Concerning the gods, there are some who say that the Divine does not exist, others that it exists but is inactive and indifferent and takes no thought for anything, others again that God does exist and take thought but only for great things and things in the heavens, but for nothing on earth; and a fourth class say that God takes thought also for earthly and human things, but only in a general way, and has no care for individuals: and there is a fifth class, to whom belong Odysseus and Socrates, who say:
“Where’er I move
Thou seest me.”
[Homer, Iliad, X. 279]
Before all things then it is necessary to examine each of these views, to see whether it is true or untrue.
For if there are no gods, how can following the gods be the end of man? If again there are gods, but they care for nothing, in that case too what good will it be to follow them? But once more, if they exist and do care, yet if there is no communication between them and men, nay what is more, if there is none between them and me, to follow them cannot be a true end.
The good man then, having examined into all these questions, has submitted his mind to Him that orders the Universe, as good citizens submit to the law of the city.
I now do my best to avoid heated discussions about God, because they almost always turn into a mockery of an argument, where the conclusion precedes the premises, instead of a healthy argument, where the premises lead to the conclusion. We are so worried about our opinions that we immediately assume the need for conflict, while a love for the truth would only encourage cooperation.
The question of the Divine is both profoundly transcendent as well as deeply personal, so I suppose it’s no wonder we get riled up when so much is at stake. I believe it was Fulton Sheen who said that there can be nothing more important, as there is nothing more ultimate.
Resolve it as you think is best, allowing no one to seduce or bully you, though understand that how you answer will determine everything else for you. It is about the absolute measure of things, and how you will see yourself in relationship to the entire world around you.
For Epictetus, it isn’t just a matter of whether we recognize or reject God, but also to what degree we might consider our relationship with the Divine. If there is a God, is he far away or close at hand? Does he even know anything about me, and if so, will he choose to care?
Many volumes have been written on these problems, yet for our purposes note how Epictetus argues that God will only be truly relevant for us if we embrace both his perfection and his immanence. Besides the fact that an ignorant, thoughtless, or uncaring God could hardly be a God at all, what actual relevance could he have for us if he is not also completely present to us?
Of the five options Epictetus offers above, most “modern” Stoics I come across will subscribe to either the first or the second, which is very much in line with the popular philosophical trends of the day.
Now it is never my place to tell anyone what to think, but I do wish that we could open our minds a bit more to what is unfamiliar and uncomfortable. I do know I must always remind myself to pursue what is reasonable over what is convenient, and to follow the truth instead of trying to twist it according to my whims.
Whatever our initial inclinations on these five options, or in however we wish to divide the possibilities, I would recommend that we push ourselves to explore humbly and sincerely. You may be surprised where you end up.
Though raised in a rich tradition of faith, faith alone was never enough for me. I spent many moments of doubt and pain feeling certain that there was no God at all, or that he was indifferent, or that I personally didn’t matter to him. It was easier for me to think that way, even as I had a nagging sense I was just settling. But what else could I do?
Everyone’s journey is different, of course, while mine came to a crossroads where it occurred to me that I was always throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Was it necessarily wrong because my elders had taught it? Might faith be in harmony with reason? Why assume a dichotomy where none was present?
On many days, I will still prefer to be an atheist, or an agnostic, or at least a deist, and then I pinch myself, recalling that my preferences should not be confused with principles.
Years and years of reading Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, or Aquinas have shown me that making God the center is hardly superstitious or nonsensical. Quite the contrary, while fighting against it at every moment, like the doubting Thomas I am, I find it the most reasonable account of reality there could be.
I can’t reduce it to just the reading, however, since I also had to work through it day by day, with blood, sweat, and tears. Still, as much as I clench my teeth at the thought, I have become the very theist of my forefathers, and a very theist like Epictetus.
I appreciate why people are intrigued by the ethical component of Stoicism, and rightly so, though I offer that there is additionally something else at work here, the larger context within which a Stoic morality is only one part.
Through logic, we are asked to comprehend the world, and through physics to stand in awe at a grand design. The bit about personal responsibility fits into a bigger picture of Divine Providence, a Universe where my nature is a piece in of the whole of Nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment