‘By Superstition we are driven to deeds of such great evil.’—From the sacrifice of Iphigenia to Iran, Israel and the USA
![]() |
| The Sacrifice of Iphigenia by Pieter Aertsen (painted c. 1555-1560) |
(Click on this link to hear a recorded version of the following piece)
—o0o—
—o0o—
At this time of year, spring, I habitually pull from my shelf Lucretius’ magnificent, two-thousand-year-old poem, De Rerum Natura—On the Nature of Things—and read the beautiful proem to the Goddess Venus at the beginning of Book I. In it, Lucretius speaks about how ‘in spring’s first days, the nurturing western breezes breathe free again and the birds in the air, smitten by you, warble the news of your coming, as beasts of the woods and fields cavort in the meadows and splash through brooks—and all for love.’ I have always found this a delightful text to contemplate, especially on a sunny and warm spring day, perhaps whilst reclining, as Lucretius himself must surely once have done, on soft grass bedecked with spring flowers beneath the branches of some tree just beginning to blossom.
But this year my mind could not rest for long upon this passage as I was all too aware of the extreme violence being meted out, directly and indirectly, upon so many innocent people by the current governments and military forces of the USA, Israel, and Iran. And, as if that alone were not disturbing enough, in every case superstitious religion is at the forefront of the conflict.
In the USA, in line with the fundamentalist, religious-nationalist views of the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, reports have emerged of military commanders invoking fundamentalist Christian ‘end times’ rhetoric to justify the war with Iran. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has received numerous complaints from service members who were told that the conflict is part of a ‘divine plan’ for Armageddon, with some officers even claiming that President Trump has been ‘anointed’ to trigger the return of Christ.
[I added the following video report, “Is the US fighting a ‘Holy War’ in Iran?” by Martha Kelner from Sky News, on 27th March 2026]
Simultaneously, the current Israeli Government—similarly influenced by fundamentalist religious factions—frequently employs biblical language to legitimise both the war in Iran and the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. By invoking the ‘Amalekites’—a people the Hebrew Bible mandates for total eradication—Netanyahu and his officials often frame the current geopolitical struggle as a literal fulfilment of ancient scripture regarding the promised land.
Iran, too, operates under a fundamentalist state ideology of Welayat al-Faqih [Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist]. Since the death of Ali Khamenei last month, his successor, Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei, governs as the representative of the Twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, who remains in ‘occultation’—it means ‘in hiding’. This eschatological figure is believed to be the messianic redeemer who will return at the end of time to establish Islamic justice—rendering the current conflict, in the eyes of the regime, a sacred prelude to this global redemption.
In short, the current conflict is, in part, being driven by three competing, fundamentalist, messianic frameworks in which, in what we would call conventional diplomacy has become incredibly difficult, because so many people on all sides believe—at least in their maximalist expressions of faith—that they are executing a divine mandate.
Now, after my rehearsal of these beliefs—and I could have added many more—please do not simply shake your head and dismiss them as merely ‘mad, bad, and dangerous’ and therefore not to be taken seriously. Why? Because the vital thing to understand is that, however we may judge them, these doctrines are genuinely held by the current leaders of the USA, Israel, and Iran. These beliefs are not only driving the conflict in the Middle East but are precipitating consequences that, even for us some 3,000 miles from the epicentre, will be very grave indeed.
Consequently, when I pulled my copy of Lucretius from the shelf this year, rather than lingering upon the proem to Venus, I turned immediately to the subsequent section in which Lucretius observes that far too many crimes have been committed in the name of superstitious religion, illustrating his point by recalling the sacrifice of Iphigenia by her father, Agamemnon.
As the Greek fleet gathered at Aulis to sail for Troy, they were stalled by a persistent and unnatural calm. The seer Calchas revealed that the goddess Artemis was offended because Agamemnon had killed a sacred deer and boasted of his superior hunting skills. To appease the goddess and win the winds necessary for war, Artemis demanded the sacrifice of Agamemnon’s eldest daughter, Iphigenia.
Agamemnon, torn between paternal duty and the pride of command, eventually succumbed to the pressures of his brother Menelaus and the Greek army. To lure Iphigenia to Aulis, he sent a message to his wife, Clytemnestra, claiming their daughter was to be wed to the hero Achilles. Trusting in this great honour, mother and daughter arrived at the camp, only to discover a grim and brutal ceremony awaited them. In the version recounted by Lucretius, Iphigenia is indeed sacrificed—an act that poisons Agamemnon’s eventual homecoming and leads Clytemnestra, years later, to murder him in revenge. Lucretius closes this section with a line that Voltaire famously cherished: ‘Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum’—which we may translate, along with the poet David R. Slavitt, as saying: ‘By Superstition we are driven to deeds of such great evil.’
The first-century BCE Roman poet Lucretius employs this seventh-century BCE Greek myth because the ancient hold of superstitious—we would say, fundamentalist—religion upon the mind is the primary target of his entire poem. He saw that such religions of his own time, just like those of our own, are always rooted in a profound ignorance of the nature of things; an ignorance that, in turn, allows superstitious, fundamentalist priests, rabbis, and imams everywhere to drive so many people to deeds of such great evil.
