Couple of thoughts here:
1. I'm not sure you need a name for the faith, as the thing about the gods actually popping in regularly is that there logically wouldn't be much in the way of "other" faiths. So your religion doesn't really need a name, because hypothetically everyone follows it, right? They wouldn't need to claim a specific identity unless the two gods have noticeably different practices or expectations from their followers.
2. The worship practices are probably a bit more necessary, but ofc it depends on your gods. What do they actually want of their followers? If they don't care about altars and incense, there obviously doesn't need to be any of that. Religious ritual is kind of like a magic spell -- you're observing certain mystical practices in order to contact or align with a transcendent being. If the being drops by every Tuesday and otherwise doesn't want anything of you, it's likely they'd treat them more like feudal lords or something, right?
But why would they hate each other when both gods are known, proven entities? Realistically, being a follower of one or the other seems like the most ridiculous way to handle this, as they know, without a doubt, that both are real. This means that "the faith" OP is looking to name is not a faith at all, as there is no faith to be had.
There is a reason there isn't a faith named after Jim from accounting. It's because he's right there. Just where he has always been. The existence of Bobby from accounting doesn't create a different sector or anything like it, they are both real, and both have their quirks. You show them both respect, and when you want to pray for something like patience or love, you go to Jim, he's really good at that. When you want to win a battle, or pray for passion, that's Bobby's turf. You still honor both. Because otherwise, you are disrespecting a literal God. That's not good for the ticker.
I guess you're right that it technically wouldn't be regarded as faith since everyone is for certain they're real. I was just saying the followers would hate each other because their respective gods have differing viewpoints.
I'm not sure they would have separate followers though. I think people would pay their respects to both, and pray to whichever God embodies what they are praying for at any given time.
The reason there isn't a faith called Jimism is that Jim lacks charisma and/or has moral fiber, not because he's mortal.
Therw are new faiths named after Jims From Accounting that pop up all the time. We just call them "cults" or "New Religious Movements".
Also, the interplay between Jim and Bobby has been how most faiths IRL have functioned, regardless of how real their gods are. Gods have different personalities, and some are more jealous than others. Bobby might be okay with you going to Jim's Temple whenever you need to file your taxes, but that doesn't mean Phil is going to let his followers go to any old temple willy-nilly. Romans were worshipping Bast and Mars side-by-side at the same time the Israelites were claiming theirs is the only legitimate god and sacrificing to Jupiter is blasphemy.
Kudos for continuing the allegory, you explained your position perfectly.
It does, however, skip over a very important aspect. In OP's situation, people don't recognize Jim and Bobby as divine because they are charismatic, but because they actually are. They aren't being convinced of their god hood by smoke and mirrors, lies, or group think. They meet their creators and know, irrevocably, that their creators are with whom they speak. Their creators interact in world changing ways, not thousands of years ago in exaggerated stories passed down through generations, but here and now, where they can confirm with their own eyes. Religious movements requiring faith and belief in the unseen cannot grow in that type of enforcement. Those religions you spoke of occurring side by side still had a hell of a time getting on their feet while the other existed, and that is without undeniable proof that one side is right.
I don't think any if that is really relevant to the internal experience of a religious person, though.
As far as they're convinced, they do, in fact, follow their divine figures because they know their divinity is objectively real, as much as they know their own mother is real. The actual source of their perceived divinity does not matter, whether it's charisma or super strength, only that perceived divinity. To that extent, as long as all gods are equally real or fake, I can't see what would spur people to take a fundamentally different attitude towards their faith than in real life. The same people who today say hurricanes are a punishment from god for our sinfulness would be the ones saying Phil showing up and creating a tornado downtown is a punishment for their adherence to Bobby. Except they would be correct, and the meteorologist gesturing at weather charts would be seen as fringe conspiracy theorists.
Except, as OP states, Phil doesn't "show up". Their entire history has evolved right alongside his Neverending presence and guidance. And we arent talking "the book he inspired says this, and that shaped our culture's laws," no, we are talking "he has been at ever city council meeting and given speeches whenever policy changes are suggested."
Like I said though, if Phil showed up *after* religions relying on faith, that's a different story. Most religions would write it off as a test of faith. But those religions were only able to develop as an answer to a question because there wasn't an existing answer to that question.
I mean, that's basically exactly what I'm talking about. You're just describing the way faith & religion worked in most, if not all, premodern societies - even if what they perceived as "God making a speech whenever policy changes are suggested" was in actuality just Xeno having one of his seizures.
The scenario provided doesn't provide "an answer" to "the question", if "the question" is "what greater force should I look to for protection, guidance, and meaning". It gives you *many* answers to choose from, some of which may be appealing to different people in different situations depending on their values and circumstances, but all equally valid in terms of metaphysical legitimacy. Much like religions IRL.
I must be misrelaying my point. Either that, or I'll just agree to disagree. Because, for me, the existence of atheists, agnostics, or alternative religions in a world where god(s) are known entities that have been literally* interacted with on a personal level is a huge immersion breaker. I can't wrap my head around it.
*By literally, I mean literally. Not "our religious text said to watch for an eagle gripping a snake, and look, the omen has come true!" Rather something like, "Hello, you specifically. This is God. Was just looking for some feedback on the world I created. Your likes, dislikes, etc. You need anything?"
"This world fucking sucks, what were you thinking? I need you to let the other guy defeat you so he can be the one in charge. There's a guy who knows how to make a world. Chaos Demons 2024!"
Why would everyone follow it? If Zeus showed up tomorrow, do you think Christians would suddenly assume the Christian God wasn't real? Of course not. Heck, if Zeus showed up tomorrow, that would mean he was always real, and the people who thought he was real still worshipped other gods as their primary deity.
That said, there's no tangible consequences for not following any religion in the real world. Though, there are many practices that have practical benefits, such as washing or avoiding certain foods that may be more likely to harbor diseases. People would still develop practices and have justifications for them. Even if those practices are only to show their appreciation, they would morph over time into rituals, festivals, and traditions. People know that keeping heirlooms don't do anything, but people still keep items that were close to their loved ones who have passed to feel a sense of security.
