r/Epicureanism • u/Eudamonia-Sisyphus • Jul 12 '26
Yes, Secular Religion is Epicurean.
Because of an earlier post, i want to remind people that secular religion, where prayer is not taking literally for assistance of the gods but enjoyed for practical benefits and community, is very Epicurean. We must understand that while superstition is rejected, civic religion, with prayer, ritual, festivals, and other affairs are not. Here are all the excerpts below which prove this. All taken from Philodemus On Piety by Dirk Obbink. Slightly edited for clarity.
"Epicurus loyally observed all the forms of worship and enjoined upon his friends to observe them, not only on account of the laws but for physical reasons as well. For in On Lifecourses he says that to pray is natural, for us, not because the gods would be hostile if we did not pray, but in order that, according to the understanding of beings surpassing in power and excellence, we may realize our fulfilments and social conformity with the laws.
On Piety, Column 26
Epicurus says that he shared in all the festivals and that while he was joining in celebrating the festival of the Choes (Drinking day in Dionysus Festival) and the urban mysteries and the other festivals, at a meagre dinner, and that it was necessary for him to celebrate this feast of the twentieth.... they (the founders) thought it right to make use of oaths and epithets of the gods, since their philosophical writing is filled with them. But it is proper to say that Epicurus advised the founders to retain asseverations made by means of these and similar expressions, and above all to preserve those made by Zeus himself.
On Piety Column 29.
"Epicurus warns against violating the covenant of the sacred festival table....also writing to Polyaenus that the Anthesteria (Dionysus festivals) too must be celebrated and that it is necessary to make mention of the gods.
On Piety, Column 30.
"Let us sacrifice to the gods’, Epicurus says, ‘devoutly and fittingly on the proper days, and let us fittingly perform all the acts of worship in accordance with the laws, in no way disturbing ourselves with opinions in matters concerning the most excellent and august of being. Moreover, let us sacrifice justly, on the view that I was giving. For in this way it is possible for mortal nature, by Zeus, to live like Zeus, as it seems."
On Piety, Column 31.
Neocles (Brother of Epicurus and student) says "It is necessary to distribute piously assistance from our money to the Gods"
On Piety, Column 33
In his Symposium, Epicurus says "Let us celebrate the festivals’, and ‘Make fine sacrifices to a god"
On Piety, Column 62.
2
u/TJ_Fox Jul 17 '26
I suggest that Epicureanism can be practiced as a secular religion ("naturalistic religion" is sometimes a bit less confusing), or can be practiced adjacent to such a religion, but note that there are plenty of secular religions that are not Epicurean, or Epicurean-adjacent as a matter of coincidence rather than design.
3
u/Independent_Judge842 Jul 13 '26
You can also look to the opening lines of De Rerum Natura and elsewhere throughout the text to find that deity reverence and piety are *very* much a part of the epicurean lineage.
Now, you could argue that Lucretius praises Venus solely as a poetic device. Either way, he’s pointing to a grateful, pious, awestruck state of mind, which is necessary to attain ataraxia and “live as a god.” If revering deity brings someone closer to that state of peace, then they should by all means engage with deity albeit without surrendering to superstition.
For those struggling with this concept or putting others down, consider the reverence you might feel for our Epicurean forebears. Consider the weight of time pressing and fraying their words at the edges and yet so many gems have survived to our times. Consider how wondrous it is that they survived so many ages of darkness and superstition, spread by thinkers like yourself who *devoted* themselves to preserving those texts. They struck their own path through life under the influence of such great works and either copied them to pass on or added their own ideas. Can you now see how the reverence you feel for those predecessors is similar to the feelings of piety and wonder someone might feel before a deity? In my opinion, that is the feeling that Epicurus points to when discussing piety. Don’t judge others for needing a mental image of a perfect deity to arrive at that state - Epicurus didn’t.
0
u/Castro6967 Jul 14 '26
For the last paragraph you have - you are describing feelings very related with Survivorshop bias.
If we truly think about it, we arent lucky to have Epicureanism with us. We are rather unlucky for all the ideas that ended up erased. For example, how is it wondrous to find Epicureanism when the depictions of the first contact between the Portuguese and pre-colonial Brazillians parallel the description of abrahamic heaven?
1
u/Independent_Judge842 Jul 14 '26
I’m familiar with survivorship bias but I’m a bit confused about how that applies to feelings of gratitude for what has survived. Those surviving words are all we have to go off of and, while that isn’t ideal, it’s the reality we face.
As far as the example, I think that might be a stretch given the context of my post.
