Agreed, but you have to wade through a millennium and a half of increasing order and system before you catch another glimpse of the underlying chaos
Monotheism in Europe = Inevitable?
- Thread starter Siberian Tiger
- Start date
But how much of that is because modern Western science was created in a Judeo-Christian milleu, in which it was assumed that there would be an underlying order reflecting a single creator. Pagan scientists could well have advanced along a different path, based on different initial assumptions.
I don't think it is inevitable, but it is super likely.
Pretty much all major modern day religions are either monotheistic or transtheistic in some fashion, suggesting that said beliefs as ideas have better survivability.
Pretty much all major modern day religions are either monotheistic or transtheistic in some fashion, suggesting that said beliefs as ideas have better survivability.
To be honest, once you start measuring and experimenting you are going to start coming upon principles and convergences irrespective of milieu. As someone once said "There is no Jewish science. There is a measurement, principle or reaction that a Jewish person happened to be the first to observe or measure" . Graeco-Roman pagan natural philosophers were already coming to similar conclusions prior to Christianity becoming a dominant religion. In late antiquity as I already mentioned, the pagan gods were coming to be seen more as archetypes or avatars of divinity than as individual gods.
I have issues with this claim seeing as the bedrock of modern physics; the atom; was first thought up in abstract by Democritus, who was pre-Socrates, never mind pre-Christian.
.
That is a good point, but Democritus' atomism was very different to modern physics. It was also most definitely pagan, as he conceived of the gods as distinct entities that eminated their nature through the universe.
Data is data, yes. But the theories that interpret that data are human creations, subject to their creators' biases and underlying beliefs. And as has been mentioned, there's no reason Greco-Roman paganism couldn't develop an underlying theology that could cope with modern science. Hinduism has.
Can't really say. Ancient Greeks and Romans had a mix of religions, under which some were clearly Monotheistic or Henotheistic.
For example, if you somehow butterfly the Semitic influence into Europe, you could have Iranian Monotheism influence Europe, as well. I'm not saying they'll convert to Zoroastrianism. That's not possible. But it could give rise to a different kind of Monotheism.
Staunch Monotheism is, as many say, something that arises in harsher terrains, to provide a stronger bonding among a Tribe which needs more affinity to survive in a resource sparse environment. Europe had no problems like that. Iranian Monotheism originated in the Semi Arid regions in Central Asia, first and Judeo-Christian and Islamic Monotheism originated in the Middle Eastern Subtropical desert regions.
The root is same, if you observe. Even the Old Vedic Hinduism, which had a more Steppe influence, was comparatively more Monotheistic if not like Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Later and Today's Hinduism has little traces of Monotheism.
The thing is, due to proximity, the Middle Eastern religions would influence Europe. The Tundra(Upper Scandinavia and Russia) is too far away and probably unviable to influence Europe with an another type of Monotheism untill there are some powerful enough tribes there.
Monotheism is an attractive idea for a government of a large empire of Antiquity when you have lot of rebellions and a "Fear of Death" among the masses. That's probably why it succeeded.
For example, if you somehow butterfly the Semitic influence into Europe, you could have Iranian Monotheism influence Europe, as well. I'm not saying they'll convert to Zoroastrianism. That's not possible. But it could give rise to a different kind of Monotheism.
Staunch Monotheism is, as many say, something that arises in harsher terrains, to provide a stronger bonding among a Tribe which needs more affinity to survive in a resource sparse environment. Europe had no problems like that. Iranian Monotheism originated in the Semi Arid regions in Central Asia, first and Judeo-Christian and Islamic Monotheism originated in the Middle Eastern Subtropical desert regions.
The root is same, if you observe. Even the Old Vedic Hinduism, which had a more Steppe influence, was comparatively more Monotheistic if not like Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Later and Today's Hinduism has little traces of Monotheism.
The thing is, due to proximity, the Middle Eastern religions would influence Europe. The Tundra(Upper Scandinavia and Russia) is too far away and probably unviable to influence Europe with an another type of Monotheism untill there are some powerful enough tribes there.
Monotheism is an attractive idea for a government of a large empire of Antiquity when you have lot of rebellions and a "Fear of Death" among the masses. That's probably why it succeeded.
I agree and that is true of societies that had little if any contact with the West.
As a rule, I tend to believe what happened is what is most likely to happen. No always true but a good first level approximation.
