New Sedley Chapter On Ancient Greek Atheism

Quote from Matt

I do hold that sincerity of belief is important to trusting the rest of a person’s character. If perhaps Epicurus was acting in a manner that fit the description held by his opponents, that he was merely hiding a form of atheism while constructing a false theology that allowed for him to remain in good standing with the pious Greeks, then that would cause the rest of his system to be called into question in my opinion. That would be a very troubling situation. But I don’t believe he did that.

Yes that's my view almost exactly. Other philosophers were known to be atheist, and I have a very hard time believing that Epicurus could not himself have found a living situation somewhere - outside of Athens if necessary - where he could teach his views with complete honesty. That means that if he chose to stay in Athens for simple convenience or for the "good life" that it offered, at the expense of being honest with his students, he would be open to charges of the worst kind of hypocrisy. He wasn't hemmed in by some of the scientific views that we think hem us in today.

It appears to me that Epicurus thought that there was nothing at all contradictory to science about gods being made of a form of atoms that they could replenish, any more than that anything contradicted the view that life exists at other places throughout the universe. We don't have to accept the same viewpoint today if we think that there's some scientific fact that contradicts it, but there's no reason to impute modern concerns about the limits of life in the rest of the universe back in time to Epicurus.

A lot of this comes down to the issue of "philosophy" vs "science" and their relative roles, as we've discussed before here on the forum and if I recall maybe even in this thread. I don't think it's necessary to take sides, and I think they both can be reconciled, but I think what Epicurus was warning against in his day, and it still applies today, that it is very tempting for some people to take "science" and make speculative claims that can't be reconciled with sound "philosophy," and whenever that happens a lot of warning bells ought to go off in our minds.

A somewhat relevant observation I’ve made about people and sincerity of belief has recently occurred in the military involving beards. As a standard rule of thumb, men’s grooming and appearance disallow any facial hair with the exception of a well maintained mustache. Beards are not allowed unless there is a medical reason for not being able to shave like pseudofolliculitis. But such waivers are rare. However now “religious exemption” has appeared on the scene…

For years certain religions such as the Indian Sikhs were barred from joining most military branches due to the need for a clean shaven face and cropped hair. Short of a professional job such as a Doctor, JAG or Chaplain, no Sikh could join for many, many years. Then overnight the “Norse Pagan” people started popping up, claiming that to truly practice their religion they must maintain a full beard. The Sikhs are of a ethnic and cultural tradition that extends back to the Middle Ages, while the “Norse Pagans” are a 20th and 21st century fabrication and reconstruction of historical beliefs that went extinct back in the early Middle Ages with the advent of Christianity. What I do know is that many people are now claiming to be “Norse Pagans” when ultimately they are atheists or agnostics that truly don’t care, but are only claiming this (which is a huge administrative process) so they claim this religious classification. Now if someone TRULY believes that Odin, Thor and the Giants are real…then more power to you, enjoy. However…if you are doing this because you want to sport a beard. I question your sincerity in general and whether you take anything seriously.

Which brings me to the reason WHY we shave: Gas mask seals. To maintain a properly sealed gas mask, a man must have a clean shaven face to make a proper seal. If the seal fails, chemical agents will seep in and disable or kill the wearer thereby putting themselves in danger…and everyone else. Just like the Greek phalanx we rely on our wingmen and battle buddies to be doing the right thing so we are working as a team to stay safe. So if someone goes down because of a beard, that may also put me in jeopardy.

Now I’m not going to exactly be happy if a pious Sikh is the cause of my demise because he couldn’t get a seal on his mask…but I’m going to be DISGUSTED with the person who feigned religious belief and made this disaster possible. Thus there is a real world example of how sincerity of belief or disbelief can really effect the view people have of you.

I hope to eventually get more of an understanding around Epicurus' ideas/beliefs about the gods. In the meantime I found this interesting article on impiety, but lots of Greek words (maybe Don might enjoy decifering) and I have only read first few paragraphs of introduction.

Here is an excerpt:

Quote

Impiety is an offence, an ἀδικία – i.e., to put it crudely, a wrong that you might do and that is likely to be punished in some way.6 Imperative formulations used in preventive laws, such as ἀσεβὴς ἔστω, ἀσεβείτω and ἔνοχος ἔστω ἀσεβείᾳ, categorize a given ἀδικία as an impiety, but also imply that from now on the culprit will be regarded as impious, and this status will legitimize the application of sanctions from other members of the community. In other words, ἀσεβὴς ἔστω, “let him be impious”, should be understood as a shorter version of “let him be punished as one who is regarded as impious”.7 Far from being a simple linguistic twist, the connection between committing an ἀσέβεια and being ἀσεβής has not insignificant consequences for how we should understand impiety and its implications in Greek society, as well as the Greek legal system in general.

Impiety in Epigraphic Evidence

The concept of impiety (ἀσέβεια) in ancient Greek religion is complex. Firstly, definitions provided by ancient authors themselves point out, as potential…

journals.openedition.org

My idea right now is this: that it would not detract from my respect for Epicurus even if he was "not honest" in his piety -- and here is why: because the lying does not cause any harm or pain to any other person. But is seems we can't ever know whether he was "honest" or "dishonest".

