Xenophanes of Colophon: A Bridge to Monotheism

by

Ian MacFarlane

 

            Though it is almost always a mistake to make sweeping generalizations, it could be argued that a major change is taking place in the religious attitudes in the lives of the American populous.  If one asks an average college class a few questions about Christianity (the predominant religion of the United States for the last two-hundred and twenty-five odd years), it is likely that three-fourths (or more) of the class will be unable to answer them.  Indeed, the percentage of regular Sunday church-goers is dropping with each year.  Change is not uncommon, especially concerning religion, which seems to change to meet the needs of changing cultures.  Modern technology and scientific knowledge could be cited as the bridge between strong religious feelings and passive religious feelings in the United States; they point out the problems with the former, and offer the latter as an alternative.  Similarly, the ancient Greek philosopher Xenophanes could be cited as the bridge between polytheism (the predominant belief system in ancient Greece that says there were many gods and goddesses) and monotheism (the predominant belief system through the middle ages up to modern times, acknowledging the existence of only one god). 

            For hundreds of years, polytheism dominated the lives of the Greeks.  Their pantheon of gods and goddesses encompassed and explained everything in their lives; from purpose of life to creation of the world to victory in a competition, everything was explained as being a result of the "will of the gods."  The Homeric stories told of how the governing gods came to their positions of power through various (often bloody) acts, and of their interactions with mortal men on earth.  The stories told of half-god heroes, who fought with mythological monsters, to represent courage or other admirable traits.  Most importantly, these stories, based on the gods, prescribed the expected human behavior for the Greeks, according to the will of the gods.  It is quite clear that the polytheistic system was important in their culture. 

            Yet, when we look at the prominent religions of our modern world, a startling contrast is evident.  Though by no means the only ones, three religions in particular are prominent in today's world (prominent because there are relatively more followers world wide in these religions); they are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.  All three religions, though having some common prophets, generally have different rules and customs then one another.  Yet, a common thread unites them; they are all monotheistic beliefs.  These three religions trace their roots roughly from the time period after the Greek civilization was at it's peak in cultural advancement in the world.  In the time of the ancient Greeks, the vast majority of people in the world believed in religions that were polytheistic; today, the vast majority believe in monotheistic religions.  How, then, did such a drastic change occur, when polytheism was such a governing force in life?  Perhaps the first bridge between polytheism and monotheism was the Greek philosopher Xenophanes.

            Xenophanes of Colophon was one of, if not the, first philosophers to put forth the idea that the gods of the Homeric tradition were false.  Xenophanes was expelled from his native land Colophon in or around 546 BC., and spent most of the rest of his life in Sicily and Catana (Kirk and Raven, 163).  One of the remnants of his writings left over states: "Seven-and-sixty years have been tossing my care-filled heart over the land of Hellas.  From my birth till then (till his exile), there were twenty-five years to be added to these" (Freeman, 22).  This would put him at ninety-two years at the time of that writing, and it is unknown exactly how much longer he actually lived.  In those ninety-two plus years, he put forth some ideas concerning the nature of god or the gods that, when analysed, even pass beyond the nature of present day monotheistic religions, into the realm of agnosticism. 

            In putting forth his theological ideas, Xenophanes first explains why he disbelieves in the gods of Homeric tradition.  He says that "Both Homer and Hesiod have attributed to the gods all things that are shameful and a reproach among mankind: theft, adultery, and mutual deception...They have narrated every possible wicked story of the gods: theft, adultery, and mutual deception" (Freeman, 22).  Xenophanes finds this anthropomorphism of the gods to reprehensible; that the characteristics that are deemed immoral or wrong for humans are inherent traits in the gods of Homeric tradition is ridiculous to him.  It is certainly true; one only has to skim a few stories of Zeus to meet with lustful encounters that would make Larry Flynt jealous.  The gods in these stories are spiteful and vengeful towards other gods and mortals who they feel have wronged them, and often carry on in an almost childish manner.  It is thus easy to see why Xenophanes opposed this impression of the gods; to please the gods, one would almost certainly have to emanate them in behavioral standards, which would warrant poor behavior on the part of mortals. 

            Xenophanes also acknowledges the idea that, since there is no way to truly know what the gods would look or act like, humans merely ascribe to them traits common to humans.  He says that "If oxen and lions had hands or could draw with hands and create works of art like those made by men, horses would draw pictures of gods like horses, and oxen of gods like oxen, and they would make the bodies in accordance with the form that each species itself possesses" (Freeman, 22).  This is a surprisingly modern approach to viewing the nature of religion, and holds true to almost any religion one observes.  The ramifications of this statement reach an even farther level, bordering on atheism.  In fact, an argument commonly used in support of atheism is that each race or culture seems to view "God" as having traits common with them, and even established religions with specific descriptions are changed by believers to fit personal impressions (with the feminist movement of the sixties, women began to put forth the idea that the true form of god was a woman).  Thus, since everyone believes in the kind of god they want to see, the case for a god is weakened. 

