Evolution in Greece

While the Greeks did not specifically refer to their concepts as “evolution”, they did have a philosophical notion of descent with modification. Several different Greek philosophers subscribed to a concept of origination, arguing that all things originated from water or air. Another common [...]]]> Contrary to many assumptions, evolutionary theory did not begin in 1859 with Charles Darwin and The Origin of Species. Rather, evolution-like ideas had existed since the times of the Greeks, and had been in and out of favor in the periods between ancient Greece and Victorian England. Indeed, by Darwin’s time the idea of evolution – called “descent with modification” – was not especially controversial, and several other evolutionary theories had already been proposed. Darwin may stand at the beginning of a modern tradition, but he is also the final culmination of an ancient speculation.

Evolution in Greece

While the Greeks did not specifically refer to their concepts as “evolution”, they did have a philosophical notion of descent with modification. Several different Greek philosophers subscribed to a concept of origination, arguing that all things originated from water or air. Another common concept was the idea that all things descended from one central, guiding principle.

• Thales ( 624 – 546 BCE): asserted that all things originated from water.
• Anaximander (610 – 546 BCE): With his assertion that physical forces, rather than supernatural means, create order in the universe, Anaximander can be considered the first scientist. He is known to have conducted the earliest recorded scientific experiment. He suggested that living beings gradually developed from moisture with warmth. He also thought that the first humans were born, fully formed, from the wombs of fish, since they needed care for a long time.
• Anaximenes (585 – 528 BCE): Thought air was the principle of all things, and regarded the process as a thinning or thickening.
• Empedocles (490 – 430 BCE): Thought that the first creatures were not fully formed but consisted of unconnected limbs. He established the concept of everything in the universe being made up of four elements: fire, air, water and earth, which was the standard for the next two thousand years.
• Aristotle (384  – 322 BCE): The Great Chain of Being: He thought there was a transition between the living and the nonliving, and theorized that in all things there is a constant desire to move from the lower to the higher, finally becoming the divine.
• Lucretius (99 – 55 BCE): He was the first to suggest extinctions and that the survivors survived by “cunning or speed”.

Medieval Theories

During medieval times, the idea of evolution was quite out of fashion, since the time was dominated by the christian theory of special creation. This idea, which argued that all living things came into existence in unchanging forms due to divine will, was notably in opposition to the concept of evolution.

Medieval thinking was also, oddly enough, confused by the idea of spontaneous generation, which stated that living things can appear fully formed from inorganic matter. In this view, maggots came from rotting meat, frogs came from slime, etc. This sort of a concept prevented both genetic thinking and speculation about evolution or descent with modification. Nevertheless, a few philosophers theorized about some sort of teleological principle by which species might derive from a divine form.

James Ussher – 1581-1656

The traditional Judeo-Christian version of creationism was strongly reinforced by James Ussher, a 17th century Anglican archbishop of Armagh in Northern Ireland.  By counting the generations of the Bible and adding them to modern history, he fixed the date of creation at October 23, 4004 B.C.  During Ussher’s lifetime, debate focused only on the details of his calculations rather than on the approach.  Dr. Charles Lightfoot of Cambridge University in England had the last word.  He proclaimed that the time of creation was 9:00 A.M. on October 23, 4004 B.C.

This belief that the earth and life on it are only about 6000 years old fit neatly with the then prevalent theory of the “Great Chain of Being.”  This held that God created an infinite and continuous series of life forms, each one grading into the next, from simplest to most complex, and that all organisms, including humans, were created in their present form relatively recently and that they have remained unchanged since then.  Given these strongly held beliefs, it is not surprising that 17th and 18th century European biology consisted mainly of the description of plants and animals as they are with virtually no attempt to explain how they got to be that way.

Immanuel Kant – 1724-1804

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant developed a concept of descent that is relatively close to modern thinking; he did in a way anticipate Darwinian thinking. Based on similarities between organisms, Kant speculated that they may have come from a single ancestral source. In a thoroughly modern speculation, he mused that “an orang-outang or a chimpanzee may develop the organs which serve for walking, grasping objects, and speaking-in short, that lie may evolve the structure of man, with an organ for the use of reason, which shall gradually develop itself by social culture”.

Biological Conceptions of Evolution

The preceding discussion has focused on the philosophical components of evolutionary theory, but precursors exist for its biological aspects as well. Indeed, as mentioned above, by Darwin’s time the concept of descent with modification was hardly controversial – it was only the mechanism, the rate of modification, and the ultimate origin of life that were being debated. Darwin’s major breakthrough consisted in providing a plausible mechanism to drive change in organisms.

Carolus Linnaeus – 1707-1778

Carolus Linnaeus, or Carl Linné, is considered the father of modern taxonomy for his work in hierarchical classification of various organisms. At first, he believed in the fixed nature of species, but he was later swayed by hybridization experiments in plants, which could produce new species. However, he maintained his belief in special creation in the Garden of Eden, consistent with the Christian doctrine to which he was quite devoted. He still saw the new species created by plant hybridization to have been part of God’s plan, and never considered the idea of open-ended, undirected evolution not mediated by the divine.

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600’s by John Ray, 1627-1705, an English naturalist and ordained minister.  However, it was Linnaeus who used this system to name us Homo sapiens (literally, “wise men”).  He also placed us in the order Primates (a larger, more inclusive category than our genus) along with all of the apes, monkeys, and prosimians.  This was very controversial at the time since it implied that people were part of nature, along with other animals and plants.  In addition, it meant that we were biologically closer to the other primates than to all other animals.

Late in the 18th century, a small number of European scientists began to quietly suggest that life forms are not fixed.  The French mathematician and naturalist, George Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, 1707-1788, actually said that living things do change through time.  He speculated that this was somehow a result of influences from the environment or even chance.  He believed that the earth must be much older than 6000 years.  In 1774, in fact, he speculated that the earth must be at least 75,000 years old.  He also suggested that humans and apes are related.  Buffon was careful to hide his radical views in a limited edition 44 volume natural history book series called Histoire Naturelle (1749-1804).  By doing this, he avoided broad public criticism.

Buffon was an early advocate of the Linnaean classification system.  He was also a quiet pioneer in asserting that species can change over generations.  However, he publicly rejected the idea that species could evolve into other species.  One of his most significant contributions to the biological sciences was his insistence that natural phenomena must be explained by natural laws rather than theological doctrine.

