Still arguing against someone you have not read!

But Strauss is not the only one you have not read in your attempt to discredit him. Two of the authors you cite, Gregory Bruce Smith and Mark J. Lutz, hold Strauss in high regard, which would become clear if you actually read the articles you cite.

Like any thinker worthy of consideration, there are those who reject some or all of what Strauss says. You might as well make a collection of detractors of Plato.

But none of this really matters. What matters to you is defending your Christian neoplatonist reading of Plato. It has gone far beyond stating and defending your position. It reeks of desperation and intolerance.

@Apollodorus
Yep. I agree with your view of socrates.

On plato I agree with what you have stated,but,and it's a big but,platos main aim was political power,a kind of theocracy,rule by an elite of educated platonists.

And that is what strauss picks up.

To me plato himself and political power are inseperable.

To plato rulers should be implementing the "divine" laws
and "the good" like vicgerents or even better divine rulers.

What matters to you is defending your Christian neoplatonist reading of Plato. — Fooloso4

Totally wrong. I am simply presenting the position of scholars and explaining why Strauss does not demonstrate that Plato is an atheist, as you yourself have admitted.

You keep forgetting that Strauss is a political philosopher with controversial views, not a scholar of Plato.

As already stated, the facts of the matter are as follows:

1. You have admitted that Socrates does not deny the existence of the Gods:

Socrates does not explicitly deny the existence of gods, — Fooloso4

2. You also have admitted that Strauss did not demonstrate that Plato was an atheist:

Of course he did not demonstrate that! — Fooloso4

3. And you have failed to demonstrate that either Plato or Socrates was an atheist.

So, basically, (1) you are denying the facts, (2) you are contradicting yourself, and (3) you call people "Christian neoplatonists" for pointing this out.

You keep forgetting that Strauss is a political philosopher with controversial views, not a scholar of Plato. — Apollodorus

You keep forgetting that you have not read Strauss. If you did you would know that he was a scholar of Plato. Many of his students continue to do scholarly work on Plato.

You also keep forgetting that the topic of this thread is not Strauss.

Whether deliberate or not you have made clear your misunderstanding of what I have said. I am not going to go over it again. If you think you have correctly understood me but do not agree then what do you hope to gain by repeating it all yet again? Why so much intolerance of views other than your own?

And that is what strauss picks up — Protagoras

Of course he does, he was a political scientist.

However, Plato's politics has been interpreted in many different and mutually contradictory ways. To some he was a "communist", to others he was a "reactionary", etc. So, this is a matter of debate.

But the main point is that it is very difficult to interpret Plato's philosophy as "atheism" or "skepticism".

Certainly, we can't say "Socrates says he knows nothing", "Socrates hasn't seen the Forms", etc., and then read all kinds of spurious theories into it as Fooloso4 seems to be doing.

@Apollodorus
No doubt plato is not a sceptic or an atheist.

Neither is socrates. Socrates knew the "good" and about life after death,he clearly knew the mysteries and egyptian monotheism. Socrates was disillusioned with politics but had his ideas of an ideal state.

But also,definitely definately plato is a theocrat.

As I said, Plato's political theory may be interpreted in many different ways. It may be argued that he advocated a form of theocracy. But we must not forget that religion already played an important role in the Athenian city-state. So, the Athenian system wasn't too far from theocracy.

The thing is that "theocracy" means different things to different people at different times. Perhaps one example of modern theocracy would be Iran. Apparently, Ayatollah Khomeini was inspired by the Platonic vision of the philosopher king while in Qum in the 1920s when he became interested in Islamic mysticism and Plato's Republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king#Modern_Iran

But, yes. It is totally wrong to portray Socrates as an ignoramus and then put all kinds of "atheist" or "skeptical" theories into his mouth as anti-Platonists do. He definitely sounds like a spiritual person to me and this has been pointed out by many respected scholars like A. E. Taylor.

@Apollodorus
To clarify,he wanted a certain type of theocracy.
A philosopher king pharaonic type of ruling elite.

The Greek system he inhabited was not the kind of theocracy he wanted.

The Iranian example is a good one. But I think plato would have wanted a more expansionist version. Like the US or the UK.