I do believe that religion does fulfil a need in people, that it is somehow embedded in us and every society has had some form of it. So I think the choice is what sort of religion would win out. I would say there are two possibilities.
1) Rome had a major state religion, but it was going downhill in public appeal and human needs. As such, it needed to either reform or it would be replaced. The religion was not reforming itself and the philosophies at the time we're moving to the idea that there was something beyond the Gods and the Gods themselves were somewhat less important. Now if this continued we might have something like Hinduism ( which some consider monotheistic)
2) A new religion replaced the old state religion.
Now there was a rapidly growing Jewish population which some say was about 10% of the Roman Empire. The Jewish Roman Wars possibly deliberately caused by Rome, to reduce Jewish influence, did slow down its growth but Judaism split into factions and several of these took off notably Christianity. In modern terms, they were filling a market need that was not addressed by the current system.
Unless someone can come up with a rival belief, I cannot see anything stopping it. Effectively nothing came up that even remotely could be called competitive and what there was either monotheistic or transtheistic.
I'm one of those pagans, comrade. Democritus's concept of the atom is the first instance of anyone discussing atomic physics in any capacity; attempting to discount it by saying "but pagan" can sod off. Atomism is pre-modern atomic theory and modern atomic theory is a literal mathematical evolution of atomism.
Then liberalism too.
In fact, the essence of the contradictions is not between the interpretation of certain provisions - but the debate about how to correctly use dialectical materialism, and the conclusions that the Marxist analysis provides
As for polytheism, I think the argument about polytheism and monotheism is absolutely secondary.
I think Marxism is crap, as is dialectical materialism and as is Marxism analysis so I think the debate is not the correct use of the theory but how did such a faulty theory take off. Having said that I do not believe that anyone using Marxist analysis got the future right.
But if you assume Marxism is right then I can see your point that the argument "about polytheism and monotheism is absolutely secondary."
Last edited:
The true progressive significance of Christianity and Islam compared with the polytheistic and mystical cults of those times was that they departed from the idea of "maintaining the universal status quo." The pagan considers the world "normal" and any change as catastrophic. Abrahamist believes that the universal catastrophe has already happened. And this is the only justification for the cult of Yahweh.
Oh yes - let's maintain the status quo (sarcasm).
Wrong this is only true of most Christians but not of other Abrahamist. Neither Jews or Muslims believe in original sin.
Since Marxist analysis is over 150 years old and at its height ruled over a third of mankind, plus as most governments in the world claim to be socialist a theory he greatly influenced, and those governments that are not socialistic have large socialist movements, it can hardly be claimed that Marxist analysis is not *status quo*.
There is a difference between the science of the ancient Greeks and the science of the early modern era. I am not sure that they can be said to be so similar at all.
Democritus (your example) never made an experimental test of his atomic theory? He could have with some oil and water and a ruler have started but he never did. At most its a thought experiment typical of ancient science. Conversely, in the early modern era, we hear of Galileo Galilei who is said to have dropped two spheres of different masses from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to demonstrate that their time of descent was independent of their mass. He probably did not do this by the way but others to confirm his results did this experiment soon after his announcement. The early moderns not only studied optics but also experimented with it.
The druids say hello.
More seriously though, I've begun to wonder if the roman conquest of Britain failed, because of boudica for the sake of argument), if the druids might not reorganize and restructure themselves into something more durable.
Britain was apparently the center of the druidic 'priesthood' (if one could even call it that), and in the wake of their near destruction the religion is ripe for a massive change. It could be a situation similar to Zoroastrianism, which grew out of a polytheistic iranian religion, though purhaps focused on Andraste.
As for OP's question, its definitely not inevitable but good organization is a major key to success. And while rome certainly had fairly organized priesthoods, thats just the thing; they remained seperate and distinct priesthoods and might as well have been considered as seperated denominations of the same religious family. they were also very elitist institions that only tangentially interacted to the common people, which is a big problem given the titanic levels of social inequality of the empire. If you dont have widespread appeal to women, slaves, and the poor its going to be a struggle to survive.
The druids weren't killed for religious reasons. They were killed because they represented a pan-Celtic organisational structure that was opposed to Rome. The massacre had political motives, not spiritual ones.
As is the case for, like, 90% of 'religious wars'.
Religion is more often a justification dressing a conflict, although there are cases where religion is genuinely a contributing or major cause of a particular war.
In Islam, they are also present - for example, the fall of Iblis and Adam.