Although branded an atheist by the usual suspects, Epicurus did believe in the gods. However, he also believed that they ignored the doings of mankind. They sat there on Mount Olympus squabbling among themselves or seducing one another (whatever). and thought men on earth not worth their consideration. Good plan. It would have been hard work.
And as far as I know they are still there, although the current Greek troubles may have persuaded them to relocate from Mount Olympus. One could speculate that Ares, god of war and armaments might by now have modernized his bow and arrow. He must be quite pleased about the never-ending wars currently proceeding. On the other hand, Hera, protector of marriage, must be wringing her hands in dismay. Likewise, Artemis, goddess of chastity. But neither goddess seems to be able to do much about it. And no doubt Aphrodite is having her hair permed as we speak.
So they are not much of a powerful lot, although recent geophysical eruptions around the world and pillars of fire etc. in the American mid-West do make one wonder if Zeus is sending us some sort of message. (Cue for wiser persons than me to tell us what it is).
So the hands-off approach of nearly all recorded gods (none excluded) seem to suggest that Epicurus knew more than the hordes of muftis, mullahs, swamis, priests, popes, vicars etc that have assumed positions of leadership in our society over centuries.
If I am wrong, please send a thunderbolt.
Why would anyone want to worship a group of super beings who just sat and squabbled I wonder. From a psychological point of view, humans are , apparently, ‘set’ (or hard wired as they say today) to a. Perceive a cause for every effect. And b.to assign the cause to an agent, and if the agent is unknown, a super natural agent. Example, before geology was known, earthquakes must have been caused by a supernatural being.
So I suppose it have answered my own question!
Any comments??
There is another answer to your question, Jane: Epicurus didn’t worship them! That is the point. Sorry, I didn’t make it clear. Epicurus didn’t want to worship a group of super-beings who sat and squabbled. So you are right. You are a true Epicurean!
One of the charming things about Greek gods was that they were the spitting image of humans (surprise, surprise) even though they must at some point have created toads and zebras, although whether they did seems to be skated over. But why were they represented somewhat like Broadway hunks and superstars? This reveals the self-congratulatory nature of human beings. All gods look like us. Amazing coincidence!
Personally I rather like Aphrodite. I could believe in her. We could do with Aphrodite right here and now.
Are not to-days gods and goddesses footballers and celebrities ? Perhaps the Greek gods were once human stars of the Olympic games, whose human identities were soon to be forgotten due to not having Murdock around at the time. They morphed into mythological beings in the Greek mind? Albeit still in human form. Epicurus, a man before his time, saw through them of course!
Very original thought! Have you tried that out on a classics professor? He won’t have thought of it, so therefore you must be a crank. But I think it’s a great theory.
So if the Greek gods were really former Olympic shot-putters and javelin throwers, what, for instance would you say about people like Moses and Abraham and others in the Old Testament, which is equally old and also came before Murdoch?
I agree that the Classical gods were a silly lot. On the other hand, people have to have some explanation for all that stuff that falls on their head during a lifetime. Still, I wonder just how much Epicurus really “believed” in the Classical crew.
Cicero, for example, never took Roman religion seriously and he was a member of the powerful college of augurs which had significant political power, though tarted-up in religious language. E.g., augurs might forbid voting on a certain day citing unfavorable auspices but it was all about suppressing voter-turnout, of course.
Yes, I agree, Jane, that the causes of events get de-godified iver the millennia as we figure out natural phenomena but even when we find out the actual causes — the whole shebang seems even more mysterious. That holds true the more you look into astronomy, geology, or genetics.
I saw this quotation today on “Science Musings,” by Chet Raymo, it describes a religious naturalist. I like it:
“No less than traditional theists, religious naturalists need to believe that we are not poised above a bottomless void. If we are lucky, we understand that love and loyalty are blessings that well up out of the dark night in mysterious ways. We feel no need to make the terrible journey to Mount Moriah when every element of creation, great and small, here and now, is filled with redeeming grace.”
There is no bottomless void if you are an epicurean. Epicureanism means you believe in a happy, stress- free life of moderation, and when you die your remains are immortal in Nature, to be cycled and recycled forever more. Is that to be feared and dreaded? It is born out by what we know through science, rather than a tale to frighten sinners, who are threatened with (non-existent) fire and brimstone.
I think Jane forsyth has a point here. It is easy for Epicurus to believe in a ‘happy stress-free life of moderation and peace. I presume he was reasonably well off, or he would not have been a philosopher, but hewer of wood or a drawer of water. Its easy to preach these things if your stomach is full and you have a comfy sleeping mat. Moderation is not even within reach if you have to struggle for every crust of bread to feed a batch of hungry crying children and a worn out wife.
Ericcson suggests that until our basic need s of food and shelter are satisfied we dont have the time or energy to think loftier thoughts.
So Epicurus was perhaps speaking to the well fed middle classes. What had he to say to the hungry poor??
I was referring above to Jane Forsyth’s comment following Roberts’s assertion that organised religion is depressing.
You have a valid question: what does any (wish I could italicize this last word) philosopher have to say to the hungry poor? Speculating on these matters is a privilege of the comfortable or, in civilised countries, the old.
But to try to answer the point: Epicurus told the poor not to be fearful of the afterlife. If you are poor and you have a batch of hungry kids and a worn-out wife, it doesn’t help to be told that you might face fire and brimstone in the next life unless you conform to what the establishment tells you. Friendship can be shared (maybe more deeply than other people) by the poor (witness the pub) . Being told to stop enviously hankering after things you can’t afford can’t do you any harm. Seeking pleasure rather than pain is mildly helpful.
While I fully accept that a really poor person wouldn’t even want to engage in this discussion (irrelevant), he wouldn’t have any time either for the thoughts of churches and other philosophers, as you can see in countries like Britain, where the poor no longer go to church. Where you have people as in the Poland and the Ireland of old who were very religious, you had to brainwash the people very early and persuade them to conform to the norms of the “tribe”. Enough maybe for most people. The trouble comes when you educate people to think for themselves.