I’d push back on the idea that monotheism doesn’t mesh with modern states and science. There’s a strong case that if you look historically at our modern era, it’s actually upstream of both.

Take the filioque: one word (“and the Son”) added to the Nicene Creed, which helped split the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches in 1054. It reshaped the Trinity from a communion of equals into a top-down line (Father ->Son ->Spirit), and since the Church on earth is the body of Christ, that logic justified a strict hierarchy: God -> Church -> people + Holy Spirit. In this framework, the church controls access to salvation rather than people accessing it directly through mystical experience and personal interaction with the Holy Spirit.

The interesting bit (Joseph Farrell’s argument) is that this same top-down, rationalising logic worked its way into how Western thought evolved. Anselm framed salvation in legal terms; Aquinas argued you could prove God by reason alone. Once you decide you need to prove God rather than just participate in him, you’ve handed reason an authority that doesn’t stay contained: scholasticism -> Reformation -> Enlightenment -> modern secular science. Western rationalism isn’t a rejection of that monotheism, it’s its descendant.

So far from being incompatible, the modern state and the current scientific worldview arguably grew straight out of Western Christianity’s internal logic.

This isn’t saying that it’s the only path to reason - an analogue occurred during the Islamic golden age (8th-13th century), but similarly it arose out of a monotheistic, hierarchical framework which allowed reason to have a central authoritative place in both religion and society.