Plato on Atheism
Seeing as it was mentioned in the comments of the Locke on Atheism post, I might as well prolong the recent prominent-philosopher-bashes-atheism theme a while longer by looking at Plato’s comments on the topic. At the beginning of Book 10 of the Laws, Plato turns his attention to the state-imperilling problem of atheism.
… we have already said in general terms what shall be the punishment of sacrilege, whether fraudulent or violent, and now we have to determine what is to be the punishment of those who speak or act insolently toward the Gods. But first we must give them an admonition which may be in the following terms:-No one who in obedience to the laws believed that there were Gods, ever intentionally did any unholy act, or uttered any unlawful word; but he who did must have supposed one of three things-either that they did not exist,-which is the first possibility, or secondly, that, if they did, they took no care of man, or thirdly, that they were easily appeased and turned aside from their purpose, by sacrifices and prayers.1
It’s difficult to imagine a more ominous beginning, with Plato declaring it is necessary to ‘determine what is to be the punishment of those who speak or act insolently toward the Gods’. Plato establishes a clear hierarchy of crimes, beginning with crimes against religion, then those against private rites, insults against parents, theft, and ending with violations of civil rights. Disbelief, then, is no small issue for Plato: the majority of Book 10 is devoted to either disproving it, by identifying the soul as a source of motion, or the more critical question of how to deal with atheists.
Atheists and heretics, described variously as “evil and unrighteous men”, “these lost and perverted natures”, and “bad men” who undermine the law, are clearly seen as a perfidious presence and a profound threat to the health of the polis. The 
‘Athenian Stranger,’ who takes the role of chief spokesperson for Plato’s views that we are more accustomed to seeing Socrates take, eventually declares “I have spoken with vehemence because I am zealous against evil men”. Indeed, his tone is generally one of righteous indignation: “Who can be calm when he is called upon to prove the existence of the Gods? Who can avoid hating and abhorring the men who are and have been the cause of this argument[?]” Even being asked to justify his theological/metaphysical beliefs is clearly more than enough to get him worked into a lather.
Plato’s surrogate nonetheless manages to show some restraint—initially at least—when advising on appropriate responses to heresy and atheism. The lawmaker should not immediately resort to execution, ‘privation of citizenship’ or exile, but rather, “when he is making laws for men, at the same time infuse the spirit of persuasion into his words, and mitigate the severity of them as far as he can”. This ‘persuasion’ later takes the form of rehabilitation/reindoctrination in a state prison:
… let those [disbelievers] who have been made what they are only from want of understanding, and not from malice or an evil nature, be placed by the judge in the House of Reformation, and ordered to suffer imprisonment during a period of not less than five years. And in the meantime let them have no intercourse with the other citizens, except with members of the nocturnal council, and with them let them converse with a view to the improvement of their soul’s health.
Nonetheless, if the criminal’s five-year ideological rehabilitation fails the state has but one choice:
And when the time of their imprisonment has expired, if any of them be of sound mind let him be restored to sane company, but if not, and if he be condemned a second time, let him be punished with death.
This one-shot-at-redemption policy is however only for those who disbelieve “from want of understanding” and somehow do not respond to the doctrinal ministrations of the ‘nocturnal council’. In contrast, the type of man who “is called a clever man, is full of stratagem and deceit [who] deal in prophecy and jugglery of all kinds,” is deemed a “hypocritical sort, whose crime is deserving of death many times over”. Those of this “class of monstrous natures”—i.e. those who can actually articulate and justify their atheism, and here Plato refers specifically to the Sophists—are the far greater danger, and are to be imprisoned for life in a desolate and isolated part of the country, and following their death are to be cast out unburied.
All of which is of course utterly monstrous. It’s not so much prominent-philosopher-bashes-atheism as it is prominent-philosopher-advocates-incarceration-and/or-death-for-atheists. Dissent and debate are out; replaced by state sanctioned execution of enemies of the good for thoughtcrimes. It’s the type of material over which Platonists have long striven to defend the philosopher from those who see a strong totalitarian streak in his political works. And it’s fairly easy to see where such criticism comes from—it’s hardly standard philosophical practice to demand death of those who don’t accept one’s worldview. The overall combination of dogmatism, intolerance, and recourse to coercion and capital punishment in Book 10 of the Laws will hardly endear Plato to anyone who already has their doubts about him and the conclusions his metaphysics lead him to.
