Thread by @JoelBaden

In much of “Western” thought, it is standard, to the point of barely noticeable, to describe monotheism as an “advance” over polytheism - as “enlightened,” or “superior,” etc. As if the natural course of human development leads naturally to monotheism.

I think this is nonsense.

I saw it just the other day in a recent essay on the ancient Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, often considered the first monotheist: the author asks, “Was the king an enlightened religious leader?” as if monotheism is self-evidently enlightened.

It’s natural enough: we are monotheists, we are descended from monotheistic traditions, traditions that replaced polytheism with monotheism, so naturally we think ourselves to be enlightened, and monotheism to be the advanced state of being.

But it’s only advanced chronologically, and only within our traditions. It’s not inherently any more advanced than polytheism. There’s no obvious reason why one couldn’t go the other way. We haven’t because Christianity and Islam have imposed cultural dominance everywhere.

The Hellenistic cultural impress on monotheistic Judea, though, suggests at least one possible historical path that could have led in the other direction. It didn’t, but not because polytheism was somehow a lesser theological position.

Monotheism, at least in ancient Israel, emerged not as a natural evolution of religious thought, but (I think) in response to external political events that necessitated a change in Israel’s understanding of how its national deity operated.

It’s not objectively better - it was just better for that people at that time. And we are the theological descendants of that people. That’s the only reason it’s considered enlightened: because it’s ours.

But we also know that the most recent theological development isn’t always the preferable one. Otherwise everyone would be Mormon. Monotheism isn’t better because it came after polytheism. It’s better only because we agree with it.

And the number of people, and cultures, that have been oppressed and destroyed precisely because they were considered unenlightened, heathen, primitive, in their non-monotheistic beliefs, should give pause to those who continue to maintain its objective superiority.

Don’t get me wrong - I’ve got nothing against monotheism. I just have nothing against non-monotheism either. Neither has a higher claim to some objective truth - they’re belief systems, and as such aren’t susceptible to claims of objectivity.

(Which is why I find the whole theological philosophy tradition to be intolerable, but that’s a different screed for a different day. Don’t get me started on Pascal and his inane wager.)

To tie back to previous threads: it is this notion of monotheism’ inherent superiority that undergirds that whole “Abrahamic faiths” thing, with all of the problems it entails. We’d do better to stop categorizing people into right and wrong beliefs altogether.