751. De Natura Deorum II by Cicero

751.  De Natura Deorum II by Cicero.

Quintus Lucilius Balbus presents the Stoic view.  There are four parts:

1. The Gods exist.

2. What the Gods are like.

3. The world is governed by the Gods

4.  The Gods care about humans.

Balbus begins:

A mere look at the sky at objects and it is clear that a power rules over all of this.  And events from history such as Castor and Pollux during the battle of Lake Regulus show the interest which the Gods have in human activity.  How else can we explain premonitions other than some divine presence?  It is true that not all premonitions come true.  But just because a doctor’s skill does not always cure a patient does not mean that the art of medicine does not exist.  Besides all groups have an idea of the existence of Gods inborn in them.

Cleanthes, Stoic, gave four reasons for the notion of Gods in people:

1. There is often foreknowledge of future events.

2.  The bounty of our climate, fertility and abundance.

3.  The powers of Nature- earthquakes, comets, meteors, eruptions, lightning, etc.

4.  The order and beauty of the heavens.

If someone enters the forum, would not the order, plan cause the person to realize that this was due to some guide, director?  Thus no one can view the beauty, complexity and order of the universe as mere chance.

Chrysippus’ argument:  Is there something which humans can not create?  Answer- the universe.  The universe is better than a human.  Is there any better name for this than God?  If there is no God, what is better than a human?  In a human is reason than which nothing is more outstanding, but it is the height of foolishness or even arrogance to think that there is nothing better than a human.  There is something better and that is the universe.  God exists. Is all of the beauty, power of the universe, the sky, land, sea mine and not the abode of God?  Such a person would be viewed as insane.  If someone enters a beautiful home, even if the owner is not there, it is clear that it was not built by mice.  Even though a thick layer of air blunts our intellect, we realize sure enough that there is some mind or intellect of the universe.  If this is not the case, whence came human intelligence?  Whence came the moisture warmth of the body?  Th earthy solidity of the body?  Breath?  One came from the earth, one from moisture, one from heat, one from air.  Our bodies come from the physical world around us.  But whence comes reason, intellect, plan, contemplation, wisdom?  If the universe contains all the material aspects, is not reason and wisdom part of the universe?  Is there anything better than reason and order and wisdom?  It not, it is necessary that these are in that which one grants is the best.

Then there is Zeno’s syllogism:

That which uses reason is better than that which does not use reason.

Nothing is better than the universe.

The universe uses reason.

Cleanthes says that there is a presence of heat which pervades all living things.  Heat is in the earth as evidenced by digging in the winter.  For we see that steam rises.  Water has heat which is why it is a liquid.  (It is interesting that Velleius in his dissertation did not express any wonder at the beauty of nature.) Heat is the essential characteristic of life.  Water contains heat, otherwise it would not be a liquid.  Heat is the cause of the reproductive cycle.  The element of heat holds the universe together.  It has sensation and reason.  Every natural constitution (natura) is complex and interwoven with the other elements and has a ruling principle:

in a human it is intellect, in a beast it is something similar to intellect, i.e. appetite or desire, in plants the ruling principle is in the roots.  Each thing has a supreme ruling principle.  So what is the ruling principle of all nature? (Because Stoics observed that there is more to the universe than material aspects, their thoughts were more inclusive in order to try to explain the sum total.)  The ruling principle of nature is consciousness/self-awareness/sensation, i.e. reason.  The universe is wise.  Nature which keeps all of this together excels in reason, thus the universe is God and all the force of the universe is held together by divine nature.  This heat ( fervor, energy?) is more suitable to effect our senses/consciousness than that heat of our bodies.  This heat is not caused by another but is moved by its own will.  

Plato says that there are two kinds of nature:  one which is moved by another’s force and one moved by its own will.  The self moving is superior to movement caused by another.  It is necessary that the heat is the soul.  From this ti follows that the universe is living.  If humans possess wisdom so must the universe because humans, part of the universe, can not be more than the whole.

If we examine the begun natural constitution and follow this to perfected constitution, we would approach to an understanding of the gods.  We notice in plants that nature looks out for these by providing nourishment and growth.  To the beasts nature supplies more complex appetite which urges them to embrace healthful things and avoid the opposite.  But humans possess reason which allows the appetite to be controlled and used.  There is a fourth step- some people possess right reason which leads to wisdom.  These just seem born with it.  This is an attribute of God.  All things possess potential for perfection.  A vine, if not damaged, tends toward perfection.  A painting possesses a certain completion of perfection.  But this drive is more intense in nature.

