Pros and Cons Of Considering Epicurean Philosophy To Be A "Religion"

Quote from Cassius

The "super" is probably very clear - I wonder what the "stitio" refers to?

It's from superstō + -tiō < super + stō

"To stand upon or over"

This brought up the idea that the label "superstition" has not always been understood in the way that we do in the modern scientific world. Just found this book "Superstition: A Very Short Introduction"

Abstract (Chapter 1 - The Origins of Superstition):

Quote

‘The origins of superstition’ describes practices of magic, prophecy, and divination in the ancient world, and the changing meaning of superstition through time. Throughout its long history, superstition has been a transactional concept with no fixed meaning of its own except in contrast to some other, more accepted world-view. The origin of the concept is found in ancient Greece in the 4th century bce, and for the next 2,000 years, superstition stood in contrast to the religious practices recommended by the elites. The word ‘superstition’ has often been levelled at practices that, even today, we would consider magical or paranormal, and yet versions of most of these practices are still with us.

Source link:

That Wikipedia entry offers a better translation of superstitiō is "religiosity" as opposed to "superstition." Keeping this in mind helps.

And translation of religio is "religious scruple" instead of just "religion."

Those Latin spellings can imply meanings of English words that are not actually present, regardless of the similar spelling.

PS. On further thought, "superstition" could be an acceptable translation of religio since religio is concerned with the outward performance of the correct rituals in hope of a favorable benefit from the gods. It's akin to someone now carrying a rabbits foot for good luck or crossing your fingers or knocking on wood, etc.

Eikadistes : I think the title sounds cool and I was unaware of the Apostolicon and the other history, but my pop culture mind went straight to Necronomicon when I saw your title the first time

Quote from Nate

"I will be obedient to Epicurus, according to whom I have made it my choice to live.”

I actually hate that oath – and any similar oaths. If something does not resonate, there is no reason to cling to it like some immutable creed. (Did that enough times in my erroneous past.) I do not commit myself to the idea that Epicurus must have been right about everything – and so will not “troth” myself to any such oath or vow. Epicurean philosophy (and therapy) does provide a kind of lodestone now for me in guiding my life – richly so. But any “religio” – in terms of binding myself to some creedal requirement – that I reject (again, been there). If it works for you, under your own understanding, that’s great. No judgment on that. Truly.

I also am steeped in the idea of the evolution of language, and such things as metaphorical and analogical usages (as well as the vagaries of translation). (And one of my pleasurable games as a poet is to find and resurrect archaic usages in English from time to time.)

Note: Not only (as I noted earlier in this thread) have I thumbed-up posts on both side of this discussion (including yours), I appreciate your work – especially relevant to here, in the Hedonicon. So any interpretation of what I say here that might imply less than a high personal regard would be just wrong.

I've seen bumper stickers like "Kindness is my religion" and that sort of thing, too.

Let me give another Polystratus quote "Thus, either all these things, which each person clearly perceives and works upon, must be said to be false -- or, not wanting to shamelessly dispute and fight against the obvious, we should not regard the ‘noble’ and the ‘shameful’ as falsely believed just because they are not the same for everyone -- in contrast to stone or gold or anything else of that kind."

ὥστε ἢ καὶ ταῦτα πάντα φατέον ψευδῆ ει αι, ἃ περιφανῶς ἕκαστος θεωρεῖ ὃ ἐργάζεται, ἤ, μὴ βουλόμενον ἀναισχυντεῖν καὶ μάχεσθαι τοῖς φανεροῖς, οὐδὲ τὰ καλὰ καὶ τὰ αἰσχρὰ ἀρτέον ὡς ψευδῶς νομιζόμενα, ὅτι οὐ πᾶσι ταὐτά ἐστιν ὥσπερ λίθος ἢ χρυ[σο]ς ἢ ἄλλο τι τῶν τοιούτων (P.Herc. 336 col. 16 sup.)

Quote from Nate

We have historical evidence of doctrinal disputes between geographically isolated Gardens, and those disputes seem to be resolved by the Athenian Scholarch,

Do you have the references for that? I'd be curious to follow-up one those!

