When I was a kid in Sunday School (Jewish), we learned that Abraham was the first person to believe in only one God, as opposed to everyone else, who believed in many or no Gods. The implication was that this was a quantum leap in the history of religious thought, since monotheists are “right” and everyone else is “wrong.”
I raised my hand and asked the teacher why was it better to believe in one God, rather than many or none. Why were the polytheists and atheists wrong and Abraham right? What if we discover, some day that there really are many Gods, or none, rather than merely one? What if Abraham and the rest of us have been wrong?
The teacher totally sidestepped the question, and in all the years since, I’ve yet to hear a convincing answer.
So - for all you monotheists out there - how would you answer that question?
In the most excellent computer game Civilization, discovering polytheism allows you to build elephants, which have an attack value of four. Discovering monotheism allows you to build crusaders, which have an attack value of five.
I’d like to hear from people who really do believe that monotheism is “superior to” or “more advanced than” polytheism (surely there are more than enough of them around). I’d really like to know how they justify their belief.
You answered your own question panache45, it’s a belief. A belief doesn’t have to be justified.
I can’t prove to you that one God exists, many gods exist, no God (or gods) exists, or even that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists. It’s a belief, plain and simple.
I believe that God revealed Himself at Mt. Siani. I also believe that the information from that revelation was handed down generation to generation until it got to us today.
Again, can I prove it? No, it’s only a belief. But it’s mine.
In addition to what zev just said, I want to say: what Abraham achieved was, in fact, the discovery of a new paradigm in theology.
Prior to his realization, people ascribed every natural force and object to a different power. During the daytime, the sun god was more powerful; during the nighttime, the moon god was more powerful. Constant conflict between these forces, in their minds, made one dominate another on occasion.
Abraham imagined all these objects as being powerless in and of themselves, but under the control of a single, all-powerful being. He realized the regularity of the cycles of nature, the interdependence of natural forces, and figured that it was more likely that this interaction was one of cooperation, not conflict.
I dare say that even atheists can relate to the enormity of originating this way of thinking. Isn’t the “Unified Field Theory” something of a scientific holy (sorry) grail? While the application of that leap (from multiple forces to a single force) might seem, to non-believers, to be less impressive thinking due to the fact that religious thought is unprovable, it still represented a conceptual leap forward.
Actually, Chaim, I believe the most common–or at least a fairly well established–anthropological theory of religious paradigms in mankind’s history posits a monotheism --> polytheism --> monotheism route. So Abraham’s paradigm would then be more of a renaissance than a new discovery.
Actually, I am not even certain that monotheism can accurately be traced to Abraham. There is some evidence that the early Hebrews were not monotheistic but rather “theologically insular”. In other words, they did not deny the existence of other gods, they simply were prohibited from worshiping them or honoring them in any way.
The first verified records of a monotheistic cult seem to date from the reign of Akhenaten in Egypt.
“Monolatry” is the name for worship of one God while not denying the existence of others. Man, I spent fifteen minutes trying to remember that word.
BTW, I did a little research and the “primitive monotheism” theory has fallen a bit out of favor, though it was quite the rage for a while . ::grumble:: That’s what I get for reading Christian religious books, they tend to really, really like the primitive monotheistic theory and so are perhaps not so quick to pick up on later studies that cast doubt on this. It’s certainly not a tidy polytheism–monotheism trip, though, types of religions sprawl all over the map at various time periods. There is at least one primitive tribe that I know of that was discovered fairly recently to have a sophisticated monotheistic religion; perhaps they can get partial credit for their presumably independent discovery?
Monolatry is the worship of one thing – presumably but not necessarily a god/goddess. Henotheism is the doctrine of having one god for your worship while not denying the potential existence of others. They’re quite similar and overlap, but there is a slight distinction. And neither is quite what Gaudere defined.
Though I’d have no problem with anyone’s post that happened to use one for the other. But just to keep the details straight…
cmkeller: *Prior to [Abraham’s] realization, people ascribed every natural force and object to a different power. During the daytime, the sun god was more powerful; during the nighttime, the moon god was more powerful. Constant conflict between these forces, in their minds, made one dominate another on occasion.
Abraham imagined all these objects as being powerless in and of themselves, but under the control of a single, all-powerful being. He realized the regularity of the cycles of nature, the interdependence of natural forces, and figured that it was more likely that this interaction was one of cooperation, not conflict. *
I don’t think this is really justified. Even if we had evidence (speaking historically, not religiously) that Abraham was indeed the first officially to formulate the idea of monotheism, this is not a very accurate picture of the polytheism of his day. Many pagan cosmologies were a lot more philosophically subtle than the sort of simple animism you describe, and included the idea that the “regularity” and “interdependence” visible in nature were due to cooperation rather than conflict.
::disdainful sniff:: Encyclopedia Britannica says “Henotheism” is uncool, Poly. I must be up on the most “in” words, ya know.
From the EB:
“Henotheism (from Greek heis theos, “one god”)–a belief in worship of one god, though the existence of other gods is granted–also called kathenotheism (Greek kath hena theon, “one god at a time”)–which literally implies worship of various gods one at a time–has gone out of fashion as a term. It was introduced by the eminent 19th-century philologist and scholar in comparative mythology and religion Max Müller 1823-1900). Many later authors prefer the term monolatry–which is the worship of one god, whether or not the existence of other deities is posited–to the term henotheism. Both terms mean that one god has a central and dominating position in such a way that it is possible to address this god as if he were the one and only god, without, however, abandoning the principle of polytheism by denying or in any other way belittling the real existence of the other gods, as the above-mentioned forms of monotheism do.”
Is there a word for “belief in one god that rules over this world, with the possibility of other gods ruling other worlds that have no affiliation with this particular universe?” If there is, what is it? If not, can we name it “Moitism?”
IIRC, Abraham wasn’t the first to conceive of monotheism.
Between the Old Kingdom and the New Kingdom of Egypt, there was a brief Inter-Regnum where one Pharoh set up the idea of worshipping on god, Ra, IIRC. After his death, there were no more to his line and the old royal family was re-established.
There’s some old anthropological theory (back in the late 19th cent.) about religion and its evolution; positing that animism grows into polytheism which grows into monotheism which reaches its height in Christianity.
This same sort of thinking created the idea that white people are the most evolved of all humans. This, like many other similar theories has been tossed into the trash.
Monotheism is nice because when you witness a miracle you have a pretty good idea of who’s responsible, or not. Limiting things to a single god also makes it a lot easier to debate His/Her existence or non-existence by eliminating all sorts of special cases.
Monotheism does a very nice job of encouraging two value logic in it’s adherents, which is probably where the << monotheists are “right” and everyone else is “wrong.” >> that panache45 mentioned comes from.
This, like many other similar theories has been tossed into the trash.