Book 3, letter 7, To Cicero: on the Nature of the Gods Part 2 of 2

Being proved wrong happens to me every day...

Marcus Aurelius has a lot to say about how important it is, that, when your ideas are proved wrong, one must graciously accept this new knowledge, and change one's mind to suit the new revealed truth. That seems like a very good attitude. We are not perfect, therefore our ideas and opinions are not perfect.

Therefore, while I can trust my senses to reveal the truth, I am still capable of being misled. This whole problem is quite central to the differences between the different philosophical schools of your epoch, Cicero. I've read M. Aurelius' book, I've read a few books by Plato, a little bit of Epictetus, Seneca and Epicurus, but it is Lucretius, the Roman poet who wrote the following that I think explains the situation rather well.

From: On the nature of the Universe – Book IV, 470 - 480

“Now here's another thing: if someone thinks

that nothing is known, he does not even know

whether that can be known, since he declares

that he knows nothing. Therefore I will spare

to argue a case against a man like this

who has put his head where his feet ought to be.

And yet, if I were to grant that he does know, then

I ask him this: since you could see no truth

in anything before, how do you know

what it is to know, and what again not to know?

What gave you the idea of true and false,

what proves to you that there's a difference,

that the doubtful and the certain are not the same?

You will find that it is from the senses

in the first place that the concept of truth has come,

and that the senses cannot be refuted.

For some standard must be found of greater credit

able of itself to refute false things with true...”

Or, to put it more succinctly: Accordingly, whatever at any time has seemed to the senses to be true is true. (Bk IV, 499).

I know that you liked Lucretius, Cicero, you considered him a genius and you praised his book to your friend Atticus (though I cannot find the exact letter just now). I think that I share your opinion of him, and while some of his theories have long been debunked, the earnest passion with which he applied himself to the search for truth is admirable, particularly in regards to the Epicurean atomic theory.

I think that it is also possible that the nature of truth can change. What we believe to be right and wrong is often a product of societal norms, and these, as we know, are often derived from traditions whose truth is lost and warped by the passage of time. Scientific theory seems to claim that truth is eternal, it is only our imperfect understanding that changes, and that might be true as well. However, I think that I am conflating two separate issues, that being moral truth and scientific truth, and that if I were to start now to explore the weird ways that one influences the other, I should have to put this letter down and return to my books for a long time.

Therefore, keep an open mind. You might be right, I might be right. I think that it's possible that even if our ideas oppose each other, that we might both be right.

We might both be wrong.

This is the nature of the Gods, and of people, in my opinion.

Two thousand years on, the debate is far from over.

Thanks Cicero, it's a great book.

With gratitude and respect.

Morgan.

PS. Regarding the Evolution vs Intelligent Design debate, (a modern manifestation of the same discussion your book describes): I don't understand why an intelligent God couldn't have invented evolution. I mean, why not? We're doing the same thing with evolutionary algorithms in computing. It's easier than making every calculation yourself. Just set it up and watch it go. This way, The Gods remains beyond the reach of scientific enquiry, (which is the traditional realm of the Gods) and scientific inquiry gets to go about its very important business of accurately describing all observable phenomena. The Gods will happily continue to move out beyond the realm of our understanding, which is ever expanding into an infinite universe.

I don't see why the debate between science and divinity must be an either/or problem.

And for the record, Inanna is who I pray to. My personal favourite divinity. Half-sister of Gilgamesh. The Sumerian Goddess of Light, Love, Civilisation and a lot of other things. I have stood at the crossroads and made midnight pacts with the North Wind. I have waded out into the dark water at the stroke of New Years Eve and bound myself with promises to the Southern Ocean, and the Moon. I have bent my knee before a Eucalyptus tree that was at least four centuries old, and that tree spoke to me.

I was also raised Catholic, and have sat and prayed and sang in many churches, and yet amidst all that gold and reverence and community and tradition, I have felt nothing of the divine presence.

Or, if the Gods are not real, (at least not real like the earth and the ocean and my skin), they are the highest idea I have for myself. They represent the best ideals and aspirations of my life. When I am deep in my mantra of depression, reciting the litany of my failures as proof of my own worthlessness, it is Inanna who comes to me in a golden form, a warmth over my shoulder whispering the truth of my virtues, gently asking me to consider that instead, I might be better than my worst ideas about myself.

Divinity is a personal experience.

Or at least, that's my opinion.

Thank you Cicero, you're a good friend.