Why is monotheism an advance on polytheism?

[Janos]

Sorry, but I don't see the bold font and stars next to your name, so you're not entitled to make such a call. The discussion remains on-topic as long as the mods allow it.

I was having a debate with Brennan, not yourself, so i am entitled to make such a call on the discussion myself and Brennan were having. I simply stated i would not take part in the discussion because it is not the time nor the place to discuss such matters, "Brain".

 

[brennan]

No need to get waspish.

Feel free to email or pm me if you wish to carry on the 'discussion'.

 

[frekk]

Apparently the fact that he is a Christian means that he thinks Monotheism naturally precedes Polytheism

Well, thats simply absurd. The evidence is clear that polytheism precedes monotheism, even in the historical record of the ancient Hebrews, who did not suddenly appear on the scene with a fully fledged monotheistic religious construct, but evolved it over time.

And to suggest that the crusades were some kind of 'blip' on the peaceful face of Christianity is absurd, wars had been endorsed by popes for centuries for vaguely religious reasons.

Centuries? The Norman conquest which you used as an example occurred in 1066, which predates the Crusades by only a few years (First Crusade began in 1080). Anyway, the argument wasn't that it was a blip which suggests it was something that went away ... it was a course change, a huge reworking of the way Christianity had worked up to that point. Papal endorsements of military adventures had, prior to the 11th century, been rather rare: and in any case a papal endorsement, and a papal call to arms, are two utterly different things altogether. The decision to go to war is more or less a secular one in a papal-endorsed war, whereas the Crusades mark a decision to go to war originating in religious offices. The vast majority of papal-endorsed wars occurred from the mid-11th century on, and there are only a few examples from before this time. Pre-11th century Christianity was rather peaceful, at least the version of it practiced by the masses (arguably the aristocratic version was not). But starting around the time of the Crusades (the Norman Conquest is another legitimate example), sometime in the mid-11th century, the popular Christianity of the peasants began to acquire a militant bent and commoner populations could be mobilized for war through religious appeals. Prior to this point, Christianity among commoner populations was a strange beast, a weird mix of pagan customs, folklore and Catholicism. The church during this time had a very difficult time suppressing pagan celebrations, enforcing orthodoxy, preventing these populations from worshipping Saints as patron deities, and so on, and had a difficult enough time simply keeping the religious practices and beliefs of the peasantry in line with that of the church. The Pax Dei movement is more or less the first sign of a truly popular and widespread Christian appeal outside of the ranks of the elites, and was quite characteristic of the popular form of Christianity in the early medieval period. It was itself an attempt to prevent the utter breakdown of the aristocratic Christian social order after the accession of Hugh Capet and the collapse of the old Carolingian dynasty. The peace assemblies, essentially ecstatic rites conducted around the presence of a relic, promoted a pacifist version of Christianity centered around substitutes for pagan celebrations, because the nobles and the church feared a breakdown of the prevailing social order and the movement of Western European populations out of their orbit of influence, probably attended by mass and violent disorder - promoting peace as a value was a way of pacifying unruly folk populations. So, the militant version of Christianity which appeared in the mid-11th century was a drastic alteration of the way in which the Church related to the common classes and the kind of messages it sent them.

 

[brennan]

Pre-11th century Christianity was rather peaceful, at least the version of it practiced by the masses (arguably the aristocratic version was not). But starting around the time of the Crusades (the Norman Conquest is another legitimate example), sometime in the mid-11th century, the popular Christianity of the peasants began to acquire a militant bent and commoner populations could be mobilized for war through religious appeals. Prior to this point, Christianity among commoner populations was a strange beast, a weird mix of pagan customs, folklore and Catholicism. The church during this time had a very difficult time suppressing pagan celebrations, enforcing orthodoxy, preventing these populations from worshipping Saints as patron deities, and so on, and had a difficult enough time simply keeping the religious practices and beliefs of the peasantry in line with that of the church... So, the militant version of Christianity which appeared in the mid-11th century was a drastic alteration of the way in which the Church related to the common classes and the kind of messages it sent them.

So what you are saying is that as soon as the Church finished getting a grip on the people of Europe, it marched them off on a holy war; before this they weren't fully Christian; is this right? I agree. I mean let's face it, Europe in the 'Dark Ages' was hardly in a position to fight an intercontinental/interfaith war was it? It just wasn't organised or advanced enough following the collapse of Rome what with the influx of Germanic tribes from the East, and then the Vikings raiding and then invading across the North. It was not until Europe was overwhelmingly Christian and more prosperous and stable that the Crusades occurred, they could not have happened before.

 

[frekk]

So what you are saying is that as soon as the Church finished getting a grip on the people of Europe, it marched them off on a holy war; before this they weren't fully Christian; is this right?

A bit simplified ... but not too too far from what happened. In local areas (principally Latin Europe) the Church had the population's religious practices more or less under control for many centuries without asking them to go on holy wars, though it occasionally endorsed one or the other side in a secular conflict. And even in France, Germany, England, etc, the masses had been nominally Christian for a while, it's just that it's very questionable what this actually meant since they were still exhibiting strong vestiges of pagan practices and beliefs often at odds with the most basic points of Christian theology. Strange things happened in the early years. For instance, to wipe out the worship of pagan gods who tended to be patrons of this or that (usually trades and professions, or regions), the Church substituted Saints in many cases. Predictably, they would then worship the Saints rather than Jesus or God.

But, you could say that after the Pax Dei movement had been around for a century or so, that is in the early 11th century, the Church had more or less achieved doctrinal religious supremacy, it had finally managed to impose a meaningful degree of orthodoxy over religious practices on (most) of Western Europe (though the Danish and Scandinavians, and therefore England to a degree, was still a bit sketchy). And it was at this point that the phenomena of consistent religious militancy from Catholic Rome begins and is something the masses were paying attention to.

 

[Israelite9191]

I know I am re hashing something but I noticed a couple things were not mentioned in regards to the Mongols:

1. Mongol expansion west began with the annexation of Uigur north of Tibet and the conquest of Kwarizm, both motivated by the Mongols wanting complete control of the Silk Road trade, which they achieved. This control united East and West for the first time allowing Europe and Arabia to gain easier access to China and vis versa, this lead to such inventions as canonns and the introduction to Europe of innoculation.

2. The westward expansion from Kwarizm stoped after the conquest of Hungary, southern Poland, Russsia, and most of the rest of Eastern Europe, because the Mongols realized the grass was NOT greener on the other side. They expected that after decimating the thoughroughly "modern" European forces of Hungary and making it past Eastern Europe they would fing a sort of Euro-China. Instead, they found the most backwards civilization they had yet encountered whose only benefit to the rest of the world aft the conquests was the bell making techniques used for making cannons. With such poverty and filth in front of them, Ghenghis Khan (he was still with them at this point) decided to turn around and finish off China.

As for examples of Europe's backwardness:

1. People still literally threw human waste out their window, in much of Greater Arabia, Turkistan, and the Far East, sewage systems were already in use.

2. At the exact same time that Europeans were purging themselves of the "infidel" Jews, the Mongols were hosting an organized debate between representatives of Budhism, Islam, and Christianity witnessed by some Italian or Potuguese whose name I have forgot.

3. While in Europe it torture of foreign dignitaries was almost expected, Ghenghis Khan invented diplomatic imunity.

4. In Europe, as well as much of Greater Arabia and Turkistan, it was common practice that if a noble were caught in battle they were ransomed or just let go while their common born soldiers were slaughtered no matter how loyal or valliant. The Mongols instead generally killed anyone captured in battle who just gave up and gave a "noble's" death to those who fought valiantly.

P.S.- Ghenghis Khan and the Mongols did not carry out mass exterminations of cities or make piles of skull, that would be their heirs, the Turks of Timur-Lenk

Source- "Ghenghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World"

 

[Crayton]

Israelite9191: Thanks for reminding us of the Mongols and the Silk Road.
I've heard that, after the Mongols established dominion over the road, a man could walk from Baghdad to Beijing with a golden plate balanced on his head without being harassed by vandals (not the German Vandals).

Kublai Khan invited scholars of many religions to China so that they could showcase their faith. This fits quite nicely in Civilization 4. Buddhism was adopted, I think.

The Mongols gave gunpowder to Christians and Muslims of the West. Good thing this was mostly after the crusades.

The Mongols deserve to be included, by my book.
I know I remarked about the Khan's yurt of a palace: but, hey!
Civilization is more than brick and mortar.

 

[REX GRACCHVS]

um, no its not actually, civilized actually means living in cities, though of course then one could point to the case of the wooden city of novgorod....

 

[frekk]

But the Mongol Empire at its height was quite civilized. Kublai Khan certainly didn't live in a yurt.

However, I would disagree with Israelite that Europe was as primitive as he states. Medieval society was much more complex and advanced than people often give it credit. They may have pitched sewage out the window in some areas, but, the Aztecs had running water (showers, even) and sanitation systems yet were obviously quite technologically inferior to the Europeans, who lacked such things at the time of the Conquest. Europe was certainly dirty and not as wealthy as the East, but I wouldn't say primitive.

