Monotheism in Europe = Inevitable?

[trurle]

Back to the actual topic, European polytheisms could have survived even after Christianity was adopted by the Roman Empire. The Saxons had to be converted by the sword, and it seems that it was pretty hard to make it stick. Get rid of Charlemagne and direct Frankish attention southwards, perhaps by butterflying Islam and thus maintaining the idea of the Mediterranean as a unified cultural area rather than a Europe/Africa/Asia dichotomy (trichotomy?), and Saxon paganism might survive long enough to formalise and organise. Baltic paganism appeared to be organising in the middle ages, with Teutonic Order writers referring to a high priest respected by all the Balts. Vladimir the Great in Kiev made some attempt to organise Slavic paganism efore he converted to Christianity. If he stuck to it he might have succeded in creating a lasting religion. So yeah, I don't think monotheism was in any way inevitable in Europe, nor that it holds any special appeal that would make it always triumph over polytheism.

Yes, i remember that approach. Do not you think what that many seemingly unlikely yet repeated failures of paganism have some hidden logic behind?
Good counter-example against case of paganism losing by accident of politics and warfare may be the Mongol conquests. Mongol successor states have converted to Monotheistic religion (Islam) pretty abruptly, despite being initially paganist and victorious. Many of rulers in 5-12th century epoch (including Mongol rulers) have seen polytheistic religions of their own countries as a big hindrance, resulted in adoption of monotheistic religion starting from social elites, despite of popular resistance.

 

[ennobee]

I don't know about the rest of Europe, but Christianity or not, the Iberian peninsula will eventually fall to the Muslim Umayyads and without a pope around a to order the Reconquista it might even still be Islamic today. And then, who knows how far Ilsam will spread from there.....

 

[Lalli]

I don't know about the rest of Europe, but Christianity or not, the Iberian peninsula will eventually fall to the Muslim Umayyads and without a pope around a to order the Reconquista it might even still be Islamic today. And then, who knows how far Ilsam will spread from there.....

Without CHristianity there wouldn't be Islam. And that wasn't inevitable that Muslims would conquer Iberia.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Not necessarily monotheistic. Any organized religion will wipe the floor with paganism.

The Grecko-Roman religions were very organised. Pagan doesn't mean the societies that practiced it were primitive.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Without CHristianity there wouldn't be Islam. And that wasn't inevitable that Muslims would conquer Iberia.

???? Taking one prophet out of Islam destroys it???

Obvious the Prophet would but as Jesus / New Testament is really the only major difference between Christianity and Judaism then I could easily see a version of Islam developing from Old Testament traditions only based on a the Old Testament messiah prophecy.

 

[Lalli]

???? Taking one prophet out of Islam destroys it???

Obvious the Prophet would but as Jesus / New Testament is really the only major difference between Christianity and Judaism then I could easily see a version of Islam developing from Old Testament traditions only based on a the Old Testament messiah prophecy.

Jesus is quiet important character in Islam altouigh of course not so important as in Christianity. If you remove Jesus you get very different Islam anyway.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Jesus is quiet important character in Islam altouigh of course not so important as in Christianity. If you remove Jesus you get very different Islam anyway.

But still monotheistic - and probably more prone to conquest

 

[Kaze]

Historically in China, people often simultaneously believed in both Buddhism and other religions like Taoism or more often ancestral worship. It was never a primarily Buddhist country.

And you forget Confucianism as well. Before you say... wait, wait Confucianism is not a religion... Confucius was posthumously made a deity = Wenchang Wang. But they also made Genghis Khan and Chairman Mao Zedong deities as well - it could be the case where much like the Caesars were made deities posthumously because of their great efforts or impact on history.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

And you forget Confucianism as well. Before you say... wait, wait Confucianism is not a religion... Confucius was posthumously made a deity = Wenchang Wang. But they also made Genghis Khan and Chairman Mao Zedong deities as well - it could be the case where much like the Caesars were made deities posthumously because of their great efforts or impact on history.

Confucianist do not worship Confucius, Genghis Khan, Mao or anyone, for that matter.

