as this whIch becomes a major turn off for me. I was hoping for a lit more of the author's own personal perspective to be laid out in a casual, talking format. Rather, the author buries these perspectives deep inside debate-themed language, which is very easy to miss at a casual glance. If you don't mind the academic and legal terminology framed in debate thematics, you will definitely enjoy this book and the manner in which the author presents his arguments.
March 1, 2020
Horrible. Just horrible. I have read better books than this. The beginning was alright, but had some issues. What happened at the end? It felt like the author took a huge logical leap. The last chapter felt more like fantasy story world building, than actual philosophy.
The only reason that, I read this book was because Ocean Keltoi recommended it. I have lost some respect for him, because of this.
A World Full of Gods: An Inquiry Into Polytheism is a much more superior book.
The only reason that, I read this book was because Ocean Keltoi recommended it. I have lost some respect for him, because of this.
A World Full of Gods: An Inquiry Into Polytheism is a much more superior book.
July 28, 2015
I found this book quite unconvincing, which was a bit sad to me, since I am a polytheist and therefore was predisposed to believe him. However, I had a few issues with his main line of reasoning, and writing style.
He would go into great detail about things, like defining "the universe" and then other things that could have used more in depth discussion were throwaways. For example, "Thus, we are not really in a position to say it is unlikely that disembodied minds would acquire information by intuition. Perhaps our experience of proprioception can function as an analogue of what such awareness would be like. Finally, it seems the consensus..." Why is this comment about proprioception a throwaway? Many people don't know the definition of proprioception. I do, and I don't see what analogy he's making at all.
Later on, there's a whole discussion about minds and whether the gods can have them because the brain evolved, and the implication seems to be that gods can have minds because they didn't evolve. But whether or not they evolved and how their not evolving means they exist isn't really clear.
Then there was this whole section on goodness, and I just didn't understand why arguing for an all-good deity had anything to do with arguing for the existence of any deity.
I did appreciate the argument that it makes sense for gods to exist because there's no reason not to believe all the people who have said they've experienced them.
However, the language style was off-putting, and the book could have used a few more revisions and refinements. For people looking for a good book on this subject, I much more suggest "A World Full of Gods" by John Michael Greer, which is quoted in this book. It's much more readable and convincing.
He would go into great detail about things, like defining "the universe" and then other things that could have used more in depth discussion were throwaways. For example, "Thus, we are not really in a position to say it is unlikely that disembodied minds would acquire information by intuition. Perhaps our experience of proprioception can function as an analogue of what such awareness would be like. Finally, it seems the consensus..." Why is this comment about proprioception a throwaway? Many people don't know the definition of proprioception. I do, and I don't see what analogy he's making at all.
Later on, there's a whole discussion about minds and whether the gods can have them because the brain evolved, and the implication seems to be that gods can have minds because they didn't evolve. But whether or not they evolved and how their not evolving means they exist isn't really clear.
Then there was this whole section on goodness, and I just didn't understand why arguing for an all-good deity had anything to do with arguing for the existence of any deity.
I did appreciate the argument that it makes sense for gods to exist because there's no reason not to believe all the people who have said they've experienced them.
However, the language style was off-putting, and the book could have used a few more revisions and refinements. For people looking for a good book on this subject, I much more suggest "A World Full of Gods" by John Michael Greer, which is quoted in this book. It's much more readable and convincing.
February 24, 2025
The author's central argument can be summarised quite succinctly.
In short: just as the conjunction of form and matter, in light of their interdependence, can only be attributed to something beyond form and matter (Deity), so too does the conjunction of essence and existence indicate a Supreme Being whose essence is existence itself, this called Alatheia. If this sounds like an argument for monotheism, that's because it really kind of is, only that absent a particular faith in a particular alleged divine revelation, the theist is open to the claims of encounters with variegated deities which are presumed to exist 'below' the Ultimate Reality Alatheia.
Curiously, Dillon brisquely moves through a passage in which he seems to dismiss the possibility that Alatheia could be a plurality (i.e. the Christian Trinity) despite the fact that his later works firmly state that to be divine and transcendent, as Alatheia is, is to be both henadic and polycentric, in other words that Alatheia must be a pantheon or Polynity rather than a Monad, which is how She is presented in this particular book.
If there is something I have misunderstood in this text, I invite rebuke.
In short: just as the conjunction of form and matter, in light of their interdependence, can only be attributed to something beyond form and matter (Deity), so too does the conjunction of essence and existence indicate a Supreme Being whose essence is existence itself, this called Alatheia. If this sounds like an argument for monotheism, that's because it really kind of is, only that absent a particular faith in a particular alleged divine revelation, the theist is open to the claims of encounters with variegated deities which are presumed to exist 'below' the Ultimate Reality Alatheia.