            However, Xenophanes does not fully extend to the point of believing that there is no god at all.  He believes that there is a god, but only one god, and possessing none of the mortal traits described in the Homeric myths.  He says that "There is one god, among gods and men the greatest, not at all like mortals in body or in mind.....He sees as a whole, thinks as a whole, and hears as a whole.....But without toil he sets everything in motion, by the thought of his mind" (Freeman, 23).  Xenophanes' god is not concerned with humanly vices or desires, and does not take part in the reproachable behaviors of the Homeric gods.  Xenophanes also puts forth the concept of god as an entity, without a shape or form, which (through no physical means) controls everything on earth.  This dispels the myths of particular gods controlling particular events in nature, for rather then a Neptune causing the waves by physically stirring up the oceans, or a wind god causing hurricanes, "The sea is the source of water, and the source of wind" (Freeman, 23).  Natural events are natural in that they are not particularly caused by the hand of god, for god according to Xenophanes has no hand, and needs not work to accomplish things.  As this god made things, by a thought, so it also controls things through thought. 

            In our modern, liberal society (by comparison to other societies in our time and times past), Xenophanes' ideas do not seem so out of the ordinary.  In fact, the majority of people I have talked with who believe in a god do not necessarily believe that god has any particular form.  Unless they have a particularly orthodox upbringing in a particular religion, their free thoughts on god are vague almost to the point of agnosticism (not sure whether there is a god, but pretty sure there is).  However, for Xenophanes' time, to contradict the concept of the gods of the Homeric tradition was akin to the blasphemous statement that god does not exist in John Knox's Presbyterian Scotland.  Since the Greeks based their lives and laws on the gods they believed in, Xenophanes was bordering on contradicting the very laws themselves.  Yet, subsequent philosophers began to follow his lead, also shunning the Homeric gods for the idea of one god, paving the way for the roots of the monotheistic religions which are prominent in the modern world.

            My personal beliefs concerning the nature of god or the gods is simple; I do not believe in any god, in any form.  Falling back on one of Xenophanes' points, it seems to me that people need to make up stories and myths to explain the unexplainable in their lives, and that they will create higher forms that share their characteristics.  This creates a unity between mortals and a higher power they feel they can appeal to; if god or the gods are like us, then certainly they must sympathize with our plights.  Yet, this is impractical; if each person can simply create a god that fits their standards and desires, where is the validity of the existence of any god?  It seems that rather then god creating men, men create god, to explain the unanswerable questions in life.  My only question is; why did Xenophanes make such convincing arguments for why the existence of the Homeric gods was unlikely, yet still profess that there was indeed at least a god?  It seems the basis for dispelling the Homeric myths that Xenophanes uses could be applied to dispel his own idea of god.  Xenophanes' god created everything, thus providing explanations for some of Xenophanes' unanswerable questions (unanswerable through physical evidence).  Xenophanes says that "The gods have not revealed to mortals all things from the beginning; but mortals by long seeking discover what is better" (Freeman, 22). That is to say, mortals were seeking explanations for nature and life in general, and came up with the Homeric myths and gods.  Thus, these myths were not gods-given, but rather, mortal-given, and therefore were less credible then the direct word of god (or the gods).  Yet, his own premise for a description of god came about by him (a mortal) "seeking to discover what is better" (better than former beliefs).  How, therefore, can his god be any more credible then those of Homeric tradition?   Also, his god supposedly has no human traits, thus making him capable of the moral standard Xenophanes desires in a higher form of power; yet, Xenophanes has attributed to his god, by it's very nature, the most undesirable human characteristic of apathy, in that it's actions are not a matter that humans can understand, and thus, pray to; simply put, god and men are separate, and god doesn't care. 

            Although Xenophanes took a step towards a sensible idea of god(s), he could not fully reach the full scope of his ideas without taking it one step further, denying the existence of any god as being simply human wishful thinking.  Perhaps his society would have brought harsh repercussions on him had he ventured this far; perhaps he actually did, but since only fragments of his writings remain, we have no evidence of it.  Whatever the case, we most certainly will never know.  Xenophanes, the bridge between polytheism and monotheism, may also be the ferry from the shore of belief to the land of practical atheism.

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Freeman, Kathleen.  Ancilla to The Pre-Socratic Philosophers:  A Complete   Translation of the "Fragments in Diels" (Fragmente der Vorsokratiker).     Harvard University Press, Cambridge.  1966.

 

 

Hussey, Edward.  The Presocratics.  Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.  1972.

 

 

Kirk, G. S., and J. E. Raven.  The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History            with a Selection of Texts.  Cambridge University Press, London.  1957.

 

 

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  James Fieser, Ph. D., general editor, &      Bradley Dowden, Ph. D., philosophy of science and logic editor.

            http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/