Ichneumonidae

Darwins theological dilemma and the rethinking of creation

Edmond Constantinescu
1Ai7MYBLg!"L#$A%7&'f()"r*Y!($+n,f
Contents
Introduction 1
The times of Petrus Romanus 5
The temple and the theater: a tale of two goats 10
Yahweh and the Republic: a tale of two
revolutions
18
The rabbi and the philosopher: a tale of two !"
#ne$uall% %o&ed: the 'hristian s%nthesis ((
)rasmus* dangerous idea (+
The demise of the unmoved mover ",
The end of causa finalis 51
Rebels 5-
.eres% ,(
Relativit% -!
Rethin&ing Timaeus in a relativistic universe -+
/arwin and the collapse of metaph%sics into
biolog%
88
0iet1sche and the ascent of biolog% into the
metaph%sics of presence
+-
'oncluding the )rasmus23uther controvers% 10+
The commissar and the preacher 1!1
References 1!+
I'.0)#450I/6)
Introduction
Ichneumonidae is a parasitic wasp that places its eggs
inside a caterpillar7 The wasp in8ects a carefull% dosed
measure of venom into each ganglion of its victim9 so that
the caterpillar is paral%1ed %et not &illed7 The larvae feed
on its bod% while still alive7
The scientific e:actness b% which the wasp operates on its
victim is comparable with the most advanced neurosurger%7
The thought of design comes to mind naturall%7 .owever9
the $uestion raises9 what &ind of mind would have
conceived this 4engele2li&e e:periment;
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and
omnipotent God would have designedly created the
Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their
feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars
</arwin9 3ife = 3etters9 105>7
/arwin was not tr%ing to produce an argument against ?od7
.is point was rather that the argument from design could
be used both wa%s7 Not believing this, I see no necessity
in the belief that the eye was expressly designed <ibid7>7
.e inclined toward a natural theolog% which considered
@everything as resulting from designed laws, with the
details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of
what we may call chance <ibid7>7 Yet he declared himself
unsatisfied b% it7 .e was an agnostic9 in the sense that he
1
I'.0)#450I/6)
considered the $uestion on ?od @too profound for the
human intellect, and encouraged that each man hope &
believe what he can7 6s for himself9 @the more I think the
more bewildered I become <ibid7>9 he ac&nowledged7
Ironicall%9 /arwin*s bewilderment comes from his failure
to consider the evolution of faith7 .is dilemma could not be
answered within the conte:t of traditional 'hristianit%7
0evertheless9 heterodo: developments in 'hristian thought
alread% had the answer7
#nfortunatel%9 /arwin disregarded them7 This is also wh%
he failed to follow through the philosophicalAtheological
significance of his theor%7 6lthough a person of deep
theological concern9 /arwin has been wrongl% perceived as
the scientist who finds no sense in religious $uestions7
The essa% at hand is an attempt to answer /arwin*s
theological dilemma7 #nto this purpose9 we will e:plore the
theological ideas9 disregarded b% him9 that made possible
the concept of a self2generating universe in the conte:t of
the 'hristian profession of faith7
Those theologians who ac$uiesce to modern biolog% are
usuall% suspected of accommodationism7 6s a matter of
fact9 it is 'hristian orthodo:% that accommodated ?ree&
science7 4odern science is9 on the other hand9 a brainchild
of 'hristianit%7 The real conflict is between the 'hristian
dogma9 fro1en in ?ree& metaph%sics9 and an essentiall%
'hristian worldview opposed to it7
The historical inception of the concept of ?od as the
liberator of man too& place during the earl% Iron 6ge and
!
I'.0)#450I/6)
pea&ed in the earl% 'hristian era7 6fter entering the
coalition of power in the fourth centur%9 the 'hurch turned
?od into a tool for enslavement7 6s the 'hristian dogma
failed to hold against its own contradictions9 the rethin&ing
of ?od became possible at the beginning of modernit%7 The
Bcientific revolution was a product of this theological
rethin&ing and became its most formidable asset7
The Crench philosopher 4ichel Coucault notices that there
is in the histor% of science a process e:ternal to science
itself9 @where truth is formed, where a certain numbers of
games are defined an external, exterior history of truth
<Coucault9 ">7 The Bcientific Revolution witnessed plent%
of such places and games7 0ew theological ideas preceded
or completed science in man% respects7 The evolutionar%
paradigm is one of them7 The struggle for social liberation9
and the rethin&ing of ?od9 man and nature9 went together7
The% were in turn tied to the emancipation of emerging
social forces during the industrial revolution7
The divorce between science and faith too& place onl% after
the revolutionar% class became dominant7 Bcientific mass
production and distribution of goods9 along with free
mone% movement and parliamentar% politics9 became the
new foundation for power7 Bcience was incorporated in a
new dominant ideolog%9 8ust as 'hristian metaph%sics had
been a constituent of the old one7
Crom 4ar: to .eidegger9 the secular prophets of modernit%
told the world that the new order was the root of man*s
alienation from his essential being7 Ideolog%9 aided b% the
authorit% of science9 would therefore need first to hide the
(
I'.0)#450I/6)
alienation of modern life7 In other words9 to hide deeper
dimensions from scrutin%7 )mpiricism becomes a smo&e
screen9 obscuring ontological $uestions7 Bcience passes
8udgment on theological in$uires7 3ife is reduced to
chasing materialistic illusions7
5rgani1ed 'hristianit% has been a rather ineffective agent
against the new dominant ideolog%7 Bociall%9 it has
continued to oscillate between restoration and opportunism9
between turning bac& the cloc& and lac&e%ing for the
powers to be7 'hristianit% has never been able to provide a
non2alienating alternative to modernit%7
The main encumbrance of 'hristianit% is a set of absolute
statements about the universe7 Dhether arguing that men
crossed paths with the dinosaurs9 or mi:ing bioethics with
fourth2centur% anthropolog%9 faith is defined as assent to
absurd content7 Dhile the essence of modern alienation is
materialistic reductionism9 'hristianit% has remained
captive to metaph%sical reductionism7
"
I'.0)#450I/6)
-he times of .etrus &omanus
In the final persecution of the !oly "oman #hurch there will
reign $eter the "omanE <Bt7 4alach%9 11(+>7
In the fall of !00,9 the pope gave an address at the
#niversit% of Regensburg7 .is purpose was to remind
academics about the the forgotten roots of the Dest:
#hristianity must always remember that it is the
religion of the %ogos It is faith in the #reator
&piritus, in the #reator &pirit, from which
proceeds everything that exists 'oday, this should
be precisely its philosophical strength, in so far as
the problem is whether the world comes from the
irrational, and reason is not, therefore, other than a
sub(product, on occasion even harmful of its
development ) or whether the world comes from
reason, and is, as a conse*uence, its criterion and
goal <Fenedict GHI>7
The message fell on apathetic ears7 Dhat drew attention
was a marginal note on Islam7 The pope had $uoted 4anuel
II Palaiologos <1(50 I 1"!5> sa%ing: &how me +ust what
,ohamed brought that was new, and there you will find
things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to
spread by the sword the faith he preached <ibid7>7 The
declaration aroused the familiar 4uslim street anger9 and
generated a storm of Jcoe:ist* platitudes in the media7
5
I'.0)#450I/6)
Two %ears later9 the Pope had to cancel a speech at the
main universit% in Rome9 because of protests in the
campus7 This time the grievance was cardinal Rat1inger*s
position on the handling of ?alileo b% the In$uisition7 In
1++0 he had $uoted the 6ustrian scholar Paul Ce%erabend
to the effect that the 'hurch was more committed to reason
than ?alileo himself <.arris>7 Btudents and facult% raised
their voices against what was perceived as adding modern
insult to historic in8ur%7
The Kewish mathematician ?iorgio Israel held that what the
cardinal attempted could well be considered, by anyone
who read it with a minimum of attention, as a defense of
Galilean rationality against the skepticism and relativism
of postmodern culture <ibid7>7 Yet the attention deficit was
not with the protesters onl%7 The real problem here is that
the metaph%sical rationalism advocated b% Fenedict GHI is
dead7
Ironicall%9 it was within a frame of events e:tending from
the remar& of Palaiologos to the ?alileo affair9 that
metaph%sical rationalism became obsolete7 .istor% is
indeed repeating itself @first as tragedy, second as farce
