Monotheism paved the way for analytical thinking?

[Taraz]

I've considered this view for some time and I think it has some merit. If you believe in only one God, then there must be some grand design to the universe and, theoretically, we should be able to understand some of this design. If you believe in many competing Gods, things are more unpredictable as you never know who is going to win out and how all these forces interact.

It could also work the other way I suppose. Perhaps when we realized that things had an order and were predictable, a singular deity made more sense. I found a random quote that deals with the issue:

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of a single God has a powerful influence in restricting magical thinking and enhancing intelligence. It exalts the reality principle over the pleasure principle since the hidden atheism of monotheism (if you worship a God you cannot see, you worship a God who is not there, or no God at all) gives monotheistic peoples a training in reality testing unknown to other religious groups. By denying the existence of a variety of gods, demons, and spirits who had jurisdiction over various natural phenomena, monotheism paved the way for the acknowledgment of ignorance, and thus for the investigation of natural phenomena, with the subsequent discovery of truth. Thus, monotheism greatly enhances the power of objective thought, with important consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that religion and science have always been on good terms or anything like that. But maybe monotheism was an instrumental step in our understanding of the world. Any thoughts?

[Phil153]

Definite no. Strong points against:

- The Greeks, Romans and Egyptians had the most advanced civilizations in the history of Earth while killing monotheists. Their civilization was more philosophically, scientifically and technically advanced than the following 1500 years under monotheism. And arguably significantly more analytical than any of the Christian pigs who came after them. Most modern thought derives directly from the ancient Greeks and Romans.

- Islamic people, who are monotheistic, did not have notable achievements when compared to the Hindus. They even had a similar fable book to the Christians and Jews.

- The atrocities committed in the name of religion during the middle ages, and extremely bizarre beliefs (witches, blasphemy, the flood), are pretty strong evidence of monotheism suppressing rational analysis. This was superstition and hysteria.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Definite no. Strong points against:

- The Greeks, Romans and Egyptians had the most advanced civilizations in the history of Earth while killing monotheists. Their civilization was more philosophically, scientifically and technically advanced than the following 1500 years under monotheism. And arguably significantly more analytical than any of the Christian pigs who came after them. Most modern thought derives directly from the ancient Greeks and Romans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the Greeks and the Romans provided the precursors to much of what we have achieved.

[ QUOTE ]

- Islamic people, who are monotheistic, did not have notable achievements when compared to the Hindus. They even had a similar fable book to the Christians and Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, they seemed to have achieved a lot. Anesthesia, the injection syringe, advances in algebra, and the scientific method seem pretty big. I can't say I've read much about the Hindus though, I'll check up on that. Edit: It seems like the Muslims were the ones who preserved a lot of Greek and Roman texts throughout the dark ages while Europe was going to [censored]. That should count for something [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[ QUOTE ]

- The atrocities committed in the name of religion during the middle ages, and extremely bizarre beliefs (witches, blasphemy, the flood), are pretty strong evidence of monotheism suppressing rational analysis. This was superstition and hysteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would really, really prefer not to get into a debate on how much religion was a hindrance to scientific matters. I think we're all aware of how much suppression there was at the hands of the church. I'm not really interested in whether monotheism hurt more than it helped, but rather if it helped at all.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Definite no. Strong points against:

- The Greeks, Romans and Egyptians had the most advanced civilizations in the history of Earth while killing monotheists. Their civilization was more philosophically, scientifically and technically advanced than the following 1500 years under monotheism. And arguably significantly more analytical than any of the Christian pigs who came after them. Most modern thought derives directly from the ancient Greeks and Romans.

- Islamic people, who are monotheistic, did not have notable achievements when compared to the Hindus. They even had a similar fable book to the Christians and Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're comparing monotheistic people of one era vs. polytheistic people of the same era, when what you need to compare is people today if monotheism were not widespread vs. people today after monotheism has been widespread, if you want to address the OP. One group of people being stronger or more advanced doesn't necessarily mean that the weaker group couldn't still believe things that might have some unintended positive effect on the way people think, and thus on what the future generations will be capable of.

I think the OP has presented an interesting idea, and I don't think those examples do much to speak against it.

[MidGe]

I think that either polytheism, non-benevolent monotheism, or atheism, are much more aligned with the experience of life. I suspect they would be better candidates for helping analytical thinking. They requires no blinkers about the facts of life and therefore truly pave the way for analytical thinking! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[luckyme]

"Guns, Germs and Steel" deals with the problem of straight-across comparison. "they were tall. they did well. therefore tall is good." without a deep understanding of all the factors involved.

Likely the number of gods or random spirits is not the main factor in which way a culture moves. Religion tends to spin out of the social structure a group is in, so we'd be better looking at the tenets of a religious view and leave off the nose count.

Interesting idea.

luckyme

[Peter666]

"Their civilization was more philosophically, scientifically and technically advanced than the following 1500 years under monotheism. And arguably significantly more analytical than any of the Christian pigs who came after them."

What a dumb and ignorant historical analysis. The great ancient civilizations at their height had come to develop a monotheistic conception of a single all powerful deity (Egyptian Ra, Plato's and Aristotles Prime Mover, the Roman adoption of the Christian God).

And then it was the Christians who preserved the learning of the ancients amidst barbarian hordes, and Christians again who surpassed the technical, philosophical, and scientific achievements of the ancients, after converting and civilizing those same barbarian hordes.

Your irrational and emotional hatred of Christian "pigs" has completely distorted your analysis, which would surely embarass the ancient stoics.

[andyfox]

"If you believe in many competing Gods, things are more unpredictable as you never know who is going to win out and how all these forces interact."

I don't think this accurately describes civlizations that had many Gods. They were not necessarily "competing." And they often interacted in harmony, yielding a much more orderly world than, for example, Christians did when they saw a hideous and desolate wilderness where the natives saw a beneficent and nurturing nature.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you believe in many competing Gods, things are more unpredictable as you never know who is going to win out and how all these forces interact."

I don't think this accurately describes civlizations that had many Gods. They were not necessarily "competing." And they often interacted in harmony, yielding a much more orderly world than, for example, Christians did when they saw a hideous and desolate wilderness where the natives saw a beneficent and nurturing nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm basically just parroting things that I have heard regarding this issue. But I think the idea was that instead of having to understand the workings of many actors, you only have to understand one. Theoretically a reduction in the number of forces acting on any given thing should make it easier to figure out, no?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Theoretically a reduction in the number of forces acting on any given thing should make it easier to figure out, no?


[/ QUOTE ]


I think that to do science you have to believe there is order in nature, for whatever reason. Belief in a personal God who created the universe with a plan and in accordance with reason gives a foundation for believing in natural law. I think the Creator aspect is more important than monotheism, per se.