Hypatia of Alexandria
Hypatia of Alexandria was a Hellenized Egyptian female, philosopher, mathematician and teacher who lived in one of the worst times for a person with all the credentials I have just mentioned: The start of the Dark Ages. Although Egypt, as part of the Eastern Roman Empire escaped to the collapse of the Western state, it did not escape the destruction of knowledge and the thousand years of scientific stagnation brought up by the victorious Christian faith.
She was born in Egypt, either between 350 and 370 C.E. She was the last fellow of the Museum of Alexandria, associated with the once Great Library of Alexandria. She lectured in mathematics, philosophy and became head of the Platonist School circa 400 C.E. She is famous for commentaries on Diophantus's Arithmetica, on Apollonius' Conics and on Ptolemy's writings. None of those works have reached our times (I wonder why)
Hypatia lived the conflict between the dying Hellenistic culture and the rising Christian faith. The days of Julian were long gone. Theodosius "the Great" became emperor in the East in 379 C.E and of the unified Empire in 392 C.E. In 380 C.E. he decreed the end of religious diversity with the Codex Theodosianus 16.1.2. In 381 C.E. he started a campaign to end the remnants of the Arian Christianity. When he finished them, in 391 C.E he ordered the destruction of all hellenistic temples. Patriarch Theophilus complied with this request in Alexandria. Soon the Hellenistic temples and the libraries associated with them were looted and destroyed to its foundations to build Christian churches on top and with their remains. How many people died during those events? No one knows, we do not have records of that (I wonder why). The 95-year-old hierophant Nestorius predicted the "predominance of mental darkness over the human race"
Hypatia, corageously defended the remnants of the libraries and constantly was at odds with the Christian Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria. In 415 C.E., a Christian mob, tolerated by Cyril, killed her. According to John, Bishop of Nikiu, a 7th century author "a multitude of believers in God arose under the guidance of Peter the magistrate – now this Peter was a perfect believer in all respects in Jesus Christ – and they proceeded to seek for the pagan woman who had beguiled the people of the city and the prefect through her enchantments. And when they learnt the place where she was, they proceeded to her and found her seated on a (lofty) chair; and having made her descend they dragged her along till they brought her to the great church, named Caesarion. Now this was in the days of the fast. And they tore off her clothing and dragged her through the streets of the city till she died. And they carried her to a place named Cinaron, and they burned her body with fire. And all the people surrounded the patriarch Cyril and named him 'the new Theophilus'; for he had destroyed the last remains of idolatry in the city." The Catholic encyclopedia describes the death like this: "and tore her flesh with potsherds till she died."
In these days, in which conservative Christians claim there is a "war" against them, we have to remind them of their history and what they did to humanity 1600 years ago. We should not let them silence the voice of knowledge to be replaced with the spider web of superstition. Let Hypatia be the hero and lets not forget her. As she taught: "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing."
posted by Doctor Marco at 21:57
28 Comments:
Hello doc,
I would like to make a quick comment if you don’t mind. I am of the theist persuasion, so I hope that doesn’t disqualify me in intellectual dialogue (I’ll try to keep the “spider webs of superstition” to a minimum).
To be fair, I think it’s appropriate to distinct between what an individual or group of people do and what the “code” that they allegedly follow actually asserts. I am the first to admit that there have been many historical atrocities committed in the name of Christ, but this was done so in contradiction to the actual teachings of Jesus. Just my 1 ½ cent
Cheers
Heeyyy, what's up, doc? ;)
Sorry, couldn't get around the Bugs Bunny quote.
While I try to avoid the 'inherited morality' theorem, I find it strange that a religion that espouses 'love thy neighbor' has adherents who can do anything but.
As to BF's commentary, I think it’s appropriate to distinct between what an individual or group of people do and what the “code” that they allegedly follow actually asserts.
But that code is something that needs to be adhered to. I note the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy in this. But then we see it in many belief systems, not just xtianity, to be fair. Even Buddhism or atheism (not a belief system) has it's black eyes.
Religion seems to be geared towards bringing out the best in Mankind, but thus far has failed miserably.