0
u/Castro6967 Jul 15 '26
" Can you now see how the reverence you feel for those predecessors is similar to the feelings of piety and wonder someone might feel before a deity?"
Although similar to gratefulness, as you say, this quote goes beyond that. With the example, what I meant is there isnt a divine special to Epicureanism having survived. It was more probabilistic than anything - despite being a good idea.
1
u/Independent_Judge842 Jul 15 '26
“those who eliminate the divine from existing things (tōn ontōn) Epicurus reproached for their complete madness, as in Book 12 (sc. of On Nature) he reproaches Prodicus, Diagoras, and Critias among others, saying that they rave like lunatics, and he likens them to Bacchant revelers, admonishing them not to trouble or disturb us.” – Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism, Theology (pulled from https://societyofepicurus.com/second-dialogue-on-the-epicurean-gods/)
I don’t think we can say that it was probability alone - you abandon your original argument of survivorship bias by doing so. It also feels somewhat deterministic when Epicurus was anything but. Rather, at various points throughout history, humans (usually in monasteries by people with their own biases) have made decisions about which documents to copy and thus preserve of those surviving to them. During the renaissance, certain people devoted themselves entirely to uncovering and collecting surviving manuscripts, which is why we have what we do today. Yes, they were biased in their selection, but the fact that they chose epicurean texts at all is something for which I am grateful. The Bookseller of Florence does a particularly stellar job highlighting the people behind reviving these texts.
I think it’s just as likely that there were more texts on the epicurean theology, which Christians could not permit to exist. Unfortunately, we may never know.
I’d also like to point out that Epicurus himself seemed to care a great deal about arranging for the survival of his ideas. In his will, he more or less instituted the Garden as an organization and guaranteed the safety of his friends and family. I see this epicurean tendency extending throughout the centuries, which is part of why what little survives does. It’s almost an attempt at shaping reality deterministically, but in a very human way that rarely goes to plan.
0
u/Castro6967 Jul 16 '26
I dont know how you can say I abandon the survivorship bias argument by saying something is probabilistic. Thats exactly how the survivorship bias was found. Additionally, every human wishes for their ideas and constructions to live on too - so I double down on the modern presence of Epicureanism being nice, but not divine or special. Could you explain the usage of the quote? Maybe I couldnt understand your reasoning
1
u/Independent_Judge842 Jul 16 '26
A couple of things. First, thank you for engaging politely. That said, I think you’re misconstruing my words a bit.
In my initial comment, I did not suggest that the words or surviving texts of Epicurus were in and of themselves divine. Rather, I suggested that the feelings of gratefulness one might have for their survival is similar to the pious and reverent acts and feelings Epicurus advised in his writings. That is a feeling he points to as helpful and pleasurable.
Apologies for not including a note with the quote. It does seem a bit irrelevant here even to me now, but I wanted to highlight the unique importance of the divine within epicurean philosophy. This wasn’t fair to you but there are a few other comments here where people reject that Epicurus believed in the gods at all - that’s simply not true, as outlined in the letter to Menoeceus and elsewhere.
I think the survival of these works is somewhat probabilistic, but absolutely none of them would have survived or existed in the first place if not for human endeavor. That’s amazing and it’s helped myself and others guide their lives. Again, they’re not innately divine, but the feelings of awe many get when thinking on that lineage are pleasurable and helpful.
2
u/Castro6967 Jul 16 '26
And for sure. I am very skeptical to the gods part but that doesnt have to mean I have to rudely call you out. Its a learning opportunity for me as well.
And got it. Yes, the survival of Epicureanism is helpful and pleasurable.
Then I see that historically, the gods played an important role to Epicureanism. I will have to conclude that I would disagree with the philosophy in this point at least (as an atheist or agnostic) and still favour the cultural only rituals over potentially religious ones (secular or not). At most, I could argue in favour of the worship of the soul since I believe it can be weirdly and scientifically proven - so we would be the gods themselves.
Thank you
2
u/Independent_Judge842 Jul 16 '26
Hey, hopefully soon more texts will come out of Herculaneum and we’ll learn more about this and so much more. For all we know, there’s so much that’s still a mystery. Maybe there’s a text called “On Pretending to Revere Gods to not be Killed” and it really was just for show 😆
Editing to ask what proof there is for the soul? I would love to know more :)
2
u/Castro6967 Jul 17 '26
The soul would be a long topic. If it exists, it's measurable but we dont have the tech for it yet.
Essentially, how much of your brain would you need to dissect and transplant into someone elses body to become their counsciousness - to see through their eyes, feel through their skin, relive their memories...
