Socratic religion: Is Socrates irreligious or impious - Essay Example

?Socratic Religion: Is Socrates Irreligious or Impious? Socrates is not irreligious because he categorically s that he actually does believe in some of the same gods that are feted by the state. What Socrates stated that he was against were the stories that were associated with different Greek gods. This is because these tales are not particularly praiseworthy or virtuous in ways that are often associated, in different cultures, with godly character. Socrates even addresses the fact that he regularly offers the sacrifices that are required in various temples of different Greek gods. Many times, Socrates also mentioned a ‘God’- meaning that he might have had monotheistic inclinations. This, however, could have been construed as being an atheist in the Greek city states which promoted belief in a whole slew of gods and goddesses. Comparison between Socrates’ view of religion in the ‘Euthyphro’ and the ‘Apology’ The Apology, as well as the Euthyphro portrays Socrates as a religious figure who believed in the abilities of deities that are vastly superior to human beings in regards to power and wisdom. Socrates hinted at his belief in a unified God who holds a firm opinion on what constitutes as being un-pious or pious. In the account of Euthyphro, Euthyphro agrees that there are some things are hated and also loved by the gods. The Apology, on the other hand, has the passage where Socrates defends himself from accusations of corrupting the local youth. He also defends himself from the accusation of being an atheist. His defense was systematically carried out through his cross-examination of craftsmen, politicians, and poets. Socrates does not really sanction the intellectualist denunciation of divination's efficacy but accepts the traditional concept that the gods really do communicate with humankind through signs. For all his rationalism, Socrates seems to sanction the validity of the alleged god-given messages found in divination, dreams, and other such customarily accepted signs from gods and goddesses. In the Apology, Socrates spoke of hearing and hearkening to dreams, and also obeying the Delphic oracle. Socrates even encouraged his own students to seek the counsel of diviners and seers. In the ‘Euthyphro’, Socrates adopted a skeptical view of different aspects of traditional Greek belief in the abilities of gods and goddesses even though he still remained deeply religious himself, as was evidenced in the statements “Holiness is what is pleasing to the gods…If you are pleasing the gods with sacrifices, then you are doing what is pleasing to them” (Plato and Gallop 2008). Socrates’ and his Accusers’ view or religion Socrates held the view that the only reasonable understanding of the God(s) was through their appeal as paragons of Virtue and morality. Their personification of these moral values is what rendered them as being worthy of worship. Socrates does not openly accept the gods in the same way that most of the citizens in the city receive them. Socrates’ three accusers, on the other hand, appear to have believed that every citizen has a duty to remain faithful to the state-sanctioned gods and not any others. Meletus, one of his accusers, appeared to be of the opinion that the only way in which Socrates could be said to be a true believer is if he worshipped the gods as stipulated by convention and did not seek to question any of the qualities ascribed to them by the society. To the charge of being an atheist, Socrates countered that a true atheist would not believe in the possibility of the existence of any gods whether they have good or bad attributes. Anytus and Lycon, a representative of orators, also espoused the same beliefs as Meletus but also condemned Socrates for judging the religious beliefs and preferences of the mainstream ancient Greece society. Moreover, it would seem that Lycon, Anytus, and Meletus were mainly aggravated by Socrates’ elevation by the oracle at Delphi which proclaimed him to be one of the wisest men that had ever lived (Plato and Gallop 2008). As an orator who actively critiqued people’s lives, activities and religious habits, Socrates offended the sensibilities of these men who felt that Socrates was exulting himself above others and seeking to bring changes in how people, particularly the youth, thought about their own lives. Are both of these religious views normal and reasonable? Socrates held commendable views on the role of ethics in the interpretation of the gods and goddesses in ancient Greece. His main objective in his trial in the ‘Apology’ was not to show himself as being wiser than all other Athenians, but to convince his hearers that the unfairness of some of the acts attributed to the gods were not conducive to generating good ethical values in the rest of Athenian society. Socrates also wanted to draw the attention of the local citizens to erroneous judging procedures and regulations. The charges of godlessness, or corrupting the morals of the youth were false accusations posed by Socrates’ opposition in order to destroy his standing in the community. Socrates’ accusers, while having erroneous beliefs and ulterior motives in charging him with these accusations, were acting in what they thought was the best way to deal with Socrates’ frightening influence on the youth. The youth are the futures’ leaders in any nation. The man who is able to control or change their views will inevitably have power over the future government. It is possible that Socrates’ accusers feared his growing influence over the youth in the city states and sought to curb it by any means. Are Socrates’ views in any way a threat to the city? Are they the basis for a religious charge? The fact is that the accusations aimed at Socrates were motivated by vengeance on the part of the Athen’s power-holders such as poets, politicians, and manual artisans, and not a genuine religious charge. Socrates himself stated, “...and this is what will condemn me, if it does condemn me: not Meletus or Antyus, but the jealousy and slander of the many. This has condemned many other good citizens too, and I guess it will also convict me. And there is no possibility that it will stop me” (Plato and Gallop 2008). Socrates had exposed the religious practices and speeches as being empty words that were not based on knowledge and actual wisdom. Socrates’ actually benefited the Greek city-states through his biting observations. In answer to his accusers, he stated that for him, willingly corrupting any citizen would simply be impossible, “...I am not even aware that if I ever do something wrong or underhanded to any of my colleagues, I will risk getting a bad response from him?” (Plato and Gallop 2008). If Socrates was not irreligious, how could the charge, especially interpreted by Meletus as atheism, have convinced the jurors? The Athenians, like many other ancient cultures in bygone eras, believed that human beings could cause offense to the gods in different ways and that when this happened, the gods would wreak their vengeance on the hapless people who annoyed them until there was genuine repentance. To discourage ordinary citizens from intentionally or unintentionally annoying the gods, the authorities in Athens passed a law that made impiety a transgression that was punishable under the law. It was this rule that Meletus accused Socrates of breaking. Even if Socrates believed in some kinds of gods, Meletus could have used his distrust of the state-recognized gods and his trust in new, strange and unknown gods as the basis for posing charges of heresy against Socrates. Reference Plato & Gallop, D. (2008) Defence of Socrates, Euthyphro, Crito (Oxford World's Classics), Oxford University Press, New York. Read More