Monday, June 9, 2008

The Apology of Aristides, Section 5

[I've heard it said that the atheist believes in just one less god than the Christian and that the Christian is an atheist towards the many other gods that have been espoused throughout the ages and in other cultures. This statement assumes that the difference between polytheism, monotheism, and atheism is merely quantitative, and that deciding between those options is on the order of guessing how many beers remain in the refrigerator. Aristides points out how absurd was the polytheism of the ancient Greeks and in doing so points out the absurdity of that popular but fatuous quip.]

Let us turn further to the Greeks also, that we may know what opinion they hold as to the true God.

The Greeks, then, because they are more subtle than the Barbarians, have gone further astray than the Barbarians; inasmuch as they have introduced many fictitious gods, and have set up some of them as males and some as females; and in that some of their gods were found who were adulterers, and did murder, and were deluded, and envious, and wrathful and passionate, and parricides, and thieves, and robbers. And some of them, they say, were crippled and limped, and some were sorcerers, and some actually went mad, and some played on lyres, and some were given to roaming on the hills, and some even died, and some were struck dead by lightning, and some were made servants even to men, and some escaped by flight, and some were kidnapped by men, and some, indeed, were lamented and deplored by men. And some, they say, went down to Sheol, and some were grievously wounded, and some transformed themselves into the likeness of animals to seduce the race of mortal women, and some polluted themselves by lying with males. And some, they say, were wedded to their mothers and their sisters and their daughters. And they say of their gods that they committed adultery with the daughters of men; and of these there was born a certain race which also was mortal. And they say that some of the females disputed about beauty, and appeared before men for judgment.

Thus, O King, have the Greeks put forward foulness, and absurdity, and folly about their gods and about themselves, in that they have called those that are of such a nature gods, who are no gods. And hence mankind have received incitements to commit adultery and fornication, and to steal and to practise all that is offensive and hated and abhorred. For if they who are called their gods practised all these things which are written above, how much more should men practise them—men, who believe that their gods themselves practised them. And owing to the foulness of this error there have happened to mankind harassing wars, and great famines, and bitter captivity, and complete desolation. And lo! it was by reason of this alone that they suffered and that all these things came upon them; and while they endured those things they did not perceive in their mind that for their error those things came upon them.

3 comments:

CyberKitten said...

I have long thought (since childhood) that Polytheism is much more reasonable the Monotheism. I *get* the idea that storms could be the province of one god whilst the harvests could be the province of another. I *get* that gods would argue and fight each other, I *get* that they could be fooled and much else besides. Greek & other gods were humanity writ large. They were *far* from perfect, not too judgmental and you could basically chose the 'best' god for you & your family. It all seems very..... civilized.

Monotheism always seemed to be a backwards step to me - but then again I grew up on the tales of the Norse gods which might explain a few things.

BTW - I don't think that the piece by Aristides addresses your opening comment.

Laughing Boy said...

Greek & other gods were humanity writ large.

Interesting. That God is just humanity "writ large" is a commonly heard dismissal of Christian monotheism, but, as you point out, that is truer by far of Greek polytheism. How does that make it more reasonable?

They were *far* from perfect, not too judgmental and you could basically chose the 'best' god for you & your family.

At issue is not what seems a more congenial arrangement, but what conforms more with truth. How do any of these considerations get at truth? You've said, and I agree, that truth is independent of us, and that conformity to our desires is not a factor in determining truth.

I don't think that the piece by Aristides addresses your opening comment.

I'm just trying to inject a catalyst for conversation that is hopefully somewhat related to the text. In this case the idea that the difference between the many gods of the Greeks and the One God of Judeo-Christian theology is not one of number but of category. They are qualitatively different and require distinct lines of reasoning to address. It's not sufficient to say, for example, I don't believe in Ceres or Mars, so I'll just go ahead and dismiss Yahweh, too.

CyberKitten said...

LB said: That God is just humanity "writ large" is a commonly heard dismissal of Christian monotheism, but, as you point out, that is truer by far of Greek polytheism. How does that make it more reasonable?

Because its more reasonable to exaggerate ourselves (warts & all) that create a perfect being - which we'll automatically fail to live up to. The Ancient poly-gods are more understandable too - they get angry, horny and confused just like people do. They're gods that you can relate to.

My personal favourite is Odin.

LB said: At issue is not what seems a more congenial arrangement, but what conforms more with truth.

Well, none of it obviously. There are no gods - polytheistic or monotheistic.

LB said: How do any of these considerations get at truth?

They don't. They're projections of humanity onto the universe. They're fantasies that helped earlier civilisations attempt to understand the universe and come to terms with things like death.

LB said: You've said, and I agree, that truth is independent of us, and that conformity to our desires is not a factor in determining truth.

Very true. But religion is often about comfort (and power/control) rather than truth.

LB said: It's not sufficient to say, for example, I don't believe in Ceres or Mars, so I'll just go ahead and dismiss Yahweh, too.

But the *really* interesting thing is why you dismiss *some* gods and not others.... Whereas I get off fairly lightly by rejecting *all* of them.