themistocles

In case anyone would know, I'm kind of curious as to what extent it was socially taboo to be a skeptic in Ancient Greece and Rome?

Of course in this time, I've always assumed that the cultural paradigm was different, that believing in the most popular religion wasn't necessarily demanded in the same way it is today. Yet religion was probably more pervasive than it is today as well...

Anyone?

lpetrich

I think that Richard Carrier would be the best one to ask about this sort of question, but he has been rather quiet recently, and his published writings do not directly address that question. Check out the Modern part of the Library part of this site for his writings. So here's my take:

People were usually not bothered by writing their skeptical opinions; consider how Plato in his Republic advocated that his society's sacred books be banned from his ideal city because they have a lot of wicked things in them, things he considered wicked like heroes lamenting fallen comrades and gods laughing.

He also proposed that the leaders of his ideal city ought to teach a religion he considered false, a "royal lie", for the purpose of making the city's citizens virtuous. This opinion was shared by several others, like Strabo and Polybius.

There were several other pagan skeptics, like Xenophanes, who pointed out that deities tend to resemble their worshippers. And Heraclitus, who had gone on record as calling some common religious practices just plain dumb.

And there were such theorists as Euhemerus, who proposed that the deities were originally human heroes; thus Zeus would once have been some king with an eye for the ladies. Others proposed that the gods had originally been natural phenomena; thus Zeus would originally have been the sky, who fertilizes the earth with his rain.

Also, it must be noted that Greco-Roman religion was very pluralistic and non-exclusive; the Romans, as they became interested in Greek culture, identified their deities with Greek ones. Other people's deities would likewise be identified with theirs.

And the Roman Empire was home of lots of different religious movements, like Isis worship and Mithraism. Unfortunately, that tolerance allowed a certain intolerant sect to grow and eventually destroy the others.

Although religion was everywhere in their society, belief was apparently not as important as worship -- thus some admitted religious skeptics would take part in various religious ceremonies.

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Dread Pirate Rasputin

There's considerable evidence that John Adams had similar ideas about the role of religion in society.

People often claim that the Roman state suppressed Christians because of their religion. That's really not true (Christians telling lies? Never!). Christians were originally suspect because their religion praised insubordination to authorities. Pliny the Younger's letters to the emperor while he administered Bithynia (I think) detail the steps he took regarding Christians. They were sort of a reverse witch hunt--if someone was accused, he was brought in and interrogated; if he recognized Roman authority (this involved, among other things, "praying" to the likeness of the Emperor, although dictator-worship was not required of citizens and was probably not common) he was released, but if he clung to Christianity he was usually executed.

As an aside, Pliny's letters are sometimes humorous because he is just as puzzled by Christian behavior as we are now. He describes early Christian practices, which seem to have largely revolved around feasting together. Christians who repudiated their religion at Pliny's demand had to promise not to attend the frequent Christian feasts.

Roman religion was considerably more fluid than the Abrahamic religions today. I don't think there were any "fundamentalists" since everyone knew the religion had no "fundamentals" and was mostly borrowed from Greek culture.

As stated before, there were many mystery cults in the Roman Empire. Members gathered in secret, although I think just how far underground they were forced to go is a little unclear. Christianity was one such mystery cult and probably evolved primarily from Mithraism. Christianity's biggest strength over Mithraism was that it accepted women... not to mention the promise of a heaven for believers.

lpetrich

This ought to be posted elsewhere, such as in Misc. Religion Discussions or Non-Abrahamic Religions; shall I post references to this thread there?

Viti

Moving to Non Abrahamic Religions

Eudaimonist

A skeptic of the existence of gods?

Consider that, in his famous trial, a few fellow Athenians charged Socrates with "atheism" (a charge he denied), and this was considered a serious charge.

As I understand it, in the Roman Empire atheists, such as the Epicureans, were stigmatized somewhat (I don't know how much) because piety in the context of a religious tradition was seen as a foundation for an orderly civilization. You could say that there were plenty of conservatives back then -- pagan conservatives. Some of the early pagan objections to Christianity were that Christianity was too new, and therefore not traditional enough. (Christian insubordination was probably a greater concern.)

The Romans valued their own traditions, and respected other religious traditions, because the older the wisdom, the more it was thought of as true and valuable. Any religion with a long tradition seemed to be enough for social acceptance. The Jews, for instance, were much more easily accepted by the Romans because the Jews had a religious tradition. The attitude seemed to be: it is good for a society to have a religious tradition, any tradition.

No, atheism was not considered respectable in Hellenistic culture.

(See: The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, by Robert L. Wilken.)

[ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>

themistocles

I entirely forgot about the Republic (I'm pretty good at having a base of knowledge that won't extend past three facts, pretty much) and Xenophanes, but I entirely enjoyed the replies. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

lpetrich

Actually, Socrates was charged with "not paying respect to the gods whom the state respects, of introducing new divinities, and of corrupting the young."

In other words, with not worshipping the official gods and other supposedly un-Athenian activities. As if belief was not really necessary as long as one worshipped the official gods.

However, that charge may have been politically motivated, because he had sided with Sparta in the recent Peloponnesian War. Athens had lost, but Sparta was content to impose the rule of the Thirty Tyrants (no killing the male population, enslaving the rest, and salting the ground). When they were overthrown, their overthrowers declared an amnesty for Sparta-loving quislings, so as to say "enough is enough" to that war. So these charges may have been an alternative way at getting back at someone seen as an obnoxious Sparta-lover.

Interestingly, Socrates had been satirized in Aristophanes's play The Clouds as someone who inquires into lots of what Bertrand Russell called "unholy mysteries", like gnat farts, what to call male and female chickens (Greek "alektruo:n"; S coins "alekto:r" ~ "chicker" and "alektruaina" ~ "chickeness"), and why men sometimes get a sex change when you call for them (Classical Greek had a "vocative case" for that purpose; a man's name like "Amynias" would become "Amynia").

And along the way, Socrates denied the existence of Zeus, and another character concedes that he had always thought that rain is Zeus pissing through a sieve (dia koskinou ourein).

And like many others, this play was performed on an official occasion! And Socrates had allegedly enjoyed that play.

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Eudaimonist

Thanks. That's right.

According to The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, there apparently was concern among some members of the Roman Empire that insincere piety (such as an atheist might show simply going through the motions of worship) is not as good for civil order as sincere piety. But I doubt anyone would have brought charges against anyone else for their thoughts alone.

lpetrich

Some other interesting cases:

Julius Caesar was apparently an agnostic about religion, even though he was an important participant in the Roman state's official religious rites.

Cicero wrote a treatise called "On the Gods", which critically examined several views, such as Euhemerism (the Gods were originally human heroes, a common view back then) and the view that religions have been invented by lawgivers to make people virtuous. I'm not sure what his personal views were.

Anaxagoras had gotten in trouble for believing that the Sun was a hot rock and the Moon had an earthy nature, meaning that they were not divine objects; Anaxagoras considered the Sun to be several times the size of the Peloponnesus (about 200 km). However, he was sprung by his good friend Pericles, a general and long-time leader of Athens. Anaxagoras may have been a victim of Pericles's political opponents, who may have wanted to drag Pericles down in some way.

Protagoras had written a book, On the Gods, in which he claimed to have no idea of whether the gods existed, and if so, what they were like. He got in trouble for impiety, and his book was burnt, while he himself may have been banished from Athens.

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>