The human mind has a fetish for pattern recognition and specifically patterns which resemble the Human form or other recognizable forms. The human mind also loves to leap tofalse positive conclusions, and is happy to do so very readily.
In other words, the Human Mind is seemingly tailor made for seeing and/or birthing an every growing armada of old and ever newer gods and goddesses, angels and demons, devils and saints, monsters and magical spirits and on and ever on again.
Imagine how difficult a Pharoah or Emperor or High Priest or God King would have controlling the message of the gods and their dictates regarding how best to serve the king and the priests. Imagine, when every household has a god, and every village has a shaman with whom all the unique local entities converse; imagine how hard it is for the aristocracy to assert control over a divine message under such circumstances.
And so, monotheism. Better for the Kingpriest and his lackeys to demonize, quite literally, the competition. Everything that isn't our One True God is a false god or a demon or, better yet, an illusion of the mind.
But.
But again, the Human Mind seems tailor made to find or invent or build, or whatever you like, new Gods. And so the hermetically sealed purity of monotheism cracks and splits and schisms again and again. Syncretism runs rampant in rural folk religious versions of the Abrahamic religions. In the Central America, the Mayan gods have slipped into Catholic doctrine. In the Caribbean, African Yoruba traditions and Orishas have been added until Voudun and Santeria became distinct traditions. Folk islamic traditions frequently reincorporate animistic beliefs. Judaism has even recorded their people's struggles with competing gods in the Torah itself. Even outside the Abrahamic tradition, Tibetan Buddhism can't escape the Tibetan folk traditions such as the Bon.
So. Is monotheism a fundamentally useful idea or Not? It doesn't work. It's alien to the Human Mind. It runs counter to the entire body of our preceding spiritual traditions. It is valuable only to the King and the High Priest.
So... monotheism... It doesn't keep. It spoils and sporulates new gods and demi-things of all types. It serves only the rulers.
And on top of that, it acts as a sort of spiritual castration which prevents practitioners from administering their own communion with the divine. Which serves kings and high priests very well. Because once the masses are spiritual castrated and muzzled by monotheism, the One True God speaks suspiciously with a voice not unlike the voice of the king. And the One True God makes pronouncements that seem to serve the nobility, no matter how revolutionary and populist a religion's message began.
So. If you aren't a Pharoah or a Kingpriest, if you aren't Pope or Emir or Ayatollah, if you aren't an Imam or a Bishop or an Emperor or a Duke, if you aren't part of the privileged elite, what use is monotheism?
Even Martin Luthor and the protestant revolution couldn't prevent the stratification of power and access to communion, despite its dangerous (to the Catholic church) promise of parishioners having a personal relationship with the Almighty. The needs of the elite to control the message to the masses was too great. So, is monotheism useful?
People might ask, at this point, shouldn't I be asking if these religions are true rather than asking if they are useful. And to answer simply, no.
Humans have been murdering each other over the disputed truth of their gods for unknown thousands of years. If the veracity of a religion was something possible to prove, this would have happened by now. I'm not interested in Whether the fairy tale is true, but whether the fairy tale is useful.
I feel like I'm wandering now, so I'll leave it here. Is the fairy tale useful? If not, why use it? And is this fairy tale in particular useful? And if not, why use it?
Am I saying we should discard monotheism? Yes. Yes I am.
Life is short
Work is crap
Join my talk