Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA22935 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:22:28 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20001117163936.007f2e60@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca> X-Sender: hawkeye@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:39:36 -0600 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk, "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> From: Lloyd Robertson <hawkeye@rongenet.sk.ca> Subject: RE: religion/spirituality In-Reply-To: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF2300410E4@DELTA.newhouse.akzo nobel.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Lloyd:
>Monotheism represented a great step forward in terms of replicating power.
>Once one god was given the title "God" that god gained a tremendous
>advantage over all others. Hence the Greek, Roman, Norse and Salishan gods
>are now considered myths while Jehovah, nee Yaweh is now just "God".
>
>Derek:
>So why then did the polytheistic Christianity (Trinity and communion of
>saints) do so much better than its strictly monotheistic root (Judaism)?
>Why is Tibetan Buddhism now more prevalent than Zen or Theravada in the
>West, despite being a relatively recent import compared to the other two?
>Why did Victorian Protestantism (more monotheistic than most Christianity)
>fail to make any headway against Hinduism in India despite the vigorous
>backing of the British Raj for the best part of 200 years. On the contrary,
>history suggests that polytheistic religions replicate best (I don't know
>exactly why, but my guess is that they provide a greater range of options
>and are thus more adaptable).
I do not believe that history does suggest that polytheistic religions
replicate best. But then perhaps it is in your definition of the word
"polytheistic". Most people would not tag that label on Christianity,
however, you appear to.
And you are not entirely wrong in doing so. Certainly the "holy trinity"
has been a problem for monotheistic Christians. Roman Catholics say the
three are merely different manifestations of the one god. This means that
when a dove is said to have decended from heaven on Jesus' reported baptism
in the Gospels and a voice was heard "this is my son in whom I am well
pleased" it was really Yaweh talking to himself. Protestant Christians of
the fundamentalist variety take the view that Christ, the Holy Ghost and
Jehovah are different eternal entities with magical powers only Jehovah is
god. This line of reasoning is used by all Christians to explain away
Satan. Even tho Satan is a direct copy of the Zoroastrian god of evil,
Ahriman he is not a god in their minds. He is "Satan", a rather special
catagory of angel that has the power to actual fight a god. The point is
not that the Christians do not have a pantheon of gods, they do. But they
do not recognize the fact. They have assumed a monotheistic stance which
appears to enhance the replicating power of their religions.
Using your own standard of polytheism, Judiasm is not monotheistic either.
Not only did they adopt Ahriman into their religion, they also believe in
more than one creator (Genesis 1: "Let us create man in our own image").
Early Judiasm recognized a the existance of many gods which explains
repeated statements that Yahweh is a "jealous god" and that Jews were to
recognize "no other gods above him".
Why did Judiasm not replace the Roman religions since, as you point out,
one in 10 in the Roman empire was Jewish? Well, monotheism (or the
monotheistic stance) is only one factor in the equation. Well, Judiasm is
essentially not a proselitizing religion. Paul and later Luke (or at least
the Lukan community) ensured Christianity became a proselitizing religion
with injuctions to the effect that their ability to make converts might be
crucial to their admittance to Heaven in the afterlife. Paul, himself, made
converts in the Jewish merchant community (outside Palistine) who were
interested in bridging the gap between Jew and Gentile. To this end, Paul
made Christianity more palitable to the Gentile by decreeing that male
genital mutilation (circumcision) was no longer required along with laws
about Kosher foods.
A second factor inhibiting the spread of Judiasm is that the religion is,
essentially, racist. Yahweh was not the god of everyone, but the god of the
Jews. One had to renounce one's racial background and become a Jew to
convert even to the point of learning Hebrew.
A third factor is that Christianity represents a combination of Pagan and
Judiac traditions and therefore, represents an evolution to the Gentile
culture as opposed to a complete break with that culture. The beatitudes,
for example, are copies of the writings of the Greek Cynics. Paul's Christ,
including the idea of his being sacrificed for mankind, was a copy of the
god Mithras as was the idea that this god was a "go-between" between humans
and and even more powerful god or gods. The point here being that
Christianity, particularly as it was formulated by Paul, already had
familiar roots in Greco-Roman culture.
A fourth factor into the equation is willingness of a religion to commit
genocide. Religions that have expanded quickly have done so at the point of
a sword. (look what the Roman Catholics did to the 2nd century Gnostics).
It's all very Machiavellian. You preach peace when not in a position of
power and then, when able to do so, you illiminate the enemy. When a
religion becomes "soft" the opposing religion will generally survive and
may gain revenge (we are seeing this in the Balkans where the Ottoman
empire allowed the "Eastern" or Orthodox Catholics to exist resulting in
only a minority converting to Islam. Now the Muslims are on the receiving
end).
Your example of Tibetan Buddhism is a good one. Certainly there are more
elements to the equation than monotheism but let us look at "Mahayana"
polytheism. There is a plane of existance inhabited by the gods. You may
become reincarnated a god by having the "sin" of too much pride. These gods
are not eternal but they are exceedingly long-lived so that they think they
are eternal. This means they have a difficult time achieving "enlightenment".
So far so good. Tibetan Buddhists, proselitizing in Europe and America
generally recognize a "universal presence" they equate with the Christian
"God". Pauline-like, they have thus bridged a cultural divide allowing them
to communicate with Christians who are dissatisfied with their Christianity
but, none-the-less, retain much of their religio-cultural basis.
A second factor is that Tibetan Buddhists appear to be more enthusiastic at
gaining converts. I am not sure why. Perhaps because of their displacement
from Tibet they have a psychological need that other forms of Buddhism do
not exhibit.
A third factor is what Eric Fromm, in describing political and religious
descent into totalitarianism in Europe and America as "escape from
freedom". Many people are looking to be "other-directed" and Tibetan
Buddhism, with its emphasis on a "master-disciple" relationship that
emphasizes total subserviance, affords that psycholical need.
There are undoubtedly other factors but these come to mind in response to
your post.
Lloyd
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 17 2000 - 22:24:20 GMT