GREEK AND ROMAN THEISTIC ARGUMENTS
The first question that confronts us as we enter upon the discussion is
the preliminary inquiry: What had been done already in the way of
theistic argument, and in what condition did the Christian Church find
this argument when it first began to develop a system of apologetics?
And from the conditions of ancient thought, or, at least, from what we
know of it, this resolves itself into the question: How far had the
Greek philosophers advanced by means of speculative thought toward a
conscious theism, and by what means did the various individuals and
schools among them seek to prove the existence of the Divine? The answer
to this inquiry will involve a brief examination of the contributions of
the pre-Socratic philosophers (especially Anaxagoras), Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle, the Stoics, the Epicureans, Cicero, and the Hellenizing Jews
of Alexandria.
The thought of Greece before the time of Socrates, from the very nature
of its problem, and the material at its disposal, yields us but little
that can, without doing violence to the facts, be construed as bearing
on the theistic argument. The search of these early philosophers was,
indeed, for an {Archê}, but their interest in the inquiry, as a perusal of
the extant fragments of their writings will prove, was pre-eminently
cosmological. They strove to discover the eternal ground of all things,
but it was a principle to account for the phenomena of _physical_ nature
that they sought, and they had not attained to a realization of even a
rude form of the theistic problem. All they sought for was a primary
substance which should satisfy the needs of a rudimentary physical
science, which would enable them to co-ordinate the scanty data which
they had accumulated from their contact with the world in which they
lived, and to whose secrets they seem at times, in spite of their
limited knowledge, to have come very close. And even granting that the
problem involved in their search for the {Archê} was at bottom identical
with that of theism, they attempt to give no proof or argument for their
conclusions with regard to it. They are as yet merely _seers_, who
report the vision that comes to them as they gaze upon the stress and
strain and ever-changing spectacle of earth's phenomena. Even the
teleology of Anaxagoras (often mentioned as the germ of the theistic
argument) gives us nothing more than a poet's dream, expressed, as
Diogenes Laertius informs us, in a "lofty and agreeable style."[2]
"Nous," Anaxagoras tells us, "is infinite and self-ruled, and is mixed
with nothing, but is alone, itself by itself.... It has all knowledge
about everything, and the greatest strength; and Nous has power over all
things, both greater and smaller, that have life. And Nous had power
over the whole revolution, so that it began to revolve in the
beginning.... And Nous set in order all things that were to be and that
were, and all things that are not now, and that are, and this revolution
in which now revolve the stars and the sun and the moon and the air and
the æther that are separated off."[3] This, however, amounts to no
argument, and it is extremely doubtful whether Anaxagoras ever meant
anything more by his Nous than Empedocles did by his Love and Strife, of
which it was the historical successor, and we may safely, I think,
endorse the judgment of Aristotle when he says that "Anaxagoras, also,
employs mind as a machine" (_i.e._, as the Laurentian MS. indicates, as
a theatrical _deus ex machina_) "for the production of the cosmos; and
when he finds himself in a perplexity as to the cause of its being
necessarily so, he then drags it in by force to his assistance; but, in
the other instances, he assigns as a cause of the things that are being
produced, everything else in preference to mind (Nous)."[4] This
criticism will, I am confident, apply fully as well to any apparent
theism in the other pre-Socratic writers,[5] so that we shall be
justified in assigning to them as their part in the development of the
theistic argument, the mere undefined feeling and growing conviction of
a permanent behind the changing, a "one" behind the "many."
We find the natural deep and practical piety of Socrates reinforcing
itself with a very full and complete statement of a teleological
argument, based upon final cause, or adaptation of means to ends. It is
in the _Memorabilia_[6] that we get the clear statement of this, and,
therefore, it is a Socratic teaching which can, fortunately, be
definitely distinguished from the Platonic treatment of the subject.