Many things are beyond the control of a human or a plant, but nature as a whole relentlessly pushes on.  This force, the tendency of the 4th step to come to pass, nothing is able to stop.  Thus the universe is intelligent and wise.

Nature which encompasses the whole ball of wax must possess what the individual parts possess.  Only the universe is complete in and of itself.

Neque enim est quicquam aliud praeter mundum cui nihil absit quodque undique aptum atque perfectum expletumque sit omnibus suis numeris et partibus.  Scite enim Chrysippus, ut clipei causa involucrum vaginam autem gladii, sic praeter mundum cetera omnia aliorum causa esse generata, ut eas fruges atque fructus quos terra gignit animantium causa, animantes autem hominum, ut equum vehendi causa arandi bovem venandi et custodiendi canem; ipse autem homo ortus est ad mundum contemplandum et imitandum, nullo modo perfectus, sed est quaedam particula perfecti.

And there is not any other thing except the universe to which nothing is absent and which in every way is fitting and perfect and complete in all its parts.  Wisely Chrysippus said that just as a cover has been made for the purpose of a shield, a sheath for that of the sword, thus all other things have been created for something else, except the world, just as produce and fruit which the earth produces has been generated for the sake of animals, animals for the sake of humans, just as the horse for the hauling, the ox for ploughing and the dog for hunting and guarding; the human sprung forth in order to contemplate and imitate the (perfection of ) universe, in no way perfect but there is a certain little part of perfection.

Virtue is the excellence a human is capable of achieving.  It allows a human to possess some small aspect of perfection which the universe has.  Consequently stars are divine because they exist in the fiery sky and are of the same fire as that of the sun.  That which moves of its own will must possess reason and since it is greater that that of which it is a part, it must be divine.

Three things account for Aristotle’s cause of motion:

Nature- an apple falls from a tree

force- someone throws an apple

will- I want to change rooms

But the stars and planets move in a circle.  Aristotle could not imagine a stronger force to cause this, so their movement is voluntary.  These too are Gods.

So what are the qualities of nature.  This requires training the mind to see what the eyes can not see.  This is the reason that some people can not imagine God in any form but that of the human form. Balbus takes issue here with Epicurean view of beauty.  They say that a cylinder is more beautiful than a sphere.  But says Balbus a circle or a sphere contains all aspects of all the other shapes, there are no breaks and no roughness.  But an Epicurean would not know this because geometry is not studied.  All the planets follow a circular path.  These revolutions of the sun and shifts in its position produce night and day, the seasons and all animals and plants.  (It is clear that the Stoics observed the movement of stars and planets and sun and moon.  They knew the significance of the moon to the cycle of life and conceived that this contributes to life.  Thus their interest in astrology.)

The complexity of the movement of planets indicates the presence of reason, plan and intellect.  These must be gods.  It is irrational to deny that rational regularity of the universe, for nothing happens by chance, rashness or error.  In fact there is order, precision (veritas), reason and regularity.  To deny this to me displays an absence of intellect.

Zeno’s definition of nature:

Zeno igitur naturam ita definit ut eam dicat ignem esse artificiosum, ad gigendum progredientem via.

Zeno therefor defines nature thus: he says that nature is an artful fire and by a method going forward (exists) for the purpose of creating.

Just as a seed moves from one stage to the next and becomes from what that seed came, so nature possesses those impulses which apply suitable responses.  Nature is not only artful but a designer.  Nature is foresight and particularly is busy concerning 

1. that the world is as fitting as possible for lasting

2. world needs nothing- it is complete.

3. a source of unsurpassed beauty and all attractiveness.

So gods are not inactive but doing what they do without labor or trouble.  Gods do not consist of blood, bones and body.  There are gods everywhere and this is due to many distinctive features of the gods.  There is a long list: Fides, Ops, Salus, etc.

From science we have tales which have produced so much superstition in lives and humans.  Yet are derived from scientific explanation.  All the common mythological stores are not bunk but can be interpreted as metaphorical explanations of common occurances.

