AHC: make a polytheistic religion become the largest in the world.

The best way is probably to have some form of "Roman" paganism effectively reformed, probably through a closer synthesis with some philosophical school (Platonism and Neoplatonism seem to work better). This requires Imperial patronage at some point (probably earlier than Aurelian's and Julian's attempts). You need something to be able to be in tune with both Hellenistic culture (which post-Pauline Christianity managed to do overall) and the changing religious sensibilities of the late Principate/early Dominate periods. The problem of Roman Paganism was, among other things, its civic, often localized nature; you need a more universalistic form of Paganism to work, which makes Platonism (and possibly Stoicism) a useful plug-in.
Otherwise, you may go for Buddhism to turn dominant in both India and China, under a form that could be plausibly described as polytheistic (which means something closer to OTL's Mahayana traditions) though this may count as cheating as, while Buddhism admits "divine" beings, they are somewhat beside the point.
 

Philip

Donor
The best way is probably to have some form of "Roman" paganism effectively reformed, probably through a closer synthesis with some philosophical school

Starting with Hinduism (in as much as it is polytheistic) seems much easier -- it doesn't require the invention of a new religious movement through methods that failed in OTL.

Prevent/limiting the Muslim conquest in India would be a POD. Indonesia remains in the Hindu sphere. Indians emigrants can further spread the religion.
 
Starting with Hinduism (in as much as it is polytheistic) seems much easier -- it doesn't require the invention of a new religious movement through methods that failed in OTL.

Prevent/limiting the Muslim conquest in India would be a POD. Indonesia remains in the Hindu sphere. Indians emigrants can further spread the religion.

Even before this if Indians are a bit more involved in the trading part of the indian ocean trade Hinduism may spread to a lot of Africa
 
Trinitarian Christianity is arguably polytheistic and largest OTL, depending on how divinities are defined.

If Hinduism is counted as polytheistic when all divinities are counted as aspects of Brahman, described as "consciousness" in Sanskrit scriptures, then Christianity is polytheistic with the Father, Son, Holy Spirit dynamic.

And that's not to mention the various saints...
 
A Manichaen wank would do nicely.

Based on what writings we have, it took it's polytheism as seriously as Islam took it's monotheism.
 
No Buddhism ATL. Hinduism remains strong in the subcontinent and spreads to SE Asia and Oceania, firmly entrenching itself. Then, it spreads West across Persia and into the ME and Europe. It catches on in some subcultures.

This is a base to build off of and grow when, centuries later, Bengal begins the industrial revolution. India colonizes SE Asia and Europe (and maybe parts of the New World) and becomes dominant like Europe did.

Hinduism absorbs Roman deities, Japanese deities, Incan deities, African animist deities, and basically any and all others. The world is almost completely blanketed in “Hinduism,” which, rather than claiming a singular doctrine, is loose enough to encompass basically any religion. There you go.
 
Even before this if Indians are a bit more involved in the trading part of the indian ocean trade Hinduism may spread to a lot of Africa
If the OP had not ruled out Hinduism, that would have been the obvious route indeed.
Well, there are Hindu theologies that should be counted as monotheistic...
 
Trinitarian Christianity is arguably polytheistic and largest OTL, depending on how divinities are defined.

If Hinduism is counted as polytheistic when all divinities are counted as aspects of Brahman, described as "consciousness" in Sanskrit scriptures, then Christianity is polytheistic with the Father, Son, Holy Spirit dynamic.

