Well, the Maya and the Inca certainly did not.

Most hunter gatherer societies were/are animist.
Monotheism emerged with agrarian civilization and/or pastoralism.

I wonder what the connection to domestication of plants and animals, and monotheism is?

@Dutchess_III “I wonder what the connection to domestication of plants and animals, and monotheism is?”

If I had to guess, it’s probably about wealth, power and control. When a society transitions away from being nomadic and decentralized to a more permanent, agrarian society, one would expect the religion of that culture to become more standardized as well. Monotheism seems to be a logical extension of that. i.e. “There is only one God—MY GOD—and you need to go through me to worship him/her/it. Don’t forget to leave a donation in my donation box on your way in and tithe 10%...”

@Dutchess_III
Agrarian societies required top heavy governance in order to maintain order and cohesion.
This was accomplished by violence with the king or prince or whomever claiming that their power derived from the all powerful god.
Otherwise, the peasants working the fields and construction projects would rebel.

Ah. I see. Makes sense you guys. It was the basis for the Roman Catholic religion, too. The more people they could convert to Christianity the more people they could control.

Plus, it would be tough to talk to an animal as an equal when you had it locked in a pen.

Well, that’s what Trump supporters may be doing soon. :~

You’re asking about a bazillion different tribes!

I know. That’s why I questioned this one woman’s intense assertion.

I don’t think the Catholic religion was about control. Sometimes it’s like the more people you convert, the more perks you qualified for once you got to heaven. Like having lots of kids, too.

That one woman could only speak in general terms since she couldn’t know about all tribes.

“To survive properly… the Indians felt a need for some powerful assistance. They got it from a host of spirits that inhabited the natural world. The spirits were thought to be literally everywhere and were almost always identified with some visible object, animal or phenomenon. They were said to dwell in the sun and earth, in rivers and hills, in thunderstorms and rainbows, and within creatures ranging from the dragonfly to the buffalo. These sacred beings had power to bring success in the hunt and war, protect the young, heal the sick, guarantee fertility, and generally assure the welfare of the tribe and its individuals in whatever they undertook.” -from The Old West series from Time-Life Books, “The Indians” page 124

“To survive properly… the Indians felt a need for some powerful assistance.”
Didn’t all of our ancestors think that?

Anyway, this Native American woman said those stories were bunk @kritiper. Who is right? You or her?

For a brief overview I would recommend looking at this description from Encyclopedia Britannica. A couple of points from that article that beg further investigation:

“Native American people themselves often claim that their traditional ways of life do not include “religion.” They find the term difficult, often impossible, to translate into their own languages. This apparent incongruity arises from differences in cosmology and epistemology. Western tradition distinguishes religious thought and action as that whose ultimate authority is supernatural—which is to say, beyond, above, or outside both phenomenal nature and human reason. In most indigenous worldviews there is no such antithesis. Plants and animals, clouds and mountains carry and embody revelation….Instead of encompassing a duality of sacred and profane, indigenous religious traditions seem to conceive only of sacred and more sacred. Spirit, power, or something akin moves in all things, though not equally.”

“Because religions of this kind are so highly localized, it is impossible to determine exactly how many exist in North America now or may have existed in the past.”

”... there is no such thing as a generic “Native American religion.” Attempts to understand these religious traditions en masse are bound to produce oversimplification and distortion. Instead, it may be useful to consider the broad characteristics that pertain to the religious lives of many indigenous North American communities.”

“Participation is more important than belief. Arguments about doctrinal truth are largely absent from most native North American religious traditions. ” This is from that same link (above).

The notion that participation is more important than belief struck me as true not only for the NA beliefs but for many self-described Christians (and probably most other mono-theistic religions). It is more important for the welfare of the individual to be a member of a group than to actually believe. I think this could explain why so many so-called believers do not know or do not seem to follow the tenets of their own religions.

@Dutchess_lll Hey! I didn’t write the book! I suggest you get a copy and read the whole chapter.

@kritiper I don’t need to. I’ve read on Native American spirituality before and it was at odds with what she was saying, which is why I posted this question. So, are the books right, or is she?

Really good points @rojo. I agree. For a whole lot of people, saying they are a Christian is more important than actually being a Christian.

@Dutchess_III I think she is biased. The books would cover more variables than she possibly could. And the book I quoted was very well researched, according to the credits.

@rojo To add, religious hypocrites are the worst!

My impression, due to how adamantly she made the comment about “One god, the creator”, was that she was a Christian, the one true religion, and that was her way of witnessing. Some Christians are scared to death of anything that remotely threatens their beliefs. If her ancestors were animist, she was prepared to deny them.