"The IRS determines that an organization meets religious purpose based on two main guidelines:

• That the particular religious beliefs of the organization are truly and sincerely held.
• That the practices and rituals associated with the organization’s religious belief or creed aren’t illegal or contrary to clearly defined public charity"

As Cassius already pointed out there are legal protections and incentives to being considered a religion in the united states. Even more for being a "church". But these are things whose utility is not yet necessary, but something I've pondered on occasion, usually after watching something about Scientology and all the shenanigans they get away with because of there religious status.

Secondly as Cassius also already pointed out, any discussion of Epicureanism as a religion requires a high level of understanding of Epicureanism and alot of redefining of terms as there understood today in order to align with Epicureanism. Which at the moment I find distracts more from study then it currently provides utility. That's not to say that at some point that might change, so I'll reserve the right to revisit the topic at a later date.

To add to DavidN 's post (not that I'm advocating one direction or another, just providing references):

"Churches" Defined | Internal Revenue Service

www.irs.gov

Religious Nonprofit Organizations and Churches

Understanding differences between the terms “churches” and “religious organizations” is important for religious groups seeking 501(c) (3) tax-exempt status.

www.score.org

So, 501(c)(3) is the broad category of tax-exempt charitable organizations. And it's relativly easy to start your own tax -exempt "church", as John Oliver demonstrated:

It's Surprisingly Easy To Start Your Own Church

If you're hoping to start your own IRS-approved religious organization, look no further than the guidelines below.

www.huffpost.com

John Oliver Exposes Televangelism, Then Forms His Own Tax-Exempt Church

Call 1-800-THIS-IS-LEGAL for a special message from a "megareverend."

www.huffpost.com

Note: I want to add that I understand that Nate and others (and myself in some ways) are not using "religion" in relation to Epicureanism in a satirical or flippant way like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or John Oliver's "church." I respect the "taking back the word idea" but these links show how broad and ill -defined the word is from a legal and secular perspective.

Serendipitous discovery this morning:

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/24/1226371734/religious-nones-are-now-the-largest-single-group-in-the-u-s

Some thoughts this morning...So there could be these two desires:

1. A desire to bring an internal "religious/spiritual" aspect to one's thoughts regarding the importance and application of Epicurean philosophy. This could be done on one's own. And there are as many ways to give words to this as there are individuals.

2. A desire to bring a group of people together for an "Epicurean Church".

My thoughts coming up: as soon as you move from what is internal to creating an externalization of this in a group or church setting, then you will have a few problems on your hands. 1) The problem of power vs. submission - who will lead the church and how will they do it. 2) How will the church deal with those who are not properly submitting to the leaders or goals of the church 3) How will the church remove a leader that is doing unethical actions, behaving in a overly-controlling manner, or working against the long-term goals of the church. 4) Since the idea of being "tax-exempt" came up and usually churches give monetary support to their leaders, there is the question of how does paying someone for their time affect how the leader leads a group, and how does it affect the people who are giving money to the leader (how they all relate to each other, and which further feeds into the problem of power vs. submission).

A church can be lead by vote or committee, and instead of employing a "priest" or speaker fulltime you could have guest speakers, like you do for your interview podcasts. I know that submission may be a problem in contemporary religions but I don't see it as an issue as much with Epicureanism otherwise it's not being properly practiced.

As far as the question "is it a religion" to me goes. Does it take the place of a contemporary religion in your daily life? IE Does it inform your sense of morality and justice, do you draw comfort or strength from it's teachings? Do you endeavor to live as an Epicurean or is it just a discussion topic, would be the dividing line for me. Spirituality and mysticism need not apply. My example of a non faith based religion... non revealed religion, better term, is Deism a la Thomas Paine. Early science taking the place of mysticism and an uncaring creator god taking the place of more classical deities. So there is historical president for a modern evolution of religion. But in the end I see it as a personal choice for everyone how they choose to see, and practice Epicureanism.

Quote from DavidN

As far as the question "is it a religion" to me goes. Does it take the place of a contemporary religion in your daily life? IE Does it inform your sense of morality and justice, do you draw comfort or strength from it's teachings? Do you endeavor to live as an Epicurean or is it just a discussion topic, would be the dividing line for me.