Erasmus Darwin – 1731-1802

Charles Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus Darwin  was also a distinguished naturalist with his own intriguing ideas about evolution. While he never thought of natural selection, he did argue that all life could a have a single common ancestor, though he struggled with the concepts of a mechanism for this descent. He also discussed the effects of competition and sexual selection on possible changes in species. Like Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin subscribed to a theory stating that the use or disuse of parts could in itself make them grow or shrink, and that unconscious striving by the organism was responsible for adaptation.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck – 1744-1829

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck’s  theory of evolution was a good try for his time, but has now been discredited by experimental evidence and the much more plausible mechanism of modification proposed by Darwin. Lamarck saw species as not being fixed and immutable, but rather in a constantly changing state. He presented a multitude of different theories that he believed combined to explain descent with modification of these changing species.

Lamarck subscribed to a number of what we now know to be false beliefs about inheritance. First, like Erasmus Darwin, he argued for strong effects of the use and disuse of parts, which he thought would make the relevant parts change size or shape in accordance with their use. Second, Lamarck believed that all organisms fundamentally wanted to adapt themselves to their environment, and so they strove to become better adapted. The belief most commonly associated with Lamarck today is his idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This theory stated that an organism could pass on to its offspring any characteristics it had acquired in its lifetime. For example, if a man exercised and thus developed strong muscles, his offspring would then have strong muscles at birth.

George Cuvier - 1769-1832

Lamarck did not invent the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics but stated it clearly and publicly in an 1809 publication entitled Philosophie Zoologique. It was relatively easy for the French scientist, George Cuvier, and other critics of Lamarck to discredit his theory.   If it was correct, the children of cowboys who have developed bowed legs as a result of a lifetime of riding horses would be born with bowed legs as well.  That, of course, does not occur.  Likewise, the children of professional weight lifters are not born with enlarged muscles.

While Lamarck’s explanation of evolution was incorrect, it is unfair to label him a bad scientist.  In fact, he was at the cutting edge of biological research for his time.  He and George Cuvier were largely responsible for making biology a distinct branch of science.

Despite his criticism of Lamarck, Cuvier did not reject the idea that there had been earlier life forms.  In fact, he was the first scientist to document extinctions of ancient animals and was an internationally respected expert on dinosaurs.  However, he rejected the idea that their existence implied that evolution had occurred — he dogmatically maintained the “fixity” of species.

Cuvier advocated the theory of catastrophism, as did most other leading scientists of his day.  This held that there have been violent and sudden natural catastrophes such as great floods and the rapid formation of major mountain chains.  Plants and animals living in those parts of the world where such events occurred were often killed off according to Cuvier.  Then new life forms moved in from other areas.  As a result, the fossil record for a region shows abrupt changes in species.  Cuvier’s explanation relied solely on scientific evidence rather than biblical interpretation.

A careful examination of European geological deposits in the early 19th century led the English lawyer and geologist, Charles Lyell, 1797-1875, to conclude that Cuvier’s catastrophism theory was wrong.  He believed that there primarily have been slower, progressive changes.  In his three volume Principles of Geology (1830-1833), Lyell documented the fact that the earth must be very old and that it has been subject to the same sort of natural processes in the past that operate today in shaping the land.  These forces include erosion, earthquakes, glacial movements, volcanoes, and even the decomposition of plants and animals.

Lyell provided conclusive evidence for the theory of uniformitarianism, which had been developed originally by the late 18th century Scottish geologist, James Hutton - 1726-1797.  This held that the natural forces now changing the shape of the earth’s surface have been operating in the past much the same way.  In other words, the present is the key to understanding the past.

This revolutionary idea was instrumental in leading Charles Darwin to his understanding of biological evolution in the 1830’s.   However, it was not until the late 19th century that most educated people in the Western world finally rejected the theory of catastrophism in favor of uniformitarianism.

Today, we know that our planet has been shaped by occasional catastrophic events, such as bombardment of large meteors, in addition to the comparatively slower natural processes suggested by uniformitarianism.   All of these events have potentially affected the rate and direction of biological evolution.

Thomas Malthus – 1766-1834

Thomas Malthus’ theory of population growth was in the end what inspired Darwin to develop the theory of natural selection. According to Malthus, populations produce many more offspring than can possibly survive on the limited resources generally available. According to Malthus, poverty, famine, and disease were natural outcomes that resulted from overpopulation. However, Malthus believed that divine forces were ultimately responsible for such outcomes, which, though natural, were designed by God.

Robert Grant – 1793-1874

He wrote Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. It argued not only for biological evolution, but chemical and cosmological as well. It was largely scorned and was more of a philosophical work than a scientific one. But it was still very  influential on Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace.

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both independently developed the idea of the mechanism of natural selection after reading Thomas Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). However, Darwin had been turning the problem over in his mind for some twenty years before he first published The Origin of Species. Moreover, Darwin was much more willing to explore the implications of natural selection, particularly in relation to humans, than Wallace was. In addition, Wallace was a champion of rather radical social causes and later openly embraced spiritualism – all elements that resulted in the downplay of his role in the discovery of natural selection.

While George Cuvier and Charles Lyell strongly disagreed about how the earth got to be the way it is today, they both rejected the idea of biological evolution.  However, neither man accepted a traditional biblical account of creation and a young earth.  Cuvier did not live long enough to learn about Charles Darwin’s proof of evolution, but Lyell did.  He came to accept this proof in the early 1860’s along with most leading scientists of that time.  Lyell also became a friend of Charles Darwin.

Darwin’s Early Ideas

Darwin proposed a few ideas before he came up with natural selection. One was called the Pangenetic hypothesis. It attempted to explain how acquired characteristics worked. This hypothesis proposed that cells produce small particles called pangenes or gemmules which end up in sex cells. When passed on to the offspring, the pangenes are able to exactly reproduce the organ in which they originated.

Another hypothesis by Darwin was the evolution of monads. This hypothesis stated that species adapt and old species are replaced by new ones, so the overall number of species remains the same. Monads arose by spontaneous generation and would evolve to become an ancestral species.

A modification of the monad hypothesis was that if a monad stopped producing new species it would die out.

Sources:

• Pre-Darwinian Theories
• Pre-Darwinian Theories of Evolution

Some Books:

• The Origin Of Species by Charles Darwin
• Descent of Man by Charles Darwin
• Darwiniana – Essays by Thomas Huxley
• An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus
• The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinction by David Quammen

Websites:

• Timeline of Modern Evolutionary Thought
• A History of Evolutionary Thought
• The Victorian Web: Evolution
• The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online

Related posts

• What Are You Doing November 19? (10)
• Random Thoughts About Human Impact On Evolution (2)
• Religion is the Path of Least Resistance (2)
• Neece (1)
• Liquid Glass Is Groovy! (1)

Here’s some information from PBS:

After some three and a half billion years of life’s evolution on this planet – and after almost two million years since people recognizable as human first walked its surface – a new human burst upon the scene, apparently unannounced.

It was us.

