The connection is revealed in his words, “No one who in obedience to the laws believed that there were gods, ever intentionally did any unholy act, or uttered any unlawful word.” If people held proper beliefs about the gods, he reasons, they would not be inclined to break laws. That differs from my own Christian beliefs about sin, of course, and I suspect even Plato would admit “no one” and “ever” are an exaggeration, but there is truth in what he says. Even the worst egomaniac, if he is truly convinced that there is a God who rewards good and punishes evil, has more reason to do good simply out of self interest. It doesn’t mean he will do right, of course, but even so, his belief may restrain his worst impulses. Another contrast I now see between this and Christian apologetics is that encouraging lawful behavior seems to be Plato’s primary concern, and convincing people to believe in gods, although something I think he does genuinely care about, is here presented mostly as a means to that end.
This is an insightful comment. As to the clause beginning, “I suspect even Plato would admit,” see my footnote 2.
Reply to “Laws X, 884a–885c: How does Plato segue from property law to dealing with impiety?”