It would be impossible to give a full account of the philosophy of the Stoics without, at the same time, treating of their theology; for no early system is so closely connected with religion as that of the Stoics. Founded, as the whole view of the world is, upon the theory of one Divine Being…There is hardly a single prominent feature in the Stoic system whichis not, more or less, connected with theology.[1]
The Stoic God is an all-pervasive, immanent, active force in the cosmos, and is equivalent to and often called “Nature.” Zeus, pneuma, universal Reason, and logos are also used to refer to this active force. The Stoics used many names to refer to the divine principle in the cosmos. In fact, Cleanthes, the second head of the ancient Stoa addressed the Stoic God as follows in his Hymn to Zeus:
Most glorious of the immortals, invoked by many names
When describing the Stoic conception of God, it is actually easier to begin by listing the characteristic commonly attributed to deities that do not apply to the Stoic God.
The Stoic God is NOT:
- Transcendent
- Supernatural
- Anthropomorphic
- Aristotle’s prime mover
- A metaphor
- An interventionist
The Stoic God IS:
- Immanent
- Universal Reason
- Logos
- Providence
- Creative fire
- Active principle
- The generative principle (σπερματικός λογός)
- World-soul
- Breath (πνευμα)
- World mind
Pantheism
The Stoics are most frequently considered pantheists; however, deist, theist, and panentheistic qualities are found in the surviving writings. It is important to keep in mind that all of these labels are modern creations; therefore, none applies perfectly. The God of Stoicism does not fit neatly into any modern theological box.[2] More importantly, people use these terms with slightly different meanings, so we must be careful and accurate when we anachronistically refer to the Stoics using a modern term like pantheism. As an example, I have encountered several pantheists online who claim to be atheists. Simply put, at best this is an abuse of language. Our English word pantheism is derived from a combination of the Greek word pan, which means “all”; and theos, which means “god.” Therefore, pantheism means all is God. To declare oneself a pantheist and an atheist simultaneously may be a great conversation starter; however, if pressed, the individual making such a claim will necessarily have to redefine atheism to make that assertion sensible. Where does this come from? One contributor to this abuse of the word pantheism is Richard Dawkins, the fundamentalist advocate of New Atheism. He famously declared that pantheism is nothing more than “sexed-up atheism” in his book the God Delusion.[3] Interestingly, it appears the World Pantheist Movement agrees with Dawkins’ assessment:
Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.” That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism – the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists – is the only one that passes the muster of the world’s most militant atheist.[4]
Unfortunately, this appeal to the authority of Einstein is undercut by the fact that he vehemently denied being an atheist and was extremely critical of atheism on several occasions.[5]
Abusing the definition of pantheism to include atheism adds confusion to discussions about an already difficult topic. I will leave this topic with a clear statement: If your definition of pantheism is open to atheism, then it does not apply to the ancient Stoics. There is no credible evidence the ancient Stoics entertained atheism. In fact, the overwhelming body of evidence points in the opposite direction; the ancient Stoics were deeply spiritual. Cleanthes, the second head of the Stoa, wrote the religious Hymn to Zeus; Posidonius, accused the Epicureans of atheism; a charge Philodemus, an Epicurean, felt compelled to deny in his work On Piety. Moreover, Marcus refers quite unflatteringly to “those who do not believe in the gods” (Meditations3.16). Finally, when Epictetus outlines five theological positions, he acknowledges, “there are some who say that the divine doesn’t even exist” (Discourses 1.12.1-3). The Stoics were quite aware of atheism and argued forcefully against it.
Stoic Ontology (what exists)
The Stoics considered theology the culmination or the crown jewel of Stoic physics. Therefore, to understand their conception of God, we need some grounding in their conception of being. This is called ontology in philosophy, and it is the study of what exists.
- Only Bodies exist
- That which acts
- That which is acted upon
- All bodies are comprised of two principles
- Passive principle – undifferentiated matter
- Active principle – pneuma, God
Stoic Materialism
Stoic ontology is frequently labeled “materialist” by scholars. However, they do not mean the reductive materialism of modern science when they use that label. In context, they label the Stoics as materialist to contrast them with the idealism of Plato. The Stoics did not agree with Plato’s conception of forms. Instead of external forms to which matter was conformed, the Stoics proposed an active principle (pneuma) that acted upon unsubstantiated matter from within. Therefore, the label “materialist” can lead to misunderstanding. As A.A. Long points argues,
It is misleading to describe the Stoics as ‘materialists’. Bodies, in the Stoic system, are compounds of ‘matter’ and ‘mind’ (God or logos). Mind is not something other than body but a necessary constituent of it, the ‘reason’ in matter. The Stoics are better described as vitalists.[6]
The Stoic God
The Stoic conception of the divine and providential cosmos was there at the beginning of the Stoa, as highlighted by Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus. Here are the opening lines:
Most glorious of the immortals, invoked by many names, ever all-powerful,
Zeus,the First Cause of Nature, who rules all things with Law,
Hail! It is right for mortals to call upon you,since from you we have our being, we whose lot it is to be God’s image,
wealone of all mortal creatures that live and move upon the earth.
Accordingly, I will praise you with my hymn and ever sing of your might.
As Brad Inwood, professor of philosophy at Yale University points out,
The themes of Cleanthes’ hymns lie at the heart of Stoicism and help to flesh out the doctrine of Chrysippus that theology is the culmination of physics…Like every branch of philosophy, physics is intimately concerned with the place of human beings in the coordinated whole which is run by Zeus.[7]
Johan Thom, distinguished professor at Stellenbosch University, highlights one of the difficulties of understanding Stoic prayer and religion in his analysis of Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus,
The cause of the difficulty regarding Stoic prayer, and indeed Stoic religion in general, may be ascribed to the fact that Stoicism was, from the very beginning, not purely pantheistic, but an amalgam of pantheism and theism.[8]
These theistic leanings are quite prominent in the Hymn to Zeus by Cleanthes, who is considered the “most religious”[9] of the early Stoics. Thus, Thom argues
According to Cleanthes’ Hymn, the philosophical life is a religious life, and vice versa.[10]
Likewise, the Discourses of Epictetus are rich in theistic language. The logos of Stoicism is not a personal God; nevertheless,
in the history of the Stoa, God will tend to assume more and more spiritual and personal traits, religiousness will tend to permeate more and more strongly the system, and prayer will begin to acquire a precise meaning… The Stoa will turn, especially in the last stage, towards theism, but without arriving at it fully.[11]
Even though the religious nature of Stoicism evolved over the course of its five-hundred-year history, the“vivid religious sense” was there from the founding of the Stoa and already found “full expression in the well-known Hymn to Zeus.”[12]
Nature may be the easiest way for many people to conceive of the Stoic God. However, in Stoicism, Nature is not limited to plants and trees, although they are certainly included. Nature, for the Stoics, means a divinely ordered cosmos, and it is equivalent to God because pneuma—the active principle—permeates the entire cosmos and everything in it, including us humans. This divine cosmos is providential to the extent that everything works out for the good of the whole rather than the good of any particular person.
A Modern Stoic Perspective
Gregory Sadler, a member of the Modern Stoicism team, recently produced a YouTube video titled “Does Stoicism Believe in God?” During the first six minutes of the video, Dr. Sadler does a great job accurately describing the Stoic conception of God and differentiating it from the commonly held beliefs of many forms of theism. This topic is frequently ignored by modern Stoics, so I applaud Dr. Sadler for addressing it accurately. He even gives a small shout-out to traditional Stoics at 8:00. However, toward the end of the video, his comments reveal an unspoken, and possibly unconscious, bias I believe is common in modern Stoicism. At the seven-minute mark, Dr. Sadler identifies the “wide range of religious perspectives” of people involved in modern Stoicism, including Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, and Daoist. He then argues these religious perspectives require some ‘syncretism’ to make them work, because,
there are some places where ancient Stoicism and say Judaism and Christianity were clearly at odds with each other and couldn’t be in entire agreement.
