Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 01-02-2008, 09:31 PM

Hi GakuseiDon,

You seem to be taking debates over the nature of the Gods as debates over the existence of the Gods. One could certainly debate if the Gods took action A or action B, or if a particular story about a God was true or only to be taken as an allegory or even an "idle tale." Tatian does not say that the Gods do not exist, he very specifically calls them daimons. and thereby acknowledges their existence. God "X" seduces virgins. Is it not obvious that gods do not seduce virgins. Therefore, God "X" must be a daimon.

What I cannot find is any strong sense of non-existence in ancient Greek thought. We should take Parmenides at his word when he says that non-existence is unthinkable. Souls of the dead went down to miserable hades, and even the most radical materialists, the Epicurians, saw the dead as transforming back into atoms, the basic indestructible/immortal form of matter.

We should recall Martin Heidgger's quite perceptive discussion of the Platonic view of truth (αληθεια) in the the second chapter of his introduction to "Being and Time." He writes:

Furthermore, because the λογοσ is a letting-something-be seen, it can therefore be true or false. But here everything depends on our steering clear of any conception of truth which is construed in the sense of 'agreement'. This idea is by no means the primary one in the concept of αληθεια. The 'Being-true' of the λογοσ as αληθεια means that in λεγειν as αποφαινεσθαι the entities of which one is talking must be taken out of their hiddenness; one must let them be seen as something unhidden (αληθες); that is, they must be discovered. 'Being false' (ψευδεσθαι) amounts to deceiving in the sense of covering up [verdecken]: putting something in front of something (in such a way as to let it be seen) and thereby passing it off as something which it is not.

One may interpret this as meaning that when an ancient Greek says that the Gods are false, they merely mean that the Gods are hidden.

Think again about the Greeks not having the concept of zero. When you are born, you are one year old. Everything starts from one. there must be a one. One is necessary for being. You may see nothing, but that is only because the one is hidden.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The fact is that people simply didn't think that way back then. "Proving that a god didn't exist"? Show one instance where anyone in the ancient world, Roman or otherwise, went about proving that any god didn't exist.

There are many suggestions in the literature where they went about proving that gods didn't exist as gods, e.g. the stories were myths, either about humans, or daimons, or allegorical stories of nature. There are also suggestions where one or more gods didn't exist (as per my quote below). The "allegorical stories of nature" approach is probably closest to what is sometimes proposed about the origin of Jesus in modern times as part of the Jesus Myth.

This is from Tatian's "Address to the Greeks":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...n-address.html

"Prometheus, fastened to Caucasus, suffered punishment for his good deeds to men. According to you, Zeus is envious, and hides the dream from men, wishing their destruction. Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own. We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales.

If you speak of the origin of the gods, you also declare them to be mortal.

For what reason is Hera now never pregnant? Has she grown old? or is there no one to give you information? Believe me now, O Greeks, and do not resolve your myths and gods into allegory. If you attempt to do this, the divine nature as held by you is overthrown by your own selves; for, if the demons with you are such as they are said to be, they are worthless as to character; or, if regarded as symbols of the powers of nature, they are not what they are called. But I cannot be persuaded to pay religious homage to the natural elements, nor can I undertake to persuade my neighbour. And Metrodorus of Lampsacus, in his treatise concerning Homer, has argued very foolishly, turning everything into allegory. For he says that neither Hera, nor Athene, nor Zeus are what those persons suppose who consecrate to them sacred enclosures and groves, but parts of nature and certain arrangements of the elements. Hector also, and Achilles, and Agamemnon, and all the Greeks in general, and the Barbarians with Helen and Paris, being of the same nature, you will of course say are introduced merely for the sake of the machinery of the poem, not one of these personages having really existed. But these things we have put forth only for argument's sake; for it is not allowable even to compare our notion of God with those who are wallowing in matter and mud."

Early Christians attacked the Roman gods as not existing as gods, since they had an origin and/or a death. True divine beings were eternal, therefore (they argued) the gods could not have been divine. Here are some quotes from Tertullian's "Ad nationes" and Aristides' "Apology" (from one of my reviews of Doherty on my website):
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...view_Part2.htm

"* Therefore neither are gods made from dead people, since a god cannot die; nor of people that are born, since everything which is born dies

* ... you form a virgin from Diana ... What excuse can be found for that insolence which classes the dead of whatever sort as equal with the gods?

* And they say that he [Tammuz] was killed by a wound from a wild boar, without being able to help himself. And if he could not help himself, how can he take thought for the human race? But that a god should be an adulterer or a hunter or should die by violence is impossible

* And he [Osiris] was killed by Typhon and was unable to help himself. But it is well known that this cannot be asserted of divinity... And how, pray, is he a god who does not save himself?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Even the most learned of people believed in fantastic things back then, and there simply was no means of or sense of verifiability or historical rigor as we know it today.