Until then our ancestors had shared the planet with other human species. But soon there was only us, possessors of something that gave us unprecedented power over our environment and everything else alive. That something was – [...]]]> The other day, I watched a 3 part special about what makes us uniquely human from the rest of the animals on the planet, namely chimps. It was very interesting and I wanted to share it with you. I’m linking to each full length video and then below I will link to Science Talk’s interviews with Alda about the show and other interesting things.

Here’s some information from PBS:

After some three and a half billion years of life’s evolution on this planet – and after almost two million years since people recognizable as human first walked its surface – a new human burst upon the scene, apparently unannounced.

It was us.

Until then our ancestors had shared the planet with other human species. But soon there was only us, possessors of something that gave us unprecedented power over our environment and everything else alive. That something was – is – the Human Spark.

What is the nature of human uniqueness? Where did the Human Spark ignite, and when? And perhaps most tantalizingly, why?

In a three-part series broadcast on PBS in January 2010, Alan Alda takes these questions personally, visiting with dozens of scientists on three continents, and participating directly in many experiments – including the detailed examination of his own brain.

Program One: Becoming Us (link goes to full video)
Alan Alda confronts the puzzle of why our ancestors in Africa got the Spark and evolved into us, while the first humans to leave Africa for Europe–the Neanderthals–never did. Why did we flourish, while they changed very little for thousands of generations before eventually dying out?

Program Two: So Human, So Chimp (link goes to full video)
Alan Alda joins researchers studying human children and chimpanzees to discover why we share some skills with our closest living relatives, but have far surpassed them in our most uniquely human capabilities. Though we both descend from a common ancestor and are genetically so similar, why are we worlds apart in our behaviors and abilities?

Program Three: Brain Matters (link goes to full video)
Peer into Alan Alda’s head to find out which parts of our brain are responsible for our most human characteristics. Where do tool use and language reside? And how do our brains allow us to understand symbolism, figure out what others are thinking, and even travel in time? Are insight and imagination what really make humans unique?

Steve Mirsky interviews Alan Alda in two parts for Science Talk, the podcast for Scientific American. You can download or listen to them here. This is how I found out about the series and realized that Alan Alda isn’t just an actor. I had no idea he was into science so much.

Alan Alda’s Human Spark, Interview 1: Alan Alda, star of stage, screen and science, talks with podcast host Steve Mirsky about his new PBS science series The Human Spark as well as his strong interest in science and long association with Scientific American.

Interview Part 2: Alan Alda, host of the new PBS science series The Human Spark, talks to podcast host Steve Mirsky about his experiences as a fictional physican, a real patient and an amateur scientist.

Related posts

• Interesting, Enlightening Evolution (0)
• Liquid Glass Is Groovy! (1)
• Conversation With Anne About Religion, Truth, Science and History (4)
• By god, he’s a Bad Designer! (4)
• America Shouldn’t Be So Arrogant (6)

American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 by Crystal Eastman, Roger Baldwin and Walter Nelles. It was founded to assist in defending the rights of citizens as granted by the United States Constitution. At the time, the three biggest concerns were freedom of speech (for anti-war protesters), civil rights for blacks (and other minority races), and equal rights for women. On their site, the ACLU proclaims themselves as a “guardian of liberty, working [...] to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.”

This is the group who has time-and-time again gone to bat for the ‘little guy’ to insure their Constitutional [...]]]> Because I’m sure many just see it as a title, or an acronym, and recall their mention in the news involving lawsuits, lets start by answering a basic: What is the ACLU?

American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 by Crystal Eastman, Roger Baldwin and Walter Nelles. It was founded to assist in defending the rights of citizens as granted by the United States Constitution. At the time, the three biggest concerns were freedom of speech (for anti-war protesters), civil rights for blacks (and other minority races), and equal rights for women. On their site, the ACLU proclaims themselves as a “guardian of liberty, working [...] to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.”

This is the group who has time-and-time again gone to bat for the ‘little guy’ to insure their Constitutional rights as a citizen and a human are upheld. The Christian’s very doctrine urges them to help the weak, the sick, the poor, the unfortunate, the ‘little guy’. So why do so many Christians harbor such vitriol and hate towards the ACLU?

Personally, I think it boils down to two things:

1. Christian think they are under attack; so they look for that attacker in every action.
2. It is a common human reaction to fear the unknown; and Christians fail to understand, even refuse to understand what the ACLU represents.

As for the attacks, Christians have read stories and prophesies in the bible about Christians being persecuted; and so they look for persecution and attack everywhere. They seek to self-fulfill prophesy; and they see a potential persecutor in anyone who does not have the same life philosophies as they do. Their need to see these prophesies fulfilled goes so far that they even see persecution from other branches of Christianity. I see no universal way to combat this, especially on a large scale; so I simply look for those opportunities to help an individual see the light.

Ignorance and lack of knowledge can by combated though. I think the root of this ignorance lies in lack of understand of the principle of Separation of Church and state. So many Christians strive to tear down that wall of separation, without a clue to how that wall protects them and their ability to practice their flavor of Christianity as they see fit.

The ACLU has done some great work defending civil liberties and the rights we are given by our Constitution; but all Christians seem to notice today is their involvement with lawsuits that relate to religion (and of that they are really only noticing one side). And without knowing an ounce of the facts, jump to the assumption that the lawsuits are an attack against Christians. Never once stopping to realize that in many of these cases the ACLU is actually defending the ‘little guy’ from Christianity.

Even when the ACLU is defending the ‘little guy’ from Christians, the ACLU is not against Christianity. The majority of their staff and membership are Christians; and they have repeatedly defended Christians when the rights of those Christians were not being upheld. One of the most recent examples, pentecostal minister Howard Thompson Jr. used to preach during worship services at the New Jersey State Prison, until a few years ago when prison officials stopped him. Multiple religious and Christian defense groups stood by and did nothing; it was the ACLU who went to bat for Mr. Thompson’s rights, and it was the ACLU who won the case for him.

This isn’t the only case that the ACLU has gone to bat for a Christian; here is a list of some of the more prominent cases where the ACLU defended the right of a Christian to speak as a Christian or to practice Christianity. Yet few Christians seem to realize this; most Christians have bought into the conservative media’s constant claim that the ACLU is out to bring down Christianity.

The ACLU fights for INDIVIDUAL free exercise of religion (just as the Constitution specifies). The ACLU also fights against GOVERNMENT endorsement, sponsorship, or establishment of religion (again just as the Constitution specifies).

Now to the heart of what brought on this rant. Someone sent me this email not long ago (warning: obnoxious chain email incoming):

Pass this on to your church, co-workers, family, and friends. What do you have to lose but 44 cents, what do you have to gain? More than you will ever know!

What a clever idea!

Yes, Christmas cards! This is coming early so that you can get ready to include an important address to your list.

Want to have some fun this CHRISTMAS? Send the ACLU a CHRISTMAS CARD this year.

As they are working so very hard to get rid of the CHRISTMAS part of this holiday, we should all send them a nice, CHRISTIAN card to brighten up their dark, sad, little world.

Make sure it says “Merry Christmas” on it.

Here’s the address, just don’t be rude or crude (it’s not the Christian way, you know):
ACLU
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004

Two tons of Christmas cards would freeze their operations because they wouldn’t know if any were regular mail containing contributions. So spend 44 cents and tell the ACLU to leave Christmas alone. Also tell them that there is no such thing as a ” Holiday Tree”! It’s always been called a CHRISTMAS TREE!

Please pass this on to your email lists. We really want to communicate with the ACLU! They really DESERVE us!!

For those of you who aren’t aware of them, the ACLU, (the American Civil Liberties Union) is the one suing the U.S. Government to take God, Christmas or anything Christian away from us. They represent the atheists and others in this war.

Help put Christ back in Christmas!

I’ve already addressed most of the subtle hate and lies from this email; so I’ll let the Executive Director of the ACLU of Texas respond:

And just in case you need further fodder to throw at this spiteful and inaccurate email, Snopes has an article on it. In it they point out that some businesses replacing “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings” was NOT done under litigation or threat from the ACLU; but instead did so (proactively) to appeal to a broader customer base. They also point out the logically laughable idea of overwhelming the ACLU office with Christmas cards.

If you receive, or previously received the above letter, I encourage you to reply with a link to the above video. Whichever holiday you and yours celebrate, I wish you well and hope its enjoyable.

Sources: here, here, here, here, here,here, here, and here.

Related posts

• Kingsville: King of Ignorance (7)
• [UPDATED] Thousands of Tax Payer Dollars to Add Engraving to Capitol Visitor Center (5)
• JFK Had the Right Idea (0)
• Honor Killings are Illegal? Turkey Resorts To Honor Suicides For Women (12)
• Congress Goes to Recess – Secular Successes and Failures So Far This Year (7)

Well I am new to religion totally as neither of my parents knew what to believe so they taught me nothing. I have so many questions and not nearly enough hours to google! lol jk

If you dont believe in a higher being such as God like the Christians what do you believe? (***Now please dont think I am questioning your beliefs I simply need a better understanding of what you hold to be true in this world.***) Do you believe that things happen simply because we choose that is how it should or is there a force behind events? I have gathered you believe in evolution [...]]]> The other day I got an email from Anne which I will post below. She asked some basic questions and I thought I’d share my answers with you (with her permission, under a pseudonym for her privacy). So here is her email:

Well I am new to religion totally as neither of my parents knew what to believe so they taught me nothing. I have so many questions and not nearly enough hours to google! lol jk

If you dont believe in a higher being such as God like the Christians what do you believe? (***Now please dont think I am questioning your beliefs I simply need a better understanding of what you hold to be true in this world.***) Do you believe that things happen simply because we choose that is how it should or is there a force behind events? I have gathered you believe in evolution but how were monkeys first placed on earth? And then how was earth created? I believe it is truely unknown to begin with but do you have a theory?

My reply:

First, question everything. Don’t take my word for it. Research everything yourself.

I have a couple of questions for you.

Your parents taught you nothing about religion? So you picked up bits and pieces as you grew up from other people? That’s interesting. Are they atheists then? Or do they just never talk about religion? Perhaps it just doesn’t seem like an issue to them? I am curious if they’ve said anything to you at all. What kind of school did you go to? Did you go to public, private or home school? In which state? And how old are you?

Raising a child without teaching them anything is not what I’d consider ideal. My idea of a great foundation for a child is to teach her how to think critically, to think for herself. I recommend teaching a child about all religions from around the world and throughout human history, then asking questions to help the child form her own understanding about it. I would also share my personal opinion on the subject. But most people don’t raise their kids to think for themselves.

It sounds like you’re searching for something to believe in, but I would ask why you need to believe in anything that isn’t real?

I will speak for myself only, as I’m sure other atheists have come to their lack of belief in different ways.

I grew up as a christian. I went to church and believed jesus died for my sins. I was terrified of burning in hell and got baptized 3 times in 3 different churches to try to make sure I’d get into heaven and not burn for all eternity after I died. Looking back I think it was a horrible burden as a child, to be so afraid of a god that was supposed to be loving. It made no sense.

I studied the three major religions (judaism, christianity and islam) in my 20’s and realized after several years that is was all created by man. It hit me about 10 years ago that I no longer believed in gods of any sort and I was actually an atheist. A more detailed history of my deconversion can be found here.

Your question is incorrect. You asked if I no longer believe in a god (or any gods for that matter) then what do I believe in. The answer is I go out of my way to avoid beliefs as a general rule. You see, I don’t want to believe, I want to know (Carl Sagan said that). I want evidence and reality. I prefer facts to fantasy or wishful thinking. I have no need of beliefs that are not based in reality.

What do I hold to be true in this world? That’s a different question. I guess the answer to that is what has been observed in our brief human history. I value the accomplishments of humans, the amazing wonders of nature in all its forms, the cosmos in its vast scale. I look at history and see how far humans have come. I see how we’ve evolved our culture and societies, how we’ve learned great, amazing technologies and thought deep, profound concepts that have advanced us tremendously in a relatively short period of time. These are all real things that we can look at and examine and understand to the best of our abilities. Something else I hold true is that I am fully responsible for my own actions, as well as my inactions. I can’t pawn that off on some fantasy being. Actions and inactions have consequences.

Do I believe things happen simply because we choose that is how it should be or is there a force behind events? No. Neither of those has any basis in reality. The first is wishful thinking and the power of suggestion. The second is looking for a supernatural god to explain things you don’t understand. Neither is real.

Something happens because of cause and effect. I hit a key on my keyboard and a letter pops up on my monitor. A thousand things happened to make it show up. Just thinking and wishing for the words to appear on the screen does nothing. Your thoughts do not leave your head and transform the universe. This is a common false belief in the new age worldview. It is completely bogus nonsense without any basis in fact. If you have a thought and then you take that thought and turn it into some kind of action, that’s when things start happening.

In all of science there is zero evidence of anything supernatural in the universe. Everything that has been explained is natural. While we don’t have all the answers (and probably never will) about the beginning of the universe as we know it, or how it will end, if it will, and other questions, we know an awful lot now and it’s all completely natural. There is no evidence of any sort of god needed to make it all work as it does. What we call the laws of nature work just fine without any kind of divine force.

So I guess what I trust is cause and effect, physics, and human interaction with the material world. No need for a god or a creator. It all works just fine on its own.

