638. On the Nature of the Gods. Cicero. Translated by Walsh.- summary

638.  On the Nature of the Gods.  Cicero.  Translated by Walsh. 

Cicero's incentive to write is due to two events- the death of his daughter and of the Republic.

In 1.9 Cicero suggests that the whole of philosophy is so complex that the only way to become familiar with each branch is to write about it.  The arguments for each branch follow in such a way that it is clear that each branch is clearly linked to its predecessor.  In section one Cicero says that the noblest study for the human mind is the contemplation of God.  Thus he puts a discussion of Divinity at the summit of human thought. Cicero states that if reverence for the gods is removed, trust and the social bond between people and the uniquely pre-eminent virtue of justice will disappear.  One branch of philosophy dovetails the other- the ancient version of irreducible complexity in terms of a philosophical system.

Epicurus' argument is made by Velleius:  Gods must exist for all cultures conceive of their existence.  Gods are immortal and blessed and are imperturbable, content and do not cause trouble. God is perceptible to the mind but not the senses.  Gods are made of quasi- atoms.  An infinite appearance of very similar images formed out of innumerable atoms arrises and flows toward the gods.  By blessedness he means an untroubled mind and relaxation from all duties.  I.e. absence of pain and pleasure.  God is wholly inactive.

World has been created naturally without any craftsman's role.  Nature creates countless worlds without being endowed with mind.  The universe is unlimited and infinite.

(My thoughts- if there is a craftsman, then is there an element of destiny in creation?  If nature as Epicurus says is pure chance, then how are rights of humans and duties defined? If Epicurus is correct does one human have any obligation to any other?  If yes, then why? What compelling argument or thought would compel someone to do so?)

Cotta replies-  What are these quasi-atoms?  If gods are made of atoms, then they are not eternal.  If made of atoms, then there was a time when gods did not exist.  Epicurus says that God's shape is due to human admiration for own shape.  Cotta seems to say that God has no shape.  So Cotta concludes that Epicurus is merely being clever in claiming the existence of the Gods to avoid the displeasure of members of society.  Consequently only humans possess reason.

Since Epicurus believes that the only thing which has existence are atoms, then why make the claim that Gods exist?

Cotta says that Gods always existed.  So human form came from the Gods.  If pure random chance determined human form, does this sound strange?  Epicurus says that our similarity to the Gods is pure chance.  Gods possess human form because that is most beautiful form.  But why do Gods need any form at all?  Why would they need a tongue, hands, feet etc?  They are says Epicurus at rest and unperturbed.  Cotta points out Epicurean habit of intolerance in argument.  (Cicero in other dialogues seems to suggest that this is due to exclusion of any other form of thought or method of thought but their own.  Dialect, study of poetry, mythology and numerous other media of thought are excluded by the Epicureans as unnecessary.  So it seems that wrapped in the cloak of their mesmerizing ideas they consider any other idea stupid and futile.)

How can Gods live in bliss when they have hands, feet, tongue which if used, never allow rest.  Depicting Gods as blessed, doing nothing encourages humans to be lazy.  The appearance of something in one's own mind has no substance or continuity or measurable identity, because each person's mind is struck by different images of same object.  What is in one mind is not the same as what is in another.  Such thought concludes Cotta can not be used to prove the existence of God.  Cotta does not see Epicurus as serious about contemplating the Gods.

Epicurus' God is inactive.  How can it be in a state of happiness?  For happiness requires virtue and the very essence of virtue is action.  Humans, says Cotta, are better suited to happiness than the Gods, because they experience a far greater range of pleasure.

This theory of Epicurus destroys devotion, reverence and belief in the Gods:  how is it impressive that the Gods take joy in their own pleasure in total inactivity?  No common bond is promoted among people.  No devotion is necessary to God, since we have received nothing from them.  Cotta continues- Epicurus who wanted to banish fear and superstition from the human mind has done more than that.  If Gods do not help humans and favor humans, no one is dear to the Gods.  Humans are of no concern to Gods and for that matter Gods have no concern for each other.  To the Stoics friendship of one wise man to another extends even to those they have never met.  But kindness and goodwill to Epicurus is weakness for friendship, kindness, goodwill are sought for what these will do for each person under the Epicurean system.

Velleius makes an interesting reply- it is a mistake to duel with academics and rhetoricians - this seems to strengthen Cicero's arguments in De Oratore and Orator in two ways:
1.  need for rhetorical tools of argument
2. need for philosophical study to make use of these rhetorical tools
(Both to Cicero are inextricably entertwined.)

Lucilius Balbus makes the Stoic case.  He divides his approach into four parts:
1.  Gods exist
2.  Nature of the Gods
3.  Order of the Universe
4.  Gods have an interest in the human race

1.  Balbus quotes_   behold tis dazzling vault on high, which all invoke as Jupiter.  Balbus suggests that the very beauty and grandeur of the heavens proves that God exists.  With time any falsehood is obliterated and strengthens the judgement which nature has implanted in us. He uses numerous examples from history.

He uses Cleanthes' four reasons for belief in the Gods:
1.  The prediction of the future by individuals
2.  Blessing of climate and land
3.  The display of power via storms etc
4.  The beauty and order of the universe

The orderly beauty of the universe is beyond human capacity to create, thus something must be greater than the human mind- that mind is the mind of God.

Where did humans get this intellect? The beauty of the heavens requires a MIND with reason. To grasp this beauty of the heavens requires a mind with reason.

Balbus uses a series of syllogisms.  Stoics loved these.  They are crabbed and devoid of any rhetorical technique.  Some would say dry.  But they are interesting.  So Balbus uses these to answer question above.