 

[Frrf]

Yes, i remember that approach. Do not you think what that many seemingly unlikely yet repeated failures of paganism have some hidden logic behind?
Good counter-example against case of paganism losing by accident of politics and warfare may be the Mongol conquests. Mongol successor states have converted to Monotheistic religion (Islam) pretty abruptly, despite being initially paganist and victorious. Many of rulers in 5-12th century epoch (including Mongol rulers) have seen polytheistic religions of their own countries as a big hindrance, resulted in adoption of monotheistic religion starting from social elites, despite of popular resistance.

Of those, the Saxons were given the 'convert or die' ultimatum, as were most of the Balts, save the Lithuanians, who insread were converted by Grand Duke Jagiellon so that he could marry the Polish heiress. Vladimir appears mostly to have converted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity in order to secure better relations with the Byzantines, one of his biggest trading partners. I don't really know much about the Mongol khanates, save that those in the East remained Buddhist or adopted Chinese customs in order to make ruling peoples with these beliefs easier. I'd not be surprised if the same was what happened with the Western Khanates and Islam, and whatever the Khan said the faith should be, his subordinates would have to obey. As far as I can tell, the only real reason Abrahamic religions have dominated Europe and Western Asia is that they're less tolerant, whereas the various pagans didn't really give a shit about each others belief systems, and only became hostile to Christianity and Islam when they spread far enough into their own communities to destabilise them (early Christians, for example, being fond of attacking pagan temples and cutting down sacred groves, which naturally didn't endear them to Roman government). Christianity and Islam, however, have historically been very hostile to paganism (and each other) no matter how many pagans lived in their community or how they behaved.

 

[stevej713]

I'd argue that Western (or Greek) philosophy and rational thought in the Classical era favored monotheism, which is why Christianity found Europe to be such ripe grounds for conversion. That doesn't mean it was inevitable, but more likely than the kind of religion that prevailed in, say, India.

 

[Kaze]

Confucianist do not worship Confucius, Genghis Khan, Mao or anyone, for that matter.

Even if Confucianists did not worship them, popular religion still made Confucius, Genghis, Mao, and the others posthumous deities. So it must be included as part as Chinese religion. Like Christianity -- theologians spend hours deciding what word five on chapter seven really means, they argue it for hours and you disagree with the number of angels that can dance on a head of pin, the theologian would hang you as a witch. Confucians do the same with the Analects - trying to analyze a single word or phrase for days and there are very, very rare accounts where people were hanged for the wrong interpretation of the Analects.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

Even if Confucianists did not worship them, popular religion still made Confucius, Genghis, Mao, and the others posthumous deities.

That's where Daoism and Buddhism comes. Mostly.

Confucians do the same with the Analects - trying to analyze a single word or phrase for days and there are very, very rare accounts where people were hanged for the wrong interpretation of the Analects.

I suppose Marxism is a religion, then.

 

[Hegemon]

On whether things are a religion or not: It’s all about context and perspective

 

[ShortsBelfast]

One of the key issues is the development of scientific knowledge (or not). As interconnectivity is discovered the influence of the moon on the tides makes the separate existence of the Moon Goddess and the Sea God problematic, discovery of the rain cycle the separate existence of the Rain God and the River God. Hindu polytheism is a rather separate case to the more primitive theologies of Europe in that it posits a single Creator God and that all the other divinities are emanations of Brahma's dream.

 

[Lalli]

One of the key issues is the development of scientific knowledge (or not). As interconnectivity is discovered the influence of the moon on the tides makes the separate existence of the Moon Goddess and the Sea God problematic, discovery of the rain cycle the separate existence of the Rain God and the River God. Hindu polytheism is a rather separate case to the more primitive theologies of Europe in that it posits a single Creator God and that all the other divinities are emanations of Brahma's dream.

And finding out that our Sun is just gigantic gas ball and in the universe is trillions similar gas balls which makes existence of Sun God bit akward.