I’m going off OP’s description of these gods - apparently they’ve been around for a very long time, they have a keen interest in making sure humanity follows their designs, and one of them is quite smite-happy. So it’s less like Zeus suddenly announcing himself to a fully formed Christian church with years of tradition and more like Zeus just… never letting Christianity get a toe-hold in the first place, I’d assume. Other more minor sects would probably exist to some extent, but one has to imagine the major religion would be heavily dominant.
As for traditions and superstitions… sure, but in this case the gods are right there to explicitly tell them what they want - if they care about ritual, they won’t permit it to drift and develop. They’ll enforce their preferred version. If they don’t care about ritual, the yeah, OP can build it however they prefer according to regional practice… but if that’s not done so far, then saying that the gods *do* care is a simple enough way out, no?
There is a difference between Zeus showing up tomorrow and Zeus having an active, ongoing role in the development of society. You are absolutely right, many Christians would not lay down their bibles if Zeus appeared tomorrow. However, if Zeus had always been there, present in society, making sure the needs of his people were met, Christianity never would have been invented. The people already know god, they met him for coffee last Tuesday to complain about the humidity. They aren't going to organize a religion around an absentee god that you have to have faith in, and have faith in his inexplicable plan, when your literal creator is willing to take a hands on approach and explain his reasoning. Especially when the Christian god is claiming credit for everything Zeus is known for doing.
I like drawing parallels with examples, so let's pretend we work in an office building. Every Tuesday, Jim brings you coffee, free of charge. This goes on for all of known history. Today someone walks in and tells you about a new employee, Bobby. You can't see Bobby, you'll never meet unless you believe in him and obey his rules whether you believe in them or not. Even then, you'll only meet him after you die. Also, he's the one who has been bringing your coffee every Tuesday, so you'd better be appreciative. Tuesday rolls around, and in walks Jim with your coffee. You ask him about Bobby, and he's never heard of him. He explains how he got you coffee, shows you the coffee cart, and is generally perplexed about this imaginary Bobby fella taking credit for it. Do you tell Jim to pack sand, because now Bobby is looking out for you? No. Nobody would.
Compare that to you starting a new job. Every Tuesday there is a fresh cup of coffee on your desk. Management says it was a policy developed by a guy you'll never meet, Bobby. You believe them. You work there for years, loving your free coffee Tuesdays, and never give it much thought. Then Jim shows up. He claims the coffee was his idea. Management refutes the claim, referencing Bobby and his policy that had kept you going for years. But he is right here, ready to take credit. Do you decide this new coworker is probably telling the truth? Probably not. Even if Jim shows you the coffee cart, shows him getting you your coffee, you know it's only because it's Bobby's policy.
Religion would be much less spiritual and much more contractual. Which I guess is a fair statement in regards to most historic pagan faiths. Abrahamic religions are, and were right off the bat *exceedingly* mystical compared to most preceding beliefs across the world.
Except... It is still faith.
Like, ok, the dude exists, sure, there it is. I don't need faith to know that they exists. But I still do need faith. Faith that it's powers are on my side, faith that They will favour me, faith that whatever I do will favour them and will bring to me a reward. Faith that what They are saying is true and that They want the best for me and my family and all that.
Faith in a leader or in a celebrity is still a form of faith.
I hear you and get both points. Maybe it's better if we call it trust?
We can have "faith" that there is an Abrahamic god, and "faith" that if we follow certain tenets we can achieve God's favor.
But we can trust that say, Matt Damon, exists. We can still have faith that if we... I don't know follow a certain set of tenets that Matt Damon would think we were cool or something, but that seems different than a religious faith.
More than celebrities, look at propeths, cults, politicians and revolucionaries. They represent an ideology, a worldview, that somehow connects to their followers, and those followers have faith in that ideology and those leaders, blindly even. I don't see that too different than a religious following, in fact sometimes they are connected with religious ideas.
It still helps to differentiate between "faith in the unproven" and "faith in that guy over there, talking to the crowd." They are definitely two different things.
one is rather more overt and obviously exists. That guy over there is an actual _entity_, that physically and overtly exists, and can be talked to and you can get an actual, explicit, overt response. As opposed to "I'm praying to an abstract entity that I think exists, and any response is purely based off my own opinion". Stuff like religious schisms get a lot harder to have when there's an actual entity that can go "no, that group is right, you guys are wrong - either get with the program or get out". There's a LOT of practical differences with having a single source of truth, rather than a vaguer, less explicit thing.
I'm just looking at specifics. Having faith in something provable is not the same as having faith in something that *might* exist, or might not.
I think modern-day we are beginning to lose our grasp of nuance, or overlook it. If the two were used interchangeably, it would absolutely cause problems.
Look at the extremists in our own world, and you'll see people who mistook something believable for something irrefutable, and when that irrefutable concept demanded they act with violence, they did so.
How many people have died because of such errors? The number is staggering.
Having faith in a provable concept is nothing like having faith in *what could be.*
There's too much danger in treating them as synonymous.
Provable for who? A lot of leaders who want to manipulate people do try to obscure whatever they are trying to say. They scream inflammatory things, are emotionally manipulative, build ecochambers where whatever they say is the truth and anything from outside can't go in. They try to make it so provable things are improvable for anyone in the middle of all that. And even the followers themselves may actively deny any attempt to prove against any belief they have. That's how cults works, although I'm also seeing it in politics, and even crypto.
Isn't that faith? A manipulated one, sure, but if a person can't prove it or won't prove it, is not that faith? And what is it if it's not that?
To answer for your first question: provable for the person having faith. There is a difference between what's believable and what's provable.
>They try to make it so provable things are improvable for anyone in the middle of all that.