So Balbus spends much time on etymology because Stoics sensed that since language recored in a way the past, this allows insight to the scientific roots which lie at the heart of the words and myths and early stories.  This is the reason they were able to accept and honor a religion which in many ways they considered silly.  This criticism has come up again and again- Epicurus only read his own stuff and mocked any other study and consequently was without acumen, art, literary expertise, charm, attacking everyone else.

Balbus:  all the world is administered, all its parts, and established by divine providence.  This argument consists of three parts:

1. the gods exist ( if the Gods exists then their reason guides it)

2. The world is administered by a plan of the gods for the world and has been created from living rudimentary particles of matter.

3.  There is wonder and admiration of all this matter.

If 1,2,3 are not correct, there must be something greater than God.  But this seems unlikely for God rules nature.  Why?  Because there is overriding evidence of order and the absence of chaos.

To a Stoic, if humans have intellect, virtue, good faith, harmony, these must come from someplace.  This someplace must be the Gods.  The Gods exist.

Nature is administered by the Gods.  Must first define nature.  There are different definitions:

1.  Nature is a force causing motion without reason

2. Nature is a force which possesses reason and order, this nature proceeds with method which is predictable.  No human skill can oppose it.

A seed is an example.  The force in it is so strong that if it should fall into a nature embracing and absorbing and has obtained that which it needs to grow, it will produce another like itself.  Some of these which grow are nourished through their roots, some are able to self move, possess sensation and desires and produce ones like itself.  This shows what is common between plants and animals.

The order of the way of the world makes it clear that nature rules the world.  What have humans made which approaches the quality of nature?

How can we admire the orrery of Archimedes more than the works of nature of which Archimedes and his orrery are a part?  Archimedes required an intellect to create the orrery and the world, the universe is not due to order and intellect?

Those philosophers who were confused and disturbed by the world, upon experimentation it should be evident that rules and order guide everything.  These guides are unchanging and fixed.  There must be a governor.

In the aether (upper air) are the stars.  The main one is the sun which is much larger than the earth.  Even the other stars are beneficial to the earth for if these were closer the earth would burn.  So can anyone say that the world we see and contemplate was produced by random atoms colliding, by chance?

If the world we see is random chance, why doubt that if we loaded letter into a container, infinite letters, and dumped these out that we would have Ennius’ Annales?

The descriptions of the beauty of the world is almost endless- there is harshness, roughness, majesty, power and beauty.

The world is so interwoven and stable that clearly it is designed for permanence, if not permanence, at least for an almost unimaginable amount of time.

Here is the earth, round, all parts inclined toward the middle, the earth surrounded by water doing the same, then the air which tends to move upward but gives necessary air for animals to breath.  This air is enclosed by the aetheria , here the stars round by their own weight and gravity, moving in their own orbits.  Roundness is the most stable and safest form.  The stars are refreshed by vapor from the earth.

When the vapors are depleted, fire will consume the earth.  A new living earth will happen.  Who is not impressed by all this apparently has not bothered to look around.

There is an example of order on the earth- a tree has roots to give stability and drawn nutrients from the soil, the trunk is covered with bark to protect it from the heat and cold.

animantium vero quanta varietas est, quanta ad eam rem vis ut in suo quaeque genere permaneat!

How much variety of living things there is, how much force there is for each in its own kind to remain!

The placement of quaeque shows how awed Balbus is by the tenacity of nature.  (This is a good example why there is so much more to Cicero than a translation.  His use of words is so expressive, so carefully arranged that it is most difficult to render all that he has to say.  Balbus or Cicero would have found the modern principles of DNA very interesting.)

Nature deserve praise for its cleverness, order and manner which allows all species to flourish.  There is a neat example.  There is the bivalve mussel which works with a small shrimp to survive.  The shrimp hangs around the entrance of the open shelves of the mussel.  When a prey enters the area, the shrimp alerts the mussel to the prey, the mussel closes and both dine, while of course the shrimp remains unharmed.

From this it is clear how important a wide range of reading is of value.  This would also include the study of poetry, tragedy, comedy, history, music, art, architecture, etc.  Plus an awe for the world.  This feeling was sadly absent in Velleius’ talk.

So why are we here.  Why are humans upright?  

Sunt enim ex terra homines non ut incolae atque habitatores sed quasi spectatores superarum rerum atque caelestium, quarum spectaculum ad nullum aliud genus animantium pertinet.

Humans exist on earth not in such a way that these are colonists and dwellers but as it were observers of things above and of the heavens, the observation of which pertains to no other kind of animal.

It is difficult to praise the human intellect too much.  But even a swift look at human capacity seems to show that none of this is chance.  Thus all of the above has been created for humans.  Only humans employ reason, live by justice and law.  If only a person contemplates and attempts to understand the universe, surely it exists for humans.  For the universe possesses reason and order and so do humans.

The power of prophesy also proves the presence of divinitiy.  The world is so interconnected and the world alive that it makes sense that a rational being would give warning and advice.

Magna di curant, parva neglegunt.

The Gods care about the important things, and neglect the small..  This is the answer we have to those who point out that crops were destroyed and thus the gods have no care.

For one is rich enough and fortunate enough to whom there are the riches of virtue.

Balbus makes a plea at the end for Cotta to reply but suggests that he use the skill of taking both sides of an issue can be contrary to the respect due to the Gods. 

750. De Natura Deorum I by Cicero

750.  De Natura Deorum I  by Cicero.

This is a most fascinating book.  I can not urge the importance enough of reading this.  Both atheists and devoutly religious people should immerse themselves in these pages.

Cicero begins:

The most obscure and difficult investigation is into that of the nature of the Gods.  This investigation is essential for the acquisition of knowledge and for properly guiding religion.  

Some say that there are Gods, some are not sure and some say that there are none at all.  Besides these views there are many questions at play here:  what part do Gods play in this world?  If Gods have no care for humans, should piety, reverence and religion be given to the Gods?  This poses an even bigger problem.  If piety, reverence and religion are removed, how will the partnership of society, good faith and justice continue?  If Gods do not exist, upon what is good faith or justice based?

There are those who think that the Gods play a direct part in the lives of humans.  Carneades attacked religion so vigorously that this caused many to desire to find the truth.

Many have expressed surprise at the amount of time and effort I have written and published, particularly using a philosophy which calls all held near and dear into question.  Well, I have been interested in philosophy my whole life.  The essence of philosophy pertains to a guide for life.  This is even evident in my speeches, in fact my whole public and private life.

But why so much writing?  With one person in charge of the state, I owed it to my countrymen to reveal philosophy.  

The idea in this work is to avoid saying ”because the master says so.”  (Cicero was very much opposed to dogma.)

I prefer the Academic system of arguing for and against all philosophical systems.  This is more difficult which is the reason it is avoided.  I do not claim success in this approach, but I have tried.  Academics are often accused of denying the existence of truth.  There are truths, but because false concepts are so similar to truths, it is difficult and risky to give assent to any view.  But out of a list of probabilities some present a stronger argument.  These I follow.  (Thus for Cicero, learning never ends.)

So in this work, various views will be presented.  If all of these different systems agree, then the Academics will look foolish, indeed.  However, the reader will find a wide disagreement.  This should give pause to anyone who thinks that they have it all figured out.

(Cicero meets C. Aurelius Cotta at Cotta’s house.  He finds there C. Velleius, Q. Lucilius Balbus  discussing in an exhedra in a garden.  Each represent a different system:  Epicurean, Stoic and Academic.  The topic of discussion is the nature of the Gods.

Velleius presents the Epicurean view. He begins:

I will not discuss the silly ideas of those who conceive a builder of the universe or a world endowed with mind.  No one can seriously defend the idea that the physical world is everlasting.

Why did God wait so long to create a world?  Why did He adorn the world?  What pleasure would it bring?  What life is that of God?  Why is part of the earth inhabited and much else is not?

(All concepts of the other philosophical systems are evaluated in terms of corporeal means.  As there are nothing else but objects. He spends much time refuting those philosophical systems which discourage attempts to imagine the shape or appearance of God.)

There are many criticisms of Zeno.  He proposes that the law of nature is divine.  This is in charge of directing people to right behavior and preventing the opposite.  How can law be alive?  We want God to be a living being.  (Why?  What advantage does Epicurus gain from this line of thinking?)  In another place, Zeno says that pure air is God.  This is silly for such a God could never be present before us.  In other books Zeno says reason is divine.  He says that stars, months, seasons are divine and that Juno, Jupiter are not Gods.

So what is the Epicurean view of the nature of the Gods?  Gods exist because all people have the concept of God, because this idea is imprinted on the human mind.  Gods exist because of an innate sense of these exists.  All people conceive of Gods with human form but reason also reinforces this.  And no wonder, what could be more beautiful than the human form?  

We perceive God in the mind not by physical perception but a notion of God comes to us via a constant stream of atoms from God to us.

Atoms are infinite, so are the number of Gods.  Infinity is important to Epicureans.  It allows the creation and destruction of mortals, immortals and matter.  Everything is thus in a constant state of flux.

What is the life of the Gods?  Nothing is more blessed nor more abundant in all things.  God does nothing, is not busy and rejoices in virtue and wisdom.  God knows that he will always be with the greatest and eternal pleasures. 

Our God is happy.  The Stoic God is always toiling.  If the world is God, then rest is impossible, since the world constantly spins.  Unless there is rest, there is no blessed existence.

Nos autem beatam vitam in animi securitate et in omnium vacatione munerum ponimus. 

However, we place the good life in the securitate of the mind and in the absence of burdens.

According to Epicurus, nature produced the universe, thus there is no need for a designer nor God creator.  Nature easily produces countless worlds.  There is no need for God creator, when we accept that the universe is infinite.  There is no need for bellows or an anvil.  To Epicurus any alternative requires an all powerful God who interfere in our lives.  This introduces a fatal necessity and introduces the necessity of fate.

At this point Cotta replies with his usual calm to Velleius. He says that Crassus felt that Velleius was very knowledgeable of Epicureanism.  Cotta mentions that Philo suggested he learn of Epicureanism from Zeno (a different Zeno from the one who defended Stoicism).  Philo suggested this because he felt that the best way to learn arguments against Epicureanism are best developed by hearing arguments from its best representative.  But Cotta is upset that someone with Velleius’ ability would fall prey to such a silly system.Cotta prefers not to give his own views but instead refute what others contend.

Cotta:  So does God exist?  There is the story of Simonides.  Hero asked Simonides about this and Simonides asked for a day to think about it.  Then when asked the next day for his answer, he said that he needed two days, then 4, etc.  Hero finally asked what his opinion was.  “Well, Hiero, the more I think about it, the more obscure it becomes.”  But your argument, Velleius, seems weak in places.

You say that God exists.  Fine.  Where are they?  How do they live?  Are they atoms?  Are these atoms all shapes and sizes?  Willy nilly, you say, these produce all that we see?  Where is the truth of Epicureanism?

I grant, says Cotta, that there are little atoms. And that these make up all things.  So how does this help us to seek the nature of the Gods?  If Gods are atoms, they are not eternal.  If atoms once did not exist, neither did the Gods.  So where do you find God, an eternal and happy God?  You say that God has a body, sort of, blood, sort of.  This is a weak argument.  You say that atoms were all falling downward.  Of course this can not explain objects.  So you say that one atom swerved and this caused atoms to bump about and form what we see.

Epicurus rejects dialectic because dialectic states that something is or is not.  But Epicurus rejected this.  How does this apply?  Archesilas said that all sense perceptions were false which were perceived by the senses.  Zeno said that some were false and others not.  Epicurus feared that if one sense perception was wrong, all could be.  Thus Epicurus saw  and others were not.  But Epicurus rejected this.  Epicurus said that all sense perceptions were messengers of truth.  He had to because all there is are atoms.

Thus in the case of the Gods, he avoided these consisting of lumps of atoms which may decay, thus he said that they have bodies, but not bodies and blood but not blood.

It is interesting that Epicurus bragged that he never had a teacher.  This is easy to believe since his arguments are not well constructed.  Epicurus claimed that he was self taught, yet his philosophy is very similar to that of Democritus’.  So explain to me this sort of body/blood thing. If their system is something only you can understand, do you not think it strange that words can not explain your thoughts?

Gods you say have human form because these forms (1) are imprinted on our minds and (2) nothing is more beautiful than the human form and (3) only the human form can have an intellect.  But it makes sense that humans who admire the human form would depict Gods in the human form.  But how is this proof of the nature of the Gods?

So what do Gods look like?  Do any have blemishes?  Is one prettier than another?

Epicurus either knew what he was doing when he spoke in foggy terms about the bodies and blood of the Gods, or he simply failed to express himself very well due to poor ability.  But he surely seems to be clear when he wants to be.  He surely believes in Gods, because he fears death and Gods which oddly he says he fears not at all.  

Cotta points out that since the senses are the road to truth, how can Epicurus believe in God, for no one has ever seen him.  Cotta’s point is that there is more to knowledge that what we can taste, smell, feel, see and hear.

Cotta:  It is incorrect to say that the Gods have human form instead it is people who have the form of the Gods.  For the Gods always existed, these are eternal as you have said.  You claim nothing happened by reason in the nature of things , so how did humans purely by chance with atoms flying about here and there happen to create the human form just like that of the Gods?

So why do Epicureans mock someone who does not view God as with human form?  What if God is such that hands and feet are unnecessary?  Why would Gods need human body parts?

It just seems that the Epicureans have nothing to learn from anyone but their own accepted views.  Thus Epicurus and others mock anyone who disagrees as worthless.

Why would God need limbs?  Why speech?  Why can not the sun be a God or the Earth?

If the Gods are superior to humans in all else, why are we equal in body?  It seems that in virtue we come closer to God than in our human form.  In a way humans look alike but actually with a careful look we are actually quite different from each other.  If Gods look like a human, another may claim that reason can only exist in a human.  There appears to be no argument why God would need limbs, heart, head, neck, etc.  If reason is the common link, none of these are needed.  Epicurus condemns those who observe the wonders of the earth, sky, see heavenly bodies and suspect that some divine nature brought all of this about and guides it.  Maybe this view, divine nature, is wrong, but yours simply says- we have in our minds certain notion of Gods imprinted on our minds.

Your God does nothing.  There are birds which do more than your Gods, when they eat snakes.

Epicurus must love children who think that doing nothing is the end all.  For in this they imitate your concept of God.  Every animal seeks what is suitable to its nature- what do your Gods seek?  For what purpose does he exercise his mind?  How is he happy?  Eternal?

According to your system God has nothing solid, is occupied only in thought- so what difference does it make, if we think of God as a hippocentaur?  If our perception of God is due to constant stream of images are you saying that when I enter a place where someone did something that that image comes to me and that is the reason I can “see” them?  And from this you say that I am to understand that God is eternal and happy?  Because an image occurs to me of some event in the past, this is proof that God is eternal and happy?

(If knowledge of something is personal, how can there be a shared image of the exact same thing?)

So to visualize God as an object, your system fails.  What about happiness?  Can God be happy without virtue?  Nope.  Virtue requires activity and your God does nothing.  What is the life of God?  You say a supply of good things with no evil mixed in.  What good things?  Pleasure?  But pleasure of the mind requires a body.

(Cotta is demonstrating his immense grasp of a system with which he disagrees.)

Cotta:  Epicurus destroys religion for there is not point in worship, for the Gods do not care, do nothing.

You say that images are produced by a constant stream of atoms.  So how then explain objects which do not exist?  Why would people owe piety to the Gods, if Gods do nothing and have no care for our lives?  What would replace the sense of duty and obligation of human to human, if the Gods are meaningless?

Epicurus claims freedom from superstition- yes, but only by making the Gods powerless.  What Epicureans do is destroy superstition by making Gods powerless but this also destroys religious practices. Your argument is that wise people invented the Gods in order to get people to be good.  But what about those people whom reason may not reach?  Do they not need another way to reach goodness- religion?  

Prodicus felt that those things which benefit humans were considered Gods.  What religious practice does Epicureanism leave?

In your view all things are matter.  So what is this object you call God?  If all matter is temporary, how can there be any image of God?

Epicurus grants that the nature of the Gods is best and outstanding, yet denies their favor/service/kindness toward humans.  If God lacks goodness and kindness to humans, then in God there is no love, nor affection for anything.  For example the Stoics believe that all wise people are friends- even though they may not know each other but they know each other via their love of virtue, kindness and good will.  These you classify as weaknesses.  Do you think that humans are kind because they are weak?  Does this natural affection between good people reflect the natural affection of Gods for all things good?

Are we driven by kindness and generosity to associate with each other or is this done by need alone?  If by need alone, we will only be generous or kind only in so far as it would be to our advantage.  The Stoic idea reaches outward to others, Epicureanism reaches to self.  We evaluate fields of a farm by the profit these bring.  But dearness and friendship and love are voluntary.

How can there be a complete understanding of the human experience solely through matter?  Posedonius suggests that Epicurus really did not believe in the Gods at all and only came up with this idea about Gods to avoid criticism.

The huge problem with Epicureanism is this:  there is only one way to the truth.