Isn't any monotheism more likely to attain popularity than a polytheism?

Question

Isn't more than one deity too much for most believers to manage?
Doesn't monotheism by contrast offer convenience?
Are most humans too lazy to worship multiple deities?

Does the relative "primitiveness" of a simple versus complex mythology have parallels in the primitiveness of the cultures that created both?

Answer 1

for the same reason, it's easier to rally people to kill in the name of a monotheistic faith. "God is Great" is more powerful than "Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, Durga, Kali, Krishna ...." oh hell, forget it!

Answer 2

Well, monotheism has really only been around for about 3000 years. For roughly 100,000 years prior to that, as best we can tell, most cultures worshiped multiple deities. So I don't think convenience or laziness is the issue. I think it is more of an issue of hierarchy and power. For example, even with multiple deities, there was usually some kind of ranking. But still, if a leader or leading group aligned themselves with that deity, there were others that could be turned to in order to undermine their power. With one deity, it makes it easier for one person or group to claim divinity and others to really have little recourse. Just my rambling thoughts.

Answer 3

Monotheism is more likely to be prevalent, because in Monotheism, there is only one god, one way. If there is only one way, then all other ways are false. This permits the leaders of a monotheistic religion to feel justified converting everyone to their beliefs. Under the best of conditions (i.e. Christianity) this results in obssessive proselyting, and under the worst conditions (i.e. Islam) forced conversions or heavy persecution of other religions.

Polytheism views deity as a divine chorus rather than one supreme being. This makes it difficult for any religious leader to try and force their beliefs on other. If there is more than one god, there is more than one way. Moreover, the concept of a group of superior beings that can sit together in one accord creates a climate of cooperation and equality within those communities. The community will model their behavior around their religious beliefs.

History shows that tyranny goes hand-in-hand with monotheism. Even in Rome with its many gods, the emperor held power by claiming himself a god. The same goes for the Pharaohs of Egypt and the Tyrants of Babylon and Sumeria.

In Greece, the cradle of democracy they had a whole number of gods. The Magna Carta was born out of the tribal customs and philosophies of the Anglo-Saxons and Celts of Great Britain, both derived from nature-based polytheism.

Answer 4

I can agree with your first question, but you lost me with the second addition.

Yes, Monotheism is far more a logical conclussion of belief than polytheism. And I think it has nothing to do with laziness but rather logic
Simply because the term God is "absolute autority and eternal rule" ... how can a deity be termed 'god' if it is limited by the eternal existance of another deity??

Wish more people would see it that way you do.

God Bless.

Answer 5

Its not an issue of complexitiy, its an issue of what science has done for us.

That is, it used to be that EVERYTHING was mysterious ... why does a tree grow?, where to ocean waves come from? What in tarnation is lightning?

A primative people will basically look at everything as a potential source of personality or mysteriousness ... and call it a deity.

The more science you have, the more the individual actions of different things seems less mysterious and the more the over-all beauty of the system takes on its own Godliness.

Answer 6

I must agree that Monotheism would be more convenient than Polytheism, but I wouldn't say that it is because we are getting lazy. Since today, we want things simple, so be a religion with only one God, rather than a religion with Gods that outnumber the flowers on your wallpaper.

Answer 7

You don't choose how many "gods" you intend to worship . Throughout most of human history , many gods were worshipped. The Greeks had many, the Romans had many, same for the Egyptians. The Germanics worshipped multiple gods, etc . etc . If your arguement holds water, they would have dumped all but one - - - they didn't.
Hinduism still has many gods , if they like it that way, good for them.
If you're looking for ease and convenience, why do you suggest dumping all but one ? Dump that one too, and have real convenience.

Answer 8

Monotheism evolved in response to population growth increasing the contact between tribes. It was a method of unifying the diparate tribes into one larger community.

Answer 9

Certainly, since multiple deities implies multiple sacrifices!

Answer 10

Not necessarily. Look at Mormonism. It is a polytheistic religion and has 6 or 8 million deceived followers who all think they will become gods.

Answer 11

It's actually more believable to have many "less" powerful gods than one "all-knowing, all-powerful" god. To attribute that much power to only one being is incomprehensible. To split it amongst, say 20, "lesser" gods is much more believable.