I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Sadler on this point. Nevertheless, while his assessment is quite accurate, it overlooks the fact that agnosticism and atheism also require some ‘syncretism’ to make them work with Stoicism. In other words, Dr. Sadler’s point is equally true when restated as follows:
Agnosticism and atheism require some syncretism to make them work because there are some places where agnosticism and atheism are clearly at odds with ancient Stoicism and cannot be in entire agreement.
Dr. Sadler gave agnosticism/atheism a pass while simultaneously pointing out the incompatibilities between Stoicism and theistic perspectives. I am neither a theist nor an agnostic/atheist; I made the existential choice to assent to the Stoic conception of divinity (a variant of pantheism) in 2012. As Sadler rightly points out, people like me think the Stoic conception of God is an essential part of Stoicism as the ancients practiced it. Nevertheless, I have always openly supported the modern Stoic’s attempt to create a secularized version of Stoicism for a broader, modern audience.
My point is this: Modern Stoics cannot have it both ways. They cannot be consistent and coherent while arguing that the Stoic metaphysical conception of the cosmos is irrelevant to Stoic practice and simultaneously use the Stoic metaphysics they reject to proclaim that some religious perspectives are at odds with Stoicism. There is an inconsistency with pointing out the necessity of syncretism required for theism while ignoring the syncretism required for atheism/agnosticism. Moreover, even though I’m not a theist, I believe one can make a convincing argument that several varieties of theism are more compatible with Stoicism than atheism/agnosticism.
Please note, my comments are not intended as a criticism of Dr. Greg Sadler. I have watched several of his videos, and I think he is a good teacher and typically presents controversial topics, such as this one, accurately and fairly. That is evidenced by the fact that created this video explaining the Stoic conception of God. Unfortunately, he exhibits what I believe is a strong, yet possibly unconscious, bias within the modern Stoic movement against any worldviews other than agnosticism or atheism.
Conclusion
The religious nature of Stoicism is more than religious sounding-language or God talk. Additionally, the Stoic God is more than a mere metaphor. When we read the writings of Seneca, the Discourses of Epictetus, and the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, and find within them a source of inspiration and moral guidance, we are wise to remember each of these men trusted in a divine and providential cosmos as a part of their Stoic practice. The same psychological consolation is available today for the practitioner who integrates the metaphysical assumptions of the Stoics into their philosophical way of life.
[W]e do not study philosophy with our hands or feet or any other part of the body, but with the soul and with a very small part of it, that which we may call the reason. This God placed in the strongest place so that it might be inaccessible to sight and touch, free from all compulsion and in its ownpower. (Musonius Rufus, Lecture 16.10)
ENDNOTES:
[1] Zeller, E., & Reichel, O. (1870). The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics. London: Longs, Green, and Co, p. 322
[2] For more detail on Stoic theology, I recommend: Keimpe Algra, “Stoic Theology,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics(New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 153–78; and Ricardo Salles, ed., God and Cosmos in Stoicism(Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
[3] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Mariner Books, 2006), 40.
[4] “Pantheism as ‘Sexed-up Atheism,’” World Pantheism, accessed July 15, 2017, https://www.pantheism.net/atheism.
[5] Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999).
[6] A. A Long, Hellenistic Philosophy; Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1974). p. 154
[7] Inwood, B. (2005) Reading Seneca: Stoic Philosophy at Rome. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 158; also see Diogenes Laertius 7.40
[8] Thom, J. (2005) Cleanthes’Hymn to Zeus. Tubingen, DE: Mohr Siebeck, p. 25
[9] Ibid
[10] Ibid, p. 27
[11] Reale, G., & Catan, J. R. (1985) The System of the Hellenistic Age. Albany: State University of New York, p. 247
[12] Ibid
