Why is monotheism an advance on polytheism?

[Afgnwrlrd]

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.

 

[Reinhard]

It's just a European thing I guess. Although the "discovery" of monotheism led to a millennium of dark age in Europe so I don't see it as much of an improvement either.

Besides, most of the monotheistic religions are far from actually being monotheistic. In addition to the creator god they typically recognize at least his evil counterpart such as satan. Christianity's creator god is three separate divine entities, and sects like catholicism recognize thousands of saints, angels etc. "living" divine beings.

 

[warpstorm]

It's just a European thing I guess. Although the "discovery" of monotheism led to a millennium of dark age in Europe so I don't see it as much of an improvement either.

Wow, that is a very simplified (yet still inaccurate) view of how the4 so-called Dark Ages came about. If anything, the fall of Rome a could be the one sentence cause (not the rise of Christianity).

To answer the original question, for the most part the major polytheistic religions formed before the major monotheistic ones. More advanced, no. Later, yes. To capture this RL fact within constraints of of the Civ Tech tree, this means putting them further down the tech tree.

 

[Yusaku Jon III]

From my POV, it looks like the world's religious beliefs evolved along these lines (though Sid and the Firaxis team may alter things for the sake of gameplay simplicity):

Animism --> Shamanism/Meditation --> Polytheism/Monotheism/Existentialism

In Poytheism, Monotheism or Existentialism, you may have a World Religion such as Hinduism, Christianity, Islam or Bhuddaism. It might be a bit simplified, but that's how I feel things evolved over time. In Animism (and it's more advanced Shamanism derivative), you had the forces of nature as the focus of of supernatural powers. Meditation might've been an innovation which separated the spiritual realm from the physical, somewhat more vividly expressed in the manner that modern Bhuddaism does today (of temporal actions having consequences on the spiritual plane, etc). Shamanism evolved into classical Polytheism, today represented by Indian Hinduism and Japanese Shintoism. And Monotheism is represented almost exclusively by the middle-eastern origins of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, where people (often compelled) rejected the notion of multiple dieties in favor of a single entity without equal.

As for the "Which one is right" question, that -- like the arguments over how it is implemented for Civilization gameplay -- is a matter of personal preference (and picking nits).

 

[george_manet]

In civ III, facism comes long after democracy. Does this mean that facism is more "advanced"?

The tech tree is meant to simulate the development of human ideas and technologies chronologically, not to rank them. So all you polytheists out there need not be offended.

 

[george_manet]

In civ III, facism comes long after democracy. Does this mean that facism is more "advanced"?

The tech tree is meant to simulate the development of human ideas and technologies chronologically, not to rank them. So all you polytheists out there need not be offended.

 

[george_manet]

In civ III, facism comes long after democracy. Does this mean that facism is more "advanced"?

The tech tree is meant to simulate the development of human ideas and technologies chronologically, not to rank them. So all you polytheists out there need not be offended.

 

[george_manet]

ooops (x2)

 

[eaglefox]

i don't think monotheism is more advanced than polytheism. a lot of the western people are now starting to turn to the eastern spirituality, meditation, yoga etc for peace. All these things started in Hinduism, a polytheist religion. Even Buddhism has its roots in Hinduism. I don't think its right in today's world to compare religions. Some people find peace in one way while the others use other methods. Religion is but one way. And its just a flavour in Civ - so they aren't really comparing it to each other like they are comparing govts.

 

[Chieftess]

It's just a European thing I guess. Although the "discovery" of monotheism led to a millennium of dark age in Europe so I don't see it as much of an improvement either.

I doubt that's the reason. The barbarians tribes that invaded Rome were less advanced than Rome was, and lacked their architechtural finesse. (Their advantage was that they knew the Roman tactics) So, it took them a while to build up to that level. Besides, the Black Plague probably had something to do with it, too.

 

[Brain]

... and sects like catholicism recognize thousands of saints, angels etc. "living" divine beings.

There is a billion of us worldwide. I hope the moderators will give this guy at least a warning for such inflamatory comments.

 

[troytheface]

lol- missed that "sects" if anything it would be protestant versions of christianity that would be a sect- in so far as i understood it -it was ....Eastern Orthodox (starting with greek christianity)...then the western church split ...(catholicism) then the various protestant variations split from that. Course where i live all these crazy christian groups claim they are the "first" church.
At any rate i think there ought to be some other options instead of a state religion like a Marxist ideology or a new techno religion or something to counter archaic old hat stuff. I want a Civ that has none of this rise from the dead craziness or invisible benvolent man in the sky (although i did have a thought the other day that they might be able to clone a pharaoh from a mummy in which case those pharoahs would have been right to mummify themselves to "live" again- although there is that different time and space issue....) Of course christianity was a sect when it first started- as i assume most religions start out being.

 

[Princeps]

Why is monotheism an advance on polytheism?

Because Civ is Eurocentric.

 

[troytheface]

if i hear "eurocentric" one more time i am going to scream. It has got to be the most overused non thought out phrase on here- if u live in china ur what? "Asiacentric?"
Africcentric if ur in africa? Well duh of course one is going to carry one's societal construct with them-
I guess there are some that think that by studying different societies they have some kind of "i am above such" reasoning in their minds- which is interesting since they will describe this in english.

 

[Princeps]

if i hear "eurocentric" one more time i am going to scream. It has got to be the most overused non thought out phrase on here- if u live in china ur what? "Asiacentric?"
Africcentric if ur in africa? Well duh of course one is going to carry one's societal construct with them-
I guess there are some that think that by studying different societies they have some kind of "i am above such" reasoning in their minds- which is interesting since they will describe this in english.

I'm saying that Civilization has a *too* eurocentric view of history.