<4ar:>7 Fenedict*s peripatetics brings to mind a histor%
starting with the challenge of 4uhammad9 and the
0ominalist crisis9 in the fourteenth centur%9 and reaching its
pea& during the seventeenth2centur% Bcientific Revolution7
The content of this histor% is the demise of 'hristian
rationalism7
The Crench philosopher Kac$ues /errida <Bpecters of
4ar:> built his concept of hauntology on the first sentence
,
I'.0)#450I/6)
in the 'ommunist 4anifesto: a specter is haunting
-urope. the specter of communism It would be ris&% to
attempt capturing /errida*s serpentining ideas in onl% few
sentences7 6s far as we are concerned9 the word haunto2
log% points to an onto2log% that has lost its metaph%sical
rationale7 The haunting is9 on the other hand9 a metaphor
pointing at a dead idea returning from the grave%ard of
histor%7
Dhat concerns us is the haunting of post2modernit% b% a
dead metaph%sics that is still recogni1ed as the public voice
witnessing to ?od7 The ghostl% voice utters that good9
beaut%9 and 8ustice9 are more than social constructs7 The%
are ontological dimensions of realit%7 0evertheless9 because
of its spectral nature9 the ghost cannot bear the scrutin% of
da%light7
/errida*s favorite illustration is the ghost of .amlet7 The
specter returns from the dead to reveal that time is out of
+oints and something is deeply rotten in our world7 Yet
true communication is made impossible b% the gap
separating the dead from the living7 The last persecution
foretold b% Bt7 4alach% is the fall of historical 'hristianit%
into irrelevance7
Cundamentalism is on the winning side in this game7
/uring his Regensburg address9 the pope made a note on
@modern pathologies of faith7 In the earl% nineteenth
centur%9 6merican Restorationism merged Facon*s
empiricism <via Thomas Reid*s commonsense philosoph%>9
with the #topia of returning to primitive 'hristianit%7
6merican fundamentalism is the offspring of this s%nthesis7
-
I'.0)#450I/6)
It merges a common sense biblicism9 a&a receiving the
word <Pipim>9 with a sort of uncritical phenomenolog% of
'hristian e:perience9 and flat scientific empiricism7
/ue to its Faconian roots9 6merican fundamentalism is not
against science in itself7 0evertheless9 the fundamentalist
concept of science never goes be%ond Facon*s empiricism7
Facon*s own re8ection of the heliocentric s%stem
considered9 it is not surprising that more sophisticated
models of realit% are not accepted7 The Fible is considered
the onl% authorit% to be trusted be%ond simpl%
commonsense7 6s historical criticism is usuall% ran&ed
with latter2da%s conspiracies to destro% the Fible9 ancient
m%ths are called upon to e:orcise the demons of logical2
mathematical models of realit% and falsifiable predictions7
0either metaph%sical 'hristianit%9 nor fundamentalism can
answer /arwin*s dilemma: how could a benevolent ?od
have designed the Ichneumonidae7 6dmitting that ?od did
not design it but simpl% allowed to evolve9 how could an
omnipotent ?od loose control over his creation7 6nd if
such sophistication is possible through random mutations9
wh% invo&e ?od*s love regarding what we have found
beneficial;
5ne particular answer is that Jevil design* is simpl% the
wor& of the devil7 It is a $uasi2gnostic solution lac&ing the
logical clarit% of classic gnosticism7 The latter drew the line
between bad creation and evil /emiurge9 on one side9 and
salvation and ?od9 on the other7 Dithout this line9 ?od
becomes an accomplice of the devil9 whatever rationale we
ma% find7
8
I'.0)#450I/6)
The problem with metaph%sical 'hristianit% is an answer
that has been historicall% wasted7 The problem with
creationists is addressing such $uestions in a perspective
that is e:traneous to histor%7 The essence of all
fundamentalism is failure to internali1e the dialectics of
thought7
The aim of this boo& is to recapture the concept of ?od as
man*s liberator7 Buch a tas& implies9 as pointed b%
.eidegger9 a deconstruction of the 'hristian concept of
?od9 fallowed b% a rebuilding in accordance with the
primar% meaning of the word7 The blueprint of this process
is to be found b% following the &e% moments in the
premodern and modern rethin&ing of ?od7 /arwin*s
theological dilemma is addressed as a $uestion leading to
the completion of this tas& among postmodern confusions7
+
I'.0)#450I/6)
-he tem/le and the theater0 a tale of two goats
/ortune is a fickle wind, so sail with that wind, turn the
prow of this life0s ship, and be swamped in the wild waves
of grief and disaster <)uripides>7 Dhether %ou read
)uripides9 the Iliad9 or the Fible9 %ou will discover a
nihilistic universe7 People inhabited a cruel world where
death didn*t count7 Their lives were controlled b% forces
the% could not placate7 The% called these forces gods9
demons9 or Cortune7 ?od was first invo&ed to help man
defeat these forces7
De are not going to address the sterile $uestion on the
e:istence of ?od7 This is left to the private or public
profession of faith9 not because the $uestion is unimportant9
but because the answer is be%ond demonstration7 5ur
interest will be God as the product of our mind7 The
rationale of such an approach is the 'artesian a:iom: our
power is limited to the world of our own thoughts7 De
might worship what we do not understand7 Yet we better
tal& about what we do7
5ur concept of ?od comes from a bifurcated origin: the
Kewish prophet and the ?ree& philosopher7 You can find
both of them in %our Fible7
The .ebrew definition of ?od is tautolog%: @I 1, '!1' I
1, <): (:1">7 ?od cannot be defined as an%thing else but
himself9 hence the prohibition of using the name of ?od in
10
I'.0)#450I/6)
common tal&7 6 deeper conclusion of the tautological
character of the definition of ?od is that ?od cannot be
sub8ected to logical anal%sis7
6s for the ?ree&s9 one of their earliest definitions of ?od
belongs to )pimenides of Lnossos9 a si:th centur% F'
poet2philosopher: @/or in thee we live and move and have
our being <6cts 1-: !(>7 )pimenides was protesting
against the 'retans @liarsE <Tit 1:1!> who held that Meus
was mortal and even prepared a tomb for him7 .e was
$uoted b% Paul before the 6reopagus to the effect that we
are the offspring of GodE <6cts 1-:!+>7 In other words9
human e:perience has an ontological dimension7
This ontological dimension was essential to anchor a
fleeting e:istence and capacitate man*s freedom7
The ancients believed that irrational passions were driven
in b% gods7 It was futile to resist them7 5nce in a while9
ever%bod% had to give in to the dar& side7 .arvest was the
favorite time7 It was believed that b% %ielding to the gods of
fertilit%9 rich harvests and offspring would be secured7
The religion of the Bemitic tribes consisted in a bipolarit%
between Yahweh and Faal7 Faal was the god of fertilit%7
Yahweh was the god of war9 order and 8ustice7 Dorshipers
gave each god what was unto him7 Yahweh re$uired 8ustice
in peace and holocaust in war7 Faal wanted wine and se:7
The cult of Faal offered worshipers various occasions to
practice debaucher% with impunit%7 .owever9 as the
prophet announced9 ruin was on its wa%7 0ew powers were
raising in the east7 The 6ss%rians and the Fab%lonians
11
I'.0)#450I/6)
could not be contained without social discipline7
2horedom and wine and new wine take away the heart
<.sa ":11>7 Yet how could one resist yet3er hara I the evil
inclination I when a god was possessing his limbs;
The answer was the 'reator7 To the worshiper of one ?od9
yet3er hara was no longer the realm of Faal7 It was onl%
another dominion of Yahweh9 instrumental to test and train
his people7 @I have created the -vil inclination, and I have
created the 'orah as an antidote against it <Liddushin
(0b>7 De might find unfair that ?od would have created
the same impulses he is as&ing us to stand up against7 To
the ancients9 it meant 8ust that the% no longer owed
an%thing to the gods of the dar& side7
Imagination did not wait long before replacing dethroned
gods with demons7 The difference between the gods of the
dar& side and demons was similar to the one we ma&e
between legitimate governments and terrorists7 You do not
negotiate with the latter7 ?ods had to be appeased7 /emons
were e:orcised7 Ritual debaucher% was replaced b%
s%mbolic e:orcism7 The harvest time ended now with
casting out the goat 61a1el7
1nd the goat shall bear upon him all their ini*uities
unto a land not inhabited4 and he shall let go the
goat in the wilderness 1nd 1aron shall lay both his
hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess
over him all the ini*uities of the children of Israel,
and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting
them upon the head of the goat, and shall send
1!
