What do you think?
Rate this book
Ancient Wisdom for Modern Readers
How to Think about God: An Ancient Guide for Believers and Nonbelievers
A vivid and accessible new translation of Cicero's influential Stoic writings on the divine
Most ancient Romans were deeply religious and their world was overflowing with gods--from Jupiter, Minerva, and Mars to countless local divinities, household gods, and ancestral spirits. One of the most influential Roman perspectives on religion came from a nonreligious belief system that is finding new adherents even today: Stoicism. How did the Stoics think about religion? In How to Think about God, Philip Freeman presents vivid new translations of Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods and The Dream of Scipio. In these brief works, Cicero offers a Stoic view of belief, divinity, and human immortality, giving eloquent expression to the religious ideas of one of the most popular schools of Roman and Greek philosophy.
On the Nature of the Gods and The Dream of Scipio are Cicero's best-known and most important writings on religion, and they have profoundly shaped Christian and non-Christian thought for more than two thousand years, influencing such luminaries as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Dante, and Thomas Jefferson. These works reveal many of the religious aspects of Stoicism, including an understanding of the universe as a materialistic yet continuous and living whole in which both the gods and a supreme God are essential elements.
Featuring an introduction, suggestions for further reading, and the original Latin on facing pages, How to Think about God is a compelling guide to the Stoic view of the divine.
Most ancient Romans were deeply religious and their world was overflowing with gods--from Jupiter, Minerva, and Mars to countless local divinities, household gods, and ancestral spirits. One of the most influential Roman perspectives on religion came from a nonreligious belief system that is finding new adherents even today: Stoicism. How did the Stoics think about religion? In How to Think about God, Philip Freeman presents vivid new translations of Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods and The Dream of Scipio. In these brief works, Cicero offers a Stoic view of belief, divinity, and human immortality, giving eloquent expression to the religious ideas of one of the most popular schools of Roman and Greek philosophy.
On the Nature of the Gods and The Dream of Scipio are Cicero's best-known and most important writings on religion, and they have profoundly shaped Christian and non-Christian thought for more than two thousand years, influencing such luminaries as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Dante, and Thomas Jefferson. These works reveal many of the religious aspects of Stoicism, including an understanding of the universe as a materialistic yet continuous and living whole in which both the gods and a supreme God are essential elements.
Featuring an introduction, suggestions for further reading, and the original Latin on facing pages, How to Think about God is a compelling guide to the Stoic view of the divine.
168 pages, Hardcover
First published November 5, 2019
35 people are currently reading
634 people want to read
About the author
Marcus Tullius Cicero
8,045 books1,953 followersBorn 3 January 106 BC, Arpinum, Italy
Died 7 December 43 BC (aged 63), Formia, Italy
Marcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman constitutionalist. Cicero is widely considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists.
Alternate profiles:
Cicéron
Marco Tullio Cicerone
Cicerone
Note: All editions should have Marcus Tullius Cicero as primary author. Editions with another name on the cover should have that name added as secondary author.
Died 7 December 43 BC (aged 63), Formia, Italy
Marcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman constitutionalist. Cicero is widely considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists.
Alternate profiles:
Cicéron
Marco Tullio Cicerone
Cicerone
Note: All editions should have Marcus Tullius Cicero as primary author. Editions with another name on the cover should have that name added as secondary author.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews
August 4, 2025
۱۴۰۴/۰۵/۱۳
September 9, 2023
Books like this one are like the colour beige. Unexceptional. They are neither lovable nor hateable—rather mildly pleasant and quick to forget.
The author focuses on how Stoics saw the world and the divine and their arguments for and against it. Although many ideas are outdated, it does stimulate your mind to think in unusual and curious ways.
“If there is anything in nature that the human mind and reason or human strength and power cannot achieve, it is certain that such a thing must have been created by something superior to man.”
The author focuses on how Stoics saw the world and the divine and their arguments for and against it. Although many ideas are outdated, it does stimulate your mind to think in unusual and curious ways.
“If there is anything in nature that the human mind and reason or human strength and power cannot achieve, it is certain that such a thing must have been created by something superior to man.”
January 6, 2020
Another good entry in Princeton UP’s Ancient Wisdom for Modern Readers series, this one excerpting passages from two of Cicero’s late philosophical treatises On the Nature of the Gods and On the Republic.
The first passage is an interesting example of what medieval Christian philosophers and theologians would call “natural theology,” i.e. How close could unaided reason get to revealed truth? The answer would seem to be Pretty durn close. Cicero, speaking through Balbus as a representative of Stoic theism, even anticipates many of the medieval arguments concerning the existence and activity of God distilled by St Thomas Aquinas into the “Five Ways.” But Cicero and his interlocutors are pagan and view even the gods as participants in a closed materialist system with gradations of perfection that diminish the nearer one comes to the earth. The gods of Cicero’s treatise are powerful and possess reason but are not transcendent—the universe itself, ultimately, is God. (Freeman, in the introduction, compares this theology to the Force.) The reasoning here is quite fascinating and Cicero, as always, presents his perspective compellingly.
The second passage is the famous “Dream of Scipio,” one of the inspirations for Dante 1300 years later. The narrator, the adopted grandson of Scipio Africanus (the one who defeated Hannibal, not one of the twenty other Scipiones who eventually inherited the title) meets his grandfather’s old ally Masinissa and the two talk at length before retiring to bed. While sleeping, Scipio has a dream of his grandfather, who shows him the organization and operation of the spheres of the universe, foretells his grandson’s future career, and offers him wisdom and perspective on the troubles of the present.
