Do we actually know that Darwin was either an explicit fan of, or quoted, Epicurus?
His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was positively Lucretian in his allegiances. Charles seems to have adopted a number of Epicurean propositions from his grandfather, but he did not identify as an explicit Epicurean or Lucretian in the tradition of the Garden.
Relax.
This is always a welcome reminder.
Why are we so uncomfortable with words that Christians have appropriated?
Does spirituality imply a spirit separate from the body? Does it imply a god? Does it relate to one's mental well-being, without any supernatural implications?
Of course not. We're Epicureans. Why is this even an issue?
We're talking about a lot of this theoretically, as though Epicureanism isn't already the "spiritual essence or 'religion' of an entire community". It's happening. It's real. Did anyone miss the invitations?
You may not partake in "Epicureanism" as the "spiritual essence or 'religion' of an entire community" but it's happening. As a sub-culture, it is a sociological and anthropological phenomena that is real and can be addressed its modern, historical context in the English-speaking world (and the French, and Spanish, and Scandanavian, and Italian, and Iranian, from immediate contacts of mine).
I prefer my own. I host my own Garden. I compiled my own Testamentum. We do our own thing, and I float between virtual Gardens. Judge on if judging members of your own team is your thing.
Our tradition should have already sprouted, so let's water it. I'm focusing on cultivation.
they
I am a formal member of the Society of Friends of Epicurus, so I am happy to elaborate on any points of interest that you, or any other member of this forum have. Furthermore, Hiram the Found of the Society of Friends of Epicurus is also a member, so we are available to be addressed in the first person. Though, I find it cute that you did not feel the need to do so. 
but I digress.
My view is that Epicurus' portrayal of the gods as part of the natural world was an elegant way to answer why the hell the whole of mankind believed and worshipped them. Even today we are not quite sure why people made up religion.
I identify with that perspective.
Hell, for that matter, so did Philodemus:
“...no one has been prolific in finding convincing demonstrations for the existences of the gods; nevertheless all men, with the exception of some madmen worship them, as do we...”
"...οὐδεὶς εἱκνουμένας περὶ τ[οὺ θ]εοὺς ὑπάρχε[ιν τἀς ἀπο]δείξεις εύπ[όρησ]εν· ὁμῶς δε [σέβ]ονται πάντε[ς εἱ μή παρ]άκοποί τινε[ς αὑτούς..." (On Piety, Col. 23, 13-17)
So modern scientists are almost universally atheist
Not quite. To my surprise, it's closer to half-and-half.
For example, nearly 40% of American chemists surveyed "believe in 'God'" according to a 2009 Pew Research poll [https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/…e%20this%20view]. In a more recent study, more "than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious" who largely do not see a conflict between religion and science [https://phys.org/news/2015-12-w…scientists.html].
(I'm not making a point, just sharing a discovery)
But then nobody has worked out a generally accepted scientific theory about how and why religion was developed by humans.
A textbook I still have from college called Supernatural as Natural: A Biocultural Approach To Religion (Winkelman and Baker 2010) provides a number of great approaches that are useful to objectively evaluate spiritual experiences and religious behaviors. It suggests that religiosity is rooted in ritualized animal behavior and altered states of consciousness. It then describes the ways that various social roles, norms, and cultural innovations developed from those neurobiological roots.
I think that a piece of ancient Epicurean Theology bears a striking resemblance to modern Anthropology of Religion, which you recognize later in your post:
But Epicurus had to find an answer in alignment with his own views about the nature of the universe (his cosmology), the nature of man (his anthropology)...
Epicurus was in a unique position in a newly-connected world, where ancient Hellenic peoples were being introduced to new forms of spirituality ... and they looked strikingly similar to the tones, attitudes, and topics to existing forms of ancient Greek religion. Likewise, our new world is connected by a network of servers that provide us the tools to compare and contrast everything from the beliefs of aboriginal Australians to Dharma ... I agree, there is a parallel in method.
I'd like to add my try at a translation to the pot:
We care for friends not by singing a song of grief but by listening thoughtfully.
I am struck by the contrast between making noise versus receiving it (openly).
Inwood & Gerson translate the following: "Let us share our friends’ suffering not with laments but with thoughtful concern." (The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia)
Peter Saint-Andre provides a similar tone: "We sympathize with our friends not through lamentation but through thoughtful attention." [https://monadnock.net/epicurus/vatican-sayings.html]
According to Johns Hopkins [https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellnes…-gut-connection], there are "more than 100 million nerve cells lining your gastrointestinal tract from esophagus to rectum", which seems to be more robust than the brain of a golden hamster. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1567708/). The digestive tract seems to be only slightly dumber than a cat ... and that depends upon the cat ... and boy have I met some cats. The TED Talk reminded me of the proposition of a "second brain", which seems reasonable.
The thing about the language models is that they're just a math equations with assigned linguistic assignments. So as they go along parcing out they're sentences the math side is looking for the most likely continuation of the sentence or paragraph. So what ever the model was trained on led it to believe that that was the most likely sequence of words. It was likely trained on a whole collection of philosophical works aswell as "the Pile". I had at one point considered doing the same thing, training an epicurean chat bot and seeing what it would output. But honestly I'm really disappointed with the reliability of the data coming out of the current models. From what I've seen it will be another 3-4 full evolutions of the tech before it's really reliable. Right now it's more like a parlor trick than a real tool.