"But which," he asks, "seemed to you most worthy of admiration,
Aristodemus--the artist who forms images void of motion and
intelligence, or one who has the skill to produce animals that are
endued not only with activity, but understanding?" Then as Aristodemus
answers, "The latter," Socrates proceeds to a detailed description of
the adaptations of the eye, ear, teeth, mouth and nose to their several
uses, and concludes with the question: "And canst thou still doubt,
Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be a work
of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?" He also argues in like manner
from the existence of intelligence in man, the soul, and the general
adaptability of man's powers and conditions to the furthering of his
life. This argument to design has appropriately been called "peculiarly
the Socratic proof,"[7] and to his treatment of it, so in keeping with
the practical, sturdy common-sense of the man, nothing essential or
important, except in multiplication of applications and details, has
been added since his time. In the opinion of the writer, however,
Socrates, so far as one can judge from his recorded utterances,
developed merely the form of the Argument to Design, but it cannot be
positively asserted that he used it as a _theistic_ argument. In the
_Memorabilia_ it is always "the gods" to which the argument leads, and
the worship of them that he urges. He may have had a more theistic
conception, but the context warrants no further meaning of {theos} than the
generic one of an object of worship--in this case the national gods. In
the _Apology_ "{ho theos}" is used almost invariably of the local divinity
of the oracle at Delphi, and of the "daemon" which, at the instigation
of the Delphian divinity, as he was convinced, guided his actions. The
present writer is strongly of the opinion that much violence has been
done the words of Socrates by translators and interpreters, and that
this fact will account for much of the alleged theistic teaching which
is, without warrant, ascribed to the Athenian sage.
The contribution of Plato to the theistic argument was,
characteristically, the form of the "Ontological proof" which has been
called "Idealogical." This process is a very natural development for
Plato's Dialectic.[8] Once divide the universe, as he did, into the two
classes of permanent existence and transient phenomena, and identify the
former with the ideas (which are nothing else than universals, each of
which expresses the essence of many phenomena), and it is a very easy
process to conceive of these ideas themselves being united in another
more inclusive idea, and so, by a process of generalization, to reach at
length the "Idea of Ideas"--the absolute Idea, in which lies the essence
of all in the universe. Thus from any one fact of beauty, harmony, etc.,
the human mind may rise to the notion of a common quality in all objects
of beauty, etc.: "from a single beautiful body to two, from two to all
others; from beautiful bodies to beautiful sentiments, from beautiful
sentiments to beautiful thoughts, until, from thought to thought, we
arrive at the highest thought, which has no other object than the
perfect, absolute, Divine Beauty."[9] The "ideas," too, and especially
the "Good" or "absolute Idea," have in them a teleological element,
"since the Idea not only states as what, but also for what a thing
exists."[10] The absolute Idea is not only the first principle of the
universe, but also its final purpose, and thus we have indicated in
various places a teleological argument. Traces of other forms of the
theistic argument have been detected in Plato's writings, but none of
them are at all explicitly developed, and one cannot but feel that some
writers on the subject have claimed altogether too much for Plato's
theology.[11] The poetical and allegorical form into which he so
constantly throws his discussion makes it extremely difficult to
determine his exact position, especially on such a subject as his
theology, in which he is constantly adapting his metaphysical doctrines
to the prevailing polytheistic religious ideas; and at the same time
this method of expression gives a good opportunity for the collection of
isolated quotations which may support almost any theory.
The religious character of Plato's philosophy is, as Zeller says, to be
found much more on the moral than on the scientific side, and hence he
was content to leave the more exact formulation of such arguments as
these to his successors. As to the results to which this method led him,
the statement of Zeller, in view of the many conflicting opinions, seems
satisfactory: "In everything that he states concerning the Divinity the
leading point of view is the idea of the Good, the highest metaphysical
and ethical perfection. As this highest Idea stands over all ideas as
the cause of all being and knowing, so over all gods, alike hard to find
and to describe, stands the one, eternal, invisible god, the Framer and
Father of all things."[12] Of the personality of God Plato had no
conception,[13] and it would be a very difficult undertaking to prove
from his extant works that he was, in any real sense of the word, a
theist.
