Monotheism Pros & Cons

In myth, one can chart cultural evolution. Many early human societies practiced human sacrifice of one sort or another, it seems. In the South Pacific, this continued until well into the 20th century. In the Middle East, the changeover from human to animal sacrifice is immortalized in Genesis, when God instructs Abraham, at the last second, not to sacrifice his only son—as God had told Abraham to do that morning, back in his tent—but instead to sacrifice the ram that had just gotten caught in a thicket, nearby the sacrificial altar. This is thought to have happened around 2000 BC.

What is the Abel & Cain parable but an allegory, a story originally about Hunter-Gatherer-Nomads (that is, Israelites) vs. the Farmer-Settlers, on whose land they encroached as they followed their goat herds? Both children of the “first humans” and so “brothers,” they came to blows; the Israelites conquered the Farmers, and banished all the men after slashing their foreheads so they’d never be able to sneak back and blend in. The pretty women and children were likely enslaved, but maybe sent away with the men whose lives the Israelites had spared. Pretty civilized of them, in this case, but they weren’t always so nice.

On at least seven occasions, the Israelites’ prophets instructed the Israelites to "wipe out" or utterly destroy specific groups of people, specifically the Seven Nations of Canaan, the Promised Land. The Seven Nations were: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. The commands to wipe out these nations were part of the broader narrative of the Israelites' conquest of Canaan, as described in the Book of Deuteronomy and Joshua. The Israelites' drive to conquer Canaan and expel the Seven Nations is traditionally placed around 1400 BC.

Roughly 3,400 years later, on October 28, 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu drew a comparison between Hamas and the Amalekites, a biblical enemy of the Israelites. He referenced a biblical passage, stating, “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible” (in Deuteronomy 25:17-19). In 1 Samuel (15:3) is the biblical command to destroy the Amalekites entirely: “Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants.” Not only back in the day, but also in contemporary academia, defense of a divine call for genocide is fairly common, especially among evangelicals. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_in_the_Hebrew_Bible

The emergence of monotheism in ancient Israel marked a radical departure from the polytheistic traditions that dominated virtually all early religions. Unlike the pluralistic pantheons of Mesopotamia, Egypt, or Greece, which embraced diverse deities and fluid cosmologies, monotheism introduced a singular, omnipotent God, demanding exclusive devotion and reshaping the spiritual and cultural landscape, often at the expense of tolerance for competing beliefs.

Over the years from the 17th-18th-century Enlightenment to the modern era, there have been several critiques of monotheism, particularly Christianity. Roughly 30–40% of commentators, experts, pundits, and scholars view monotheism as a detrimental force, citing intolerance, violence, and cultural suppression. About 40–50% see it as a positive force, emphasizing moral frameworks, scientific advancement, and social benefits. The remaining 20–30% adopt a neutral or mixed stance, recognizing both impacts. These estimates reflect trends in scholarly and public discourse, but precise percentages are unavailable due to the lack of comprehensive surveys. 

David Hume (1711-1776), the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, laid an early foundation for critiquing monotheism’s impact on civilization. In The Natural History of Religion (1757), Hume argued that monotheism, unlike polytheism’s pluralistic openness, inherently breeds intolerance by demanding adherence to a single doctrine. He wrote, “The intolerance of narrow monotheism is written in letters of blood across the history of man from the time when first the tribes of Israel burst into the land of Canaan.” For Hume, monotheism’s exclusivity fueled aggressive wars and cultural suppression, as seen in the Israelite conquests and later Christian crusades. He contrasted this with polytheism, which he believed allowed greater intellectual and cultural flexibility, fostering coexistence among diverse beliefs. Hume’s critique, grounded in his skepticism of religious dogma, framed monotheism as a source of conflict, stifling the pluralistic spirit essential for a flourishing civilization.

Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the French founder of positivism, viewed Christianity and monotheism as obstacles to human progress. In A General View of Positivism (1848), Comte argued that religion, particularly monotheistic faiths, belonged to a primitive “theological stage” of human development, which he believed humanity must transcend to achieve a scientific, rational society. He saw Christianity’s emphasis on divine authority as suppressing intellectual inquiry and perpetuating superstition, delaying the advent of a positivist era rooted in empirical knowledge. Comte’s vision of a “Religion of Humanity” sought to replace monotheistic dogmas with a secular system celebrating human achievement, arguing that Christianity’s metaphysical claims hindered societal advancement. His critique, though less vitriolic than later thinkers, positioned monotheism as a relic of an immature intellectual phase, detrimental to the progress of civilization.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), the German philosopher, offered one of the most scathing critiques of Christianity in works like Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883–1885) and The Antichrist (1888). He argued that Christianity’s “slave morality,” rooted in humility and submission, undermined the vitality of human existence by glorifying weakness and suppressing individual creativity. Nietzsche declared, “Christianity has been the greatest misfortune of humanity so far,” blaming it for fostering resentment and stifling the “will to power” essential for human flourishing. He saw monotheism’s focus on a transcendent God as devaluing earthly life, promoting a nihilistic worldview that negated human potential. Nietzsche’s critique extended to Christianity’s historical role in suppressing pagan vitality and enforcing conformity, which he believed weakened Western civilization’s cultural dynamism. His vision of an Übermensch sought to transcend Christian morality, advocating for a life-affirming philosophy free from monotheistic constraints.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), the British philosopher and mathematician, critiqued Christianity as a force that hindered intellectual and moral progress. In Why I Am Not a Christian (1927), he argued that Christianity’s dogmatic beliefs, such as biblical literalism, stifled scientific inquiry and rational thought, citing historical examples like the persecution of Galileo. Russell wrote, “I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.” He criticized Christianity’s moral teachings, particularly its emphasis on guilt and sin, as psychologically harmful and irrational, arguing that they enforced outdated taboos that restricted human freedom. Russell’s atheism led him to advocate for a secular ethic based on reason, viewing Christianity’s institutional power as a barrier to intellectual liberation and societal progress, a perspective that resonated with later critics.

Gore Vidal (1925-2012), the American writer and provocateur, viewed Christianity and monotheism as catastrophic forces in Western civilization. In a 1954 letter to Warren Allen Smith, he declared monotheism “the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race,” dismissing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as inherently authoritarian. In his 1992 Lowell Lecture, “Monotheism and its Discontents,” Vidal described monotheism as “the great unmentionable evil,” rooted in a “barbaric Bronze Age text” (the Old Testament) that fostered patriarchal oppression and intolerance. He argued that monotheism’s demand for absolute obedience led to totalitarianism, stating, “Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can truly serve the sky-god’s purpose.” Vidal’s novel Live from Golgotha (1992) satirized Christianity’s origins, portraying St. Paul as distorting Jesus’s message to create a global religion, a view he reiterated in interviews. He also criticized Christianity’s role in American politics, arguing in “The Decline and Fall of the American Empire” (1992) that churches subverted secular ideals by imposing moral taboos, clashing with the Founding Fathers’ principles.

Vidal’s disdain for Christianity’s repressive morality, particularly its impact on gender and sexuality, was informed by his identity as a bisexual man. He saw monotheism’s patriarchal structure as marginalizing women and enforcing conformity, stifling liberal movements. In contrast, Vidal admired Buddhism, viewing it as an ethical and educational system rather than a religion. In a PBS American Masters interview, he praised Buddhism’s focus on human well-being, contrasting it with monotheism’s “frenzied and virulent” gods. His novel Julian (1964) explored Emperor Julian’s resistance to Christian dominance, reflecting Vidal’s sympathy for non-monotheistic traditions. While Vidal’s engagement with Buddhism was intellectual rather than practical, he saw it as a rational alternative to monotheism’s dogmatism, aligning with his secular humanist ethos.

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011), the British-American journalist, was a fierce critic of religion, arguing in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) that Christianity and monotheism fostered violence, ignorance, and oppression. He cited the Crusades, witch hunts, and opposition to scientific advances as evidence of Christianity’s harm, stating, “Religion is the principal source of violence and suffering in the world.” Hitchens viewed monotheism’s claim to absolute truth as inherently intolerant, fueling conflicts and suppressing intellectual freedom. Hitchens’ critique extended to Christianity’s moral teachings, which he saw as guilt-inducing and antithetical to rational ethics, advocating for a secular morality grounded in reason and human rights.

Richard Dawkins (1941-present), the British evolutionary biologist, has consistently critiqued monotheism, particularly Christianity, as a detriment to intellectual and societal progress. In The God Delusion (2006), he described the Old Testament’s God as “the most unpleasant character in all fiction.” Dawkins argues that Christianity’s dogmatic beliefs, such as biblical literalism, hinder scientific inquiry, citing historical persecutions like Galileo’s. In a 2018 X post, he called Christianity a “relatively benign strain” compared to Islam but maintained that faiths are “toxic plagues of the mind.” While recently identifying as a “cultural Christian” in 2024, appreciating its art and music, Dawkins remains critical of monotheism’s irrationality, arguing it stifles critical thinking and perpetuates moral harm.

Ken Wilber (1949-present), the American philosopher, critiqued monotheism for its role in human suffering, stating, “Throughout history, religion has been the single greatest source of human-caused wars, suffering, and misery.” He argued that Christianity’s exclusive truth claims justified violence, such as during the Crusades or colonial missions, and suppressed individual autonomy. Wilber’s integrative philosophy advocates for a transpersonal spirituality that transcends monotheism’s rigidity, viewing it as a source of conflict when treated as an ultimate authority. His critique, though less polemical than Hitchens’ or Dawkins’, emphasizes monotheism’s tendency to foster dogmatism, limiting the evolution of human consciousness and societal harmony.

Mark S. Smith (1956-present), a biblical scholar, critiques monotheism as a “totalizing discourse” that marginalizes alternative beliefs. In The Early History of God (1990), he argues that monotheism’s dominance, through Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, suppressed pluralistic traditions, fostering intolerance and exclusion. He writes, “Monotheism has been a totalizing discourse, often co-opting all aspects of a social belief system, resulting in the exclusion of ‘others’.” Smith’s scholarly perspective highlights monotheism’s historical role in conflicts like the Israelite conquests, suggesting it shaped a less tolerant cultural landscape in Western civilization.

James Lovelock (1919-2022), the British scientist behind the Gaia hypothesis, criticized monotheism for disconnecting humanity from nature. He argued that Christianity’s focus on a transcendent God “anesthetizes the sense of wonder as if one were committed to a single line of thought by a cosmic legal contract.” Lovelock saw monotheism’s emphasis on divine authority as dulling humanity’s ecological awareness, contributing to environmental degradation. His critique positions Christianity as an intellectual constraint that limits civilization’s ability to engage with the natural world’s complexity.

Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961), the Swiss psychiatrist, offers a contrasting perspective that complicates the narrative of monotheism’s detriment. While not as unequivocally critical as the others, Jung’s views merit inclusion for their influence on modern intellectual discourse. In works like Psychology and Religion (1938) and Aion (1951), Jung values Christianity’s archetypal richness, seeing Christ as a symbol of the Self and its rituals as psychologically therapeutic. However, he criticized its dogmatism and repression of the unconscious, particularly its neglect of the shadow and feminine aspects, which he believed caused psychological imbalances. In Answer to Job (1952), he critiques the Old Testament’s portrayal of Yahweh as morally ambivalent, arguing that Christianity failed to integrate evil, leading to cultural and psychological fragmentation. Jung saw Christianity as a necessary stage in Western development but outdated in its institutional forms, advocating for a direct encounter with the numinous. His balanced view leans slightly toward critique, suggesting monotheism’s limitations outweigh its benefits in the modern era.

These intellectuals, spanning centuries, share a common critique of monotheism’s dogmatism, intolerance, and suppression of human potential. Vidal’s admiration for Buddhism, shared to some extent by Jung, provides a counterpoint. Vidal praised Buddhism as an ethical system, free from monotheism’s patriarchal “sky-god,” aligning with his secular humanism. Jung similarly admired Buddhism’s focus on inner experience, seeing it as more conducive to individuation than Christianity’s externalized salvation. Both viewed Eastern philosophies as offering rational, human-centered alternatives, though their engagement remained intellectual rather than practical.

I guess we shouldn’t exclude Albert Einstein (1879-1955), who was critical of certain aspects of Christianity, particularly its dogmatic elements and belief in a personal God, which he saw as conflicting with scientific principles. While he rejected the idea of a personal, interventionist God, he did express belief in a higher power that governs the universe through natural laws. He believed in "[Baruch] Spinoza's God," who is identical to nature and the universe's inherent order. Einstein also described himself as a "religious nonbeliever" or agnostic, indicating he didn't adhere to traditional religious beliefs. He famously stated, "If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism," for its focus on a naturalistic worldview, and its emphasis on personal experience.

Einstein’s beliefs resemble the Deism of America’s Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine, Enlightenment thinkers who believed in reason and natural laws, and were skeptical of dogmatic religion. Paine articulated Deist views in The Age of Reason and Jefferson in Notes on the State of Virginia. While Einstein’s pantheism slightly diverges from Deism’s distinct Creator, his belief in a universe governed by mathematical laws mirrors the Deist view of a rational cosmos. Both embrace a naturalistic higher power. Just sayin’…