Comparison with Dante, who borrows heavily from here, especially in Paradiso, is instructive. Cicero’s cosmos is, again, a closed system—everything that exists exists within it. But it is rational and rationally ordered and the good Stoic can take comfort in the universe’s longevity—it will outlast all the worst gossip that can torment you as well as even the greatest empires—and the release “as if from prison” that the righteous will enjoy among the stars.
I wish there were a little more to this volume (it’s easily the shortest of the series) but it collects two important passages from Cicero in one handy little book with a good new translation, a short intro, and ten pages of helpful notes. And, as always, I’m thrilled that it’s presented with the original Latin on the facing page.
A good read for anyone interested in philosophy, theology, cosmology, Stoicism, Ancient Rome, literature generally, or Dante specifically. For anyone interested in all of those things, like me, this short book still gives you a lot of bang for your buck.
The first passage is an interesting example of what medieval Christian philosophers and theologians would call “natural theology,” i.e. How close could unaided reason get to revealed truth? The answer would seem to be Pretty durn close. Cicero, speaking through Balbus as a representative of Stoic theism, even anticipates many of the medieval arguments concerning the existence and activity of God distilled by St Thomas Aquinas into the “Five Ways.” But Cicero and his interlocutors are pagan and view even the gods as participants in a closed materialist system with gradations of perfection that diminish the nearer one comes to the earth. The gods of Cicero’s treatise are powerful and possess reason but are not transcendent—the universe itself, ultimately, is God. (Freeman, in the introduction, compares this theology to the Force.) The reasoning here is quite fascinating and Cicero, as always, presents his perspective compellingly.
The second passage is the famous “Dream of Scipio,” one of the inspirations for Dante 1300 years later. The narrator, the adopted grandson of Scipio Africanus (the one who defeated Hannibal, not one of the twenty other Scipiones who eventually inherited the title) meets his grandfather’s old ally Masinissa and the two talk at length before retiring to bed. While sleeping, Scipio has a dream of his grandfather, who shows him the organization and operation of the spheres of the universe, foretells his grandson’s future career, and offers him wisdom and perspective on the troubles of the present.
Comparison with Dante, who borrows heavily from here, especially in Paradiso, is instructive. Cicero’s cosmos is, again, a closed system—everything that exists exists within it. But it is rational and rationally ordered and the good Stoic can take comfort in the universe’s longevity—it will outlast all the worst gossip that can torment you as well as even the greatest empires—and the release “as if from prison” that the righteous will enjoy among the stars.
I wish there were a little more to this volume (it’s easily the shortest of the series) but it collects two important passages from Cicero in one handy little book with a good new translation, a short intro, and ten pages of helpful notes. And, as always, I’m thrilled that it’s presented with the original Latin on the facing page.
A good read for anyone interested in philosophy, theology, cosmology, Stoicism, Ancient Rome, literature generally, or Dante specifically. For anyone interested in all of those things, like me, this short book still gives you a lot of bang for your buck.
July 18, 2025
A foundational text for people who argue for a "god of the gaps". Cicero argues that god must exist because of things that his era's science couldn't explain (in this case earthquakes and comets). He couldn't explain it so of course that 100% proves that god is doing it.
This book is only useful now as a curiosity and as a reminder that people are still making the same tired arguments thousands of years later.
This book is only useful now as a curiosity and as a reminder that people are still making the same tired arguments thousands of years later.
December 7, 2019
Very interesting read that distinguishes the argument about God's existence during the Roman's dominance era. This was a book highlighting how Stoics argued the existence and relevance of a higher power during their time on this earth. It was fascinating debate and an important and short read. I highly recommend reading their perspective.
Dr. James Williams
www.unmaskytp.com
Dr. James Williams
www.unmaskytp.com
May 6, 2020
This is an excellent edition in Princeton's series of Classics reprints. This edition includes *On the Nature of the Gods* and the *The Dream of Scipio*. Its excellent; *The Dream of Scipio* remains one of my favorites.
December 31, 2019
Cicero: 'Those who don't believe in God must be out of their mind.'
September 9, 2022
How to Think About God by Marcus Tullius Cicero
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
This series provides a reader with good quality. The individual books offer a nice introduction to the featured philosopher and the subject of the book. The book takes a portion of an ancient philosopher's corpus of writing devoted to a particular subject and offers that selection. The selection usually constitutes a short read that can be accomplished in a few hours. The quality of the selection is well worth the read.
In this case, the selection is Cicero's De Natura Deorium and the Dream of the Scipio. The first selection provides Cicero's explication of the Stoic philosophical understanding of the divine. What I found interesting was how much of the Stoic perspective informed subsequent religious philosophy. For example, Cicero argues to the existence of God from the design and purposefulness of Nature. Cicero also has his Stoic character (this is presented as a dialogue) take a pantheistic position, namely, the universe must be alive and wise because there is life and wisdom in the universe and the only place such things could come from is from the universe. This reminded me of the Thomistic axiom that the effect cannot be greater than its cause.
For Cicero's Stoic interlocutor, the prime matter of the universe is heat. Heat is the vital force of the universe that causes motion. The sun presents a good heat that gives life and the stars must be living things because they also represent heat. I wonder at the ability of some ancients to equate the sun with the stars. I wonder how they came to that conclusion. For other ancient people, I believe, the stars were pinpricks in the dome of the sky.
For anyone doing a comparative analysis of religious arguments or tracking through the development of philosophical arguments, this is an excellent book.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
This series provides a reader with good quality. The individual books offer a nice introduction to the featured philosopher and the subject of the book. The book takes a portion of an ancient philosopher's corpus of writing devoted to a particular subject and offers that selection. The selection usually constitutes a short read that can be accomplished in a few hours. The quality of the selection is well worth the read.
