Is Monotheism Progress?

[Radrook]

Progress would depend on the type of god that replaced the many. A thousand benevolent gods replaced by a malevolent one wouldn't be progress at all.

 

[Cavemonster]

I'm surprised no one has touched on how monotheism really was progress.

When natural phenomena are created by many gods, at odds with each other who are themselves somewhat short sighted and petty, there's no reason to spend so much energy looking to deeply understand the laws of nature, because those laws are subject to the arbitrary emotions of powerful individuals.

Sure you can do some basic explanations of why winter happens, or why the Nile floods predictably, but the message in most polytheistic belief systems is that there is a lot that is driven by whim and caprice.

Monotheism lays the groundwork for induction. You can only vaguely predict what happens next from what happened last if you've got a pantheon arguing up there, but when everything is layed out according to plan, and the whole working of the universe is the result of a single, supposedly rational mind, the idea of making deeper predictions based on past experience makes more sense.

The idea that nature itself follows a plan is far more conducive to empiricism than the idea that nature arises from invisible petty rivalry.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Sure you can do some basic explanations of why winter happens, or why the Nile floods predictably, but the message in most polytheistic belief systems is that there is a lot that is driven by whim and caprice.

Which to me seems far more accurate and progressive than the common idiocy we have due to the "planning" of the individual one god.

Evoultion vs Creationisim rings a bell?

Monotheism lays the groundwork for induction. You can only vaguely predict what happens next from what happened last if you've got a pantheon arguing up there, but when everything is layed out according to plan, and the whole working of the universe is the result of a single, supposedly rational mind, the idea of making deeper predictions based on past experience makes more sense.

The idea that nature itself follows a plan is far more conducive to empiricism than the idea that nature arises from invisible petty rivalry.

Again, it's the other way around. Many gods = many explanations = debate = argument = evidence to see whose right.

If I say that something that happened at X is caused by Thor and you say it was caused by Zeus, we'll be more inclined to go and check it out rather if we were monotheistic and in agreement.

You'll note there was no dark age during the polytheistic days because there was no need to supress anything. Disagreements were allowed.

But once you have only one god and only he can have a say, anything that goes against him is out the window.

 

[six7s]

Progress would depend on the type of god that replaced the many. A thousand benevolent gods replaced by a malevolent one wouldn't be progress at all.

Are you implying that 'a thousand benevolent gods replaced by one benevolent god would be progress '?

If so, why?

And... in your definition of 'progress', what is the goal?

 

[Radrook]

I'm surprised no one has touched on how monotheism really was progress.

When natural phenomena are created by many gods, at odds with each other who are themselves somewhat short sighted and petty, there's no reason to spend so much energy looking to deeply understand the laws of nature, because those laws are subject to the arbitrary emotions of powerful individuals.

Sure you can do some basic explanations of why winter happens, or why the Nile floods predictably, but the message in most polytheistic belief systems is that there is a lot that is driven by whim and caprice.

Monotheism lays the groundwork for induction. You can only vaguely predict what happens next from what happened last if you've got a pantheon arguing up there, but when everything is layed out according to plan, and the whole working of the universe is the result of a single, supposedly rational mind, the idea of making deeper predictions based on past experience makes more sense.

The idea that nature itself follows a plan is far more conducive to empiricism than the idea that nature arises from invisible petty rivalry.

But suppose the single god replacing these bickering ones is also arbitrary, whimsical and capricious. How does singularity of Lordship guarantee that this would not be the case?
Suppose the conceived singular entity reflected the schizophrenic tendencies of its conceivers just as the gods of Greece reflected all the bad qualities of the Greeks? Doesn't it seem as if monotheism per se isn't what promotes the advantage. That the personality of the god or God involved is far more critical?

 

[Cavemonster]

But suppose the single god replacing these bickering ones is also arbitrary, whimsical and capricious. How does singularity of Lordship guarantee that this would not be the case?
Suppose the conceived singular entity reflected the schizophrenic tendencies of its conceivers just as the gods of Greece reflected all the bad qualities of the Greeks? Doesn't it seem as if monotheism per se isn't what promotes the advantage. That the personality of the god or God involved is far more critical?