I'.0)#450I/6)
5him6 away by the hand of a fit man into the
wilderness <3ev 1,:!12!!>7
?oats were universal s%mbols of h%per2se:ualit%7 The
banning of 61a1el represented the e:orcising of the dar&
side from human nature7
The repudiation of evil secured the famil% and religious
discipline necessar% for the nation to survive in e:ile7 Yet
full restoration was dependent on complete and definitive
cleansing7 6mong the unstoppable decadence during the
.ellenistic age9 the Pharisees came to emphasi1e individual
salvation in the afterlife7 5bsession with purit% and sin
became the mar& of Kudaism7
Balvation was dependent upon the amputation of the dar&
side7 'ircumcision9 as the removing of a trigger of
gratuitous pleasure9 was a fit s%mbol7 The problem with
this &ind of piet% is that of not allowing the entire range of
human condition to be e:perienced7 Those raised in strict
religious upbringing &now what that means7 The
compensation for religiousl% truncated life is a full sharing
into the life of ?od7
Dhether the e:perience is real or imaginar% concerns us
not here7 Dhat matters is how such wholeness comes to
life7 5nl% when ?od becomes supreme beaut% to the mind9
one feels full% alive though human nature be crippled7
The word beaut% is usuall% associated with worship in the
Fible7 The congregation is summoned to e:perience @the
beauty of holinessE <1 'h 1,:!+9 !0:!19 !+:!9 and +,:+>9 and
to contemplate @the beauty of the %ord <Psa !-:" and
1(
I'.0)#450I/6)
+0:1->7 0atural beaut% is loo&ed upon with suspicion7
6bsalom is the onl% biblical character reminding the ?ree&
ideal of masculine beaut%7 .e is definitivel% not set as a
role model7
Ceminine cosmetics and adornments were condemned b%
the prophets7 Ke1ebel is mentioned to have @painted her
face <! Li +:(0>9 as a prere$uisite of being thrown through
the window7 The Foo& of )noch mentions 61a1el as the
fallen angel who taught women the @beautifying of the
eyelidsE <)noch9 (,>7 The onl% @beautifulE garment
mentioned without suspicion b% the .ebrew prophets is
that of the priest7
5n the other shore of the ?reat Bea9 philosoph% offered an
alternative to Kewish piet%7 The ?ree&s did not cast their
goat into wilderness7 5n the contrar%9 the% urbani1ed him
in the theater7 The ?ree&s rationali1ed and integrated the
dar& side into traged%7
Criedrich 0iet1sche alienated his academic colleagues b%
revealing what la% beneath the seeming tran$uilit% of
classical art7 6ccording to 0iet1sche9 ancient ?reece was
oscillating between the hoofed /ion%sus9 the goat2god of
music9 fornication9 and wine9 and 6pollo9 the god of visual
arts9 8ustice9 and war7
2hat does the synthesis of god and goat in the satyr
point to7 when the Greek body bloomed and the
Greek soul brimmed over with life the Greeks in
the very wealth of their youth had the will to be
tragic and were pessimists and in the time of their
1"
I'.0)#450I/6)
dissolution and weakness, the Greeks became
always more optimistic, more superficial, more
histrionic, and more ardent for logic and the
logicising the world <0iet1sche9 Firth of Traged%9
(->7
6ccording to 0iet1sche the sat%r was @the archetype of
man, the embodiment of his highest and strongest emotions
<ibid7 ,(>7 .e speculates that the word traged% comes from
the 8u:taposition of two ?ree& words: tragos9 meaning
goat9 and aeidein 2 to sing7 Trag<o>2aoidiN <OPQR STQ>
would mean the goat song7 .e infers that the original choir
dressed in goat2s&ins7 Thus @77 the illusions of culture were
brushed away from the archetype of manE <ibid7>7 The
spectator recogni1ed himself in the choir @as the fellow
suffering companion in whom the suffering of the god
repeats itself speaking from the very depth of natureE
<ibid7>7 The 6pollonian element was found in the dialogue
that rationali1ed /ion%sian music7 Traged% was the
rationali1ation of the dar& side7
The most shoc&ing part in 0iet1sche*s anal%sis is the
concept that /ion%sian madness and nihilism were
s%mptoms of health9 while 6pollonian rationalism was
associated with cultural degenerac%7 De do not need to
endorse his entire range of thought to see that meaning and
rationalit% are surviving attitudes in a d%ing culture7 The
Kews turned to Yahweh under similar conditions7 The main
difference was that the Kews banned 61a1el9 while the
?ree&s domesticated /ion%sus7
15
I'.0)#450I/6)
The antithetic wa%s of the temple and the theater are still
with us7 De have an entire tradition from troubadour song9
and the Renaissance theater9 to modern cinema9 that feeds
upon the sublimation of irrational passion and crime7 6nd
we have of course the puritanical e:trication of the dar&
side9 along with the denunciation of stage performance as
sinful art7
Bocrates moved the 6pollonian dialogue into the 6gora7
.is dialectics incorporated primar% impulses into the
timeless7 The B%mposium is such an e:ercise7 It is the stor%
of a hangover ban$uet9 with guests alread% too tired for
more wine and se:7 6 proposal is made that ever% guest
should give an eulog% for love7 The modern reader is
surprised b% the fact that ever% eulog% is about homose:ual
love7
6t his turn9 Bocrates defines the concept of what we &now
toda% as Platonic love7 Uuoting a priestess of loveE as the
e:pert9 he points out the wa% from erotic love to the
contemplation of ph%sical beaut%9 and from the
contemplation of beautiful forms to the eternal idea of
beaut%7
!e who has been instructed thus far in the things of
love, and who has learned to see the beautiful in
due order and succession, when he comes toward
the end will suddenly perceive a nature of
wondrous beauty beauty absolute, separate,
simple, and everlasting, which without diminution
and without increase, or any change, is imparted to
1,
I'.0)#450I/6)
the ever(growing and perishing beauties of all
other things <Plato9 B%mposium9 "+>7
Bocrates* aim was the realignment of life with ontological
absolutes7 ?ood9 beaut% and 8ustice were seen as eternal
ideas7 The problem with human condition was that of
wandering among their imperfect shadows7 Redemption
consisted in grounding human e:istence into the timeless7
The problem was that the process could not stand on the
individual onl%7 Balvation needed the polis7
1-
I'.0)#450I/6)
Yahweh and the &e/u1lic0 a tale of two
re"olutions
The initial $uest of the Republic9 Plato*s essential wor&9 is
to define the meaning and content of 8ust life7 The dialogue
drifts naturall% be%ond the individual7 It appears clear that
8ust living cannot be separated from political conte:t7
Political legitimac% in the ancient world was based on
ruthless power or divine entitlement9 which meant
practicall% the same as the former7 6s Thras%machus
pointed in the first boo& of the Republic9 the might is right
principle was the natural order with gods and men7 The
concept that reason should be given priorit% over power
and gods in political arguments9 came as something
radicall% new7
Bocrates confronts ever% traditional form of government
and political claim7 .is unforgiving dialectics leaves
nothing intact7 In the end9 it is the eternal idea of 8ustice
that has to prevail7 Yet unli&e the Kewish prophets9 Bocrates
does not e:pect ?od to enthrone 8ustice7 This should be a
human underta&ing7 6nd the onl% humans possessing the
abilit% to discern ideal 8ustice were the philosophers7
5n the other hand9 Israel claimed the position that Plato
attributed to philosophers7 Their vindication was based on
being the first born among nations7 @1nd thou shalt say
18
I'.0)#450I/6)
unto $haraoh, 'hus saith the %8"9, Israel 5is6 my son,
5even6 my firstborn <): ":!!>7 The ?enesis genealogies
legitimated this position in a wa% that was perfectl%
intelligible and according to the customs of the time7 Israel
had descended from 6dam on the male firstborn line7