In this case, the selection is Cicero's De Natura Deorium and the Dream of the Scipio. The first selection provides Cicero's explication of the Stoic philosophical understanding of the divine. What I found interesting was how much of the Stoic perspective informed subsequent religious philosophy. For example, Cicero argues to the existence of God from the design and purposefulness of Nature. Cicero also has his Stoic character (this is presented as a dialogue) take a pantheistic position, namely, the universe must be alive and wise because there is life and wisdom in the universe and the only place such things could come from is from the universe. This reminded me of the Thomistic axiom that the effect cannot be greater than its cause.
For Cicero's Stoic interlocutor, the prime matter of the universe is heat. Heat is the vital force of the universe that causes motion. The sun presents a good heat that gives life and the stars must be living things because they also represent heat. I wonder at the ability of some ancients to equate the sun with the stars. I wonder how they came to that conclusion. For other ancient people, I believe, the stars were pinpricks in the dome of the sky.
For anyone doing a comparative analysis of religious arguments or tracking through the development of philosophical arguments, this is an excellent book.
July 18, 2022
Nice small read.
“The true self of each person is the mind. Know therefore that you are a god. For a god is someone who moves, who feels, who remembers, who looks to the future, who rules over and guides and directs the body he is master of, just as that Supreme God directs the universe. And just as this eternal God controls the universe, which is partly mortal, so too your eternal spirit directs your fragile body.
”
“Let other people worry over what they say about you—they will say it in any case.”
“We must also praise Aristotle for teaching us that everything which moves must move by nature, force, or will. Now, the Sun, Moon, and stars are clearly in motion. We know that everything moved by nature either falls because of its weight or rises because of its lightness. But neither case applies to the heavenly bodies because their motion is circular. It can scarcely be argued that the stars are made to move by a greater force acting on them contrary to their nature, for what stronger force could there be? The only remaining possibility is that the movement of the stars is by their own will.
Anyone who sees this truth and denies it is not only ignorant but guilty of impiety if he says that the gods do not exist. And there is very little difference between denying their existence and depriving them of any stewardship or providential care. For it seems to me that someone who is inactive barely exists at all. To sum up, the existence of the gods is so abundantly clear that I regard anyone who denies it as out of his mind.”
“The true self of each person is the mind. Know therefore that you are a god. For a god is someone who moves, who feels, who remembers, who looks to the future, who rules over and guides and directs the body he is master of, just as that Supreme God directs the universe. And just as this eternal God controls the universe, which is partly mortal, so too your eternal spirit directs your fragile body.
”
“Let other people worry over what they say about you—they will say it in any case.”
“We must also praise Aristotle for teaching us that everything which moves must move by nature, force, or will. Now, the Sun, Moon, and stars are clearly in motion. We know that everything moved by nature either falls because of its weight or rises because of its lightness. But neither case applies to the heavenly bodies because their motion is circular. It can scarcely be argued that the stars are made to move by a greater force acting on them contrary to their nature, for what stronger force could there be? The only remaining possibility is that the movement of the stars is by their own will.
Anyone who sees this truth and denies it is not only ignorant but guilty of impiety if he says that the gods do not exist. And there is very little difference between denying their existence and depriving them of any stewardship or providential care. For it seems to me that someone who is inactive barely exists at all. To sum up, the existence of the gods is so abundantly clear that I regard anyone who denies it as out of his mind.”
September 18, 2021
It was an okay read.
I found it pretty underwhelming.
I'd sooner recommend other books in this series instead, such as How to Die: An Ancient Guide to the End of Life.
2.8/5
I found it pretty underwhelming.
I'd sooner recommend other books in this series instead, such as How to Die: An Ancient Guide to the End of Life.
2.8/5
December 12, 2023
A short summary of Cicero’s arguments about religion. He didn’t claim to be a Stoic. In terms of doubting religion, however, he seems to have believed in the Stoic view of the divine, that is, nature as ordered and rational, rewarding the virtuous with eternal life. His arguments for this rest on some far-fetched premises, using analogies from human findings to talk about the universe as a whole, which don’t always seem to work. For example, he claims that the universe is the most complex creation, and so, must contain within it the reason and rationality that a less complex phenomenon within it, contains (humans). The jump made from claiming that something not created by man but clearly is designed, was created by God, needs more explanation. The following logic is used to eventually claim that the universe is itself God… (because nothing is more complex than God).
Important to note I think, is the Stoic argument for the 4 ways in which gods reveal themselves to us, as Cleanthes apparently first observed, and as Cicero includes in his ‘On the Nature of the Gods’:
- Foreknowledge of events
- suggested from observing our temperate climate, fertility of the earth and other blessings
- From the terror we feel from natural disasters, which are so terrifying and simultaneously awe-inspiring that they suggest the workings of divine power
- Astronomy; the uniform and constant movement of planets, stars, the universe
Something very similar to the more commonly-known, cosmological argument ‘first way’ – which observes that all motion must have a first cause of such motion, which is itself self-moving (the first principle) – is presented in Cicero’s ‘Dream of Scipio’. In this second book, Cicero also interestingly touches on an eternal life after this one – for the mind, which surpasses the body. To achieve the rewards of this life however, it is believed that one must be virtuous, and not get caught up on this present earth, which only offers a little of the rewards that the next life has to offer. Similarly, Africanus (whom Scipio is in dialogue with throughout his dream) emphasises that the thoughts and expectations of other humans (in this life) is not that important, so do not prioritise trying to please them over being virtuous; they will forget you soon after your body perishes…
It is interesting that these notions were used, developed and built upon by other (major) religions and religious individuals years later; for example, by Thomas Aquinas and William Paley.