And that's not to mention the various saints...
This is... messy.
The point, I think, is the perception of the ordinary believer and the structure of worship. Both obviously vary within each religious tradition, quite extremely so in the case of Hinduism; but in general, Hindus do worship and pray different deities, even if they generally recognize, in a philosophical sense at least, that they are aspects of a single reality; how this reality should be understood varies according to the schools, but in some cases it is correct to see it as God. A Neoplatonic approach to Graeco-Roman paganism brings to similar outlooks, and you also find comparable approaches in some Gnostic and Mazdean theologies.
Trinitarian Christians think themselves as monotheists and the doctrine usually insists rather more on the "God is one" bit than on the "God has distinct aspects" one, posing all sorts of interesting theological problems. You can of course regard that approach as polytheistic (that's the standard polemical line of both Judaism and Islam toward Christianity basically since when a Christian Trinitarian doctrine exists) but that glosses over the underlying theology and insider perception.
Even the most hardline monotheists have to somehow recognize some "distinct aspects" of God, to relate the Oneness with experiential multiplicity in some way; Muslim theology has struggled with the ontological status of God's attributes for centuries; critically, however, even if it is recognized that such attributes do exist, they are not worshipped as such in any meaningful way. We wouln't say that Islam is polytheistic on this account, I would guess.
The line can be blurry.
 
This is... messy.
The point, I think, is the perception of the ordinary believer and the structure of worship. Both obviously vary within each religious tradition, quite extremely so in the case of Hinduism; but in general, Hindus do worship and pray different deities, even if they generally recognize, in a philosophical sense at least, that they are aspects of a single reality; how this reality should be understood varies according to the schools, but in some cases it is correct to see it as God. A Neoplatonic approach to Graeco-Roman paganism brings to similar outlooks, and you also find comparable approaches in some Gnostic and Mazdean theologies.
Trinitarian Christians think themselves as monotheists and the doctrine usually insists rather more on the "God is one" bit than on the "God has distinct aspects" one, posing all sorts of interesting theological problems. You can of course regard that approach as polytheistic (that's the standard polemical line of both Judaism and Islam toward Christianity basically since when a Christian Trinitarian doctrine exists) but that glosses over the underlying theology and insider perception.
Even the most hardline monotheists have to somehow recognize some "distinct aspects" of God, to relate the Oneness with experiential multiplicity in some way; Muslim theology has struggled with the ontological status of God's attributes for centuries; critically, however, even if it is recognized that such attributes do exist, they are not worshipped as such in any meaningful way. We wouln't say that Islam is polytheistic on this account, I would guess.
The line can be blurry.

I mean, sure, but the practice of Christianity as opposed to theology has prayer forms that address different aspects of the Trinity in different places ("Our father in heaven..."). Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and many Protestant branches have prayers to Mary or the Saints. That, and the fact that the Trinity is logically impossible to a nonbeliever: it requires belief to be logically consistent, unlike, say, HaShem or Zeus or the like, which a non-believer can accept as logically consistent even if it seems to them improbable. The Father and Son cannot both *be* God and not be each other, otherwise you would be saying A=B and B=C but A=/=C. This, combined with the fact that prayers tend to be addressed to individual aspects of the Trinity in addition to a monotheistic capital-G God, means that I find it best to analyze Christianity as a sort of polytheism-lite, but a polytheism nonetheless.

And that doesn't even mention the saints. Sure, they're considered to not be gods in themselves so much as entities that can speak to God to procure some intervention. But if a being is believed to draw on divine power to answer prayers, it's pretty much definitionally a deity. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then its a duck.

I'm not saying that Christians are necessarily wrong, or that they can't logically believe what they like, I'm just saying that the Trinity requires a leap of faith that is not necessary for the study of history and that Christian tradition draws much more on Greco-Roman concepts of the divine, the logos, and--as shown by the proliferation of saints--lesser agents of divine power (though guided by an overarching Noumen) than the Judaic idea of God later inherited by Islam. Thus, it can be analyzed as a polytheistic faith, though that is not the only possible analysis. It depends on what aspects of the faith are treated as more important in defining monotheism versus polytheism, particularly whether more emphasis is placed on doctrine or practice/ritual. Judaism is pretty much monotheistic by both. Greco-Roman Paganism is polytheistic by both. Christianity, especially Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, is monotheistic by the former but somewhat polytheistic by the latter.

Note also that Christian artwork tends to portray the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate entities.
 
Last edited:

Philip

Donor
Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and many Protestant branches have prayers to Mary or the Saints.

They make a clear distinction between the divine power and the intercession of the saints who pray to God on someone's behalf. Seeking the intercession of the saints is seen as the same as asking a friend to pray for them.

That, and the fact that the Trinity is logically impossible to a nonbeliever: it requires belief to be logically consistent, unlike, say, Adonai or Zeus or the like, which a non-believer can accept as logically consistent even if it seems to them improbable.

This is simply not the case. There are countless non-Christian scholars of Christianity that understand the doctrine. The supposed logical inconsistency below fails to address Trinitarianism at a most basic level.

That being said, I am always puzzled when I hear someone expect a complete logical consistency in a description of a classical monotheistic God. It seems the height of human arrogance to expect a being with the characteristics ascribed to such a to fit into human-made boxes like logic.

The Father and Son cannot both *be* God and not be each other, otherwise you would be saying A=B and B=C but A=/=C.

This argument is a demonstration of a lack of a basic understanding of the doctine. (Careful) Nicene Trinitarians do not assert that Father = God nor do they assert that Son = God. Without those assertions, the there is no contradiction in saying Father =/= Son. The mistake is assuming that 'is' or 'be' means 'equals', but that is not the case. Certainly no one would find a logical problem with saying, 'Philip is human and Arcavius is human, but Philip is not Arcavius.' Of course, Trinitarians use 'is' in 'The Father is God.' in a different way than in 'Philip is human' because 'God' and ' human' are different categories. However, this illustrates that 'is' does not necessarily indicate equality.

This, combined with the fact that prayers tend to be addressed to individual aspects of the Trinity in addition to a monotheistic capital-G God, means that I find it best to analyze Christianity as a sort of polytheism-lite, but a polytheism nonetheless.
The analysis provided above is not an analysis of Trinitarian theology.
Analysing actual Trinitarianism as polytheism in any way immediately leads to the conclusion that it is not polytheistic.

But if a being is believed to draw on divine power to answer prayers, it's pretty much definitionally a deity. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then its a duck.

This is not even a stawman. Maybe a bale of hay with a smiley face drawn on it.

First, that is not remotely the definition of deity as Abrahamics use the word. To them, true Deity involves an eternal, transcendent self-existence outside of creation. No one ascribes that to the saints.

Second, Catholics and Orthodox (acknowledging that not everyone can be accounted for) do not teach that the saints 'draw on divine power to answer prayers'. Rather, the saints are asked to pray on the believers' behalf. God then answers those prayers according to His own will. This is theologically the same as asking a friend to pray on ones' behalf. There is a difference in expectation: it is believed that the saints, having been filled with God's grace, will more closely pray in accordance with God's will.

What we have here is something that neither walks like a duck nor quacks like a duck.

Note also that Christian artwork tends to portray the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate entities.

I'm not sure i buy this. Catholics and Orthodox typically avoid depicting the Father in general and the Spirit except in certain instances. The Son may be freely depicted because of the Incarnation. (That was the entire point of Iconoclast controversy.) Protestants may be more varied. Even if the claim is true, it does nothing to support that claim that Trinitarianism is polytheistic. Abstractly, such a depiction could also be used for multiple manifestations or avatars (as opposed to persons) of a single being without suggesting tritheism. For comparison, consider the monistic and monotheistic interpretations of Hinduism that I alluded to in my first post.
 
Last edited:
They make a clear distinction between the divine power and the intercession of the saints who pray to God on someone's behalf. Seeking the intercession of the saints is seen as the same as asking a friend to pray for them.

Is it really, though? Take the Virgin Mary, for example. There are, at least in Catholicism, specific, formulaic prayers to Mary. She is believed to be an entity with...supernatural qualities capable of intervening in the world in a way that ordinary humans are not, even if via appeal to a higher divinity. The same is, as I understand it, true for the Saints to some degree. Also, there is reason to believe that many saints are--how shall I phrase this?--in part reskins of traditional polytheistic gods or heroes.