The idea that such a thing could even be done didn't exist at that time. There was no science of forensics, there was no verifiable press, there was no systematic means of investigation of social phenomena. There was no concept of proving that a god-man never existed in a culture filled with literally thousands of god-men.

I don't think that is entirely accurate. That early myths may not have occurred was a well-known concept in those days, but I think they lacked the ability to confirm and date events (via archaeological digs, carbon-dating). Thus the suspicion that Hercules was a real person who founded Thebes and lived just before the Trojan war, but he wasn't a god. Similarly Jupiter, Dionysus, etc. As you say, I don't think they felt that they could prove that the gods didn't exist, but as the quote from Tatian shows, some people regarded some of the gods as literary inventions only, introduced "for the sake of the machinery of the poem".

As far as I know, no-one argued that Jesus was allegory -- based on nature, for example, or as a literary invention -- until modern times. However, the option was available from earliest times.

PhilosopherJay · 01-02-2008, 09:52 PM

Hi Julian,

We have to be quite careful here with a fragment that is part of a play we know little about.

First, it is dialogue from a satyr play. It is meant to be ridiculous and to make people laugh, not to make a real or serious argument.
Second, the character of Sysiphus ends up being punished quite severely by the Gods, forced to push a boulder up a hill repeatedly, day after day. So we may take the dialogue from him to be an example of unholy and offensive speech.
Third, the play has been assigned to Critias as well as Euripides. Critias, Plato's uncle was considered the most blood-thirsty of the thirty tyrants. The play, if assigned to him in antiquity, would be considered something written by a reprehensible and criminal man.

Now the speech does note Justice as a god. It then suggests that other gods were made up for mortals to obey justice when he could not see them. Thus, the theory is that certain anthropomorphic gods are allegorical. This seems quite similar to the gnostic's docetic theory of Jesus.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

“Sysiphos” by Critias (late 5th century BCE)
Sisyphos: There was a time when human life was without order
and bestial and subject to brute force,
[SNIP
the divinity a home in a fitting location
and doused lawlessness with these fears of his.
<...>
In this way, I think, someone first convinced
mortals to believe that a race of gods existed.

This kind of backs up my position in the previous post. This snippet, which is more likely by Euripides, by the way, but my point remains the same, does promote a vaguely atheistic view. If people were prosecuted for atheism then one must wonder how anyone would dare write something like the above. My contention, again, is that people weren't attacked for impiety until it became politically expedient for their opponents to do so. Of course, if Critias wrote this, he may have had very little to fear after the Peloponnesian War considering his position.

Julian

aa5874 · 01-02-2008, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Think again about the Greeks not having the concept of zero. When you are born, you are one year old. Everything starts from one. there must be a one. One is necessary for being. You may see nothing, but that is only because the one is hidden.

There were many great Greek Mathematicians. To be a mathematician, you must have a concept of zero.

Toto · 01-02-2008, 10:53 PM

Why do we think that the Greeks did not understand the number 0?

History of Zero

Quote:

Now the ancient Greeks began their contributions to mathematics around the time that zero as an empty place indicator was coming into use in Babylonian mathematics. The Greeks however did not adopt a positional number system. It is worth thinking just how significant this fact is. How could the brilliant mathematical advances of the Greeks not see them adopt a number system with all the advantages that the Babylonian place-value system possessed? The real answer to this question is more subtle than the simple answer that we are about to give, but basically the Greek mathematical achievements were based on geometry. Although Euclid's Elements contains a book on number theory, it is based on geometry. In other words Greek mathematicians did not need to name their numbers since they worked with numbers as lengths of lines. Numbers which required to be named for records were used by merchants, not mathematicians, and hence no clever notation was needed.

But I don't know what metaphysical conclusion to draw from this.

andrewcriddle · 01-05-2008, 06:37 AM

Pausanias Guide to Greece is possibly relevant.

There are suggestions that various supposed legendary ancestors may not have existed.

Eg Book 7 section 1. The area between Elis and Sikyon used to be called Aigialos and its inhabitants Aigialeans. The Sikyons claim that this name derives from an ancient king called Aigialeus but Pausanias suggests it may really come from aigialos the word for seashore.

Andrew Criddle

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-05-2008, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Julian,

We have to be quite careful here with a fragment that is part of a play we know little about.

First, it is dialogue from a satyr play. It is meant to be ridiculous and to make people laugh, not to make a real or serious argument.

I suggest that you test this claim against what you'll find in the article on Ancient Atheism in the Cambridge Handbook to Atheism which you can peruse here.

Quote:

Second, the character of Sysiphus ends up being punished quite severely by the Gods, forced to push a boulder up a hill repeatedly, day after day. So we may take the dialogue from him to be an example of unholy and offensive speech.