Curiously, Dillon brisquely moves through a passage in which he seems to dismiss the possibility that Alatheia could be a plurality (i.e. the Christian Trinity) despite the fact that his later works firmly state that to be divine and transcendent, as Alatheia is, is to be both henadic and polycentric, in other words that Alatheia must be a pantheon or Polynity rather than a Monad, which is how She is presented in this particular book.
If there is something I have misunderstood in this text, I invite rebuke.
December 17, 2025
A well-written book that revisits some common discussions, but from a different perspective. His argument based on the reliability of sense perception & the necessity of trust rather than uncompromising skepticism was especially compelling. The author did have an apparent bias against the Trinity in particular (bringing up its incoherence on multiple occasions - or perhaps just Aquinas' formulation of it?), but his elaboration of "Aletheia" as the source of all goodness & evil as privation fits nicely with the Christian God, & the existence of other gods should pose no issues for Christians who A) are part of older traditions, B) are familiar with works like Michael Heiser’s "The Unseen Realm", or C) simply read their Bible without importing a naturalistic/materialistic hermeneautic.
September 15, 2021
A solid approach to the philosophical argument for polytheism, however, it’s written with academia in mind and is not particularly accessible to those without formal philosophical education. The second part of the book, positing the characteristics of the One, wasn’t compelling to me, though I enjoyed the reflection on the nature of the divine family and divine politics in the final part of the second half.
Overall, a solid contribution toward the field of polytheistic theology. For those reluctant due to the writing style, I recommend A World Full of Gods by John Michael Greer, whom Dillon cites as well.
Overall, a solid contribution toward the field of polytheistic theology. For those reluctant due to the writing style, I recommend A World Full of Gods by John Michael Greer, whom Dillon cites as well.
October 16, 2022
The first chapter where Dillion defines Divinity and Godhood, while I disagree slightly, does make a compelling and coherent argument. The rest of the book goes downhill from there and devolves into rambling about Aristotelean and Neoplatonic opinions on divinity and origin of the universe. Dillion I believe, wished the book to be readable to a broad audience but in doing so, waters down any coherence. Good to get it off my "to read list" but beyond the first few pages, there is seldom to like.
March 1, 2024
This was fun to read as it stretched my brain.
I've only read philosophy from a theist perspective so it was interesting to see a view that encouraged the arguments towards theoi rather than theos (am I trying to be clever? Why yes I am..trying that is).
There are a few parts that don't sit well with me and I want to go back and re-read. Like many people these appeared in the latter part of the book.
Still a great boost and I'm excited to read around this topic.
I've only read philosophy from a theist perspective so it was interesting to see a view that encouraged the arguments towards theoi rather than theos (am I trying to be clever? Why yes I am..trying that is).
There are a few parts that don't sit well with me and I want to go back and re-read. Like many people these appeared in the latter part of the book.
Still a great boost and I'm excited to read around this topic.
September 16, 2021
This is a fantastic quick read on exactly what the title says, the Case for Polytheism. Dillon does a great job explaining and arguing for polytheism. If you are interested in the topic, definitely pick this up.
May 4, 2018
DNF around page 50.
November 28, 2024
A pretty good introductory literature for polytheists. It is not too tedious to read and short enough, for an easy read.
September 24, 2025
A very Thomistic defense of polytheism.
August 18, 2023
very well-written, while the book starts out pretty strong the end parts do take a massive leap of logic and assumptions that came out of nowhere.
May 3, 2021
I found this book rather pedestrian. The author is described as having "majored in philosophy" but as a former philosophy professor, I found several of his claims in need of further development in order to stand on their own, and some objections were passed over too quickly. It felt like the earnest writing of an enthusiastic undergraduate. As other reviewers have pointed out the beginning may have had issues, but the last half of the book describing a supreme deity named Aletheia made unwarranted leaps in logic.
At under 90 pages, this small book felt like an undeveloped and somewhat scattered undergraduate dissertation. I think the book would have benefitted by taking the arguments in the first half and spending the entire 85-page book developing them and drop the last half of the book (or if they wanted to keep the Aletheia material as a case study, then that would also have needed further development). As it stands, the claims made in the last half of the book are not supported by what is laid out in the first half.
I began reading the book highlighting information that I felt was important (as I do with all books I read - a habit retained from academia), but once I could see where the book was going I gave up on that. I would seek other sources for a developed examination of polytheism.
At under 90 pages, this small book felt like an undeveloped and somewhat scattered undergraduate dissertation. I think the book would have benefitted by taking the arguments in the first half and spending the entire 85-page book developing them and drop the last half of the book (or if they wanted to keep the Aletheia material as a case study, then that would also have needed further development). As it stands, the claims made in the last half of the book are not supported by what is laid out in the first half.
I began reading the book highlighting information that I felt was important (as I do with all books I read - a habit retained from academia), but once I could see where the book was going I gave up on that. I would seek other sources for a developed examination of polytheism.
May 7, 2017
A little too academic, but very interesting
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews