CH: Polytheism dominates

Specifically, throughout history to the year 2001, Polytheistic religions must be the most popular instead of Monotheistic. So, the percentage of people today that believe in either Christianity or Islam? In this TL, they must believe in a Polytheistic religion and/or be non-religious in some way(spiritual or religion without gods is fine.)
 
As it stands now, just over 50% of the world's population adheres to Abrahamic religions. Preventing the OTL global Euro-wank which spread Christianity through European empires to Africa and America is more than enough to accomplish this.
 
As it stands now, just over 50% of the world's population adheres to Abrahamic religions. Preventing the OTL global Euro-wank which spread Christianity through European empires to Africa and America is more than enough to accomplish this.

You could also limit the Arab conquests on the Islamic end. Without one or the other the globe is predominately polytheistic.
 
That's interesting to think about. Society, or societies, would be pretty different. I'm not deluded enough to believe the world would be an egalitarian, peaceful utopia, but it'd be governed by different values. Monotheists tend to be universalists. They believe their deity is the only deity that exists - the others are either imaginary, or supernatural beings that aren't divine and aren't worthy of worship. This can cause them to become aggressive in spreading their faith.
With polytheists, there'd still be warfare, of course, it's part of our nature, but wars would be fought for different reasons. A Celtic, European nation might demand that Brazil stop its deforestation in the Amazon, for example; not because this activity damages the biosphere, but because their druids say they can hear the trees screaming as the foresters cut them down, and the gods have demanded that this slaughter be ended. The Brazilians tell them to stay on their own side of the Atlantic, and to mind their own business. And so the Europeans issue a declaration of war.....just a thought. I realize the Brazilians might not be monotheists themselves, in such a world. I just wanted to use Brazil's forests to illustrate what I'm trying to say.
 
Perhaps not as dramatic or drastic as that, as certainly Gods of War were popular with certain cultural groups but there would be a fundemental lack of...absolutism in culture.
 
But weren't Rome and Greece motivated by things different from religion for conquest?

I'm not saying this world would be a utopia, it may not even be better at all really, but I think religious wars would work... differently at least, as polytheism would be more open to recognizing other deities.

Besides that though, wouldn't Polytheism be a LOT more liberal with sexuality, considering many of them had love or even sex gods/goddesses?
 
But weren't Rome and Greece motivated by things different from religion for conquest?

I'm not saying this world would be a utopia, it may not even be better at all really, but I think religious wars would work... differently at least, as polytheism would be more open to recognizing other deities.

Besides that though, wouldn't Polytheism be a LOT more liberal with sexuality, considering many of them had love or even sex gods/goddesses?

Well the wars between Greece and Persia can be seen as crusades in a way, particularly Alexander the Great's campaigns, which had a religious element to them. If you actually compare the Macedonians' treatment of the Persians (ignoring Persepolis because he was drunk) then the Persians did very well compared to Christian treatment of Muslims or vice versa. There are plenty of things for people to fight over without religion.

Probably, the Christian and Islamic view of sexuality and gender has A LOT to answer for, though don't overestimate this, there were still cultures and religions that were extremely prudish and judgemental. And generally polytheists had a god for everything though they didn't necessarily agree with it, like Set in Egyptian culture and how belief in the Greek gods was largely out of fear rather than love.
 
Well the wars between Greece and Persia can be seen as crusades in a way, particularly Alexander the Great's campaigns, which had a religious element to them. If you actually compare the Macedonians' treatment of the Persians (ignoring Persepolis because he was drunk) then the Persians did very well compared to Christian treatment of Muslims or vice versa. There are plenty of things for people to fight over without religion.

Probably, the Christian and Islamic view of sexuality and gender has A LOT to answer for, though don't overestimate this, there were still cultures and religions that were extremely prudish and judgemental. And generally polytheists had a god for everything though they didn't necessarily agree with it, like Set in Egyptian culture and how belief in the Greek gods was largely out of fear rather than love.

Alexander's campaigns had a religious component to the extent that Alexander justified his campaigns as fulfilling previous conquests of India by Dionysus, and otherwise justifying his godhood and whatnot through propaganda. I don't think it's truly accurate to say that they had a religious component. Alexander was not killing the Persians because his daddy, "Zeus" :rolleyes: told him to. He was doing it because he needed to outdo his real daddy, who had made Alexander everything he was.
 
With polytheists, there'd still be warfare, of course, it's part of our nature, but wars would be fought for different reasons. A Celtic, European nation might demand that Brazil stop its deforestation in the Amazon, for example; not because this activity damages the biosphere, but because their druids say they can hear the trees screaming as the foresters cut them down, and the gods have demanded that this slaughter be ended. The Brazilians tell them to stay on their own side of the Atlantic, and to mind their own business. And so the Europeans issue a declaration of war.....just a thought. I realize the Brazilians might not be monotheists themselves, in such a world. I just wanted to use Brazil's forests to illustrate what I'm trying to say.

Sorry, this is ASB. Polytheist states may be less likely to wage crusades than monotheist ones, and will still wage wars, but it's frankly ridiculous that nations which are capable of waging wars will not have more prosaic reasons for waging war, such as land, or influence. No matter what religions exist on the earth, wars will be fought predominately over resources or power. After all you don't see India or Thailand or China waging war to protect the dharma or as such.
 
Alexander's campaigns had a religious component to the extent that Alexander justified his campaigns as fulfilling previous conquests of India by Dionysus, and otherwise justifying his godhood and whatnot through propaganda. I don't think it's truly accurate to say that they had a religious component. Alexander was not killing the Persians because his daddy, "Zeus" :rolleyes: told him to. He was doing it because he needed to outdo his real daddy, who had made Alexander everything he was.

Which is my point. The invasion was justified as revenge for the Persian invasions of Greece, but beyond that any Macedonian resentment towards the Persians was more based on a Greek-centric world view.
 
There was 'disgust' with oriental customs (and religions) around Alexender's men, that was sure, and Rome had similar dislike of some foreign cults...
 
Top