Yes, I accept evolution as a fact, as most scientists do. Your next statement is also quite wrong. Monkeys were never placed on earth. This would say that some divine being put monkeys on the planet like a child placing dolls in a toy house. Did you learn the prevailing theories of how the earth was formed through natural cosmic events 4.6 billion years ago (or thereabouts) in school?

To go back in time, and again this is my rough explanation (you really need to read up on the specifics as I am not a cosmologist or a geologist and I’m doing this from memory) about 14 billion years ago (roughly) there was the Big Bang. All of matter expanded from a singular source (called a singularity) outwards, and even now it continues to expand. Swirling gases condensed to form stars and crashed together and cooled to form planets. I guess you could say, after the Big Bang, the rest of the formation of stars and planets has been the effect of that event.
I recommend Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson as a great astrophysicist. He’s easy to understand and very interesting. Here’s a 5 minute video you might like.

Also, PBS has a timeline of the universe here.

These are rough and simple explanations of prevailing theories as I know them. As I’ve mentioned, no one knows how exactly the Big Bang happened, what the universe was before the Big Bang, or how exactly life on earth first formed. The thing about science is we never stop asking questions. Usually asking a question brings up a dozen more that are unanswered, but it’s all so exciting and thrilling to observe the universe in all its intricate and natural majesty, and to try to understand it. And again, there is no evidence of any sort of god or supernatural being. Everything so far discovered and understood is all natural.

While no one knows exactly how life first started on earth billions of years ago, we are coming up with interesting ideas for how amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) were first able to form in the primordial soup that was on the planet. It was a very different environment, and little one-celled organisms most likely formed bio-films on the ocean floor and probably in volcanic steam vents. (Again, this is my understanding. I am getting this from memory, not a science text, but I recommend you study it yourself so that you know a bit about it straight from different scientists)

Through natural selection and adaptation, the little bacteria evolved over billions of years, branching off, adapting to different environments and through different environmental pressures. We are not evolved from monkeys. But we share a common ancestor from long ago. In fact, I should make it clear, we now know that all of life is connected genetically. You have billions of bacteria living on you right now, and you share a common ancestor with that bacteria, your pet cat, the fish you ate for dinner, and the whales that live in the ocean. I recommend watching a great video and playing with an interactive tree of life here. Here is a link to the video with David Attenborough. It’s 6 and a half minutes long, basically just a rough overview but it will get you started. Here is another great tree of life video (10 minutes).

I hope that makes sense. Please consider looking into learning a basic understanding of biology and maybe some other science. It will help you understand so much more about the world. Get some good books on evolutionary biology, cosmology and astronomy. You might find it amazing and interesting. Look up the show Cosmos and Carl Sagan. He was so awesome at explaining the universe.

Look up David Attenborough. He’s a naturalist and explains natural history quite well. Try a museum of natural history. You could check out the NY Museum of Natural History and the Smithsonian in D.C., and look to your local library in the science section. Look for scientists who are peer reviewed and stick to subjects they are experts in. Follow up with other sources to verify what you read. Never take anything at face value.

I have to ask, why do you feel you have a need for a god and a religion? You were lucky not to be brainwashed into believing something false to control you. Why do you feel the need to grasp onto one now? Religion is about controlling how people think, feel and live through fear, guilt and promise of a reward after death, which can never be tested or proven.

Oh, and because it is often a reason people think they need religion, I will say that being a good person is its own reward and there is ample evidence that morals are evolutionary, not directed by a supreme being who likes the smell of burning goat-flesh. Millions of atheists are moral and happy without such delusional beliefs based on iron age goat-herders.

I hope I answered your questions. I hope you are now asking many more and that those questions will become a lifelong quest for information and knowledge about the world and the universe, and our humble place within it.

~

If you would like to add to what I have said, I would love links to great videos, sites or books that might be helpful in explaining the Tree of Life, evolution and the Big Bang, etc. Please don’t resort to ad hominem attacks. We all start somewhere. Let’s give Anne the benefit of the doubt and encourage her to ask questions and seek answers.

Related posts

• Why I Am Not A Christian (0)
• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Let’s Stop Pussyfooting Around (46)
• Here We Go Again… (125)
• Conversations With Craig the christian 5 – More Interpretations (10)

]]> http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/12/17/conversation-with-anne-about-religion-truth-science-and-history/feed/ 4 http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/11/30/what-other-deities-were-born-on-jesus-birthday/ http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/11/30/what-other-deities-were-born-on-jesus-birthday/#comments Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:12:30 +0000 Neece http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/?p=2284 Was Jesus unique and special, born of a virgin on December 25th? The Anointed One, the Messiah? Was his message even all that original? Not at all. Back in the day, religions and cults mixed and borrowed freely from each other. The only thing special about Jesus, you could say, is how long his myth has been embraced as truth. I found this at American Atheists and thought you’d enjoy it for the holiday season.

December 25 is close to the Winter Solstice which has been an important event for ages. It’s the longest night of the year. December 25 was the Roman Winter Solstice upon establishment of the Julian calendar. We now have the Gregorian calendar which put the Winter Solstice to December 21st – 22nd. Many cultures recognized this Longest Night with holidays, festivals, gatherings, rituals about rebirth and [...]]]> Was Jesus unique and special, born of a virgin on December 25th? The Anointed One, the Messiah? Was his message even all that original? Not at all. Back in the day, religions and cults mixed and borrowed freely from each other. The only thing special about Jesus, you could say, is how long his myth has been embraced as truth. I found this at American Atheists and thought you’d enjoy it for the holiday season.

December 25 is close to the Winter Solstice which has been an important event for ages. It’s the longest night of the year. December 25 was the Roman Winter Solstice upon establishment of the Julian calendar. We now have the Gregorian calendar which put the Winter Solstice to December 21st – 22nd. Many cultures recognized this Longest Night with holidays, festivals, gatherings, rituals about rebirth and other celebrations.

~

EDIT: I shared the following article and a few readers noted below that there are no references or resources for any of this information. I fell into the trap of the Appeal to Authority. I had found it on what I considered to be a reputable site and didn’t think much about who wrote the article or what his sources were. I apologize.

Over the next day or so, I am going to edit this article to include some resources and references.

~

Horus c. 3000 BCE

–born of the virgin Isis-Merion December 25 in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
–his earthly father was named “Seb” (“Joseph”).
–was of royal descent.
–at 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized having disappeared for 18 years.
–baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by “Anup the Baptizer” (“John the Baptist”), who was decapitated.
–had 12 disciples, two of who were his “witnesses” and were named “Anup” and “Aan” (the two “Johns”).
–performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus (“El-Osiris”), from the dead.
–walked on water.
–his personal epithet was “Iusa,” the “ever-becoming son” of “Ptah,” the “Father.” He was thus called “Holy Child.”
–delivered a “Sermon on the Mount” and his followers recounted the “Sayings of Iusa.”
–was transfigured on the Mount.
–crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.
–he was also the “Way, the Truth, the Light,” “Messiah,” “God’s Anointed Son,” “the “Son of Man,” the “Good Shepherd,” the “Lamb of God,” the “Word made flesh,” the “Word of Truth,” etc.
–he was “the Fisher” and was associated with the Fish (“Ichthys”), Lamb and Lion.
–came to fulfill the Law.
–called “the KRST,” or “Anointed One.”
–was supposed to reign one thousand years.

