- in one sense continuing the Milesian tradition of replacing the gods with other things (water, apeiron, air) as ultimate cosmological explanatory principles;
- but specifically, thinks that the extension mentioned above (gods as possessing human properties and attributes) is inconsistent with divinity, appropriate reverence, etc.;
- rather, argues for what attributes gods (or a god) must have: gods need nothing, don't move, are not necessarily embodied, are omnipotent, only think and perceive; possible argument for singular godhead;
- implication: physical explanatory principles have nothing to do with gods (e.g. of rainbows);
- idea of epistemic humility about what we can know about gods [consequence of their difference from us] and what we can (justifiably) believe.