Yes, hypothetically, but Yahweh, Ahura Mazda, Allah, and every major Montheistic God has essentially a plan for the universe, since it's original creation. There are definitely bits in all those faiths that contradict the idea of that plan, but all allow for the concept of understanding the rules of the universe.

 

[Cavemonster]

Which to me seems far more accurate and progressive than the common idiocy we have due to the "planning" of the individual one god.

Evoultion vs Creationisim rings a bell?


Again, it's the other way around. Many gods = many explanations = debate = argument = evidence to see whose right.

If I say that something that happened at X is caused by Thor and you say it was caused by Zeus, we'll be more inclined to go and check it out rather if we were monotheistic and in agreement.

You'll note there was no dark age during the polytheistic days because there was no need to supress anything. Disagreements were allowed.

But once you have only one god and only he can have a say, anything that goes against him is out the window.

The "dark ages" of Europe as a period of catastrophic scientific suppression is a bit of a myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ages

Ronald Numbers states that misconceptions such as "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy" are examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, although they are not supported by current historical research.

The fact is that empiricism, the scientific method, and peer review all evolved in Christian and Muslim societies. Even if you maintain the idea of a European dark age, that same period is considered the Islamic Golden age of science and math.

 

[six7s]

The "dark ages" of Europe as a period of catastrophic scientific suppression is a bit of a myth.

Yeah!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_burning

In 1184, the Roman Catholic Synod of Verona legislated that burning was to be the official punishment for heresy, as Church policy was against the spilling of blood. It was also believed that the condemned would have no body to be resurrected in the Afterlife.[dubious – discuss] This decree was later reaffirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229, and numerous spiritual and secular leaders through the 17th century.[citation needed]

Civil authorities burnt persons judged to be heretics under the medieval Inquisition, including Giordano Bruno. Burning was also used by Protestants during the witch-hunts of Europe.

Among the best-known individuals to be executed by burning were Jacques de Molay (1314), Jan Hus (1415), St Joan of Arc (30 May 1431), Savonarola (1498) Patrick Hamilton (1528), John Frith (1533), William Tyndale (1536), Michael Servetus (1553), Giordano Bruno (1600) and Avvakum (1682). Anglican martyrs Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley (both in 1555) and Thomas Cranmer (1556) were also burnt at the stake.

In Denmark the burning of witches increased following the reformation of 1536. Especially Christian IV of Denmark encouraged this practice, which eventually resulted in hundreds of people burnt because of convictions of witchcraft. This special interest of the king also resulted in the North Berwick witch trials with caused over seventy people to be accused of witchcraft in Scotland on account of bad weather when James I of England, who shared the Danish kings interest in witch trials, in 1590 sailed to Denmark to meet his betrothed Anne of Denmark.

Edward Wightman, a Baptist from Burton on Trent, was the last person to be burnt at the stake for heresy in England in the market square of Lichfield, Staffordshire on 11 April 1612.

The glow from all those fires was very enlightening!

 

[Cavemonster]

Yeah!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_burning​

The glow from all those fires was very enlightening!

Yes, the monotheists suddenly started suppressing all knowledge that disagreed with them in a way that was entirely unlike polytheistic societies previously... wait, no they didn't. From your link.

Burning was used as a means of execution in many ancient societies. According to ancient reports, Roman authorities executed many of the early Christian martyrs by burning, sometimes by means of the tunica molesta, a flammable tunic.

North American Indians often used burning as a form of execution, either against members of other tribes or against white settlers during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Roasting over a slow fire was a customary method.[7]

The claim of the dark ages in terms of science was not just that the church was violently overbearing, but that their actions represent a massive dead spot in scientific progress. The Romans were violently overbearing in the name of Cesar, the Aztecs were violently overbearing, so were the greeks.

