| |||
The primary function of monotheistic religions is to provide authority. This province of religion is particularly distinctive in the Abrahamic religions, which trace their lineage to Abraham who, through his covenant with God, became the patriarch of half of the world’s current population. This acceptance of God by man forms the cornerstone of modern monotheistic worship.
The tradition of monotheism stands in stark contrast to that of polytheism. The two traditions did not develop separately, however. Indeed, in more than one way is monotheism the modern progeny of polytheism: in terms of demotic adoption, monotheism is more contemporary; in terms of the historical development of ideas, again monotheism is more neoteric. The cause of the latter distinction is that polytheism is more atavistic; it operates on a more primitive, even natural, psychological level. The primeval conception of nature reflects plurality and chaos, while the opposing perception of singularity and order necessitates a higher degree of intellectual development. Man in nature inherently recognizes—or learns to recognize—simple patterns, but awareness of a greater interconnectedness within the universe—as demonstrated by belief in one supreme god or, alternatively, by scientific observations of the consistency of and dependence of natural phenomena upon one another—requires an extension of intellect. That is not to say that monotheism is more intellectual than polytheism; the perception of the universe on which monotheism is founded, however, is more so than the one on which polytheism is founded. Put simply, the instinctual conception identifies the distinctiveness of a multitude of entities, and this formation is integral to polytheism.
The earliest religion, therefore, views every object as possessed of a supernatural force utterly separate from the next. The earliest incarnation of monotheism is not a vast departure from this earliest polytheistic religion, for it dwells within the domain of henotheism rather than of monotheism proper. That is, the direct predecessor to monotheism accepts the existence of many gods but allows for the worship of only one god. The child of henotheism is monolatry, which only differs from its parent in that it condones the worship of one god in particular: while the henotheist admits that others within the same religion may worship another god in the pantheon, the monolatrist denies that any other god is worthy of worship.
From these roots sprung monotheism, which, in some religions, maintains hints of its origin. Christianity is particularly notable in this regard: it descries a plurality of divinity of sorts, as demonstrated by the Trinity and by the nature of angels. One of the major religious developments that coincides with monotheism is the concept of transcendence. While transcendence is not product of monotheism, it is characteristic of monotheism’s modernism. Transcendence contrasts with immanence, or the belief that divinity is contained strictly within the confines of the natural world. Many creeds mix the two (here again seen in the Trinity, in which Jesus Christ is the immanent form of the transcendent God), but transcendence—alone or in combination—is an aspect of religion that supports, in monotheism, the foundation of authority. Upon this foundation of authority rest three interrelated notions: the existence of God, the supremacy of God, and the obeisance to God. The definition of monotheism subsumes the first idea, and so it is only worth mentioning insofar as it is a prerequisite of the two successive ideas. Monotheism implies also the supremacy of God, but to a lesser extent: it is conceivable that one may believe in God but actively reject his sovereignty. Belief in God’s transcendence, though excluded from this triumvirate upon which the idea of monotheistic authority exists, decreases the likelihood of finding a monotheist who does not conform to the second point. It is also notable that the Abrahamic religions support God’s objective supremacy. The third notion represents the crux of the matter, for obeisance to God prescribes—beyond merely the facts that are believed—the virtues that are exercised in practice. Adherence to this third idea expresses the value that God should be obeyed, and thus all other values are defined by deference to God.
The second notion—the supremacy of God—may be examined more deeply. As noted, genuflection to God, in practice, almost invariably follows from belief in his supremacy. At the very least, most believers in God’s supremacy maintain a certain level of guilt, should they not follow the divine commands; such a situation still fulfills the third notion because the defining trait of obeisance to God is that it should be done, not that it is done. The universality of deference to God among those who believe in his dominion results, in part, from the fact that monotheism stems from faith rather than from reason. (While most monotheists embrace the significance of faith, some argue that there exists reason that supports belief in God; this contention arises out of the god-of-the-gaps assumption, which is a leap of faith disguised as a logical conclusion.) Assuming indubitable evidence that God exists as the single, supreme deity in the universe, the step from the second monotheistic notion—now universally accepted as fact, without a role played by faith—to the third notion assumes a new complexion. In this scenario in which the supreme God clearly exists, a certain question becomes more prominent, and it is this: God may be the universe’s sovereign entity, but what reason is there for one to obey his laws?
Several responses validly answer this question, although they largely depend on the temperament of God and on the attitude of everyone else in the world. The greatest motivator for obeisance to God under the above assumed circumstances is fear. The fear for the repercussions of opposing the acquiescence to God would be two-fold, and they would arise from a desire to avoid the potential castigations of both God and society. However, despite the assumptions we are making, we cannot presume that these punishments necessarily will follow. A similar concern exists even if no punishments, per se, will occur, and it is a fear that a lack of obeisance to God will result in the forfeiture of deliverance, redemption, or any other form of salvation. Again, though, the fulfillment of such promises does not necessarily follow from the assumptions. Monotheists tend to operate under the belief that, since the supreme God exists, he should be obeyed, but, even if the antecedent is true, the conclusion does not follow perforce.
The dominant reason for the adoption of the third notion by monotheists is that God, through his nature as the foremost divine being in existence, acts as a moral compass. That is, God, because of his very nature, defines the objective truths. The validity of this belief should be addressed in another essay entirely, but the belief itself is critical here. This belief, which virtually all monotheists espouse even if only by assumption and not by conscious consideration, bridges the second and third notions, whose confluence (along with the requisite first notion) forms the basis of a profound value: life requires the guidance of authority.
This principle is deeply entrenched in the essence of monotheism. All monotheistic religions that hold moral tenets are based on the elevation of the existential importance of authority. In defining the proper way of life—which every person does at least subconsciously—one who follows no religion (or, even more precisely, one who sees no objective truths) must accept his own expertise on the matter; he is his own authority, in other words. For, say, the Christian, on the other hand, the authority is God.
This distinctive trait of monotheism reveals the believer’s emphasis on authority. In the completely subjective universe, each individual’s position expresses a uniformly valid perspective; in the monotheistic universe, a believer can maintain confidence that the supreme being’s commands express the only valid perspective. In the latter universe, man assumes responsibility for his actions but not for his values, for he relies on the absolute truth of the divine laws to guide his moral orientation. It is thus not surprising that monotheism remains overwhelmingly popular: few men are willing to admit the universe’s subjectivity, cut through its confusion, and ultimately brandish a set of value judgments for which he alone is responsible.