A final note, given the current topicality of atheism: considering that Plato advocates the death penalty for recalcitrant atheists, does anyone else see the great irony in the number of today’s theists who get worked up over prominent contemporary atheists’ disrespectful tone or supposed intolerance of others’ beliefs? Anyone who can find a single instance of Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens/Dennett/Myers et al. calling for people who disagree with them (and refuse to recant) to be put to death, please feel free to post it here.
CITATIONS:
1. Plato, Laws, Book 10, Trans. Benjamin Jowett, online here (all quotes from this e-text version).
Comments
15 Comments so far
I wholeheartedly agree with Plato. Plato lived in Athens. He saw firsthand the destruction wrought by Atheists in Athens. He combatted the Atheist sophists. The Doric Greeks States of Crete and Laconia proscribed Atheists from entering; they were fobidden! They were considered dangerous to the state. Plato, an Ionian and a philodorian, agrees. It is sound Wisdom. It is impossible to be a philosopher and an atheist at the same time. True Sophia is the possession of God.
The Atheists today are militant, angry, and are in a grudge funk. One of the Four, even said, once Atheists are in power, it will be time to be killing Christians. Atheists also sap the moral and goodness of the state. For the Doric Greeks and Plato, there has to be harmony and atheists break the harmony of the state when it needs the graces of God to exist happily and securely. Belief in God and the currying of the favor of God was the strategy of both the Doric and Roman Republics. Success in life can not be divorced from God—hence the necessity for the belief in God.
You must have liked my paper I sent you then!
The philosophical basis of the xenelasia was “Bad company corrupts good morals”. Atheists in spreading skepticism and disbelief are this “bad company”. In order to maintain high and good morals, atheism must be interdicted. There is no debate, belief in God as Jacques Maritain in his “Introduction to Philosophy” points out–it is common sense.
“Bad company corrupts good morals” is not about “metaphysics” but is part of the res naturalis! Does not one bad apple destroy the bushel? I worked as a farm laborer, I lived in nature, unlike 99% of modern day philosophers, Nature acts on that principle. If any hay is bad—the badness corrupts the whole and destroys the hay. It has nothing to do with metaphysics but how nature works. That is what ‘Philo—Sophia” is all about. The love of Wisdom—not the “creation” of wisdom! Humans must obey the laws of nature. Plato is just following Wisdom!
Ideology is not Philosophy and Philosophy is not Ideology. Philosophy is the study and apprehension of the Good—Whatever the Good requires.
I’m afraid I don’t find your arguments very convincing – they are often just a blend of bald assertion, strong personal conviction, classical-philosophy-fetishism, and appeals to common (religious) prejudices. Take your case for the existence of God, for example, which boils down to: “Don’t be silly, of course God exists.” Then, there’s your claim that “it is impossible to be a philosopher and an atheist at the same time. True Sophia is the possession of God” which doesn’t even come close to being a philosophical argument – it is arcane bigotry at its most blindly nonsensical. You also provide a nature/morality analogy that simply doesn’t work – the idea of decay in a biological entity and decay in morality doesn’t hold up in anything but a metaphorical sense. (Although I must admit I loved the argument from authority-as-farm-labourer – maybe it’ll be the start of a whole new class of rural fallacies.) However, with the comment that “atheists are going to start killing Christians” you’ve given up even on bad philosophy and just started what is technically referred to as ‘making shit up’.
Atheists are spreading scepticism? Yes, and good thing too. If a world where millions assert that their bronze age worldview(s) and antiquated moral dictates must be adhered to, it can only be positive to have dissenting voices. Of course we should be sceptical of religious explanations. We should look for natural explanations of natural phenomena, rather than ascribing everything we don’t understand to mythical entities and blithely hoping/praying for the best. If we still did that, we’d still think that mental illness is caused by demonic possession, rather than by physical, treatable causes; we’d still think that diseases were punishment from God for transgressions, rather than naturally arising phenomena that can be understood and counteracted. That your God is a casualty of this scepticism doesn’t make it wrong (for people like me it’s just an added bonus). As we gain an increasingly detailed understanding of natural phenomena, without anything that points towards any external entity guiding or controlling things, it becomes increasingly unlikely that any such an entity exists. Religious belief is completely unsupported by any empirical evidence, and is increasingly an exercise in wishful thinking.