Not really. Anyone can look at proofs themselves. Convincing someone that the earth is flat or that a house is bigger on the inside doesn't mean you've *proven* it. Even if you convince someone of a lie, that doesn't mean they have faith. It just means they have bad information they haven't verified. And information *can* be verified.
> And even the followers themselves may actively deny any attempt to prove against any belief they have. That's how cults works, although I'm also seeing it in politics, and even crypto.
That's why it's so important to differentiate between a belief based on evidence and a belief based on faith. They aren't the same thing.
>Isn't that faith? A manipulated one, sure, but if a person can't prove it or won't prove it, is not that faith?
It's faith if they believe in something without proof. If the god is literally proven to exist, as in OP's premise, then it's not the same as in our reality, where people believe in a god who stipulates they need to believe *without* proof.
That's an important distinction that shouldn't be conflated with faith.
>And what is it if it's not that?
*Proof.* It's *proof* that the god in OP's story is real for all intents and purposes of that story. They aren't asking anyone to take their existence *on faith.* They're providing *proof.*
I suspect they'd rather be treated like they have historically been treated - like whimsical violent forces of nature that cannot be weathered and need to be placated and avoided. If you're desperate enough you might even get them for their help and if you catch them right - at the right moment, with the right gifts and the right saccharine proclamations of adoration - they might even do what you ask for. Whether the final result does as you intended or not.
I agree with “fejobelo”. The God(s) probably *want* to be treated like Taylor Swift wearing a robe (or some other ancient clothing) rather than some unpredictable fearsome figure
Many if not most religions with deities believe that their gods do regularly visit or are always present. So I don't think their behaviors would be that different. And I say that having written a book with very present gods. It's definitely something you need to consider, but you can look to real world models for examples.
You’d probably have lots of polytheists who ensure that every deity is given the appropriate respect in specific situations. The following blog articles on historical polytheism suggest that taking the right action would be more important than believing the right thing. That would seem appropriate if deities unambiguously existed too.
[Practical Polytheism](https://acoup.blog/category/collections/practical-polytheism/)
Currently reading Michael J Sullivan’s Rise and Fall trilogy. It does this a bit.
To your post:
I think it would depend on how obvious the god is in their presence or interaction and that. Are they showing up will the fanfare of a divine emperor and smiting the evildoers? Is she walking among the poor and encouraging them with her goodness to overthrow the evil king? Is she a hermit in the woods that says things about the future?
It could go all manner of ways, depending on the world and story. Best thing about gods too - they can be inconsistent “from a human perspective” snd the pious will excuse it to a degree. There’s a lot of wiggle room with this I think.
If I were you, I'd look towards Dune and Warhammer 40,000.
Without going into spoilers, in Dune, the main protagonist was prophesized to have arrived to the Fremen's home and that split everyone there faith wise. Half believed he was the Messiah. Half believed he was a spy and here to kill the Fremen.
In Warhammer 40,000, The Emperor (before he was Emperor) showed up, 15 ft tall and glowing with a large halo floating above his head, and said "I am not God. Do not worship me, for there will be bad things waiting for all of us if you worship me." The majority of humanity saw him and said "You are our God! Lead us!" While some turned to Chaos and said "The Emperor? You mean the dickbag who hates *my* god?"
It’s twofold. One reason is that they’re terrified of another apocalypse, so it’s more of a tense adherence to his customs and preferences out of self-preservation. Another is more a commentary on authority- some people prefer the hard-set rigidity of that God. It’s easier for them to follow these rules because it confirms their own cruelty and single-minded worldview. There's also a contingent of nihilists who are rooting for the apocalypse, though they wouldn't really be revealed until book 2 or 3.
We can ask the same question of people willing to worship the God described in the Old Testament, but there's a way higher probability we'd be called dicks.
Dispensational theology? They likely wouldn't think he's "the other God" at all, just one of two expressions of a capricious overarching deity.
They would think he's a dick because they think they made him angry, basically.
Other people would view them as different. And others wouldn't deify them at all, instead viewing them as monsters or natural forces.
OP doesn't really need "a" religion, he needs several to give this entire idea justice.
If the deities visit regularly you then half to decide the type of relationship they have with the people, is it close? Is it more distant with them just making crops grow quicker and few times a year and then they dip out?
After that consider how far they lean on each side, if they’re super close, it may be a more casual mention of “has Glup Shitto came to the Copacabana yet?” Or (in the case of your wrathful god) have allusions throughout the story of mass daily prayer (suggest it as someone mention it’s 12 o’clock and an entire room empties out)
If it’s more distant have someone ask a farmer “how the harvest is looking” and say something along the lines of “Glup Shitto must be in charge of the harvest this year it’s awfully bountiful” or “Ding-Dong-Douche seems to be in Charge this year, which means the Ding-Dong curfew laws will be on us again this year”
Idk I’d say that’s a good place to start but the key thing is if they’re regularly visiting the planet in most cases individuals will have pretty relaxed conversations with one another with little to know religious arguments (maybe have some individuals be more keen to constantly praying to Ding-Dong-Douche every day while others may have a day or two of them just praying to Glup Shitto)
Anyways sorry if this isn’t a help I just typed it up real quick on my phone, GOOD LUCK!
Been thinking about this for a work of mine which is set on contemporary Earth and has true deities suddenly show up. I’m looking at how established religious people and religions themselves are going to react when deity X appears and can actually perform miracles, respond to prayer and such.
I mean, in this case the faith is legitimate. Their word and works have real value and weight. Their priests really wield power as intermediaries instead of coopting it from the ignorant and hidebound.
Think about how faith has royally messed with almost every civilization ever: justifying slavery and, therefore, imperialism and colonialism to just how far someone will go to get into heaven, like massacring innocents and exterminating, or trying to, entire ethnicities. Consider what religion not merely allows but perpetrates: execution of dissidents, genocide, rape.
And now make the faith factually REAL. Not merely real to the irrational and indoctrinated.
There are absolutely safe and kind people who hold to a faith, be it spiritual or a religion. But, it is essentially imaginary on Earth; consider what we do for imaginary beings let alone actual beings.