Of course socrates was spiritual,that's the whole point of the dialogues!

But by the same token,if anybody wants to reduce plato to socrates spirituality or some pure academic or even just a mystic,they are wrong. He was mystical,a theorist,spiritual but above all wanted to be a catalyst for a political movement and build a real practical theocracy.

Those who ignore platos politics are not looking at his ultimate intention.

The Iranian example is a good one. But I think plato would have wanted a more expansionist version. Like the US or the UK. — Protagoras

That is entirely possible. After all, the Greeks had colonies throughout the Mediterranean and Black Sea region. So, there was a lot of potential for Greece to become a maritime empire like England.

Perhaps Alexander's father Philip II already harbored some ambitions in this direction, and certainly Alexander himself set out to create an empire.

But I think the main element in Greek imperialism was cultural and Platonism played a central role in it, precisely because it appealed to many different people and especially to the ruling upper classes. All Greek (and later Roman) rulers fancied themselves philosophers and I'm sure Plato's idea of "philosopher-kings" had something to do with this.

@Apollodorus
Yep. I agree with all that!

All movements and religions need to appeal to elite classes and the masses,so plato catered for both.

And I'm sure his models were used by the later Greeks and Romans as you say.

In truth,many modern elites and rulers follow loosely this platonic way,but their systems are home grown like the kaabalah or pharaonic system.

And I'm sure his models were used by the later Greeks and Romans as you say — Protagoras

Apparently, even by the British:

“These differences of opinion on economic matters within the Group did not disrupt the Group, because it was founded on political rather than economic ideas and its roots were to be found in ancient Athens rather than in modern Manchester. The Balliol generation, from Jowett and Nettleship, and the New College generation, from Zimmern, obtained an idealistic picture of classical Greece which left them nostalgic for the fifth century of Hellenism and drove them to seek to reestablish that ancient fellowship of intellect and patriotism in modern Britain. The funeral oration of Pericles became their political covenant with destiny. Duty to the state and loyalty to one's fellow citizens became the chief values of life. But, realizing that the jewel of Hellenism was destroyed by its inability to organize any political unit larger than a single city, the Milner Group saw the necessity of political organization in order to insure the continued existence of freedom and higher ethical values and hoped to be able to preserve the values of their day by organizing the whole world around the British Empire.”

– Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment

According to Quigley, the Milner Group was a group of liberal imperialist bankers, industrialists, and intellectuals, who were behind the conversion of the British Empire into the Commonwealth. Obviously, the Greek model suited their purposes.

But Strauss himself was an elitist who believed that only would-be philosophers like himself and his disciples were in possession of truth and everyone else were inferior human material.

So, basically, Strauss aimed to replace religion with another, belief-based system founded on atheist political theory. This is why he stressed Plato’s political philosophy and ignored or ridiculed his metaphysical and religious teachings.

But maybe Fooloso4 knows more about Strauss as he seems to be an unrepentant believer in Straussianism.

@Apollodorus

Without a doubt bankers,industrialists,military men and politicians from elite families use platos and others ideas to bolster their control and gain more political power.

I would say the line is effectively unbroken from egyptian times till now.

But a nuance I think you should take on board is that just like Judaism adapted to the extent that one can be a secularist and still be a member of Judaism,even high ranking and in political office,so platonism and all the other theocratic movements are adaptable enough to appear or even promote secularism.

But of course,the top boys think they are all "gods"in the making or actually "gods"....
Just witness modern culture...

But of course,the top boys think they are all "gods"in the making or actually "gods"....
Just witness modern culture... — Protagoras

Correct. People forget that politics is about power. Some "celebrities" imagine that because they have a few thousand followers they can run for the White House. Allegedly, this is because they want "to change the world", but in reality it is just a big power-motivated ego-trip.

Everyone thinks they are or should be "gods," which is why they dismiss Plato's teaching according to which becoming godlike involves cultivation of virtues and arduous intellectual training and, above all, self-discipline and self-control as well as detachment from material things and everything else that it takes to overcome selfishness, narcissism and arrogance.

Maybe this is why some are against religion, because religion believes in a higher authority and puts would-be "gods" in their places. And this is why they hate Socrates and Plato ....

