Scepticism and Religious BeliefScepticism and Religious BeliefThe Case of Sextus EmpiricusThe Case of Sextus Empiricus

Renata ZiemiRenata Ziemińńskaska

SScepticceptic -- atheist or fideistatheist or fideist

ll The word The word scepticsceptic is often understood as is often understood as atheistatheist, a person hostile to religious faith, a person hostile to religious faith(G. Berkeley)(G. Berkeley). .

ll But we can But we can alsoalso observe the close observe the close connection between scepticism and connection between scepticism and fideism, for instance at fideism, for instance at W. W. Ockham, Ockham, M. de M. de Montaigne, Montaigne, B. B. Pascal. Pascal.

Ancient ScepticismAncient Scepticism

ll The complex relation between scepticism and The complex relation between scepticism and religious belief religious belief cancan be be foundfound in ancient in ancient scepticism. I scepticism. I amam goinggoing to to analyseanalyse the case of the case of ancient sceptic Sextus Empiricusancient sceptic Sextus Empiricus (his (his worksworkssurvivedsurvived).).

ll SextusSextus’’ worksworks :: Outlines of PyrrhonismOutlines of Pyrrhonism,, PHPH,,Against the Professors Against the Professors in Latinin Latin AdversusAdversusMathematicosMathematicos,, MM ((composedcomposed ofof Against the Against the Logicians, Physicists, Ethicists, Professors).Logicians, Physicists, Ethicists, Professors).

ll the treasury of arguments for and against Godthe treasury of arguments for and against God,,sceptic but not atheist, sceptic but not atheist, sceptic sceptic acceaccepptingtingreligiousreligious practicpracticee..

Sextus Empiricus Sextus Empiricus 2n2nd d centurycentury C.E.C.E.

SextusSextus’’ sceptical argumentssceptical arguments

ll the results of senses are relative (ten the results of senses are relative (ten modesmodes of Aenesidemusof Aenesidemus))

ll no possibility of rational justification of any no possibility of rational justification of any thesis:thesis: we are in we are in trilemtrilemmma of infinite a of infinite regress,regress, reciprocity or dogmatism (five reciprocity or dogmatism (five modesmodes of of AgrippaAgrippa))

ll no possibility to establish the criterion of no possibility to establish the criterion of truthtruth inin rationalrational wayway

ll no valid proofs no valid proofs

Suspension of judgmentSuspension of judgment

ll The result of sceptical arguments is The result of sceptical arguments is withholding any beliefs and total withholding any beliefs and total epochepochēē..Sceptic neither affirms nor denies any Sceptic neither affirms nor denies any thesisthesis..

ll Scepticism is not a thesis but the attitude Scepticism is not a thesis but the attitude of suspending judgments, of suspending judgments, epochepochēē..

ll Sextus suspends judgments even about Sextus suspends judgments even about the value of his arguments. the value of his arguments.

ll Now, some arguments concerning religion.Now, some arguments concerning religion.

ProblemsProblems withwith thethe concept of concept of godsgods/G/Godod

ll Dogmatists (Dogmatists (stoics, epicureansstoics, epicureans ) say that ) say that ggod is od is the indestructible the indestructible (immortal, everlasting) (immortal, everlasting) and and blessed. blessed. They disagree about wThey disagree about what hat it it is to be is to be blessedblessed..

ll Stoics: to act in accordance with virtue and to Stoics: to act in accordance with virtue and to provideprovide forfor the things subordinatedthe things subordinated

ll Epicurus: to be inactive and take Epicurus: to be inactive and take no troubleno trouble to to himself and cause none to others (PH 3.4himself and cause none to others (PH 3.4--5)5)

The concept of The concept of ggodod

ll DogmatisDogmatiststs remain in dispute (remain in dispute (isis godgodcorporeal or not, anthropomorphic or not, corporeal or not, anthropomorphic or not, in space or not, within the universe or in space or not, within the universe or outside etc.).outside etc.).

