Why must monotheism be the standard?

[Lusankya]

One thing that I've noticed is that whenever someone professes to be unsure about religion, they always still speak of the existance god in the singular, rather than the plural.

Why must this be? It almost seems like an implicit statement that if there is such a thing as a god, then it must be the Christian God. Why don't people say, "I am uncertain whether gods exist or not"?

To me, at least, the polytheism makes more sense than monotheism: if I'm going to believe in one god, then it's hardly any more a leap of faith if I believe in a dozen or a hundred. I'm guessing that it's just a sign of the culture I live in, but it's bugged me for quite a while. It seems strangely close-minded for people who consider themselves to be "neutral" when it comes to the religious debate.

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments on this?


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[K. A. Pital]

The reason is simple - polytheism is currently an unpopular form of theism in the West. Therefore, the main debate proceeds between monotheists (who are the most vocal religious people anyway) and atheists. This is why generally people say "I don't believe in a god".

And then, really, you don't need to multiply essences beyond necessity (Occam). If you don't believe in god as an entity, i.e. you're atheist, you wouldn't believe in a hundred gods. Thus it's sufficient to say I don't believe in a god, and this would be understood correctly.

[Lusankya]

I'm talking more about agnostics, or people who claim to be undecided, rather than atheists. For them, it always seems to be a choice between no god or one god, which makes no sense to me. If you're going to go out and say that one god exists, then why not say that all gods exist? It's not that much more of a stretch.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[Rye]

It's obviously mostly christian-dominated culture. On the other hand, if you press an apologist about it, they'll say there's no reason to hypothesise more than one for the sake of argument. Of course, then you can point out there's no reason to propose that one either and they'll get all flustered and usually incredibly annoying.

[Plekhanov]

I'm talking more about agnostics, or people who claim to be undecided, rather than atheists. For them, it always seems to be a choice between no god or one god, which makes no sense to me. If you're going to go out and say that one god exists, then why not say that all gods exist? It's not that much more of a stretch.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

It's simply a reflection of the society they grew up in, people particularly those who haven't spent much time thinking about the issue (which will most likely include a significant proportion of those who describe themselves as agnostics) will tend to fall between the two obvious choices of there not being a god and the dominant theism of their society & upbringing in the west this will obviously be the Christian God. I expect Indian agnostics for example are undecided between no gods and the Hindu pantheon.

[Darth Wong]

In the 19th century, many theologians subscribed to a theory that there is a "natural progression" of human thought from polytheism to monotheism as we become more socially and scientifically sophisticated. I think a lot of Christians continue to subscribe to this idea today, which is why they think of polytheism as an ancient relic which no longer exists today. It helps that they are woefully ignorant of other religions such as Hinduism.

Of course, the funny thing about this theory was that if the trend of reducing the numbers of gods continued, then the logical end would be zero gods, not one.

[Lusankya]

In the 19th century, many theologians subscribed to a theory that there is a "natural progression" of human thought from polytheism to monotheism as we become more socially and scientifically sophisticated. I think a lot of Christians continue to subscribe to this idea today, which is why they think of polytheism as an ancient relic which no longer exists today. It helps that they are woefully ignorant of other religions such as Hinduism.

Of course, the funny thing about this theory was that if the trend of reducing the numbers of gods continued, then the logical end would be zero gods, not one.

Civilization teaches us this as well. And Polytheism is a dead-end path that's only useful if you want Elephants. (Well, it is if you're playing CivIII anyway.)


ROAR!!!!!says GOJIRA!!!!!

[Shroom Man 777]

Why must it be chauvinistic monotheism as well? If there's a divine being, why should it have a penis?

[Gandalf]

Why must it be chauvinistic monotheism as well? If there's a divine being, why should it have a penis?

Simply put, man creates God in his own image.

How many ancient civilisations were inherently chauvanistic themselves?

[petesampras]

Monotheistic religions do seem to outperform non-monotheistic religions in the battle for converts. Islam and Christianity have spread all over the world at the expense of non-monotheistic religions. This doesn't, of course, mean that they are a more accurate model of reality, but it does indicate that they possess some level of universal appeal beyond non-monotheistic religions.

[Magus]

Why must it be chauvinistic monotheism as well? If there's a divine being, why should it have a penis?

Simply put, man creates God in his own image.

How many ancient civilisations were inherently chauvanistic themselves?