Kewishness was thus tribal identit% and universal man2
&indness simultaneousl%7
The ?enesis genealogies offered a primitive form of
international law7 The mutual rights and obligations of the
4iddle )ast nations were warranted b% patriarchal
inheritance7 Bo was the final solution for groups without
legitimate lineage7
The first born was entitled to the most substantial heritage
among the gentiles7 6ll along9 Israel was responsible to
them as @a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in
darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes77E
<Rom !:1+2!0>7 Cailure in carr%ing out this mission would
result in the collective punishment of Israel7 5n the other
hand9 universal salvation would not come unless the
patriarchal rights of Israel would have replaced the politics
of power7
It was in the name of this world2redeeming tribalism that
the 4accabees raised against .ellenistic cosmopolitanism7
In those days lawless men came forth from Israel,
and misled many, saying, %et us go and make a
covenant with the Gentiles round about us, for
since we separated from them many evils have
come upon us &o they built a gymnasium in
1+
I'.0)#450I/6)
:erusalem, according to Gentile custom, and
removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned
the holy covenant 'hey +oined with the Gentiles
and sold themselves to do evil
The rebels were infuriated b% 5l%mpic games rather than
b% miser% and oppression7 6t sta&e was a rival offer to
redemption: the 6ntichrist7
1nd the king shall do according to his will. and he
shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above
every god, and shall speak marvelous things
against the God of gods !e will show no regard
for the gods of his fathers nor will he regard any
god, but will exalt himself above them all Instead
of them, he will honor a god of fortresses. a god
unknown to his fathers !e will attack the
mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god
</an 11:(,2(+>
There is onl% one character contemporar% to /aniel*s
portra%al of the 6ntichrist that matches his description: the
?ree& philosopher7 Philosophers were the first people in
histor% to live without religion7 )ven when admitting that
the gods might be real9 the% did not consider them worth%
of worship7 Yet the% deified the polis and its rational laws7
Bocrates9 who was indicted and condemned for teaching the
%outh to disrespect the gods of their parents9 refused to
escape death at the cost of disobe%ing the laws7 .e
worshiped the god of fortresses7
!0
I'.0)#450I/6)
/aniel*s description also suggests militar% might7 Indeed9
philosoph% was the secret of at the ?ree& war machine7
This is what Bocrates declares in Protagoras7 Dhat allowed
Bpartans to con$uer the other ?ree& cities was not prowess
in arms <as mista&enl% believed> but rather philosoph%7
the true %acedaemonian character has the love of
philosophy even stronger than the love of gymnastics
<Plato9 Protagoras9 -0>7 6ccording to Plato9 this was
because the philosophical language traces its origins to the
brevit%9 precision and emotional discretion of the Bpartan
militar% command7 3aconic communication enhanced
efficienc% on the battlefield7
Cor all their t%rann% and abuse9 the .ellenistic &ings
claimed the mantle of the &ing2philosopher7 The secret of
6le:ander*s unprecedented success had consisted greatl% in
his philosophical cosmopolitanism7 The generals who
divided his empire followed in his steps7
It was because of this cosmopolitanism and rational
universalit% that the 4accabees saw /aniel*s 6ntichrist in
6ntioch )piphanes7 Reason as embodied in laws and
political institutions9 the god of fortresses9 was what the
Kewish radicals fought against7 0ot because it was
oppressive9 but because it pretended to be redemptive7
It was Rome that eventuall% contained the ambitions of the
Beleucid &ings7 The enthusiasm for the new superpower
transpires through the eighth chapter of the Cirst Foo& of
the 4accabees7 Yet Rome will also claim world power in
the name of the rational Republic7 Dithout being aware9 the
rebels entered alliance with the god of fortresses7
!1
I'.0)#450I/6)
6t first9 the Kews did not see the 6ntichrist in the militar%
superpower that crushed the world under the iron2made
sandals of its legions7 The% will recogni1e him in the
ecumenic commonwealth attempting to save the world
under the reign of its iron2made laws7 The moderates in the
Kewish uprisings might have rebelled against corrupt
procurators7 The true believer9 the radical9 fought against
the secular 4essiah7
5nl% a movement abolishing Israelite tribalism from within
could open an avenue between philosophical and prophetic
absolutes7 The Kesus movement in the first centur% offered
such an occasion7 Bt7 Paul was a s&illed surgeon who &new
how to remove the mar& of circumcision from messianic
prophec%7 The genealogies of the ?ospels claimed that
Kesus was the legitimate successor of /avid9 6braham9 and
6dam7 Paul used these claims to build his case that Kesus
has superseded 6dam as the generic man <Rom 5:1!21+9 1
'or 15:"5>9 and Israel as the seed of 6braham <?al (:1,>7
Israel became thus the prehistor% of 'hrist9 8ust li&e 6dam
had been the prehistor% of Israel7 The Republic will be
bapti1ed into this new faith7
0evertheless9 the elitism of the Republic did not fit well
with Yahweh7 The incentive to unleash the hol% war9 not
the tribal2nationalistic war of the 4accabees9 but the world
Revolution9 is rooted in the prophecies of Yahweh7
6rthur Loestler was familiar with such sentiments7 .e
e:plores revolutionar% Yahwism in a fictional dialogue
staged during the third servile war:
!!
I'.0)#450I/6)
;I have never heard of a God who curses like that
<ahweh of yours,0 said &partacus ;!e is so wild at
the rich, one might think he was a God of slaves0
;<ahweh is dead0
;<ou see0, said &partacus disappointedly, ;if he is
dead his prophecies are no longer worth anything0
;$rophecies are never worth anything0, said the
-ssene ;$rophecies do not count, he who receives
them counts0 <Loestler9 The ?ladiators9 5,>
Dhether the real Bpartacus did or did not &now about
Yahweh is a matter of speculation7 Yet Loestler has a
point7 .e did indeed enforce )ssene2li&e egalitarianism in
his camp7 4oreover9 what could have transformed a
nihilistic gladiator9 the epitome of ancient amoral heroism9
into a protot%pe of world2Revolution9 twent% centur%
before the idea would come into age; Loestler9 the e:2
4ar:ist9 the anti2fascist combatant9 the wandering Kew9
&new well7
!(
I'.0)#450I/6)
-he ra11i and the /hiloso/her0 a tale of two 2
5ur intellect will never be able to answer two $uestions7
5ne concerns the ultimate value of 7 The other is whether
?od does or does not e:ist7
'arl Bagan9 in 'ontact9 brings the two $uestion into onl%
one7 6lread% in the first chapter we have a hint at the
theological ramifications of 7 The main character in the
novel9 )leanor <)llie> 6rrowa%9 a seventh grade student so
far9 has 8ust come to learn about 7
It was a decimal that went on and on forever
without repeating the patterns of numbers /orever,
-llie thought !ow could anybody know that the
decimals go on and on forever !ow can you
count decimals forever777 <Bagan9 10>
Bagan would betra% our e:pectations if he failed to stage a
familiar classroom cliche: the flat teacher putting down the
in$uisitive mind7 The $uestion is pronounced stupid and the
lesson moves on7 0evertheless9 )llie*s $uestion will be
vindicated in the stor%7
)llie becomes a reputed <if still nonconformist>
astroph%sicist wor&ing with B)TI7 5ne da% she captures an
e:traterrestrial radio signal pointing to an intelligent
algorithm7 )nsuing communications from the same source
lead to an international multi2trillion pro8ect to build a
!"