Remember what the Greeks did to Socrates?
Remember what the Romans did to the Christians and the Jews?

A lot of very specific atrocities can be laid at the feet of Christianity in that time period, but not any particularly huge and unique retardation of science as the post I was addressing alleged.

 

[six7s]

Yes, the monotheists suddenly started suppressing all knowledge that disagreed with them in a way that was entirely unlike polytheistic societies previously... wait, no they didn't. From your link.

Ermmm...

I infer that you're arguing that the move to monotheism represents progress - whereas I contend that it was 'six of one, half a dozen of the other' or 'out of the frying pan, into the fire'

The guff I quoted both supports my view and counters your (vague) assertion that the ""dark ages" of Europe as a period of catastrophic scientific suppression is a bit of a myth"

 

[GrandMasterFox]

A lot of very specific atrocities can be laid at the feet of Christianity in that time period, but not any particularly huge and unique retardation of science as the post I was addressing alleged.

You could also name any number of atheist dictators who did such things that really means nothing. I am not questioning specifically christianity, but rather whether such things are more or less likely to occur in monotheistic or polytheistic environments.

In order to supress knowledge, you require power that lets you control the masses. Where is this more likely to be achieved?
When the world is unified under one banner or when there are mutliple banners flying around?

 

[Cavemonster]

You could also name any number of atheist dictators who did such things that really means nothing. I am not questioning specifically christianity, but rather whether such things are more or less likely to occur in monotheistic or polytheistic environments.

In order to supress knowledge, you require power that lets you control the masses. Where is this more likely to be achieved?
When the world is unified under one banner or when there are mutliple banners flying around?

I'm not really addressing the abstract "likelyhood" but the historical reality. Most historians now don't see evidence for claims like the one made in this graph.

http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/10/23/where-would-we-be-if-the-dark-ages-hadnt-happened/

We can talk about the possibilities of any different kinds of poly and monotheism, but purely abstactly, it can go around endlessly. You could have a polytheism where the devotees of each god believe theirs to be the most powerful and crush the devotees of each other (and we have) You could have a hippy dippy deist monotheism where God isn't even there any more. So I'm not as much interested in what might have happened with different imaginable permutations, but in what did happen historically.

 

[Cavemonster]

Ermmm...

I infer that you're arguing that the move to monotheism represents progress - whereas I contend that it was 'six of one, half a dozen of the other' or 'out of the frying pan, into the fire'

The guff I quoted both supports my view and counters your (vague) assertion that the ""dark ages" of Europe as a period of catastrophic scientific suppression is a bit of a myth"

The issue is that progress occurs in many vectors.

In terms of freedom of thought and expression, I agree, it was pretty much "six of one" in fact, likely a decline in those freedoms.

But as a framework for viewing the universe in a way that allowed for empirical study, it was philosophically, a great stepping stone towards a scientific view.

 

[HansMustermann]

I honestly don't see wth did monotheism have to do with that empyrical method and the eventually scientific method. Science isn't about believing that there's a plan, it's about believing that everything you know can be wrong and testing it. It's about keeping a mind open to the possibility that your current understanding can be inexact or flat out wrong, and being willing to change or discard those parts.

Having one single absolute truth is the most goddamn-awful counter-productive frame of mind possible there. And you can see it in the way the sanctioned universities had to not teach anything that contradicts what that one god says. No, seriously, even after the church said "ok" to the aristotelian system, whole swathes of even that were forbidden. Because no amount of reason or evidence could possibly challenge or refine anything in the dogma.

The catholics only became ok with science in the counter-reformation, when they basically had to reinvent themselves as something even more palatable or keel over and die at the hands of protestantism.

And that frame of mind that the only thing that matters is the one god and his Plan, is also responsible for such stuff as the wholesale destruction of pre-christian writings. The "dark ages" didn't just produce less written stuff, they actively destroyed the pre-dark-ages literary and scientific heritage. We have hundreds of years of idiot monks thinking that only God's word and plan are the only things that really matter, and thus you're actually doing a good deed if you erase an old parchment and write a gospel on it. Some even thought of it as an act of purifying or redeeming it.

