Stoic Deism

As can be seen from the date of the last item a third of a year has passed since it was posted. This is not because of waning interest or a change of mind, but a period of reflection, the bringing together of two strands of thought.

There have been previous articles on this site drawing a line of continuation from the ancient philosophy of Stoicism through the emergence of Deism during the Age of Reason to its fairly recent renaissance as Modern Deism.

Firstly, though, it has to be unequivocally stated that it is understood that a stoic may also be an atheist, an agnostic or find accommodation with a religious faith. The intention here is not to claim sole rights to Stoic philosophy for Deism.

However, there does seem to be a natural compatibility between Deism and Stoicism. This can be detected, for instance, in the writings of the philosopher emperor Marcus Aurelius who would often opt for the largely undefined “Providence” when referring to what others might have called Deus, God.

How he considered this concept is illustrated thus:
“In the universe, respect the highest power, namely the creative force which directs and makes use of all things.”*
Then he goes on to link that broadest of generalisations to the individual:
“In the same way, you must respect the highest power in yourself, for it is of the same creative kind.”*

There is no effort to define the “highest power” or “creative force”; to do so is to limit it to the human level. Rather accept the intimations of its being and act, and think, accordingly.

The intention is that for the time being DEISMUK will feature mainly, though not exclusively, articles relating Stoicism and Deism to each other and to wider concerns. It is also recommended that for a good source of information about Modern Stoicism reference be made to The New Stoa on the Blogroll.

*”The Spiritual Teachings of Marcus Aurelius” by Mark Forstater, Hodder and Stoughton, 2009. Page 114.

God and Providence

Deism emerged during the enlightenment of the eighteenth century, but that does not mean it was the formulation of a completely new set of ideas. Its core assertion, that there is a God, is as ancient as humanity’s consideration of such a notion.

The perennial problem in considering God is getting beyond the anthropomorphic. It seems a human tendency to portray the divine in the image of Man, especially so in the Abrahamic faith traditions.

However, there have been other ways of dealing with the concept. The Stoic school of philosophy was, religiously, a forerunner of Deism. Rather than a God known only through revelation recorded in scripture, Stoics identified what they termed Providence as the essence of creation.

God, for Stoics, consisted of Fire, or active energy, and Logos, reason. God’s presence in the universe could be deduced from Nature operating according to Laws, the result of Cosmic Reason or Providence. Providence ordered all things, even humanity whose freedom existed only within the context of cosmic necessity.

The Fire or active energy aspect of God is the vital principle from which everything in the universe emerges, is shaped, cycled and recycled. God, as vital force, moulds and directs passive matter into all the forms existing at any given moment, reshaping them for the next.

God is not a being outside the universe, drawing up plans and directing operations. Providence is the chain of cause and effect, itself part of creation it regulates and is subject to the immutable law of necessity. Rather than a proper noun, God is a verb, the doing of creation.

“Providence” comes from the Latin “providentia”, meaning foreknowledge and forethought. In this sense the universe is subject to intelligent design, but that intelligence or forethought is immanent within the universe, with design being the result.

This does not imply some celestial blueprint whereby the universe is plotted out in advance. Rather, it is dynamic design responding to the needs of the moment, always in a state of flux.

The question is often posed; if creation follows God’s plan, why are their glaring design faults and imperfections? However, if the universe was perfect it would have to be in stasis, there could be no change to perfection. A dynamic creation requires an element of chaos to be creative.

But, no matter how chaotic the world might appear the universal laws of physics (and biology and chemistry) continue to apply. The cosmos is not a place for arbitrary happenings even if it can be the realm of the unexpected.

There have always been those, like the Epicureans, who espoused the idea of the world being subject to blind fate, just as now evolution is often posited as being purposeless. The Stoics did not deny the existence of a controlling power, just as Deists fully accept evolution, but insisted it was a manifestation of divine will, the power of Providence.

For Stoics, and Deists, everything there is in Nature has a reason. Throughout all creation there is an active “force” or “element” (insert your own word or phrase) that is co-extensive with matter everywhere.

Every manifestation of the individual is but a temporary arrangement that must decay and be subsumed by the whole, but not one single particle is lost. All is to be continually shaped and reshaped according to those laws science has identified.

As Providence acts out of necessity not favour, it follows no one and nothing occupies a divinely privileged position. The Stoic ethic insisted there is no difference between people of various nationalities, or men and women. Providence is truly universal: every individual being a member of “one body partaking in reason.”

When it came to religious practice Stoics did not concoct elaborate ceremonies or rituals. Rather they had a preference for prayer (meditation/contemplation), self-examination and praise. And by praise was meant the appreciation of the wonder of creation. Providence worshipped in the temple of the heart.

Deists likewise do not create liturgies nor build temples. The possibility of God, or Deus, or Providence arises from the experience of individual Deists of Nature. This is not a romantic view, nature “red in tooth and claw” is as apparent to them as a beautiful tranquil sunset.

There is a recognition that seeing in nature the malign as well as the benign arises from a subjective view, while the universe does not operate according to good and evil, but by objective laws.

God is not the fulfiller of human wishes: if Man can be assigned any privilege it is having been granted the ability to play a consciously active role in shaping creation to some extent. This is achieved not through random actions, but intelligent human design.

To deny such a design feature is absent from creation in general is a somewhat arrogant assertion that humans alone somehow transcend an otherwise purposeless and pointless universe.