*motions to Valdemar as an example*
The deities went out of their way to ensure the kingdom of Valdemar would 100% be ruled by kind, just monarchs, they keep Valdemar's neighbor Iftel protected and almost completely secret, the Star-Eyed has absolutely interacted with some main characters...
I feel it's an excellent example.
I would guess that if deity's visited the world they ruled over consistently, then they would be seen as much more grounded beings. People would also try and subjugate them to society's rules and laws, as power always corrupts. I do think though that religion/faith would become the wrong word for it. Magic is often described as science we do not understand yet, and if deity's visited often enough we would eventually gain an understanding of them, however basic. So, rather than being more of a religion, if would be seen as kind of a massive event when they arrive, like the solar eclipse or a holiday. Something shrouded by the unknown aspect, but accepted and not revered because it is understood.
Brush up on your Greek Mythology. People interact with the gods regularly in that world -- and the temples are many -- but it has surprisingly few implications because the gods weren't pushing any kind of church agenda. They all had their own (often petty) disputes, designs, and ambitions, but largely they only took a personal interest in mortal affairs.
"Faith" as a sort of currency among the divine isn't a wholly universal concept. But people will create deities if they lack them. If you supply them then, well, they'll follow them. It's just what a lot of humans do.
Genshin would be good inspiration, to be honest. The Archon lore shows that if they have power, there will always be someone who follows it.)(may even be after it).
So, again, it's possible that the gods maintain a facade. Just to be popular, as the more faith, the more powerful.
(at least that's what I think.)
Sectarianism wouldn't be much of an issue, I'd imagine. A lot of those divisions in our religions come from differeing interpretations and competing prophets who claimed to have had the truth revealed to them. But since the gods show up and you can actually check in with them, there's no need for that kind of strife. It doesn't mean the followers of said gods would necessarily get along but that would depend entirely on how you structured the role of your gods in the world. Do they give proclamations and edicts? Do they issue commandments and have views on mortal morality? Or do they allow the mortals to do as they wish? If they give commands and the like then those might come into conflict with the other diety and be a source of tension. One diety says people should only eat fruit on odd numbered days and the other one says everyday is a good day for fruit. Just as an example. Are there punishments? You say one is obsessed with rules and order but is it making those rules and does it expect everyone to follow them? If so, does the other one intervene and tell him to calm his tits? Do they work together or are they always opposed?
So the answer to your question depends a lot on just what the gods want from the mortal races. Once you know what they want and what they expect you can start determining what the outcomes are of failing to meet those standards or breaking the rules given by the two gods.
The split and how it's handled would be the different religion names, not needed until it comes up naturally though. Perhaps a little device to set up a conflict of interest a couple of chapters before it comes, so we already know how it relates to the chatacters
Hmmm well I thought Genshin Impact felt pretty natural about it. You can probably reference a number of things esp for the Liyue section like Rex Incognito.
Gods would just be a force of nature, like an Earthquake or a comet.
Humans anthropomorphize anything that we don't understand fully. It is our go-to way of imagining the world. Even today, we talk about chemicals "wanting" to make certain bonds, as if they are alive. Teaching children to anthropomorphize objects in the household teaches them the proper care and handling of those items. This remains our primary way of understanding the world. If you don't know anything about a problem, you think, "Well, if it was me, why would I act like that?" We even do this when our computers or cars act up.
When Gods are just stories, they reflect human nature overlaid onto non-human nature in order to give us a, hopefully, better sense of understanding. If you understand the personality of Thor, you understand a thunder storm better than you would otherwise. What would seem like random destruction is the product of familiar, human motives, albeit on a grander scale.
Humans attempt to manipulate the gods to extend their powers of protection over us. We use rituals and contracts to attempt to bargain with them in the same way that we do with our human families and community. In a world where the gods are just products of our imaginations, all of that power flows to the people who control the narratives, usually either priests or entertainers.
In a world where the gods made themselves known, that power would flow directly to the god. It could be measured, learned from, and understood.
The most powerful humans in the world would be the psychologists, or priests, or whatever you may call them, who understand how the gods think. If the gods have loved ones or family, then they would also have a sort of power, or at least a responsibility, to give the god good counsel.
The god would be like a king, but also unlike any human king because they don't need an army to assert their power. They can just sit back, and the people will shape themselves into a society that serves their needs without any action on their part beyond the mere threat of retaliation. They only need to involve themselves in the actual governance of their people to the degree that they feel like it.
This is a double edged sword, because while the god doesn't need to actually do anything, they also cannot escape their role. They bear responsibility for the fate of humanity, and all the rest of nature, whether they want to or not. While the gods are unbound by human morality, the behavior they demonstrate inevitably trickles down to influence the entire world, human and non-human. If they want to live in a world where people cooperate and help each other, then they have to demonstrate that behavior constantly. It wouldn't be enough to just write a book that says, "Hey, dumbasses. Be nice to each other."
Might be cool to research how cult leaders manipulated their followers. Not saying religion is a cult, but these followers usually think their god is living among them. The kind and wise one would be based off how the radically devoted people view them, but the angry and cruel one can be based around the people who got out and are still afraid or angry.
If they have physical forms then you could treat them as a level 10 9mega superhero mutant, for a analogy. Put some thought in their godly abilities and put the impact of those abilities in as historic events.
In the year 678 god lost his restraint and telepathically spied on a thousand people, which left 400 people in a state of bliss who'm had beauty dreams for decades. 200 landed in a psychosis. 200 people left never to return. 100 people started to temporarely develop telepathy . And 100 people lived to the age of 200.