Inscribed about 3,500 years ago on the walls of the Temple at Luxor were images of the Annunciation, Immaculate Conception, Birth and Adoration of Horus, with Thoth announcing to the Virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus; with Kneph the “Holy Ghost,” impregnating the virgin; and with the infant being attended by three kings, or magi, bearing gifts. In addition, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis—the original “Madonna and Child.”

~EDIT: more information on Horus:

Religious Tolerance has a handy chart and some background information regarding Horus, comparing the Egyptian god to Jesus.

Here is a bit of information that they have before the chart. I’ve added Wikipedia links to the three authors mentioned:

“There is a near consensus that Yeshua was born circa 4 to 7 BCE. By that time, stories from the life of Horus had been circulating for centuries before. If any copying occurred by the writers of the Egyptian or Christian religions, it was the myths and legends of Horus that were incorporated into Jesus’ biography, not vice-versa.

Tom Harpur, an author, journalist, Anglican priest, and theologian, studied the works of three authors specialized in ancient Egyptian religion: Godfrey Higgins (1771-1834), Gerald Massey (1828-1907) and Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963). Harpur incorporated some of their findings into his book “Pagan Christ.” He argued that all of the essential ideas of both Judaism and Christianity came primarily from Egyptian religion.

Harpur writes, in his book:

“[Author Gerald] Massey discovered nearly two hundred instances of immediate correspondence between the mythical Egyptian material and the allegedly historical Christian writings about Jesus. Horus indeed was the archetypal Pagan Christ.” ₂

One problem with comparing events in the life of Horus and Yeshua relates to time. Horus was a leading figure in Egyptian mythology for millennia. Folklore about him naturally proliferated during this interval. So, for example, there is more than one story about the method by which he died. Thus, if the writers of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) did copy events from Horus’ life, they would have had multiple options from which to choose. Further, one cannot compare crucifixion in 1st century CE Judah, with a similar procedure in ancient Egypt. Roman crucifixion followed a specific procedure by which the victim was made to carry the crosspiece through the city, clothing was stripped from him, his limbs were tied — or in rare instances, nailed — to the cross, etc. Nothing precisely like this existed in ancient Egypt. So, one cannot strictly call Horus’ execution a crucifixion, even if he was tied to a tree and died of exposure.”

They have a second chart here: Similarities between Jesus and Horus: More life events, characteristics and teachings.

The main reference is Tom Harpur’s The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Also, The Egyptian Book of the Dead

~

Osiris c. 3000 BCE

–Father of Horus, considered to be part of a triune godhead — Osiris, Horus and Isis.
–Osiris was identified with nearly every other Egyptian god and was on the way to absorbing them all. He had well over 200 divine names.
–He was called the Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods.
–He was the Resurrection and the Life, the Good Shepherd, Eternity and Everlastingness, the god who “made men and women to be born again.” –From first to last, Osiris was to the Egyptians the god-man who suffered, an died, and rose again, and reigned eternally in heaven. They believed that they would inherit eternal life, just as he had done .
–Osiris’s coming was announced by Three Wise Men: the three stars Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak in the belt of Orion, which point directly to Osiris’s star in the east, Sirius (Sothis), significator of his birth . . .
–Osiris was a prototypical Messiah, as well as a devoured Host. His flesh was eaten in the form of communion cakes of wheat, the “plant of Truth.” . . .
–The cult of Osiris contributed a number of ideas and phrases to the Bible. The 23rd Psalm copied an Egyptian text appealing to Osiris the Good Shepherd to lead the deceased to the “green pastures” and “still waters” of the nefer-nefer land, to restore the soul to the body, and to give protection in the valley of the shadow of death (the Tuat).
–The Lord’s Prayer was prefigured by an Egyptian hymn to Osiris-Amen beginning, “O Amen, O Amen, who are in heaven.” Amen was also invoked at the end of every prayer.

~Edit: More information on Osiris at Wikipedia and TourEgypt.net

Wheat and Clay Rituals (from Wikipedia):

Contrasting with the public “theatrical” ceremonies sourced from the I-Kher-Nefert stele, more esoteric ceremonies were performed inside the temples by priests witnessed only by chosen initiates. Plutarch mentions that two days after the beginning of the festival “the priests bring forth sacred chest containing a small golden coffer, into which they pour some potable water…and a great shout arises from the company for joy that Osiris is found (or resurrected). Then they knead some fertile soil with the water…and fashion therefrom a crescent-shaped figure, which they cloth and adorn, this indicating that they regard these gods as the substance of Earth and Water.” (Isis and Osiris, 39). Yet even his accounts were still obscure for he also wrote, “I pass over the cutting of the wood” opting not to describe it since he considered it as a most sacred ritual (Ibid. 21). In the Osirian temple at Denderah, an inscription (translated by Budge, Chapter XV, Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection) describes in detail the making of wheat paste models of each dismembered piece of Osiris to be sent out to the town where each piece was discovered by Isis. At the temple of Mendes, figures of Osiris are made from wheat and paste placed in a trough on the day of the murder, then water was added for several days, until finally the mixture was kneaded into a mold of Osiris and taken to the temple to be buried (the sacred grain for these cakes were grown only in the temple fields). Molds were made from the wood of a red tree in the forms of the sixteen dismembered parts of Osiris, the cakes of ‘divine’ bread were made from each mold, placed in a silver chest and set near the head of the god with the inward parts of Osiris as described in the Book of the Dead (XVII). On the first day of the Festival of Ploughing, where the goddess Isis appears in her shrine where she is stripped naked, paste made from the grain were placed in her bed and moistened with water, representing the fecund earth. All of these sacred rituals were climaxed by the eating of sacramental god, the eucharist by which the celebrants were transformed, in their persuasion, into replicas of their god-man (Larson 20).

Here is something interesting: A paper written by Martin Luther King, Jr in 1950: The Influence of the Mystery Religions on Christianity.

