A CICERONIAN LAWYER'S MUSINGS ON LAW, PHILOSOPHY, CURRENT AFFAIRS, LITERATURE, HISTORY AND LIVING LIFE SECUNDUM NATURAM
Monday, October 21, 2019
Stoicism and Religion II
In the last post, I concluded that Stoicism isn't a religion, but could be religious, at least in a sense. But is that truly the case?
I think that strictly speaking it can be if we use "religious" according to its dictionary definition as set forth in Merriam-Webster online. A Stoic certainly can be devoted to a deity or underlying reality (the vague "Divine Fire" or "Divine Reason"). We can and do say that someone who believes in God is religious. But the "God" commonly referred to when we say that word isn't an immanent "God" of the kind we find referred to by the ancient Stoics or other pantheists, nor is it the "god of the philosophers" we see referred to often enough even by those ostensibly devoted to institutional religions.
Who and why the reference is made is interesting, however, and indicates that the meaning of "God" is dependent on that who and that why. Christian apologists, theologians and philosophers throughout history have managed to maintain that the "god of the philosophers" or something very much like that "god" is, in fact, the Christian God. When they do that I think they necessarily must disregard Jesus as he is depicted in the Gospels, though (despite the Gospel of John's use of the word "logos" which must then, perforce, be made flesh and walk among us--something it's rather hard to imagine logos doing). Nor is it possible to claim that the Christian God as he is actually worshiped in Christian churches is the god of the philosophers, if the ceremony of worship is considered.
And so I wonder whether it is entirely honest, if it is disingenuous in other words, to claim that Jesus is the god of the philosophers as is attempted from time to time. Maybe those who do that are like some of the ancient philosophers who claimed that people should engage in the traditional worship of the gods despite the fact that the myths pertaining to them were silly at best.
If worship as ceremony, or ritual, is required for one to be religious, however, it would seem that a Stoic would not be religious. Western history would seem to establish that worship is communal, something that groups of believers participated in generally at regular times and in a particular manner. That was the case as far as I'm aware in pre-Christian and Christian times. The ancient mysteries involved ceremony and invocation in group settings; sometimes large groups as in the case of the Eleusinian mysteries, sometimes in very small groups (the temples or caves in which devotees of Mithras would meet suggest 20 to 50 men would participate in worship). Pagan worship involved parades and feasting and rituals of various kinds. Christian worship certainly is communal, though one hears of hermits and folk who lived on pillars and other ascetic extremes, but these are rarities, and meant to be.
I find it hard to picture Stoics gathering for any similar purpose. For that matter, I find it hard to imagine what they would do. I personally am adverse to religious gatherings and ceremonies of any kind, though I've noted before my sentimental fondness for the old Catholic ritual. This is one of the reasons I avoid not only Catholic but other Christian, and even Unitarian gatherings (from what I hear, Unitarians are similar to Christian church gatherings, with singing and reading from I'm not sure who--perhaps the New England Transcendentalists). The only current non-pagan form of worship I can think of that might be tolerable would be Quaker, where it seems nothing is required beyond silent contemplation unless someone gets the urge to testify--which I like to think would be infrequent. As for the so-called modern pagans, I suspect that Wiccans, Druids etc. do whatever they do in groups and that some sort of ceremony and liturgy is involved.
Are there any forms of worship engaged in by Stoics, or pantheists, or panentheists? If so I don't know. And this makes me wonder whether worship of such a kind can be, and also wonder whether it is possible for them to be considered religious.
Monday, October 7, 2019
Stoicism and Religion
I find myself wondering, now and then, whether Stoicism can be considered a religion, and for that matter whether it should be considered religious. The answers I encounter when I read those who have addressed the question--those I've become aware of, I should say--are generally to the effect that it can be religious, but is not a religion.
This makes sense if "religion" is defined as a an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies and worship of a superhuman being or beings, i.e. something in the nature of the institutionalized religions with which we're familiar, and "religious" as relating to a devotion to an ultimate reality or deity (I take these definitions, roughly, from Merriam-Webster online). Despite its growing popularity, Stoicism as far as I know has not become institutionalized or organized to such an extent, and certainly ancient Stoicism, at least, accepted and was devoted to an ultimate reality or deity, that being the Divine Reason. That deity may even have been worshiped in a sense. I think of the Hymn of Cleanthes.
In fact, some ancient Stoics seem even to have thought of the deity as personal, as having certain human characteristics and being concerned with humans as individuals. One sees this tendency sometimes in Epictetus and Seneca. The early Christian Fathers were fond of Seneca, and could only be so if they saw in his writings some reference to a personal God--though one must be careful in coming to such a conclusion, as the early Christians, like later Christians, would assimilate pagan philosophy in various ways when it suited their purpose to do so.
It seems clear enough that Stoicism need not be a religion, nor need it be religious. Indeed, it may not even be a philosophy, in the ancient sense of wisdom and choosing the way in which to live. We know that the wisdom of Stoicism is fundamental to modern psychological therapy such as CBT.
Well and good. But I confess to feeling a bit disturbed when I see Stoicism used by, and associated with, the worlds of business and the military. I've no doubt that Stoic techniques can have their uses in those worlds, but the great Stoics of the past were not interested in Stoicism as a path by which success in business could be obtained, or as useful in the development of good soldiers. I think it's quite clear that the Stoics would consider success in business and in war as being the result of an undue concern with matters and things outside our control, regarding which we should be indifferent at most.