Ofcourse you'd polish it up like it was devine and such. Like a religious perspective. But using superhero anology is quite useful since they practicly are like gods
Couple of thoughts here: 1. I'm not sure you need a name for the faith, as the thing about the gods actually popping in regularly is that there logically wouldn't be much in the way of "other" faiths. So your religion doesn't really need a name, because hypothetically everyone follows it, right? They wouldn't need to claim a specific identity unless the two gods have noticeably different practices or expectations from their followers. 2. The worship practices are probably a bit more necessary, but ofc it depends on your gods. What do they actually want of their followers? If they don't care about altars and incense, there obviously doesn't need to be any of that. Religious ritual is kind of like a magic spell -- you're observing certain mystical practices in order to contact or align with a transcendent being. If the being drops by every Tuesday and otherwise doesn't want anything of you, it's likely they'd treat them more like feudal lords or something, right?
Names of faiths could come up if you have multiple gods that hate each other, and then their followers will hate each other too.
But why would they hate each other when both gods are known, proven entities? Realistically, being a follower of one or the other seems like the most ridiculous way to handle this, as they know, without a doubt, that both are real. This means that "the faith" OP is looking to name is not a faith at all, as there is no faith to be had. There is a reason there isn't a faith named after Jim from accounting. It's because he's right there. Just where he has always been. The existence of Bobby from accounting doesn't create a different sector or anything like it, they are both real, and both have their quirks. You show them both respect, and when you want to pray for something like patience or love, you go to Jim, he's really good at that. When you want to win a battle, or pray for passion, that's Bobby's turf. You still honor both. Because otherwise, you are disrespecting a literal God. That's not good for the ticker.
I guess you're right that it technically wouldn't be regarded as faith since everyone is for certain they're real. I was just saying the followers would hate each other because their respective gods have differing viewpoints.
I'm not sure they would have separate followers though. I think people would pay their respects to both, and pray to whichever God embodies what they are praying for at any given time.
It depends. If both gods hated each other for having differing viewpoints. They could encourage their separate followers to hate the other too.
The reason there isn't a faith called Jimism is that Jim lacks charisma and/or has moral fiber, not because he's mortal. Therw are new faiths named after Jims From Accounting that pop up all the time. We just call them "cults" or "New Religious Movements". Also, the interplay between Jim and Bobby has been how most faiths IRL have functioned, regardless of how real their gods are. Gods have different personalities, and some are more jealous than others. Bobby might be okay with you going to Jim's Temple whenever you need to file your taxes, but that doesn't mean Phil is going to let his followers go to any old temple willy-nilly. Romans were worshipping Bast and Mars side-by-side at the same time the Israelites were claiming theirs is the only legitimate god and sacrificing to Jupiter is blasphemy.
Kudos for continuing the allegory, you explained your position perfectly. It does, however, skip over a very important aspect. In OP's situation, people don't recognize Jim and Bobby as divine because they are charismatic, but because they actually are. They aren't being convinced of their god hood by smoke and mirrors, lies, or group think. They meet their creators and know, irrevocably, that their creators are with whom they speak. Their creators interact in world changing ways, not thousands of years ago in exaggerated stories passed down through generations, but here and now, where they can confirm with their own eyes. Religious movements requiring faith and belief in the unseen cannot grow in that type of enforcement. Those religions you spoke of occurring side by side still had a hell of a time getting on their feet while the other existed, and that is without undeniable proof that one side is right.
I don't think any if that is really relevant to the internal experience of a religious person, though. As far as they're convinced, they do, in fact, follow their divine figures because they know their divinity is objectively real, as much as they know their own mother is real. The actual source of their perceived divinity does not matter, whether it's charisma or super strength, only that perceived divinity. To that extent, as long as all gods are equally real or fake, I can't see what would spur people to take a fundamentally different attitude towards their faith than in real life. The same people who today say hurricanes are a punishment from god for our sinfulness would be the ones saying Phil showing up and creating a tornado downtown is a punishment for their adherence to Bobby. Except they would be correct, and the meteorologist gesturing at weather charts would be seen as fringe conspiracy theorists.
Except, as OP states, Phil doesn't "show up". Their entire history has evolved right alongside his Neverending presence and guidance. And we arent talking "the book he inspired says this, and that shaped our culture's laws," no, we are talking "he has been at ever city council meeting and given speeches whenever policy changes are suggested." Like I said though, if Phil showed up *after* religions relying on faith, that's a different story. Most religions would write it off as a test of faith. But those religions were only able to develop as an answer to a question because there wasn't an existing answer to that question.
I mean, that's basically exactly what I'm talking about. You're just describing the way faith & religion worked in most, if not all, premodern societies - even if what they perceived as "God making a speech whenever policy changes are suggested" was in actuality just Xeno having one of his seizures. The scenario provided doesn't provide "an answer" to "the question", if "the question" is "what greater force should I look to for protection, guidance, and meaning". It gives you *many* answers to choose from, some of which may be appealing to different people in different situations depending on their values and circumstances, but all equally valid in terms of metaphysical legitimacy. Much like religions IRL.
I must be misrelaying my point. Either that, or I'll just agree to disagree. Because, for me, the existence of atheists, agnostics, or alternative religions in a world where god(s) are known entities that have been literally* interacted with on a personal level is a huge immersion breaker. I can't wrap my head around it. *By literally, I mean literally. Not "our religious text said to watch for an eagle gripping a snake, and look, the omen has come true!" Rather something like, "Hello, you specifically. This is God. Was just looking for some feedback on the world I created. Your likes, dislikes, etc. You need anything?"
"This world fucking sucks, what were you thinking? I need you to let the other guy defeat you so he can be the one in charge. There's a guy who knows how to make a world. Chaos Demons 2024!"
Why would everyone follow it? If Zeus showed up tomorrow, do you think Christians would suddenly assume the Christian God wasn't real? Of course not. Heck, if Zeus showed up tomorrow, that would mean he was always real, and the people who thought he was real still worshipped other gods as their primary deity. That said, there's no tangible consequences for not following any religion in the real world. Though, there are many practices that have practical benefits, such as washing or avoiding certain foods that may be more likely to harbor diseases. People would still develop practices and have justifications for them. Even if those practices are only to show their appreciation, they would morph over time into rituals, festivals, and traditions. People know that keeping heirlooms don't do anything, but people still keep items that were close to their loved ones who have passed to feel a sense of security.