Important to note I think, is the Stoic argument for the 4 ways in which gods reveal themselves to us, as Cleanthes apparently first observed, and as Cicero includes in his ‘On the Nature of the Gods’:
- Foreknowledge of events
- suggested from observing our temperate climate, fertility of the earth and other blessings
- From the terror we feel from natural disasters, which are so terrifying and simultaneously awe-inspiring that they suggest the workings of divine power
- Astronomy; the uniform and constant movement of planets, stars, the universe
Something very similar to the more commonly-known, cosmological argument ‘first way’ – which observes that all motion must have a first cause of such motion, which is itself self-moving (the first principle) – is presented in Cicero’s ‘Dream of Scipio’. In this second book, Cicero also interestingly touches on an eternal life after this one – for the mind, which surpasses the body. To achieve the rewards of this life however, it is believed that one must be virtuous, and not get caught up on this present earth, which only offers a little of the rewards that the next life has to offer. Similarly, Africanus (whom Scipio is in dialogue with throughout his dream) emphasises that the thoughts and expectations of other humans (in this life) is not that important, so do not prioritise trying to please them over being virtuous; they will forget you soon after your body perishes…
It is interesting that these notions were used, developed and built upon by other (major) religions and religious individuals years later; for example, by Thomas Aquinas and William Paley.
November 20, 2019
Yeah, so, parts of “The Dream of Scipio” made me cry, I’m cool now.
January 12, 2023
Firstly, I would like to say that the "ancient wisdom for modern readers" series is a great start for getting into philosophy, and while this book was underwhelming, I am rather fond of the series as a whole (though I haven't read them all yet).
My biggest issue with this book begins with the title actually, "How to Think about God". One would think this is referring to strategies in obedience and how to follow God, or at least that was the impression I got. This is incorrect. This book covers Cicero's "On the nature of the Gods", and "the dream of Scipio", neither of which give any particular advice in how to follow God(s). On the contrary, "On the nature of the Gods" really only explains Cicero's argument for the existence of God, which, might I add, even from a God believing perspective, is a horrible argument. Typically, the advice from these types of books are still very applicable today, but Cicero's arguments are vastly outdated and reflective of Roman misunderstandings about space and other things. It really bashes the sub-title of "an ancient guide for believers and nonbelievers" because it really seems to be ineffective for neither. From a believer stand point, I already believe in God and don't need this poor argument for the existence thereof. I came seeking out strategies in worship, but was given none, so this isn't very useful for believers. For Nonbelievers, I would imagine it's similarly unhelpful, unless they are to believe Cicero's argument which frankly doesn't hold much water.
One thing he says early on in "On the nature of the Gods" that I kind of like is the point he raises about "How is the Sun's existence more obvious than that of God?". He goes on to explain that the belief in God has become stronger with every passing generation, and that time "erases false beliefs, but confirms the judgments of nature", yet our belief in God grows ever stronger. I like this insight in natures prevailing spirit over falsehoods, though I will still say this isn't a great argument for God's existence, because time is very relative. Theoretically, even if I don't believe it to be true myself, I have to accept a possibility in which thousands more, maybe millions of years more would have to pass before the theoretically false belief in God was shown to be false. Still, from a non-religious aspect, I do like this thought that nature prevails over falsehoods, and I think that it is often true.
This next point I will mention, is conflicting for me, because he makes a stupid statement, but then immediately brings up a very fair point. He first talks about prophets, and presumably priests and other "spokesman" as he calls them. Cicero says that we have to agree that God exists because God has spokesmen. I have to say, this is mightily arrogant. Man is impure, there have been many men who have desecrated the church with their falsehoods and took the false position as being a spokesman, so to imply that because their are men who claim themselves to be such that we should agree God exists, is a horrible argument. Immediately after, however, he makes a good point in an address of criticism. He says that just because not every prophet's predictions come true, we shouldn't discard the entirety of them, saying "we wouldn't say that because not all sick people get better there is no art of medicine". He follows up by saying that God(s) give us signs, and it is human error in interpretation that makes these mistakes, which is something I do agree with.
Cicero then enumerates four reasons we know of God, as according to Cleanthes. The first three, foreknowledge of future benefits, blessings of the Earth (temperate climate, fertility of Earth, etc.), and conversely the terror from things like earthquakes and plagues and other such devastation, are all fair enough for me, though as a Christian I do not hold a crippling fear of wrath like he suggests in the third point, and am more concentrated in his vast mercy and love. I do, however, accept His great power, and so I won't bash the third point too much. The fourth point, however, is where things get rather ridiculous. The fourth point is essentially that the movements of the stars and planets are so extraordinary that they have to be controlled by God(s). While in my personal faith I believe that the laws of science are essentially assigned from God so that we can understand the marvelous world He made for us to the best of our abilities, I again can see how this is not a strong argument whatsoever. You can easily hold the random yet meticulous occurrence of the sciences to be the highest power, in which case the universe itself is its own higher power, so you could easily justify this not being God, so again it's a poor argument. He then tries to go further on this already poor argument, by making a comparison that is nothing short of a hilariously false equivalence. Suppose you are in a house or gymnasium, he says, and it's very well organized and the furniture all has deliberate places. You would know, then, that some higher power, a human, was controlling these bodies. So obviously, because people can move furniture in their house because they own it, we should assume that God moves the planets. Again, this is a terrible argument and an unbelievable comparison. If you were a non-believer, would this point even register as being worthy of explaining away? I can't fathom.
Shortly after, Cicero claims that if God(s) do not exist, then there is nothing in nature greater than humans, because we alone hold the greatest ability, which is reason. While I find it artsy and poetic to romanticize reason as the ultimate ability of the living, and so I take no issue there, I don't even understand why it would matter to say there is nothing in nature greater than humans. I don't know how that could even be conveyed as in argument in God's favor, and I personally don't see, especially if you were a non-believer, how humans being the greatest power in nature would even constitute a dilemma. If it were indeed true, what is that supposed to change?
