Why did monotheism supplant polytheism so dramatically?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

ouside the subcontinent

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Because it's the Truth. It was God's will and He used many to spread His Truth and the Word of Jesus Christ throughout the world.

[RFayette]

Because it's the Truth. It was God's will and He used many to spread His Truth and the Word of Jesus Christ throughout the world.

[Zioneer]

Realistically, because it offered a better, and more achievable "good" afterlife than polytheism. Who wants angry, capricious gods who may curse you to be a bear or flower or something, when you can have a theoretically all-powerful, but also all-loving God instead? If you have Jesus vs Zeus, Jesus looks like a much nicer guy.

[afleitch]

Why is monotheism assumed to equal Christianity in the three answers so far?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

None of these answers really help me. What changed in human society in late antiquity to make monotheism more attractive as a lifestyle choice?

[Frodo]

None of these answers really help me. What changed in human society in late antiquity to make monotheism more attractive as a lifestyle choice?

The conversion of the Emperor Constantine, and his successors' (particularly Theodosius) subsequent efforts through coercion to entrench Christianity as the state ideology of the empire.  Where the elites went, the populace followed.  

And given that the Greco-Roman world was regarded as the pinnacle of civilization, the barbarian tribes that eventually overran the provinces of the western Roman Empire eventually converted as well. 

It is not too dissimilar to how England converted from Catholicism (which was thriving up until King Henry VIII forced the monasteries to close) to Protestantism.  It took a while, but the process of conversion was permanent. 

[Zioneer]

Why is monotheism assumed to equal Christianity in the three answers so far?

Probably because Judaism didn't really supplant polytheism in most of the areas it was in that didn't already have a Jewish-majority population. I mean, take the Khazars for example (the real Khazars, not the white supremacist conspiracy theory version). Their leadership was (Turkish) Jewish, but the population below them didn't really convert, though of course Judaism isn't a conversion-style religion, of course.

And Christianity was already dramatically supplanting polytheism in several regions by the time Islam was popping up. Islam finished supplanting polytheism in many areas Christianity covered or didn't manage to cover, but Christianity began the process of monotheism supplanting polytheism.

[°Leprechaun]

Some "Christians" still believe in the "traditional" "God in three persons" doctrine.
Can anyone defend that as being monotheistic?  I know that the argument is that the trinity is still one God, but that has been and will continue to be challenged by anyone who rejects that doctrine, especially Muslims and Jews to name the most obvious monotheistic western traditions.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

None of these answers really help me. What changed in human society in late antiquity to make monotheism more attractive as a lifestyle choice?

The conversion of the Emperor Constantine, and his successors' (particularly Theodosius) subsequent efforts through coercion to entrench Christianity as the state ideology of the empire.  Where the elites went, the populace followed.  

And given that the Greco-Roman world was regarded as the pinnacle of civilization, the barbarian tribes that eventually overran the provinces of the western Roman Empire eventually converted as well. 

It is not too dissimilar to how England converted from Catholicism (which was thriving up until King Henry VIII forced the monasteries to close) to Protestantism.  It took a while, but the process of conversion was permanent. 

erm, I know how monotheism supplanted polytheism. I'm interested in why.

[°Leprechaun]

It is difficult to know why people are the way that they are, if I understood this I could answer the question. For example, monotheism seems to make more sense. It seems to be more logical. The human mind is capable of seeing the unity in all things. There is also a strange yin yang dichotomy. Everything can be mathematically broken down to ones and zeros. Because philosophically zero is nothing and one is something so you reduce everything to a kind of unity. The human mind is capable of understanding the two principles that constitute the god hypothesis, infinity and unity. We can, for example, see the universe as both infinite and united into one thing or being or whatever you would call it but is would be one universe. So it is with the god hypothesis. Historically, there remains the issue of how this concept developed. It makes sense. If monotheism is better and more logical than polytheism then it all makes sense. As humans have become wiser their religion has become more sophisticated. Ok, I don't know if this comes even close to what you are looking for so you can give me an F on the assignment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

We have very little knowledge of the religious practices (and certainly beliefs!) of ordinary people in Pre-Christian Europe or Arabia you know. It is quite possible that genuine polytheism was surprisingly rare.

[Famous Mortimer]

Polytheism is kind of petty. It's hardly even supernatural. Zeus isn't even really a god in the sense that we understand God now. He's just some dude who's stronger and more powerful than you and has a longer lifespan.

[angus]

I'm interested in why.

As I understand it, the choice for the native peoples of the Americas was to accept the god of Spain, or to be killed in some horrific way.  Similarly, the choice in the arab world was to accept the god of Mohammed, or to be killed in some horrific way.  Similarly, the peoples of Judea and environs were given the choice by the Hasmonean dynasty to accept the Jewish god or be killed in some horrific way.  Seems like a pretty easy choice to me.

Of course, not all conversions to monotheism were forced.  In the later days of Rome, I think it was probably the politically expedient thing to do.  In India (especially in those parts that we now call Pakistan and Bangladesh), conversion from Hindu's caste system to the more egalitarian Islam was an easy choice for the lowest on the social ladder.  

I'm not sure what's going on in the Far East.  Some Chinese people living in the USA tell me that their native religions are just too depressing.  Buddha's sounds much like an NPR news program (the talking head telling you, in a soothing voice, "the world is a terrible place and there's nothing that you can do about it, so you might as well accept it.")  Dao is just about as cheerful.  On the other hand, monotheism--at least as they are introduced to it in Megachurches--is all about scones and coffee given out at the door, coloring books for the children, and a big hall with a long-haired dudes playing electric guitars and drums and loudly belting out versus of love and peace and foregiveness.  I think it just appeals.  I also noticed some fairly new mosques in bigger chinese cities.  I think that brand of monotheism also has its appeal, mainly due to the low maintenance-character of Islam.  It's not like becoming a Catholic, for example.  No classes to take, no loss of blood, no ceremony, you don't even have to attend a ceremony to become a muslim.  Basically, all you have to do is say something and really mean it.  Then you're in.  You get to wear stylish headwear and a comfy white robe.  Best of all, you get the entire month of Ramadan off.  Of course, you'll have to forego the pork fu young and certain shellfish, but the cool hats are worth it alone.

Here's a true story:  about five years ago my wife started to get into watching Joel Osteen.  It was sort of annoying, but I figured it was harmless.  One day, I happened to be in the living room and heard him going on about "God wants you to be rich."  Seriously.  Immediately, my wife said something like, "see, this is why I like the American religion."  Really?  I start to try to explain, but decide to let it go.  we must pick our battles.  The episode did clarify to me that I was going to be the one who had to give the boy a rudimentary education in the basic tenets of the various religions out there.  I've bought some books on the subject and we discuss it informally from time to time, lest any misconceptions arise.  Anyway, apparently the monotheistic god wants you to be rich, and I do think this has great appeal in the modern Far East.

Still, I'd guess that forced conversions over the centuries probably account for most of the supplanting of polytheism by monotheism in the history of the world.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not only is that not true for America but the bit in bold is actually absurdly false. The earliest Islamic conquistadors actually discouraged conversions among the conquered and regularly tried to maintain good relations with people of the book (i.e. Christians and Jews), certainly far more so than their Christian contemporaries (consider the history of the Jews in Spain, Moorish rule, while certainly sectarian and frequently bigoted, was bookmarked between two extremely anti-Semitic states of Spain under the Visigoths and the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella, the latter of which expelled all the Jews from its territory almost immediately after the defeating the last Islamic Kingdom on the peninsula). The Islamization of what is now the 'Arab World' was a very slow process and not even complete today when Arab Christians and the Yazidi frequently appear in the news. I have, for example, seen the period after the Mongol Conquests cited as for when Syria first achieved an Islamic majority.

While Al's point is important, I want to mention as a something towards an answer to this question the power of states and the power of religious infrastructure. Centralized states from the Early Medieval period onwards until very recently regularly enforced conformity of their institutions with one or other religious code. This meant to get anywhere in the top layer of society where there was centralized power one had to conform and belong into the religious beliefs of that society. In this sense it didn't matter what the hoi polloi were (and throughout this whole period the extent to which they were 'non-Pagan' is questionable as far as that question is meaningful), the levers of power were headed by institutions which promoted one doctrine above all, and those who objected were, at best, suspect. Furthermore, powerful states like the Byzantines, the Franks, the Abbasids, and, later on, the Spanish and the Safavids could and did conquer large territories upon which they could impose their doctrines. Finally on this point, other 'Pagan' states frequently looked to the powerful centralized states and their ruling classes, seeing them as examples to emulate, took up and borrowed many aspects of those states, including their religious doctrines. In Europe there was the conversion of Kievan Rus and Bulgaria to Orthodoxy by rulers wishing to copy the Byzantines and the final state (note: I say state) to convert was Lithuania at the end of the 14th Century after the marriage of its King to the Queen of Poland. Lithuania was the more powerful state of the two but there was no question of Poland converting to paganism for many reasons (one very important such thing is that Pagans rarely did 'conversions') as Poland was connected to a vast European social network - 'Christendom' - while Lithuania was an isolated state surrounded by the culturally hostile. Around the world, leaders converted as they could tap into social networks of immense power; the conversion of the Malays and Indonesian to Islam was part of this process. This should not be read that their motives in converting were mercenary and did not 'really' convert only that their conversion was seen as by them as a project of cultural affiliation towards more powerful (whether in terms of political or social power) groups.

This brings me onto my second point, religious infrastructure. Across a wide area where there was one dominant religion there was a conformity of structures relating to religion. Despite being in different states the Catholic church in Toledo and the Catholic church in Warsaw were part of a single organization with a single structure which used the same language and had the same prayers and the same (or almost the same) intellectual rhetoric and assumptions. The same was true for Mosques (although obviously power was not quite so formalized as it was in the RCC) across the Arab World and I guess, although here I know much less and there was more local variation, Buddhist Monasteries across South and East Asia. This conformism is one of the reasons why issues around heresy were so important, it threatened the unity of the unified body by its clash of differing doctrines and practices (and frequently languages and organizational structure). Churches, Mosques, and Monasteries were very powerful bodies who were the center of the community and were, in a lot of this period, the best schools around. It is notable how in Early Medieval Europe how much literacy only really appears when Christianity arrives, especially in the regions that were never part of the Roman Empire like the East or Ireland. The spread of the Arab conquests allowed a single form of cultural expression to dominate across North Africa and the Middle East. To leaders and upper classes (in the 'Arab World' all leaders after c.650AD were Muslims) affiliating yourself with a wider culture that provided trained intellectuals who could connected themselves to a much wider world than was the case under 'Paganism', which was usually a very localist form of religious expression. Again, social networks.

I think that's a major part of the explanation though it is rather Eurocentric and ignores cases like the disappearance of Hinduism from South East Asia except in weird outliers like Bali or the spread of Christianity in Africa since the 19th Century (although then again, perhaps not, but I'm not read enough to judge). Most of all, there is the still case of how 'Hinduism' survived in India or how religion was never formalized in China or Japan (until 1868, but even then...). However even in those cases I would say states were important, they clearly were in the Islamic conversion of parts of South Asia but no state in India, except briefly Aurangzeb and he failed, ever tried to impose religious conformity over the whole landmass, the place was nearly always too politically fractured for that anyway (although this might not stop the BJP from trying in the future). In China and Japan state Confucianism ebbed and flowed between tolerance and hostility towards religious doctrine, but never did it managed to replace state Confucianism, which took up many of the roles that Christianity and Islam did in their particular spheres (or at least in China in which I know more of, Madeleine can fill in the details wrt Japan).

[angus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not only is that not true for America but the bit in bold is actually absurdly false.

I take your point about forced conversion being technically forbidden by Islam, but the forced conversions were real.  I mentioned the attraction of Islam by lower-caste Hindus, but there were threats of death to Hindus as well.  As for the Americans being converted by the Spanish, I think it was the norm, and not the exception.  Once the gold and silver started flowing in, the pope became very comfortable with the enslavement of Christians.

I don't know whether forced conversions represent most of the trend asked about in the OP, as I said it was a guess, but I expect it accounts for a good many.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not only is that not true for America but the bit in bold is actually absurdly false.

I take your point about forced conversion being technically forbidden by Islam, but the forced conversions were real.  I mentioned the attraction of Islam by lower-caste Hindus, but there were threats of death to Hindus as well.  As for the Americans being converted by the Spanish, I think it was the norm, and not the exception.  Once the gold and silver started flowing in, the pope became very comfortable with the enslavement of Christians.

I don't know whether forced conversions represent most of the trend asked about in the OP, as I said it was a guess, but I expect it accounts for a good many.

Ummm.... Have you completely misread my post. I said nothing about the prohibition on Forced conversions, I was merely explaining that what you described wasn't empirically the case.

[angus]

you used the word "discouraged."  I discretely suggested a more accurate term, or at least attempted discretion.  It was prohibited, and I'll not argue with you about that.  It also happened.  And it happened even more in the Western Hemisphere by priests working with conquistadores who had very little interest in religion, and the more I think about it the more I understand that I'm right.  The whole conversion in this half of the world happened in a couple of centuries via forced conversion.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

you used the word "discouraged."  I discretely suggested a more accurate term, or at least attempted discretion.  It was prohibited, and I'll not argue with you about that.  It also happened.  And it happened even more in the Western Hemisphere by priests working with conquistadores who had very little interest in religion, and the more I think about it the more I understand that I'm right.  The whole conversion in this half of the world happened in a couple of centuries via forced conversion.

No, the Rashiduns and the Umayyads were very ambivalent about people converting, any sort of conversion, forced or not. This is partly because a lot of early Islam was quite Arab exclusivist and also that state finances depended on taxes taken from non-Muslims.