@Apollodorus

My take is different. I don't doubt that a person can use platos work to increase discipline and spirituality in a positive way.

But the way it used in government is to actually increase one's discipline in being more ruthless and becoming a god king.

Becoming godlike to the higher elites means more disciplined acquisition of power and wealth,and micromanaging the populace via media, govt institutions and education to be an efficient workforce.

They don't need to be Gods. They exist within the Good, the One or the Unmoved Mover, just like thoughts or ideas exist in the human mind. — Apollodorus

Therefore, the point of view is not inherently atheist as you keep arguing it is. You keep forgetting that it is your argument that the position is atheistic. It is not being claimed by Fooloso4.

quote="Apollodorus;564365"]From accounts about Socrates it may be inferred that he was a kind of mystic or contemplative, who had little interest in mainstream religion or politics.[/quote]

The Republic, Gorgias, Phaedo, and The Statesman suggest otherwise. Or the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate otherwise since those topics are discussed in those dialogues.

I tend to believe that he wrote for educated intellectuals, i.e., a relatively small social and economic class who, as stated above, included philosophers with an interest in religion and religious people with an interest in philosophy. — Apollodorus

That is a more "Straussian" perspective than I take. The esoteric versus exoteric argument relates to political arguments about an "intellectual" aristocracy. Strauss also is not a "secularist" that in your other writings are identified as "Marxist."

The particulars of the various topics being discussed aside, I don't understand your passion to have the last word on the subject. If the meaning has been completely worked out, there is no need to read texts themselves. It is like an Hegelian synthesis that puts the pin into the last butterfly of a species. When you see an argument, the first thing you do is google who is against it. It is all dead for you.

I don't understand your [Apollodorus] passion to have the last word on the subject. — Valentinus

It strikes me as perverse. Anyone who has been doing this for more than a minute expects that there will be those who see things differently than you do, but once that difference has been stated and defended that really should be the end of it. Endlessly arguing the same thing across three different threads is at best pointless and intolerant and at worst ...?

When you see an argument, the first thing you do is google who is against it. — Valentinus

If your son is still reading I trust the two of you are getting a good laugh out of his continued attacks on someone he has not read. Not to the mention generations of scholars he dismisses because they were Strauss' students or students of his students. My favorite is when Apollodorus attempted to discredit him because he was writing in the 1930's and/or had been aided as an emigree by socialist academics.

My son says virtuous rulers will work toward the good while others will not. The question is what the good thing is. So the instrument of power is no guarantee of the the good result. It has to be actually good.

The question is what the good thing is. — Valentinus

That is both the question and what one hopes to accomplish. But as long as what the good is remains a question we can never be certain that what we strive to accomplish is good. We seek what is best without knowing what is best.

That is a more "Straussian" perspective than I take. The esoteric versus exoteric argument relates to political arguments about an "intellectual" aristocracy. Strauss also is not a "secularist" that in your other writings are identified as "Marxist." — Valentinus

Well, I've been accused of being an "evangelist", "Christian Neo-Platonist", and many other things which are totally untrue. So, I'm not the only one doing that.

Besides, it seems that you haven't followed the discussion. I was citing Solmsen who I believe is a more reliable scholar than Strauss.

Solmsen shows how the emergence of an intellectual class in Plato’s time had resulted in religious beliefs becoming a subject of philosophical discussion.

But the trend to question religion was accompanied by an opposite trend (in addition to allegorical interpretations) to present arguments and theories as a theoretical foundation for theology, thus not to deconstruct religion but to reinforce it with the help of reason. — Apollodorus

I don't understand your passion to have the last word on the subject. If the meaning has been completely worked out, there is no need to read texts themselves. It is like an Hegelian synthesis that puts the pin into the last butterfly of a species. When you see an argument, the first thing you do is google who is against it. It is all dead for you. — Valentinus

I have no such passion whatsoever. It is an ongoing discussion, isn't it???

Yes, I did google Strauss after Fooloso4 claimed he is a leading scholar of Plato whom he follows and after noticing that he is not mentioned by other scholars like Gerson.