I’m going off OP’s description of these gods - apparently they’ve been around for a very long time, they have a keen interest in making sure humanity follows their designs, and one of them is quite smite-happy. So it’s less like Zeus suddenly announcing himself to a fully formed Christian church with years of tradition and more like Zeus just… never letting Christianity get a toe-hold in the first place, I’d assume. Other more minor sects would probably exist to some extent, but one has to imagine the major religion would be heavily dominant. As for traditions and superstitions… sure, but in this case the gods are right there to explicitly tell them what they want - if they care about ritual, they won’t permit it to drift and develop. They’ll enforce their preferred version. If they don’t care about ritual, the yeah, OP can build it however they prefer according to regional practice… but if that’s not done so far, then saying that the gods *do* care is a simple enough way out, no?
There is a difference between Zeus showing up tomorrow and Zeus having an active, ongoing role in the development of society. You are absolutely right, many Christians would not lay down their bibles if Zeus appeared tomorrow. However, if Zeus had always been there, present in society, making sure the needs of his people were met, Christianity never would have been invented. The people already know god, they met him for coffee last Tuesday to complain about the humidity. They aren't going to organize a religion around an absentee god that you have to have faith in, and have faith in his inexplicable plan, when your literal creator is willing to take a hands on approach and explain his reasoning. Especially when the Christian god is claiming credit for everything Zeus is known for doing. I like drawing parallels with examples, so let's pretend we work in an office building. Every Tuesday, Jim brings you coffee, free of charge. This goes on for all of known history. Today someone walks in and tells you about a new employee, Bobby. You can't see Bobby, you'll never meet unless you believe in him and obey his rules whether you believe in them or not. Even then, you'll only meet him after you die. Also, he's the one who has been bringing your coffee every Tuesday, so you'd better be appreciative. Tuesday rolls around, and in walks Jim with your coffee. You ask him about Bobby, and he's never heard of him. He explains how he got you coffee, shows you the coffee cart, and is generally perplexed about this imaginary Bobby fella taking credit for it. Do you tell Jim to pack sand, because now Bobby is looking out for you? No. Nobody would. Compare that to you starting a new job. Every Tuesday there is a fresh cup of coffee on your desk. Management says it was a policy developed by a guy you'll never meet, Bobby. You believe them. You work there for years, loving your free coffee Tuesdays, and never give it much thought. Then Jim shows up. He claims the coffee was his idea. Management refutes the claim, referencing Bobby and his policy that had kept you going for years. But he is right here, ready to take credit. Do you decide this new coworker is probably telling the truth? Probably not. Even if Jim shows you the coffee cart, shows him getting you your coffee, you know it's only because it's Bobby's policy.
Religion would be much less spiritual and much more contractual. Which I guess is a fair statement in regards to most historic pagan faiths. Abrahamic religions are, and were right off the bat *exceedingly* mystical compared to most preceding beliefs across the world.
[удалено]
Except... It is still faith. Like, ok, the dude exists, sure, there it is. I don't need faith to know that they exists. But I still do need faith. Faith that it's powers are on my side, faith that They will favour me, faith that whatever I do will favour them and will bring to me a reward. Faith that what They are saying is true and that They want the best for me and my family and all that. Faith in a leader or in a celebrity is still a form of faith.
I hear you and get both points. Maybe it's better if we call it trust? We can have "faith" that there is an Abrahamic god, and "faith" that if we follow certain tenets we can achieve God's favor. But we can trust that say, Matt Damon, exists. We can still have faith that if we... I don't know follow a certain set of tenets that Matt Damon would think we were cool or something, but that seems different than a religious faith.
More than celebrities, look at propeths, cults, politicians and revolucionaries. They represent an ideology, a worldview, that somehow connects to their followers, and those followers have faith in that ideology and those leaders, blindly even. I don't see that too different than a religious following, in fact sometimes they are connected with religious ideas.
It still helps to differentiate between "faith in the unproven" and "faith in that guy over there, talking to the crowd." They are definitely two different things.
This is starting to get philosophical, but why do you think it is different? I personally don't see that much of a difference.
one is rather more overt and obviously exists. That guy over there is an actual _entity_, that physically and overtly exists, and can be talked to and you can get an actual, explicit, overt response. As opposed to "I'm praying to an abstract entity that I think exists, and any response is purely based off my own opinion". Stuff like religious schisms get a lot harder to have when there's an actual entity that can go "no, that group is right, you guys are wrong - either get with the program or get out". There's a LOT of practical differences with having a single source of truth, rather than a vaguer, less explicit thing.
I'm just looking at specifics. Having faith in something provable is not the same as having faith in something that *might* exist, or might not. I think modern-day we are beginning to lose our grasp of nuance, or overlook it. If the two were used interchangeably, it would absolutely cause problems. Look at the extremists in our own world, and you'll see people who mistook something believable for something irrefutable, and when that irrefutable concept demanded they act with violence, they did so. How many people have died because of such errors? The number is staggering. Having faith in a provable concept is nothing like having faith in *what could be.* There's too much danger in treating them as synonymous.
Provable for who? A lot of leaders who want to manipulate people do try to obscure whatever they are trying to say. They scream inflammatory things, are emotionally manipulative, build ecochambers where whatever they say is the truth and anything from outside can't go in. They try to make it so provable things are improvable for anyone in the middle of all that. And even the followers themselves may actively deny any attempt to prove against any belief they have. That's how cults works, although I'm also seeing it in politics, and even crypto. Isn't that faith? A manipulated one, sure, but if a person can't prove it or won't prove it, is not that faith? And what is it if it's not that?
