Carolyn Horn
Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines an agnostic as “a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality as God is unknown and probably unknowable” (23). Cicero, Roman statesman, democrat, rhetorician and lawyer from the time of Christ, makes an argument for agnosticism that remains unassailable today. Through the questions he raises in his treatise, On the Nature of the Gods, he persuasively argues that it is impossible to empirically and logically prove God’s existence, which Cicero’s asserts is unknowable.
Cicero defends this belief by maintaining that we cannot comprehend the concept of an infinite, eternal God. He adds that just because there has been a long standing popular consensus that God exists, it does not follow that there is any objective and verifiable proof that worshiping God is based purely on anything beyond an emotional need.
Although Cicero states, “the greater part of mankind have united to acknowledge that which is most probable…that there are Gods” (1), he goes on to question the actual physical and metaphysical essence of the Creator. To understand Cicero’s views, however, it is helpful to know some background.
The New Encyclopædia Britannica calls Cicero, who was born in 106 BC “the greatest Roman orator” (314). Although a public official and lawyer by trade, Cicero is also an accomplished writer. Cicero’s interest and subsequent dissertations in philosophy stem from his early schooling. Rackham, in his introduction to De Natura Deorum, states that Cicero’s teachers include “Philo of the Academy, Diodotus the Stoic, and Phaedrus the Epicurean” (x). Cicero, in the book This Was Cicero, considers his writings mere “translations” (qtd. in Haskell 299). Haskell believes the works bear more importance stating, “However lacking in originality he may have been, he [is] the channel through which the fresh wisdom of the Greeks [reaches] the Western world” (300).
Cicero’s interest in religious thought may have been sparked in part by the death of his daughter, Tullia, in 46 BC. Haskell believes that Cicero experienced a great religious awakening at this time and writes Consolatio, in which he ponders the soul’s capacity for eternal existence (297-298). It is a brief lapse in his Academic logic. Then, almost as abruptly, “he reverts to his ingrained agnosticism” (Haskell 298). Not long after, Cicero produces On the Nature of the God.
One main theme Cicero discusses in the book is our ability to comprehend infinity and how that relates to our understanding of God. Examples of our limited comprehension are the definitions for infinite, infinitude and infinity found in the dictionary: “infinite…something that is infinite, infinitude…1: the quality or state of being infinite, infinity…1 a: the quality of being infinite” (598).
Circular reasoning may actually be the best definition of infinity. For if God exists, surely he must have always existed. It is impossible to consider that nothing existed before God. But since many religions try to connect a body or physical essence to God, then He must have had a beginning and therefore an end. This argument is flawed, however, because it cannot be both. Infinite space does not have a beginning. If there is a Supreme Being, our minds cannot even begin to understand what that would encompass. We try to attach a physical form to Him in order to begin to understand, no matter how incorrect the image may be.
I agree with theories put forth in two films, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Contact. The views expressed in these movies, although placing a physical face to a creator, lean towards a God who is omniscient and endless. But this God is more likely to be an extraterrestrial based in scientific speculation instead of superstition.
In Contact, the scientist Ellie Arroway takes a journey on a transport that is built according to specifications sent to us by an unknown entity. She meets with an unidentified life force that appears to her in the form of her dead father. She realizes that he is not real. The alien explains his image by saying, “We thought this might make things easier for you.” Apparently, even science believes that we cannot handle whatever truths may exist. Would we be able to listen to a little green man or any other alien force explaining our ontological reality? Of course, scientists do not definitively know what our ultimate reality is either, so they cannot present anything concrete. But the concept of infinity is present in most scientific attempts to define “God.”
Cicero also explains the need to attach a physical form to God as “the Gods [are] represented in human form …the more easily to turn the minds of the ignorant from a depravity of manners, to the worship of the Gods” (27). But he then states, “is not everything that had a beginning, subject to mortality?” (11). If God is infinite, he cannot have a physical presence. But if he does not have a physical presence, “we are utterly unable to conceive how a pure simple mind can exist without any substance annexed to it” (11). A vicious circle that has no definitive conclusion. Thus, we cannot understand infinity.