Fooloso4 is accusing me of reading Plato through "Neo-Platonist" eyes, but he appeals to Strauss who looks at Plato through the eyes of al-Farabi and Ben Maimon.

And Fooloso4 did suggest that Socrates was an atheist and that Plato "banished the Gods":

In the Republic he banishes the gods from the just city and replaces them with Forms — Fooloso4

This is not true. Plato only banishes poets and artists who make irreverent references about the Gods. This isn't the same as "banishing the Gods". Plato certainly doesn't banish God. So, if anything, he replaces the Gods with one supreme and transcendent Deity. But he does believe in heavenly bodies as Gods, so he doesn't banish God or Gods as such. As Solmsen and others point out, Plato is a religious reformer, not an atheist.

Well, you are still the one who claims Foolso4 is advocating for "atheism". But he keeps saying he is not doing that. You do not deal with that. What is the point of your constant repetition if you do not address his point of view?
It seems pointless.

Of course I have addressed it. But he insisted that Socrates was tried for atheism. To which I replied that
the charge was "making other new deities" which implies that he believed in those deities in the same way an artisan or sculptor making images of Gods for domestic or temple use would believe in the Gods represented by the images. We are talking about 4th-century BC Athens, not 21st-century Chicago.

However, an Athenian artisan or sculptor who made images of Gods did so because he believed in the Gods represented by the images.

Were this not the case, then all the artisans and sculptors of Greece who made divine images and those who commissioned the images, including the city of Athens itself, would have been atheist liars and frauds pretending to be religious. I think even you can see the absurdity of your claim.

Socrates made literary images of divine beings or metaphysical realities he believed in. Therefore, he was not an atheist. — Apollodorus

This is supported by the Symposium where it is said that Socrates is full of words or speeches that are like divine images fashioned by artisans. Thus, not "inventions", but literary images of metaphysical realities that Socrates and others believed in.

What is the point in Fooloso4 saying "Socrates and Plato are not atheists" and at the same time saying "Socrates was tried for atheism," "Plato banishes the Gods," etc., etc. and calling people names when they disagree?

Plato only banishes poets and artists who make irreverent references about the Gods. This isn't the same as "banishing the Gods". — Apollodorus

What the Greeks knew of the gods was through the tales of the poets. Banishing the poets means banishing the gods. In place of the Greek gods, speech about gods, that is, theologia, will be the creation of the founders of the city (Republic 379a)

So, if anything, he replaces the Gods with one supreme and transcendent Deity. — Apollodorus

He replaces the gods with the Good. He does not call the Good a god. That is something you read into the text.

But he insisted that Socrates was tried for atheism. — Apollodorus

I don't have to insist on it, just read the Apology. I've already cited the relevant passages.

speech about gods, that is, theologia, will be the creation of the founders of the city — Fooloso4

Well. if there is "speech about the Gods", then presumably there are Gods to speak about.

He replaces the gods with the Good. He does not call the Good a god. — Fooloso4

Plato compares the Good to the Sun. The Sun is a God in Greek religion.

I don't have to insist on it, just read the Apology. I've already cited the relevant passages. — Fooloso4

Right, so there you go again. You are implying that Socrates was an atheist. But he was charged with "making new deities". And those deities were beings he believed in.

“For he says I am a maker of Gods; and because I make new Gods (καινοί θεοί kainoi theoi) and do not believe in the old ones, he indicted me for the sake of these old ones, as he says” (Euthyphro 3b).

Xenophon says the same:

“Socrates came before the jury after his adversaries had charged him with not believing in the Gods worshiped by the state and with the introduction of new deities in their stead and with corruption of the young” (Xenophon, Apology 10).

If the charge was that he introduced "other new deities", then the logical implication is that he believed in those deities he introduced.

Well. if there is "speech about the Gods", then presumably there are Gods to speak about. — Apollodorus

You might presume so, but in making stories about the gods does not entail the existence of gods.

Plato compares the Good to the Sun. The Sun is a God in Greek religion. — Apollodorus

And Plato's philosophy is not Greek religion. Your failure to see the difference is why you cannot understand Plato's philosophy and see only religion.