Truthfully, I've been somewhat perplexed that Epicurus supported public religious festivals with enthusiasm while simultaneously maintaining that (1) the prevailing beliefs of his time were false and (2) Idealistic beliefs are harmful. I guess what I want to know is this: in which public festivals, specifically, did Epicurus participate? Better yet, let me ask, what public festivals existed in Hellenistic Greece were compatible with Epicurean theology? Orphic mysteries and Dionysian rites involved intoxicants and mysticism, Apollonian festivals celebrated a generous and human-centric solar deity ... exactly what was there for Epicurus that was neither (1) a false belief shared with the masses, or (2) Idealism?

( ... then again, just thinking out loud, I may actually understand this, because Christmas has always been one of my favorite celebrations, and Jesus stopped being a part of my Christmas the same year that Santa Claus did, so belief has never been an integral part of my celebration of the Mass of Christ, whom I believe in 0% ... then again, then again, my favorite Christmas traditions are medieval, Germanic additions, and I don't participate in any of the Jesus-related parts, so, I could easily forgive someone for arguing that I am not really celebrating Christmas "the right way". Perhaps Epicurus took the best of the public gatherings while quietly rejecting the intellectual propositions of the priests?)

Better yet, I acknowledge that my critical political opinions do not keep me from enjoying hot dogs, hamburgers, family, yard games, and beer on the Fourth of July. Those pleasures do not need to be justified by ideology to enjoy.

So, I think I get it (given that I'm not just massively projecting my own bubble on Epicurus).

Quote from Nate

Perhaps Epicurus took the best of the public gatherings while quietly rejecting the intellectual propositions of the priests?)

I have to think that you are 100% right on this. Those sentences in Diogenes Laertius are far too slender for us to read into it that he wholesale embraced all sorts of religious mysteries just for the sake of a good time at their meetings. He was teaching that those views weren't just wrong, but impious, so you have to be right.

Quote from Don

do I remember mention somewhere of Epicurus approving music but not dance or some such thing (other than than "I can't imagine the good without... pleasing movements, etc.")?

Hmmm at the moment I cannot confirm your memory there, and given the previous identification of the good by one of the earlier guys as "smooth motion" which seems to fit the atomism paradigm, I am thinking he probably didn't disapprove of dancing in any kind of general way -- probably the opposite in fact - and I don't recall any specific denunciation of it either. Maybe there's a passing reference in Lucretius to not liking aspects of some of the mystery cults which contained wild out-of-control dancing? But at the moment I can't even confirm that.

After researching a bit, some of the rituals and traditions surprised me. While I often think of Epicurus’ theism in terms of someone with a conservative mentality, social norms in ancient Greece make the word “conservative” unhelpful by comparison to my American eyes. Wine drunkenness seemed to have been a central feature, as did (possibly) public sexual intercourse, and a vibe that seems to me to be a mix between the Day of the Dead and Carnival.

I observe how readily non-Mexican and non-Irish Americans celebrate the non-civic, but totally fun Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick’s Days, versus how the civic, but totally non-fun Columbus Day has little ritualistic value to supporters (except as a political symbol for contemporary cultural tensions). If the ancient Greeks were as smart as the owners of some of the theatres in which I have performed, I have to imagine that they were smart enough to get their audiences drunk (makes for a better show), and (what a coincidence), Greek religion was, literally, the origin of theatre.

In general, ancient Greek civic holidays seem to have been celebrations associated with sensual indulgence. I wonder if that’s why Epicurus was pro-religious celebration. He wasn’t exactly avoiding red meat for Lent, or fasting for Ramadan (nor were his gods). The festival (Khoës) the author names was fairly orgiastic. I am curious if Epicurus’ philosophical opponents looked at civic holidays with suspicion, and, instead, preferred more private, esoteric practices.

I found some hostility to the Athenian festivals from Epicurus' opponents.

Cynics saw the religious festivals as wasteful: “[Philodemus] claims that Epicurus himself took part in Athenian festivals and was even initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries. The major exceptions to this conventionalism were the Cynics, followers of Diogenes of Sinope on the north-east coast of Asia Minor (c. 400 to c. 325 BC). […] He was reputed never to take part in religious rituals and to hold that there was nothing wrong with stealing from temples or committing anything else conventionally seen as sacrilegious.” (Religions of the Ancient Greeks, 136)

Plato thought that some of the festivals promoted false morality, glorified drunkenness, and generally celebrated vice: “Plato […] proposes to institute a rigid regime of cultic events that would stand in contrast to the Athenian festivals with their crowds of choruses singing songs of no fixed genre” (Greek and Roman Festivals: Content, Meaning, and Practice 220). “Dionysus’ gift of wine, when unmediated, is the originary example of the Dionysiac sympotic behaviour that Plato condemned” (Performance and Culture in Plato’s Laws 383). “The Greater Dionysia […] was celebrated with a bout of public drunkenness of which Plato heartily disapproved (Laws I 637a-b)” (Plato the Myth Maker, 21).

