01/17/07
Indifference is the least we have to dread from god or beast -
Categories: Religion and Theology -
twv
@ 04:07:03 am
I first heard the phrase evangelical atheist
from a quiet Unitarian, years ago. He admitted to being an atheist, but was not an evangelical atheist; he didn't aim to convert anyone. He didn't make a big deal of it.
I gather the term is becoming common. But I haven't looked it up. If the coinage is true to the meaning of the constituent terms, then the term means
evangelical atheist: a person who believes in no deity, and holds this belief to be good enough news to spread.
Epicurus, on the other hand, was an evangelical polytheist, ostensibly believing in (because he argued for) the existence of numerous gods, furthermore holding that belief in these gods was a good thing, provided one understood that these gods did not have traditional, mythic characteristics. The gods, as he conceived them, were good-for-themselves, but neither good nor evil towards us. Thus, in relation to the problem of evil
— which, according to Lacantius, Epicurus provided the clearest ancient formulation — Epicurean theology was not either eutheistic or dystheistic. His point was that the gods were indifferent towards us, and that this was a good thing. A very good thing.
Epicurus also argued that the gods evolved, as had man, did not create the universe, were neither omni-present nor omnipotent, and had no continuing interest in the likes of us.
His position thus marks out an important middle ground in theological argument. It reminds me of Wickstead's account of economic man: is he egoistic or altruistic? Wickstead argued: poppycock! He's neither. He's non-tuistic. In markets, people behave as if the few interests he has are his own, and his own (or his family's, or his firm's) interests is singular, and thus not altruistic.
But, Wickstead explained, in other institutional settings that same person may be very altruistic. The question of egoism and altruism was thus a red herring, as far as market behavior was concerned.
As for me, I regard the bedrock indifference of the universe, offset somewhat by the naturally selected ability of human constitutions to adapt (thus allowing a generally meliorist perspective), good news. It's better than warring tribes of principalities and deities and devils, fighting amongst themselves and fighting us.
But I see no reason to spread this news to those who are basically peaceful but also religious. If you are one of them, I don't want to argue with you. And if you insist on reading these pages, you do so at your own risk to your present balance.
But to people who admit to being confused about matters of religion and philosophy, I do offer an evangelical perspective. The truth is basically good news. The truth is not such that, when you learn it, you must die. We all die. Eventually. And we all suffer. Occasionally, perhaps more often. (Death may be a great equalizer, in our ends, but suffering is not equal.) But learning the truth should help us adapt to the inevitable, and look upon our short interim lives with as much dignity and good cheer as possible.
That's another thing I like about Epicurus. He may have been an evangelical non-eu and non-dys polytheist, but he did treat cheerfulness as a basic virtue. As a kind of cure.
He stood at the edge of the abyss and laughed. Not a derisive chortle. But a quiet chuckle. Perhaps delievered with a shrug. "What ya gonna do?"
About some things: nothing.
And that is good news. We don't have to worry about all things, and certainly not the end of all things, including our own very selves.
Comments:
No Comments for this post yet...
Leave a comment:
Pingbacks:
No Pingbacks for this post yet...
RSS Feed