How did monotheism become so popular?

[Link]

How did monotheism become so popular?

Because morality is only justified by it.

We were conquered by the Mongols. The Mongol rulers ended up converting to our religion, and not the other way.

So conquest does not explain everything.

 

[danieldemol]

How did monotheism become so popular?

Strings attached proselytisation of the early Christians towards those they were providing charity to as I understand it.

 

[danieldemol]

Because morality is only justified by it.

We were conquered by the Mongols. The Mongol rulers ended up converting to our religion, and not the other way.

So conquest does not explain everything.

It does if they saw the religion as a means of maintaining conquest in my view. Which we can't know of course, but humans do tend to act in accordance with their self interests so perhaps its not an unreasonable assumption to make.

 

[Link]

It does if they saw the religion as a means of maintaining conquest in my view. Which we can't know of course, but humans do tend to act in accordance with their self interests so perhaps its not an unreasonable assumption to make.

They didn't see it as a means of conquest. Just read about the history of Mongol invasion. They even got rid of all Islamic books they can (very few were saved compared to what we had).

The fact was the conquered didn't convert out and in time, the rulers believed in the religion. It did not happen right away.

 

[Revoltingest]

How did monotheism become so popular?

Cults tend to favor a singular all powerful figure.
These out-perform religions with diverse gods.

 

[Link]

Cults tend to favor a singular all powerful figure.
These out-perform religions with diverse gods.

Diverse gods means there is no true morality. Gods would be in this case just like us, lost on to what truly is moral guidance and would have no pathway. Then their power and structure would be similarly politics, and not really based on truth.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Realizing how small one is compared to the source.

 

[Revoltingest]

Diverse gods means there is no true morality. Gods would be in this case just like us, lost on to what truly is moral guidance and would have no pathway. Then their power and structure would be similarly politics, and not really based on truth.

How would this be knowable?

 

[Link]

How would this be knowable?

Let's think about it. Suspend disbelief like you are playing a video game with magic or something.

Imagine a scenario where the soul exists and that the morality stems from God's light, his very own truth. How would we not know in this scenario that morality is linked to him?

Yes, if God doesn't exist, we can't know he exists. But you are always seeing from the point of view that the light of morality is not linked to God.

If it is linked to God, must as "compassion is good (in many circumstances)" is an obvious fact, so would be that the moral motive and imperatives are linked to his light.

 

[Link]

How would this be knowable?

One way to know this is that morality is necessary (same in all possible worlds.) It's necessary truth like math and logic. Yet morality takes insight and perception. While math and logic you can say are material realities that we came to know about the truth of (from naturalism perspective), the same cannot be said about morality. All levels of morality can only be seen by ultimate moral being since the highest level of it must be perceived. The highest level is synonymous with the ultimate absolute being. That being there exists no room for anything to exist without it, since it's the biggest size. This proves the unity of God and that everything is created by it.

 

[YmirGF]

How did monotheism become so popular?

Due to people's inability to think outside the box?

 

[Revoltingest]

One way to know this is that morality is necessary (same in all possible worlds.) It's necessary truth like math and logic. Yet morality takes insight and perception. While math and logic you can say are material realities that we came to know about the truth of (from naturalism perspective), the same cannot be said about morality. All levels of morality can only be seen by ultimate moral being since the highest level of it must be perceived. The highest level is synonymous with the ultimate absolute being. That being there exists no room for anything to exist without it, since it's the biggest size. This proves the unity of God and that everything is created by it.

I don’t see why morality is necessary.
How does assuming that even prove anything?

 

[Sargonski]

Cults tend to favor a singular all powerful figure.
These out-perform religions with diverse gods.

Not sure that is what cults favor .. but no worries as I doubt this had much to do with things .. There was no monotheism to speak until Zoroastrianism .. which happened to be the State Religion of sorts of a world Empire .. Persia. .. and as luck would have it .. some folks called Jews created a new God with such Characteristics..

Unfortunately -- and unlucky for these Jews -- the Greeks came and the World reverted back to Polytheism .. making the Jews oddballs and subjected to persecution on this basis. .. however .. some apocalyptic band of messianic rebels who were Jews started following different religious belief - christianity -- .. but these folks too persecuted .. as everyone in power was polytheist.

Then an Emperor named Constantine ... presiding over a fractured empire during times of civil war .. at a time when there were a fair number of Christians - especially in the lower classes -- decided to adopt monotheism - as part of his attempt to unify the people .. and put himself as God's spokesperson on Earth .. "Pontifex Maximus" and this Team won the War .. Polytheism has never made a come-back

 

[Link]

I don’t see why morality is necessary.
How does assuming that even prove anything?