I'.0)#450I/6)
wormhole vehicle after indications received from the outer
space7 The pro8ect is followed b% )llie*s wormhole trip and
alien encounter near the center of the ?ala:%7
6s the elapsed time is much shorter on earth than in the
wormhole9 and the video footage has been erased b%
magnetic fields9 the whole stor% comes to be attributed to a
vast international scam7 )llie9 an avowed s&eptic9 finds
herself in the ironic situation of summoning humanit% to
ta&e a leap of faith7 Btories of religion founders come to
mind7
Religion is otherwise part of her $ueries to the aliens7 /oes
a super2technological civili1ation still entertain $uestions
about ?od; Yes9 the% do7 The% have discovered a
m%sterious se$uence of 1eros and ones ver% far from the
decimal point in the digits of 7 'ould this be ?od*s
signature in the fabric of space2time; )llie is astonished7
It0s even better than that, he continued %et0s
assume that only in base(ten arithmetic does the
se*uence of 3eros and ones show up, although
you0d recogni3e that something funny is going on in
any other arithmetic %et0s also assume that the
beings who first made this discovery had ten
fingers <ou see how it looks7 It0s as if = has been
waiting for billions of years for ten(fingered
mathematicians with fast computers to come along
<ou see, the ,essage was kind of addressed to us
<ibid7 (,8>
!5
I'.0)#450I/6)
The stor% is woven around an old $uestion7 If the universe
has an author9 where is his signature;
5nce again9 Bagan does not disappoint7 .e &nows that the
search for and the search for the signature of ?od have a
common origin7
The classic historians attribute the discover% of geometr% to
the so2called rope2stretchers9 the 4esopotamians and
)g%ptians scribe2priests who supervised the division of
land7
'he river overflows and obliterates the boundary
lines between their properties 'hus they would
naturally pass from sense(perception to calculation,
and from calculation to reason <Proclus9 5!>
The three steps in the evolution of geometr% correspond to
parallel stages in theological thought7
The first stage9 that of sense2perception9 is well illustrated
in the Foo& of Lings:
&olomon cast a molten sea of ten cubits from brim
to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the
height thereof. and a line of thirty cubits did
compass it round about <1 Li -:!(2!5>
Btretching a line to measure a circumference was the wa%
of the rope2stretcher7 .earing the voice of ?od was also a
wa% of rel%ing on sense2perception as the ground of one*s
theolog%7
The ne:t step9 calculation9 is well embodied in the 6hmes
pap%rus written in 1,50 F'7 6hmes was an )g%ptian scribe
!,
I'.0)#450I/6)
during the thirteenth d%nast% who wrote down all the
geometrical &nowledge available b% that time7 .e
introduced his te:tboo& with a promise that might be
considered the first definition of science in the histor% of
thought: 1ccurate reckoning is the entrance into the
knowledge of all existing things and all obscure secrets
<Fec&mann9 !(>7 5ne cannot help notice the contradiction
with the biblical promise: @'he fear of the %8"9 is the
beginning of knowledge <Prov 1:->7 /ifferent theologies
lead to different paths to truth7
The molten sea offers a good e:ample7 6ccording to the
proportions indicated in the Foo& of Lings9 Bolomon*s
would need to be three7 .ow about gentile scribes; 6
Bumerian cla% tablet from the third millennium F' is
reveals the oldest method to calculate <ibid7 !!>7 The
ancient scribes starts from the self2evident fact that the
perimeter of an inscribed regular he:agon e$uals si: times
the radius of the circle7 Then he draws a circumscribed
he:agon and calculates the circumference as the average of
the two perimeters7 The resulting value for is (71!5 in
modern notation7
The absence of calculative geometr% among the ancient
.ebrews is not surprising9 given the rationale offered b%
Proclus for its development in the great rivers valle%s7 The
econom% of Palestine was not based on s%stemic irrigation7
0evertheless9 the biblical scribe suggests that Bolomon*s
truncated was not the result of 8ust ignorance7
&olomon0s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children
of the east country, and all the wisdom of -gypt <1 Li
!-
I'.0)#450I/6)
":(0>7 The author of Lings &new about priestl%2scribe
science but thought that Bolomon*s primitive geometr% was
superior7 Dhat made him thin& so;
Bolomon*s and priestl%2scribe geometr% were based on
two conflicting views about the relationship between ?od
and space7 This incompatibilit% is alread% suggested in the
conflict between 6hmes* &nowledge based on accurate
rec&oning and Bolomon*s wisdom rooted in the fear of
?od7 Yet the theological ramifications of geometr% become
obvious onl% in the third stage according to Proclus: reason7
Dhat is reason; The word comes from the 3atin ratio
meaning measure7 This is in turn a translation of the ?ree&
word logos <VWRXY>7 5ur word logic originates with the
latter7 Reason9 or logical thin&ing9 has its origin in
)uclidean geometr%7 Dhile the priestl%2scribe geometr% of
)g%pt and Fab%lon was a stud% of the attributes of
particular geometrical forms9 the ?ree&s developed
geometr% as the science of logical relationships between all
geometrical attributes in the universe7 The ?ree&s deduced
these attributes from a single set of propositions called
a:ioms7 6:ioms were considered to be timeless and self2
evident7
3et us revisit the molten sea7 .ow would ?ree& science
establish its proportions; The answer is 6rchimedes* 7
6rchimedes proceeded from the same premises as the
ancient priest2scribes: the circumference must be the
average between a circumscribed pol%gon and an inscribed
one7 .e continued with the euclidean proposition that if a
line is cutting down the angle and the base of a triangle9 the
!8
I'.0)#450I/6)
ratio of the two halves of the base e$uals the ratio of the
remaining sides7
.e split the pol%gon into twelve9 twent%2four9 and so on9
through ninet%2si: sides7 Then he calculated the ratio of its
perimeter to the diameter b% the above mentioned principle7
.e did the same for an inscribed he:agon7 .e concluded
that the ratio of a circular perimeter to its diameter is
alwa%s below (
1
-
<(71"!8>9 but above (
10
-1
<(71"08>7 5n
this basis he established the @arbitraryE or @closely
desiredE <ibid7 ,"> value of (71" for 7
6rchimedes method was twice revolutionar%7 Cirst9 because
he substituted numeric deduction for measuring7 6nd
secondl%9 because using such notions as @arbitrarily close
toE or @as closely as desired solution9 he opened the door
for )llie*s anno%ing $uestion to her obtuse teacher7 The
deduction process could be continued ad infinitum9 %ielding
more and more accurate values for 7
De have here two groundbrea&ing concepts: the rational
unit% of the world and mathematical infinit%7 The ?ree&
solution vindicated 6hmes* promise that @accurate
reckoning is the &e% to &nowledge7 0evertheless9 until 6/
5509 the Talmud will continue to declare with magisterial
demeanor that: @2hich in circumference is three hands
broad is one hand broadE <ibid7 15>7 Dhat made the rabbis
ignore )uclidean science;
6s we have seen9 )uclidean geometr% was based on set of
allegedl% timeless statements7 This epistemological premise
was grounded in the ontological assumption that
!+
I'.0)#450I/6)
geometrical shapes were eternal7 )uclidean space is an
absolute7 ?eometr% is thus seen as co2eternal with the mind
of ?od7 This leads to the conclusion that space is the
ultimate realit%7
In this respect9 .ebrew thought ma&es a radical difference7
The Fible refers to ?od as maZown < > 2 a place7 .e is
the ultimate dwelling place @777 behold, the heaven and
heaven of heavens cannot contain thee <1 Li 8:!->7
4idrashic te:ts state e:plicitl% that ?od is @the place of the
world and !is world is not !is place <Kewish Hirtual
3ibrar%>7 Drote Philo <!5">:
God !imself is called a place, by reason of !is
containing things, and being contained by nothing
whatever> for !e is that which !e !imself has
occurred, and naught encloses !im but !imself I,
mark you, am not a place, but in a place. and each
thing likewise that exists> and the 9eity, being
contained by nothing, is of necessity Itself Its own
place
If deit% is its own place9 space and time are contained in it9
and therefore the% cannot be absolute7 The relativit% of
space and time is as essential to .ebrew ontolog% as
absolute space is to ?ree& metaph%sics7
#nli&e )g%ptians and 4esopotamians9 the ?ree&s turned
geometr% into a theologicalAmetaph%sical premise7 6t the
core of this process lies an epistemological $uestion: how is
it that our mind is capable of &nowing the a:ioms as self
evident truths; .ow come we are able to derive logical
(0
I'.0)#450I/6)
certainties from these a:ioms; Dh% is the universe
intelligible through the propositions of )uclid;
This is the issue addressed in Plato*s 4eno7 'ornered b%
Bocrates in a conversation about the nature of virtue9 4eno9
the sophist9 replies as&ing:
1nd how will you in*uire, &ocrates, into that which
you know not7 2hat will you put forth as the
sub+ect of in*uiry7 1nd if you find what you want,
how will you ever know that this is what you did not
know <Plato9 /ialogues9 !5">7
4eno implies that truth cannot be proved unless alread%
&nown7
Bocrates answers b% as&ing an uneducated slave to rec&on
the area of a s$uare whose sides are twice the sides of a
given one7 .elped b% the familiar Bocratic $uestions9 the
slave shows himself capable of understanding the problem7
.e provides the correct answer9 because9 Bocrates claims9
his soul must have always possessed this knowledge
<ibid7 !,1>7 Lnowledge is recollection of innate truth7
De are able to understand the universe because the world
has been framed in the likeness of that which is
apprehended by reason and mind and is unchangeableE
<Timaeus9 15>7 The cosmos is intelligible because the
/emiurge has framed it in accordance with the laws of
)uclid9 that are both timeless and comprehensible7
If the human mind has innate access to the a:ioms of
geometr%9 it must also possess the &nowledge of the
(1
I'.0)#450I/6)
fundamental moral and e:istential absolutes as self2evident
a:ioms7 De &now good and evil9 beaut% and ugliness9 truth
and immortalit%9 as innate &nowledge7 Therefore we must
be able to deduce b% logic the laws of e:istence from
philosophical a:ioms7
The Kewish rabbi had a similar burden7 Yet he believed that
the @fear of the %ordE was the beginning of &nowledge7
Dh% not reason; Fecause reason was an e:tension of
)uclidean geometr%7 This was in turn based on the
assumption that space properties were timeless7 The rabbi
&new that space was not an absolute7 0either could reason
be7
Plato himself admitted the limits of reason when conceding
that @the father and maker of all this universe is past
finding out <ibid7 15>7 ?od had created the world after
rational patterns9 but he was not himself rational7 In other
words9 he was not open to &nowledge b% reason7 To this the
rabbi could agree7 .e pretended to &now ?od9 %et not b%
reason7 .e had the Torah7
(!