And/or, when in doubt, default to the masculine, which can mean male or female if the gender is unknown and/or nonexistant.

[FTeik]

Of the so-called "Great Three", that is Judaism, Christianity and Islam only the later two are outperforming. Aside from growing numbers thanks to procreation it is also the set mission by the founders (Jesus and Mohammed) to convert as many people as possible. This isn't the case with most other religions (or has been in the past).

I also wanted to say something similar to Darth Wong's post, that the development from polytheism to monotheism would be a progress, if the situation would end with atheism. Considering however, that for some reason humans have a need for religious feelings and therefor for one/several supreme being(s) is this truly the case? Because once there was more than one god accepted, people had to be more tolerant towards each other?

[Magus]

I also wanted to say something similar to Darth Wong's post, that the development from polytheism to monotheism would be a progress, if the situation would end with atheism. Considering however, that for some reason humans have a need for religious feelings and therefor for one/several supreme being(s) is this truly the case? Because once there was more than one god accepted, people had to be more tolerant towards each other?

It's important to note that many of the ancient polytheistic pantheons (the Egyptian and the Greco-Roman off the top of my head) were made up of entities that would more accurately be considered demi-gods. They weren't omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, or any other "omni" you could think of. In certain situations, they could even be killed - (Osiris comes to mind).

It would seem that the strongest possible god would be a single god, since omnipotence cannot be shared by more than one being. Who wouldn't want to pick the most inherently powerful deity for his own?

[Elaro]

Monotheistic religions do seem to outperform non-monotheistic religions in the battle for converts. Islam and Christianity have spread all over the world at the expense of non-monotheistic religions. This doesn't, of course, mean that they are a more accurate model of reality, but it does indicate that they possess some level of universal appeal beyond non-monotheistic religions.

Probably due to the fact that monotheism presents an analogy between their god and the father figure, which is something that is pretty much universal to every human being.

[Plekhanov]

Monotheistic religions do seem to outperform non-monotheistic religions in the battle for converts. Islam and Christianity have spread all over the world at the expense of non-monotheistic religions. This doesn't, of course, mean that they are a more accurate model of reality, but it does indicate that they possess some level of universal appeal beyond non-monotheistic religions.

I don't know about that, one of the most successful varieties of Christianity, Catholicism is effectively polytheistic (even though adherents tend to deny this) with the major role of Mary & all the Saints.

[Medic]

Monotheistic religions do seem to outperform non-monotheistic religions in the battle for converts. Islam and Christianity have spread all over the world at the expense of non-monotheistic religions. This doesn't, of course, mean that they are a more accurate model of reality, but it does indicate that they possess some level of universal appeal beyond non-monotheistic religions.

I don't know about that, one of the most successful varieties of Christianity, Catholicism is effectively polytheistic (even though adherents tend to deny this) with the major role of Mary & all the Saints.

The tenets of Islam and Christianity stress proselytization. Where there is a movement of ideas between different societies and cultures, these religions can propogate.

The existence of monotheism in places like the America's nowadays is entirely a function of European Christian explorers, conquistadors and missionaries bringing religious ideas but enforcing it beyond a philosophical acceptance or universal appeal on the part of native populations. Through disease, war and this snobbish attitude concerning native 'savages,' local populations gradually were eradicated, supplanted, and European colonies that flourished eventually into Christian nations sprung up everywhere. I see no universal, magical appeal of monotheism in the America's Christianity.

The rise of Islam and the Caliphates echoes this violent expansion. Islam and Christianity spread their influence in a time and age where killing nonbelievers and forceful conversion was par for the course, and not this silly modern notion we have of 'religious extremism.' Furthermore, Islamic Law and the Church historically were part of the states, again, in an era where land-grabbing was just a part of life. With a change of power came new cultural ideas and laws and a new religion. The US Constitution has this equally, historically speaking, silly, modern notion of separation of church and state. That wasn't always the case.

Where European or Islamic states couldn't historically get to because of difficult geography -- mountains, deserts, vast oceans -- and the logistical and technological limitations of their era, other religious convictions flourished. Hindiusm, Taoism, Buddhism, Shinto, Confucianism, and that's just Asia.

