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.
deismuk 