 

[Cavemonster]

I honestly don't see wth did monotheism have to do with that empyrical method and the eventually scientific method. Science isn't about believing that there's a plan, it's about believing that everything you know can be wrong and testing it. It's about keeping a mind open to the possibility that your current understanding can be inexact or flat out wrong, and being willing to change or discard those parts.

It's also based on the idea that there are somewhat stable rules that can be discerned about how the universe functions. The false idea of a deliberate plan allows for this. The false ideas of arbitrarily quarrelling unreachable intellects, much less so.

 

[quarky]

Mono-theism is ok, but I miss Ganeesh. I like more color in a god.

 

[HansMustermann]

The "dark ages" of Europe as a period of catastrophic scientific suppression is a bit of a myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ages

Except for the fact that Western Europe genuinely didn't produce any new ideas worthy of any notice until the 11'th and 12'th century, and even then we're talking stuff like putting a windmill on a pole so you can turn it. And that most of the inventions and innovations in this age -- differential forging, trebuchets, stirrups, better armours, crossbows, etc -- are imported into an Europe that occasionally was even too dumb to get them right, from the East -- Byzantium, Persia, China, etc.

Or the fact that technologies which are archaeologically attested for the Romans actually seem to get forgotten. The three field rotation for example was practiced by the Romans, but then suddenly Europe falls back to the two field rotation of the barbarian invaders, and it would then take centuries to reinvent it. The (crude) mechanical reaping machines of the Romans get forgotten, and we're suddenly back at reaping with a sickle for the next millennium. Cement goes practically extinct. Etc.

 

[HansMustermann]

It's also based on the idea that there are somewhat stable rules that can be discerned about how the universe functions. The false idea of a deliberate plan allows for this. The false ideas of arbitrarily quarrelling unreachable intellects, much less so.

Except for the fact that those many quarreling gods didn't prevent the Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, Chinese, etc, from observing nature and formulating hypotheses anyway. Even whatever progress was made pre-Galileo, was based on the thought framework of the pre-Christian Greeks: Aristotle, Plato, etc. In fact even when they feel a need to rationalize their god -- e.g., like Aquinas did -- guess whose logic and axioms do they use? Right. Those greeks.

 

[Cavemonster]

Except for the fact that Western Europe genuinely didn't produce any new ideas worthy of any notice until the 11'th and 12'th century....

You skipped the very important word "suppression" in my post that you quoted. Yes, the "dark ages" was a period of very little growth and even substantial setbacks in scientific knowledge, but to lay a significant amount of the blame for that on the heavy hand of the Church is to disagree with most contemporary historians. In fact, in the face of the dissolution of the Roman Empire, barbarian invasion, and the spread of Islam cutting them off from the East, the Catholic church was more or less the only force preserving culture and science in western Europe.

And if you argue that monotheism led to such a downfall, then why was the same period such a golden age for progress in the Muslim world?

 

[noreligion]

You skipped the very important word "suppression" in my post that you quoted. Yes, the "dark ages" was a period of very little growth and even substantial setbacks in scientific knowledge, but to lay a significant amount of the blame for that on the heavy hand of the Church is to disagree with most contemporary historians. In fact, in the face of the dissolution of the Roman Empire, barbarian invasion, and the spread of Islam cutting them off from the East, the Catholic church was more or less the only force preserving culture and science in western Europe.

And if you argue that monotheism led to such a downfall, then why was the same period such a golden age for progress in the Muslim world?

Are you saying the church was not responsible for the lack of scientific advancement during the dark ages? Do you know how the church rose to power during what came to be known as the dark ages? Were you aware of the scientific advances made since the 6th century BCE that were lost during the dark ages? If it wasn't for the church and their 1000 years of lost science Columbus might not have landed in the Americas but on the moon.