Of the three divisions of the speculative sciences--physical,
mathematical and theological--Aristotle makes the last the "most
excellent,"[14] "for it is conversant about that one amongst entities
which is more entitled to respect than the rest."[15] It is to the
discussion of this subject in Book XI. that the greater part of the
_Metaphysics_ leads up. He has established in the previous portions of
the work the two substances which he calls "natural or
physical"--namely, matter and form--and now he proceeds to justify the
hints he has given of a third substance which is "immovable."[16] It has
been customary to divide this discussion of Aristotle into several
formal theistic arguments,[17] but in the opinion of the writer the text
of the _Metaphysics_ does not lend itself readily to any such cut and
dried arrangement of its argument. Aristotle does, indeed, to avoid the
absurdity of an endless regress, argue from the {kinoumena} and the
{kinounta} of the physical World to a {prôton kinoun} which is a pure
{energeia, akinêton, aneu hylês}, and hence foreign to all the passivity
and contingency of matter;[18] concludes from motion in the world that
there must be a First Mover;[19] and asserts the actuality of the
eternal as opposed to potentiality; but these arguments are so blended
together, and take each one so much from the others, that I cannot be
convinced that Aristotle had ever clearly differentiated them.
But it is clear enough that the crown of Aristotle's whole system is
this "prime mover," "unmoved" and "apart from matter," and that this
conception, up to which his thought leads from every side, as the
necessary implication from the motion everywhere seen in the world, is
his chief contribution to the argument for the existence of the Divine.
Aristotle's chief interest lay in the cosmological problem, and his form
of proof and the result which he reached by it were moulded by this
fact. His argument did not lead him to a Creator of the world, for the
universe, no less than the prime mover, was eternal, and the latter is
nothing more than a principle of reason immanent in the world--pervading
it, not distinguished from it--and the author of motion only in a
passive way, after all, as a sort of magnetic object of desire.[20] In
other places Aristotle makes passing references to different forms of
the argument to prove the existence of the gods,[21] but it is evident
that his own interest centered around this unmoved final cause, and it
is in his proof of its existence from cosmological considerations that
his significance for us lies.
In the post-Aristotelian schools we have an entire change of the point
of view, and instead of a philosophy of nature, such as occupied the
attention of the pre-Socratic thinkers, or a philosophy of mind, such as
Socrates, Plato, and to a large extent, Aristotle attempted to
construct, we find the interest of men in speculative questions centered
in a philosophy of life, of morals. Corresponding to this change in the
point of view, we may easily detect an alteration in the manner of
dealing with the arguments for the existence of the gods.
There was, in the first place, an increased emphasis laid upon this line
of thought, in common with religious subjects in general, and the
reasons for the belief in the existence of the gods (for the Greek
schools never transcended polytheism--when they speak of {theos} they mean
simply the abstract divinity of the many separate divinities) seems, so
far as we may judge from the comparatively scanty remains that have come
down to us, to have been discussed at great length; critically and
negatively by the Sceptics, positively and apparently with full
conviction by the Stoics, and with a curious mixture of both of these
attitudes by the Epicureans. These latter, if the reported doctrine of
Epicurus himself be trustworthy, denied the popular gods, and, in order
to insure freedom, rejected the Stoic doctrine of providence; but, on
the other hand, asserted a belief in gods whose essential
characteristics are immortality and perfect happiness (to insure which
they must care nothing for the world or for men), and whose existence
was held to be proven on the basis of the common consent of all men
("_Argumentum e Consensu Gentium_"). This argument is the result of a
"natural idea" or "pre-notion," which Epicurus called {prolepsis};--"that
is, an antecedent conception of the fact in the mind, without which
nothing can be understood, inquired after, or discoursed on."[22]
The Stoics, on the other hand, with their strong conviction of
providence working in the world, were rather inclined to deny the
validity of this argument from common consent, and rested their belief
in the gods, as Cicero makes his Stoic do in _De Natura Deorum_,[23] on
the evidence of design and purpose in the universe, but by this process
succeeded only in proving to their own satisfaction that the world is
divine--a fatalistic pantheism which roused the ire of the Epicurean and
Sceptic alike, and which even Cicero seemed hardly to be able to accept.
From this necessarily brief review of the development of the argument
for the existence of a Divinity in Greek and Roman thought, it will be
seen that, at one time or another, in a more or less fully developed
form, each one of the principal types of the theistic argument received
the chief emphasis and had its method enunciated. The pre-Socratic
natural philosophers, on the basis of the maxim as old as philosophy
itself--{Adynaton ginesthai ti ek mêdenos prouparchontos}--pointed to an
{Archê}--a real behind phenomena, a permanent behind the change--and thus
pointed to the so-called Aetiological argument founded on the principle
of causality. Socrates, with his pre-eminently practical disposition and
ethical point of view, saw above all things intention in nature, and so
from the consideration of this choice and adaptation of means to their
end, and the resultant Final Cause he constructs a very complete
Teleological argument for the existence of some intelligence behind the
visible world. Plato's Ideas, as we have seen, determine the method by
which he arrives at his abstract divinity, namely, by the "Idealogical"
form of argument based upon a process of generalization. Aristotle,
struck by the phenomena of motion in the universe, lays most stress on
the course of reasoning which would lead back to the Prime Mover. The
Epicureans, subordinating their theology to their ethical theory, and
unwilling to allow their deity to interfere with the world or with men's
affairs, developed and placed their dependence on the argument from
common consent. The Stoics, laying great stress upon the order,
proportion and harmony in the world, argued to mind as the reason for
this condition of things. But none of these philosophers, in the opinion
of the writer, attained to a conception of God which could in any real
or accepted sense of the word be called theistic, or which would satisfy
a mind accustomed to the idea of the Christian doctrine of God.
For the Greek writers never make any accurate distinction between {ho
theos, hoi theoi, to theion} and {ta theia}. They never conceive of
their {theos} as anything more than a rather larger and more majestic
member of the innumerable family of the divinities of which the poets
had sung--more spiritual only in so far as it was more vague and
indefinite, a sort of mysterious, mythical being to which is sometimes
attributed the same kind of personality possessed by the inferior gods,
and sometimes regarded as simply the abstract divinity which
characterized all of the gods. But that to which the arguments that we
have been discussing generally lead is not even so near to the theistic
conception as this modified polytheism, for they usually conduct us, as
we have already indicated, to nothing more than a (sometimes)
personified force of nature, principle of order, or abstract
conception--not a God. Take away the inaccurate and misleading terms by
which the original Greek is rendered in most of the English versions, in
which the enthusiasm of the student of comparative religions has taken
the place of the careful and accurate translator, and, aside from
frequent apostrophes, such as are continually addressed by the poets to
the many gods of the popular religion, the end of the arguments we have
been considering will be found to be as depicted above. In a word: Greek
philosophy, independent of Semitic influences, developed the _form_ of
the chief types of the theistic argument, but it failed utterly to
deduce from them a theism, being throughout in its theology either
polytheistic or pantheistic.
While considering this branch of our subject it would be impossible to
ignore another school of thought, which, while neither Greek nor Roman
in its nationality, yet derives so much of its philosophical stand-point
from the former of these races as to be often classed under the same
head. This is the school of Hellenizing Jews, in which there is built up
on the foundation of the traditional faith of the Hebrew race, to the
truth and authority of which they always held, a superstructure of
philosophical speculation which follows closely the models afforded them
by Greek thought. To effect a reconciliation between these two elements
it was necessary for them to resort to the allegorical interpretation of
the ancient inspired history of the race, and hence to the Oriental mind
that wished to engage in speculative thought it was naturally Platonic
and Pythagorean, rather than Aristotelian, methods that were most
attractive.