Unfortunately, I can see in your position the same dogmatic and domineering tendencies that I dislike so much about Plato. You are completely intolerant of opposing positions, to the point that you state that anyone who doesn’t share your beliefs is incapable of doing philosophy – an absurd and childish position, akin to putting your fingers in your ears and screaming “na na na, I can’t hear you” and you regard anyone who dissents from your thoughts as an enemy of the state. It appears one of the inevitable consequences of philosophies such as Plato’s and religious (particularly monotheistic) beliefs in general: when one believes that they possess privileged access to the truth, they feel justified in contemptuous dismissal of any contrary positions with superficial catchphrases and appeals to common prejudice.
To Chris Mathews,
“We should look for natural explanation of natural phenomena.” Christian scientists invented empirical science. Bacon for instance created the scientific method. I can go on and on from Keplar, and Newton, to Descartes. Christians continue to lead the science world today as well with their “bronze age” approach to natural explanations of natural science. For example Francis Collins the director of the human genome project.
Humanists like yourself didn’t begin to appropriate secular “truths” such as relativism and atheism en masse in America till the fifties. This is what Bloom in the “Closing of the American Mind” describes as the time when “the cultural leeches began their spiritual bleeding of the country.”
So if you can call the majority of the Earth both in History and in present times as people with a “bronze age worldview.” Then you are being insincere when you say “you are completely intolerant of opposing positions.” You need to take a look in the mirror because you sound absurd and childish. The only reason you have the freedom to even make a point, is because Christians gave their blood for liberty. In this country and throughout the West. Look at any atheistic country in the world and see how much they appreciate the polis speaking their minds.
As one scholar aptly put it: “We don’t live in the past, but the past lives in us.”
Atheism supposes to prove a negative, this idea requires an amount of faith that supersedes any Christian requisite.
Oh and by the way your distaste of Plato is irrelevant, he has influenced more people and will continue to do so long after atheism has been replaced by another phony secularist doctrine.
‘Nef’, I’d like to look at some of your comments closer.
Christian scientists invented empirical science.
This is simply a form of genetic fallacy – an irrelevant reference to origins of an idea/fact/methodology. That early modern philosophers were predominantly Christian [of course they were! almost everybody was!] doesn’t mean that Christianity can claim ownership to any facts that they discovered or methods they instigated. They`re facts that are true about the world independently of Chrisitanity and a methodology that works independently of Christianity. [btw, a figure such as David Hume hardly fit into your account, and surely you wouldn't deny his importance?] Many scientists are Christians? So what? When they engage in scientific research they use their scientific skills and training, not their religious beliefs. You’re simply introducing irrelevancies and pretending they’re arguments.
You are being insincere when you say you are completely intolerant of opposing positions.
I’m being intolerant? How so? If you look at the discussion thus far, you’ll see I’m not the one claiming that people who don’t agree with me or believe what I believe should be denied citizenship or other basic civil liberties. I completely support your rights to believe what you want and to defend those beliefs, just as I uphold my own right to challenge and critique those beliefs in open debate. If you don’t like the tone that I take that’s just too bad.
The only reason you have the freedom to even make a point, is because Christians gave their blood for liberty. In this country and throughout the West.
There’s two problems with this one:
(1) it’s another form of genetic fallacy (I shouldn’t criticize Christian beliefs because Christians are supposedly responsible for the freedoms I enjoy) that has ethically repugnant connotations (in that Christians apparently get some privileged access to social benefits originating from fellow believers – if a Christian discovered a cure for cancer, should it only be available to other Christians?), but more importantly,
(2) it’s a complete fantasy. The freedoms we enjoy in liberal democracies today owe far more to the predominantly secular thinkers of the Enlightenment and their intellectual heirs than to any religious figures (although I wouldn’t deny there have been Christian campaigners for these rights as well). But all-too-often it was the entrenched religious factions who were resistant to liberalization.
your distaste of Plato is irrelevant, …
Philosophically, yes, an emotional disposition is largely irrelevant, but the reasons I give in justification of that distaste aren’t.