Do you know what is meant by necessary? It means it's logical true in all possible worlds. For example 1+1=2 is a necessary truth. It's same in all possible worlds.

 

[danieldemol]

They didn't see it as a means of conquest.

I'm trying to point out that we have no way (in my view) of knowing that.

Just read about the history of Mongol invasion. They even got rid of all Islamic books they can (very few were saved compared to what we had).

The fact was the conquered didn't convert out and in time, the rulers believed in the religion. It did not happen right away.

That may have meant that they didn't see it as a means of either promulgating conquest or keeping hold of conquested lands at first, but came to see it that way later. It is also possible that they simply came to believe the religion as well, but I dont see how we can rule that out without knowing what their motives where.

 

[Link]

The intention was to eradicate Islam and replace the religion, which is why they poured books into the river and tried to get rid of traces of Islamic knowledge. Over time, they believed (the rulers) and came to Islam while the population didn't leave the religion to gain favor with the rulers.

This could've happened with Muslims conquering lands as well. But it didn't.

Going back to my point, was the conquering and non-conquering is not enough to account for monotheism prevailing.

 

[danieldemol]

Going back to my point, was the conquering and non-conquering is not enough to account for monotheism prevailing.

The desire to retain conquered lands is a possibility that i dont see how you can logically rule out, and since the Moguls themselves had a conquered population they could subjugate such means could still be why Islam in particular spread in my view.

 

[Link]

The desire to retain conquered lands is a possibility that i dont see how you can logically rule out, and since the Moguls themselves had a conquered population they could subjugate such means could still be why Islam in particular spread in my view.

There was a point in time, when Christianity was hidden to the degree people use to meet in secret while if they were found out to be Christian, would be killed. Yet it spread even in that time. This is because of the strong message of the Gospels.

There was no removing faith of Muslims, and yes, the rulers understood that, and so allowed them to retaining their religion. But why was there was no hope of removing their faith? Because Quran is strong like the Gospels, even I argue much stronger, in that people won't abandon it easily.

Instead of risking revolts, yes, they allowed them to keep their religion. However, when Islam conquered lands, it didn't force people to the religion. Rather, the culture promoting the Quran eventually convinced populations to come in the religion.

Also, not every where was conquered. Sufi saints spread a lot of Islam especially in Indonesia and many places.

However, if the intellectual proofs for the religion of the Mongols was as strong or stronger then Islam, they would easily been able to convince population to leave Quran. But it was the other way, they despaired at the intellectual prowess of their own religions and accepted Islam.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you know what is meant by necessary? It means it's logical true in all possible worlds. For example 1+1=2 is a necessary truth. It's same in all possible worlds.

I’ve never run across that definition.
But stating it’s true doesn’t make it so.

 

[danieldemol]

There was a point in time, when Christianity was hidden to the degree people use to meet in secret while if they were found out to be Christian, would be killed. Yet it spread even in that time. This is because of the strong message of the Gospels.

More like due to the strings attached charitable institutions of Christians in my view.

There was no removing faith of Muslims, and yes, the rulers understood that, and so allowed them to retaining their religion. But why was there was no hope of removing their faith? Because Quran is strong like the Gospels, even I argue much stronger, in that people won't abandon it easily.

More like because people indoctrinated into eternal hellfire beliefs are too afraid of their tyrannical God to think critically in my view.

Instead of risking revolts, yes, they allowed them to keep their religion. However, when Islam conquered lands, it didn't force people to the religion. Rather, the culture promoting the Quran eventually convinced populations to come in the religion.

If that culture included blasphemy laws it essentially removed competing ideas/narratives from circulation which is a form of compulsion/conquest in my view.

Also, not every where was conquered. Sufi saints spread a lot of Islam especially in Indonesia and many places.

Possibly, although I'd be interested to see whether strings attached charity played a role there similar to the way Christianity was spread in its early days in my view.

However, if the intellectual proofs for the religion of the Mongols was as strong or stronger then Islam, they would easily been able to convince population to leave Quran. But it was the other way, they despaired at the intellectual prowess of their own religions and accepted Islam.

Well perhaps that's the problem. Maybe faced with a dichotomy of Islam vs the religion of Mongol warlords maybe Islam was superior. Fortunately us moderns are not faced with such a dichotomy of choices in my opinion.