DiscussMormonism.com

Historically, is monotheism inversely related to religious tolerance? What is the meaning of saying "There is no God but _____"? Were (are) polytheists more accepting of other religions?

From a psychological / historical perspective, is there any reason that monotheism has become so strong in some places even though there seem to be more polytheistic religions of old? Are there advantages to monotheism over polytheism? Are there advantages to polytheism over monotheism? What are they?

With the combining of City-States, perhaps maintaining separate deities was cumbersome.

Had they practiced polygamy, perhaps their theology would have widened to accommodate a pantheon of Gods once again.

You make an interesting point.

One can see why monotheist breeds intolerance. If there is only one God, tolerating the worship of others would be a constant challenge too one's entire faith. One God would be selfish, insisting on worship. All other Gods would have to be false.

Allowing for a pantheon with different Gods, one would curry favor with whichever is most useful at the time. Other forms of worship would not be a threat.

It makes sense that polytheism would be more tolerant. And that Monotheism would be evangelical or crusading. Be hard to test though, since the three big monotheist religions come from one original tradition.

Danna wrote:Be hard to test though, since the three big monotheist religions come from one original tradition.

True, but I seem to recall other examples in history. The ancient Egyptian Pharoah Akhenaten was a monotheist.

Why not look at groups within Hinduism to see if it holds up?

You would also have to figure out what tolerance means. The Romans tolerated the worship of local gods in conquered lands as long as the people also paid nominal tribute to Roman deities. This is not what we generally mean by tolerance. I can't see a Hindu or a Muslim saying a Christian controlled government is tolerant if they allowed them to worship Vishnu and Allah but also demanded deference to Christ.

In pre-Roman days it looks even worse. Joining a new tribe meant adopting the tribe's deity or deities. It was usually not optional. I don't see the connection.

Danna wrote:You make an interesting point.

One can see why monotheist breeds intolerance. If there is only one God, tolerating the worship of others would be a constant challenge too one's entire faith. One God would be selfish, insisting on worship. All other Gods would have to be false.

But this conclusion rests on a reduced perspective on one specific interpretation of one specific religion, and I think you'll find nationalism is responsible for the vast majority of the conflict that is attributed to religion. Islam has actually had a history of tolerance. When it moved into India and Southeast Asia it coexisted rather peacefully with the other religions. It attracted converts quite readily among Buddhism and Hinduism because it was seen as more tolerant, and monotheism was more attractive (getting rid of the caste system made it quite a bit more tolerant). The conquests of the first few centuries of Islam were quite the norm at the time, and they were catalyzed more by ethnic and national concerns than religious.

The Crusades were sparked by the same general concerns, as Muslim Saljucs had taken Anatolia from the Byzantine Empire, robbing them of a majority of their agricultural supply and catalyzing a call to arms on the part of the west. Saladin's truce with the eastern church ticked of the western church, which also contributed. Exposure to Islam was one of the contributing factors to the Renaissance, as Islam developed modern medicine and passed it on to Europe, along with much of the classical tradition which was suppressed by Catholicism and preserved by Islam.

Historically, polytheistic religions have been no more tolerant than monotheistic, as well. Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, the Hittite Empire, and a number of others appealed to divine command to justify their conquests more than any monotheistic empires, and they had gods specifically designated for war. They were also far more brutal.

Danna wrote:Allowing for a pantheon with different Gods, one would curry favor with whichever is most useful at the time. Other forms of worship would not be a threat.

Not really. All polytheistic religions are closer to henotheism, as they all designate a king of the gods, or a leader of the pantheon. That deity's worship is just important to the polytheists as the one god to the monotheists, and he/she can be no more subjugated or replaced. Other forms of worship have always been considered a threat in every religion.

Danna wrote:It makes sense that polytheism would be more tolerant. And that Monotheism would be evangelical or crusading. Be hard to test though, since the three big monotheist religions come from one original tradition.

History conflicts entirely with your conclusion.

Hi ABman,

Monotheism has a mixed legacy. On the one hand, it has tended tended toward radical exclusivism, often verging even on violence. On the other hand, those monotheists who emphasize God's radical transcendence find themselves in a position to interpret all religions and religious truths as mere symbols of the divine (who because of his transcendence is beyond true or false representation) and so to see all religions as equally true.

You might be interested in God against the Gods: The History of the War between Monotheism and Polytheism by Jonathan Kirsch.