One thing that I did really take to heart, was his proclamation that "we are certainly not perfect, but we are a part of perfection". I couldn't really have said it better myself, this is how I feel as a Christian, I believe humans to be totally imperfect, and furthermore I believe it's essentially blasphemous to think us to be perfect, because to be perfection is to be God. God is the embodiment of perfection, and so I think it is perfectly right and profound to say that we are a part of his perfection even if we aren't ourselves perfect.
Finishing the section from "On the nature of the Gods", Cicero essentially gives a brief overview, and in quite the arrogant fashion. To be fair, he does firstly bring up a good point in saying that those who believe and don't worship are no better, and perhaps worse, than those who choose not to believe, however he makes this point about seeing that truth and choosing to be ignorant of God(s), according to the arguments that he brought forth, which were terrible. He says that there is little difference between not believing in their existence and believing but denying them stewardship, furthering this by saying those who believe and are inactive are hardly alive at all, which is incredibly based but pretty harsh. He tops it all off, however, with probably his most unbelievable and arrogant statement of all, claiming "the existence of the Gods is so abundantly clear that I regard anyone who denies it as out of their mind". I can hardly believe this to be quite honest, the arrogance to supply these terrible arguments and then claim insanity in the minds of those who don't believe them, incredible.
"The dream of Scipio" was far less noteworthy, except maybe towards the end, so I have far less to say about it. Toward the latter half, Cicero actually does make a rather inspiring argument about what I can assume to be persistence in the name of God. He says that human glory is fleeting, and begs the question of what can it really be worth? He instead encourages looking up to the heavens in contemplation of one's final rest, and says to pay no attention to the mobs who may bash your dreams and hopes. His finest moment perhaps, culminates in the end of this statement, in which he says "Let virtue herself by her own allurements draw you to true honor. Let other people worry over what they say about you - they will say it in any case...Whatever they say is lost when they die and their words are forgotten by generations yet to come". This is a great piece of advice in being humble and subservient to God in spite of what others might think of you, because your dreams with God lie far above the ridicule on Earth.
I don't have anything else to say of "The dream of Scipio" unfortunately, as I found it mostly uneventful and a little boring. Fortunately, though I was rather disappointed with this book, and I felt that the reasoning was troublesome and not particularly useful, especially from a modern perspective, at least it was able to finish on a high note with its comments on being humble in nature.
My biggest issue with this book begins with the title actually, "How to Think about God". One would think this is referring to strategies in obedience and how to follow God, or at least that was the impression I got. This is incorrect. This book covers Cicero's "On the nature of the Gods", and "the dream of Scipio", neither of which give any particular advice in how to follow God(s). On the contrary, "On the nature of the Gods" really only explains Cicero's argument for the existence of God, which, might I add, even from a God believing perspective, is a horrible argument. Typically, the advice from these types of books are still very applicable today, but Cicero's arguments are vastly outdated and reflective of Roman misunderstandings about space and other things. It really bashes the sub-title of "an ancient guide for believers and nonbelievers" because it really seems to be ineffective for neither. From a believer stand point, I already believe in God and don't need this poor argument for the existence thereof. I came seeking out strategies in worship, but was given none, so this isn't very useful for believers. For Nonbelievers, I would imagine it's similarly unhelpful, unless they are to believe Cicero's argument which frankly doesn't hold much water.
One thing he says early on in "On the nature of the Gods" that I kind of like is the point he raises about "How is the Sun's existence more obvious than that of God?". He goes on to explain that the belief in God has become stronger with every passing generation, and that time "erases false beliefs, but confirms the judgments of nature", yet our belief in God grows ever stronger. I like this insight in natures prevailing spirit over falsehoods, though I will still say this isn't a great argument for God's existence, because time is very relative. Theoretically, even if I don't believe it to be true myself, I have to accept a possibility in which thousands more, maybe millions of years more would have to pass before the theoretically false belief in God was shown to be false. Still, from a non-religious aspect, I do like this thought that nature prevails over falsehoods, and I think that it is often true.
This next point I will mention, is conflicting for me, because he makes a stupid statement, but then immediately brings up a very fair point. He first talks about prophets, and presumably priests and other "spokesman" as he calls them. Cicero says that we have to agree that God exists because God has spokesmen. I have to say, this is mightily arrogant. Man is impure, there have been many men who have desecrated the church with their falsehoods and took the false position as being a spokesman, so to imply that because their are men who claim themselves to be such that we should agree God exists, is a horrible argument. Immediately after, however, he makes a good point in an address of criticism. He says that just because not every prophet's predictions come true, we shouldn't discard the entirety of them, saying "we wouldn't say that because not all sick people get better there is no art of medicine". He follows up by saying that God(s) give us signs, and it is human error in interpretation that makes these mistakes, which is something I do agree with.