As well, the Mongols did carry out mass exterminations of cities. Juvaini - a Persian historian and eyewitness - wrote accounts of slaughters on a scale unimaginable in the ancient world, and archaeological evidence confirms a kind of holocaust in the khanates with estimates of as high as 20 million killed, mostly in China, India, and the Near East.

 

[HourlyDaily]

This is a great thread. Thanks Israelite for your post. I needed to be reminded to read that work. I knew that most of Eastern Europe was particularly backwards by the time that the Khans were conducting their campaigns but I didn't know where they actually stopped advancing into Europe. Isn't it true that they just camped out in front of walled cities and patiently built a wall and walkway of equivalent height to fire arrows or "climb" the walls. The Europeans had no idea what hit them.

Frekk, your last post on the Scandinavian influence is very interesting. I'm up to book 2 in the Viking trilogy by Tim Severin and it deals with the adaptation of Christian beliefs by Norse rulers and the battle with the old ways. If I am right on this, the Pope or Rome never had any real power through the Dark Ages until the emergence of the pious Normans who effectively backed Rome wherever they went.

EDIT: Anyone care to construct a Civ 3 style timeline to show who was at the height of their power, in what fields and when?

 

[frekk]

Frekk, your last post on the Scandinavian influence is very interesting. I'm up to book 2 in the Viking trilogy by Tim Severin and it deals with the adaptation of Christian beliefs by Norse rulers and the battle with the old ways. If I am right on this, the Pope or Rome never had any real power through the Dark Ages until the emergence of the pious Normans who effectively backed Rome wherever they went.

Yes and no ... the church had plenty of influence among the nobility and rulers of the Continent at some periods long before the Normans. For instance, Charlemagne and the Pope effectively backed each other quite strongly, same thing before that with Pippin the Younger. However, with the collapse of the Carolingian dynasty, papal influence waned to the point that the papacy during the 10th century is commonly referred to as the "pornocracy" (no, I'm not kidding! Look it up!) either because the Popes were under the influence of powerful women such as Theodora of Rome, or because the papacy was forced to prostitute its favours to nobles and warlords in order to survive. It struggled with the Holy Roman Emperors to maintain its sovereignty until the late 14th century, so the Normans were certainly one of the Pope's key backers (or was it the other way around? Hard to say....)

 

[sassoundwave]

Orgins of Monotheism: pastorial cultures who envisioned a "sheperd" god
Orgins of Polytheism: agricultural cultures who worship a seperate god for each seperate contributing factor to the harvest (ie: rain, sun)

Monotheism requires Meditation or Polytheism. Why? When has a polytheistic culture independantly converted to monotheism? How much medititation does it take to envision a divine watchman? If you ask me, Polytheism involves alot more meditation then monotheism.

If we are to agree that farming cultures are "more advanced" then nomadic ones, then wouldn't polytheism be more advanced then monotheism?

I am aware that this game is being marketed to a largely christian audiance, but it seems stupid that the civ developement team would actually suck up to their target audiance so much.

Well that is not so difficult to answer. Every monotheistic region was once polytheistic. History shows that mankind moved from polytheism towards monotheism, so it is an advance.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Would you say Hinduism is inferior to Christianity or Islam because it's polytheistic ? What about religion such as Buddhism where Buddha isn't really a God, he's more a meditator. And even worse, what about philosophical religions such as confucianism or taoism which doesn't truely designate any God at all.

There's clearly a eurocentric bias in here. Well, I agree that Civilization is deeply eurocentric in general, and I would even say Civilization is americanocentric in many aspects. Indeed, if you check post-Renaissance wonders, you'll realize many are British. If you check 20th century wonders, they are all American. How could we say Shakespeare's theatre is "superior" to Renaissance Italy jewels ? Why would it be Newton's University and not Pascal's University ? Why nothing is dedicated to philosophers who changed the world such as Voltaire or Kant ?

Anyway, this doesn't really matter because we're simply talking about a game and nothing more. So there's no reason to deny that bias which exists, but there's also no better reason to denounce that bias as heretic because there will always be a bias anyway. It's just a game !

 

[I am the Future]

First religions with a god were polytheisms. so make the first Civ Religion with gods should be polytheism

 

[Afgnwrlrd]

Akhenaten.

Akhenaten was an egyptian pharoh in 1330 BC and was monotheistic. He worshiped Aten, a sun god. This may or may not be relevant.

