Musings on monotheism

By Johann Hari

It’s when you look at the birth-pangs of a religion that you can see most clearly how it was invented not by some mystical "God", but by human beings – usually for cynical reasons.

Look, for example, at the inventor of monotheism. The man who introduced to humanity the idea that there was One God was Pharaoh Akhenaten, some thirty-three centuries ago. (You can see his likeness for the next few months in the gaudy exhibition at the Millennium Dome, excavated from the tomb of his son Tutenkhamun). Akhenaten declared that the sun-god Aten was the only true deity, and all other Gods must be discredited and denied. It was a crucial moment in human history, a radical break by a "heretic Pharaoh" with all preceding superstitions. At that moment, he first formed the idea that was later refined until it became humanity’s most successful superstition.

But it was a lie – a political trick to maximise his power. Many Egyptologists now believe that Akhenaten only gave birth to monotheism because the priesthood of the rival god Amun was becoming too strong for the comfort of the royal house. At the very moment of its birth, monotheism was made up for the political convenience of man.

This shouldn’t surprise us. (Especially not here in England, where our state religion is not Catholicism thanks to the fluke of a fat man wanting a divorce). At the birth of every religion, you can see this self-interested trickery. In Christopher Hitchens’ brilliant new book ‘God is Not Great’, the traces the preposterous invention of Mormonism. My favourite example of a religion blatantly invented as a con is Scientology. Its Messiah was a huckster called L. Ron Hubbard, a compulsive liar who declared in the 1950s, "If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be to start his own religion." And how – by 1982, he was raking in forty million dollars a year. He launched his ‘religion’ in a magazine called ‘Astounding Science Fiction’, where it was accompanied by a story about a hairy ape-alien called the Duke of Kraakahayam, the special envoy from the Empire of Skontar to the Commonwealth of Sol. The ape-alien spoke more sense.

Hubbard’s religious "discoveries" strangely shifted to suit his needs and whims. After psychiatrists condemned his theories as "nonsense", he announced that psychiatrists were the root of all evil, "not just on this planet but from time immemorial." He "discovered" that psychiatrists existed at the start of the universe – well, I guess the rocks needed therapy – and they invented evil in a particular star system not dissimilar to our own.

The same approach can be seen in the works of Jesus and Mohammed. Look at the affair of the ‘Satanic Verses’, which many people wrongly assume was invented by Salman Rushdie. The tale of the Satanic Verses is an event documented by the earliest scholars of Islam.

When Mohamnmed was starting out in Mecca, he was finding it difficult to keep all his diffuse followers on side and retain good relations with his Arab kinsmen. Some of them were particularly attached to a few of the old deities, so they resisted the new-fangled ‘there is no God but God’ spiel at the heart of Islam’s message. So one day, Mohammed had a convenient ‘revelation’, delivered by the Archangel Gabriel. He announced that you could worship three of the old Gods after all! Everyone was a winner, and peace prevailed.

But a few of Mohammed’s followers were puzzled. They remembered him saying the complete opposite only a few months before. How could God, through his messenger the Archangel Gabriel, contradict himself? Didn’t you say he was all-perfect and all-knowing? So Mohammed suddenly announced that clearly Satan had impersonated the Archangel Gabriel and dictated false messages to him. The passages saying polytheism was okay after all were swiftly dubbed ‘Satanic Verses’ and scrubbed from the record.

(Salman Rushdie was, in his brilliant novel of the same name, trying to introduce some much-needed doubt into Islam by asking – if Mohammed could be wrong once, couldn’t he have been wrong other times too? Shouldn’t the religion be more humble? This proposal didn’t go down too well, if you recall.)

At its very birth, montheism was a con. Until we start demanding basic rules of rationality in human belief – like asking ‘Where is the evidence for your claims?’ insistently – we will keep falling for the Akhenatens and the Hubbards.

Comments

[Australian Atheist]

Short video of Rushdie reading from the Satanic Verses.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/11/salman_rushdie.html

[Benjamin Kirby]

The real question is why. Mormons know the stories about Smith's inability to translate a text twice the same way. Muslims know about the Satanic verses. If they read the Quran they would know it contradicts itself all the time. It is not enough to say that these things only appeal to the weak minded because although they largely do, they don't entirely do so. There have been no shortage of intelligent theists around - even monotheists.

Nor is it likely that Akhenaten had much to do with monotheism although theists used to like to claim it did. Notice the circular argument as well, some writers, unable to think of a reason why he might have flirted with the idea, assume it was for political reasons which Mr Hari then uses as a reason to criticise monotheists for using religion for political reasons. Actually a circular argument is too generous. It does not get that far. Who knows why he became a monotheist? I would hope my speculations would tell you all more about Egypt than about my own assumptions.

I'd hoped for a better article.

[Alisdair Clarke]

If you really want to understand how destructive monotheism is, I suggest you read Alain de Benoist's ON BEING A PAGAN. De Benoist contrasts the Abrahamic monotheisms against European paganism, the Dharmic religions, Nietzsche and Heidegger. He shows that the negativity of the Abrahamic religions' attitudes towards homosexuality pales into insignificance compared to its essentially alien worldview which is profoundly hostile to all indigenous European ways of thinking.