But in other hand religion has time develope more before all these scientic foundation and their religion might be able accept these scientic things. Christianity had too somehow deal with scientic foundation altough perhaps European polytheism has more doing with that.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

But in other hand religion has time develope more before all these scientic foundation and their religion might be able accept these scientic things. Christianity had too somehow deal with scientic foundation altough perhaps European polytheism has more doing with that.

There is some evidence to suggest that by the end of the late antique period the Twelve were starting to be regarded as a corporate entity or as facets of a greater whole. However, they were still pretty explicitly a Sky God, Mother Goddess, God of Smiths, Sun God, Moon Goddess etc.
The advantage that the Abrahamic faiths, Zoroastrianism and Hinduism have is that they all believe in a Supreme Creator of the Universe(s). So our understanding of how the universe works has expanded? The universe is bigger and more complicated than we realised? No problem! It just shows that the Creator is even wiser and more powerful than we can imagine.

 

[Frrf]

There is some evidence to suggest that by the end of the late antique period the Twelve were starting to be regarded as a corporate entity or as facets of a greater whole. However, they were still pretty explicitly a Sky God, Mother Goddess, God of Smiths, Sun God, Moon Goddess etc.
The advantage that the Abrahamic faiths, Zoroastrianism and Hinduism have is that they all believe in a Supreme Creator of the Universe(s). So our understanding of how the universe works has expanded? The universe is bigger and more complicated than we realised? No problem! It just shows that the Creator is even wiser and more powerful than we can imagine.

So there's lots of stars like our sun, guess there must be lots of different sun gods, ours is just the most relevant to us. Moons around other planets? Same solution, more moon gods. Universe bigger and more complicated than we thought? Proof that no one god could be responsible for something so vast and complex.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

So there's lots of stars like our sun, guess there must be lots of different sun gods, ours is just the most relevant to us. Moons around other planets? Same solution, more moon gods. Universe bigger and more complicated than we thought? Proof that no one god could be responsible for something so vast and complex.

I absolutely love the argument and can see a polytheist apologist coming up with it. The problem is that once one comes up with a systemic study of either live nature or the physical sciences one starts to detect underlying "universal" (as far as we can perceive at any rate) patterns that apply to everything in the category. I am 35 years away from when I last studied science and 30 years away from when I last studied the history of science so I will have to rely on others to come up with the detailed examples but it starts to become obvious that alchemy/chemistry has a set of underlying rules, that physics, mathematics and kinetics apply to everything physical, that the tiniest mote of a planetoid we can discern orbits in the same fashion as mighty Jupiter, that the same poison kills the Emperor of the known world, his war elephant and the mouse that stole crumbs from his table. Monotheism or a polytheism where the Creator has a very definite majority shareholding becomes inevitable even before heliocentrism. The learned begin to perceive that the universe has an underlying order and laws, that its "language" has a structure, a grammar "Grammarye".

 

[Frrf]

I absolutely love the argument and can see a polytheist apologist coming up with it. The problem is that once one comes up with a systemic study of either live nature or the physical sciences one starts to detect underlying "universal" (as far as we can perceive at any rate) patterns that apply to everything in the category. I am 35 years away from when I last studied science and 30 years away from when I last studied the history of science so I will have to rely on others to come up with the detailed examples but it starts to become obvious that alchemy/chemistry has a set of underlying rules, that physics, mathematics and kinetics apply to everything physical, that the tiniest mote of a planetoid we can discern orbits in the same fashion as mighty Jupiter, that the same poison kills the Emperor of the known world, his war elephant and the mouse that stole crumbs from his table. Monotheism or a polytheism where the Creator has a very definite majority shareholding becomes inevitable even before heliocentrism. The learned begin to perceive that the universe has an underlying order and laws, that its "language" has a structure, a grammar "Grammarye".

On the other hand, we still can't unite Relativity and Quantum Physics. And given that in most, if not all polytheistic systems the gods are not uncreated but are instead the descendants of largely passive primordial beings. I could see Greco-Roman pagans justifying these rules as being born from the dream of Chaos, the primordial deity from which all others come, in much the same way as Hinduism does Brahma.