BF:
You are welcomed here. I have other religious people commenting also. I believe that all groups should know their history and accept it fully before being part of it. (Meaning that religion should not be taught to children). The "code" has many good things, I agree.
RA:
Nice to have you back. "Religion seems to be geared towards bringing out the best in Mankind, but thus far has failed miserably."
Looking at the last 2 millennia of history I can only agree with what you said.
Q: I think Sr. Dr. Marco is making a point (very valid, when one considers the campaign again science and open thought going on today, brought by conservative relgious groups and individuals) that religion can be and often has been used to destroy knowledge and people. Christianity is not alone in this, but certainly has done it, in the time of Hypatia, in the time of Galileo, in the 1920 (Scopes) and now. Not only are ideas attackable by those who think they have the one true answer, but people as well. Something to keep in mind and guard against, especially if one does believe in a good and kind god who would want you to act kindly toward others.
Marco,
Just a request for a point of explanation. What rationale did the Chrstians give to accuse Hypatia of being "the last remains of idolatry in the city?"
And a question for the Theists, and I ask this seriously and respectfully...do you think there are more examples in history and currently of Positive Happenings or Malevolent Happenings in the name of J.C. or Muhammed or God or whomever the diety?
Sherril
PS Marco, I have new entries to my Blog re: Time in Israel. I welcome visitors.
RA,
First, it was a comment, not a commentary—big difference. Second, why is it illegitimate for me to look at people who claim to be Christians, yet live unrighteous lives, and promote violence to say that these people aren't living consistently with the text? Based on the circumstances, I can call their Christianity into question. I think that's legitimate. Besides, the no true Scotsman fallacy only counts for *true* Scotsman. Anyway, I will concede that it may be true also that people with the right heart, but the wrong head do things that are inappropriate. Regardless of your accusation—my distinction still stands.
Enjoyed your article Marco. I will concede that I am not much of a history buff so I will take what you said at face value and walk away with a little more education as opposed to commenting on something I am not familiar with.
I would like the opportunity to respond to one of the comments though by Sherril's myriad of musings:
"And a question for the Theists, and I ask this seriously and respectfully...do you think there are more examples in history and currently of Positive Happenings or Malevolent Happenings in the name of J.C. or Muhammed or God or whomever the diety?"
I think this is a very valid question that deserves a response. I hope, Sherril, that you would consider my response as one of sincerity. But I can only speak as a Christian.
Do I believe there are more examples in history and currently of Positive Happenings or Malevolent Happenings in the name of J.C.? Yes! Absolutley. But you are looking for some sort of historical documentation to verify this, if I am understanding your question correctly.
In my view, when it comes to historical tradjedy's like the crusades or the inqusitions, I find it work's much like modern day media. The focus is put upon the negative's that took place (I am not suggesting we should hide it under the carpet)
Whether it be yesteryear or today, when is the focus put upon the truly God fearing Christian's who apply the teaching's of their faith in everyday life? I would suggest that the history books could not hold that much information.
Allow me to give a modern day version. I do not know where you are from geographically but across North American cities (just for example) here is what you will find the "religious" folk doing on any given day of the week and you will never hear about it in media or read about it in the history books.
Walk down the slums of a downtrodden neighbourhood and you will find Christians preparing the daily meal for the homeless at the foodbanks. They will also be preparing "care packages" of food for the single mother who cannot leave her children or has no transportation to pick it up.
They will have a clothing depot opened up for those who cannot afford clothes where the street person can come and take whatever they need.
Christamas toys are collected, wrapped, and distributed to the families who cannot afford to buy a gift for their children. This is done for the kid's just to bless them.
Beds and shelter's are provided for those cold nights but are never closed off even on the nice evening's
You will find Christian's in the hospitals comforting the lonely the sick and the dying. Caring for people who may not have family and being there in their last moments as a friend.
