Ask any rationalist about the history of religion and chances are that he will tell you, as if it were a fact, that it all started with polytheism which over the millennia gave way to monotheism as human culture took on more sophisticated forms. This idea can be traced back to David Hume. That somebody as influential as Rousseau immediately came forward in support of Hume’s theory explains how it must have initially gained currency among certain sections of society. To our day, the myth has not only endured but keeps doing the rounds as ‘established fact’ when it is nothing of the sort.
The theory was originally based on another piece of fiction, one that all subsequent generations (laymen and anthropologists alike) found too brilliant – or too etched in stone – to dispute. According to this narrative the primitive man, being ignorant of the physics behind hurricanes, fire, thunder, rain, floods, and the like, was understandably terrified of all these things thought it prudent to appease them and ask their favours, essentially making them his gods. The resulting polytheism was the starting point of religion. With time, these societies grew in their understanding of the laws of the universe, in the process dispensing with one god after the other until they were left with the one deity. Monotheism therefore took time to emerge on the scene. Or so the familiar story goes.
Hume and Rousseau had based their ideas on ethnographical data, notably that pertaining to the religion of savage tribes – hardly the best choice of source to arrive at sweeping philosophical conclusions. Things were about to get much worse though. For the archaeologists immediately decided that it was their cue to discover all sorts of artefacts from one ancient site or the other to support the polytheism-first theory. The argument has continued to our time. Characteristically, it is made with great ‘scientific’ splendour. Artefacts are presented and it is stated that the oldest discovered specimens point conclusively to polytheism. What is conveniently forgotten (or deliberately kept in the background) is the fact that monotheism is an abstract idea in that the God that is worshipped is not a tangible object like an elephant, snake, or what have you. Furthermore, all idols and images are also prohibited. So, monotheism, even if it had predated polytheism, would hardly have left artefacts to be found at the archaeological sites. The objection is seldom raised, and still more rarely addressed. So much for ‘conclusive’ evidence!
The opposing view, of course, is the one put forward in the revealed texts, namely, it all started with monotheism. That though the concept is known to get distorted over time, each man is a monotheist by birth, and that is how humankind started. That it was only later that societies started associating physical objects with the one transcendent God. Each side has its passionate adherents, but only one side pretends to have the aid of scientific enquiry, when there is no science there to speak of. Interestingly, Voltaire – the famous rationalist and unbeliever – is the darling of the rationalist when he taunts religion in his works, except in this one instance where he agrees with the revealed texts that polytheism is a degenerated form of religion which originated in monotheism.
But what is the significance of this debate? After all, the proponents of the polytheism-first narrative (as a rule, atheists) are not particularly enthusiastic about polytheism either. Certainly, they do not particularly rate one brand of theism over another, but they know that they can make polytheism look silly rather easily, which is not the case with monotheism. So ‘proving’ the revealed texts as factually wrong, is a major motivation for them. To somehow ‘demonstrate’ that monotheism is an acquired concept, not something inherent in human nature is therefore extremely gratifying. As for evidence, who needs any when the conclusion is so satisfying?
But what is the significance of this debate? After all, the proponents of the polytheism-first narrative (as a rule, atheists) are not particularly enthusiastic about polytheism either. Certainly, they do not particularly rate one brand of theism over another, but they know that they can make polytheism look silly rather easily, which is not the case with monotheism. So ‘proving’ the revealed texts as factually wrong, is a major motivation for them. To somehow ‘demonstrate’ that monotheism is an acquired concept, not something inherent in human nature is therefore extremely gratifying. As for evidence, who needs any when the conclusion is so satisfying?
After the application of the various theories of evolution over the decades to the philosophy of history, politics, and ethics, it was only a matter of time before it was applied to religion. Those who maintain that God is only an idea in the minds of men are always very eager to explain religion away as a remnant of the evolutionary needs of an unsophisticated, bygone age – something that is bound to be completely replaced by more cultivated philosophies of life as human thought become more and more advanced. Many of them like to think that having rid themselves of the concept of God altogether, they have successfully climbed another inevitable rung on the evolution ladder – what better icing on the cake than this? Of course, not every atheist is the scheming sort. There would be untold numbers of naïve subscribers of such sweeping narratives who happen to think that everything uttered by the ‘experts’ must be true.
