New Sedley Chapter On Ancient Greek Atheism

So the Epicurus wiki puts preconceptions there but the others do not? Possible to tell why?

That must be where once long ago I thought I read that.

I just happened across this passage in Lucretius, which relates to the LM passage discussed above:

"Unless you expel these ideas from your mind and drive far away beliefs unworthy of the gods and alien to their tranquillity, the holy divinity of the gods, damaged by you, will frequently do you harm: not because of the possibility of violating the gods’ supreme power, and of their consequent angry thirst for bitter vengeance, but because you yourself will imagine that those tranquil and peaceful beings are rolling mighty billows of wrath against you. You will be unable to visit the shrines of the gods with a calm heart, and incapable of receiving with tranquillity and peace the images from their holy bodies which travel into men’s minds to reveal the gods’ appearance. The direct effect on your life is obvious." (Lucretius 6.68–79, Long and Sedley translation, The Hellenistic Philosophers)

This reads to me like the best resolution of the realist and idealist views that I've seen. It appears to acknowledge the realist view that the gods exist, while at the same time stressing that what is important to our well-being is how we view them.

Sitting here in 2022, the idea that we get images of the gods "from their holy bodies" is what makes the gods so problematic. That sounds silly today, but it’s perfectly consistent with Epicurus' atomism. To me, the idea that in an infinite universe there are beings which would appear godlike to us (realist) is reasonable (admittedly I do enjoy science fiction 😉). I also agree with the (idealist) notion that how we think of potential godlike beings can be of benefit or harm to us. The cleavage between the two is how we interpret the images and anticipations.... Our modern theories of perception invalidate the ancient idea of images of beings reaching us from afar; instead, our anticipations (at least to my understanding) of gods are passed down to us in the same manner as, say, language. So the "black" of the realist view and the "white" of the idealist view are both valid. It's just the shades of grey in between which have naturally changed over the millennia.

Quote from Godfrey

Sitting here in 2022, the idea that we get images of the gods "from their holy bodies" is what makes the gods so problematic.

I agree with you. However in the back of my mind there are these gnawing doubts probably caused by too much science fiction, but which appears to me to be reasonable enough not to dismiss totally out of hand: That just like there are an innumerable number of television and radio waves (containing lots of intelligent information) passing through us at any moment, but which we are not equipped by nature to decode, it seems reasonable to me to have entertained that whatever travels between the objects we look at (through our eyes) and travels to our eyes, is also something that is traveling at all times in all directions outward from that object, traveling through the air to distances we may not think of as possible, but which might be decodable given the right "technology."

And to be clear, I am thinking in terms of how light from our planet travels long distances (like the lights we see in our telescopes from other planets) such that over long distances we are actually looking at something that is now in the past at the location of that planet or star.

Again I am not advocating that such things really do happen, and I admit our science has advanced an awful lot without finding the ability to decode much information from those lights traveling from so far away. But is it impossible to think that new technologies in the distant future can't decode more than we can now? I would say no, but primarily what I would say is that I don't think it was unreasonable for the ancient Epicureans to think in those terms, and it would probably be something that our scientists continue to work on to improve the resolution of out existing telescopes.

I have to stop now, but I haven't even addressed whether it is possible for such waves to exist above or beyond our spectrum of visible light.

But the important thing is to update our views to be consistent with what we know now, without being so rigid as to think that our current technology is the "last word." So I would say that what we have to insist is impossible is that those beings are supernatural - on the other hand there is not in my view grounds to insist that it is impossible that we will ever detect the existence of other beings through radio or other waves that reasonably may exist.

