According to the analyzed sources, the arguments for and against the existence of Roman gods in historical beliefs are quite diverse and reflect society’s complex attitude toward its own traditions and rituals.

Divine Debates: The Role of Roman Gods in State and Tradition

According to the analyzed sources, the arguments for and against the existence of Roman gods in historical beliefs are quite diverse and reflect society’s complex attitude toward its own traditions and rituals.

The arguments in favor of the existence and significance of Roman gods are based on their inextricable connection with statehood and public order. For instance, one source notes, “The veneration of Roman gods is the reason for the greatness and glory of the empire; Christianity, which blasphemously denies these gods, is the reason for Rome’s fall…” This passage emphasizes that worshiping the gods was considered the guarantee of a state’s prosperity and power, and abandoning such rituals was seen as a factor contributing to decline. Moreover, it is noted that even if the pagans did not always deeply believe in the essence of their gods, by following established traditions they officially performed rituals of veneration—which was deemed mandatory for maintaining the state’s blessing (“Although the pagans themselves… nevertheless, they at least officially considered it their duty to acknowledge the gods and observe the outward forms of godly veneration”). Another supporting argument is the idea that the multitude of gods is explained by their role in representing various aspects of existence and actions: “It is understandable why there were so many gods. They were hardly any distinct personalities. They were abstract concepts representing various actions of the gods…” This interpretation suggests that a deity symbolized a particular force or natural phenomenon, which could correspond both to observations of reality and the needs of society.

On the other hand, the critique of Roman gods is based on the inconsistency of their attributed properties with commonly accepted notions of the divine.

For example, one opponent states, “You claim that the gods are immortal,” Arnobius addresses his Roman opponents, “but for what else would they have sexual organs if not for the reproduction of life?

What else do they need sexual organs for? It is incredible that they possess them in vain… Is all this appropriate for gods?” This argument points to the logical inconsistency between immortality and the presence of physical, typically human characteristics — such as reproductive functions, menstruation, weakness, and the pains of childbirth. Furthermore, critics (Tertullian, Arnobius) even openly deny the divinity of these figures, drawing attention to the multitude of anthropomorphic and sometimes bizarre images, which is seen as evidence that Roman gods are a product of cultural traditions rather than genuine supernatural beings (“Yes, Christians do not recognize Roman gods because they are not gods…”).

Thus, historical arguments in favor of the existence of Roman gods were built around the idea of their fundamental connection with public order, statehood, and the symbolism of various life forces, while their opponents highlighted contradictions in their characteristics and considered them products of cultural tradition rather than true divine beings.

Supporting citation(s):
“The veneration of Roman gods is the reason for the greatness and glory of the empire; Christianity, which blasphemously denies these gods, is the reason for the fall of Rome. That is the main theme around which all accusations against Christianity revolved…” (source: link txt)

“You claim that the gods are immortal,” Arnobius addresses his Roman opponents, “but for what else would they have sexual organs if not for the reproduction of life… Is all this appropriate for gods?” (source: link txt)

“It is understandable why there were so many gods. They were hardly any distinct personalities. They were abstract concepts representing various actions of the gods…” (source: link txt)

“Although the pagans themselves, at that time, did not always sincerely believe in their gods… nevertheless, at least officially, they considered it their duty to acknowledge the gods and observe the outward forms of godly veneration…” (source: link txt)