ll We are unable to acquire a concept of We are unable to acquire a concept of ggodod, because , because „„we posses neither an we posses neither an agreed substance for him nor a form nor a agreed substance for him nor a form nor a placeplace”” (PH 3.3)(PH 3.3)

ll An example of one unavoidable difficulty:An example of one unavoidable difficulty:

GGodod is neither a body nor incorporeal is neither a body nor incorporeal (6(6thth argumentargument of 18 against Stoics)of 18 against Stoics)

(1) (1) If there is something divine, it is either a body If there is something divine, it is either a body or incorporealor incorporeal

(2) It is not incorporeal, since(2) It is not incorporeal, since(3) What is incorporeal is inanimate and insensitive(3) What is incorporeal is inanimate and insensitive(4) Nor it is a body, since(4) Nor it is a body, since(5) Every body is changeable and perishable, (5) Every body is changeable and perishable,

whereaswhereas(6) The divine is imperishable, consequently(6) The divine is imperishable, consequently(7) The divine does not exist (M 9. 151)(7) The divine does not exist (M 9. 151)

The existence of The existence of ggododss

ll Even granting that Even granting that ggodod is conceivableis conceivable,, it is it is necessary to suspend judgment about necessary to suspend judgment about whether whether ggododss exist or notexist or not..

ll The dispute among philosophersThe dispute among philosophers shows shows that the existence of that the existence of godsgods is notis not--evident evident and in need of proofand in need of proof, , cfcf. . PH 3.6.PH 3.6.

ll All existing arguments are invalid, even All existing arguments are invalid, even ontological one.ontological one.

Stoic Diogenes of BabylonStoic Diogenes of Babylon and and ontologicalontological argumentargument

ll „„the gods are of such a nature as to exist. the gods are of such a nature as to exist. But if so, then they exist. For if they ever But if so, then they exist. For if they ever did exist, they do now, just as if atoms did exist, they do now, just as if atoms ever existed they do now. For this sort of ever existed they do now. For this sort of thing is thing is ungenerableungenerable and incorruptibleand incorruptible”” (M (M 9.135)9.135)

ll Sextus Sextus answeranswer: : „„not everything conceived not everything conceived has a share in existencehas a share in existence”” (M9.49)(M9.49). .

ll We We alsoalso havehave strongstrong argumentsarguments againstagainst..

Providence and Evil (1)Providence and Evil (1)

The extended version of Epicurean argument The extended version of Epicurean argument with with typical typical clear clear dichotomies:dichotomies:„„he who says God exists either says that he has he who says God exists either says that he has providence for the things in the world or that he providence for the things in the world or that he does not, and if the former then either for all or does not, and if the former then either for all or only some things. But if he had providence for only some things. But if he had providence for all, there would be neither evil nor vice in the all, there would be neither evil nor vice in the world: yet they say that everything is full of vice, world: yet they say that everything is full of vice, and consequently he cannot have providence for and consequently he cannot have providence for allall……

Providence and evil (2)Providence and evil (2)

……But if only for some, why has he But if only for some, why has he providence for some and not others? For providence for some and not others? For either either

(a) he both wishes and is able to have (a) he both wishes and is able to have providence for all, or providence for all, or

(b) he wishes to but is unable, or (b) he wishes to but is unable, or (c) he is able but doesn(c) he is able but doesn ’’t wish it, or t wish it, or (d) he neither wishes it nor is able(d) he neither wishes it nor is able”” (PH 3.9(PH 3.9--

1010, , transltransl. . HankinsonHankinson 19951995))

Providence and evil (3)Providence and evil (3)

(a)(a) is inconsistent with evilis inconsistent with evil(b)(b) is inconsistent with Godis inconsistent with God ’’ power (weak)power (weak)(c)(c) is inconsistent with Godis inconsistent with God ’’ goodness goodness