Cicero then enumerates four reasons we know of God, as according to Cleanthes. The first three, foreknowledge of future benefits, blessings of the Earth (temperate climate, fertility of Earth, etc.), and conversely the terror from things like earthquakes and plagues and other such devastation, are all fair enough for me, though as a Christian I do not hold a crippling fear of wrath like he suggests in the third point, and am more concentrated in his vast mercy and love. I do, however, accept His great power, and so I won't bash the third point too much. The fourth point, however, is where things get rather ridiculous. The fourth point is essentially that the movements of the stars and planets are so extraordinary that they have to be controlled by God(s). While in my personal faith I believe that the laws of science are essentially assigned from God so that we can understand the marvelous world He made for us to the best of our abilities, I again can see how this is not a strong argument whatsoever. You can easily hold the random yet meticulous occurrence of the sciences to be the highest power, in which case the universe itself is its own higher power, so you could easily justify this not being God, so again it's a poor argument. He then tries to go further on this already poor argument, by making a comparison that is nothing short of a hilariously false equivalence. Suppose you are in a house or gymnasium, he says, and it's very well organized and the furniture all has deliberate places. You would know, then, that some higher power, a human, was controlling these bodies. So obviously, because people can move furniture in their house because they own it, we should assume that God moves the planets. Again, this is a terrible argument and an unbelievable comparison. If you were a non-believer, would this point even register as being worthy of explaining away? I can't fathom.
Shortly after, Cicero claims that if God(s) do not exist, then there is nothing in nature greater than humans, because we alone hold the greatest ability, which is reason. While I find it artsy and poetic to romanticize reason as the ultimate ability of the living, and so I take no issue there, I don't even understand why it would matter to say there is nothing in nature greater than humans. I don't know how that could even be conveyed as in argument in God's favor, and I personally don't see, especially if you were a non-believer, how humans being the greatest power in nature would even constitute a dilemma. If it were indeed true, what is that supposed to change?
One thing that I did really take to heart, was his proclamation that "we are certainly not perfect, but we are a part of perfection". I couldn't really have said it better myself, this is how I feel as a Christian, I believe humans to be totally imperfect, and furthermore I believe it's essentially blasphemous to think us to be perfect, because to be perfection is to be God. God is the embodiment of perfection, and so I think it is perfectly right and profound to say that we are a part of his perfection even if we aren't ourselves perfect.
Finishing the section from "On the nature of the Gods", Cicero essentially gives a brief overview, and in quite the arrogant fashion. To be fair, he does firstly bring up a good point in saying that those who believe and don't worship are no better, and perhaps worse, than those who choose not to believe, however he makes this point about seeing that truth and choosing to be ignorant of God(s), according to the arguments that he brought forth, which were terrible. He says that there is little difference between not believing in their existence and believing but denying them stewardship, furthering this by saying those who believe and are inactive are hardly alive at all, which is incredibly based but pretty harsh. He tops it all off, however, with probably his most unbelievable and arrogant statement of all, claiming "the existence of the Gods is so abundantly clear that I regard anyone who denies it as out of their mind". I can hardly believe this to be quite honest, the arrogance to supply these terrible arguments and then claim insanity in the minds of those who don't believe them, incredible.
"The dream of Scipio" was far less noteworthy, except maybe towards the end, so I have far less to say about it. Toward the latter half, Cicero actually does make a rather inspiring argument about what I can assume to be persistence in the name of God. He says that human glory is fleeting, and begs the question of what can it really be worth? He instead encourages looking up to the heavens in contemplation of one's final rest, and says to pay no attention to the mobs who may bash your dreams and hopes. His finest moment perhaps, culminates in the end of this statement, in which he says "Let virtue herself by her own allurements draw you to true honor. Let other people worry over what they say about you - they will say it in any case...Whatever they say is lost when they die and their words are forgotten by generations yet to come". This is a great piece of advice in being humble and subservient to God in spite of what others might think of you, because your dreams with God lie far above the ridicule on Earth.
I don't have anything else to say of "The dream of Scipio" unfortunately, as I found it mostly uneventful and a little boring. Fortunately, though I was rather disappointed with this book, and I felt that the reasoning was troublesome and not particularly useful, especially from a modern perspective, at least it was able to finish on a high note with its comments on being humble in nature.
November 27, 2025
I love Latin and I love parallel translations. This was super cool because it coincidentally aligned with research I was doing on Strabo’s Stoic influences for HisPhiG. Though the book doesn’t focus on geography much at all, in Somnium Scipionis there was a section explicitly mentioning the “zones” of the earth and how only the middle is habitable. This makes sense given the Introduction’s explanation that Cicero was an Academic-Stoic, which aligns with Strabo. (S was around a bit later, but their lives overlapped around 20 years.) Also the general Stoic philosophies about virtue above all else, general order of the universe, etc. was relevant as well. De Natura Deorum actually had some pretty compelling arguments for the existence of the Stoic God; I almost wish that the translation extended beyond that and into what God meant to the everyman. It did kind of, but it was more within the context of explaining that God does exist. But I guess Somnium Scipionis went into that instead. Good stuff. I definitely want to read more of the series.
September 20, 2024
Very good, though it's only an excerpt. This is very relevant to understand one important viewpoint in Antiquity. I've appreciated Freeman's translation and notes.
December 12, 2023
This has to be one of the most comprehensive abstractions of Cicero’s work focusing on the stoic pantheistic worldview. The text has so many layers of understanding that after finishing it, the reader is left with nothing but a will to devour the complete “On the Nature of Gods” text
December 28, 2019
A short dive into the two best known and most important writings of Marcus Tullius Cicero. „On the Nature of the Gods“, offering distinct arguments and ideas about the existence of God and perspectives on religion. „The Dream of Scipio“ outlining the importance and eternality of one‘s soul, which can get one really thinking about and questioning certain decisions and lifeplans.
One brief extract from „The Dream of Scipio“ which struck me:
And since it is clear that whatever moves itself is eternal, who can deny that the soul has such a nature? Whatever is moved by an external force is inanimate, but whatever is animate is moved by its own internal motion. That is the unique nature and power of the soul. And so if it is the one thing of all that moves itself, the nature of the soul is certainly eternal. So use your soul for the best of deeds! And the greatest deeds of all are done in service to your country. „...“ Indeed, the souls of those who have given themselves to the pleasures of the body and have made themselves the servants of those pleasures - for those who ruled by such passions and pleasures have broken the laws of gods and men - when they die, circle around the earth suffering many ages of torment before they return to this place.