And so, here, in this liberal, free-religious gathering, I think we should continue to hold to Lucretius’ basic insight. For him, as for us, the remedy for the ‘evils’ of such belief was not to adopt and promote what we today might call an equal and opposite dogmatic liberalism, but instead to promote an ongoing liberal, inquiring, and free-religious project that encourages a clear-eyed observation of the world as it actually is—that is to say, to try and truly see the Nature of Things. Our time of mindful meditation is, of course, one powerfully effective way to practise this, as, indeed, were you ever to come on a Sunday, you would find is followed by a period of thoughtful conversation, an attempt to be clear-eyed about what has been said and presented, and so forth.
Anyway, in a world currently gripped by competing religious certainties and violent, messianic expectations, I think it is entirely appropriate to draw to a close with some words by Lucretius himself, taken from Book V of the poem (De Rerum Natura, 5.1198–1203, trans. David R. Slavitt):
How is it pious and wise to approach with covered head a piece of stone and fall prostrate before it to ask it for favours or for forgiveness? What is the point of splashing the blood of innocent beasts in showers upon these altars? Make promises to it? Swear oaths? Is it not better to live with a tranquil mind, surveying whatever one sees with a steady, clear-eyed acceptance? Our lives are hard enough, and full of sufficient woes that we have no need to look up at icily distant stars, imagining powerful gods who have been the cause of our griefs.



Comments
1) Religio and Superstitio are both latin terms, and if Lucretius had wanted to say superstition instead of religion, he could have.
Translating religio as supersition is, I think, substituting the translator's view on the practice Lucretius is condemning for that of Lucretius. Religio is the sort of magical/ cultic/ spiritual practice which is approved of in general, and in particular by the state. Supersitio is those practices which are condemned, both generally but particularly by the state. Lucretius is not talking about the sort of religion that is generally condemned, he is talking about the sort of religion that is generally approved and in particular, approved by the state. Iphigenia is not sacrificed in secret by a black magician, which would be superstitio, but in public by Kings. This is not an evil being perpetrated by legitimate authority, and we are not innocent of it in the way that we would be if it were superstitio. I could easily be reading too much into a single line, but I would say that Lucretius is condemning his own society here, and we should be condemning our own society too. What is going on now, is state power being exercised for religious motives, and that includes the power of our own state which is being used both to persecute its citizens that protest against it, and to assist in the perpetration of atrocity. If Religion has to be qualified in the translation, I'd suggest State Religion rather than Superstition.
2) The competing messianic frameworks are fundamentally all the same as Sevetus pointed out many centuries ago. If Jehovah hadn't sent in the cavalry 2500 or so years ago, this would not be happening. When a few Israelites got a peculiar idea about Jehovah, and prayed for salvation in a new way, the cavalry appeared to save them. They drew the conclusion that it was very important to have the right idea about God and their successors have kept that belief. (By one of the ironies of history, the cavalry he sent in were Persian.)
3. Don't jump into volcanoes, don't drink the Kool Aid, and don't press the nuclear button.
The temptation to destroy the flesh is strong in those that believe personality is the ultimate reality and matter is an illusion.
"your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" is an illustration of the old belief that heaven and earth operated under different laws. With the Second Coming, the earthly laws will be swept away and replaced by heavenly ones. Getting on with destroying the Earth makes a lot of sense to those with these beliefs. Why did God give us the Bomb? Because we are meant to use it and we ought to get on with it.
However this replacement has already happened. Before Newton, heavenly bodies moved in a different way to earthly ones, but Newton showed that both could be explained by the same force or gravity. i.e. it was already on earth as it is in heaven. In Science this is the called Uniformitarianism. (the word was coined, along with "scientist" and many others by William Whewell, fellow and later Master of Trinity at Cambridge in the first half of the 19th century)
1) Religio and Superstitio
My problem — and other’s! — is that the modern popular, everyday meaning of these words is different from their first-century Roman meanings, and since I’m trying to address a modern audience (and within a limit of c. 1000 words), if I’m going to use Lucretius’s take on the Iphigenia story, I need to do some interpretation (albeit, an interpretation borrowed from Slavitt).
In the poem, the target for Lucretius, like other Epicureans is superstitious fear of the Gods and the punishment many people thought they bring upon them in life and even after death. Lucretius, again like Epicureans in general, did believe in the Gods, but he simply believed they were made of atoms and lived in a state of “divine detachment” (ataraxia) in the spaces between worlds and had absolutely no interest in human affairs. So in this sense, when I’m talking to a modern audience it feels wrong to say Lucretius is against all kinds of religion, but only against superstitious religion of the kind that makes people fearful of what the Gods can, and might do. Your point about the sort of religio that is kind of magical/ cultic/ spiritual practice is, of course, well-made, but the kind of religion practiced by the Epicureans was not like this at all because they thought the Gods were completely disinterested in such stupid stuff! For the Epicureans the Gods were to be admired and imitated ONLY because of their ataraxia — a state they wished to develop in themselves.
