Chapter 1: Understanding Stoic Beliefs

As someone who embraces Stoicism while also incorporating elements of Skepticism into my worldview, I recently encountered a book that asserts that true Stoic practitioners must believe in the ancient Stoic concept of God. Otherwise, they are merely using Stoic principles as a means to navigate life rather than fully embodying the philosophy.

While I jest about reaching a conclusion on this topic, it's evident that people will adhere to their beliefs and offer what they deem as valid justifications. I, of course, am no exception.

That said, it may be beneficial to delve deeper into this subject. Unfortunately, I can't reference the specific book that ignited my reflections since it has yet to be published. However, the authors are reputable figures in Stoic literature, so I am not aiming at strawman arguments.

The chapter focusing on the Stoic conception of God begins by recognizing that Stoicism is not a religion, but it does contain elements of spirituality. This distinction highlights a critical issue—spirituality, yes; religiousness, certainly not.

Section 1.1: Spirituality vs. Religion

The concept of spirituality has been integral to modern Stoicism since Pierre Hadot's seminal work, Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault. If we define “spiritual” as a specific approach to mental well-being, then Stoicism undoubtedly qualifies as spiritual. However, if we frame it in terms of the non-material and religious, then both ancient and modern Stoicism diverge sharply from that notion.

Modern religion typically revolves around organized beliefs in the supernatural, grounded more in faith than in reason. Conversely, Stoicism—both its ancient roots and modern adaptations—does not fit this framework. The Stoics viewed both God and the soul as natural entities, supporting their views with logical arguments, unlike most contemporary religious beliefs. Additionally, ancient Greco-Roman religion was centered on societal rituals, which Stoicism did not engage in.

Subsection 1.1.1: The Nature of the Stoic God

What kind of deity did the ancient Stoics believe in? They were likely pantheists or panentheists, a topic still debated among scholars. Essentially, they perceived the universe as a living entity, often referred to as God or Zeus, characterized by reason—the logos. Diogenes Laertius succinctly summarizes this belief:

“God is one and the same with Reason, Fate, and Zeus; he is also called by many other names. … The whole world is a living being, endowed with soul and reason.” (Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 7.135–136)

The ancient Stoics provided several justifications for their belief in a divine presence, as Cicero outlines in De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of God). One example is Cleanthes of Assos, the second leader of the Stoa, who presented four reasons for believing in God: the ability to foresee certain events through divination, the Earth’s design for human well-being, the fear evoked by natural phenomena, and the predictable movements of celestial bodies.

Naturally, these arguments would not hold water in contemporary discourse. Scientific understanding has debunked divination, provided rational explanations for earthly and celestial phenomena, and rendered the fear of natural occurrences as superstition.

Chapter 2: The Relevance of Stoicism Today

In the video "What God is, according to the Stoics," the discussion delves into how Stoic beliefs about God differ from traditional religious views, highlighting the philosophical underpinnings of Stoicism.

The second video, "Does Stoicism Believe in God? - Answers to Common Questions (Stoicism)," addresses frequently asked questions regarding Stoicism and its stance on divinity, providing clarity on misconceptions.

Ultimately, can we dismiss the idea of believing in the ancient Stoic God in the 21st century? Absolutely. However, the next inquiry is: why is this significant?

Chrysippus and Posidonius of Apamea proposed a logical connection between the universe being ordered by reason and providence. They posited that, because reason permeates the cosmos, it serves as the source of a unique form of Providence. However, this Stoic Providence is markedly different from the Christian interpretation; it does not involve individual love or intervention in human affairs.

This perspective is beautifully articulated by Epictetus, who compares our existence to that of a foot navigating through mud. If we focus solely on our discomfort, we may resist our path. However, if we recognize that we belong to a greater whole, we can accept our circumstances and even embrace them. Similarly, the loss of a loved one should be viewed as part of a larger cosmic narrative in which everyone plays their role.

Despite the seemingly cold outlook in Epictetus's teachings, they make sense within the framework of Stoic Providence. Rejecting this premise, however, complicates the application of Stoic ethics. If we dismiss the idea that the cosmos is a rational organism, we also undermine the ethical principle of accepting one’s fate.

In conclusion, Stoicism is not a rigid framework that one must adopt in its entirety. The Stoics themselves engaged in philosophical evolution, encouraging the exploration of new ideas. I maintain that while I don't accept all aspects of ancient Stoicism, I embrace its core tenets, such as the importance of judgment and virtue.

Thus, I find that even in the absence of belief in a Stoic God, I can still identify as a Stoic, focusing on the significance of wisdom and moral integrity in my life.