Right, so there you go again. — Apollodorus

Right, there you go again, ignoring the text. (26c)

(

because I make new Gods — Apollodorus

Like the poets, he is a maker of images without originals. Or do you think the Olympian gods or any other gods they made actually existed?

You might presume so, but in making stories about the gods does not entail the existence of gods. — Fooloso4

More Straussian straw men!

Making stories about the Gods may not entail the existence of Gods, but it may entail belief in the Gods described in the stories. The only alternative is to assume that the story makers, and by implication Plato, are liars which is absurd IMHO.

And Plato's philosophy is not Greek religion. Your failure to see the difference is why you cannot understand Plato's philosophy and see only religion. — Fooloso4

I see what the text says. If the text says "God/s" then it is irrational to claim that it doesn't.

“Which one can you name of the divinities in heaven as the author and cause of this, whose light makes our vision see best and visible things to be seen?” “Why, the one that you too and other people mean for your question evidently refers to the Sun.” “Is not this, then, the relation of vision to that divinity?” (Rep 508a).

“This [the Sun], then, you must understand that I meant by the offspring of the Good which the Good begot to stand in a proportion with itself: as the Good is in the intelligible region to reason and the objects of reason, so is this [the Sun] in the visible world to vision and the objects of vision.” (Rep 508b - c ).

1. The belief that the Sun is a God is Greek religion.

2. The belief that the Sun God is the offspring of the Good (which, by implication, is divine) is Platonic religion.

3. Plato combines traditional religion with his own theology.

Right, there you go again, ignoring the text. (26c) — Fooloso4

Here is the text:

[26c] these very gods about whom our speech now is, speak still more clearly both to me and to these gentlemen. For I am unable to understand whether you say that I teach that there are some gods, and myself then believe that there are some gods, and am not altogether godless and am not a wrongdoer in that way, that these, however, are not the gods whom the state believes in, but others, and this is what you accuse me for, that I believe in others; or you say that I do not myself believe in gods at all and that I teach this unbelief to other people. “That is what I say, that you do not believe in gods at all.” You amaze me, Meletus! Why do you say this?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D26c

The statement "you do not believe in Gods at all" is not the charge on which Socrates is being tried, it is an allegation that Meletus makes during the trial. You seem to be confusing one with the other.

“For he says I am a maker of Gods; and because I make new Gods (καινοί θεοί kainoi theoi) and do not believe in the old ones, he indicted me for the sake of these old ones, as he says” (Euthyphro 3b).

Xenophon says the same:

“Socrates came before the jury after his adversaries had charged him with not believing in the Gods worshiped by the state and with the introduction of new deities in their stead and with corruption of the young” (Xenophon, Apology 10).

If the charge was that he introduced "other new deities", then the logical implication is that he believed in those deities he introduced.

Like the poets, he is a maker of images without originals. Or do you think the Olympian gods or any other gods they made actually existed? — Fooloso4

1. Poets don't always make images without originals.

2. The issue is not whether the Gods existed but whether the image-makers believed in the Gods images of whom they were making.

3. There is no evidence that Socrates did not believe in the metaphysical realities or beings he described or under whose inspiration he believed he was acting.

Making stories about the Gods may not entail the existence of Gods, but it may entail belief in the Gods described in the stories. — Apollodorus

Of course the stories are made with the intent that they be believed. That does not mean the person who makes the stories believes that what he makes up comes to life like Pinocchio.

The only alternative is to assume that the story makers, and by implication Plato, are liars which is absurd IMHO. — Apollodorus

We know that Socrates tells noble lies.

(414b-c)
Also:

Do speeches have a double form, the one true, the other false? Must they [children] be educated in both but first in the false? (Republic 376e-377a)

And the poet Hesiod says that the muses his that:

... they speak lies like the truth ... (Theogony 27)

The statement "you do not believe in Gods at all" is not the charge on which Socrates is being tried, it is an allegation that Meletus makes during the trial. — Apollodorus

Right, it took you awhile but you are getting there. Next step, do some research on what the term 'atheist' meant as it was used then.

Poets don't always make images without originals. — Apollodorus

When it comes to making images of gods they do. Or do you think the gods they tell stories about actually existed?