I found the same thing. I thought it could be an effective research assistant, but it is unreliable, never up-to-date with the latest research, and it presents a huge opportunity to exploit confirmation bias by training it to answer selectively, so I am not impressed by ChatGPT.
Turn on [to philosophy], tune in [to the teachings of Epicurus], drop out [of the frenzied chorus]. 
This is great! I appreciate your going to the source of the VS. Two other translations for the sake of comparison:
- Anderson: "We should welcome praise from others if it comes unsought, but we should also be engaged in improving ourselves."
- Inwood & Gerson: "Praise from other men must come of its own accord; and we must be concerned with healing ourselves."
An article was shared with me that, I think, grounds prolepsin in neurological science: "This model demonstrated how the neocortex forms efficient conceptual representations from experiences, allowing for both the recreation of past events and the generation of new ones."
I suppose one of the main difficulties initially, is how we can reconcile Epicurus' physics with modern physics? How far are we able to poeticize the teachings to fit in with our modern science? I'm aware how prescient Epicurus' views were and would like the opinion of more classical minded epicureans.
One principle of the teaching of Epicurus is the notion of coherence between multiple explanations. So, regardless of the true identity of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, regardless of the physics that occurs behind an event horizon or within a singularity ... whatever we determine to be the case after this period of evaluation and experimentation, we know that the results will still have to be coherent with the observed behavior of particles.
Ultimately, the concepts that got us to the moon are the same concepts that corresponds with Epicurean atomism. Epicurean physics does not conflict with contemporary physics as much as it has gaps and limitations. For example, Epicurus did not conceptualize the idea of spacetime, but there is nothing in his teachings that directly contradict spacetime. It is an extension, rather than a revision, as is the case with other philosophies.
My wife shot and cut an pseudo-interview for The Hedonicon with me, hosted by Hiram's Society of Friends of Epicurus:
I mean to share the text contained therein:
"GREETINGS to friends and fellow atom prophets! My name is Nate—I am an Epicurean—and I just published The HEDONICON, the world's first 'Epicurean Bible'.
So, first, 'Why call it The Hedonicon?' Consider that [the first chronicle of] the Christian evangel was called the Evangelicon, and the anthology of the apostles was called the Apostolicon, so, I thought it was appropriate to canonize the Holy Book of Epicurus with the target of his teachings: Hēdonḗ … Pleasure, pure, incorruptible pleasure, the Alpha and Omega of the blessed existence.
I created The Book for a few reasons: First, I think we need it. The old Holy Books are all full of holes, and the lazy skepticism of our time is as unhelpful as the cheap metaphysics that are eaten up by the masses. Second, I did it to consecrate (what I call) my religion. Aside from that, I hope that students of Hellenistic philosophy and Latin poetry will benefit from this compilation. Finally, I wish to share with my Christian friends an ancient wisdom tradition, organized in a familiar format, that spreads a gospel of love, faith, and fellowship, yet neither requires suspension of disbelief in a mythic history, nor compliance to an incomprehensible LORD.
As far as that goes, The Hedonicon is a Holy Book, just not your typical Holy Book. As a Holy Book, it preserves the most important truths that elevate human existence. You will find God in this Book ...though that image in your mind neither created the world nor cares for it. You will find the testimony of the soul … which lives and dies with the body. You will find faith … in a real world of sensation and science.
Conviction comes from the Principles of Nature, not from a magic wizard and an ancient prophecy. The Genesis of this 'Bible' is Particle Physics, and the Revelation of this 'Bible' predicts an endless dance of atoms across an infinite void. The Hedonicon is the only Holy Book that anticipates the existence of plants and animals on other worlds, and the only Holy Book sound enough to steer our souls through the storms of the 21st-century.
I hope you find it to be entertaining and instructive."
I found this article from Cambridge (David Patterson) that says that Democritus also mentioned the Jewish practice of ritualistic cannibalism.
I want to dig deeper into this, because I was under the impression that Greek and Hebrew cultures did not interact until just after Epicurus' time.
I have not seen this before in Democritus, but if it was true it makes the connection to Epicureanism even stronger.
I think that the author may have mixed up two, different Democrituses from the Thrace region. The Jewish Encyclopedia notes that the Democritus mentioned in a work by the Greek lexicographer Suidas was not Democritus of Abdera, the philosopher and atomist, but a different, unknown Democritus from Thrace (https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3408-…accusation#3489).
This discussion inspired a few memes ...
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!
I am not sure if he would identified as "Epicurean", but I am absolutely convinced that Shakespeare was very familiar with Lucretius De Rerum Natura, and, given the time period, he must have owned one of a privileged number of copies that would have been available at the time.
You nailed the quote from King Lear (I include it in the Hedonicon). He contradicts Christian creation ex nihilo a few times.
In Romeo and Juliet, there are more than a few references to "atomi".
Shakespeare explicitly steals a few lines of Lucretius in Othello, when describing the Pontick Sea.
Those are just a few references, off of the top of my head. I include more in the Hedonicon because, parallel to my interest in philosophy, I spent the better part of a decade as a theatrical performer, and part of my education is in Shakespeare, so having done a number of shows, I am particularly attuned to recognize Shakespearean references, and, as I read Lucretius, I realized that Shakespeare must have been more than a passing fan.
Awesome find, Cyrano !
(Also, in another thread, we should explore the Lucretian influences on Cyrano de Bergerac, whom I think qualifies as an Epicurean).