(malign)(malign)(d)(d) is inconsistent with both His power and is inconsistent with both His power and

goodnessgoodness

Providence is impious (4)Providence is impious (4)

„„if they say that the gods provide for everything, if they say that the gods provide for everything, they will say that they are the cause of they will say that they are the cause of evilevil; and ; and if they say that they provide for some things or if they say that they provide for some things or even for none at all, they will be bound to say even for none at all, they will be bound to say either that the gods are either that the gods are malignmalign or that they are or that they are weakweak”” (PH 3.12)(PH 3.12)It is impious to say that gods are cause of evil or It is impious to say that gods are cause of evil or that they are weak and malign, so it is better to that they are weak and malign, so it is better to say that they do not existsay that they do not exist (or at least that they (or at least that they have no providence for the world)have no providence for the world)..

Suspending judgment about the Suspending judgment about the nature and existence of godsnature and existence of gods

ll WeakWeak argument against atheismargument against atheism as as counterbalancecounterbalance: : „„if god do not exist, neither will if god do not exist, neither will piety, since piety is the knowledge of service to piety, since piety is the knowledge of service to the gods; but piety does exist; so, too, do the the gods; but piety does exist; so, too, do the godsgods”” (M 9.123)(M 9.123). . TheThe subjectivesubjective objectobject of piety of piety doesdoes existexist..

ll Sextus juxtaposes the opposite claims and Sextus juxtaposes the opposite claims and suspends judgment.suspends judgment. He He canotcanot saysay thatthat GodGod doesdoesnot not existexist withoutwithout violatingviolating his his scepticismscepticism((negativenegative dogmatismdogmatism).).

ll But But whatwhat shouldshould we do we do ifif we we suspendsuspend judmentsjudments? ?

ScepticsSceptics’’ life without beliefslife without beliefs

ll „„ffollowingollowing ordinary life without opinions, we say ordinary life without opinions, we say that that there are godsthere are gods and and we we areare piouspious towardstowardsthethe godsgods and and say that they say that they are providentare provident”” (PH (PH 3.2)3.2)

ll „„we accept, from an everyday point of view, that we accept, from an everyday point of view, that piety is good and impiety badpiety is good and impiety bad”” (PH 1.24)(PH 1.24)

ll It seems inconsistent (or strange). Sceptics It seems inconsistent (or strange). Sceptics suspend judgment about the existence of God, suspend judgment about the existence of God, and in practice are pious and say that God existsand in practice are pious and say that God exists(hypocrisy, insincerity?)(hypocrisy, insincerity?). It is an example of . It is an example of general problem at Sextus: how to live, to work, general problem at Sextus: how to live, to work, to actto act without beliefswithout beliefs??

How to live without beliefs?How to live without beliefs?SextusSextus’’ answeranswer

ll Sceptic as a human being follows nature and Sceptic as a human being follows nature and feelingsfeelings ((perceivingperceiving, , hungerhunger))..

ll Sceptic as a citizen respects Sceptic as a citizen respects thethe law and law and tradition but he tradition but he does not accept any does not accept any common belief as truecommon belief as true. .

ll Sceptic as a philosopher writes about his own Sceptic as a philosopher writes about his own impressions impressions without accepting his own without accepting his own words as truewords as true,, cfcf. PH 1.23. PH 1.23--4.4.

ll Sceptic says a lot but he does not believe what Sceptic says a lot but he does not believe what he is saying.he is saying.

Three ways to defend consistencyThree ways to defend consistency

ll Weak beliefs (Frede)Weak beliefs (Frede)ll Philosophy without beliefs (Hankinson)Philosophy without beliefs (Hankinson)ll Development (Bailey)Development (Bailey)

Michael FredeMichael Frede’’s interpretations interpretation

ll to limit Pyrrhonian to limit Pyrrhonian epochepochēē to scientific, to scientific, philosophical beliefs as concerning what really is, philosophical beliefs as concerning what really is, the real nature of things. the real nature of things.

ll Strong belief is Strong belief is ““active acceptance as trueactive acceptance as true””, , weak belief is weak belief is ““merely passive acceptancemerely passive acceptance””(Frede 1998b, 138). (Frede 1998b, 138).

ll WWeakeak beliefs allows the sceptic to lead a normal beliefs allows the sceptic to lead a normal life and to philosophize. life and to philosophize. AlsoAlso religiousreligious beliefsbeliefscancan havehave status of status of weakweak beliefsbeliefs..

WWeakeak basis in Sextusbasis in Sextus’’ textstexts

ll Frede interprets Sextus consistently and Frede interprets Sextus consistently and reasonably but ascribes him a kind of Carneadesreasonably but ascribes him a kind of Carneades’’fallibilism. In my opinion, it is the most fallibilism. In my opinion, it is the most reasonable version of ancient sreasonable version of ancient sccepticismepticism..

ll But such interpretation has But such interpretation has a weak basis in a weak basis in SextusSextus’’ texts.texts. Sextus criticizes Academics for Sextus criticizes Academics for approving what is persuasive, he suggests that approving what is persuasive, he suggests that there is no rational preferencethere is no rational preference; he writes ; he writes that only appearances are accepted by sthat only appearances are accepted by sccepticseptics..

Philosophy without beliefs Philosophy without beliefs (Hankinson)(Hankinson)

ll Scepticism Scepticism isis a practice without any beliefs that a practice without any beliefs that is without any theses, theory, assertions, is without any theses, theory, assertions, opinions, judgments etc. opinions, judgments etc.

ll A sceptic lives by impulse and habitA sceptic lives by impulse and habit. . Philosophy Philosophy is just some disposition and ability: the is just some disposition and ability: the disposition to disposition to epochepochēē and the ability to produce and the ability to produce opposite arguments and to cure from opposite arguments and to cure from dogmatismdogmatism ((therapytherapy)). .

ll SSccepticaleptical philosophy is not any thesis but a way philosophy is not any thesis but a way of life (of life (agagōōggēē). ). TheThe same same isis thethe status of status of religionreligion: : behaviourbehaviour withoutwithout beliefsbeliefs..

Moral life without beliefs?Moral life without beliefs?

ll Hankinson (1995, 296) is even ready to accept the Hankinson (1995, 296) is even ready to accept the SextusSextus’’ story that a sceptic leads ordinary lifestory that a sceptic leads ordinary life as as coherent ; s/he is a good citizen and has a moral life coherent ; s/he is a good citizen and has a moral life without beliefs. without beliefs.

ll The most serious counterexample to the skeptic practical The most serious counterexample to the skeptic practical consistency is the case of a tyrant compelling a skeptic consistency is the case of a tyrant compelling a skeptic to perform a forbidden act, for instance to kill his/her to perform a forbidden act, for instance to kill his/her parents (M 11. 162parents (M 11. 162--6). Sextus replies that the sceptic 6). Sextus replies that the sceptic can make a choice without beliefs, led by his/her can make a choice without beliefs, led by his/her education and customs. It can be the result of education and customs. It can be the result of appearances that created his/her dispositions. appearances that created his/her dispositions.

ll Such answer seems difficult to accept Such answer seems difficult to accept

Scepticism without rational forceScepticism without rational force

ll Following appearances gives content to life but Following appearances gives content to life but such life is not human, it is deprived of freedom, such life is not human, it is deprived of freedom, reason, emotion and values. reason, emotion and values.

ll HankinsonHankinson’’s interpretation cannot explain the s interpretation cannot explain the logical power of sceptical arguments and logical power of sceptical arguments and understands sceptical philosophy as some kind understands sceptical philosophy as some kind of passive life in animal style.of passive life in animal style.

ll If arguments are so worthless, why sceptics If arguments are so worthless, why sceptics devote them so much attention? devote them so much attention? The answer is The answer is in the development theory.in the development theory.

