The worship of one god always seems to be touted as a conceptual leap over polytheism. We tend to look at cultures that worship many gods as primitive. Even in the game Civilization, monotheism is farther along the technology tree. It doesn’t seem like a “leap” in thought so much as monotheistic cultures are making the judgement. Do theologists/psychoanthropologists (ok I made that one up) offer reasons as to why monotheism is a more advanced and not merely a different system of thought?
Because it’s a step closer to atheism?
-D&R-
I suspect there’s a twofold reason for this. First, the old “us vs. them” attitude. Since the speaker/writer is monotheistic, and “obviously superior” to the poor polytheistic savages, monotheism must also be superior to polytheism.
The second is that polytheism does tend to wane as cultures become more scientifically sophisticated. As practical explanations of previously mysterious occurences are found, the need for a mischievous god to blame for them becomes urgent.
Makes me wonder if we’ll all become atheists when we solve the mystery of life.
I would say the reason behind the idea of monotheism being inherently more advanced is because it is now the de facto standard of our more advanced society.
With the well-oiled machine of hindsight 20-20 in full swing, the tying together of technological advances and intellectual advances automatically includes with it the spiritual advances also.
So, if we once worshipped many gods (and were them technologically backward), and now worship one God (and are technologically advanced), then this belief (monotheism) must be more advanced than the prior belief (polytheism).
I realise this is a fallacy (false cause ?), but it’s a possible reason the conceptual leap occurs.
This must be considered in a western context, of course. First of all, the Gods of the Greeks and Romans were selfish, greedy, horrible super-human creatures. On the other hand, the Christian God is a supernatural entity that, despite the actions of His followers, promotes peace, love, and understanding. The Gods of the Greeks (and Yahweh) fit into the aristocratic mode of living. Gods were the step above King more or less, and the farther you went up that ladder, the more selfish, moronic, prideful, (insert every bad trait here) you were. So Gods were like big, powerful babies that would punish anybody until they got their way, there was no redemption and no hope. The Christian God, OTOH was forgiving, and redeeming.
So given a choice on which God was more beneficial to the outlook and self-image of humanity, Id have to go with the christian God.
Of course, other polytheist religions (Hinduism) may not be like either, and you cant judge it more or less advanced than any western religions. Civilization was developed by westerners who a) saw time as continual progression and b) understood polytheism in the Greek context, and monotheism in the Christian context. Therefore Civ, and perhaps westerners in general, sees it as a step in the “right” direction.
You pose an interesting question. It seems similar to the notion that there should be A unifying force in the universe. The four main forces that we’re aware of somehow not only might, but should, be parts of some grand unifying theory. While that might turn out to be true, I don’t know why anyone should HOPE that it’s true…Of course, I count myself among the millions who don’t know jack about stuff but still feel competent to babble on about it. I do believe that there is a push in physics to complete Einstein’s search for a unified theory, and I think that I read in some non-academic sources a sense that there’s a DESIRE to find this force. If something does exist, I guess we have reason to try to find it. But why should we HOPE something exists? Why should one theory be better than four? And why should one god be better than four?
Well, the pope’s (Leo II?) letters to Boniface explain it very well as far as I’m concerned. Polytheistic religions, at least in Europe (and ancient Egypt and the middle east) - I’m not sure about Hinduism - have gods that are very human in one crucial aspect. They can beget each other. Gods can be born (by other gods, no less), they live, and they can be killed (although they do not die of old age - Amun-Ra ruled Egypt as pharaoh for thousands of years, according to the Egyptians, until his eyes “were the colour of lapis lazuli”, when he went back to heaven where he would not age). This leads to a serious conceptual flaw when you think about it - where did it start? You’d have to go back to one god sometime in the past, who would then somehow be able to create all the “current” gods - for instance in Norse mythology the “father god”, who also started the creation of the world tree Yggdrasil (grew out of his corpse, I think), was dead long before Odin, who I think was third or fourth generation. Monotheists then have a strong argument to polytheists, in that they simply ask - “where did your gods come from originally? Who really created the world? What existed before your first god, and who created him?” - and this becomes a problem to polytheists with whole family trees for the gods. Monotheistic religions say that there is only one God, who is more of a concept than a human-like god, who existed before the polytheistic gods, and had to, because he is the original creator. In addition, being immune to concepts of aging and time, the monotheistic God just is. The polytheistic gods must then be “false images” in the sense that they can not be true gods as they can die and be created.
Therefore, monotheism is a conceptual leap over polytheism, just as you put it - it’s a new, larger way of looking at the world. Atheism, it can be argued, is another leap, as science makes the existence of God unnecessary (I’m not sure I agree, but it could be argued). By putting the One God before the entire basis of polytheistic theory, polytheism becomes very seriously undermined.
Sorry this is so long, this is one of the things I’ve studied recently. Hope this helps as a starter. Could write more, but I have an essay crisis right now.
Whoever wins the war gets to write history.
Agree. There is a historical self-righteousness in many major religions that, “Now we have found the ONE TRUE religion and everyone that has gone before us was wrong.” Even the Big Three of today, which practice tolerance and believe in the same god, still each think theirs is the one true path (Jews are the chosen people, Christians think you can only be saved if you accept Jesus, Moslems tout Mohammed as the ultimate prophet). Ambrose Bierce had some wry remarks on this topic in his Devil’s Dictionary.
Either that or we’ll all become devout worshippers 
Religious people point to science advances as proof of God, and atheists point to them as proof of no God.
Good points Toffe. I think you nailed it.
What also tends to happen “as cultures become more scientifically sophisticated” is contact with missionaries/prosthelitzers and contact with monotheistic technologic societies. I suspect it has more to do with that than their own development of science.