Even if so, how does this mitigate the claim that the naturalistic argument against the existence of gods had been mooted and entertained in he ancient world, especially in the light of the evidence in Philodemus On Piety?

Quote:

Third, the play has been assigned to Critias as well as Euripides. Critias, Plato's uncle was considered the most blood-thirsty of the thirty tyrants. The play, if assigned to him in antiquity, would be considered something written by a reprehensible and criminal man.

But not until after he had written the play. Besides that, what does Critias reputation have to do with the fact that the sentiment expressed in his play was something that some people professed in his time -- as other plays, say from Aristophanes, in reacting to it demonstrate? You are, I trust, familar with the informal fallacy known as "poisoning the well"?

Jeffrey -- who is still waiting for you to demonstrate that Russell said what you claimed he said in his "On Denoting".

Malachi151 · 01-05-2008, 07:41 AM

This thread is annoying because the same conversation is taking place in two threads. See my post here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...44#post5072544

Critas made no attempt to prove anything. The lines from the play simply express philosophical musing and doubt, not an attempt to prove anything.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-05-2008, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

This thread is annoying because the same conversation is taking place in two threads. See my post here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...44#post5072544

Critas made no attempt to prove anything.

You keep moving the goal posts over what -- for the ancients, and even for moderns when the question is the existence of God -- constituted "proof".

Quote:

The lines from the play simply express philosophical musing and doubt, not an attempt to prove anything.

You are that much of an expert on Critias, are you?

In any case, the issue I was addressing in posting Critias was the one about how the ancients didn't think like moderns do and whether there was such a thing as atheism in the ancient world.

I take it you have nor read Philodemus.

Jeffrey

Malachi151 · 01-05-2008, 08:34 AM

I of course know about atheism in the ancient world. I'm writing a book on the subject now, in fact I have the Critas quote in the book, as well as tons of stuff from various Materialists and Cicero's The Nature of the Gods, etc. I know good and well that there was philosophical doubt about the existence of, and godly status of, the gods. I would never have made a statement that people back then didn't doubt the existence of the gods.

The question was why the Romans didn't prove that Jesus didn't exist.

My statement was that they never proved that anyone didn't exist, and they didn't.

Technically, even the Materialists claimed that the gods existed, they just had no real powers and they didn't create the universe and they had no control over nature and the stories about them were false.

Epicurus argued that the ideas of gods came to people through the streaming of atoms from the real beings that were in far off realms or other worlds.

I know good and well that there was general doubt as to many religious claims, that isn't what I was talking about.

Show me an example of where a specific religious story that was believed by many people to be true, like the story of Jesus, is proven not to have happened and the character around whom the story is written is proven never to have existed.

I'm thinking here along the lines of Hercules, Adonis, etc. From my original post:

Quote:

Show where any of the heroes were "proven" not to exist, such as Hercules, Dionysus, Adonis, Romulus and Remus, etc., etc., all of whom supposedly walked the earth.

...

The idea that such a thing could even be done didn't exist at that time. There was no science of forensics, there was no verifiable press, there was no systematic means of investigation of social phenomena. There was no concept of proving that a god-man never existed in a culture filled with literally thousands of god-men.

I'm not talking about philosophical musing or philosophical arguments, I'm talking about "proving", FBI style, that a claimed being (I was thinking here of humanoid gods when I said this) did not exist at all.

How would the Romans have even been able to prove, even in 100 CE, that Jesus had never existed? I can see no means for them to have even attempted the effort, it would have been impossible.

My commentary on Cirtias from my book:

Quote:

Critias was a part time statesman, poet, play write, and tyrant of the 5th century BCE. He lived in Athens during the time of Socrates and played some role in a short-lived counter revolution against democracy there, but he is perhaps best known for his views on the evolution of social structure and religion.

Critias was a powerful and well educated member of the Athenian aristocracy, as well as an uncle of Plato. A fragment from a play that is attributed to Critias has been preserved due to its quotation by another author. This fragment, known as the Sisyphus Fragment, because it quotes from the lines of the character Sisyphus in the play, presents one of the first naturalistic explanations for the development of religion. It is important to remember that this was a play that was performed for the Athenian public.