Of course, this is different from saying forced conversions did not occur. They did. But they weren't a major part of the early expansion of Islam, which even in the territory of the initial Arab conquests was a centuries long process.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam#Phase_I:_Early_Caliphs_and_Umayyads_.28610.E2.80.93750_CE.29

[ingemann]

None of these answers really help me. What changed in human society in late antiquity to make monotheism more attractive as a lifestyle choice?

I'm not sure anybody can give you a real answer (except BRTD of course), but I think Famous Mortimer have a point, polytheistic gods was not really gods as we understand it at first, they was just more powerful and amoral beings, who acted out. As society became complex and we saw the development of a true intellectual class these entities was transformed from powerful individuals to archetypes. But Greco-Roman mythology was lousy to develop into archetypes, because of how early their tales was written down. Yahweh on the other hand was much better as the Jews and Christians didn't (usual) describe a being like Zeus, a being driven by humanity's basest desires, but a more being whose acts we don't fully understand.

[Small L]

I think one possible reason is that polytheistic religions tend to be very inclusive, readily incorporating new deities into their pantheons. As Gully pointed out, the pagans didn't really seek out converts. This jives well with their inclusivity. Rather than convert a stranger to my religion of 20+ gods, I'm much more inclined to add their gods to my collection, or even just assume we worship the same god(s) by different names and call it a day.

On the other hand, if I'm a monotheist I probably see the worship of anything other than the one God as a pretty serious offense—or at least a huge waste of time. I'll want to make other people monotheists too and I certainly won't like the idea of adding their gods to my pokemon collection.

That's one of the reasons monotheistic religions were so proselytizing. The stakes were higher for them.

[Famous Mortimer]

Adding to my earlier point, in one sense, polytheism really HASN'T been supplanted. Again, the current notion of God and how to worship him is really a recent development, a couple of centuries BC around the time the Wisdom books of the Old Testament were written. Prior to that, the idea of worship was very different. Today, kissing up to your boss or really liking Obama or Trump would probably be indistinguishable from worship to people from several millennia ago.   

[angus]

Tetro,

It's an interesting article, particularly the bit about hostility among Arabs to conversion, forced or voluntary, "because new Muslims diluted the economic and status advantages of the Arabs."  Moreover, the Prophet has prophesied against it, but we have a situation in which the edicts contradict the history.  This is not unusual:  people pick which parts of their religion justifies their causes.  

The Qur’an offers this wisdom:  "There is no compulsion in religion, the path of guidance stands out clear from error" [2:256] and [60:8]. So we can conclude that Allah does not approve of forced conversion.  But that same holy book states that Muhammad should "Remind them, for you are only one who reminds." [88:21] and “Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and beware of evil: if you do turn back, then know that it is Our Messenger’s duty to proclaim (the message) in the clearest manner." [5:92]

I think might be these latter passages cited when thousands of girls every year are forced into Islamic marriages in various parts of Asia and Africa, and in the conversions that go with them.  

I agree that the forced conversions to Islam were tiny in number compared to the mass forced conversion of the indigenous peoples of the Americas to Catholicism.  The article you posted states that "conversion by force, while not unknown in Muslim countries, was, in fact, rare" and this is not surprising to me, but it has occurred, and still occurs.  That, combined with the great many forced conversions by the Spaniards and Portuguese, will account for a great deal of the supplanting asked about by the OP.  

Obviously forced conversion does not account for the many recent conversions in all parts of Asia to Christianity, but I think there is a different dynamic there.  The average annual growth rate for Christianity in Nepal and in China is above 10% now, and it is above 5% is Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Mongolia, Bahrain, and Cambodia.  A number of African countries also have a very high growth rate for christianity, although in some cases, that is not conversion from poly- to monotheism, but from one flavor of monotheism to another, which may be tangential to the discussion.

[Frodo]

ouside the subcontinent

I know you're not referencing Hinduism specifically, but I think it's important to point out that Hinduism started out as polytheistic, as seen early on in the Rigveda, where they just assigned gods to everything that existed in nature, but as time went on it has become more monotheistic as generally accepted religous philosophy (AFAIK) says all these gods are merely expression of one true God.


So while the polytheistic cultural and worship traditions are kept alive, it's not 100% accurate to describe Hinduism as polytheistic. Panentheism is probably a better term to encapsulate it, but polytheistic and atheistic interpretations are not unheard of.

Why did Hinduism go from polytheism to more monotheistic teachings, as the world in general did? I have no idea. Sorry! I read a totally unsupported claim somewhere else that it might be because people are lazy as hell and monotheism is "easier".

Did you mean henotheistic, by chance?  

[Intell]

Because of colonialism and imperialism, if that's what you mean.