WI Monotheism Never Became Widespread?

What if most of the world's population were polytheists, and monotheists were a minority? How might human history have been different?
 
Well, of course, radical differences due to butterflies.

Religion would become more abstract faster. Depending on the style of the region, people would begin scoffing things like gods of thunder as the scientific basis of natural phenomenon became discovered. Those remaining religious would be forced to adapt. So, all in all, I think religion would be much more "Asian-style" than "European-style" (which makes sense, since Asia is more polytheistic than Europe). Less dogmatic, more personal. All about a relationship between you and your chosen patron deities, or between you and nature, rather than one big universal church.
 
So, all in all, I think religion would be much more "Asian-style" than "European-style" (which makes sense, since Asia is more polytheistic than Europe). Less dogmatic, more personal. All about a relationship between you and your chosen patron deities, or between you and nature, rather than one big universal church.

You'll have to clarify what Asian countries you are talking about though. Some strains of Buddhism, particularly Tibetan / Gelug-pa and Theravada tend to be more dogmatic, centralized, and focused on the monks. Bön was basically state-controlled shamanism. So I think it is an overgeneralization to say that all Asian religions are "less dogmatic [and] more personal." Ditto for stating the opposite for western religions - the Abrahamic faiths always had some personal elements involved.
 
What if most of the world's population were polytheists, and monotheists were a minority? How might human history have been different?

Please define what you are trying to say. From what I have seen most major religions were monotheistic and though I can see your point, I fear that inevitably all religions would eventually become monotheistic, most likely because there would be one god/goddess prevailing over the others.

Just look at the Cult of Isis. The older Egyptian religion was anything but monotheistic, but eventually the Cult of Isis became the superior cult and actually the, well, main embodiment of the entire religion. Sure, you had some minor cults here and there, but, really, not that important.
 
Just look at the Cult of Isis. The older Egyptian religion was anything but monotheistic, but eventually the Cult of Isis became the superior cult and actually the, well, main embodiment of the entire religion. Sure, you had some minor cults here and there, but, really, not that important.

It never became monotheist. Yes, Isis was the most important goddess, but she was never believed to be the only goddess. Other deities were never denied, their cult were never forbidden, and nobody thought about religion as an excuse to war.
 
Please define what you are trying to say. From what I have seen most major religions were monotheistic and though I can see your point, I fear that inevitably all religions would eventually become monotheistic, most likely because there would be one god/goddess prevailing over the others.

Just look at the Cult of Isis. The older Egyptian religion was anything but monotheistic, but eventually the Cult of Isis became the superior cult and actually the, well, main embodiment of the entire religion. Sure, you had some minor cults here and there, but, really, not that important.

Lots of people seem to believe that all the mystery cults in the Roman world were actively seeking converts for their sole advantage, but this is a great error. Mystery cults aren't like political parties, they certainly weren't religious missionaries as we understand them. Certain cults, like the Mithriasts, were only interested in adult males with a solid military background. Being as exclusive as they were, they rather likely did not intend to usurp Religio Romana, Hellenism, or other provincial cults and Polytheisms in the Empire. Isis was an extremely popular cult, yes. But they did not have designs contrary to the religious status quo.

If Christianity didn't become tied with the Roman administration, European, and probably west Asian and North African culture too, would possess a culture in some respects similar to Hinduism. Even if the Empire dissolved as per OTL, certain Greaco-Roman religious traditions, myths, and derived practices would be even more visible in western culture.
 
Last edited:
You'll have to clarify what Asian countries you are talking about though. Some strains of Buddhism, particularly Tibetan / Gelug-pa and Theravada tend to be more dogmatic, centralized, and focused on the monks. Bön was basically state-controlled shamanism. So I think it is an overgeneralization to say that all Asian religions are "less dogmatic [and] more personal." Ditto for stating the opposite for western religions - the Abrahamic faiths always had some personal elements involved.

I never said anything about all of them being like that. :rolleyes:

But look at general trends, and that's what you see.
 