There is no evidence that Socrates did not believe in the metaphysical realities or beings he described or under whose inspiration he believed he was acting. — Apollodorus

The hyperuranion beings if only believed and not known are not metaphysical realities but hypothetical.

Of course the stories are made with the intent that they be believed. That does not mean the person who makes the stories believes that what he makes up comes to life like Pinocchio. — Fooloso4

"Making" is not the same as "making up". There is no logical necessity for a person who makes speeches about Gods to either (1) disbelieve in Gods or (2) make things up.

It is perfectly possible for a person who makes speeches about Gods to actually believe in Gods.

Do speeches have a double form, the one true, the other false? Must they [children] be educated in both but first in the false? — Fooloso4

If speeches have a double form, the one true, the other false, then they have one form that is true.

The onus is on you to show that Plato's speeches about the Gods are false.

do some research on what the term 'atheist' meant as it was used then. — Fooloso4

That is not the issue. The issue is whether Socrates was an atheist in the sense of "not believing in God/s".

You have admitted that Socrates does not deny the existence of the Gods:

Socrates does not explicitly deny the existence of gods, — Fooloso4

So, on what basis do you claim that he is an atheist?

When it comes to making images of gods they do. Or do you think the gods they tell stories about actually existed? — Fooloso4

As usual, you confuse "existence" with "belief in existence". There is no logical necessity for a person who makes poetical images of Gods to either (1) disbelieve in Gods or (2) make things up.

It is perfectly possible for a person who makes poems about Gods to actually believe in Gods.

It is perfectly possible, indeed likely, that Socrates was making literary or metaphorical images of metaphysical realities that he believed in and, possibly, that he experienced personally.

The hyperuranion beings if only believed and not known are not metaphysical realities but hypothetical. — Fooloso4

The issue is whether Socrates and Plato believe in metaphysical realities. You have failed to show that they don't.

There is no logical necessity for a person who makes speeches about Gods to either (1) disbelieve in Gods or (2) make things up. — Apollodorus

You are right, it is not a matter of logical necessity. But it does not follow that in making the gods the poets did something other than create them.

If speeches have a double form, the one true, the other false, then they have one form that is true. — Apollodorus

Once again, follow the argument. The true form must come later, much later, when philosophy is introduced to those who are old enough and mature enough and properly suited to it.

The onus is on you to show that Plato's speeches about the Gods are false. — Apollodorus

No, the onus is on you to read the dialogue. It is clear from the context.

The issue is whether Socrates and Plato believe in metaphysical realities. You have failed to show that they don't. — Apollodorus

Once again, a hypothetical is not a reality. Socrates' second sailing:

After this, he said, when I had wearied of looking into beings, I thought that I must be careful to avoid the experience of those who watch an eclipse of the sun, for some of them ruin their eyes unless they watch its reflection in water or some such material ...

So I thought I must take refuge in discussions and investigate the truth of beings by means of accounts [logoi] … On each occasion I put down as hypothesis whatever account I judge to be mightiest; and whatever seems to me to be consonant with this, I put down as being true, both about cause and about all the rest, while what isn’t, I put down as not true.” (99d-100a)

Rather than looking into beings themselves, he turns to accounts, to speech, to hypothesis. Belief in a metaphysical reality is an opinion. Without knowledge there is no true measure of the truth of those opinions.

The dialogues are not about Plato's or Socrates' opinions, they are about the critical examination of our own opinions. Plato creates distance between himself and the dialogues. He never says anything in the dialogue. To assume that what Socrates says in the dialogues is either a record of the man Socrates' beliefs or a reflection of Plato's own beliefs is an assumption without support.

Incidentally, concerning your claim that according to Ibn Sina, Plato “concealed secrets in parables and images”, the fact of the matter is that the "secrets" referred to by Ibn Sina were metaphysical teachings that Ibn Sina feared to espouse openly under strict Islamic rule and that he himself was teaching covertly:

The identification of the heavenly bodies with God is said to have been the esoteric teaching of Avicenna

- L. Strauss, Farabi's Plato, 391

Thus not “atheism” and not “contrary to Neoplatonism” but consistent with it.

it does not follow that in making the gods the poets did something other than create them. — Fooloso4

Making images of something means making images of the objects represented, not making the objects themselves. It is important to understand the difference.