What has reason is better than what does not.
Nothing is superior to the Universe.
Universe employs reason.

The Universe is wise, blessed and eternal.

Possession of these is superior to those without.
Nothing is superior to the Universe.
Universe is God.

Nothing which lacks vital spirit/reason can produce anything endowed with reason.
Universe does produce things endowed with reason and life.
Universe is endowed with life and reason.

In Balbus' view the fiery heat is the divine soul of the Universe.

Nature and the Universe strive for perfection and even when thwarted, these head in the direction of fulfillment of perfection.

Humans have emerged for the contemplation and imitation of the Universe.  This is an interesting explanation for the purpose of life.

The Universe is divine- it possesses:
reason
life
fire
wisdom

This Stoic stuff is dry and obtuse.  However, Balbus is asking how the Universe can be what it is with all of its complexity and yet be totally random chance collection of atoms.

Topic # 2

What are the Gods like?

The circle and sphere are perfect shapes.
1. No rough parts
2. All points are equidistant from the center
 So the Gods are endowed with the most beautiful shapes- circles and spheres

For Stoics the nature of the Gods does not demand a discussion of their appearance.

Stoics claim that humans grappling with an explanation for the complexity of the Universe has spawned commonly known mythological Gods.  Consequently Balbus does not see any conflict between commenting on frivolity of clothing of Apollo, the dress of Venus and a belief in divinity.

Next task- #3.

The World is ordered by Gods' providence. The Universe is governed by God. Nature orders the Universe.  This for me is very confusing.  Very confusing.  I will try to make sense. 

The Universe is the thing we see.  The stars, moon, nebula, planets, earth, trees, clouds etc.  Nature in a sense is the law by which the Universe is what it is.  God directs the Universe within those guidelines Nature has imposed so to speak.  This may be why Pliny the Elder in his Natural History says= Natura deus est.

Balbus uses the shepherd in a play by Accius to help explain the difficulty in contemplating all this.  For the first time in his life a shepherd sees a ship at sea.  It seems lifeless but with closer examination, what the nature of a ship is and what makes a ship a ship and guides the ship becomes more clear as time passes.  The same is true with an examination of the Universe.  At first look it is overwhelming, distant, remote and lifeless.  But as time passes and humans use that reason, a gift from God, to think about it, the Universe takes on different meaning.  Its beauty to a degree is derived from this examination.

Balbus questions the reasonableness of Epicurus' idea that infinity makes all things possible.  Look at it this way.  If infinity makes all things possible, given enough time, if atoms have the opportunity to randomly gather together, it should be the case that we come into a spot and there is a temple.  All ready to go.  Or even easier, we should come upon a column, a fine corinthian or ionic.  Of course we do not.  This is why Stoics rejected Epicurus' theory.  His infinite worlds is not supported by the facts at hand and his infinite worlds makes any grasp of reality impossible except for himself.  (I suggest reading my summary of Behe's Darwins Black Box and The Edge of Evolution at this point.  At this point Cicero's Nature of the Gods and the writings of a modern biochemist coalesce.)

Stoicism conceives of the Universe as the balance of constant flux.  This reminds me of Ovid's- all things change so that they may remain the same.  Balbus suggests that the mere complexity of body organs, bone structure and interdependency of these casts a dark shadow over the theory of randomness.  The complexity of the human body is also pared with the complexity of the world, the Universe.  Each is viewed as an interwoven nexus.  Cicero is on to something here.  Each branch of philosophy is connected to the next.  At the peak is the contemplation of God.  The complexity of the human body is in a way the same as the complexity of the world around us.  The complexity of the world is mirrored by the even greater complexity of the Universe. Just as human body has parts, the Universe has parts. I do not grasp it but something wonderful and grand is in this.

Task #4

Gods take an interest in human experience.  Evidence from dreams, predictions, appearance of Gods to humans, divinations, signs from the heavens.  At first thought this sound kind of wacko.  But upon reflection, if the Universe, human nature, Nature, the world are interrelated, then it does make sense from his perspective that Gods take a direct interest in human beings.

Cotta replies- he accepts the existence of the Gods but does not fully understand the explanation which Balbus gives.  I will start off with my assessment.  I use an example.  I believe that Sarah loves me but I have no logical or physician proof.  I can believe in love without proof that love exists.  I can believe in God yet have no logical or physical proof that God exists.  This is the basis from which Cotta works.

His biggest problem is with Balbus' definition of divinity.  Balbus seems to define divinity so loosely that the Nature of divinity is cloudy by shear numbers of Gods and Goddesses.  How can we grasp the essence of divinity?

Reason may come from god but how then do we deal with the fact that reason can be used for good and evil?  Cotta says that it seems that God gave humans reason not as a gift but to to beguile them. 

If God has direct impact on human lives, how can God exist when good people suffer?

Balbus reply- Gods do not care about trivial matters.  Cotta seems to say- how do we prove the existence of God in the face of individual situations?  Or to put it another way how do you convince someone that God exists when life is collapsing around them?

Cotta expresses the common thought that we seek blessings of fortune from God but the source of wisdom lies in ourselves.

Interestingly Cotta at the end makes it clear that he does not deny the existence of God but presents the argument he does to show how difficult it is to understand God.

This last statement to me is very important.  It seems that the critique Cotta gives of the Stoic view is itself provocative in that it presents more questions than holes it punches in the argument of Balbus.  This, as in other places in Cicero's dialogues, not only leaves it to the reader to decide BUT presents a puzzle in such a way that it begs the reader to linger and think.  Cicero in his dialogues wanted to give direction for thought without telling people what to think.