The Nature of the Gods (Cicero)

Status
Not open for further replies.

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Most books about natural theology seek to prove or defend God’s existence from nature, reason, etc. They are usually written by adherents of said religion. Every now and then, one will find a text written by an outsider. This might be such a text. It is hard to know exactly what Cicero believed about the gods. My guess is that he believed that belief in them is useful to society, much like how a neoconservative or liberal Protestant believes in “god.”

This book is indispensable for learning the context in which ancient Christianity would later come on scene. It is helpful to remember that the book of Acts was more interested in Epicureans and Stoics than it was in Plato and Aristotle. Moreover, and though Cicero had no interest in this, the text works as a check on erroneous views of God.

We begin with a philosophical retreat to what is ostensibly Cicero’s villa. The gentlemen would know at least three things: do the gods (or God) exist, what are they like, and are they interested in us. The first question is generally granted, even by the skeptic, Cotta. If the gods exist, though, their nature and their existence will be intertwined. For example, it is no good to say that god exists but he is made of parts (or finite, etc.). Such a god would have to be assembled, for example.

Vellius the Epicurean:

He begins by critiquing the weaknesses in earlier natural theology. He makes a number of correct statements, even attacking the idea that the human mind is God (i.e., if it were God, how could it be ignorant of anything?).

Epicurus correctly pointed out that the human mind is a prolepsis, a tool. It is something like a conception and an anticipation. So far, so good. From this he concludes that the gods must exist, for they implanted this conception in our minds.

From here he explains the Epicurean view of “atoms” and that free will is a borderline-irrational swerving of atoms.

Cotta the Academic:

He demolishes all of Vellius’s arguments. Cotta is wrong in his claim that atoms do not exist. We know today that they do. He is correct, however, that atoms do not function the way Vellius says they do. And even if they do function the way Vellius says they do, Cotta delivers the kill shot: if the gods are made of atoms, then they were made that way. They are not eternal. At best, these gods do not have reality, but a mere semblance of reality.

Cotta finishes this section with a number of defeaters, all of them brutal.

Balbus the Stoic:

He has the weakest of all arguments. As weak as his arguments are, Cotta response is not as devastating, for some reason. Balbus’s argument is a design from nature. There must be a designer. I agree, but he needs much more for his theology. He starts strong. He reasons that god or the gods must exist because of divine foreknowledge, blessings, judgments, and the movement of the universe.

Unfortunately, it is not clear that Balbus is talking of God, the gods, or the universe. This makes his argument from design backfire. If there is design in the universe, and the universe is god, then who designed the universe?

Because god is living, and the universe is living, the universe must be god. Not surprisingly, this argument does not convince anyone.

Conclusion

The text at the end is somewhat corrupt, so we will leave it here. The book is valuable for early Christian history as key thinkers like Minicus Felix, Arnobius, and Lactantius (and almost certainly Jerome) read this book.
 
I started On the Laws sometime back, excellent stuff, though I need to get back to it and finish.

A pithy review. You kept using gods and God, how does this work deal with polytheism?
 
I started On the Laws sometime back, excellent stuff, though I need to get back to it and finish.

A pithy review. You kept using gods and God, how does this work deal with polytheism?

I used the words interchangeably because the author did. They did believe in finite gods, but they knew that such gods couldn't be ultimate and kind of left it at that.
 
Thanks for the review - have Cicero on the reading list. Currently learning Latin and enjoy reading extracts from his works.

Unrelated question, but why Quine as your profile picture? Reading him at the moment?
 
why Quine

Because writing a Quine in computer programming is fun!

This book is indispensable for learning the context in which ancient Christianity would later come on scene. It is helpful to remember that the book of Acts was more interested in Epicureans and Stoics than it was in Plato and Aristotle.

Jacob, would you say that there are places in Acts where reading this work helps us to understand Acts better?
 
Thanks for the review - have Cicero on the reading list. Currently learning Latin and enjoy reading extracts from his works.

Unrelated question, but why Quine as your profile picture? Reading him at the moment?

I was browsing through some old analytic works of mine and decided to put Quine's picture up. I do need to read him, though.
 
Jacob, would you say that there are places in Acts where reading this work helps us to understand Acts better?

Not in any real sense, though. The poets whom Paul quoted had pantheistic bents, and they would be close to Stoicism, but they don't really have a cipher to understand Acts.
 
The book is important because later Christian writers before Constantine used many of the arguments in this book to show the vacuity of pagan thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top