I’m not sure about bringing in the state here because Lucretius’ target is ALL superstitious religion whether practiced by the state (in public or in private), or some other smaller group, say the religion of various tribes — for example the Druids over on the edge of the Roman Empire—had he still been alive at the time of Jesus and following, he would not have been impressed by Christian beliefs!
Anyway, I agree with you that Lucretius is condemning his own society, and we absolutely should be condemning our own society too—hence this address. Again, I agree with you that at the moment state power is being exercised for religious motives. But I would argue that in the present situation religion is better qualified by the adjective “superstitious” rather than “State” because although “State Religion” can certainly be applied to Iran and Israel, it’s not quite like that in the US where the separation of church and state still exists, even if it is clearly now coming under considerable strain.
Re: your second point stating that the “competing messianic frameworks are fundamentally all the same” is, I think right. The three major monotheisms of the word can but help develop what Peter Soloterdijk calls “Covenantal Singularisation Projects.” I write in more detail about that in the following “thought for the day.” I’d be pleased to hear your thoughts about that.
Free-religion’s challenge to all Covenantal Singularisation Projects
And, again, I’m with you in proclaiming loudly: “Don’t jump into volcanoes, don’t drink the Kool Aid, and don’t press the nuclear button.” Like you, it seems, I am concerned (as was Lucretius) to ensure that more and more people cease to divide the world into Heaven and Earth, the Natural and the Supernatural, the Sacred and the Secular and get on with the business of living well, peaceably and compassionately in the only world there is. Attempting this is an expression of my commitment to “kiitsu” [帰一]— to the Great Life of free and unobstructed creative evolution [自由で無碍な創造的進化の大生命] that is always-already “returning-to-one” all things.
Thanks again for writing.
Iphigenia was sacrificed for reasons of state. She was not the first nor the last. Somewhere in the region of 30-40,000 inhabitants of the UK were sacrificed in the first COVID wave in order to get political acceptance for lockdown. It wasn't enough for there to be bodies in China, bodies in Italy, bodies in Spain, bodies in France, there had to be bodies in the UK to make measure to stop the spread of COVID politically acceptable. Retired doctors were sacrificed. They could not do much, it was nursing that was the critical shortage, and the people asking them to volunteer knew they would be at extremely high risk, but they were called up anyway. There was an incident in a major Mississippi flood around 15 years ago that brought this to my attention before COVID reinforced it. The levees along the river can only take so much pressure before water gets forced through underneath them. If the river has too much water in it, something has to give, and there are designated areas of farmland which get favourable tax treatment in compensation for bearing this risk. This does not mean that the farmers are happy to see the levees protecting their farms blown up to take the pressure off the levees protecting the cities. When the river got high enough to make this look like a possible scenario, they are going to their Representatives, and they are going to court to get judges to order the General that has the power to blow the levees not to do it. The General knows at what height the levees should be blown, but the water gets that high and he does not give the order. It goes up, a day passes and he does not give that order. It goes up and another day passes and he does not give the order. Now its not only the farmers that are going to court and having their Representatives badger the General, its the Mayors and the Representatives of the cities too and they are going to court to get judges to order him to blow it up. Two days later than he should have done so according to scientific and engineering considerations, he orders the levees blown up. When one of his staff asked him later why he had waited so long, he said that there would be an Inquiry afterwards, he'd be summoned to the House and questioned, and he had to have the political protection of the Representatives when that happened, so he was not going to blow up the levees until they were demanding that he did it, or they wouldn't protect him from the ire of the farmers afterwards.
Superstition is, and was, a term of general abuse for those of different beliefs. States, then and now, sacrifice people for political reasons. The accusation of superstition can quite easily be turned back on the accuser, which is why I prefer to base my analysis on state religion rather than superstition. As Schellenberg might say, in 500,000 years, we'll all be considered superstitious, but we won't all be considered state religions.
(The second COVID lockdown in the autumn/winter was just incompetent, neither the level of deaths nor the level of restrictions were necessary, for political or any other reasons but I think substantial sacrifice was unavoidable in the first wave.)
I'll throw in point 4 too.
The sacrifice of Iphigenia leads to a series of revenge killings. Her mother (and her mother's lover) kill her father. They in turn are killed by her brother. What breaks the sequence is Law. He is tried for matricide and acquitted by an Athenian jury. Law is a way out of these self-perpetuating revenge sequences.
I think its the specifics of the Exile that make Judaism and its offshoots particularly intolerant rather than something which monotheisms generally can't help but develop. e.g Sikhs. Also, the Romans were not monotheistic, but if you interfered with their covenant with Jupiter, they got very violent about it. Nations are CSPs and there are many examples of genocidal behaviour to purify their ethnicity pretty much regardless of the dominant form of religion.