For example, the middle ages were a European event and a era of backwardness not a era of scientific advancement, and were *only* in Europe, not in the Middle east, China, mesoamerica, Etc. The Units are of European look, for example the pikeman, knight, medieval infantry, longbowman...

Also, civilization makes European medieval tactics as the best during those times, in reality Europe was backward during the middle ages, warfare in europe was ignorant and too simple. The Roman legions were actually better than the basic medieval units were. Berserks and Knights were rare elite, not the rank-and-file units like the legionaries were. The ''great'' knights in reality would not have a chance against mongol keshiks, or Chinese units of the time.

Polytheism is advanced into Monotheism, because that is what technically happened in Europe and middle east, but it didn't happen in the ''Far-east'' (another Eurocentric word just kidding).

 

[apatheist]

Besides, most of the monotheistic religions are far from actually being monotheistic. In addition to the creator god they typically recognize at least his evil counterpart such as satan. Christianity's creator god is three separate divine entities, and sects like catholicism recognize thousands of saints, angels etc. "living" divine beings.

You say "most" based on some denominations of Christianity? Islam has exactly one god. Judaism has exactly one God. Christianity has one God who has three aspects or something (I don't think even they know exactly). Saints, angels, etc. aren't gods; they are agents imbued with God's power. There's a difference.

I doubt that's the reason. The barbarians tribes that invaded Rome were less advanced than Rome was, and lacked their architechtural finesse. (Their advantage was that they knew the Roman tactics) So, it took them a while to build up to that level. Besides, the Black Plague probably had something to do with it, too.

Surely you know there's a lot more than that. The issue was not scientific advancement of Romans vs. barbarians, it was infrastructure and stability. The Black Plague didn't hit until the mid 14th century, after the "Dark Ages" were practically over.

There is a billion of us worldwide. I hope the moderators will give this guy at least a warning for such inflamatory comments.

I think you are confusing the word "sect" with the word "cult." There is nothing inflammatory about the word "sect." The first definition from dictionary.com is:

A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.

Seems to describe Catholicism pretty well.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Because monotheistic religions tend to be more all-encompassing; in addition to the beleif system, they all have included from the start a complex moral code and guidelines for believers' every step of life. Polytheistic religions, on the other hand, had less of the all-encompassing belief system, at least at the beginning, and only later did they concern themselves with complex moral codes and how believers should live their lives. The Code of Manu has existed for maybe 2000 years; Hinduism has been around for at least twice that. But the Ten Commandments were part of Judaism from the start, and Leviticus was written not too long after.

As for the claim that monotheistic religions all developed among desert shepherds, remember that Christianity arose in Roman-ruled Judea, which was a fairly civilized place, and it separated from Judaism in eminently civilized Greece. And while it is true that most Arabs were shepherds, Muhammad and the people of Mecca and Medina were both reasonably civilized; Meccans were merchants who had a great deal of contact with Persia and Byzantium, while Aws and Khazraj (the two tribes of Medina) were both farming tribes; and the Arabs had long had a good writing system and had a great respect for literature, especially poetry.

 

[troytheface]

hmmm- good points but a bit of speculation there....mongols never conquered europe ...why? alot of reasons i suspect- one of which may have been that their little ponies would have gotten smashed by Richard the Lion Heart-like tactics he learned fighting in the middle east (Saladin had little respect for the west except in one area - he thought they were good fighters.....) - in a little heard of battle he found if he sheilded up his infantry and waited till the horse archers came close he would then send out his clavary- the enemy would disperse and over and over it went...i suspect that something similiar may have happened had the mongols pressed inward- a general would have figured out their weakness and would have compensated- (my speculation) The German woods ain't no flat steppes or middle eastern plains....
In so far as terminology (middle ages) well...yes we use a different calender as well, and language and reasoning ect. not sure what u mean there but they got rid of ages- in so far as a backward time...didn't they invent all kinds of stuff in the middleages- stuff that later ensured western military domination? (and even before that charles martel drove back the moors)?
As to "Far East" ...lol...but once again they probably have some name in china for the "far West" - point is whatever culture ur in is going to have to be the mode of presentation unless u do not want to have an audience-
but they should have eastern looking units i agree- but western percieved eastern looking ....(jk)

 

[Princeps]

Mongol tactics were on a very different level than the European tactics.

Europeans had more advanced maritime technology, but almost everything was invented in the middle-east or far-east at the time.

 

[troytheface]

yes i have read similiar stuff- (and i read that post- thanks by the way)
but once again there is specualtion atop speculation - "they could have pressed forward but......" " they could have beaten japan but...."
i suggest that historians are fond of such speculation but the facts be the facts- they did not conquer europe- and in spite of what any educated sane and thoughtful reseacher may state - i do not think the mongols would have fared so well in areas where their tactics would be compromised-
Of course they could whoop china- similiar tactics- kinda like byzantines using horse armies cause most of their enemies were horse armies-
they could not launch a sea invasion (luck? perhaps- or they had terrible weather guys in their "great" war system) - even the article suggested that their bows would not be effective in the german lands (it stated weather- i suggest woods and topography-and a rising up of all of europe)
I mean how many times can one feint a run away before someone said "hey- its a trick" Seems like Germans were practiced at ambush like when they smashed Varius' army - if an enemy is better than u- u let them beat themselves-like maybe hiding a bunch of longbowmen in the woods opposite from ur main army and when the enemy fients thier retreat they run smack into a hail of arrows- whats the adage- the early victors teach the enemy how to fight- and what happened to the great war machine of the mongols? the Assyrians? Sparta? Rome? ww2 germany? They got whooped- meaning -their tactics did not change where the enemies did- Germany is lucky D Day worked or else they would have been vaporized in a cloud of atomic dust.