anything at all, however, while our souls are here in these inferior, perishable bodies,
is due to our remembering what we saw of the immutable, always identical forms of
the good, the beautiful, etc., which our souls perceived before our life here, through
their sharing innous, and through their sharing the company of the blessed gods
(Meno,Phaedo,Republic10,Phaedrus). But this knowledge of ours is imperfect as
our vision of the forms is interrupted; in this, we differ from the gods. We can only
aspire to free ourselves as much as possible from any distractions offered by our
physical senses of sight and hearing, etc., and by our appetites for food and all other
physical pleasure (Phaedo,Republic5). In that way, we can become like god as far as
that is possible for man. And this, indeed, is the aim in life, homoio ̄sis theo ̄(i),
assimilation and approximation to god; this is not ‘‘becoming god,’’ but it is for
the soul to become like god as far as that is possible (Republic 10,Theaetetus,
Phaedrus,Timaeus,Laws4), since the only way for thebodyto emulate immortality
is through physical procreation, as in that way part of oneself lives on (Symposium).
The god thus emulated by one’s soul in fitting manner is the one characterized as all
good and all-knowing. This entails that he cares for everything, and by implication
everybody, and that he cannot be swayed by deception or flattery in the form of lies or
prayers or sacrifices (Euthyphro,Laws10).
Interpreting Plato’s Theology
This picture of Plato’s theology has much to recommend it. For those who have
studied Plato, it has a certain familiarity. It is fairly coherent, and fairly consistent with
what Plato says otherwise. It is fairly rational, or at least at once morally acceptable
and rational enough to allow us to forgive Plato for having adhered to it. But, at the
same time, it is misleading. And perhaps the single most important reason for this is
that it is based on a rationalized literal reading of Plato. But we may not be entitled to
read the dialogues in such a way. Closely connected with an understanding of a
philosopher’s philosophy is an understanding of his language. This is especially
relevant here since some of the philosophers most relevant to the study of ancient
Greek theology, and Plato foremost among them, consciously developed their own
terminology and moulded their language to convey their thought. A few reflections
on language and literary form shall therefore precede the outline of Plato’s philoso-
phy needed for an understanding of his theology.
It may be best to begin with an analogy. In his bookThe Universe in a Nutshell, the
sequel toA Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking, the distinguished physicist who
holds the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge, states: ‘‘the reason general
relativity broke down near the beginning of the big bang is that it did not incorporate
the uncertainty principle, the random element of quantum theory that Einstein had
objected to on the grounds that God does not play dice. However, all the evidence is
that God is quite a gambler. One can think of the universe as being like a giant casino,
with dice being rolled or wheels being spun on every occasion’’ (Hawking 2001:79).
From this, in conjunction with some other remarks scattered throughout the book,
one could conclude that Hawking, like Einstein, believes in God. The only difference
between the two physicists, one may think, is that, unlike Einstein, who thought that
God does not play dice, Hawking thinks that God is a gambler; Hawking, though, is
Greek Religion and Philosophy 387