Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 07-13-2006, 02:12 AM

One thing that I have been interested in in relation to the NT works is that they didn't get into too much specifics about the thigns they were discussing and debating. For example, atomic theory and materialism had been around for 500 years by the time the NT was written, and the early church fathers had a lot to say about this subject, but, for some reason, it doesn't appear to be directly mentioned in the Bible.

I would submit, however, that the intro to the Gospel of John is meant to be a stab at refuting atomism:

Quote:

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

judge · 07-13-2006, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

One thing that I have been interested in in relation to the NT works is that they didn't get into too much specifics about the thigns they were discussing and debating. For example, atomic theory and materialism had been around for 500 years by the time the NT was written, and the early church fathers had a lot to say about this subject, but, for some reason, it doesn't appear to be directly mentioned in the Bible.

I would submit, however, that the intro to the Gospel of John is meant to be a stab at refuting atomism:

Hi, can you elaborate?

mountainman · 07-13-2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Hi, can you elaborate?

And perhaps with reference to the duality of particles
and waves, which the atomic (materialist) theory
cannot adequately address.

Will someone next liken the Pauli exclusion principle
to the sub-creeds relating to the law that there can
only be one bishop in any one city?

What's happening?

That there were christians contemplating anything
prior to the fourth century is an inference, because
there exists zero archeological evidence and zero
carbon dated manuscripts or fragments prior to the
Nicaean council.

Josephus did not refer to "the tribe of christians"
until the fourth century, when Eusebius, via the
supreme imperial mafia thug Constantine, had the
appropriate access to the patristic literature.

Christianity is a fiction composed by wicked men,
thrust upon the empire at the Council of Nicaea.

The event consisted of an ADD and a DELETE.
This is like the creation of virtual pairs of particles,
one the mirror image of the other. The fiction of
the new (and strange) testament was ADDED; while
the reality of the Hellenic philosophy, represented
by the literature, letters, biographies and memory
of Apollonius of Tyana, were DELETED (by fire).

Pete Brown

Malachi151 · 07-13-2006, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Hi, can you elaborate?

Sure, first ignore mountianman...

There was a lot of known information about the world by the time Christianity came about. I've alwasy been facinated that the New Testament texts didn't incriminate themselves more with anti-naturalistic claims which could be proven false. This is especially true since so many of the early Christain writers did address these issues. It was very wise of the Christians not to include in the Bible things like, for example, saying that "atoms don't exist".

Belief in the existance of atoms was considered a heresy by the Church, and atomic theory was denounced by all Christian writers, but oddly the Bible doesn't seem to address these issues directly.

For examples of Christian attacks on naturalism and atomism see my writings here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...nst_Naturalism

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...stic_Worldview

For example:

Quote:

"For even granting that there are atoms, and that these strike and shake each other by clashing together as chance may guide them, is it lawful for us to grant also that atoms thus meeting in fortuitous concourse can so make anything as to fashion its distinctive forms, determine its figure, polish its surface, enliven it with color, or quicken it by imparting to it a spirit? -- all which things every one sees to be accomplished in no other way than by the providence of God, if only he loves to see with the mind rather than with the eye alone, and asks this faculty of intelligent perception from the Author of his being. Nay, more; we are not at liberty even to grant the existence of atoms themselves, for, without discussing the subtle theories of the learned as to the divisibility of matter, observe how easily the absurdity of atoms may be proved from their own opinions. For they, as is well known, affirm that there is nothing else in nature but bodies and empty space, and the accidents of these, by which I believe that they mean motion and striking, and the forms which result from these. Let them tell us, then, under which category they reckon the images which they suppose to flow from the more solid bodies, but which, if indeed they are bodies, possess so little solidity that they are not discernible except by their contact with the eyes when we see them, and with the mind when we think of them. For the opinion of these philosophers is, that these images can proceed from the material object and, come to the eyes or to the mind, which, nevertheless, they affirm to be material. Now, I ask, How these images flow from atoms themselves? If they do, how can these be atoms from which some bodily particles are in this process separated? If they do not, either something can be the object of thought without such images, which they vehemently deny, or we ask, whence have they acquired a knowledge of atoms, seeing that they can in nowise become objects of thought to us? But I blush to have even thus far refuted these opinions, although they did not blush to hold them. When, however, I consider that they have even dared to defend them, I blush not on their account, but for the race of mankind itself whose ears could tolerate such nonsense."
- Saint Augustine to Dioscorus (410 CE)

"In the Beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth.