Development (Development (BaileyBailey))

ll WWe must distinguish between the mature sceptic and the e must distinguish between the mature sceptic and the developing sceptic. The mature sceptic has no beliefs, developing sceptic. The mature sceptic has no beliefs, only assent to appearances. Arguments for him/her can only assent to appearances. Arguments for him/her can only have purely therapeutic value; Bailey 1995, 42). only have purely therapeutic value; Bailey 1995, 42).

ll But the developing sBut the developing sccepticeptic must have many beliefsmust have many beliefs and and the arguments like the Agrippathe arguments like the Agrippa’’s five modess five modes must have must have some rational force for him/her .some rational force for him/her . TheThe developing developing scepticismscepticism isis inconsistentinconsistent ..

ll After converting After converting toto ssccepticismepticism, the mature sceptic can , the mature sceptic can extend his/her suspension on the very arguments that extend his/her suspension on the very arguments that persuaded him/her to start a spersuaded him/her to start a sccepticaleptical way. The tropes way. The tropes were just a ladder to climb to the level of swere just a ladder to climb to the level of sccepticalepticalthinking. thinking.

Scepticism Scepticism isis not limited to not limited to maturematurestagestage

ll The development shows some inconsistency in SextusThe development shows some inconsistency in Sextus’’position. We can avoid it by limiting position. We can avoid it by limiting scepticism scepticism to to mature scepticism.mature scepticism.

ll BBut if we pass over the developing scepticism, the ut if we pass over the developing scepticism, the position is deprived of its rational force (the treasure of position is deprived of its rational force (the treasure of scepticism, the sceptical arguments are worthless). Such scepticism, the sceptical arguments are worthless). Such picture opicture off scepticism seems to be onescepticism seems to be one--sided.sided. The better The better picture of Sextuspicture of Sextus ’’ scepticism is including the scepticism is including the development and its inconsistency.development and its inconsistency.

ll Also religion without belief s is strange. I can develop Also religion without belief s is strange. I can develop from naive belief s to critical ones, but I must have at from naive belief s to critical ones, but I must have at least some weak beliefs to least some weak beliefs to be be religiousreligious. .

Inconsistency Inconsistency

ll In the case of Sextus Empiricus it is better to accept the In the case of Sextus Empiricus it is better to accept the basic inconsistency in his texts than tobasic inconsistency in his texts than to treat his streat his sccepticalepticalphilosophy as passive animal lifephilosophy as passive animal life and and his powerful his powerful arguments as worthless. arguments as worthless.

ll Scepticism in SextusScepticism in Sextus’’ version seems more reasonable version seems more reasonable when we construe it as too ambitious rationalistic when we construe it as too ambitious rationalistic philosophy that fall into inconsistency. philosophy that fall into inconsistency.

ll Sceptic both uses arguments to show uncertainty and Sceptic both uses arguments to show uncertainty and rejects them as uncertain.rejects them as uncertain. SScepticceptic both follows ordinary both follows ordinary views and looks at them from a distance. views and looks at them from a distance.

SextusSextus’’ss scepticalsceptical positionposition towardstowardsreligiousreligious beliefsbeliefs

ll AccordingAccording to Sextus sto Sextus s cepticceptic can practice religion but can practice religion but s/s/he has no religious beliefs. he has no religious beliefs. It is inconsistent because It is inconsistent because practicing religion seems require belief spracticing religion seems require belief s..

ll Carneades had better position: we are not certain but in Carneades had better position: we are not certain but in practice we accept what is probable. Sextus wanted to practice we accept what is probable. Sextus wanted to be strict sceptic, the better than Carneades and f ell into be strict sceptic, the better than Carneades and f ell into inconsistency.inconsistency.

ll Sextus has too strong concept of belief (he implicitly Sextus has too strong concept of belief (he implicitly presupposes the principle: no certainty no belief). It presupposes the principle: no certainty no belief). It caused inconsistency in his own view. caused inconsistency in his own view.