[Gregor]

Sigh...

Johann is great on some issues. He stinks on two: religion and humour.

This combines the worst of both. I am a Christian, I've read all about the links between Akhenetan and Moses; about the plausible Zoroastrian influence on Christian dualism.

Yet religion is a mystical thing. Still, I'm pleased Johann keeps citing Hitchens as a totem of reason. I was in Iraq during the weekend. Lvely plac, like paradise, a wondrful democracy The only problem was that I had to refuse some of the flowers and sweets after I was weighed down so much.

[Phil Ishmael]

Is this the same Christopher Hitchens who favours Genocide in the case of Muslims?
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11768

[Bill McMenemy]

Christian dualism? Dualism presupposes mind/body separation. Christ was a monist. Paganism is a belief system, atheists say there is nothing to believe in.

[Donya G]

I have always said every religion is man made and modified throughout centuries to fit the needs of the day. It has always amazed me that with some incredible detailed stories of these religious figures, no one has any clue as to what they looked like (not even the colour of their eyes). All these religions supposed to be about love and peace and they have brought nothing but misery and death.

[LindaWS]

Tony Blair decides to come out as a religious nutter now and thanks to so called conversations with his imaginary friend Iraq is in shreds. Blair is not a stupid person nor is Mitt Romney. What makes some people believe in absurd religious superstitions even when their common sense must shout cuckoo clock?

Is a predisposition to promote, embrace and spread superstition a form of mental illness? It makes sense that those with low IQ may be susceptible to religion meme infections in the brain but surely people with above average intelligence would twig to the virus and seek help.

[Vinelectric]

Actually the Arabs were idolators more than polytheists. They have always worshipped a mono-deity with the idols acting as intercessors. Monotheism in the Arabian peninsula has its roots way before Muhammad. The Arabs think they've inherited monotheism from Abraham and the Israelites.

Anyway it's refreshing to see an attempt at historical analysis of the origin of monotheisms but I have to admit the story of the Satanic verses is a red herring.

There are two histoirans (Tabari and Ibn Saad) that mention the story but the chain of narration is almost non existent and no serious historian would lend the story much credit.

If you're going to selectively quote these historians on such stories you might as well quote the other stories that appear to be more consistent with the man's character and his book. Unfortunately there is a wave of under informed critics that seem to be barking under the wrong tree by following such nonesense.

I wish the more "authentic" hadiths and the Quran be subjected to the same level of serious and honest historical analysis as the bible and the torah. If the author follows the likes of the satanic verses stories then he's definitely wasting his effort. As if there is no abundance of more reliable literature to chew on. Believe me there is, waiting to be dissected.

For those interested in the Satanic verses

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html

[Staks Rosch]

I would add that monotheisic Christianty too is a con. The Emperor Constantine "converted" to Christianity and made it the religion of the Roman Empire. He did this for largely political reasons. He saw a power base to tap into and he did so. Judiasm too only adopted monotheism to create solidarity between the Jewish Tribes. They later used monotheism to conquer the lands of others.

[Mark]

"The real question is why. Mormons know the stories about Smith's inability to translate a text twice the same way."

I read some research a while backs claiming that the substantial success of Mormonism proves that the mythology of religion is far less important than the way adherents practice that religion. New members were enticed to join not so much by the scriptures but by the way existing members practice their religion. Mormonism has grown mainly becuase of its basic philosphy of strong family values, independent spirit and dedication to building their communities. I can undertand this as the ramblings of Joseph Smith aren't particularly fascinating but the history of Momonism is an incredible story. It is also in way the most American of religions, not only are the prophets American but so are the early heroes and it encapsulates the pioneer spirit, the hatred of federal government, the love of family & community, th ewhole American dream. Many commentators have said that Mitt Romney would have been the ideal presidential candidate if he weren't Mormon but his ability to reach out to others not in his community demonstrate how religions can make an impression beyond the ideology of their scriptures.
Basically it is the spirit that a religion encapulates that is important not it's written mythologies or philospohies. This is why atheists harpering on about Flying Spaghetti monsters will never have much impact on the religious. I doubt that story has ever made an atheist out of anyone, most people leave religion to escape a restrictive culture and because they admire the relaxed lifestyle of atheists, not becasue they have suddenly seen the light of day and decided that God didn't really speak to Muhammed, Abraham, Joseph Smith etc.

[AntiBarbie]

most people leave religion to escape a restrictive culture and because they admire the relaxed lifestyle of atheists, not becasue they have suddenly seen the light of day and decided that God didn't really speak to Muhammed, Abraham, Joseph Smith etc.

Um, actually most of the Atheists I know that came from religious backgrounds didn't give a care about restrictive cultures that much, we just didn't buy into the tripe we were being fed. It took me many years and a lot of research to come to my conclusions about religion.