Even though states today are utterly permeable with respect to the flow of ideas because of worldwide travel, the internet and other factors, Christianity and Islam haven't continued to grow so fast with respect to the size of all other religions. When they do grown nowadays, it is primarily a function of primarily 2nd and 3rd world nations where those religions are already widespread, experiencing a rapid growth in population. South East Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Central and Central and South America come to mind. It's also worth pointing out that sometimes these religions are adopted only when they're transmogrified with local customs, and look not at all like any orthodox form of Christianity or Islam.

[mr friendly guy]

Monotheistic religions do seem to outperform non-monotheistic religions in the battle for converts. Islam and Christianity have spread all over the world at the expense of non-monotheistic religions. This doesn't, of course, mean that they are a more accurate model of reality, but it does indicate that they possess some level of universal appeal beyond non-monotheistic religions.

I would have thought the tendency of current monotheistic religions to spread themselves and indoctrinate to be a more telling factor in explaining their prevalance than the fact that they are monotheistic.

[Molyneux]

Isn't any kind of trinitarian Christianity polytheistic, anyway? And that's not even bringing up the concept of Satan...

[TithonusSyndrome]

The idea of more Brahmin-like concepts of divinity appears to be catching on in certain circles, which I find personally more repugnant than monotheism. The idea is that somehow, a divine force without a discrete ego or consciousness is more reflective of the nature of the universe and of divinity itself, and consequently you should be convinced by this theosophist variation on the "look at a sunset" trick, so lots of high school dropouts and community college schmos with a taste for hallucinogenic drugs take to it with natural ease.

[Cos Dashit]

Because the biggest, or most well known, religions in the world are monotheistic, and most are evangelical. The three Abrahamic faiths combine for over half the population in the world. Buddhism has quite a few followers as well. The largest polytheistic religion is Hinduism, I believe, but that is an ethnic and non-evangelical religion. Not too many missionaries for Hinduism.

[Cos Dashit]

Isn't any kind of trinitarian Christianity polytheistic, anyway? And that's not even bringing up the concept of Satan...

Yes, but one can argue that the three are merely different forms of the one God. Although it is kind of strange in the New Testament that Jesus is asking God to take the burden from him; inasmuch that he is more or less talking to himself, in some twisted way.

As for Satan, the whole concept is so deluded that I can hardly explain it... God's enemy, but Mr. Omnipotent doesn't get rid of him? Yeah, okay. But according to the bible, he isn't a god, but merely a fallen angel. Which again doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Howedar]

Monotheistic religions do seem to outperform non-monotheistic religions in the battle for converts. Islam and Christianity have spread all over the world at the expense of non-monotheistic religions. This doesn't, of course, mean that they are a more accurate model of reality, but it does indicate that they possess some level of universal appeal beyond non-monotheistic religions.

I don't know about that, one of the most successful varieties of Christianity, Catholicism is effectively polytheistic (even though adherents tend to deny this) with the major role of Mary & all the Saints.

This is factually incorrect.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I don't know about that, one of the most successful varieties of Christianity, Catholicism is effectively polytheistic (even though adherents tend to deny this) with the major role of Mary & all the Saints.

This is factually incorrect.

Debatable, not factually incorrect. Mary and the saints may not officially be gods, but they have often been treated as such. A pantheon of lesser gods following a much stronger God In Charge isn't exactly unknown in religion.

[Magus]

Debatable, not factually incorrect. Mary and the saints may not officially be gods, but they have often been treated as such. A pantheon of lesser gods following a much stronger God In Charge isn't exactly unknown in religion.

The idea behind the saints is that they are akin to stewards, who might be able to put in a good word for you with the man upstairs. The key difference between the saints and a pantheon is that the saints have no actual power, and that they are not considered worthy of worship - at least, not by those who understand Christianity properly.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Debatable, not factually incorrect. Mary and the saints may not officially be gods, but they have often been treated as such. A pantheon of lesser gods following a much stronger God In Charge isn't exactly unknown in religion.

The idea behind the saints is that they are akin to stewards, who might be able to put in a good word for you with the man upstairs. The key difference between the saints and a pantheon is that the saints have no actual power, and that they are not considered worthy of worship - at least, not by those who understand Christianity properly.

"Those who understand Christianity properly" being those who agree with your view of it, I take it. Plenty of people do believe they have powers, and act in such a way towards them that to an outsider like myself is impossible to tell from worship. Given that there is no objective reality behind Christian mythology we can use to settle the issue, their view of such matters is as valid as yours.