You will find them digging deep into their pockets to support not only the poor locally but to the even less forutanate in war torn nations. Seeing to it the children are able to recieve simple things like school supplies, clothing, and food. They will also be there for the natural disater's that strike such as Katrina. Some will literally get on a plane to be there in person to aid and assist
They will be setting up shelter's for the prositute to help get them off the street and down the path to a better way of life.
You will find them in the prison's spending time with the inmates. On the street's with the gang member's and those considered to be the lowest within society. Doing what Christ taught..loving the unlovable.
These are just a few examples of what goes on and has gone on thru out time within Christendom. People who actually honor the teachings of the Bible and are not bending or twisting it to suit their own personal agendas. There are thousands of these "positive happenings" on a daily basis world wide wide.
But what I will concede to you, Sherril, is that you will never hear of them nor will they be recorded in the annals of time. For the few good positives that do happen to make there way into the public spotlight they are soon forgotten.
What is remembered are the "few" who desecrated the name of God. Whether it be the crusades or the "married televangelist who screwed his secretary" Media and history tend to focus on the negatives which are few compared to the positive's.
Do not misunderstand me here, I feel these frauds should be exposed for what they are but that seems to be the primary focus when people who are not Christians discuss Christianity.
So my very longwinded answer to you is yes there are so much more positive happenings going on. But you will have to look for them as opposed to reading about it. Because these things will not be recorded. (Except by God)
I hope this answer give's some insight.
Sounds like a really cool woman. I'll have to check her out further. Thanks a lot for that.
I was going to just say, "Bravo!" but the commentary has moved me to write a bit more at legnth.
I am inclined to agree with BF. I have found it a mistake to not differentiate between Christianity and Christians. Especially the megaphone Christians which form the Christian Right, and to my sensibilites, are the rightful heirs to the murderers of Hypatia, and are often incredibly unchristian in their behavior. I offer you Pat Robertson as Exhibit "A".
I am also inclined to agree with Truth Seeker, but I feel compelled to mention that you will find many conscientious Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists all over the world performing these same acts of kindness. (Sort of a credit where credit is due comment. Also an act of homage to a Hindu who has, at great expense to himself, helped me tremendously lately.)
So the real problem isn't religion, it would seem to be fanaticism.
Sherill, your thoughts on this?
Q:
Thanks for your nice your nice words. in encourages to keep post. I am also a visitor of your blog.
As with everything, I have a purpose. it is not to stir anger or hate. It is just to remind, to make people aware of how human we are and how prone to make mistakes. Everyone who embraces a faith should know the history of it. In my case, it was too much. Why do I focus in Christians? It is because they claim to be intrinsically good, and while thinking like that, they have unleashed (together with Muslims) the worst of intolerance in human hisyory
Foilwoman:
You are right and I should have added it to the last reponse to Q. Science is endangered by fundamentalism in general, so, by reminding people about Hypatia, i feel that i can raise some awareness
Sherril:
The rationale is that she did not embrace the Christian faith and, during those times, the Hellenistic culture was under significant harrassment, intended to obliterate it.
Alanita:
It is not only the documents. in those times there was great loss of life.
Intolerant:
Thnks for your words. Just one thing. Charity and benevolent actions are not exclusive actions by Christians
Cyberkitten:
She was a great woman. Too bad that we have lost a lot of information about her.
Diane S:
Fanaticism is a problem recognized by the majority of us. Religion can be a problem without been fanatic if faith replaces the curiosity for knowledge
Marco:
"Just one thing. Charity and benevolent actions are not exclusive actions by Christians"
Agreed. I certainly am aware that there are non Christian organisations out there also contributing to the betterment of mankind. My purpose with Sherril was to point out the many "positive's" from the Christian perspective that go unnoticed in hope's of addressing her orignal question directed specifically at Theist's.
You also made another comment towards Q which, if you don't mind, I would like to respond to as I feel there is some misconception.
" Why do I focus in Christians? It is because they claim to be intrinsically good"
Although I agree there are those "self righteous & pompus" factions who really believe they are good. This type of attitude is contrary to the teachings of the Bible which tell us that ,due to man's fall (found in Genesis beginning with Adam and Eve) and which ushered in sin into the world, that we are all inherently bad/evil.