Another of Cicero’s assertions is that of all the diverse cultures in the world, most have a creed that supports the belief in a Supreme Being. This can be explained by cases of mass hysteria, also. Were people in Salem, MA really witches? It is a logical error to think popular opinion is objective truth. Cicero writes, “You have said that the general assent of men of all nations and degrees, is an argument strong enough to induce us to acknowledge the being of the Gods. This is not only a weak, but a false argument…how do you know the opinions of all nations?” (22). Of course in this age of information, it
is possible to get a reliable consensus. But the breadth in which these beliefs are manifest varies greatly from culture to culture and is often a basis or excuse for war. Surely God could not want to confuse people about his existence so much that they try to annihilate individuals of differing opinions. If He does exist, why not clearly reveal Himself to all people?
Most cultures adhere to the belief in God, but the exact practices and ceremonies surrounding their doctrines are based on twisted fact and superstitious folklore. In his introduction to Hume’s Does God Exist? Ferdinand Lundberg writes:
Hume’s findings on miracles can be reduced to a simple syllogism as follows:
All reported miracles are false and fraudulent.
All revealed religions are born in reported miracles
Therefore, all revealed religions are born in falsity and fraudulence (xiii).
A rather harsh assumption, but a sentiment embraced by many critics of religion. In other words, if there is no factual basis for a religious belief, then it cannot be true.
One could argue that Christianity has a factual foundation because historians have documented the existence of the man Jesus Christ. While there seems to be a general agreement that Christ is an historical figure, not all believe him to be divine. And although Jesus had a mortal mother, his conception is onsidered “immaculate.” Obviously, a virgin cannot bear a child. But Christianity is based on ignoring this truism. As Professor Gans has observed in a classroom discussion of the subject, biblical scholarship has confirmed that this acceptance of Immaculate Conception and Jesus’ Godliness became an article of faith only many years after Christ lived and its acceptance as doctrine occurred in a climate of dispute.
Doctors can now perform in-vitro fertilization, but this procedure did not exist two thousand years ago. What are we to believe? The Bible? Catholics to Fundamentalists interpret this book in wildly different ways. During the act of communion, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox religions believe that the Eucharist and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ; Protestants believe that the bread and wine only represent the same. The Jewish faith only believes the Old Testament. How can so many contradictory depictions of God exist?
Cicero writes, “there is no subject on which the learned, as well as the unlearned, differ so strenuously…opinions are so various, and so repugnant one to another, it is possible that none of them may be right, and absolutely impossible that more than one should be right” (3). These differing opinions often result in war. There is strong evidence throughout the ages that religion is a major factor in clashes between coexisting civilizations. The Irish Catholics and Protestants have been at war for centuries. Can they be fighting over their different views of the communion? Since both religions believe in God, it must be their different interpretations of their respective doctrines that cause strife. Both of their viewpoints are a matter of faith, which is objective. There is no way to prove either side so there will never be a victor unless one completely annihilates the other. Many times religion inspires or excuses ethnic cleansing—Bosnia, Germany, Rwanda, which is born of a long hatred of differing societies. But since these cultures usually all believe in one God, their religious wars end up looking like extreme feuds. This irrationality drives philosophers to try to find answers to the age-old question of God’s existence.
The last area of debate concerns our emotional need to have a God to worship. Most people have moments of wondering if we are alone in the universe. Religion can help fill that void. If we believe that there is a God watching over us, then we don’t feel so alone. Ellie Arroway in the movie Contact asks an extra terrestrial if there are others, hoping that the human race is not alone. The alien states that in all his journeys, everyone he contacts asks the same question. “Interesting species [earthlings]–you feel so lost, so cut-off, so alone, only you’re not.” He picks up a handful of sand indicating that each of the billions of tiny grains is a universe and adds, “In all of our searching, the only thing that makes the emptiness bearable is each other.” Is our feeling of detachment based upon our fear of being a singular species, or the fear of being without a caring and attentive God?