Whether it is or is not necessarily a religion or religious, should it be one or the other? I think we humans have had and have now more than enough in the way of organized religions. It isn't clear to me that they've done us much good, overall, and it is clear to me that they've been responsible for a great deal of harm. Once organized as a religion, I think even Stoicism would lose much of what makes it wise and beneficial.
I do think it should be religious, though, for reasons I hope to explain. This may be nothing more than an indication of personal preference or desire.
Let me say, first, that I use "religious" here much as it is defined by Merriam-Webster as noted above. If Stoicism posits the existence of a Divine Reason that is the intelligence or generative influence infusing the universe, and if this spirit is immanent in nature, then I think a "religious" feeling results. How is it possible to contemplate the vastness of the universe and all it consists of with anything but a sense of awe, and with reverence? And if acting in accordance with Nature consists of being in accord with the universe, it would seem that by devoting ourselves to Nature is a devotion to the divine that's immanent in the universe.
It may be that in thinking or feeling this way I'm in a minority, because I haven't been able to find any author who sees this as essential to Stoicism, or deals with the religious aspects of Stoicism to any significant extent. I understand Ricardo Salles addresses this somewhat in his work, but his book on it is so expensive I've haven't had much of an inclination to buy it.
One sees the Stoics referred to as pantheists, or the Stoic view of the universe as panentheistic, but these reference are made in passing, and left unexplored, as if there is nothing more to be said. For that matter, one sees "modern paganism" called pantheistic, even by its adherents, but those who think of themselves as Wiccan, or Druids or Heathens seem ignorant of Stoicism and ancient philosophy generally.
Surely there's a religious kind of Stoicism in evidence somewhere? Prepare ye the way of the Divine Reason!
This makes sense if "religion" is defined as a an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies and worship of a superhuman being or beings, i.e. something in the nature of the institutionalized religions with which we're familiar, and "religious" as relating to a devotion to an ultimate reality or deity (I take these definitions, roughly, from Merriam-Webster online). Despite its growing popularity, Stoicism as far as I know has not become institutionalized or organized to such an extent, and certainly ancient Stoicism, at least, accepted and was devoted to an ultimate reality or deity, that being the Divine Reason. That deity may even have been worshiped in a sense. I think of the Hymn of Cleanthes.
In fact, some ancient Stoics seem even to have thought of the deity as personal, as having certain human characteristics and being concerned with humans as individuals. One sees this tendency sometimes in Epictetus and Seneca. The early Christian Fathers were fond of Seneca, and could only be so if they saw in his writings some reference to a personal God--though one must be careful in coming to such a conclusion, as the early Christians, like later Christians, would assimilate pagan philosophy in various ways when it suited their purpose to do so.
It seems clear enough that Stoicism need not be a religion, nor need it be religious. Indeed, it may not even be a philosophy, in the ancient sense of wisdom and choosing the way in which to live. We know that the wisdom of Stoicism is fundamental to modern psychological therapy such as CBT.
Well and good. But I confess to feeling a bit disturbed when I see Stoicism used by, and associated with, the worlds of business and the military. I've no doubt that Stoic techniques can have their uses in those worlds, but the great Stoics of the past were not interested in Stoicism as a path by which success in business could be obtained, or as useful in the development of good soldiers. I think it's quite clear that the Stoics would consider success in business and in war as being the result of an undue concern with matters and things outside our control, regarding which we should be indifferent at most.
Whether it is or is not necessarily a religion or religious, should it be one or the other? I think we humans have had and have now more than enough in the way of organized religions. It isn't clear to me that they've done us much good, overall, and it is clear to me that they've been responsible for a great deal of harm. Once organized as a religion, I think even Stoicism would lose much of what makes it wise and beneficial.
I do think it should be religious, though, for reasons I hope to explain. This may be nothing more than an indication of personal preference or desire.
Let me say, first, that I use "religious" here much as it is defined by Merriam-Webster as noted above. If Stoicism posits the existence of a Divine Reason that is the intelligence or generative influence infusing the universe, and if this spirit is immanent in nature, then I think a "religious" feeling results. How is it possible to contemplate the vastness of the universe and all it consists of with anything but a sense of awe, and with reverence? And if acting in accordance with Nature consists of being in accord with the universe, it would seem that by devoting ourselves to Nature is a devotion to the divine that's immanent in the universe.
It may be that in thinking or feeling this way I'm in a minority, because I haven't been able to find any author who sees this as essential to Stoicism, or deals with the religious aspects of Stoicism to any significant extent. I understand Ricardo Salles addresses this somewhat in his work, but his book on it is so expensive I've haven't had much of an inclination to buy it.
One sees the Stoics referred to as pantheists, or the Stoic view of the universe as panentheistic, but these reference are made in passing, and left unexplored, as if there is nothing more to be said. For that matter, one sees "modern paganism" called pantheistic, even by its adherents, but those who think of themselves as Wiccan, or Druids or Heathens seem ignorant of Stoicism and ancient philosophy generally.
Surely there's a religious kind of Stoicism in evidence somewhere? Prepare ye the way of the Divine Reason!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)