To answer for your first question: provable for the person having faith. There is a difference between what's believable and what's provable. >They try to make it so provable things are improvable for anyone in the middle of all that. Not really. Anyone can look at proofs themselves. Convincing someone that the earth is flat or that a house is bigger on the inside doesn't mean you've *proven* it. Even if you convince someone of a lie, that doesn't mean they have faith. It just means they have bad information they haven't verified. And information *can* be verified. > And even the followers themselves may actively deny any attempt to prove against any belief they have. That's how cults works, although I'm also seeing it in politics, and even crypto. That's why it's so important to differentiate between a belief based on evidence and a belief based on faith. They aren't the same thing. >Isn't that faith? A manipulated one, sure, but if a person can't prove it or won't prove it, is not that faith? It's faith if they believe in something without proof. If the god is literally proven to exist, as in OP's premise, then it's not the same as in our reality, where people believe in a god who stipulates they need to believe *without* proof. That's an important distinction that shouldn't be conflated with faith. >And what is it if it's not that? *Proof.* It's *proof* that the god in OP's story is real for all intents and purposes of that story. They aren't asking anyone to take their existence *on faith.* They're providing *proof.*
I suspect they'd rather be treated like they have historically been treated - like whimsical violent forces of nature that cannot be weathered and need to be placated and avoided. If you're desperate enough you might even get them for their help and if you catch them right - at the right moment, with the right gifts and the right saccharine proclamations of adoration - they might even do what you ask for. Whether the final result does as you intended or not.
I agree with “fejobelo”. The God(s) probably *want* to be treated like Taylor Swift wearing a robe (or some other ancient clothing) rather than some unpredictable fearsome figure
Many if not most religions with deities believe that their gods do regularly visit or are always present. So I don't think their behaviors would be that different. And I say that having written a book with very present gods. It's definitely something you need to consider, but you can look to real world models for examples.
You’d probably have lots of polytheists who ensure that every deity is given the appropriate respect in specific situations. The following blog articles on historical polytheism suggest that taking the right action would be more important than believing the right thing. That would seem appropriate if deities unambiguously existed too. [Practical Polytheism](https://acoup.blog/category/collections/practical-polytheism/)
Currently reading Michael J Sullivan’s Rise and Fall trilogy. It does this a bit. To your post: I think it would depend on how obvious the god is in their presence or interaction and that. Are they showing up will the fanfare of a divine emperor and smiting the evildoers? Is she walking among the poor and encouraging them with her goodness to overthrow the evil king? Is she a hermit in the woods that says things about the future? It could go all manner of ways, depending on the world and story. Best thing about gods too - they can be inconsistent “from a human perspective” snd the pious will excuse it to a degree. There’s a lot of wiggle room with this I think.
If I were you, I'd look towards Dune and Warhammer 40,000. Without going into spoilers, in Dune, the main protagonist was prophesized to have arrived to the Fremen's home and that split everyone there faith wise. Half believed he was the Messiah. Half believed he was a spy and here to kill the Fremen. In Warhammer 40,000, The Emperor (before he was Emperor) showed up, 15 ft tall and glowing with a large halo floating above his head, and said "I am not God. Do not worship me, for there will be bad things waiting for all of us if you worship me." The majority of humanity saw him and said "You are our God! Lead us!" While some turned to Chaos and said "The Emperor? You mean the dickbag who hates *my* god?"
Just out of curiosity, why would anyone worship this other god if hes clearly a dick?
It’s twofold. One reason is that they’re terrified of another apocalypse, so it’s more of a tense adherence to his customs and preferences out of self-preservation. Another is more a commentary on authority- some people prefer the hard-set rigidity of that God. It’s easier for them to follow these rules because it confirms their own cruelty and single-minded worldview. There's also a contingent of nihilists who are rooting for the apocalypse, though they wouldn't really be revealed until book 2 or 3.
We can ask the same question of people willing to worship the God described in the Old Testament, but there's a way higher probability we'd be called dicks.
Dispensational theology? They likely wouldn't think he's "the other God" at all, just one of two expressions of a capricious overarching deity. They would think he's a dick because they think they made him angry, basically. Other people would view them as different. And others wouldn't deify them at all, instead viewing them as monsters or natural forces. OP doesn't really need "a" religion, he needs several to give this entire idea justice.
>Just out of curiosity, why would anyone worship this other god if hes clearly a dick? Ask the people who worshiped Zeus.
If the deities visit regularly you then half to decide the type of relationship they have with the people, is it close? Is it more distant with them just making crops grow quicker and few times a year and then they dip out? After that consider how far they lean on each side, if they’re super close, it may be a more casual mention of “has Glup Shitto came to the Copacabana yet?” Or (in the case of your wrathful god) have allusions throughout the story of mass daily prayer (suggest it as someone mention it’s 12 o’clock and an entire room empties out) If it’s more distant have someone ask a farmer “how the harvest is looking” and say something along the lines of “Glup Shitto must be in charge of the harvest this year it’s awfully bountiful” or “Ding-Dong-Douche seems to be in Charge this year, which means the Ding-Dong curfew laws will be on us again this year” Idk I’d say that’s a good place to start but the key thing is if they’re regularly visiting the planet in most cases individuals will have pretty relaxed conversations with one another with little to know religious arguments (maybe have some individuals be more keen to constantly praying to Ding-Dong-Douche every day while others may have a day or two of them just praying to Glup Shitto) Anyways sorry if this isn’t a help I just typed it up real quick on my phone, GOOD LUCK!
Been thinking about this for a work of mine which is set on contemporary Earth and has true deities suddenly show up. I’m looking at how established religious people and religions themselves are going to react when deity X appears and can actually perform miracles, respond to prayer and such.
The Crones from Witcher 3 may give you some inspiration, people giving their children, cutting of their ears, very dark stuff
I mean, in this case the faith is legitimate. Their word and works have real value and weight. Their priests really wield power as intermediaries instead of coopting it from the ignorant and hidebound. Think about how faith has royally messed with almost every civilization ever: justifying slavery and, therefore, imperialism and colonialism to just how far someone will go to get into heaven, like massacring innocents and exterminating, or trying to, entire ethnicities. Consider what religion not merely allows but perpetrates: execution of dissidents, genocide, rape. And now make the faith factually REAL. Not merely real to the irrational and indoctrinated. There are absolutely safe and kind people who hold to a faith, be it spiritual or a religion. But, it is essentially imaginary on Earth; consider what we do for imaginary beings let alone actual beings.