The chief and probably the earliest developed example of this
combination of Oriental and Occidental thought is found in the writings
of Philo Judaeus.[24] To him the powers of man seemed to be wholly
unreliable and delusive, and only the special grace of God enables one
to perceive any truth--"{Autos theos archê kai pêgê technôn kai epistêmôn
anômologêtai}." To approach God one must flee from one's self--"{ei gar
zêtêis theon exelthousa apo sautês anazêtei}." Neither reason nor any other
function of the soul can conduct us to God, nor can we attain to a
conception of Him as the supreme cause of all by regarding the manifold
perfections and powers of nature, for such a process can give us only
shadows. It is only by a "superior faculty" which is a grace of God that
one can attain some idea of the divine, but even by this means we arrive
at only negative knowledge--we can know only what God is not.[25] Yet in
spite of all this Philo uses quite an elaborate teleological argument
drawn from the order in the world.[26] This inconsistency, which, as
Erdmann remarks,[27] may be explained by the fact that Philo makes God
only the orderer of the world, and, furthermore, interposes an
intermediate being, the famous Philonian Logos, we have thought it worth
while to mention in this place, as it forms a connecting link between
the Greek philosophers and the Alexandrian Fathers, and foreshadows, in
some degree, the direction in which their thought was to be led.
FOOTNOTES:
[2] D. L., I, 16; II, 6.
[3] Ritter and Preller, 123. Translated by Burnet; _Early Greek
Philosophy_, p. 283, 4.
[4] _Metaphysics_, I, 4.
[5] The "one god, the greatest among gods and men" of Xenophanes has led
men to call him the first monotheist, but an examination of the
fragments attributed to him will, I am sure, confirm the verdict of
Burnet (_ut supra_, p. 123) that "what Xenophanes proclaimed as the
'greatest god' was nothing more nor less than what we call the material
world."
[6] Xenophon: _Memorabilia_, I, 4.
[7] Cocker: _Christianity and Greek Philosophy_, p. 491.
[8] "La dialectique et le système des idées conduisaient directement
Platon à la démonstration de l'existence de Dieu; et son Dieu porte en
quelque façon l'empreinte de cette origine, puisqu'il est à la fois
l'unité absolue et l'intelligence parfaite." Jules Simon: _Etudes sur la
Théodicée de Platon et d'Aristote_, p. 29.
[9] _Banquet_, § 34.
[10] Erdmann: _History of Philosophy_, § 77, 4.
[11] E.g. Cocker: _Christianity and Greek Philosophy_, pp. 377, ff.
[12] Zeller: _Philosophie der Griechen_, II, i, s. 926.
[13] Plato "never raised the question of the personality of God."
(Zeller; _Greek Philosophy_ (briefer edition) § 49.) "Sie" ("die Idee
der Ideen") "ist natürlich keine gottliche Persönlichkeit." (Kahnis:
_Verhältniss der Alten Philosophie zum Christenthum_, p. 54.)
[14] _Metaphysics_, V, 1.
[15] _Ibid._: x, 7.
[16] _Metaphysics_, xi, 6.
[17] E.g., Schwegler: _History of Philosophy_; Cocker; _ut supra_, p.
412, ff.
[18] xi, 6.
[19] xi, 7.
[20] Jules Simon: _Etudes sur la Théodicée de Platon et d'Aristote_, p.
88, _et al._; Davidson: _Theism and Human Nature_, p. 45.
[21] Aristotle makes good use of the argument to design in a striking
passage from a lost work quoted by Cicero in _De Natura Deorum_, II, 37,
and in _Physica auscultatio_, II, 8, says: "The appearance of ends and
means is a proof of design."
[22] Cicero; _De Natura Deorum_, I, 16, 17, and frequently. See also
Seneca; _Epist._, cxvii, whose Syncretism allows him to borrow from
Stoic and Epicurean alike. See also Zeller; _Stoics, Epicureans and
Sceptics_, p. 465.
[23] E.g., I, 36; II, 2, 5, ff.
[24] Vacherot: _Histoire Critique de l'Ecole d'Alexandrie_, Vol. I, p.
142.
[25] _Ibid._: Vol. I, p. 143, 144.
[26] See e.g., the quotation in Stirling; _Philosophy and Theology_, p.
173.
[27] _History of Philosophy_, Vol. I, § 114, 3.