The concept of Providence is useful as a reminder not to view the divine as being human shaped. God is ineffable because language is necessarily limited to human concepts. Unless Man was the equal of the divine it cannot be otherwise.

Marcus Aurelius and Deism

It could be anachronistic to claim a Roman emperor of the 2nd century as a deist, although there are traits in ancient Greek thought at least analogous to deism. The test is whether or not a writer in antiquity has anything to contribute to modern thinking in general and, in this case, deism in particular.

Marcus Aurelius was a philosopher of the stoic school. His surviving writings, what have come to be known as his meditations were addressed, in true philosophical style, to himself. This is important as he was exploring his own thinking in relation to stoicism and not concerned with winning either arguments or converts.

Deists draw their inspiration from observing nature and applying reason to their experience. Aurelius wrote, “Go straight on where nature leads you, both Universal Nature, through what happens to you, and your own nature in terms of how you should act.”*

Clearly he saw a larger universal principle manifested in the individual, which can hardly be contentious as a person must be entirely a product of the universe. Working from that he concluded,
“All things are linked with one another, and this oneness is sacred; there is nothing that is not interconnected with everything else.”

This is the essence of the sacred, a principle recognised and ritualised by religion. Take the Christian Eucharist, for example, whatever grandiose claims are made for it by various denominational practitioners; it is essentially the (Christian) community coming together to symbolically share in the divine. Similar examples can be identified in other religions.

Secularists also gather together to share a sense of their community; it is a human trait reflecting at least a tacit recognition of the ultimate oneness of everything. After all, creation is referred to as a universe: even the theoretical positing of a multiverse is actually an unspecified number of universes.

Aurelius recognised a higher power immanent in creation. “Universal Reason, which governs everything, knows its own characteristics, and what it creates, and the material on which it works.”

That the universe is a reasonable place, that is, it is susceptible to reason, operating according to discernable laws must, at the very least indicate the concept of Universal Reason as being of itself reasonable. However, this is not to suggest an anthropomorphic god in another guise.

When he wrote, “Universal Nature felt an impulse to create the universe. And now everything that comes into being follows as a natural consequence.” he was expressing an attitude, a way of looking at creation, not defining a precise methodology.

Even when he seemed to be referring to the Gods Aurelius kept man’s way of relating to the universe in mind. “Those who live with the gods… constantly follow the dictates of their spirit, the same spirit that Zeus has given to each one of us as a guardian and guide. And this spirit is our mind and reason.”

Whether or not he literally believed in Zeus and the gods is at best a moot point. It has to be remembered the prevailing religious context in which he was writing. He certainly identified “mind and reason” as the guardian and guide for a person.

There is, of course, a great deal more to the writings of Marcus Aurelius than is hinted at here. As a stoic he mused on a wide variety of topics as they related to how humans could, and perhaps should, live their lives. Or at least, how he should live his own life.

Were there contradictions? Certainly! He wrote, “Hatred, war, disorder, illness, and slavery, will wipe out these sacred principles of yours.” Here is the recognition that even cherished ideas are compromised by life. After all, he was an emperor pursuing the ideal of the simple life of moderation.

For a deist there is much to contemplate in his writings, always remembering he was addressing himself and not prescribing for others. Aurelius is part of the human tradition of looking at the universe and drawing reasonable conclusions that are not, cannot, be definitive. And a good thing to, otherwise inquiry would have to cease at that point.

A common criticism of religion by secularists is that any belief in god is merely hanging on to a comforter in what is actually a universe unaware of human presence, let alone caring for it.

There is an argument such thinking ignores, the fact that as humans are an integral feature of the universe and are aware of it, then it is actually aware of itself in general and humans in particular. Sentience must be a characteristic of the universe otherwise human beings, or any life form, could not exist presuming developing awareness is a feature of life.

Not that this should be taken to mean the Divine or Universal Nature or Providence, another term Aurelius used in this context, is a benign super-human being. Man’s concerns are subjective and often projected, by way of religion, on to a god who has singled humanity out for special treatment.

Aurelius did not subscribe to such a partial view as the following illustrates graphically. “ ‘When a mother kisses her child,’ said Epictetus, ‘she should whisper to herself, “Tomorrow you might be dead.”’
‘Ominous words.’ They told him.
‘No word is ominous,’ said Epictetus, ‘which expresses a work of Nature; if this is the truth, it is also ominous to speak of the gathering of the corn.’”

These are not words of easy comfort, but a recognition that Universal Nature does not work to please humanity. People celebrate what they enjoy, such as harvest festivals marking the beneficent gathering of corn. However, death is as much a part of that Nature as life.
Stoics counsel against the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake and the frantic avoidance of pain. Both are necessary features and it is the dialectical interplay of the two that sentient creatures have to come to terms with.

Deists recognise the working of Universal Nature and celebrate it without any expectation they will receive some divine bounty in return. Rather, there is recognition that the divine is far greater than our understanding can encompass. The best people can do is to continue to wonder and speculate, moderated by reason and experience. Perhaps deism is better understood as a philosophy than a religion.

To become a sage, a philosopher (in the non-professional, seeker after wisdom sense) is the aim. “For what can be more pleasant than wisdom itself, when you consider the safety and contentment of everything which relies on your mind’s understanding and knowledge.”

All references are taken from, “The Spiritual Teachings of Marcus Aurelius.” Compiled by Mark Forstater, Hodder & Stoughton, 2000.
Page references in order: 125, 124, 126, 153, 117, 174, 164 97.