For example, do you ever notice that you never have to teach a child to disobey or rebel. They instinctively do it. You spend all their formidable years teaching them to do good. The bad part they got mastered coming out of the womb.
It is written that "All men fall short of the glory of God". It is also written that "any man who claims to be without sin is a liar and the truth is not in him."
The true Christian recognise's that no one, including him/herself, is worthy of God's kingdom. It was only by His willful choice and unfathomable love for His creation that He would provide a way for us thru His own sacrificial death. We do not enter eternal glory because "we" think we are good enough.
If that were the case then I would be the first to acknowledge that there are often examples of atheist's behaving themselves alot better then some of those who claim to be Christians and by their (atheists) actions alone should be considered better in the "good" department.
The Christian, therefore, actually humbles himself before God thru acknowledgement of sin and then follow's it up thru repentance. God by His mercy and grace provides a way thru this act of true humility. Admitting our penchant for evil.
In summary, Christians should never think of themselves as "intrinsically good". Even after conversion they can still be tempted to sin and often fail by giving in. After all, they are still falliable human beings living in a fallen world. They are simply forgiven. "We" are not good only God is good. We are just to do our best to represent Him by performing the kind of good deeds He would have us do in this life.
BF:
First, it was a comment, not a commentary—big difference.
The differential being...?
Second, why is it illegitimate for me to look at people who claim to be Christians, yet live unrighteous lives, and promote violence to say that these people aren't living consistently with the text?
I don't know...maybe because there's so many of them? There's folks out there who probably don't consider you a 'true xtian'.
Based on the circumstances, I can call their Christianity into question. I think that's legitimate.
Well, sure it's legitimate. Problem is, are you?
Besides, the no true Scotsman fallacy only counts for *true* Scotsman.
Man, allegory really dents the dialogue.
So you're a 'true' xtian then? I know exactly what you mean by this: 'We're the only judges'.
Anyway, I will concede that it may be true also that people with the right heart, but the wrong head do things that are inappropriate. Regardless of your accusation—my distinction still stands.
As does mine.
Hi Dr. Marco
1) Because of your biased post, I am curious to know, as a generalised satement, are you anti-God, anti- religion, anti-Christianity, or anti-Christians?
2) It has been stated in the comments that many people in history have committed wrong in the name of some higher power. But if we stand back, 600 years ago it was the dark ages, people did not understand things, so they chose to kill, and burn documents and buildings.
Fast forward to today, and what has changed? We have more technology, and most of us now believe that the earth is round. But the same normal population distribution still exists. So there are still a few extremists doing silly things, in the name of some higher power. Or people in positions of visibility who choose to not say no to temptation, and the media ensures that we know about it.
I predict that in 600 years from now, if the earth as we know it still exists, it will still be the same. Because the fallen nature of the human race will never change. Only individuals can change their own destiny by choice (good or bad choices).
Intolerant One:
For example, do you ever notice that you never have to teach a child to disobey or rebel. They instinctively do it. You spend all their formidable years teaching them to do good. The bad part they got mastered coming out of the womb.
That's actually a pretty good argument. BF could learn a thing or 2 from you, I'd say.
However, I say that it's the inherent biology taking over. The structure evolution has built dictates that the child supercedes the parent. We see it in nature all the time. & disobedient cubs get cuffed w/some regularity (I can pretty much guess that lions and tigers and bears oh my! aren't born w/original sin). The innate need to protect the offspring. This varies w/prolificacy: the more offspring, the less need to protect. Eventually, the parent dies, the child takes over, now an adult.
So rebellion's yet another proof of evolution forming this world.
RA:
"That's actually a pretty good argument."
Well, at least we partially found some common ground on this one. Not bad for an atheist and a theist.
"So rebellion's yet another proof of evolution forming this world."
Only difference from my perspective, of course, is that evolution has more holes in it then a hockey net and requires more faith then that of a religious person. (**Marco: not trying to have another go at this one. We could argue this one to death.)