Cassius, some thoughts on your comment, with an attempt to use methods of inference:

- The idea of films of atoms coming from the gods and into our minds over great distances was consistent with the theory of atomism in the time of Epicurus, and his innovations regarding the theory. I understand it as a conjectural opinion, but Epicurus considered it as true. It's also reasoning by analogy, I think, being formulated similarly to how he reasoned the correctness of atomism in general. As I understand it, it is:

1. Attested: (I perceive this, therefore it is evidence) For Epicurus I would say that this applies.

2. Non-attested: (evidence conflicts with the original evidence) For Epicurus, I think this would not apply.

3. Contested: (if x exists, it implies this doesn’t exist) For Epicurus, this would not apply.

4. Non-contested: (this exists, and implies that exists) For Epicurus, this would apply.

So for Epicurus, the idea of films of atoms reaching us from the gods would be attested and non-contested, which would make it a true opinion.

- Today, with far more information with which to work:

1. Attested: we have no evidence of this occurring, so this does not apply.

2. Non-attested: there is evidence that ideas of gods are obtained from the society, family, etc in which one is reared (based on neuroscience), so this applies.

3. Contested: the evidence in 2 exists, and implies that the films of gods from afar don't exist. This applies.

4. Non-contested: there is no current evidence to support the idea of these images from afar being biologically received, so this does not apply.

So for us, this idea is Non-attested and contested, which makes it a false opinion.

Additional evidence made Epicurus' opinion false by this method. Similarly, future evidence could make the current opinion (ideas of gods are propagated through socio-environmental conditions) false.

I'm in the midst of a lengthy process of trying to sort out the methods of inference/logic/reasoning; this is my first attempt at this so I welcome further discussion!

Don:. The key additional text regarding the images, where it is stated that they flow TO the gods, is the Velleius section of On the nature of the gods, so that needs review in this context.

Godfrey: just to be clear in terms of images I think the foundational observations about them is that images was a theory about *everything* and how we perceive them. So the first step in the process is to discuss the theory about things directly in from of us, not starting with gods long distances away.

Also I am not yet sure I find the "attestation" framework more helpful than confusing. The use of parenthetical explanations helps but I don't find those explanations clear enough at this point to be comfortable. Maybe the word "attestation" seems unnecessarily confusing. Does it add something more than the word "evidence?". Because just as in law and in dealing with atoms we are going to need to consider not only direct evidence but also circumstantial evidence, and "attestation" may appear to some to refer only to direct evidence. I think we would all agree that Epicurus embraces reasoning from circumstantial evidence, or else there would be no way to establish the existence of atoms. So it would be important not to let the "attestation" word obscure the complexities of evidence issues. (Maybe that is another way of saying "We really need to do a study of the surviving texts on Epicurean Reasoning so we can bring these issues out into the open - "before our eyes!"

Or maybe I should just say that I don't think item one in the second list to be established for a number of reasons, primarily because I am not sure we have established what the "this" even is which is under discussion. Do we have even any specific examples of a description of an Epicurean observation of a god with which to agree or disagree?

Here is an example of a phenomena which I think would be relevant for discussion of circumstantial evidence in this topic:

How birds can detect Earth's magnetic field

Researchers have made a key discovery about the internal magnetic compass of birds. Biologists have identified a single protein without which birds probably…

www.sciencedaily.com

Quote

Normally they regulate the biological clock, but have also been considered significant for the magnetic sense. With this study, we now know which of the birds' cryptochromes do what.

"Cry4 is an ideal magnetoreceptor as the level of the protein in the eyes is constant. This is something we expect from a receptor that is used regardless of the time of day," explains Atticus Pinzón-Rodríguez, one of the researchers behind the study.

The conclusion is thus that this specific protein helps the magnetic sense to function, while other cryptochromes, whose levels in the body vary at different times of the day, take care of the biological clock instead.

Last year, Atticus Pinzón-Rodríguez and his colleagues noted that not only migratory birds navigate using a magnetic compass. Even resident birds that do not migrate in the spring and autumn have a magnetic sense and navigate using their internal magnetic compass. He now takes this one step further:

"This and last year's results indicate that other animals, perhaps all of them, have magnetic receptors and can pick up on magnetic fields."

A lot of research remains in order to map in detail how animals discover and use the Earth's magnetic field. What is clear is that it involves chemical reactions that interact with magnetic fields. According to Atticus Pinzón-Rodríguez, this knowledge may be of use when developing new navigation systems.