This is simply not the case. There are countless non-Christian scholars of Christianity that understand the doctrine. The supposed logical inconsistency below fails to address Trinitarianism at a most basic level.

Oh, I understand what the Trinity is defined as, certainly. I just think it is logically inconsistent, and only becomes believeable as opposed to understandable via a leap of faith. Everything is a continuum--on the one hand, there are beliefs that are easy to empirically verify, i.e. that things fall when you drop them. Then you have things like the existence of a God, which is not as easily shown but which even most atheists would admit *could* exist, logically speaking, even if they find it highly unlikely. Finally, you have the Trinity, which becomes logically consistent by the leap of faith in not only a god, but a god which can...bend the laws of logic--i.e. it becomes believable not by empiricism, but by the act of believing it, at least as far as I can wrap my head around it.

That being said, I am always puzzled when I hear someone expect a comete logical consistency in a description of a classical monotheistic God. It seems the height of human arrogance to expect a being with the characteristics ascribed to such a Being to fit into human-made boxes like logic.

If I'm going to be analyzing something logically in a discipline like history, then I need to define it in such a way that I can use it logically, particularly to answer a comparative question like the one posed in like terms. Am I saying that it's perfect theology, or theology at all? Of course not. It's a different approach. Anthropology of Religion, perhaps, would be the overly-dignified term.

The analysis provided above is not an analysis of Trinitarian theology.
Analysing actual Trinitarianism as polytheism in any way immediately leads to the conclusion that it is not polytheistic.

Of course it's not, as I've already said. Rather, it's an analysis of Trinitarian performance, the rituals and practices of Trinitarian Christians, using a definition of Trinitarianism that is theologically imperfect, but, as I can understand it, necessary to make a logical comparison of beliefs between Christianity and various polytheisms logically. If you can point me to a better resource that doesn't at some point run into the identity problem (the equals signs were mathematical statements of the transitive property) please do so either by post or chat. I'm more than happy to learn, I just have yet to see any definition that doesn't rely on belief to overcome the problem.

This is not even a stawman. Maybe a bale of hay with a smiley face drawn on it.

First, that is not remotely the definition of deity as Abrahamics use the word. To them, true Deity involves an eternal, transcendent self-existence outside of creation. No one ascribes that till the saints.

Second, Catholics and Orthodox (acknowledging that not everyone can be accounted for) do not teach that the saints 'draw on divine power to answer prayers'. Rather, the saints are asked to pray on the believers' behalf. This is theologically the same as asking a friend to pray on ones' behalf. There is a difference in expectation: it is believed that the saints, having been filled with God's grace, will more closely pray in accordance with God's will.

What we have here is something that neither walks like a duck nor quacks like a duck

No, but it's a pretty generic descriptor of the line between a mortal and a god in polytheistic belief systems. The OP asked us to come up with a religion, thus I have asked the question, "is x polytheistic" and used a definition of "god" based on what polytheists used/use. If you define a God as "an eternal, transcendent self-existence outside of creation", an argument can be made that Brahman, the Hellenic Logos, or the Roman Numen would be a God, and thus that Hinduism, Greek Polytheism, and Roman Religion would all be monotheistic. But, for the most part, that isn't done. The exception, attempts to fit Hinduism into the category of monotheism, relies on taking a Hindu concept and mapping it onto Abrahamic monotheist ideas about God--and, in a certain sense, it can. It really isn't any different to question if Christian concepts can be mapped onto Polytheistic conceptions of God.

And as for the comparison to asking a friend to pray for you, here's where the point I made prior comes into play. It all hinges on whether you define monotheism vs. polytheism for the OP's purposes based on theology or based on the performance of faith in daily life, i.e. on the manner of ritual, forms of prayer, etc. as well as the genealogy thereof. The Virgin Mary has specific, formulaic prayers; many other saints--or saints as a body--have specific rituals. Theologically, a prayer to Quetzalcoatl, a prayer to Ganesha, and a prayer to the Virgin Mary are worlds apart--but practically, we might call all three approaches polytheism, because of the ritual similarity in the construction of and prayer to separate supernatural entities overseeing certain spheres.