One brief extract from „The Dream of Scipio“ which struck me:
And since it is clear that whatever moves itself is eternal, who can deny that the soul has such a nature? Whatever is moved by an external force is inanimate, but whatever is animate is moved by its own internal motion. That is the unique nature and power of the soul. And so if it is the one thing of all that moves itself, the nature of the soul is certainly eternal. So use your soul for the best of deeds! And the greatest deeds of all are done in service to your country. „...“ Indeed, the souls of those who have given themselves to the pleasures of the body and have made themselves the servants of those pleasures - for those who ruled by such passions and pleasures have broken the laws of gods and men - when they die, circle around the earth suffering many ages of torment before they return to this place.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 30, 2020
An excellent translation, but it almost feels too brief for the wisdom it is hoping to impart.
September 9, 2020
Good book
It was a nice informative book. It kept my interest throughout the read and provided me with some in-depth knowledge. Thank you!
It was a nice informative book. It kept my interest throughout the read and provided me with some in-depth knowledge. Thank you!
September 1, 2025
Bad title, and not one created by Cicero. This book is not a guide by any means. It's two works of Cicero, 'On the Nature of the Gods' and 'The Dream of Scipio'.
The first work begins as a dialogue, but quickly becomes one character outlining his own justification for the mere existence of the gods, or god. It was interesting, but I did not always follow the logic. There were such syllogisms as "men and women are capable of reason, the universe is superior to man, therefore the universe must have reason as well." That's a paraphrase.
Other justifications made more sense. Cicero talks of the order of Nature, the beauty of the prompt stars which turn endlessly and precisely. He argues perpetual motion is not possible unless there is a source for this motion, i.e. someone up there must be turning the stars. Because the universe is active, it implies existence. "Someone who is inactive barely exists at all."
It is interesting to me that even back in antiquity there were doubts and discussions about the gods very existence. It wasn't always taken as a given.
The Dream of Scipio was interesting as Scipio's grandfather, Scipio Africanus, takes his grandson on a tour of the heavens. I don't have anything to say about it. It was fascinating to read, but that's about all I think.
The first work begins as a dialogue, but quickly becomes one character outlining his own justification for the mere existence of the gods, or god. It was interesting, but I did not always follow the logic. There were such syllogisms as "men and women are capable of reason, the universe is superior to man, therefore the universe must have reason as well." That's a paraphrase.
Other justifications made more sense. Cicero talks of the order of Nature, the beauty of the prompt stars which turn endlessly and precisely. He argues perpetual motion is not possible unless there is a source for this motion, i.e. someone up there must be turning the stars. Because the universe is active, it implies existence. "Someone who is inactive barely exists at all."
It is interesting to me that even back in antiquity there were doubts and discussions about the gods very existence. It wasn't always taken as a given.
The Dream of Scipio was interesting as Scipio's grandfather, Scipio Africanus, takes his grandson on a tour of the heavens. I don't have anything to say about it. It was fascinating to read, but that's about all I think.
August 7, 2023
Here is yet another superb entry in Princeton Press's ongoing series, Ancient Wisdom for Modern Readers. This time we are talking about the nature of god with Marcus Tullius Cicero, a Skeptical Platonist with strong sympathies for the Stoics. The original, De Natura Deorum, is a classic, and Philip Freeman's translation makes it come to life. We get a very nice picture of what Platonists and Stoics thought about god and the ultimate, providential, nature of the cosmos. On top of which the book comes with a precious bonus: a new translation of the famous "Dream of Scipio," extracted from a different book by Cicero, De Re Publica, his response to Plato's Republic. The only thing readers need to keep in mind is that the subtitle to this entry is a bit misleading. It says "An Ancient Guide for Believers and Nonbelievers" but nonbelievers will find nothing useful here, unless one re-interprets the book as a list of things *not* to believe. Nevertheless, it is a master class in what and why believers think, and so, I guess, an indirect "guide" for the rest of us as well.
September 1, 2023
This short book provides a look into the religious belief systems of the ancient Roman statesman and philosopher Cicero and that of the philosophy Stoicism. Philip Freeman uses excerpts from two famous works by Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods (45 BCE) and The Dream of Scipio (51 BCE). It’s interesting as a reflection of its era, although I found little that resonated with me. Stoicism, for all of its valuable insights into human nature, had views of cosmology that have been thoroughly disproven.
Title: How to Think About God: An Ancient Guide for Believers and Nonbelievers
Authors: Marcus Tullius Cicero, Philip Freeman [selected, translated, introduction by]
Series: Ancient Wisdom for Modern Readers
Year: 2019
Genre: Nonfiction - Religion, philosophy
Page count: 168 pages
Date(s) read: 8/31/23 - 9/1/23
Reading journal entry #163 in 2023
Title: How to Think About God: An Ancient Guide for Believers and Nonbelievers
Authors: Marcus Tullius Cicero, Philip Freeman [selected, translated, introduction by]
Series: Ancient Wisdom for Modern Readers
Year: 2019
Genre: Nonfiction - Religion, philosophy
Page count: 168 pages
Date(s) read: 8/31/23 - 9/1/23
Reading journal entry #163 in 2023
March 22, 2021
(Father Bacchus made me purchase this book. Outside His influence, I would not have bought it. The book is extremely short. It contains only the “Somnium Scipionis” and part of Book II of Cicero’s “De Natura Deorum”. I read it anyway.)
This is just an incomplete English translation of two fragments of Cicero’s works. Free translations are easily available online, so it doesn’t really make sense to spend money on this. If you’re learning Latin, however, I guess the side-by-side Latin-English pages are useful.