Display More

Absolutely nothing mystical about it, yet something that science is seeming to validate as data being perceived by means other than the conventional senses.

(No doubt there is lots of dispute about even a topic like this, but I am mentioning it only as a potential example of how to approach the investigation of whether information can be perceived directly through other than the conventional senses.)

in addition to the magnetism example, I would include the following in a similar category:

Central Nervous System Responses to Simulated Galactic Cosmic Rays

In preparation for lunar and Mars missions it is essential to consider the challenges to human health that are posed by long-duration deep space habitation via…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

New evidence for a human magnetic sense that lets your brain detect the Earth's magnetic field

Your brain’s sensory talents go way beyond those traditional five senses. A team of geoscientists and neurobiologists explored how the human brain monitors and…

theconversation.com

(PDF) Neurological Effects of Space Radiation

PDF | In this brief review, several aspects of radiation effects on the central nervous system are considered. Low to moderate levels (~ 1 to 2 Gy) of... |…

www.researchgate.net

Study: Cell Phone Radiation Linked to Overeating More Calories Higher Carbs - Environmental Health Trust

A new study Mobile Phone Radiation Deflects Brain Energy Homeostasis and Prompts Human Food Ingestion published in the journal Nutrients finds cell phone…

ehtrust.org

It would be a joke to suggest that what Epicurus meant about not being able to receive the images of the gods without harm was that he foresaw "Don't go near cosmic rays without radiation shielding!"..... But before we consider that the whole field of "spectres" is nonsense I think it would be prudent to retrace the reasoning steps and recognize that our knowledge of physics even today has a very long way to go. Is it really unreasonable to suspect that predictions that might admittedly be based on overly simplistic views of "atoms flying through space" might still in the end lead to fruitful discoveries? Maybe Epicurus was "sensing" and describing in too rudimentsry a form a mechanism that exists, but that we are misinterpreting because we are trying to force it to fit within the "supernatural religion," paradigm which Epicurus never suggested (and indeed denied) was his framework.

Plus - We always seem to go back to the complicated issues of "methods of inference" and which theories are rational to entertain and which are not. That's probably where OUR personal contribution can come, rather than through study of migratory birds or cosmic rays (since we personally are probably not in those occupations).

Quote

The films/images coming *from* things *to* our eyes or minds was a direct refutation of the competing ancient theory that our eyes beamed out some kind of ray. To me, it's a lighthouse metaphor (Epicurean theory) vs a flashlight metaphor (Platonic et al metaphor)

That was going to be my main angle into this issue on the podcast, but we didn't get that far yesterday. I've been scooped!

Quote from Don

Now, this one has me genuinely stumped: How do images in our minds of the gods differ from images of unicorns and centaurs? Why would the former be considered real and the latter false and a combination of images colliding in the air?

I would say there that once they get to our minds they appear the same to us, and so it is up to our minds to be able to judge whether they reflect something real or something that results from those random combinations arising through "chance." I suspect Epicurus would say that the primary and even relatively "easy" method of distinguishing (or judge the faithfulness of to the facts) images that reflect real objects and images that reflect random combinations would be their "repeatability." You would generally expect that images coming from real objects will be observed over time and in varying conditions and are thus repeatable, while images arising from random combinations would be unlikely to be repeated in substantially similar form.

At least that would be the starting point of the way I would approach it, which is similar to the way we should approach all sorts of distortions and illusions, as discussed at length in Lucretius Book 4.

Also -- one aspect of what I think Don and Joshua are talking about that we ought to discuss is the whole issue of "action at a distance." How can one thing influence another without any perceptible (to the senses) means of touching? We know that Lucretius / Epicurus specifically dealt with magnetism and/or perhaps static electricity even in their time, and of course this would seem to be an important element of refuting supernaturalism.