1. IT is right that any one beginning to narrate the formation of the world should begin with the good order which reigns in visible things. I am about to speak of the creation of heaven and earth, which was not spontaneous, as some have imagined, but drew its origin from God.

...

Some had recourse to material principles and attributed the origin of the Universe to the elements of the world. Others imagined that atoms, and indivisible bodies, molecules and ducts, form, by their union, the nature of the visible world. Atoms reuniting or separating, produce births and deaths and the most durable bodies only owe their consistency to the strength of their mutual adhesion: a true spider's web woven by these writers who give to heaven, to earth, and to sea so weak an origin and so little consistency! It is because they knew not how to say "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Deceived by their inherent atheism it appeared to them that nothing governed or ruled the universe, and that was all was given up to chance. To guard us against this error the writer on the creation, from the very first words, enlightens our understanding with the name of God; "In the beginning God created." What a glorious order!"
- Hexaemeron Homily I; Basil of Caesrea (4th Century) (Early Christian founder)

"I. IN OPPOSITION TO THOSE OF THE SCHOOL OF EPICURUS WHO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF A PROVIDENCE, AND REFER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNIVERSE TO ATOMIC BODIES.

Is the universe one coherent whole, as it seems to be in our own judgment, as well as in that of the wisest of the Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Pythagoras, and the Stoics and Heraclitus? or is it a duality, as some may possibly have conjectured? or is it indeed something manifold and infinite, as has been the opinion of certain others who, with a variety of mad speculations and fanciful usages of terms, have sought to divide and resolve the essential matter of the universe, and lay down the position that it is infinite and unoriginated, and without the sway of Providence? For there are those who, giving the name of atoms to certain imperishable and most minute bodies which are supposed to be infinite in number, and positing also the existence of a certain vacant space of an unlimited vastness, allege that these atoms, as they are borne along casually in the void, and clash all fortuitously against each other in an unregulated whirl, and become commingled one with another in a multitude of forms, enter into combination with each other, and thus gradually form this world and all objects in it; yea, more, that they construct infinite worlds. This was the opinion of Epicurus and Democritus; only they differed in one point, in so far as the former supposed these atoms to be all most minute and consequently imperceptible, while Democritus held that there were also some among them of a very large size. But they both hold that such atoms do exist, and that they are so called on account of their indissoluble consistency.

...

Well, but I suppose they will reply that the varying conjunctions of the atoms account fully for differences so great in the matter of duration. For it is maintained that there are some things that are compressed together by them, and firmly interlaced, so that they become closely compacted bodies, and consequently exceedingly hard to break up; while there are others in which more or less the conjunction of the atoms is of a looser and weaker nature, so that either quickly or after some time they separate themselves from their orderly constitution. And, again, there are some bodies made up of atoms of a definite kind and a certain common figure, while there are others made up of diverse atoms diversely disposed. But who, then, is the sagacious discriminator, that brings certain atoms into collocation, and separates others; and marshals some in such wise as to form the sun, and others in such a way as to originate the moon, and adapts all in natural fitness, and in accordance with the proper constitution of each star? For surely neither would those solar atoms, with their peculiar size and kind, and with their special mode of collocation, ever have reduced themselves so as to effect the production of a moon; nor, on the other hand, would the conjunctions of these lunar atoms ever have developed into a sun.

...

But even though men like these--and miserable men they are, however they may believe themselves to be righteous--may choose not to admit it, there is a mighty Lord that made the sun, and gave it the impetus for its course by His words. O ye blind ones, do these atoms of yours bring you the winter season and the rains, in order that the earth may yield food for you, and for all creatures living on it? Do they introduce summertime, too, in order that ye may gather their fruits from the trees for your enjoyment? And why, then, do ye not worship these atoms, and offer sacrifices to them as the guardians of earth's fruits?"
- Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria (3rd century) (Early Christian founder)

"CHAP. XVII.--DOCTRINE OF ATOMS UNTENABLE.

But you will say, according to the opinion of Epicurus, that successions of atoms coming in a ceaseless course, and mixing with one another, and conglomerating through unlimited and endless periods of time, are made solid bodies.

...

CHAP. XVIII.--THE CONCOURSE OF ATOMS COULD NOT MAKE THE WORD.

Then, in the next place, if they are ceaselessly borne about, and always coming, and being added to things whose measure is already complete, how can the universe stand, when new weights are always being heaped upon so vast weights? And this also I ask: If this expanse of heaven which we see was constructed by the gradual concurrence of atoms, how did it not collapse while it was in construction, if indeed t the yawning top of the structure was not propped and bound by any stays? For as those who build circular domes, unless they bind the fastening of the central top, the whole falls at once; so also the circle of the world, which we see to be brought together in so graceful a form, if it was not made at once, and under the influence of a single forth-putting of divine energy by the power of a Creator, but by atoms gradually concurring and constructing it, not as reason demanded, but as a fortuitous issue befell, how did it not fall down and crumble to pieces before it could be brought together and fastened? And further, I ask this: What is the pavement on which the foundations of such an immense mass are laid? And again, what you call the pavement, on what does it rest? And again that other, what supports it? And so I go on asking, until the answer comes to nothing and vacuity!

CHAP. XIX.--MORE DIFFICULTIES OF THE ATOMIC THEORY.

...

Thus it is sufficiently shown that the bodies of the world are not consolidated by the union of atoms; and that insensible bodies, even if they could by any means concur and be united, could not give forms and measures to bodies, form limbs, or effect qualities, or express quantities; all which, therefore, by their exactness, attest the hand of a Maker, and show the operation of reason, which reason I call the Word, and God."
- Recognitions Book VIII; Pope Clement of Rome (2nd century) (Early Christian founder)

"CHAP. XIX.--EPICURUS; ADOPTS THE DEMOCRITIC ATOMISM; DENIAL OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE; THE PRINCIPLE OF HIS ETHICAL SYSTEM.

Epicurus, however, advanced an opinion almost contrary to all. He supposed, as originating principles of all things, atoms and vacuity. He considered vacuity as the place that would contain the things that will exist, and atoms the matter out of which all things could be formed; and that from the concourse of atoms ... derived existence, and all the elements, and all things inherent in them, as well as animals and other (creatures); so that nothing was generated or existed, unless it be from atoms. And he affirmed that these atoms were composed of extremely small particles, in which there could not exist either a point or a sign, or any division; wherefore also he called them atoms.

...

The opinions, therefore, of those who have attempted to frame systems of philosophy among the Greeks, I consider that we have sufficiently explained; and from these the heretics, taking occasion, have endeavored to establish the tenets that will be after a short time declared.

...

I consider, however, that at present it is enough to elucidate those causes of which the Greeks, not being aware, glorified, in pompous phraseology, the parts of creation, while they remained ignorant of the Creator. And from these the heresiarchs have taken occasion, and have transformed the statements previously made by those Greeks into similar doctrines, and thus have framed ridiculous heresies."
- Refutation of All Heresies; Hippolytus (2nd century CE) (Early Christian founder)

Now, I was always surprized that the Bible didn't directly address these issues, but I think that this is exactly what "John" is doing in the intruduction to "his" gospel. I think that the introduction of John is designed as a refutiation of the materialist explanation for the origin of the universe. See below:

Quote:

[T]he world was produced by the working of nature, without there having been any need for a process of manufacture, and that what your school declares to be capable of accomplishment only by means of divine intelligence is a thing so easy that nature will produce, and is producing, and has produced worlds without end. It is because you do not see how nature can accomplish this without the help of some kind of mind that, like the tragic poets, in your inability to bring the plot to a smooth conclusion, you have recourse to a god. Yet you would certainly feel no need for his agency if you had before your eyes the expanse of region, unmeasured and on every side unbounded, upon which the mind may fasten and concentrate itself, and where it may wander far and wide without seeing any farthermost limit upon which to be able to rest. Now in this immensity of length and breadth and height there floats an infinite quantity of innumerable atoms which, in spite of the intervening void, nevertheless join together, and through one seizing upon one, and another upon another, form themselves into connected wholes, by which means are produced those forms and outlines of the material world which your school is of opinion cannot be produced without bellows and anvils. You have therefore placed our necks beneath the yoke of a perpetual tyrant, of whom we are to go in fear by day and night, for who would not fear a god who foresaw everything, considered everything, noted everything, and looked upon himself as concerned in everything,—a busy and prying god? From this has come, in the first place, your idea of preordained necessity, which you call ε μαρμ�*νη, meaning by the term that every event that occurs had its origin in eternal truth and the chain of causation—(though what is to be thought of a philosophy that holds the ignorant old crone’s belief that everything happens by destiny?)—and secondly your art of μαντικ , or divinatio, as it is called in Latin, which, if we were willing to listen to you, would imbue us with such superstition that we should have to pay regard to soothsayers, augurs, diviners, prophets, and interpreters of dreams. From these terrors we have been released by Epicurus, and claimed for freedom; we do not fear beings of whom we understand that they neither create trouble for themselves, nor seek it for others, and we worship, in piety and holiness, a sublime and exalted nature.
- The Nature of the Gods; Cicero, 45 BCE

