Atheism in Ancient Rome

[M. Porcius Cato]

And something that Zeke said in his opening post jarred with me a bit too. That the ancient polytheistic religions were all about control of the masses. Now, that is something I have always associated with monotheist religions - but others may disagree.

 

Not commenting on all ancient polytheistic religions as being about the control of the masses, but certainly religion in ancient Rome was a device of political control. See here for a previous discussion.

[Septimus Flavius Galarius]

Wasn't the mythology of jesus based partly on the mythology of Bacchus?

[Zeke]

Hi, Zeke. While I understand what you're saying, I'm afraid I don't really see any concrete examples in what you wrote of Roman "atheists" adopting Christianity due to their finding that religion more appealing than atheism. Can you quote any ancient sources for me?

 

No, I don't have any clear examples, so I am going to back down there because I don't have a clear answear for that. My additude towards this topic comes from a combination of my biased beliefs as well as the opinions of others and the numerous history books I have read. What I am trying to say is this is my theory....but with no real solid proof I suppose my theory is flawed, and I admit that. It seems logical enough however that an Ahtiest would accept Christainty before Polytheism. If you fast foward to our modern day in age you will see that people are more likely to adopt a monothestic faith then a Polythestic one. There is alot of information out there on Polythestic beliefs...yet the vast majoriy of the westerns still belongs to a Monothestic Faith. I hear stories all the time about Atheists checking out all sorts of different beliefs. They ussually end up embracing Christianity because of its message and perhaps because of some sense of conformity. 98% of American Society is Christian...you feel a little out of place if you're from a minority faith. Constant persacution is something that is always on the mind as well.

I, however...don't wish to be a drone worker to Consumer Christian America. Maybe its the fact that I am 17 and am trying to find myself. But I have chosen my religion of preference and it suits my needs for the time being.

 

ANYWAY! I was drawing conclusions...but since I don't have the evidence to support the conclusions, my aplogies.

 

I'm also not really convinced that all of the pagan deities were entirely "the selfish human ones" (as contrasted to Christ) that you described. The Roman goddess Bona Dea (the Good Goddess) was (at least from my readings) a kindly and nurturing goddess, and also a patroness of slaves praying for their freedom.

 

All Polythestic dieties have some selfish human story releated to them. Even a god like Osiris who piously built kingdoms across the Earth had his own ambitions in mind. I believe that is what makes the Gods interesting, they have sin, they have problems, they can relate to humans in a more pratical manner. How can I relate to this Christ? He is a utopian individual with no desire. I can relate to Mars because of his virtues and vices.....Mars is cocky and boastful, and he went with a Vestal Virgin to conceive Rommulus and Remus, she was supposed to remain a virgin but he broke that law because he desired her so. At the same time Mars is still the god of the warriors and the selfless farmers of the Republic. He embodies the values of thriftyness and self substistancy, he is powerful and from his iron body (in some myths), metraphorically speaking, humans are made. Just because I say Polythestic dieties are selfish doesn't mean I think their horrible...if thats what your thinking. I think its their personality that makes them reality, that makes them more pratical for the human mind to understand. About the Bona Dea thing, I am sure she had her own issues as well. Perhaps the majority of the myths concern themselves with her goodness...but I bet you will find one where she sends her wrath down upon those who displease her. I feel comfortable making this conclusion because every myth I have read the gods have personified human characteristics both good and bad.

In fact, I can also imagine how ancient, god-fearing polytheists might have viewed the followers of Chrestus as being immoral --

 

Ancient Roman Pagans thought of early Christians as cannibals who ate the body of their god...isn't that trippy to think about?

 

While it may be true that the christian god was more appealing to formerly pagan Romans on an individual basis, I think an important issue to determine is why these people were looking for something new, or why they were willing to alter their belief systems. It wasn't simply that this new god was nicer to them or more beneficial, but that social conditions were ripe for change. Yes, urban residents were more open to this new religion than their rural counterparts, but large population centers are always more susceptible to rapidly changing conditions than smaller communities.

 

YES Primus Pilius...I should have presented more information on the subjects you just talked about. I just didn't want to sound too ranty...and I agree with you. Thank you for informing me, your right of coarse.

 

Wasn't the mythology of jesus based partly on the mythology of Bacchus?

You are correct...Osiris as well. These two deities resemble Chirst sooo much that sometimes you got to wonder how much Polythestic mythology was stolen..or should I say culturally diffused into Christian Mythology.

 

Zeke

Edited April 3, 2007 by Zeke

[caldrail]

Its interesting to see aetheist/agnostic sentiments in roman history, because I've always said there would be people who would sneer at religion and prefer a more material life. Roman paganism did not satisfy the emotional needs of adherents in the way that christianity did, and with all the wealth and other temptations on offer I can well imagine many paid lip service to spiritual beliefs. It just proves that the romans were really not so different to us.

[Kosmo]

We should never forget that greco-roman polytheism was very much a civic/political religion rather then an individual belief. For a foreigner taking part in many city official ceremonies was impossible and uninteresting. He could still pray to Hermes for a safe trip, but he will not worship the particular aspect of a certain god that the city favored.

Critics of Hesiod style view of the gods were constant and diverse philosophies and mystic initiations and religions were increasingly popular.

Christian victory came after a competition with other cults (Sol Invictus, Mithra etc) rather then with traditional paganism that had lost his appeal long ago.

I'm sure that some atheism always existed especially in the greek cities.

[Serenilla Merula]

Wasn't the mythology of jesus based partly on the mythology of Bacchus?

You are correct...Osiris as well. These two deities resemble Chirst sooo much that sometimes you got to wonder how much Polythestic mythology was stolen..or should I say culturally diffused into Christian Mythology.

 

 

Zeke

 

Also it's uncannily similar to the story of the death and resurrection Baldur in Norse myths.

[Primus Pilus]

Also it's uncannily similar to the story of the death and resurrection Baldur in Norse myths.

 

The only thing that has always troubled me with the Norse legends is that most of the written records we have of it were recorded post Christianizing. Considering that the resurrection story is similar throughout the various human mythologies I don't doubt that the Balder story is also pre-Christian, but I thought it might be prudent to point out that there could be some tainting of the original oral traditions by monks with an agenda.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Roman paganism did not satisfy the emotional needs of adherents in the way that christianity did

 

How do you know it didn't? Maybe paganism satisfied some people's emotional needs much, much better than Christianity, but Christianity was forced on those people. Isn't this hypothesis equally consistent with the evidence?

[Northern Neil]

Paganism was not unified or in direct opposition to Christianity. The term 'paganism' was a Christian construct with which to bracket all other religions which werent either their own, or related, like Judaism. I believe that Mithraism and other cults which had an afterlife as their central theme were every bit as emotionally satisfactory as early christianity. Some of them were even monotheistic.

 

The thing which really got Christianity off the ground was adoption by the state and the fact that the religion was conferred on you shortly after birth from then on. And like it was to most of us viewing this forum.

[Antiochus III]

Wasn't constantine an atheist? by the way, someone related to me wrote constantine's sword!

 

Antiochus III

[caldrail]

We should never forget that greco-roman polytheism was very much a civic/political religion rather then an individual belief. For a foreigner taking part in many city official ceremonies was impossible and uninteresting. He could still pray to Hermes for a safe trip, but he will not worship the particular aspect of a certain god that the city favored.

Critics of Hesiod style view of the gods were constant and diverse philosophies and mystic initiations and religions were increasingly popular.

Christian victory came after a competition with other cults (Sol Invictus, Mithra etc) rather then with traditional paganism that had lost his appeal long ago.

I'm sure that some atheism always existed especially in the greek cities.

Ok, but then astrolgy has its roots in syrian cults adopted by members of the roman world and survives to this day, which suggests that whilst christianity dominated proceedings after acceptance by the roman empire, it never won that total victory it wanted - though it did come close.

[Primus Pilus]

Wasn't constantine an atheist?

 

Antiochus III

 

No, while Constantine's true religious sentiments are often debated, that debate is typically centered on whether he was a Pagan or a Christian. There is much emphasis placed on the adoption of the Christian symbol prior to the battle of Milvian Bridge, his obvious recognition of Christianity via the edict of Milan, his participation in standardizing Christian doctrine via the Nicene Creed and his death bed baptism; but Constantine also maintained an affiliation with Sol Invictus (also identified with Apollo and Mithras) throughout his life.

 

Were these affiliations simple political tools for Constantine? Perhaps in part and it's very likely that he manipulated religion for his political benefit, but there is no way we can know definitively what all of his motivations were. What we are left with is plenty of evidence that he participated in religious customs and ceremony while greatly influencing the growth of Christianity; even if we can't be entirely sure what god or gods he held the most affinity for.

 

Despite the ongoing debate about whether he was a true Christian or not, there really is no evidence to suggest that Constantine was an atheist.

[Maty]

Wasn't constantine an atheist?

 

Antiochus III

 

Despite the ongoing debate about whether he was a true Christian or not, there really is no evidence to suggest that Constantine was an atheist.

He's after my time - but I think Constantine got baptized on his deathbed - as an Arian. I'd assume that by the time you are eyeballing the grim reaper you tend to forget political considerations and go with whatever you imagine gives you your best shot in the hereafter.

 

Re ancient atheism, I did some lectures a year or two back on Roman religion (in Rome to an audience of priests -including one on why Christians should indeed be thrown to the lions) and pointed out that you can't be an atheist with the old Gods. Aphrodite/Venus is the name for the force that draws couples together in love or lust. Demeter is the force which turns seed into grain. These things undoubtedly exist. The only question is whether they are sentient, or respond to prayers, but then, the Romans wondered about this too.

 

The nice thing about the ancient Gods was that they didn't want a personal relationship with you (that would be superstitio). As long as you performed their rites, the Gods didn't care whether you believed in them or not. Just as Mr A.S. Blouten of the tax office in Peterborough doesn't care if I believe in him as long as I make over a large chunk of my revenue to him. (Though if there is a hell, Mr Blouten ...)

 

Incidentally, I try not to use the term Pagan, as it is simply a pejorative term for worshippers of the older Gods. Originally 'paganus' signified rustic, with a connotation of 'backward' - which probably tells us something about how Christianity was received outside the cities.

[Primus Pilus]

Incidentally, I try not to use the term Pagan, as it is simply a pejorative term for worshippers of the older Gods. Originally 'paganus' signified rustic, with a connotation of 'backward' - which probably tells us something about how Christianity was received outside the cities.

 

Agreed, it definately has a derogatory connotation, but there seems to be a lacking practical alternative. I'm completely open to using a more definitive term: perhaps mythos specific or a more all-encapsulating term like "Polytheist". Then again, considering that Constantine was so closely aligned with Sol Invictus, my use of the term Pagan (as it is commonly applied) is misused anyway. At least on the surface, he appears to have been more closely aligned to monotheism throughout his life regardless of which particular cult he was associated with. I suppose in the strictest terms, he was never really a pagan at all (but that would also depend on how it is defined and who one asks).

[Kosmo]

In his biography "Constantine and the christian empire" C.M. Odahl makes a pretty convincing case that he was openly a christian from the Milvian bridge onwords. The great churches he built in Rome and Jerusalem and the absence of any new temple in his new christian capital make this highly possible. When he entered Rome he had christian symbols on flag (labarum) and he made not sacrifices to the gods on the Capitoline hill.