Here is his bibliography from the bottom of the paper:

1. Angus, S., Mystery Religions and Christianity, (Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York: 1925),
2. Cumont, Franz, The Mysteries of Mithra, (The Open Court Publishing Co., Chicago: 1910).
3. Cumont, Franz, The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, (The Open House Publishing Co., Chicago: 1911).
4. Dill, Samuel, Roman society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, (Macmillan and Co., New York: 1905), pp. 585-626.
5. Enslin Morton S., Christian Beginnings, (Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York: 1938), pp. 186-200.
6. Frazer, J. E., Adonis, Attis, Osiris, (London, 1922), Vol. I.
7. Fairbanks, Arthur, Greek Religion, (American Book Co, New York: 1910).
8. Halliday, W. R., Pagan Background of Early Christianity, (The University Press of Liverpool, London: N.D.), pp. 281-311.
9. Hyde, Walter, W, Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire, (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia: 1946).
10. Moore, George F., History of Religions, (Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York: 1913), Vol. I, pp. 375-405.
11. Nilsson, Martin P., Greek Popular Religion, (Columbia University Press, New York: 1940), pp. 42-64.
12. Weigall Arthur, The Paganism in Our Christianity, (Hutchinson and Co. London: N.D.).
13. Willoughby, Harold R., Pagan Regeneration, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 1929).

~

Attis of Phrygia c.1400 BCE

– born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana (or sometimes Cybelem).
– considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind.
– his body as bread was eaten by his worshippers
– his priests were “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.”
– he was both the Divine Son and the Father.
– he was crucified on a tree on “Black Friday,” from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth.
– descended into the underworld for three days.
– was resurrected on March 25 (as tradition held of Jesus) as the Most High God. — reborn as the evergreen pine.

~EDIT: Links to Attis on Wikipedia and Theoi. I am not sure where the above information came from. The priests castrated themselves, yes. But the rest is unsourced, so question its validity.

~

Krishna c. 1400 BCE (possibly as early as 5771 BCE)

– born of the Virgin Devaki (“Divine One”) on December 25.
–his earthly father was a carpenter, off in the city paying tax when K. was born.
–birth was signaled by a star in the east and attended by angels and shepherds, at which time he was presented with spices.
–heavenly hosts danced and sang at his birth.
–persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.
–anointed on the head with oil by a woman whom he healed.
–depicted as having his foot on the head of a serpent.
–worked miracles and wonders, raising the dead and healing lepers, the deaf and the blind.
–used parables to teach the people about charity and love, and he “lived poor and he loved the poor.”
–castigated the clergy, charging them with “ambition and hypocrisy . . . Tradition says he fell victim to their vengeance.”
–his “beloved disciple” was Arjuina or Ar-jouan (Jouhn).
–transfigured in front of his disciples.
–gave his twelve disciples the ability to work miracles.
–his path was “strewn with branches.”
–died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
–killed around the age of 30, and the sun darkened at his death.
–rose from the dead and ascended to heaven “in the sight of all men.”
–depicted on a cross with nail-holes in his feet, as well as having a heart emblem on his clothing.
–the “lion of the tribe of Saki.”
–called the “Shepherd of God” and considered the “Redeemer,” “Firstborn,” “Sin-Bearer,” “Liberator,” “Universal Word.”
–deemed the “Son of God” and “our Lord and Savior,” who came to earth to die for man’s salvation.
–the second person of the Trinity.
–his disciples purportedly bestowed upon him the title “Jezeus,” or “Jeseus,” meaning “pure essence.”

Zoroaster/Zarathustra c. 1000 BCE or earlier

–born of a 15-year-old virgin, Dughdhava and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.”
–he was baptized in a river.
–in his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom.
–was tempted in the wilderness by the devil.
–began his ministry at age 30 wandered around with twelve followers.
–baptized with water, fire and “holy wind.”
–cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man.
–taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse.
–had a sacred cup or grail.
–was slain.
–his religion had a eucharist.
–he was the “Word made flesh.”
–followers expected a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshynt or Savior, who is to come in 2341 CE and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.

Mithra of Persia c. 600 BCE

–born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.
–considered a great traveling teacher and master.
–had 12 companions or disciples.
–his followers were promised immortality.
–performed miracles.
–the “great bull of the Sun,” Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
– buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
–resurrection was celebrated every year.
–called “the Good Shepherd” and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
–considered the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” and the “Logos,” [Word] “Redeemer,” “Savior” and “Messiah.”
–sacred day was Sunday, the “Lord’s Day,” hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
–had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter.
–his religion had a eucharist or “Lord’s Supper,” at which Mithra said, “He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”
–his annual sacrifice is the Passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement of pledge of moral and physical regeneration.

ALSO, the Vatican is built upon the papacy of Mithra, and the Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version it replaced . . . Virtually all of the elements of the Catholic ritual, from miter to wafer to altar to doxology, are directly taken from earlier Pagan mystery religions.

Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) c. 563 BCE

–born on December 25
–born of the Virgin Maya (“the Queen of Heaven”)
– announced by a star and attended by wise men presenting costly gifts.
–at his birth Brahma angels sang hymns.
–tempted by Mara, the Evil One, while fasting, but overcame the temptation, putting the Evil One to flight.
–taught in temple at age 12 and was able to match the wise religious scholars in their understanding.
– He healed the sick; fed 500 from a small basket of cakes.
–walked on water.
–Buddha’s disciple wanted to hear his lord preach so he started to cross a stream – he doubted and started to sink but he built up his faith and continued to walk across the water.
–came to fulfill the law and preached the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness.
–He obliged followers to live in poverty and to renounce the world.
–In his final years, Buddha was said to have ‘crushed a serpent’s head’ and to have been transfigured on a mount …’
–It was Buddha, not Christ, who first said: ‘If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also’

Heracles c. 800 BCE

–born on December 25 to a virgin who refrained from sex with her until her God-begotten child was born.
–sacrificed at the spring equinox.

Dionysus c. 186 BCE

–born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.
–a traveling teacher who performed miracles.
–rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.
– a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification.
–rose from the dead on March 25.
–the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine.
–called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.”
–considered the “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.”
–identified with the Ram or Lamb.
–His sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or “Young Man of the Tree” indicates he was hung on a tree or crucified.

Tammuz c. 400 BCE

–born to a virgin, named Mylitta, on December 25

Adonis c. 200 BCE

–born on December 25 was son of the virgin Myrha. (Almost certainly based on Tammuz).

Hermes

–born on December 25 was the son of the virgin Maia,
–member of a holy trinity Hermes Tris-Megistus.

Bacchus

–born on December 25, was crucified in 200 BCE.

Prometheus

–born on December 25, descended from heaven as a god incarnate as man, to save mankind, and was crucified, suffered, and was redeemed from death.

