Philosophy Socrates Has Been Accused of Not

Philosophy

Socrates has been accused of not recognizing the gods of the state, and also of inventing gods of his own. In fact, this is a two-part accusation. Socrates is first being accused for not believing in the state-sanctioned religion. Of course, it is impossible to know what Socrates does or does not believe. Based on his words, though, it would seem Socrates does actually believe in the gods although may not pay them the kind of respect that the Athenian courts would prefer.

The second part of the accusation is different. Here, the state accuses Socrates of inventing new divinities of his own. Socrates is in fact not starting a new religion and he does not tout the divine authority of any deity. If the accusation is taken collectively, that is, if declaration of guilt or innocence is made on the fulfillment of both these two parts, then Socrates is clearly not guilty.

In Plato's Apology, Socrates points out the logical fallacy in Meletus's argument: "I do not as yet understand whether you affirm that I…do believe in gods and am not an entire atheist…but only that they are not the same gods which the city recognizes - the charge is that they are different gods. Or, do you mean to say that I am an atheist simply, and a teacher of atheism?" Here, Socrates asks the state to clarify what the accusations are: is Socrates being accused of atheism, or is Socrates being accused of believing in non-state-sanctioned deities. Meletus unwittingly falls into Socrates's logical trap by stating, "I mean the latter - that you are a complete atheist." By accusing Socrates of being an atheist, the state's argument completely falls apart. An atheist cannot simultaneously be accused of inventing gods because by definition an atheist disavows all gods.

Socrates also asks Meletus and the state to define exactly how they define god or the gods and whether "demigods" and "spirits" fall into the classification. If so, then it is also impossible to accuse a man of atheism while simultaneously accusing him of belief in spirits.

In Plato's Euthyphro, a similar argument takes place in which Socrates points out the inconsistencies in Meletus's argument. Socrates here refers directly to the gods, as in the statement: "murder, and of other offences against the gods." Socrates never once states disbelief and defends his spirituality with aplomb. What Socrates is trying to say in both Euthyphro and the Apology is that morality exists independently of the gods. It is quite impossible to say whether or not gods exist anyway, since gods are intangible. Yet it is possible to define morality.

Socrates does, though, hint at his spiritual beliefs being startlingly different from those of the men of Athens. In the Apology, Socrates states, "Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you." Socrates here seems to slip into monotheism. In fact, Plato writes about "God" differently from mentions of the collective "gods." It is as if Socrates is affirming God not as an anthropomorphic entity such as the gods of Olympus are -- in which case part of Meletus's accusations would be proven true. Given that the accusation is taken collectively in two parts (Socrates' belief in the Greek gods and Socrates' invention of new gods), Socrates must be declared not guilty. Even if Socrates does not believe in the state-sanctioned gods, he has never indicated the invention of new gods. Only by the widest stretch of the imagination could any Athenian juror believe that philosophical concepts like Reason become deified.

One clear instance in which Socrates does in fact display unequivocal belief in the state-sanctioned gods occurs in the Apology. Socrates refers to his interaction with the Oracle of Delphi, who channels the god Apollo. Socrates would never have visited Delphi or consulted the Oracle had he no belief at all in the state gods. Socrates in fact did visit and consult the Oracle about his presumed superior mental abilities. The Oracle said there was "no man wiser" than Socrates. More than that, though, Socrates uses the story as a means of helping the state to define its terms and clarify its accusations. Socrates states, "he is a god and cannot lie; that would be against his nature." Socrates cannot be reasonably convicted of disbelief in gods that he (a) quotes; (b) speculates about. Socrates goes so far as to say, "I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god," (Apology).

Sure, it is possible that Socrates is afraid of the wrath of the court and might be pretending to believe in the state-sanctioned gods. Yet the heart of the Apology is Socrates' unwavering self-defense. Socrates does not waver for a minute and in the end, he is courageous enough to accept the death sentence. A man who willingly takes death over compromising his beliefs is not one who would ever lie under oath. Therefore, Socrates' word can be taken at face value.