I'.0)#450I/6)
*ne3uall% %oked0 the Christian s%nthesis
Baint Paul was familiar with the self2confessed limits of
philosoph%7 @2hom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him
declare I unto you, said he to the 6thenians7 .owever9
when the philosopher eventuall% came to 'hrist9 he did not
repent for having ignorantl% worshiped7 5n the contrar%9 it
was the common believer who9 in his opinion9 worshiped in
ignorance7 The church needed scientific guidance7
Balvation was coming from the ?ree&s7
The first people to ma&e such an offer were the ?nostics7
@&cientific theological literature has undoubtedly its origin
in Gnosticism <.arnac&9 !"1>7 The ?nostics noticed the
substantial contradiction between the image of ?od in the
5ld and in the 0ew Testament7 The% also argued that onl%
a cruel ?od could have created our universe7 The% solved
such contradictions b% attributing to an evil /emiurge both
the world and the .ebrew Fible7 Kesus has come to save us
from this creation and its revengeful /emiurge7
The atonement made no sense to the ?nostics7 Paul saw in
the cross ?od*s wa% to deal with his own 8ustice: that he
might be +ust, and the +ustifier of him which believeth in
:esus <Rom (:!,>7 It abolished the law without den%ing its
divinit%7 To the ?nostics9 such barbarous wa%s were
worth% of the /emiurge7 The incarnation of the 3ogos and
his death were 8ust illusions7 The% were m%ths9 necessar%
((
I'.0)#450I/6)
for the common believer to stop worr%ing about the law7 It
was b% initiation into the gnosis I the secret science I that
one could escape from the world of common illusions into
the realm of truth7
F% the mid2second centur% 4arcion of Binope produced his
6ntitheses9 contrasting the /emiurge of the 5ld Testament
with the Cather of the 0ew Testament7 4arcion taught that
the /emiurge is a tribal and legalistic deit% that punishes
sin b% death7 .e accepted the 5ld Testament as literall%
true9 but re8ected its theological relevance to 'hristians7
The true ?od has sent Kesus to pa% the penalt% inflicted b%
the .ebrew god7
4arcion re8ected all Kesus stories that ever resembled
Kudaism7 .e accepted Paul as the true 6postle of Kesus7 .e
was also the first to propose a 0ew Testament canon7 It
consisted of onl% eleven boo&s grouped into two sections:
the )vangeli&on9 a version of the ?ospel of 3u&e9 and the
6postolic9 a selection of ten letters of Paul cleared of all
traces of Kudaism7 The 'hurch e:communicated him7
It became though clear that 'hristianit% needed a wa% to
reconcile Kesus with the .ebrew Yahweh9 and both of them
with the ?ree& /emiurge7 6 precedent had alread% been
established b% the Kewish philosopher Philo of 6le:andria
<!0 F' I 50 6/>7 .e managed to read allegoricall% Plato*s
ideas into the laws of 4oses7 Philo had a strong influence
on Titus Clavius 'lemens <150 6/ I !15 6/>9 &nown as
'lement of 6le:andria7 The latter was the first to use ?ree&
philosoph% in teaching 'hristian doctrines7 .is disciple9
("
I'.0)#450I/6)
5rigen of 6le:andria9 forged the first functional s%nthesis
of ?ree& metaph%sics and 'hristian theolog%7
3i&e his predecessors9 5rigen used allegor% to rationali1e
the tribal and barbarian traits of Yahweh7 Yet his e:egesis
was much more scientific and e:tensive9 covering all the
5ld Testament boo&s and the 'hristian writings which
would become the 0ew Testament7 .e e:plained the
contradiction between a benevolent ?od and a bad world
b% adding a cosmic dimension to the fall7 Bpirits have
fallen awa% from ?od into three ontological orders: the
celestial realm9 this world and the underworld7 )ach of
them was created b% a loving ?od to discipline and turn
bac& to ?od the stra%ing spirits7
The world was perfect I as a corrective prison7 )ven .ell
was not punitive but disciplinar% in nature7 /emons were I
along with the damned I the lowest fallen spirits7 Therefore
hell was the worst place to be7 It was nevertheless the best
discipline to bring the /evil and his followers bac& to ?od7
The 'hurch saw the usefulness of 5rigen*s s%nthesis7
0evertheless9 pree:isting souls and salvation for the /evil
were hard to stomach7
It was 6ugustine of .ippo who @established anew the
ancient /aith7 .e gave 'hristianit% an e:pression that was
intelligible to the ?ree& intellectual and orthodo: to the
believer7 6ugustine solved the tension between the biblical
creation and Platonic cosmolog% b% conceding that time
was created along with the world7 3i&e Plato9 he believed
that time was a ps%chological Illusion and events were in
fact simultaneous7 ?od was timeless and the redeemed will
(5
I'.0)#450I/6)
parta&e into his timelessness <'onfessions Foo& GI9 GII9
and GIII>7
In his view9 man had a rational soul9 but it was not
pree:isting li&e with Plato and 5rigen7 It was created b%
?od9 fort% da%s after conception9 with bo%s9 and ninet%9
with girls7 .e inferred these numbers from the Fiblical time
of postpartum uncleanness7 )ver% single human soul was
infected b% original sin9 the latter being transmitted b%
se:ual conception7 .e believed that man is born guilt%9 and
unbapti1ed infants go to hell for the sa&e of eternal 8ustice
<'atholic )nc%clopedia9 10!>7
6ugustine merged ?ree& metaph%sics with biblical
cosmolog%7 This tas& implied the reconciliation of some
deepl% antagonistic perspectives7 The .ebrew worldview is
monist7 5ld Testament redemption is an e:perience within
histor%7 4an had no soul I he @was made a living a soul
<?en 1:!,>7 To this purpose he made use of allegor%7
.owever9 6ugustin managed to &eep literal the most
illogical traits of the .ebrew ?od: his obsession with sin9
his cruelt%9 and his arbitrariness7 .e did indeed establish
the ancient faith7
The s%nthesis pea&ed between the fourth and the eighth
centur%7 The logical2scientific statements of belief were
named dogma7 The meaning of the word is @that which
seems to one7 In verbal form it signifies @to think, to
suppose, to imagine7 In other words9 a dogma is an
opinion7 0evertheless9 in the fourth centur% the term
ac$uired a new meaning7 It became articulus constitutivus
(,
I'.0)#450I/6)
ecclesia and was universall% enforced against other
opinions7
The change in semantics reflected a deeper change in
ecclesiastical philosoph%7 /ogma as opinion was grounded
in ?ree& dialectics7 /ogma as absolute statement was a
scion of the Talmud7 It entailed the .ebrew belief that the
fullness of truth can be contained in verbatim formula7 The
change reflected a gradual shift toward 5ld Testament
piet%9 based on fear9 and under strict supervision b%
ecclesiastical and state authorit%7
3et*s ta&e for instance the two constitutive doctrines of
'hristianit%: the Trinit% and the Incarnation7 It is assumed
that ?od is one in three persons7 It is also believed that
Kesus possesses the double nature of man and ?od in one
and the same person7 4ost believers ta&e such articles as a
revealed m%ster%9 be%ond human comprehension7 The%
would protest against an% attempt of e:ploring them
scientificall%7
In fact9 both doctrines are tentative e:planations of the
gospel b% ?ree& science <.arnac&9 11,>7 The ?ree&s
believed that things were transient manifestations of
irreducible substances7 It was thought that the relationship
between substance and predicate in things reflects the
relation between sub8ect and predicate in a sentence7 6ll
men were considered to be various manifestations of the
substance of man7 ?od must have been the manifestation of
his own substance7
(-
I'.0)#450I/6)
.ow could ?od be both one and three; The answer was
that ?od is one substance in three persons7 .ow could
Kesus be @vere homo, vere deusE9 true man and true god; 5f
course9 Kesus is two substances in one person7
The fact in the matter is that the concept of substance is
onl% an abstraction7 5ntological substances9 in the sense
used b% the ?ree&s9 do not e:ist7 In other words9 there*s no
such thing as human nature9 save as an abstraction of what
is li&e to be human7 6nd there*s no substance of ?od
e:cept as an abstraction of what we imagine him to be li&e7
The dogma as an intellectual paradigm was implemented in
ever% realm7 6lread% in the fourth centur% 6ugustine
envisioned the new order and named it The 'it% of ?od7 It
was also him who identified the new order with the
apocal%ptic millennium7 'herefore, the #hurch even now
is the kingdom of #hrist and the kingdom of heaven 'hus,
even now !is saints reign with !im <6ugustine9 The
'it% of ?od9 +88>7 6ccording to the Foo& of Revelation9 at
the beginning of this reign the /evil is chained9 so that @he
should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years
should be fulfilled4 and after that he must be loosed7E
<Rev !0:12(>7 6nd loosed he was7 The dogma lost its grip
after one thousand %ears7
(8
I'.0)#450I/6)
Erasmus dangerous idea
In the fourteenth centur%9 a couple of earthl% affairs called
the 'hristian worldview into $uestion7 6mong them was a
continuous string of crisis in 'hristianit%7 The% reached
their clima: in the Destern Bchism <1(-8 to 1"1->9 when
two popes claimed the Ring of the Cisherman
simultaneousl%7 5thers included the failure of the crusades9