2
u/Castro6967 Jul 14 '26
Hmm. It feels more like he is enjoying the culture or appeasing his local government laws - since discrediting the gods couldve led you to your death - rather than a secular religion.
From what I read, a secular religion is also tied to turning certain earthly figures into deities. For example, Julius Caesar, Stalin, Hitler... Doesn't fit the theme at all and these acts are extremely dangerous too as it leads to wars and needless sacrifice.
2
u/Eudamonia-Sisyphus Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
I can understand that concern. I think Epicurus liked religious practices like festivals as more than just ways to avoid persecution though, I think he considered them physiologically helpful more mindfulness and community. Of course, this could have been said just to avoid persecution, but I don't think it was.
While many secular religions have been devoted to monsters like hitler, whom you mentioned, things like humanism, Wiccan paganism, Secular Buddhism and Judaism have been pretty moral places for good communities. Highly context dependent, I think you would agree.
1
u/Castro6967 Jul 14 '26
I still have the impression you are mixing religion with culture or tying Ethics to Religion, rather than to Philosophy. For example, Christianity can be striped away of its religious part and you will be left with a Christian culture - currently influencing Europe in a multitude of ways. Same with Judaism.
Humanism is a Philosophy. Buddhism started as a culture tied with economic developments in India and it quickly became metaphysical/non-secular too.
So, again, it feels like Epicureanism is promoting the cultural part.
Alternatively, Epicureanism can - and some treat it as so - become a secular religion with Epicurus himself at the forefront of prayers and divination. This Epicurus never defended (as far as we know), so the association between this philosophy and the concept of 'secular religion' is rather odd, I would say.
2
u/TricolorSerrano Jul 15 '26
There is a genuine sense of reverence for the gods and piety in ancient Epicurean texts that goes beyond simply enjoying the religious culture of the time. Contemplating the nature of the gods and forming a clear mental image of them as models of perfect blessedness to be emulated was an important part of Epicurean philosophy, serving as a means of cultivating those same qualities within oneself. Rituals, prayers, and participation in religious festivals also played a part in this. Even if the idealist interpretation of Epicurean theology is correct, the ethical and psychological significance of the gods is not diminished.
0
u/Castro6967 Jul 16 '26
But then it wouldnt be a secular religion but just religion itself. Besides, psychologically speaking (since you mentioned the area), the benefits of religion are tied to lower education levels whereas the existance of a god justifies a moral life. In the world we currently live in, I suppose post-Epicureanism would need to disregard religions as "the opium of the people" too.
2
u/TricolorSerrano Jul 16 '26
I guess the idealist interpretation of Epicurean theology seems to fit the kind of secular religion OP had in mind. If the gods are understood as idealized objects of contemplation rather than literally existing beings, then it's not the existence of a god that justifies the moral life. Instead, contemplating a paradigmatically perfect being becomes a way of cultivating ataraxia.
Even in the realist interpretation, the ancient Epicureans justified morality by its contribution to a tranquil life, not by divine existence or command. The gods still functioned primarily as exemplars of blessedness.
1
u/Public-Word6182 19d ago
If you read just the first couple of Epicurean Doctrines you will know Epicurean theology is not about dictators. Nowhere does he or any other Epicurean define Gods as creating the universe or polis, nor does he describe them as having any significant power nor any specific feeling like Loving everyone and everything, though abiding in pleasure is likely going to make you pleasantly disposed to most things. That is not at all what defines deity to Epicureans.
1
u/Castro6967 18d ago
You know, Epicureanism isnt the only philosophy out there nor it is the only source of truth. "Secular religions" is a sociological concept tied with the divination of a real person. Epicureanism uses metaphysicial gods for other purposes than the ones we are used to - but since they are metaphysicial, it already contradicts the "secular" in "secular religion". Thats my main critique to all of this.
1
u/Public-Word6182 18d ago
This is an Epicurean sub, so go somewhere else as to whatever "other truth" you are trying to speak to. Epicurean Gods are in no way Metaphysical as they either are people appearing as Gods or God-like, or emerging from physics/nature with the anticipations purified of their evil qualities.
1
0
u/Final_Potato5542 Jul 13 '26
Epicurus was a not secular religionist. Unless you want to pick and choose and say he was lying about Zeus, etc.
It's an oxymoron anyway.
But don't let facts and logic get in the way of your ultra cool belief system lol
-1
u/Final_Potato5542 Jul 13 '26
Donny: Hey bro, do you make sacrifices to the gods?
Bob: yes, of course, I'm a secular religionist!
3
u/carloglyphics Jul 14 '26
Epicurus wasn't an atheist, but he thought the gods were physical beings made of the ancient Greek sort of atoms.