Gamera · 07-14-2006, 02:10 AM

An interesting observation malachi, but doesn't this go to genre (an in an important way).

The gospels appear to purport to be historical narrative, so it's not surprising that philosophical and scientific speculation do not appear in them. John clearly is concerned with illucidating the essence of Christ, and to that extent he uses philosophical verbiage and draws in topics about the origin of the world. But this is a very precise topic and the gospel authors show little or no interest in physics or philosphy per se.

Similarly, neither do the epistles, where you might expect to find such discussions if the epistles were what most people think of them as -- theological tracts. I would argue that they are not theological tracts at all, and that on close examination there is very little theology in the epistles. The are more in the genre of the classic period "art" -- a guidebook on how to master a subject. In this case they are guidebooks to being a Christian -- a relatively new thing for the period with little precedents for practicing Christians to follow. Indeed much of the writings of Christianity for the next three century appear "art" like in purpose.

If I'm right, then it follows that Paul and the others would avoid speculation about the Greek scientific theories of the day. It simply was outside their subject matter, which was something like a how-to on how to live a Christian life.

Helpmabob · 07-14-2006, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I would submit, however, that the intro to the Gospel of John is meant to be a stab at refuting atomism:

John’s gospel has a higher purpose than this. It attempts to shed some light on the glory and majesty of God Himself and His relation to Jesus. It concerns the character of God, and as such the material is on a higher plane to descriptions of what that God has created. An analogy is seen in the way a man’s life is more important than anything man has created. Without his life, he cannot take joy in any of his creations.

mountainman · 07-14-2006, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

One thing that I have been interested in in relation to the NT works is that they didn't get into too much specifics about the thigns they were discussing and debating. For example, atomic theory and materialism had been around for 500 years by the time the NT was written, and the early church fathers had a lot to say about this subject, but, for some reason, it doesn't appear to be directly mentioned in the Bible.

I would submit, however, that the intro to the Gospel of John is meant to be a stab at refuting atomism:

IMO this intro to the goj concerns the logos
and is a rewording of Philo by fourth century
literacists under imperial sponsorship.

Pythagoreanism had also been around for 600 years
by the time Josephus wrote, and it was this and its
relative platonism (or the neo-varieties) which were
plaguerised for the purposes of giving christianity not
just philosophical commentary, but also (pseudo)
historical precedent in the preNicaean epoch.

Pete Brown

mountainman · 07-14-2006, 08:02 PM

Quote:

CHAP. XIX.--MORE DIFFICULTIES OF THE ATOMIC THEORY.

...

Thus it is sufficiently shown that the bodies of the world are not consolidated by the union of atoms; and that insensible bodies, even if they could by any means concur and be united, could not give forms and measures to bodies, form limbs, or effect qualities, or express quantities; all which, therefore, by their exactness, attest the hand of a Maker, and show the operation of reason, which reason I call the Word, and God."
- Recognitions Book VIII; Pope Clement of Rome (2nd century) (Early Christian founder)

CLEMENT OF ROME (about 30-96 A.D.). He is alleged to be the
first, second, third, or fourth, Bishop, or Pope, of Rome (CE. iv,
13); and to be the author of two Epistles to the Corinthians,
besides other bulky and important forgeries, thus confessed and
catalogued by CE:

"Many writings have been faslely attributed to Pope St.
Clement: (1) The 'Second Clementine Epistle to the Corinthians.'
Many critics have believed them genuine [they having been read in
the Churches]. ... But it is now admitted on all hands that they
cannot be by the same author as the genuine [?] Epistle to the
Corinthians. ... (2) Two Epistles to Virgins.' (3) At the head of
the Pscudo-Isidorian Decretals stand five letters attributed to St.
Clement. (4) Ascribed to Clement are the 'Apostolic Constitutions,'
'Apostolic Canons,' and the "Testament of our lord.' (5) The
'Clementines' or 'Pseudo-Clementines,' including the Recognitions
and Homilies," hereafter to be noticed. (CE. iv, 14-15; cf. 17,
39.)