Eurofed

Banned
If Christianity didn't become tied with the Roman administration, European, and probably west Asian and North African culture too, would possess a culture in some respects similar to Hinduism. Even if the Empire dissolved as per OTL, certain Greaco-Roman religious traditions, myths, and derived practices would be even more visible in western culture.

Agreed. If Europe remains a cultural unity, more so if the Roman Empire survives and it absorbs Germania, its various polytheist religious traditions are going to survive, butterfly Christianity and Islam away, and merge into an advanced syncretic polytheist/monist Greco-Roman-Germanic-Celtic system eerily reminioscent of Hinduism. None of the root traditions had a strongly organized priesthood class to mirror like the Indian one, although, except the druids, and we need an early PoD to save them from Roman persecution. Unless the surviving Roman Empire purposefully fosters one to use as a professional administrative/scholar class.
 
well, 1 could argue that the Catholic church, technically, did allow for de facto polytheism thru the veneration of the saints- which in some cases incl dressing up pagan European deities as saints- as a virtual pantheon of minor gods in addition to the Holy Trinity- plus the veneration of Mary in Catholicism is seen by many as a continuation of pagan goddess worship, replacing the worship of Ishtar.
 
Melvin,

Ishtar? A Middle Eastern deity? In Europe?

Methinks you (or this "many" you are referrnig to) have been reading "The Two Babylons" too often.

Solomon, Tomb, and Eurofed,

Just because polytheism is a lot less likely to develop a "worship our god or die" mindeset then monotheism (compare the pagan Romans worshipping anything to the Abrahamic faiths) doesn't mean it won't, or develop other, unseemly practices.

1. The Roman state persecuted the Bacchanal faiths, along with the cult of Cybele.

2. Buddhist monasteries in Korea and Japan fought wars with each other.
 

wormyguy

Banned
What's most interesting about this situation is the effects on culture. A major theme in the culture of the Middle Ages was the conflict between the old ideas of the Pagan Indo-European culture (ironically enough substantially more progressive by modern standards), and the new ideas of Semitic culture and philosophy. A Europe guided by Indo-European norms rather than first by strict Semitic norms and then a synthesis of the two brought about by first the Renaissance and then the Enlightenment would be much more tolerant to sex and homosexuality (seeing nothing immoral in sexual conduct), and would find notions of nationalism, racism, and religious extremism confusing at best. On the other hand, divisions between social classes, sometimes caste-like and permanent, would be taken for granted, and the value of human life would be emphasized far less, for life is cheap. When traditional moral thought is turned topsy-turvy, then the development and actions of Europe would be influenced in a way noone could anticipate.
 
Just because polytheism is a lot less likely to develop a "worship our god or die" mindeset then monotheism (compare the pagan Romans worshipping anything to the Abrahamic faiths) doesn't mean it won't, or develop other, unseemly practices.
Not to mention there's plenty of potential for completely secular nastiness; as I once heard Roman bloody-mindedness so aptly summarized, they are probably the only society in human history that felt the need to invent a word for "arbitrarily kill every tenth person."
 
What's most interesting about this situation is the effects on culture. A major theme in the culture of the Middle Ages was the conflict between the old ideas of the Pagan Indo-European culture (ironically enough substantially more progressive by modern standards), and the new ideas of Semitic culture and philosophy. A Europe guided by Indo-European norms rather than first by strict Semitic norms and then a synthesis of the two brought about by first the Renaissance and then the Enlightenment would be much more tolerant to sex and homosexuality (seeing nothing immoral in sexual conduct), and would find notions of nationalism, racism, and religious extremism confusing at best. On the other hand, divisions between social classes, sometimes caste-like and permanent, would be taken for granted, and the value of human life would be emphasized far less, for life is cheap. When traditional moral thought is turned topsy-turvy, then the development and actions of Europe would be influenced in a way noone could anticipate.

Got any sources on sexual tolerance?

I know the Greeks were more tolerant of homosexual behavior, but in Athens, one theory about why they were so restrictive of women is that they were very proud of the purity of their citizen caste--they didn't want women sneaking out, banging foreign sailors, and passing off the resulting children as blood Athenians.
 