The rebellious/sinful nature would then support the fallen state of man thru action's of the sinful nature (that being rebellion to God) found in the book of Genesis. Therefore proof of God.
This sinful/rebellious nature follows us thru adulthood. I have forgotten how many time's I have heard those who claim to not believe in God "take the Lord's name in vain" by using it in the form of a curse. They seem to talk about Him more then I do!!!
I find it interesting that they would bother acknowledging a deity they apparently do not believe in???? on a regular everyday basis. Yet more evidence that rebellion(sin) against God carries over into our adult years.
If the kid's are all grown up and out of the house and God becomes the focus of there everyday "angry" language, what does evolution have to do with any of it? Afterall, I do not see the animals doing it.
ITO:
Not bad for an atheist and a theist.
Hey, at least you're honest. I appreciate that.
Only difference from my perspective, of course, is that evolution has more holes in it then a hockey net and requires more faith then that of a religious person.
Those holes are closing w/each new piece of evidence. The facts exist, regardless of my believing in them, or as John Adams once said (para): "Facts are those items that won't go away."
Besides which, the hockey net still catches the puck.
The rebellious/sinful nature would then support the fallen state of man thru action's of the sinful nature (that being rebellion to God) found in the book of Genesis. Therefore proof of God.
Nah, don't buy it. Blood sacrifice, violent behavior, herd mentality, I think it smacks of evolution.
I have forgotten how many time's I have heard those who claim to not believe in God "take the Lord's name in vain" by using it in the form of a curse. They seem to talk about Him more then I do!!!
Just a figure of speech. It's not an acknowledgement of any sort. Don't read too much into it.
Afterall, I do not see the animals doing it.
Guess you didn't grow up a Disney kid, ey? ;)
Maybe we should teach Koko to sign blasphemously then?
Just kiddin' around.
RA:
"Those holes are closing w/each new piece of evidence."
Actually man is no longer considerd 98.5% genetically similiar to the chimp. We are now at 94.5% and that gap may yet widen further. I would suggest that that the holes are not closing but in fact are about to get ripped wide open.
" The facts exist"
Really? That is why it is called a "theory" then, correct?
"Nah, don't buy it. Blood sacrifice, violent behavior, herd mentality,"
You are under no obligation to buy it which I believe you are already aware. The rest of your statement no longer applies because it references Old Testament teachings that have been done away with since the arrival of Christ and the New Testament. Thank goodness cause, your right, that is pretty gross! LOL
"Just a figure of speech. It's not an acknowledgement of any sort. Don't read too much into it."
If that is the case, why not use Mohammed, Allah, or Buddha as well?
"Guess you didn't grow up a Disney kid, ey? ;)"
I was devesated after they shot Old Yeller. I never did fully recover. :)
"Maybe we should teach Koko to sign blasphemously then? Just kiddin' around."
I understood it as the humor it was meant to be taken in. Good shot! LOL :)
ITO:
Actually man is no longer considerd 98.5% genetically similiar to the chimp.
Got link? No ID links, please.
Here's 1 - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5067906/
Dated 2006.
That is why it is called a "theory" then, correct?
Which definition of theory are you using, exactly? Science uses this 1:
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
Whereas, most theists confuse it w/this 1:
"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
The rest of your statement no longer applies because it references Old Testament teachings that have been done away with since the arrival of Christ and the New Testament.
Ummm...that's not necessarily true. 'I come not to break/destroy the law, but to change it,' if memory serves? I know the dietary restriction were tossed, along w/the sabbatical laws, but many of the OT stipulations are still considered valid.
If that is the case, why not use Mohammed, Allah, or Buddha as well?
MORAL RELATIVISM! Hehehehe. Besides which, after the Danish debacle, I think there's gonna be a lot less blasphemy.
Besides, Buddha didn't give a fig about blasphemy. Buddha wasn't really a religious figure, in the beginning.
Paul V:
Thanks for commenting in my blog.
Let me answer your questions. I am not anti-gods. Supernatural beings have been ddetached from my process of thought long ago. The only thing I have against Christianity and against all religions who share the characteristic I am going to mention is the pernicious idea tht thay are the only true religion with the only true god. It is the intolerance that has brought so much damage to the world.