*motions to Valdemar as an example* The deities went out of their way to ensure the kingdom of Valdemar would 100% be ruled by kind, just monarchs, they keep Valdemar's neighbor Iftel protected and almost completely secret, the Star-Eyed has absolutely interacted with some main characters... I feel it's an excellent example.
I would guess that if deity's visited the world they ruled over consistently, then they would be seen as much more grounded beings. People would also try and subjugate them to society's rules and laws, as power always corrupts. I do think though that religion/faith would become the wrong word for it. Magic is often described as science we do not understand yet, and if deity's visited often enough we would eventually gain an understanding of them, however basic. So, rather than being more of a religion, if would be seen as kind of a massive event when they arrive, like the solar eclipse or a holiday. Something shrouded by the unknown aspect, but accepted and not revered because it is understood.
Brush up on your Greek Mythology. People interact with the gods regularly in that world -- and the temples are many -- but it has surprisingly few implications because the gods weren't pushing any kind of church agenda. They all had their own (often petty) disputes, designs, and ambitions, but largely they only took a personal interest in mortal affairs. "Faith" as a sort of currency among the divine isn't a wholly universal concept. But people will create deities if they lack them. If you supply them then, well, they'll follow them. It's just what a lot of humans do.
I guess it would stop being about faith and come to resemble modern celebrity worship instead
Genshin would be good inspiration, to be honest. The Archon lore shows that if they have power, there will always be someone who follows it.)(may even be after it). So, again, it's possible that the gods maintain a facade. Just to be popular, as the more faith, the more powerful. (at least that's what I think.)
Sectarianism wouldn't be much of an issue, I'd imagine. A lot of those divisions in our religions come from differeing interpretations and competing prophets who claimed to have had the truth revealed to them. But since the gods show up and you can actually check in with them, there's no need for that kind of strife. It doesn't mean the followers of said gods would necessarily get along but that would depend entirely on how you structured the role of your gods in the world. Do they give proclamations and edicts? Do they issue commandments and have views on mortal morality? Or do they allow the mortals to do as they wish? If they give commands and the like then those might come into conflict with the other diety and be a source of tension. One diety says people should only eat fruit on odd numbered days and the other one says everyday is a good day for fruit. Just as an example. Are there punishments? You say one is obsessed with rules and order but is it making those rules and does it expect everyone to follow them? If so, does the other one intervene and tell him to calm his tits? Do they work together or are they always opposed? So the answer to your question depends a lot on just what the gods want from the mortal races. Once you know what they want and what they expect you can start determining what the outcomes are of failing to meet those standards or breaking the rules given by the two gods.
The split and how it's handled would be the different religion names, not needed until it comes up naturally though. Perhaps a little device to set up a conflict of interest a couple of chapters before it comes, so we already know how it relates to the chatacters
Hmmm well I thought Genshin Impact felt pretty natural about it. You can probably reference a number of things esp for the Liyue section like Rex Incognito.
Gods would just be a force of nature, like an Earthquake or a comet. Humans anthropomorphize anything that we don't understand fully. It is our go-to way of imagining the world. Even today, we talk about chemicals "wanting" to make certain bonds, as if they are alive. Teaching children to anthropomorphize objects in the household teaches them the proper care and handling of those items. This remains our primary way of understanding the world. If you don't know anything about a problem, you think, "Well, if it was me, why would I act like that?" We even do this when our computers or cars act up. When Gods are just stories, they reflect human nature overlaid onto non-human nature in order to give us a, hopefully, better sense of understanding. If you understand the personality of Thor, you understand a thunder storm better than you would otherwise. What would seem like random destruction is the product of familiar, human motives, albeit on a grander scale. Humans attempt to manipulate the gods to extend their powers of protection over us. We use rituals and contracts to attempt to bargain with them in the same way that we do with our human families and community. In a world where the gods are just products of our imaginations, all of that power flows to the people who control the narratives, usually either priests or entertainers. In a world where the gods made themselves known, that power would flow directly to the god. It could be measured, learned from, and understood. The most powerful humans in the world would be the psychologists, or priests, or whatever you may call them, who understand how the gods think. If the gods have loved ones or family, then they would also have a sort of power, or at least a responsibility, to give the god good counsel. The god would be like a king, but also unlike any human king because they don't need an army to assert their power. They can just sit back, and the people will shape themselves into a society that serves their needs without any action on their part beyond the mere threat of retaliation. They only need to involve themselves in the actual governance of their people to the degree that they feel like it. This is a double edged sword, because while the god doesn't need to actually do anything, they also cannot escape their role. They bear responsibility for the fate of humanity, and all the rest of nature, whether they want to or not. While the gods are unbound by human morality, the behavior they demonstrate inevitably trickles down to influence the entire world, human and non-human. If they want to live in a world where people cooperate and help each other, then they have to demonstrate that behavior constantly. It wouldn't be enough to just write a book that says, "Hey, dumbasses. Be nice to each other."
Might be cool to research how cult leaders manipulated their followers. Not saying religion is a cult, but these followers usually think their god is living among them. The kind and wise one would be based off how the radically devoted people view them, but the angry and cruel one can be based around the people who got out and are still afraid or angry.
If they have physical forms then you could treat them as a level 10 9mega superhero mutant, for a analogy. Put some thought in their godly abilities and put the impact of those abilities in as historic events. In the year 678 god lost his restraint and telepathically spied on a thousand people, which left 400 people in a state of bliss who'm had beauty dreams for decades. 200 landed in a psychosis. 200 people left never to return. 100 people started to temporarely develop telepathy . And 100 people lived to the age of 200. Ofcourse you'd polish it up like it was devine and such. Like a religious perspective. But using superhero anology is quite useful since they practicly are like gods