It is coming to me, that there can be lots of ways that one could decide to refer to how they feel about Epicurean philosophy...and now the idea of "life philosophy" is popping into my head...or "world view" -- and probably the benefit of deciding on a particular label is that if you want to talk about it to a friend who doesn't know anything about it, then you could use your chosen label to convey what you feel about it. And I could imagine that if one said it was a religion, then their friend would be asking different questions than if one said "life philosophy" but everyone can choose to go there or not, depending on how they feel.

And I do think you'd have two slightly divergent groups if one group says "we have a church and this is a religion" compared to "we have a life philosophy, and this is a practice group".

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from DavidN

As far as the question "is it a religion" to me goes. Does it take the place of a contemporary religion in your daily life? IE Does it inform your sense of morality and justice, do you draw comfort or strength from it's teachings? Do you endeavor to live as an Epicurean or is it just a discussion topic, would be the dividing line for me.

It is coming to me, that there can be lots of ways that one could decide to refer to how they feel about Epicurean philosophy...and now the idea of "life philosophy" is popping into my head...or "world view" -- and probably the benefit of deciding on a particular label is that if you want to talk about it to a friend who doesn't know anything about it, then you could use your chosen label to convey what you feel about it. And I could imagine that if one said it was a religion, then their friend would be asking different questions than if one said "life philosophy" but everyone can choose to go there or not, depending on how they feel.

And I do think you'd have two slightly divergent groups if one group says "we have a church and this is a religion" compared to "we have a life philosophy, and this is a practice group".

Or I often think about it as if someone were to ask me what my religion is or if I have a religion how I would respond. Definitely not as neatly as a catholic or other mainstream religious person could, nor do I consider myself to simply be atheist, I might reply that I'm Deist or Agnostic but that feels incomplete to me. I might say that Epicurean philosophy takes the place in my life that religion would, though many may not see it as an exact replacement for religion it appears functional enough to me, and if I ever get a job that lets you take religious holidays off I'll get to take every 20th off.

Found this interesting fragment...that the rituals to the gods were not followed at Epicurus' Symposium:

Quote

Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, V p, 179B: Again, Homer tells us what we are to do before we begin to eat, namely, we are to offer as first-fruits some of the food to the gods. ... Homer also shows us the feaster at least offering libations ... all of which Plato also retains in his symposium. But with Epicurus there is no libation, no preliminary offering to the gods; on the contrary, it is like what Simonides says of the lawless woman: "Oftentimes she eats up the offerings before they are consecrated."

Source

Eikadistes: If religious feelings (e.g. awe and wonder) and sentiments – and rituals and the like, inherited or your own – bring pleasure, then embrace them. I always liked “high church” services – Episcopalian – with the bells and incense, etc., after a priest friend described it all as “holy fun”. And I can still take pleasure in Gregorian chant. And I can find inspiration and intuitive insight in contemplating various archetypes of the “divine” as representing the highest blessedness and eudaimonia, or as aspects of nature – even if I don’t think they exist in reality (I tend to the “idealist” understanding, but I also maintain a certain agnosticism on the subject), with what I take to be an Epicurean attitude (a strict-atheist psychiatrist that I briefly knew – not as a patient – suggested similar contemplation as usefully therapeutic).

But when I could not believe in, and bind myself to (religare), the “cultic” rules and commands of the church – adherence to received theology and creeds without question, confession of sins for salvation, etc. – then it was time to extricate myself (even if that was painful at the time). I suppose that one might participate in such religious ceremonies as a (secret) Epicurean, but I could not (or at least I would have to eliminate for myself certain contents of the service, and just be quiet).

Having travelled a long way from a darker version of Christianity to a more enlightened, open-minded version to Zen to (briefly) a neo-Stoicism, I find Epicureanism to be a kind of Kuhnian “paradigm shift” in thinking – in many ways, including questions of gods and religion, and religious activity. And I found Joshua‘s point about pietas versus religio in post #25 helpful.

With all that said, I go back to Kalosyni‘s 5 points in post # 16: If they apply to your understanding of religion, then I have no problem (but, again, that seems to reflect a kind of paradigm shift from more conventional understandings of the word).