PC
The real advantage of monotheism isn’t conceptual: it’s evolutionary. A monotheistic religion, while very difficult to establish at first (everyone has their favorite local god), is much better able to compete for resources (believers) than a fractured, diffuse polytheistic one.
Christianity and Islam discovered the magic formula for success: monotheism combined with conversion–anyone can join–and intolerance–if you don’t join, you’re a heathen, and don’t get any of the membership benefits. This combination caused them to spread like kudzu.
Of course, both religions were so successful, they eventually mutated into competing subgroups.
I have a simple reason: Even if a religion was polytheist, you still have to wonder who is the god of THOSE gods (ie Who made them). Meaning, there has to be someone higher up the ladder somewhere. Reason (atleast my reasoning) would dictate there is one single god far up who is the ultimate supreme being. Of course, I think then who made god, and then who made that god, so on and so on. That’s why I’m pretty much atheist. 
Teebone
I take exception to Pythagras’s notion that it is only the Christian God who is the evolutionary step, and classifiying the God of the Old Testament as equivalent to Greek myths. Yes, the Old Testament stories about God place more emphasis on a stern justice than do the New Testament stories, but it is erroneous to imply that a beneficent God is a product of Christian thinkng. This is a common misconception and distortion, used centuries later as “proof” that it’s OK to torture Jews until they convert.
And I will cite the advantage of monotheism very simply: the notion that there is One God who created one human couple says that all mankind are brothers and sisters, descended from common parents. (I was gonna say “brethren and sistern”, but I didn’t want to stick a joke into a serious comment.)
Note that this is in line with modern scientific thinking of evolution, and in line with modern morality and ethics as well.
The concept of the brotherhood of mankind is a major leap from the tribal concepts of earlier religions. And, although the ancient Israelites certainly had strong tribal notions, they also held that
the rules of morality (“thou shalt not kill”) applied to all peoples everywhere.
bows
I agree with ** C K Dexter Haven ** that the notion of universal brotherhood has some moral appeal, and Wumpus has a good point about the “convert or else” mentality. However, I find it interesting that Leo II specifically emphasised the importance of argument before actually preaching the full nature of Christianity (i.e. first undermine their current beliefs, then try to convert them), and that those following his advice (esp. Boniface and his buddies) were relatively succesful, while for example Ansgar (who emphasised preaching, teaching and the use of “miracles”) was a relative flop. Also the “convert or else” bit does not have much historical basis - in practise, a lot of evidence suggests many polytheists simply added the Christian/Muslim God to their pantheon, for extra luck or power. Additionally, early Islam, once established, was tolerant of other religions and cultures because it let them levy an extra land tax for “infidels” (which led to social crisis when people converted for economic reasons, so the Umayyad caliphate had to continue taxing converts and ended up emphasising the “Arab” bit over the “Muslim” bit of their state). However, once both Christianity and Islam were firmly established and competing ideologically, economically and in terms of power, I agree conversion everywhere was often achieved at swordpoint. (one of the reasons Norway and Sweden became Christian “states” in the middle ages was that then their neighbours would no longer be able to invade them under the pretext of a crusade)
I suspect that the idea that momotheism is an evolutionary step beyond polytheism is, as noted above, 20/20 hindsight, cultural arrogance, and “winners write the history.”
The arguments for the superiority of monotheism on various cultural levels have merit, but they do tend to be retrospective.
As far as I know, no society has ever evolved from polytheism to montheism. Monotheism always occurs in a revolutionary situation. Christianity took the one God of Jewish belief and supplanted the older gods of the Romans and Greeks and Celts and Norse. Islam overthrew all the Arab deities in one fell swoop. (To a lesser extent, the shakeup of the Catholic Church in the Second Vatican Council resulted in a serious de-emphasis on the saints–saints were never worshipped in Church doctrine, but there were certainly people among the membership who seemed to have created a minor pantheon out of their favorite saints.) Judaism, itself, implies a revolutionary character of its origins as, first God calls Abram, and later God and the Israelites struggle with their tendency toward idolatry, leading to the opening statement of the Ten Commandments.
At no time has a society allowed their pantheon to wither away as more emphasis was placed on a single god who became (or evolved) to a place of primacy, later to supplant all his less fortunate fellow gods as the sole god.
So from several of these posts, we can posit that the change from polytheism to monotheism (or Momotheism, as Tomndebb call it, or even Mojotheism, as others might) isn’t progress, per se, but simply a change, however radical - evolution, or more likely, revolution. And I suppose the fact that we have no evidence for the reverse type of change leads us to call it progress. There probably is no culture that has gone from monotheism to polytheism. And all this seems to beg the question that we atheists tend to like to ask - why the big need to have ANY god, anyway? And you don’t have to have science to ask that question. Things just are the way they are. No credit. No blame. No god.
Well, Aten worship in Egypt, under Akenaten, but that was imposed from above, and not a “natural” progression, so it might not count. Some people also say Judaism developed this way…instead of the sudden break from polytheism to monotheism through divine revelation, as the bible says, the ancient Hebrews actually were first polytheistic then henotheistic, until finally becoming monotheistic.
Of course, we’re limited by the relative rarity of monotheistic religions.
All these concepts are the central thesis of Darwin’s Cathedral by David Sloan Wilson. Or so I understand; I keep meaning to get around to reading it. Once I do, I can better answer the question in the OP.
If we considered it from a memetic model, then we would say that monotheism has dominated the west because that meme or family of memes is more successful - that a process of natural selection weeds out the less survivable memes. Monotheism hasn’t really conquered though, hinduism and bhuddism are both very successful memes in their own right.
Don’t confuse memes with truth, its just a model that can be helpful. For more info see http://www.memecentral.com.