And just to be sure this is part of the discussion, it does seem to me to be intuitive to suspect that the objects around you can influence you regardless of whether you are looking at them or listening for them. Maybe the basic point is that one would suspect that whatever is moving between those objects and yourself doesn't stop moving just because you turn your eyes and look in another direction. Since Epicurus was focused on explaining the world in material "atomic" terms, it would seem natural (at least to me) to think about the effects of those atoms (which are postulated to keep their shape as the means of transmitting the qualities of the object) going forward through space regardless of whether we are looking for or listening for them. If it is true that certain birds are evolved to be able to work with magnetic fields, there may be other similar faculties which we have not yet discovered.

I see this discussion as very different from the discussion of "woo" which is centered on supernaturalist views. To keep open the possibility that phenomena exists which has not been discovered does not require that we consider that phenomena to be supernatural. We don't define what is natural and "supernatural," only nature determines what can exist, regardless of our speculations.

Does a tree falling in a forest with no person there to hear it make sound? Of course it does, and the movements of particles from place to place deserves a lot of consideration in natural science very much apart from whether and how a particular human interprets them.

Quote from Don

The films/images are entirely consistent with Epicurus's physics. He needed a way to explain sensation and this is what he came up with.

Just a brief comment on this one: In general, I think that there is no reason to dismiss Epicurus' general theory of "images" as totally obsolete. Whether we now consider the moving substance to be particles emanated or photons bouncing or wave interference or whatever, it does seem to me to be fair to say that "something" is traveling outward from the direction of each object to be perceived by entering our eyes (in the case of light) or sound (in the case of hearing).

I think the significant thing is as you stated, Don, the issue is more the direction of travel. The Platonic (?) model implies (at least to me) something more supernatural, while the Epicurean model implies what I would consider to be the more correct view that all of our organs of sense are "receiving" something from the outside. We are constantly bathed in "somethings" contacting us from every direction in our environment.

Maybe another issue we could add to the mix is the current controversy over "5G" towers. Originally I dismissed all that talk as largely nonsense, and maybe I still should, but I am no longer confident. (Have their not been recent reports about airplanes being affected?) I still get irritated every time I get on an airplane and have to turn off my cell phone. The line between real problems and kook problems can often be blurry. Even the EU seems to think there is an issue?

Is 5G bad for your health? It’s complicated, say researchers

ec.europa.eu

Not to get us off on 5G at all, because I still tend to dismiss those concerns. But the issue of how to separate the kooky from the potentially legitimate isn't always easy!

Quote from Joshua

That was going to be my main angle into this issue on the podcast, but we didn't get that far yesterday. I've been scooped!

We definitely want to be sure to cover that this coming episode!

I guess that I was unclear in my summaries of attestation &c. My reference point is Sextus Empiricus as described in this previous post:

Thread

The Beginning of an Outline of Epicurean Reasoning

Getting away from Philodemus On Signs for a moment, I’ve been looking at The Hellenistic Philosophers by Long and Sedley for original quotes from Epicurus regarding signs and methods of inference. I also had a look at a cluster of Principle Doctrines that are relevant (PD 22 & 23 are from Nate’s compilation, with thanks).

PD22 We must take into account both the underlying purpose and all the evidence of clear perception, to which we refer our opinions. Otherwise, everything will be filled with…

Godfrey

March 17, 2022 at 9:19 PM

In commentary elsewhere in The Hellenistic Philosophers, Long and Sedley point out some potential errors in this formulation based on the sources that Sextus Empiricus was using. So there's still a lot to sort out!

Quote from Cassius

Godfrey: just to be clear in terms of images I think the foundational observations about them is that images was a theory about *everything* and how we perceive them. So the first step in the process is to discuss the theory about things directly in from of us, not starting with gods long distances away.

Agreed. I realized in the middle of posting that this was an important point. The texts have lots of instances of reasoning/inference but very little explanation that I can find. Presently I'm overloaded with unprocessed collected data; I may have to step back and let it percolate for a while.

Quote from Cassius

Do we have even any specific examples of a description of an Epicurean observation of a god with which to agree or disagree?

None that I'm aware of, although there is that description of gods in the form of humans and speaking Greek. I don't remember the source of that, but I remember it as a product of reasoning and not an observation.