A time there was when disorder ruled
Human lives, which were then, like lives of beasts,
Enslaved to force; nor was there then reward
For the good, nor for the wicked punishment.
Next, it seems to me, humans established laws
For punishment, that justice might rule
Over the tribe of mortals, and wanton injury be subdued;
And whosoever did wrong was penalized.
Next, as the laws held [mortals] back from deeds
Of open violence. but still such deeds
Were done in secret,--then, I think,
Some shrewd man first, a man in judgment wise,
Found for mortals the fear of gods,
Thereby to frighten the wicked should they
Even act or speak or scheme in secret.
Hence it was that he introduced the divine
Telling how the divinity enjoys endless life,
Hears and sees, and takes thought
And attends to things, and his nature is divine,
So that everything which mortals say is heard
And everything done is visible.
Even if you plan in silence some evil deed
It will not be hidden from the gods: for discernment
Lies in them. So, speaking words like these,
The sweetest teaching did he introduce,
Concealing truth under untrue speech.
The place he spoke of as the gods' abode
Was that by which he might awe humans most,--
The place from which, he knew, terrors came to mortals
And things advantageous in their wearisome life--
The revolving heaven above, in which dwell
The lightnings, and awesome claps
Of thunder, and the starry face of heaven,
Beautiful and intricate by that wise craftsman Time,--
From which, too, the meteor's glowing mass speeds
And wet thunderstorm pours forth upon the earth.
Such were the fears with which he surrounded mortals,
And to the divinity he gave a fitting home,
By this his speech, and in a fitting place,
And [thus] extinguished lawlessness by laws.
...
Thus, I think, for the first time did
someone persuade mortals to believe in a race of deities.

There is disagreement over whether the views expressed by the character in the play were reflective of the views of Critias himself, since the other writings of his do not express similar views, but regardless of whether the view was personally held or not, this explanation for religion was publicly made and was taken note of.

Sisyphus' monologue explains that man started in a lawless state, then created laws, but the laws were broken in secret, so the idea of an all knowing, all seeing, all hearing, immortal god was invented in order to try and prevent men from breaking laws in secret. The character knows that the gods are fake, but still approves of deceiving people to believe in gods as a way to control their behavior.

Likewise, the Sisyphus Fragment is from approximately 600 years prior to the time in question, so its really irrelevant anyway. The question is what techniques and criticism were being employed at this time and place, thus no matter was was being employed in the 5th century BCE it is irrelevant.

Dirge · 01-05-2008, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I of courses know about atheism in the ancient world. I'm writing a book on the subject now, in fact I have the Critas quote in the book, as well as tons of stuff from various Materialists and Cicero's The Nature of the Gods, etc. I know good and well that there was philosophical doubt about the existence of, and godly status of, the gods. I would never have made a statement that people back then didn't doubt the existence of the gods.

The question was why the Romans didn't prove that Jesus didn't exist.

My statement was that they never proved that anyone didn't exist, and they didn't.

Technically, even the Materialists claimed that the gods existed, they just had no real powers and they didn't create the universe and they had no control over nature and the stories about them were false.

Epicurus argued that the ideas of gods came to people through the streaming of atoms from the real beings that were in far off realms or other worlds.

I know good and well that there was general doubt as to many religious claims, that isn't what I was talking about.

Show me an example of where a specific religious story that was believed by many people to be true, like the story of Jesus, is proven not to have happened and the character around whom the story is written is proven never to have existed.

I'm thinking here along the lines of Hercules, Adonis, etc. From my original post:

Quote:

Show where any of the heroes were "proven" not to exist, such as Hercules, Dionysus, Adonis, Romulus and Remus, etc., etc., all of whom supposedly walked the earth.

...

The idea that such a thing could even be done didn't exist at that time. There was no science of forensics, there was no verifiable press, there was no systematic means of investigation of social phenomena. There was no concept of proving that a god-man never existed in a culture filled with literally thousands of god-men.

I'm not talking about philosophical musing or philosophical arguments, I'm talking about "proving", FBI style, that a claimed being (I was thinking here of humanoid gods when I said this) did not exist at all.

How would the Romans have even been able to prove, even in 100 CE, that Jesus had never existed? I can see no means for them to have even attempted the effort, it would have been impossible.

For tax purposes, and other reasons, the Romans kept census records of births and deaths in all the areas they conquered. (sadly lost in time's inevitable decay) Christianity took off in the Middle East almost immediately after the crucifixion of Christ. Since they were there at the time, you'd think someone in the holy land would have noticed it never occurred. Especially those in the larger, more established religion that were against the new teaching. The untrue claim that a preacher wandered from village to village, if it didn't happen, is more easily dismissed, than a god that cannot be seen by any living person.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-05-2008, 06:37 AM	#25
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Pausanias Guide to Greece is possibly relevant. There are suggestions that various supposed legendary ancestors may not have existed. Eg Book 7 section 1. The area between Elis and Sikyon used to be called Aigialos and its inhabitants Aigialeans. The Sikyons claim that this name derives from an ancient king called Aigialeus but Pausanias suggests it may really come from aigialos the word for seashore. Andrew Criddle

01-05-2008, 07:41 AM	#27
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	This thread is annoying because the same conversation is taking place in two threads. See my post here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...44#post5072544 Critas made no attempt to prove anything. The lines from the play simply express philosophical musing and doubt, not an attempt to prove anything.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.