Animism - polytheism - monotheism - atheism

[Parsip]

During the 2nd century the West was probably more secure and peaceful than it has been at any other time, including today. It was the period of the Five Good Emperors.

Even then, there were still plagues, physical hardship and restricted opportunities. The ease of life that Western individuals enjoy today is unprecedented. Replace 2nd century with 6th century BC and the point remains.

[Flibbertigibbet]

Even then, there were still plagues, physical hardship and restricted opportunities. The ease of life that Western individuals enjoy today is unprecedented. Replace 2nd century with 6th century BC and the point remains.

It's all relative though. People in the 2nd century had more opportunities and social mobility than ever before. They had no way of imagining the technology of today.

[Parsip]

People in the 2nd century had more opportunities and social mobility than ever before.

But still not as much as people in the modern Western world. There was enough hardship for many of them to cling to religionas a source of strength and hope. By contrast, the average Western European 22-year-old in the 21st century has had a very safe, healthy, hardship-free (relatively speaking) life, and has no need for religion or spirituality in order to survive. In a way, this is good because it allows people to become spiritual for the right reasons, rather than simply to survive bad times, but I digress. I did say there were some holes in my theory. For example, America is very secure and prosperous but a large segment of the population is still very religious. I believe this is due to tradition, but I'm not sure if that's enough to prevent a rise in irreligion due to prosperity, as I've noticed younger Americans are almost entirely nonreligious.

[karmakazi]

This is quite a eurocentric view. The dark ages refers mostly to the cultural and intellectual vaccuum created by the fall of the Roman Empire that lasted several centuries. Using the OP model of religious progression this could be viewed as the transition from polytheism to monotheism.

My reference to the dark ages wasn't meant to be an example of a worldwide scenario, just an example of how when things go south, people tend to revert to praying to any god available.

Through more modern history, the last hundred years or so, there have been people who've switched from monotheistic views to more pagan/polytheistic views or even as far back as to more animistic views. It's not huge numbers, and it seems in many cases it's mostly a rejection of Christianity, but nonetheless it does happen.

Progress can just refer to where it is placed on a time-line and doesn't have to imply improvement. Even within a monotheistic religion such as Islam, one could probably argue there has been a profound moral and intellectual reversal from the days of it's enlightenment.

My thoughts weren't on improvement in peoples lives, merely on their reversion to polytheism over monotheism when things weren't going well. I wasn't suggesting religion invariably makes people's lives better, that depends on the individual.

However it is also of note that the reversion usually happens in peoples who are relatively recently converted to monotheism, such as the Egyptian example I mention below.

I'm interested in your last sentence there. As far as I can think (which may be not that far) I can't think where that trend has been reversed in any continuous civilisation. For example from monotheism to polytheism. I'd be interested to know what exception there are (if any) to that.

One example would be in Ancient Egypt when Akhenaten pushed monotheism of Aten, and after a time they reverted back to the prior system of polytheism. In Europe while the conversions to Christianity was going on, many people retained both sets of beliefs, wanting to believe in Christianity but also refusing to completely give up their prior beliefs (pretty much until witch hunting and persecution became a thing).

Also, in many monotheistic religions there is a rejection/condemnation (and thereby acknowledgement) of other gods, rather than just denial of the existence of any deity other than the one. Even in the case of Christianity, the old testament constantly refers to the existence of other gods and in present day not only is God considered triune but in a way Lucifer is seen as nearly deified, but clearly considered lesser than God. Additionally, people pray to angels, saints, and even Mary as if they are deities. They aren't called that, and they aren't seen as being above God, but yet they are worthy of being prayed to as if they were like God.

Buddhism is an example of a religion which does not recognize an omnipotent deity as gods are merely inhabitants of one of the realms of samsara and are not worshipped, and this way of thinking began with the Buddha sometime around 600-400 BCE, around the same time that monotheism was taking hold elsewhere, and prior to the life of Christ. Buddhism (or rather the Buddha and some of his followers) came out of Hinduism which ranges through polytheism, monotheism, pantheism and even atheism.

[JayMark]

When the human race was young spirits were legion and numberless, and controlled every aspect of life and nature. Later this changed, and in the classical civilisations we have a dozen or so named gods with distinct personalities elevated above the myriad spirits and accorded special status. Later still these were whittled down to just one, with the others demoted to be his helpers. So from an uncountable multitude we went to a dozen or so, then one, and the next logical stage was none at all, or atheism. Perhaps these are all natural stages in our evolution and progression as a species. What's next?

Animism, polytheism, monotheism and atheism are all still part of today's reality and have always been IMO. Considering there are thousands of religions (and other movements included), I hardly see how you can talk about an evolution from one principle to the other when all I see is evolution in every of those aspects.