 

[brennan]

The which came first argument was carried out several pages ago, apparently both Monotheistic and Polytheistic religions appeared spontaneously, there is no tendency for one to arise from the other or vice versa (in antiquity of course), although it seems obvious that two Monotheistic religions in particular (Islam and Christianity/Judaism) rather took control in the Dark-Middle Ages.

I think that the Civ3 tech tree models this fact in a 'eurocentric' manner, however, rather than meaning to say that this is definitely the way it always happens; it simply results from the use of a tech tree. After all, if the game has techs following one after each other then there are always going to be historical inaccuracies. To decide that the devs are saying specifically that one is better than the other is to overanalyse a simple system that has obvious drawbacks.

 

[Jamesds]

Anyway, this doesn't really matter because we're simply talking about a game and nothing more. So there's no reason to deny that bias which exists, but there's also no better reason to denounce that bias as heretic because there will always be a bias anyway. It's just a game !

Very well said! Whatever we believe came first, etc is our opinion - whatever side CIV4 designers decide to adopt is not going to make me angry because it goes against my belief.

Well this is the post in question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesds
I guess this arguement is like "who came first: the chicken or the egg?".
Being a Christian, I think differently than people of other beliefs (I am of the opinion that monotheism came first)


Apparently the fact that he is a Christian means that he thinks Monotheism naturally precedes Polytheism (very Descarte) and that (all?) other beliefs would view things differently.

I found this arrogant and lacking in explanation.

I did not want to come across as arrogant, and was simply stating my opinion and view on this matter. Maybe I should have said that "Being a Christian, I am more inclined to think that monotheism came first." If you are a Christian, you probably believe that Adam was the first man, he believed in God - his creator, and therefore had (as you might call it) a monotheistic religion.
I respect the fact that other people have different, and sometimes contrasting beliefs, and want to correct the view that 'Christians think differently. We don't think differently, we just believe in different things, and I would like you to respect that.

Someone said that Abraham came from a settlement where they worshipped the sun/moon god. If they were a polytheistic religion then I guess it is fair to say that polytheistic religions were developed first, by people, which makes a good argument for polytheism being before monotheism in civ4.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In Civ1, 2 and 3 I will agree that Monotheism was being portrayed as an advance on Polytheism-which was very Eurocentric. However, in Civ4 monotheism is no longer a prerequisite for overall game advancement, so they are merely treating it as a 'theological branching off'. Historically, at least two of the Monotheistic Faiths (Islam and Judaism) developed in societies which were actually adherents to Polytheism-hence the idea that monotheism could develop from polytheistic belief-though is not required to do so everytime.
Hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[brennan]

I totally respect your right to believe whatever you like. Just not to claim that your viewpoint is naturally better than any other. A claim to the intellectual high ground must be based upon argument, not on a claim of Authority based on the beliefs you are arguing from.

I apologise if I seemed rude, but I was attempting to make the point that all religions appear to share some common beliefs regarding the way people should behave towards each other, and then had (historically as well as contemporarily) a tendency to act in an entirely contrary manner to anyone who did not also buy into the mystical 'mumbo jumbo' that went with it, such as a belief in Jesus, the holiness of the Temple of the Rock etc. I admit I was a *little* tactless but I wish people wouldn't take such arguments as attempts to be insulting and start throwing around comments about 'ignorance' which can have no logical basis. At this stage my 'discussion' was certainly with Janos and not yourself.

And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, one girl sitting on her own in a small cafe in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.

 

[sassoundwave]

Would you say Hinduism is inferior to Christianity or Islam because it's polytheistic ? What about religion such as Buddhism where Buddha isn't really a God, he's more a meditator. And even worse, what about philosophical religions such as confucianism or taoism which doesn't truely designate any God at all.

There's clearly a eurocentric bias in here. Well, I agree that Civilization is deeply eurocentric in general, and I would even say Civilization is americanocentric in many aspects. Indeed, if you check post-Renaissance wonders, you'll realize many are British. If you check 20th century wonders, they are all American. How could we say Shakespeare's theatre is "superior" to Renaissance Italy jewels ? Why would it be Newton's University and not Pascal's University ? Why nothing is dedicated to philosophers who changed the world such as Voltaire or Kant ?

Anyway, this doesn't really matter because we're simply talking about a game and nothing more. So there's no reason to deny that bias which exists, but there's also no better reason to denounce that bias as heretic because there will always be a bias anyway. It's just a game !

It not really has anything to do with being superior or inferior. It is just a simple fact that humans first prayed to multiple gods. So that was the first form of religion. Monotheism came later.
And if I remember well on the techchart. Monotheism is not an upgrade for polytheism. That would mean that temples would be replaced by Cathedrals, which is not the case.