I did not locate any mentions of either Pyrrho or Epictetus displaying hostility toward public events, but I strongly suspect their derision given the overwhelming Stoic condemnation of intoxicants. Marcus Aurelius seems to only have supported such festivals as a point of control: “Marcus Aurelius [...] was [not] personally keen on public spectacles […] but, like all emperors, [he] had to placate the mob” (Marcus Aurelius: A Life 82). There also seems to be an accusation by critics that festivals eroded civic virtue: “celebrations and ‘religious’ festivals in honor of the gods had become so numerous that the emperor Marcus Aurelius finally had to step in and limit them to a sensible maximum of 135 per year” (The Hedonism Handbook: Mastering the Lost Arts of Leisure and Pleasure).

Conversely, the Cyrenaics (at least, their founder) were fond of the public spectacles, and seems to have specifically patronized the goddess of love and sexuality: “The philosopher Aristippus is said to have spent two months a year at the festival [of Aphrodite] with the courtesan Lais” (Pain and Pleasure in Classical Times 66).

There is a passage in the Latin text of Lucretius that alludes to the Parentalia and Feralia, which I'll need to find. These are consecutive feasts for dead ancestors and baleful spirits, as the names imply. Most English translations that I've seen do not capture the allusion, but it's there in the Latin.

From Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes by Edith Hamilton:

...people felt about Dionysus as about no other god. He was not only outside of them, he was within them, too. They could be transformed by him into being like him. The momentary sense of exultant power wine-drinking can give was only a sign to show men that they had within them more than they knew; “they could themselves become divine.”

To think in this way was far removed from the old idea of worshiping the god by drinking enough to be gay or to be freed from care or to get drunk. There were followers of Dionysus who never drank wine at all. It is not known when the great change took place, lifting the god who freed men for a moment through drunkenness to the god who freed them through inspiration, but one very remarkable result of it made Dionysus for all future ages the most important of the gods of Greece.

What was done at his great festival was open to all the world and is a living influence today. No other festival in Greece could compare with it. It took place in the spring when the vine begins to put forth its branches, and it lasted for five days. They were days of perfect peace and enjoyment. All the ordinary business of life stopped. No one could be put in prison; prisoners were even released so that they could share in the general rejoicing. But the place where people gathered to do honor to the god was not a wild wilderness made horrible by savage deeds and a bloody feast; it was not even a temple precinct with ordered sacrifices and priestly ceremonies. It was a theater; and the ceremony was the performance of a play.

I was unaware of this change in Dionysian revelry. As underlined, she doesn't say when this change happened, and I suspect it was after Epicurus' time. But it potentially brings a different perspective to the festivals.

Further on she states that

His worshipers believed that his death and resurrection showed that the soul lives on forever after the body dies.

So that's problematic.

Sedley's article which started this thread has a very unique translation from the Letter to Menoeceus.

Quote

"First of all, consider god an immortal and blessed living being, as the common no­tion of god is in outline, and attach to him nothing alien to imperishability or inap­propriate to blessedness, but believe about him everything that is capable of pro­tecting that combination of blessedness and imperishability. For although there are gods—the knowledge of them being self-evident—they are not as the many re­gard them, since by regarding them as of that kind the many fail to protect them." (Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus 123–4)

This heavily coded statement combines the firm assertion that there are gods with an instruction to us to conceive those gods in a way which will ‘protect’ them. Later Epicureans seem to have no doubt that their school’s founder was referring, in realist mode, to biologically immortal be­ings. But the language chosen at least licenses an idealist alternative, that our gods are a projec­tion of our own thought, whose invulnerability it falls to us to ensure.

Unless I'm missing something, every translation that I'm familiar with is diametrically opposed to the underlined portion above. Typically, the gods fail to protect those with wrong ideas of them. Sedley uses his version as support of the idealist interpretation, although I don't see this interpretation as necessary for that.

Does anybody have any insight into this particular translation? Including Don , of course

Here's the translation from The Hellenistic Philosophers by Long and Sedley:

Quote

Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus 123–4

(1) First, think of god as an imperishable and blessed creature, as the common idea of god is in outline, and attach to him nothing alien to imperishability or inappropriate to blessedness, but believe about him everything that can preserve his combination of blessedness and imperishability. (2) For there are gods – the knowledge of them is self-evident. (3) But they are not such as the many believe them to be. For by their beliefs as to their nature the many do not preserve them. The impious man is not he who denies the gods of the many, but he who attaches to gods the beliefs of the many about them. For they are not preconceptions but false suppositions, the assertions of the many about gods. It is through these that the greatest harms, the ones affecting bad men, stem from gods, and the greatest benefits too. (4) For having a total affinity for their own virtues, they are receptive to those who are like them, and consider alien all that is not of that kind.

This puts it in a more complete context, and now I see that Don has

Quote

The gods do not exist in the way that the 'hoi polloi' believe them to, because they do not perceive what maintains the gods.

I've never noticed this phrase before and it adds quite a bit to chew on!