2500-1600 years ago, the Greco-Roman culture had libraries, philosophers, scientists. They discovered that the Earth was a sphere. They understood stuff, although they are not as advanced as today. It took 1200 years to return to their standard of living throughout Europe. Some christians did also understand, however, they decided to destroy, because they felt that serving a divinity was more important to go to heaven after dying.
RA:
"Got link? No ID links, please."
OK we are straying way off topic of the original posting so here is a morsel for you. Of course you would not want ID links. Why would I consider you to be open to ALL science.
"“The new figure, 94.5 percent or less, was proposed by the same man who many decades ago had published the 98.5 percent figure, Roy Britten (California Institute of Technology). Britten’s original 98.5 percent figure compared only one type of variation, called single base variation, in which a single “letter” of genetic code is different in corresponding strands of DNA from humans and chimps. However, there are two other major variations that Britten ignored in his original analysis. These types involve large sections of many “letters” of DNA, called insertions and deletions. When Britten factored these types of variations in, they added 4 percent to the difference between humans and chimps. Further, this difference is based on only about one million DNA bases out of the estimated three billion that make up each of the human and chimp genomes. Britten says of his estimate, “Its just a glance.”
Marvin Lubenow, “Bones of Contention”, Revised and Updated, Master Books, 2004, pp. 304-305. Lubenow quotes Britten from Andy Coghlan, “Not Such Close Cousins after all”, New Scientist Magazine, 28 September, 2002, p. 20
I already had this debate on my site and Marco's and we will continue to agree to disagree on the science so I would invite you to peruse my site every now and then as I will post about it from time to time and we can "duke it out" over there.
"Which definition of theory are you using, exactly? Science uses this 1:
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
It is this formula that theists use to question how you could possibly arrive at some of your conclusions.Evolution is not based on observable, testable, demonstrable, repeatable, scientific facts, but on philosophical presuppositions. This creates an interesting contradiction for the evolutionist, since he asserts that creation is to be rejected for it's unscientific nature???? Go figure!
" 'I come not to break/destroy the law, but to change it,' if memory serves? I know the dietary restriction were tossed, along w/the sabbatical laws, but many of the OT stipulations are still considered valid."
Very close. Good memory. It was stated by Christ that he had not come to "abolish the law but to fufill it." There is now no need for animal blood sacrifice. I should have made myself more clear, this was the part I was referencing when I said that it was gross.
Oh yeah, and we no longer put people to death for the sins of adultery, homosexuality, murder, etc.
Your comment about the herd mentality in a previous comment???? Have you ever checked out some of your fellow athiest site's? I would suggest the same description would apply! LOL(no offence intended)
and the whole violent behaviour thing...c'mon, when is the last time you saw US fly planes into buildings and declare Jihad on the world media over cartoons?
I am not referring to war by the way I am assuming you were directing your comments about random acts of violence.
ITO:
Why would I consider you to be open to ALL science.
I am. I consider creationism/ID to be pseudo-science. No offense, but it appears to me, that they're not the ones basing their system 'on observable, testable, demonstrable, repeatable, scientific facts, but on philosophical presuppositions.'
I find this sentence at the end, particularly telling:
Britten says of his estimate, “Its just a glance.”
I already had this debate on my site and Marco's and we will continue to agree to disagree on the science so I would invite you to peruse my site every now and then as I will post about it from time to time and we can "duke it out" over there.
Agreed, & likewise.
Evolution is not based on observable, testable, demonstrable, repeatable, scientific facts, but on philosophical presuppositions.
Despite a preponderance of forensic evidence?
Have you ever checked out some of your fellow athiest site's? I would suggest the same description would apply! LOL(no offence intended)
None taken.
More evidence evolution formed this world.
and the whole violent behaviour thing...c'mon, when is the last time you saw US fly planes into buildings and declare Jihad on the world media over cartoons?
Evolution howling at the moon...again. I can only hope we evolve past this unpleasantness soon.
Post a Comment
<< Home