Religious people do not think that when making images of deities they make the deities represented by the images.

A statue of Zeus was an artistic representation of the God residing on Mount Olympus, not Zeus himself. Likewise, the metaphorical images of deities that Socrates makes are representations of the deities Socrates believes in, not the deities themselves.

Once again, follow the argument. The true form must come later, much later, when philosophy is introduced to those who are old enough and mature enough and properly suited to it. — Fooloso4

Once again, follow your own statement. If a speech about the Gods has a true form, then it has a true form. The issue is the form or content, not the time.

No, the onus is on you to read the dialogue. It is clear from the context. — Fooloso4

No, the onus is on you to show that I don’t read the dialogue. Not reading a dialogue in a Straussian or Anti-Platonist sense does not mean not reading it.

Once again, a hypothetical is not a reality. — Fooloso4

Once again, the issue is not the reality but Socrates’ belief in it.

So I thought I must take refuge in discussions and investigate the truth of beings by means of accounts [logoi] … — Fooloso4

Exactly, investigate the truth of beings, i.e., realities, not imaginary things. As I said, it is important to understand the difference.

On each occasion I put down as hypothesis whatever account I judge to be mightiest; and whatever seems to me to be consonant with this, I put down as being true, both about cause and about all the rest, while what isn’t, I put down as not true.” (99d-100a) — Fooloso4

“Putting something down as being true” means believing it to be true. He is talking about realities.

Belief in a metaphysical reality is an opinion. — Fooloso4

An opinion can be right opinion. And belief in a metaphysical reality is still a belief. If Socrates believes in metaphysical realities then it is incorrect to say that he does not believe in metaphysical realities.

The dialogues are not about Plato's or Socrates' opinions, they are about the critical examination of our own opinions. — Fooloso4

Opinions about what?

Plato creates distance between himself and the dialogues. He never says anything in the dialogue. — Fooloso4

Of course he doesn’t. He speaks through his characters.

To assume that what Socrates says in the dialogues is either a record of what he man's beliefs or a reflection of Plato's own beliefs is an assumption without support. — Fooloso4

In that case, the claim that Socrates or Plato do not believe in God/s is an assumption without support. Exactly as I’ve been saying all along. Good to see that you finally agree!

Anyway, as I said, the Sun is a God and the Good is (1) said to be the creator of the Sun and (2) is likened to the Sun.

Which one can you name of the divinities in heaven as the author and cause of this, whose light makes our vision see best and visible things to be seen?” “Why, the one that you too and other people mean for your question evidently refers to the Sun.” “Is not this, then, the relation of vision to that divinity?(Rep 508a).
This [the Sun], then, you must understand that I meant by the offspring of the Good which the Good begot to stand in a proportion with itself: as the Good is in the intelligible region to reason and the objects of reason, so is this [the Sun] in the visible world to vision and the objects of vision. (Rep 508b - c ).

Therefore the Good is a deity. The Good as the supreme deity above all other Gods is the core of Plato’s theology.

Socrates and Adeimantus … surely agree as to this, that the gods are superhuman beings, that they are of superhuman goodness or perfection (381c1 - 3). That the God is good is even the thesis of the first theological law. From this it follows that the God is not the cause of all things but only the good ones. This amounts to saying that the God is just: the first theological law applies to the God the result of the conversation with Polemarchus according to which justice consists in helping friends, i.e. sensible men and is not harming anyone … the other theological law asserts the simplicity of the God and is to some extent a mere corollary of the first” (98-99) … those who have come to accept that theology are best prepared for accepting the doctrine of ideas … (121)

- L. Strauss, On Plato’s Republic

So, obviously, there is a theology even in the Republic, and if we take other dialogues (Timaeus, Laws, etc.) into consideration, we can see that Plato does not abolish God/s but simply constructs a philosophy that can also serve as a theology, exactly as shown by eminent scholars like Solmsen and A. E. Taylor and admitted, however begrudgingly, even by hardened atheists and anti-Platonists like Strauss.