Religion: help or hindrance to philosophy?
The Greeks were the first to do philosophy, and one of the perennially great questions is: Why the Greeks and not some others? Various answers focus on their cosmopolitan trading economy, their concurrent development of democratic politics, or some other combination of factors.
I have long thought that the Greeks’ naturalistic religion was a positive, contributing factor. Since their deities were naturalistic beings, the Greeks were less likely to think of the world as governed by other-worldly beings beyond their comprehension. Since the Greek deities intervened in human affairs for motives we can understand (lust, rivalry, envy, revenge), the Greeks were more likely to think of the world as intelligibly cause and effect. And so on.
So let me turn to the dissenting view, from the estimable John Stuart Mill, which I only recently came across. In an 1846 review of George Grote’s History of Greece, Mill takes up the question of philosophy’s birth and says this about the Greeks and their religion:
“With a religious creed eminently unfavourable to speculation, because affording a ready supernatural solution of all natural phenomena, they yet originated freedom of thought.”
Mill’s suggestion is that since the Greek religion already provided easy and intelligible explanations for natural events, there would no reason to seek further. Religion of the Greek sort is thus a hindrance to the development of philosophy.
Thoughts? Should I stick with my original view, or should I switch to Mill’s intriguing hypothesis?
[Mill's “A Review of the first Two Volumes of ‘Grote’s History of Greece’” from the Edinburgh Review, October 1846, can be read online here.]
Tags: ancient Greek religion, Apollo, John Stuart Mill, the beginnings of philosophy, why did philosophy begin in Greece
Shouldn’t we take a look at the first philosopher, Thales? From Wikipedia: “Many philosophers followed Thales’ lead in searching for explanations in nature rather than in the supernatural; others returned to supernatural explanations, but couched them in the language of philosophy rather than of myth or of religion.
Looking specifically at Thales’ influence during the pre-Socratic era, it is clear that he stood out as one of the first thinkers who thought more in the way of logos than mythos. The difference between these two more profound ways of seeing the world is that mythos is concentrated around the stories of holy origin, while logos is concentrated around the argumentation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales
The question should be, where did Thales get his ideas? Did they just suddenly spring up, or was there something about ancient Greek society that helped? If commerce had anything to do with the start of philosophy, then why didn’t the Phoenicians develop it too? Here is one view I found by searching for Phoenicians+philosophy”:
“Still, the Phoenicians (and their cousins, the Carthaginians) had the alphabet first, and were excellent sea traders as well. Why weren’t they the founders of western intellectual history? Perhaps it had to do with centralization. The Phoenicians had an authoritarian government controlled by the most powerful merchants. The Carthaginians had the same. Perhaps being surrounded by powerful authoritarian empires forced them to adopt that style of government to survive.
The Greeks, on the other hand, were divided into many small city-states, each unique, each fiercely independent, always bickering and often fighting. It may seem disadvantageous, but when it comes to ideas, diversity and even conflict can be invigorating! Consider that when Greece was finally united under Macedonian rule, the flurry of intellectual activity slowed. And when the Romans took over, it practically died.”
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/greeks.html
If the Greek religion “hinders” the development of philosophy why were they the first to develop it? Is it a testament to their intellect as a people, culture, race? I would tend to concur with your original view.
I believe that their mythological gods did not and could not “provide easy and intelligible explanations for natural events,” which is exactly why they had to seek out truth. I also think that because they were traders, they heard what other cultures thought were “truths,” which made them question their own beliefs.