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.
What if most of the world's population were polytheists, and monotheists were a minority? How might human history have been different?
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.
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.
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.
. 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.
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.
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."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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Again, depends on the religion. Buddhism, for example, can be polytheistic, but it still teaches you to harm nothing, be it person or animal.
No matter what the religion, pragmatic practitioners will always find a way to justify violence