The second of these alleged Epistles of Clement to the
Corinthians is thus admittedly a forgery, together with everything
else in his name but the alleged First Epistle. The case for this
First Epistle is little if any better; but as it is the very flimsy
basis of one of the proudest claims of Holy Church -- though
suppressed as "proof" of another claim which it disproves, -- it
is, as it were, plucked as a brand from the burning of all the
other Clementine forgeries, and placed at the head of all the
writings of the Fathers. Of this I Clement EB. says: "The author is
certainly not Clement of Rome, whatever may be our judgment as to
whether or not Clement was a bishop, a martyr, a disciple of the
apostles. The martyrdom, set forth in untrustworthy Acts, has for
its sole foundation the identification of Clement of Rome with
Flavius Clement the consul, who was executed by cominand of
Domitian," -- A.D. 81-96. (EB. iii, 3486.) This First Epistle is
supposed to have been written about the year 96-98, by Clement,
friend and coworker of Paul, according to the late "tradition"
first set in motion by Dionysius, A.D. 170. But "This Clement,"
says CE., after citing the Fathers, "was probably a Philippian."
(CE. iv, 13.) "Who the Clement was to whom the writings were
asscribed, cannot with absolute certainty be determined." (ANF. i,
2.)

It is notable that the pretendedly genuine "First Epistle"
does not contain or mention the name of any one as its author, nor
name Clement; its address is simply: "The Church of God which
sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojurning at Corinth." There
is only one MS. of it in existence, a translation into Latin from
the original Greek. This is the celebrated MS. of "Holy Scripture"
known as Codex A, which was discovered and presented to Charles I
of England by Cyril of Alexandria, in 1628; the Fathers cited both
I and II Clement as Seripture. On this MS., at the end of I
Clement, is written, "The First Epistle of Clement to the
Corinthians": a subscription which proves itself a forgery and that
it was not written by Clement, who could not know that a later
forger would write a "Second Clement," so as to give him occasion
to call his own the First. (ANF. viii, 55-56.)

By whomever this "First Epistle" was written, by Father,
Bishop, or Pope of Rome, his zeal and his intelligence are
demonstrated by his argument, in Chapter xxv, of the truth of the
Resurrection; in proof of which he makes this powerful and faith-
compelling plea: "Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the
resurrection) which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in
Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which
is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives
five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near
that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and
myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it
enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is
produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird,
brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it
takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and
bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the
City called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of
all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done
this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect
the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly
as the 500th year was completed." (ANF. i. p. 12. Note: "This fable
respecting the phoenix is mentioned by Herodotus (ii, 73) and by
Pliny (Nat. X, 2), and is used as above by Tertullian (De Resurr.,
see. 13), and by others of the Fathers." CF,. iv, 15.)

The occasion for the pretended writing of this Epistle, and
the very high significance of it, will be noticed when we treat of
the origin of the Church which sojourns at Roine.

-- extracted from Joseph Wheless,
"FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY", 1930

Pete Brown

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-14-2006, 02:10 AM	#5
Gamera Banned Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Palm Springs, California Posts: 10,955	An interesting observation malachi, but doesn't this go to genre (an in an important way). The gospels appear to purport to be historical narrative, so it's not surprising that philosophical and scientific speculation do not appear in them. John clearly is concerned with illucidating the essence of Christ, and to that extent he uses philosophical verbiage and draws in topics about the origin of the world. But this is a very precise topic and the gospel authors show little or no interest in physics or philosphy per se. Similarly, neither do the epistles, where you might expect to find such discussions if the epistles were what most people think of them as -- theological tracts. I would argue that they are not theological tracts at all, and that on close examination there is very little theology in the epistles. The are more in the genre of the classic period "art" -- a guidebook on how to master a subject. In this case they are guidebooks to being a Christian -- a relatively new thing for the period with little precedents for practicing Christians to follow. Indeed much of the writings of Christianity for the next three century appear "art" like in purpose. If I'm right, then it follows that Paul and the others would avoid speculation about the Greek scientific theories of the day. It simply was outside their subject matter, which was something like a how-to on how to live a Christian life.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.