I learned that ancient people used the same (fallacious) arguments for God’s existence as modern theists do; that at least during Cicero’s lifetime, some people did not consider the Greco-Roman myths to have been entirely true; and that Ptolemy’s geocentrism was known to Ancient Romans.
This is just an incomplete English translation of two fragments of Cicero’s works. Free translations are easily available online, so it doesn’t really make sense to spend money on this. If you’re learning Latin, however, I guess the side-by-side Latin-English pages are useful.
I learned that ancient people used the same (fallacious) arguments for God’s existence as modern theists do; that at least during Cicero’s lifetime, some people did not consider the Greco-Roman myths to have been entirely true; and that Ptolemy’s geocentrism was known to Ancient Romans.
April 17, 2025
This is a very short book in the Ancient Wisdom for Modern Readers series of Cicero's thoughts and musings on how to think about god, ironically titled "How to Think About God: An Ancient Guide for Believers and Nonbelievers".
It is good. It is more of a reason-based approach that Cicero meditates on. It is very short like I states earlier, one hour and seven minutes, but that does not mean it is light reading. Heavens no. This is some pretty deep thoughts this ancient thinker was going over.
It is a good audiobook and the reader, Mr. Shaun Grindell, did a very good job.
I give it three stars at this juncture (the first time through) and will listen to it again and see if I can pick more up as the topic is pretty deep...
Would recommend to any who are into the age of reason, philosophy and/or deep thoughts on the world around them.
It is good. It is more of a reason-based approach that Cicero meditates on. It is very short like I states earlier, one hour and seven minutes, but that does not mean it is light reading. Heavens no. This is some pretty deep thoughts this ancient thinker was going over.
It is a good audiobook and the reader, Mr. Shaun Grindell, did a very good job.
I give it three stars at this juncture (the first time through) and will listen to it again and see if I can pick more up as the topic is pretty deep...
Would recommend to any who are into the age of reason, philosophy and/or deep thoughts on the world around them.
March 2, 2024
Fantastic!
Cicero never fails to amaze me in his writings.
Here’s a fragment I found to be great.
“The souls of those who have given themselves to the pleasures of the body and have made themselves servants of those pleasures - for those who ruled by such passions and pleasures have broken the laws of gods and men.”
To be able to read this book is truly a privilege, taking into consideration a great part was found in the Vatican recently, in 1820.
Puts into perspective how small we are, how small and mundane are matters are and how big the celestial/heavenly matters are. The pursue or virtue is the most godly thing we as humans can do.
Cicero never fails to amaze me in his writings.
Here’s a fragment I found to be great.
“The souls of those who have given themselves to the pleasures of the body and have made themselves servants of those pleasures - for those who ruled by such passions and pleasures have broken the laws of gods and men.”
To be able to read this book is truly a privilege, taking into consideration a great part was found in the Vatican recently, in 1820.
Puts into perspective how small we are, how small and mundane are matters are and how big the celestial/heavenly matters are. The pursue or virtue is the most godly thing we as humans can do.
March 22, 2024
When you think about ancient philosophy, you never think about their opinions on the Divine (especially their support of the idea). This book does a good job giving voice to that ancient school of thought. I found myself resonating with a lot of things that were said, and I was impressed how this philosopher was able to make these conclusions. It's hard to deny that there is a Supreme Being after listening to this reason and argument. I thought the Dream of Scipio inclusion was a nice touch afterwards- I'm surprised this ancient text does not get talked about more. Both very powerful texts delivered in a simple way.
Read
December 18, 2023Ancient philosophers are funny, they’re always like, “oh hey, reason’s cool, nothing’s cooler, so reason is like an axiom.” And all, “hey man, everyone knows that the universe is tough, and nothing’s tougher, so stars must be like, pretty tough?”
And I’m sitting here going, “why don’t you nerds get sophisticated like us modern scholars and speak in nuanced ways so people don’t realize you’ve universalized your points in your head because Nietszche is right about everything.”
Note: Nietzsche isn’t right about anything important, just his pooping on philosophers.
And I’m sitting here going, “why don’t you nerds get sophisticated like us modern scholars and speak in nuanced ways so people don’t realize you’ve universalized your points in your head because Nietszche is right about everything.”
Note: Nietzsche isn’t right about anything important, just his pooping on philosophers.
July 17, 2025
skip. not much for the modern day reader to get out of this book, besides a historical understanding of ancient roman stoic views of god (which you don’t need to read this entire book to get). halfway through i thought, “god, why am i reading this?? this is deliriously boring.” i decided to stick through and finish it, and came to the same conclusion. it is deliriously boring. “god exists because everyone agrees so and if you don’t you’re crazy” isn’t the most compelling or interesting argument.
February 14, 2023
Bought this book on discount, and yeah, as promised, it approaches Cicero's writings from a 'practical wisdom' perspective.
As a psychologist, I kind of dread (used as an euphemism of despise) self-help books, so I would recommend reading "On the nature of the gods" by Cicero instead of this collection of quotes from that same essay.
Although, I must say the selected quotes contained in this book are really good.
As a psychologist, I kind of dread (used as an euphemism of despise) self-help books, so I would recommend reading "On the nature of the gods" by Cicero instead of this collection of quotes from that same essay.
Although, I must say the selected quotes contained in this book are really good.
October 22, 2024
One proof of the existence of god is that the world in all its wonder and complexity had to be made by a creator even more wonderful and complex. Cicero writes that if you saw a beautiful villa you would know it was built by skilled workers, not mice and weasels. I wonder how he came up with those two particular animals. I am sure that he knew they could not work together because weasels eat mice.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews