508. De Natura Deorum by Cicero.
Cicero recalls a conversation he once witnessed between Gaius Velleius who was an Epicurean, Quintus Lucilius Balbus who was a Stoic and Gaius Cotta who was a follower of the Academy. Cicero as young lad sat and listened.
This book discusses the nature of the gods. Various Roman scholars express their views on God and another fellow provides an analysis from the philosophical point of view of the Academics. Is there a God? Can the existence of God be proven? Does God communicate with people? If so, how? Do the gods even care about humans, their problems and concerns?
I have read this work several times. I think that this book is not often read because of the approach Cicero takes. It is not designed to bring comfort. It is designed to encourage thinking. Cotta who represents the Academics only finds faults in the argument of each presenter. He never offers his actual views. In the first book Velleius presents the case for the Epicurean view of the gods. Epicureans posit that gods are idle and have no care or concerns. Cotta who comments on these remarks from the Academic view wonders then why they need arms or legs. Then Balbus presents the Stoic view. Parts of this presentation come from Stoics deep interest in natural science. The Universe is almost viewed a a mammoth thought which pervades and permeates everything. Then Cotta offers a critique of this view. He finds many gaps, contradictions and fuzziness. In fact Cotta’s attack is so strong that one could easily find oneself questioning one’s own beliefs. Interestingly at the end of the discussion, Cicero offers his view that Balbus had the stronger case.
Cicero has a command of the arguments which each philosophical system has concerning religion and the gods/god. But he does not offer an answer which brings comfort for one who wishes to believe or for that matter for one who denies the existence of God. It seems again that Cicero’s view of divinity is very complex and that contemplation of the divinity is so complex that the only way to slowly inch toward an understanding of the whole thing is continued examination of every philosophical system available. Each system seems to have some grain of truth. Those who follow one system of thought or one area of study automatically limit themselves to a narrower view of the whole of existence. Cicero posits that one can always be wrong- so examine the ideas of others.
How can order of the universe be an accident? If rules of physics and natural science lie behind this order whence came those rules? How can beauty be an accident? Can chance alone account for order and beauty? Isn’t it a contradiction to equate beauty and order with luck?
Cicero says that studying the nature of the gods is the noblest of studies for the human mind to grasp. He seems to suggest that the study of this subject goes to the very heart of the human intellect- to try to understand the mechanics of the physical world in terms of its purpose.