… [Plato] has influenced more people and will continue to do…
No doubt Plato will still be read millennia into the future, but popularity and longevity don’t have any bearing on whether he’s right. Would you argue that geocentricism must be correct because Christians believed in it for over fifteen hundred years? Philosophy is not simply a popularity contest – we can evaluate positions and present arguments for and against them, and see if we can arrive at a critical assessment.
Or, we can employ your tactics and engage in a stream of diversionary tactics, rhetorical bluster, misleading oversimplifications and fallacies, hoping no-one ever calls us on it (but then crying ‘intolerance’ if someone does).
In defense of Plato, one must look at the larger body of Plato’s thought, how it relates to Plato’s life. If ones reads the Laws in relation to the Republic (even though Laws does not have as much dramatic irony as the Republic), there is a justification for such a statement. Mainly, if philosophy has a specific didactic purpose (to turn the soul towards the Forms and ensure the stability of the state), such a strong stand against atheism becomes more valid. Atheism becomes a rejection of the very metaphysical base of the state. Also, since Plato is ever the subtle ironist, there is the another valid reading that sees these statements in light of the Noble Lie. This could much similar to Kant claiming that God only to ensure that his true believe (the Categorical Imperative) remains valid. Plato must lie because the believe Forms are all important and may erode the moral need for them. Time and time again in the Republic, Socrates makes it clear that the images of the gods must be processed to ensure a certain type of belief in the citizens of the Republic. Atheism is just one of many forms of believes that is harmful to the state. It would be no different then treason.
Also, looking at Plato’s life, the charge of atheism would be particularly meaningful because that was the charged placed on Socrates. Plato has a vested interest in refuting atheism as a means of supporting the memory Socrates.
I think that, looking at the body of Plato’s work, one cannot read these lines simply as atheist must die because they are evil. And, even if this reading were to be true, is it really a valid critique? To paraphrase Foucault, it is foolish to think the Greeks are the same as us. One cannot make moral judgments that far into the past without assuming a universal and metaphysical morality. And, on this note, it is ridiculous to compare Plato’s statements to Dawkins et al. Plato writes beneath a veil of irony and over two thousand years of history. It is a fundamentally different context.
Hi John, thanks for your comment. I am always quite wary of the type of argument you’re putting forward (not to mention quite familiar with it, as it’s a common strategy—see Gregory Vlastos, The Theory of Social Justice in the Polis in Plato’s Republic, for a very erudite version of the same). The basic claim is that we can excuse any thinker for advocating any form of monstrous behavior, as long as in doing so they remain consistent with their broader philosophical principles. Thus, Nietzsche can’t be criticized for (seemingly) advocating rape and plunder in the Genealogy of Morals, neither can Kant be criticized for saying a woman should die rather than ’submit’ to rape, because both of these examples are consistent with their other positions. But shouldn’t the fact that they can be reconciled, and easily, lead us to suspect that there’s something fundamentally flawed with their philosophical principles? If Plato would deny all rights to people who don’t share his metaphysical/theological assumptions, then I take that as proof he’s nothing like the ‘humanitarian’ his defenders would suppose, and is in fact an intolerant, authoritarian ideologue who would gladly use the force of the state to repress opposition. And I don’t need to presuppose “a universal and metaphysical morality” to criticize a key work in the philosophical canon. If it is impossible to evaluate philosophical principles from classical Greece, then we need to purge the libraries and university philosophy courses of Aristotle et. al., for they can be of no use to us. What good are philosophy texts that can’t be philosophically critiqued?
As for your point regarding irony, again I don’t see any reason to accept it. There’s nothing in the Laws that suggests Plato’s anything but 100% serious—as you note it’s a much more straightforward work stylistically than the Republic. Your argument strikes me as little more than an attempt to create some wriggle room for his defenders, to raise the possibility that he wasn’t entirely serious, without really providing any good reason to believe so.
[I also note that your first argument acknowledges Plato was serious about his hostility to atheists, whereas the 'irony' one requires that he wasn't. You're hedging your bets a little, don't you think?]
Haha. I am hedging my bets, because Plato hedges his.
As for your first point:
I would agree that Plato is, by our standards, an “intolerant, authoritarian ideologue.” However, that statement is condition by our time as much as Plato is by his. While I would, without hesitation, rather live in modern society then Plato’s Republic, this fact isn’t fatal flaw in Plato. A philosophical text can be critiqued as philosophy without bringing into the discussion one’s personal moral indignation, What Russell would ask is “Does Plato’s philosophical system make internal sense?” This question is a valid philosophical critique. One could even look at the practical implications of Plato and judge his worth in that manner. Also, one could look at Plato addressing certain philosophical problems and judge him on the success and failure of specific issues. I just feel that judging Plato’s philosophy on a moral or ethical level does an injustice to the profoundly different understanding of morality and ethics between our time and his.
2. Irony
I would argue that, while the Laws is straightforward stylistically, it does not mean that it can be taken at face value. Just as Socrates tailors his arguments to appeal to Glaucon, the speakers in the Laws tailor their discussions to the practically of creating a State in Ancient Greece. If one gives Plato the benefit of the doubt, the irony lies in Plato
acknowledging the historical contingencies of the man made laws. The true Forms can never be translated into reality. The ideal city remains a hidden, abstract ideal couched in irony in the Republic and the city in the Laws becomes a practical and feasible creation.
3. On hedging bets
I hedge my bets, as I said earlier, because Plato does. There is historical and biographical evidence that that could indicate that Plato had a vested interest in appearing to be critical of atheism. This does not mean that Plato himself was hostile to atheism as much as it was wise of him to portray himself that way. What Plato writes isn’t necessarily what Plato says. The use of dialogues, irony and misdirection make is very hard to make definitive statements on what Plato actually believes. I see this as the beauty of Plato.
Chris. A response?
Sorry, I didn’t respond because it appeared (to me) to be a reiteration of very similar arguments as before…
What is the point of admiring “internal consistency” of a philosopher’s work if we don’t also question the implicit/explicit assumptions (in philosophy, usually metaphysical claims) that support/underpin that consistency? [This is a question not just to be asked of Plato, but of Schopenhauer, Hegel, Heidegger, even Marx.] Without doing that, do we not run the risk of admiring the fine design of a house built on sand?
The rest is based on the possibility that Plato might have meant something else. Frankly, the onus is on you to substantiate that claim, for it goes against the majority of Plato scholarship (most of which is not overly critical of his work). Furthermore, given that his works are generally consistent in their main principles – and the condemnation of atheism is utterly consistent with those principles – I don’t see the possibility as enough. Atheism is after all condemned for much the same reason that art is – because it is disrespectful to the gods and corrosive of the rigid social hierarchy that Plato proposes.
Dawkins is like a cancer, not just an atheist, but a militant atheist, who desires to drive religion and belief out of all corners of society. It is this sort of atheist who eats into the fabric of humanity, the spirit and belief that Plato would certainly have condemned to death.
Chris,
Your counter-arguments are quite clever and a pleasure to read. In particular, I really got a kick out of this line:
“Although I must admit I loved the argument from authority-as-farm-labourer – maybe it’ll be the start of a whole new class of rural fallacies.”
Keep up the good work!
Mabon Dane,
Your argument reeks of an ideological hysteria. I have not read nor heard one instance where Richard Dawkins have echoed Plato in his wish to see dissenters put in prison or executed or have any other of their basic rights infringed. Again your rhetoric is an example of “atheism = immorality” that is without any real substance.
I am just a simple man,with very little wisdom or knowledge of philosophy;However,from the experince of rearing six children I am very aware of the arguement of “That’s what I said, but not what I meant”. Every child uses this argument. So,It seems this is the defense John L. is using for Plato. If you can not judge a person long deceased, by his words,how else are you to judge him.
The article strikes me as a very superficial reading of Plato.
The context of the comments regarding atheism is in dealing with the question of how to establish the best possible regime for a new colony.
The Athenian stranger believes that without belief in a God who rewards the just and punishes the unjust, the citizens cannot be counted on to voluntarily obey the laws.
So the whole argument is pragmatic in nature – atheists are bad because they erode the civic spirit of the citizens. It has nothing to do with religious fanaticism.
It’s also worth noting that this is probably a more liberal treatment of atheism than you would find anywhere else in the ancient world.
BTW I’m an atheist and I think your first respondent is a lunatic.
PS – Yes I noticed the datestamps.