unceasing conflict among 'hristian princes9 pestilence9 and
anarch%7 Caith in the rationalit% of creation was wavering7
6 good e:ample is 0iccolo 4achiavelli7 .e wrote in The
Prince with a hint at Plato*s Republic:
?ut, in being my intention to write a thing which
shall be useful to him who apprehends it, it appears
to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth
of a matter than the imagination of it. for many
have pictured republics and principalities which in
fact have never been known or seen, because how
one lives is so far distant from how one ought to
live <4achiavelli9 1!1>
6lthough 4achiavelli was not concerned with metaph%sics
in The Prince9 his re8ection of the Republic spea&s of itself7
The dominating trend in scholastic thought was to disregard
immediate realit% and loo& for the substance in things7 0ow
what has @never been known or seenE no longer mattered7
)ven more9 it was dangerous to ignore the irrationalit% of
(+
I'.0)#450I/6)
the world9 because one had to be perpetuall% on guard
against it7 .ow one must live is not how one ought to live7
6 similar doubt was manifest in metaph%sics7 Dilliam of
5c&ham <1!88 I 1("8> demonstrated that the concept of
substance was insubstantial itself7 .e concluded that
concepts are 8ust abstractions9 and terms are onl% signs of
concepts7 Therefore9 an% unnecessar% addition of concepts
and terms in human &nowledge leads to confusion:
@$lurality must never be posited without necessity
<5c&ham9 ::i>7 This dictum came to be &nown as 5ccam*s
ra1or9 the principle that the fewer new assumptions we
ma&e9 the closer we come to truth7
The new philosophical movement was &nown as
0ominalism9 or via moderna @the new wayA, as opposed to
the via anti*ua9 <the old wa%>7 4odernists did not believe
that the ontological structure of the universe reflects
sentence s%nta:7 In other words9 the% did not believe that
philosophical2theological verbiage was real &nowledge7
The% encouraged empirical science instead7 0evertheless9
the main concern in 0ominalism was theolog%7
5ccam*s ra1or meant to 5c&ham himself that metaph%sical
'hristianit% offered an illusor% &nowledge of ?od7
'he ways of God are not open to reason, for God
has freely chosen to create a world and establish a
way of salvation within it, apart from any necessary
laws that human logic or rationality can uncover
<4c'lintoc& = Btrong9 !55>
"0
I'.0)#450I/6)
To the medieval believer9 an irrational world was onl% a
danger for this life7 That is to sa%9 the threat was relative7
The true problem was the irrational ?od7
Bo far9 the 'hristian ?od had been strict but predictable7
The 'hurch &new how to deal with him9 li&e a good law%er
&nows how to deal with tough 8ustice7 Balvation depended
on the abilit% of the 'hurch to match sin with penance on a
rational basis7 0ominalism shattered this tough assurance7
Hia moderna split in two paths: 'hristian humanism and
the Reformation7 The two differed in their conflicting
views of the ontic priority of man and God and the
relationship between them <?illespie9 1(!>7 .umanism
turned from an impenetrable ?od to the stud% of his earthl%
image: man7 The Reformation turned toward the
impenetrable ?od in irrational faith7
The theolog% of the Reformation sought to establish faith
on a new basis7 6s a mon&9 3uther tried to find solace in
5c&ham*s concession that ?od will most li&el% save those
who do ever%thing within their power to save themselves7
6fter futile attempts to do ever%thing he could for ten
%ears9 3uther plunged into the 0ominalist ab%ss b% faith
onl%7
Drote 3uther: @/aith must trample underfoot all reason,
sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put
out of sight and know nothing but the word of God
<Laufman9 -5>7 In fairness to 3uther9 it should be added
that such a re8ection of rationalit% was not a recourse to
non2intelligent faith7 F% reason 3uther understood
"1
I'.0)#450I/6)
scholastic rationalism7 5n the other hand9 he waged a
relentless war to purge the Reformation from irrationalit%
and fanaticism7 .e returned to the written word as a true
man of letters9 schooled in the classes of ?erman
humanism7 The same path was followed b% other reformers
as well as b% the 'ounter2Reformation7 6t the council of
Trent9 Bcriptures e:egesis prevailed over scholastic
arguments7
.owever9 the abolishing of scholastic rationalism generated
unintended results7 0ew contradictions and dead ends
emerged as the old answers no more wor&ed7 The most
telling e:ample is the controvers% between 3uther and
)rasmus7
In 15!"9 )rasmus published his treatise 5n the Creedom of
the Dill7 .e contented9 against 6ugustine and 3uther9 that
man did indeed possess free will9 although divine aid was
needed to put it into effect7 3uther surprised him on the
ne:t %ear with an une:pected displa% of scholastic s&ills in
The Fondage of the Dill9 his answer to )rasmus7
The conflict between freedom and necessit% was solved in
classical philosoph% b% the concept of reason as the
common substance of ?od9 soul9 and the cosmos7 The stoic
philosopher was free in his submission to the laws of being9
because he followed the dictates of his own rational soul7
0ow9 as both )rasmus and 3uther had re8ected scholastic
rationalism9 the% implicitl% re8ected the classic solution7
)rasmus attempted to negotiate a settlement between ?od
and free will7 This was also a theological2political
"!
I'.0)#450I/6)
settlement between humanism and the 'hurch7 3uther drew
the sword7 .e opposed faith to reason and ?od to human
freedom7 If man has free will9 he claimed9 ?od is not ?od7
If ?od is ?od9 freedom is an illusion7 Peace could be found
onl% in that faith that abandons reason and self2
determination altogether7
The demise of the rational ?od had resuscitated the basic
conflict of ?ree& traged%: the individual against an
implacable destin%7 3uther went literall% bac& to traged%
and $uoted Hirgil*s .ector arguing that: @#ould 'roy have
stood by human arm, it should have stood by mine7E
/estin% was be%ond good and evil7 Bo was ?od:
9o you believe that !e foreknows against !is will,
or that !e wills in ignorance7 If then, !e
foreknows, willing, !is will is eternal and
immovable, because !is nature is so4 and, if !e
wills, foreknowing, !is knowledge is eternal and
immovable, because !is nature is so /rom which it
follows unalterably, that all things which we do,
although they may appear to us to be done mutably
and contingently, and even may be done thus
contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done
necessarily and immutably, with respect to the will
of God /or I have shown before, that ;/ree(will0
cannot be applied to any one but to God only
<3uther9 !->
)rasmus brought against 3uther an argument from the
?enesis blessing:
"(
I'.0)#450I/6)
8nce God has given to the secondary causes,
namely nature, the power to reproduce or act, he
does nothing unless for special reasons he suspends
the common action of nature <)rasmus9 ,!!>
4an is free because man is a part of nature9 and ?od
transferred to nature some of his creative power7 )rasmus
thus set the theological basis for a new ontolog% in which
?od*s freedom is shared b% nature9 and b% man as a part of
nature7
)rasmus* idea was hardl% noticed at the time7 )urope
believed that Reformation and 'ounter2Reformation were
the onl% options7 6s a matter of fact9 man% thought that the
end of the world was at hand7 0evertheless9 he will prevail7
4odernit% is based on attributing to man at least some of
those $ualities that have been traditionall% assigned to ?od7
4odern cosmolog% and evolutionar% science assume that
nature has self2generating and self2organi1ing attributes7
The modern opposition of )vangelical fundamentalism
against evolutionar% models is rooted in the historical
re8ection of 'hristian humanism b% the Reformation9 rather
than in anti2scientific sentiments7
I will argue that the attempt to read the *uestions of
theology and metaphysics out of modernity has in
fact blinded us to the continuing importance of
theological issues in modern thought in ways that
makes it very difficult to come to terms with our
current situation Bnless and until we understand
the metaphysicalCtheological core of modernity, we
""
I'.0)#450I/6)
will remain unable to understand religiously
motivated anti(modernism and our response to it
<?illespie9 :iii>7
Those who attempt to persuade fundamentalists on the
reliabilit% of scientific evidence are fighting the wrong
fight7 The debate is older than science7
"5
I'.0)#450I/6)
-he demise of the unmo"ed mo"er
4an% technological advances were born from attempts to
perfect the &illing machines7 If so9 the $uestion raises9 wh%
it too& so long before militar% engineers learned how to
calculate the tra8ector% of a cannon round; The plain
answer is that scientific ballistics would have implied the
rethin&ing of 6ristotle*s cosmological argument that was of
the essence of natural theolog%7
3et*s consider an e:ample from Renaissance ballistics:
2here there0s greater speed in the canon thrown
violently through the air, there0s less heaviness in
it. and, also, conversely, where its speed is