I don't think it has changed like you imply to every degree but I do understand and you aren't totally wrong.

[CommunitarianKevin]

This is quite a eurocentric view. The dark ages refers mostly to the cultural and intellectual vaccuum created by the fall of the Roman Empire that lasted several centuries. Using the OP model of religious progression this could be viewed as the transition from polytheism to monotheism.

Progress can just refer to where it is placed on a time-line and doesn't have to imply improvement. Even within a monotheistic religion such as Islam, one could probably argue there has been a profound moral and intellectual reversal from the days of it's enlightenment.

I'm interested in your last sentence there. As far as I can think (which may be not that far) I can't think where that trend has been reversed in any continuous civilisation. For example from monotheism to polytheism. I'd be interested to know what exception there are (if any) to that.

This is when it is helpful to actually do study in religions. Really the whole point of this thread is stuck back in the 1800s before anthropology and sociology were actual areas of study and where Euro centrism was king.

This very idea, the progression from animism to polytheism to monotheism was first suggested by E. B. Tyler. His work, along with that of J. G. Frazer, was quickly dismissed but did set the foundation for the field of anthropology. The reason their ideas were quickly dismissed is because they do what philosophers do…they sit in their philosophical armchairs in their ivory towers instead of actually studying that which they are making claims about.

E. E. Evans-Pritchard, who is often credited with the development of modern anthropology, changed the field by doing actual research. He went Africa on several different occasions and lived (for I believe it was 5 years) with the people. He lived with the Zande and Nuer on the two occasions and learned their language and tried to understand their culture so he could make informed observations. Even though the two tribes were “primitive” civilizations in Africa, their religions were totally different. One was animistic and the other was monotheistic. This is very significant because it shows that one form did not develop from another.

This is also seen in American Indian culture. Their cultures range from monotheism to polytheism to animism, all of which are still believe in today (to an extent.) There was no progression from their previous beliefs to their current ones even though some did accept Christianity or integrate it into their own religion/culture.

The next point is “Western” civilization (I consider Ancient Near Eastern history in this category.) First off, we cannot know what the “first” religious beliefs were like because we do not have record of that but there is one thing that is pretty commonly accepted. That is that most of the major world religions have their roots in the Indo-European religion. The IE form of religion is responsible for Greek (and therefore one would argue Roman) religion, Hinduism (therefore Buddhism,) and Zoroastrianism. All three took different forms even though they came from the same base. Greek and Roman religion are very clearly polytheistic but Zoroastrianism is monotheistic. There was no clear progression for these religions and two of the three still exist today. I think it is important to point out that Zoroastrianism, one could argue, is responsible for turning Judaism into a monotheistic religion (because it was henotheistic before their encounter.) But this has far less to do with a “religious progression” than it does with Zoroastrianism being the religion of the Jewish Messiah (as stated in Deutero-Isaiah.) It is because Cyrus freed the Jews and allowed them to return to their homeland that we see this “progression.” Zoroastrian ideas are also responsible for many of the things we find in Christianity that we do not find in Judaism (the Devil, Hell, Holy Trinity, original sin, guardian angels, ect.) This has more to do with a blending of cultures than it does with religious progression.

Roman religion is also more complex than people realize. There are some key points but it was constantly changing. Much of it depended on the particular emperor. Some emperors wanted to be worshiped as a god or as the god. It really went back and forth. Also I reject your notion that the Dark Ages or the fall of the Roman Empire has anything to do with the change from polytheism to monotheism. First off, to suggest that it was an evolution is to say that one emperor evolves into another emperor. This is not the case. It is quite simple…Roman religion was the religion of the empire and then Christianity was the religion of the empire. This did not play a role in the decline and fall of Rome, which was a slow process over centuries, because of a number of different reasons. Another point to note is that the Roman Empire did not totally fall during this time. The Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantine Empire) was alive and well and lasted all the way until 1453. They seemed to have not had an issue with this “transition.” The point is, this is not a religious issue.

On reversal from monotheism…

As was already stated Akhenaton in Egypt is an example of monotheism back to polytheism but I would personally argue that Akhenaton’s religion was no monotheistic. There are examples through history of leaders establishing a monotheistic system (a lot of times themselves as the god) and then reverting back. During these times many people accepted Christianity and then reverted back to their previous religions. Hell I would argue that Judaism (since the return to Israel) is more monotheistic than Christianity. Islam does revert back to the true monotheistic form of one god but the point is that it is messy. All forms of religion existed simultaneously and still continue to exist. This does not have anything to do with primitiveness vs civilized because I would argue that some of the “primitive” religions in Africa are more scientific than today’s monotheistic religions. I mean at least many of them rely on a cause and effect based ideology and not dogmatic faith. If one really dives into it and looks at different religions throughout the world it is obvious that there is no progression and one did not come before another.