Thank you, Edwin Kagin at American Atheists

Related posts

• Conversations With Craig the christian 5 – More Interpretations (10)
• Conversations With christians – Beth 3 – Where Do We Go From Here? EDIT (16)
• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (19)
• Here We Go Again… (125)
• Conversations With christians – Beth 4a – With A Little Help From My Friends (6)

]]> http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/11/30/what-other-deities-were-born-on-jesus-birthday/feed/ 9 http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/11/14/greatest-destruction-of-knowledge/ http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/11/14/greatest-destruction-of-knowledge/#comments Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:41:34 +0000 Johnny http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/?p=2236 Cyril of Alexandria was born around 376CE and rose to power as the Pope of Alexandria during the peak of the Roman Empire’s rule there. He is credited with leading the charge against Nestorius in the First Council of Ephesus, where the divinity and caricature of Jesus Christ were debated. The Roman Catholic church eventually bestowed sainthood upon him, counting him among the ‘Church Fathers’ and ‘Doctors of the Church’, and also titling him as a Pillar of Faith and Seal of all the Fathers.

History might credit him with a much darker deed though, not surprisingly one the church usually fails to mention or attempts to brush under the rug. Although not official of course, some have referred to him as the patron saint of arsonists. His leadership possibly brought about what is probably the single most destructive annihilation of knowledge in human history.

The Great Library [...]]]> Cyril of Alexandria was born around 376CE and rose to power as the Pope of Alexandria during the peak of the Roman Empire’s rule there. He is credited with leading the charge against Nestorius in the First Council of Ephesus, where the divinity and caricature of Jesus Christ were debated. The Roman Catholic church eventually bestowed sainthood upon him, counting him among the ‘Church Fathers’ and ‘Doctors of the Church’, and also titling him as a Pillar of Faith and Seal of all the Fathers.

History might credit him with a much darker deed though, not surprisingly one the church usually fails to mention or attempts to brush under the rug. Although not official of course, some have referred to him as the patron saint of arsonists. His leadership possibly brought about what is probably the single most destructive annihilation of knowledge in human history.

The Great Library of Alexandria is thought to have been founded around the beginning of the third century BCE. A museum, a research institute, and a library, it was the first of its kind. Besides attempting to collect all the world’s knowledge, it housed a number of esteemed scholars; and boasted the latest works in mathematics, astronomy, physics, natural sciences and other subjects. It was at the Library of Alexandria that the scientific method was first conceptualized and utilized.

There are several descriptions of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, all from different periods in time. First in 48BCE by Julius Caesar, then by the attack of Aurelian in the third century CE, by the decree of Theopilus (Cyril’s uncle) in 391CE, by the mob incited by Cyril’s followers around 416CE, and finally by the Muslim conquests around 642CE. Its probable that all of these caused damage to the library in some form or another; but historians have been as-yet unable to say when its complete destruction came about. When it was destroyed though, one of the greatest repositories of knowledge was lost to humankind; somewhere between 600,000 and 1 million volumes of knowledge were lost, many of them forever.

The hypothesis that Cyril’s followers destroyed the library stems from stories of the murder of Hypatia. Hypatia of Alexandria was a Greek scholar who taught philosophy and astronomy at the library, as well as being a notable contributor in the field of mathematics. And a woman; something completely unheard of at the time. Hypatia came into conflict with Cyril, first because of her friendship to Orestes (the prefect of Alexandria, and stanch resistor of Cyril’s agenda for a church-ruled government); and secondly because of the church’s view of many sciences being heretical or associated with paganism. Hypatia was murdered in 415 at the hands of a Christian mob led by Cyril’s assistant, after being incited by Cyril to oppose Orestes and his allies. Without her leadership to defend the library, it was only a matter of time before Cyril was able to convince and incite his followers that the libraries association with paganism and heresies deemed it an enemy of the church and a target for destruction.

Here is an excerpt from Cosmos where Carl Sagan talks about the Library of Alexandria:

If a story has conflict (especially religious or political), with a fight, a murder, and little intrigue… You know Hollywood is going to take a crack at ruining it. And this story is no exception of course. Agora has already been released in a few locations in Europe; but oddly has no US release date. The movie sets the time in 391CE, with the main character as Hypatia; but also including Theophilus, Cyril, Orestes, and a Muslim invasion. So I would speculate that Hollywood is blending three of the destruction stories.

A last little side note: Some historians speculate that the library may have contained actual writings of Jesus (instead of all the third-hand stories). A little conspiracy theory, I know; but if Jesus existed and he did write, how different might that writing be than what the Catholic church collected and distributed?

Information pulled from here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Related posts

• Scientific Explanation For Supernatural Events (8)
• Conversation With Anne About Religion, Truth, Science and History (4)
• The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution (1)
• Superstitious? It Could Be Your Lack Of Control (5)
• Let’s Stop Coddling The Ignorant (3)

]]> http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/11/14/greatest-destruction-of-knowledge/feed/ 2 http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/11/10/jfk-had-the-right-idea/ http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/11/10/jfk-had-the-right-idea/#comments Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:19:31 +0000 Johnny http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/?p=2217 I stumbled upon a transcript on the National Public Radio site awhile-back. It was a speech made by John F. Kennedy in 1960, given to a group of Protestant ministers a few months before the election. JFK was a devout Catholic, but he was also had a solid understanding of the separation of church and state; this speech has some excellent excerpts that exemplify this. JFK was the first Catholic elected president, and during the elections other religious groups (primarily the Protestant group) were concerned about rumors that he would send an ambassador to the Vatican and be taking direction from the Pope. As it turned-out, it was Reagan who established the first ambassador to the Vatican in 1984.

So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to [...]]]> I stumbled upon a transcript on the National Public Radio site awhile-back. It was a speech made by John F. Kennedy in 1960, given to a group of Protestant ministers a few months before the election. JFK was a devout Catholic, but he was also had a solid understanding of the separation of church and state; this speech has some excellent excerpts that exemplify this. JFK was the first Catholic elected president, and during the elections other religious groups (primarily the Protestant group) were concerned about rumors that he would send an ambassador to the Vatican and be taking direction from the Pope. As it turned-out, it was Reagan who established the first ambassador to the Vatican in 1984.

So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

If only politicians today would take this view, instead of attacking that wall of separation.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

Truly he was a politician who understood the founding of our county; for although beliefs of our founding fathers may have varied, they knew that the success of the nation depended upon religious freedom, and to have religious freedom you must have separation of church and state.

You can find the full speech transcript on NPR’s site.

Related posts

• [UPDATED] Thousands of Tax Payer Dollars to Add Engraving to Capitol Visitor Center (5)
• Your Two Cents About the Faith Based Initiative Program (0)
• Why Do Christians Hate The ACLU? (5)
• Separation of church and State Benefits Everyone (24)
• Kingsville: King of Ignorance (7)

]]> http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/11/10/jfk-had-the-right-idea/feed/ 0