Stephen

Banned
What's most interesting about this situation is the effects on culture. A major theme in the culture of the Middle Ages was the conflict between the old ideas of the Pagan Indo-European culture (ironically enough substantially more progressive by modern standards), and the new ideas of Semitic culture and philosophy. A Europe guided by Indo-European norms rather than first by strict Semitic norms and then a synthesis of the two brought about by first the Renaissance and then the Enlightenment would be much more tolerant to sex and homosexuality (seeing nothing immoral in sexual conduct), and would find notions of nationalism, racism, and religious extremism confusing at best. On the other hand, divisions between social classes, sometimes caste-like and permanent, would be taken for granted, and the value of human life would be emphasized far less, for life is cheap. When traditional moral thought is turned topsy-turvy, then the development and actions of Europe would be influenced in a way noone could anticipate.

They will probably be less uptight about sex athough beware of pop historians out to prove that every single historical figure is gay with little evidence. But racism and nationalism are natural products of mankinds tribal instincts. It is the universalist ideas of the last century and a half that are unusual and originate from people reading the more hipielike parts of the bible made available by the reformation and printing press.
 
Solomon, Tomb, and Eurofed,

Just because polytheism is a lot less likely to develop a "worship our god or die" mindeset then monotheism (compare the pagan Romans worshipping anything to the Abrahamic faiths) doesn't mean it won't, or develop other, unseemly practices.

1. The Roman state persecuted the Bacchanal faiths, along with the cult of Cybele.

2. Buddhist monasteries in Korea and Japan fought wars with each other.

I'm talking about broad movements, over long periods of time. Averages, if you will. Of course there will be extremes! There will always be extremes, barring ASB intervention, especially early on before an equivalent of the Scientific Revolution take place and people begin discovering natural science. But, as a whole, I don't think there will be as much religious persecution or violence as Europe OTL.

and would find notions of nationalism, racism, and religious extremism confusing at best.

Why? Nationalism isn't necessarily related to religion, or else Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, and a few other nations would all be united today as some sort of Catholic Empire. Polytheism could actually increase this sort of divisiveness, especially early on, if one group has a pantheon led by god X, while another group has a pantheon led by god Y.

No racism? Because, of course, the primarily Shinto Japanese have never been racist during their long history. :rolleyes:

No religious extremism? While, as I've said before, I don't think it'd be as big an issue as IRL, there would certainly be plenty of extremists. They might not be nearly mainstream, but they'd exist, and people would certainly be aware of their existence.

On the other hand, divisions between social classes, sometimes caste-like and permanent, would be taken for granted,

If there is a caste system. That's not required under polytheism, even if Hinduism has one.

and the value of human life would be emphasized far less, for life is cheap.

Again, depends on the religion. Buddhism, for example, can be polytheistic, but it still teaches you to harm nothing, be it person or animal.
 
Melvin,

Ishtar? A Middle Eastern deity? In Europe?

Methinks you (or this "many" you are referrnig to) have been reading "The Two Babylons" too often.

Solomon, Tomb, and Eurofed,

Just because polytheism is a lot less likely to develop a "worship our god or die" mindeset then monotheism (compare the pagan Romans worshipping anything to the Abrahamic faiths) doesn't mean it won't, or develop other, unseemly practices.

1. The Roman state persecuted the Bacchanal faiths, along with the cult of Cybele.

2. Buddhist monasteries in Korea and Japan fought wars with each other.

Still, it won't be as bad as OTL.

Besides thats the Romans, they took in more Gods then they banished. Take the Cult of Isis at one point they were opposed to her and her mysteries but eventually she was accepted later on.
 
Again, depends on the religion. Buddhism, for example, can be polytheistic, but it still teaches you to harm nothing, be it person or animal.
And yet Buddhist states throughout history have engaged in warfare and bloodshed. No matter what the religion, pragmatic practitioners will always find a way to justify violence.
 

Hnau

Banned
No matter what the religion, pragmatic practitioners will always find a way to justify violence

Almost all worldviews can be twisted to justify violence, though.
 
Top