People need something to believe in and praying to God seems to solidify their faith. They hope that He is listening and will answer their prayers. But do people pray to God because their religion tells them to, or because they want to reap the rewards prayer brings? Studies prove that people heal faster and enjoy better health when they pray. Reiner G. Kremer, writing for the Colorado Chiropractic Journal, cites a study in progress at the Arthritis Treatment Center administered by Dr. Dale Matthews of Georgetown University School of Medicine. Two groups suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, all receive “the traditional Christian practice of laying on hands by members of Christian Healing Ministry” (Kremer). One group will also receive ”long distance intercessory prayer” (Kremer). Preliminary results show that some participants are completely pain free and asymptomatic. The group that also gets long distance prayer [shows] showing improvement in other health areas as well (Kremer). Is the prayer really working or can this be attributed to mind over matter? The human mind has many places in need of exploration. Praying may be an invocation of powers we have not yet discovered. There is no way to know which is correct, at least not as yet.
Cicero questions whether we should pray to a God we are not certain of. He writes, “if the Gods have neither the power nor the inclination to help us…than what reason can we have to pay any adoration, or any honours, or to prefer any prayers to them?” (2). But he also worries that if we have no faith in God and do not honor Him that our moral code may breakdown (2). The Book of Job addresses this conundrum.
Job falls victim to unending hardships, sorrows and atrocities. Since he is a pious man, he cannot understand why these terrible things are happening to him. If he only knew that God had made a bet with Satan to test Job’s faith. What kind of God would do such a thing? Why does he deserve our prayers? In the midst of his sorrows, Job still remains faithful to God saying, “Behold, my witness is in heaven, and he that vouches for me is on high” (Job 16:10-21). C. G. Jung writes, “This is perhaps the greatest thing about Job, that, faced with this difficulty, he does not doubt the unity of God” (7). I think this is the greatest folly of Job. There is no reason to pray and remain faithful to a God that would use your life in a wager with the Devil. Bad things do happen to people, but I believe that is a result of the laws of nature. Job may be the quintessential example of what happens when you worship a God of whose actions and motives you are uncertain. Cicero’s question of praying to a God that does not take an interest in us is not the problem. Judging from this book of the Bible, we are better off when God ignores us.
Many people who do not pray may be more pious than God fearing Christians are. A person’s religious affiliations or practices does not make him a saint, as in the case of televangelist Jim Baker. Therefore, Cicero’s worry over a general moral breakdown if people do not honor God is unwarranted. Many alleged God-fearing people will commit murder in the name of the Pro-Life movement to save the “unborn.” These people attend church regularly, but do not have a problem breaking one of the Ten Commandments. Have they caused the moral corruption of the world? Not any more so than non-
religious people. Pro-Life murderers are using their twisted emotional connection with God to further their political and personal beliefs, while at the same time ignoring tenets of their religion. Our emotional need to worship God may be summed up as a crutch people use to get them through life. There is no rhyme or reason to prayer or piousness, and there will never be.
Cicero writes in Moral Duties one year before his death, “We maintain…that nothing is known for certain. But probability furnishes a sufficient guide for life” (qtd. in Haskell 302). In other words, we do not have proof of God’s existence, but we do have a good idea of how to live our lives according to a general moral code. Cicero believes that no one knows the answers to the age-old questions of religion and faith. Scientific proof certainly seems to be lacking in many areas of religious dogma. But who is to say that a leap of faith is not warranted? It is always healthy to question ideas and have logical discussions – what conclusion is reached is entirely up to the individual. And there is no way to prove that person wrong or right.
Works Cited
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. The Nature of the Gods and On Divination. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1997.
“Cicero, Marcus Tullius.” The New Encyclopædia Britannica. 15th Edition,1992. Contact. Dir. Robert Zemeckis. Perf. Jodie Foster, Matthew Conaughey, Tom Skerritt, and James Woods. Videocassette. Warner Home Video, 1997.
Gans, Bruce. Personal interview. 23 Jul. 2000.
Haskell, H.J. This Was Cicero. New York: Knopf, 1942.
Hume, David. Does God Exist? New York: Barricade Books, 1995.
Jung, C. G. Answer to Job. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973.
Kremer, Reiner G. “Is Prayer Healing?” Colorado Chiropractic
Journal 2.3 (May-June 1997) –17 Jul. 2000 < ttp://www.chiropractors.org/23altern.htm>.
Lundberg, Ferdinand. Introduction. Does God Exist? By David Hume.New York: Barricade Books, 1995. vii – xxiv. Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 10th Edition, 1993. Rackham, H. Introduction. De Natura Deorum. By Marcus Tullius Cicero. Ed. E. H. Warmington, M.A. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, vii – xix.