And as for the point about art, the fact remains that, in Christian art, there can be found depictions of God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit with separate attributes and with separate forms. They may be depicted all together, or separately (as is the case of, say, the famous section of the Sistine Chapel roof). They may be conceived of as the same being, but they are portrayed as separate beings. In other words, the theology is monotheistic, but the performance--the depiction--is polytheistic. Really, it's a similar question of emphasis as in the Hinduism question.
 
Last edited:
Polytheism as in dualism, you mean? Or you refer to the various hypostases on the Light side?
The Dualism in Manichaeism better reflects something of a pantheon on pantheon conflict in an ethical dualism as opposed to the Zoroastrian more literal dualism. The father of light and the father of dark (Yahweh and Satan respectively) had their own planets populated by gods (more on that later) in a relationship closer to a biblical patriarchy than you would typically see in such a polytheistic system, something which makes a lot of sense when you consider Mani's own background as a messianic jew.

This in many ways is one of the major reasons that Manichaeism did as well as it did. Polytheists could convert to Manichaeism without having to abandon their gods as the kinder ones would be promoted as part of the family of light and the more evil ad part of the family of dark.
 
What about the Jewish population being wiped out to near non-existence when the Romans sack the Jewish homeland. The remaining population being so small or attacked they fade from existence. The Romans did wipe out most of the Druids in areas they took over. Could they do the same to the Jewish population if they wanted to? Additionally, Christianity just doesn't gain ground after Jesus death either. Without either of them being around anymore a monotheistic faith is less likely to rise. The Roman world becomes more like the Far East religiously. You can see a mix of Greco-Roman philosophy and religion into one universal faith. Maybe something like Shinto religion or Confusionism.
 
What is the poster’s verdict on a Buddhism that is heavily based upon the conception of worldly deities? Buddhism in a polytheistic world, in foreseeable fashion (there is always uncontrolled variables), is the greatest contender for world’s largest religion.

The idea would be that this form of Buddhism arrives in China, without other schools (aka Vajrayana or Esoteric Buddhism) and due to its even more conciliatory views than otl Buddhism, becomes the most primary or accepted state faith of China and so forth too in Korea, Japan and Vietnam. Then it spreads across the steppe transmitted by merchants in a more sound Silk Road toward Europe and Russia.
 

Philip

Donor
What about the Jewish population being wiped out to near non-existence when the Romans sack the Jewish homeland. The remaining population being so small or attacked they fade from existence. The Romans did wipe out most of the Druids in areas they took over. Could they do the same to the Jewish population if they wanted to?

The Diaspora began before the Empire. Jewish populations existed in and where integrated into urban centers throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and Persia. A destruction that parallels that of the druids isn't really possible.

Additionally, Christianity just doesn't gain ground after Jesus death either. Without either of them being around anymore a monotheistic faith is less likely to rise

I'm not convinced of this. Christianity did not arise in a void. The earliest Christian writers, like many Jewish writers before them, exploited monotheistic Hellenistic ideas to promote their views.

Without Christianity, it is possible (and based on the trends, I think probable) that a Hellenistic, as opposed to Abrahamic, monotheism could become dominant. The old myths would likely be reinterpreted as parables with the gods being seen as either emanation of the One or literary devices.
 
Last edited:
Hinduism is definitely the easiest answer, since a Hindu-wank can get you India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Indonesia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and maybe other parts of southeast Asia. Those together probably get you a plurality of the world population, which is probably why OP didn't want it as the answer.

How about something In China though? Would it be possible to have a religiously united China rather than one with Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism competing for influence?

Of course a really fun yet unlikely scenario would be a Mongols empire that aggressively spreads the word of Tengriism.

One other idea would be to have the ERE collapse alongside the WRE, thus allowing Persia to step in and spread Zoroastrianism throughout Asia and the middle east
 
Top