diminished, there is more heaviness in it <Tartaglia9
10(>7
The argument is based upon the assumption that the round
is air2planing on its curved tra8ector%7 6bsurd as it seems to
us9 this was the onl% e:planation available within the
conceptual framewor& of scholastic rationalism7
The bottom line in rationalism is that ever%thing real is also
rational7 If something is impossible to thin& or tal&
logicall% about9 it does not e:ist7 Crom here9 the
philosophical school of )lea deduced that change and
movement were simpl% illusions7 The argument is
devastating in its simplicit%: change implicates two
",
I'.0)#450I/6)
different states coe:isting at a single moment7 Therefore
change must be an illusion <Parmenides9 10(>7
6nother famous argument of the )leatics is the Meno
parado:7 In order to cross a section9 an% moving ob8ect
must first reach its half7 Yet in order to reach half of the
section9 the half of the half has to be reached9 and so on7
The moving ob8ect cannot reach and infinit% of targets in a
limited time7
The parado: was addressed b% 6ristotle in his ph%sics7 .e
noticed that
'he natural behavior of simple bodies is itself
simple and consists in the same upward or
downward movement in a way that brings out its
substance(expressive unity <Barah = Barah9 10!>7
Rest was substantial and therefore necessar%7 4ovement
was onl% contingent7
The solution proposed b% 6ristotle was the unmoved mover
<Bhields9 !!!>7 Things are naturall% at rest7 It re$uires a
cause to move an ob8ect7 Inanimate things9 <things without
a soul>9 are moved b% e:ternal causes7 6nimated things9
<animals>9 are moved b% their inner soul7 There must be a
primar% cause9 an unmoved mover9 in whom there is no
accident and change9 generating the initial momentum7
6ccordingl%9 there are three classes of studies7 Ph%sics
studies what is sub8ect to change7 4athematics studies what
is timeless9 though not separate from ob8ects that change
and move7 Theolog% is the @firstE and the @highestE
"-
I'.0)#450I/6)
science9 because it studies pure necessit%9 the unmoved
mover7
If movement was onl% an accident9 it could not be the
ob8ect of mathematics7 'omputable ballistics was thin&able
onl% within an ontolog% that considered that change was
necessar%7 This would have primaril% meant the give up the
argument of the unmoved mover and rethin& the
cosmological argument for the e:istence of ?od7 The
'hristian worldview was entangled in the ph%sics of
6ristotle7
The metaph%sical2epistemological idea underl%ing the
mechanics of ?alileo was that movement is not contingent
upon rest7 The tra8ector% of the round displa%s two logical2
mathematical necessities7 5ne is inertia7 6 moving ob8ect
will continue to move at constant speed unless interfering
with an obstacle7 The other is gravitational acceleration7 6ll
things fall at the same uniforml% accelerated speed7 .e
represented the inertial movement of the round on the
hori1ontal a:es9 and its uniforml% accelerated fall on the
vertical one7 The tra8ector% was a curve defined b% two
coordinates7
The theological ramifications were too subtle to come into
open7 It was ?alileo himself who drew attention on them
b% using his mechanics as an a:iom to support the
'opernican h%pothesis7
The heliocentric universe was not a new idea7 It had been
proposed in the third centur% F' b% 6ristarchus of Bamos7
The ?ree&s held two ob8ections against it7 The first
"8
I'.0)#450I/6)
ob8ection was the stellar paralla:7 If the earth goes around
the sun9 the stars should be moving accordingl% for the
earthl% observer7 6ristarchus settled the issue b% assuming
that the universe was twent% times greater than it was
believed7 The second ob8ection was the tower argument7 If
an ob8ect is dropped from a tower9 the diurnal rotation of
the earth should cause it to move westward7
Regarding the first ob8ection9 ?alileo noticed that unli&e
planets9 the stars were not magnified b% the telescope7 .e
also discovered that there were man% more stars on the
firmament than what could be seen b% na&ed e%e7 The
universe must have been far greater than it was believed7
6s for the second ob8ection9 ?alileo drew on his ballistics7
The falling ob8ect displa%s the same circular inertia as the
canon round7 It moves along with the earth7 .e went further
and stipulated the principle of relativit%7
1ny two observers moving at constant speed and
direction with respect to one another will obtain the
same results for all mechanical experiments
<?alileo9 /ialogue9 18,718->
To ma&e his point9 ?alileo used the ship passenger
e:ample7 4echanical e:periments9 done inside a ship
moving at constant speed in a constant direction9 would
give precisel% the same results as similar e:periments done
on shore7 )arth was a ship floating at constant speed7
):periments done on the earth could not indicate whether it
was moving or at rest7
"+
I'.0)#450I/6)
The traditional view in cosmolog% was that ?od created the
firmament in order to give humans an image of the
timeless7 Perfect spheres9 moving in perfect circles9 in
perfect c%cles of time9 forever unchanged9 represented the
timelessness and unchanging nature of ?od7 ?alilean
relativit% was sha&ing the foundation of the 'hristian
universe7 The idea communicated b% heavens was now
perpetual change and movement7 6nd the% needed no
unmoved mover7
50
I'.0)#450I/6)
-he end of causa finalis
Dith most people9 the metaph%sical implications ?alilean
ballistics would have passed unnoticed7 Yet the theological
$uestions raised b% ?alilean relativit% were unavoidable7
Cirst9 the cosmological argument9 the unmoved mover9
becomes superfluous if movement is of the essence of
nature7 Becond9 how could the purpose of this strange
universe be e:plained; Dhat was ?od*s rationale for
having created unseen stars9 moons to Kupiter9 mountains
on the 4oon9 spots in the Bun;
The scholastic theologian2philosopher drew on the
6ristotelian distinction between efficient and final causes7
.e would give e:planator% priorit% to the latter7
?ut the acting cause does not move, except by
reason of the intention of an end it is necessary
that it should be determined to something certain as
end <6$uinas +57 +,>
?alileo wrote with disdain to Lepler about philosophers
invo&ing logic(chopping arguments as they were magical
incantationsE <Feiser9 (5>9 against the e:istence of Kovian
moons9 because the% could not find an% finale cause for
them <li&e that of being a light during the night and a sign
to divide the times>7
51
I'.0)#450I/6)
?alileo believed that the universe is fundamentall%
mathematical7 If the universe is mathematical9 it has no
intrinsic meaning7 4ore e:actl%9 onl% words can e:press
meaning9 and words are e:traneous to the universe7 The
finale cause is a matter of words9 not of numbers7
?alileo used the metaphor of the two boo&s to ma&e faith
coe:ist with a science that finds no apparent or intelligible
purpose in the universe7 ?od wrote two boo&s: nature and
the Fible7 The boo& of nature tells us how heaven goes7
The Fible teaches us how to go to heaven7 ?od wrote the
former in the language of mathematics7 .e adapted the
latter to human language7 ?alileo*s letter to Fenedetto
'astelli <1,1(> indicates his departure from natural
theolog%7
'hus in the &cripture one finds many propositions
which look different from the truth if one goes by
the literal meaning of the words, but which are
expressed in this manner to accommodate the
incapacity of common people. likewise, for the few
who deserve to be separated from the masses, it is
necessary that wise interpreters produce their true
meaning and indicate the particular reasons why
they have been expressed by means of such words
<Cinocchiaro9 50>
Dhat ?alileo left unsaid was that the deeper meaning
found b% the wise might also be an accommodation to their
own limits7 If ?od found appropriate to tell children stories
to common people9 wh% should he ma&e an% difference
with those who are relativel% smarter;
5!
I'.0)#450I/6)
.e continues:
> moreover, in order to adapt itself to the
understanding of all people, it was appropriate for
the &cripture to say many things which are different
from absolute truth, in appearance and in regard to
the meaning of the words. on the other hand, nature
is inexorable and immutable, and she does not care
at all whether or not her recondite reasons and
modes of operations are revealed to human
understanding, and so she never transgresses the
terms of the laws imposed on her <ibid7>
?alileo implies that the Bcriptures do not tell the truth
about the universe7 0onetheless9 unscientific statements in
the Fible are not intended to deceive7 The% are intrinsic to
@the meaning of the wordsE7 4oreover: @nature does not
care at all whether or not her recondite reasons and modes
of operations are revealed to human understandingE7 In
plain words9 nature does not care about meaning7 ?alileo
concludes in passion: @2ho wants to fix a limit for the
human mind7 2ho wants to assert that everything which is
knowable in the world is already known7 <ibid7>7 .e has
alread% answered7 Dhat limited scientific &nowledge was
the search for meaning in things7
Dhen ?alileo introduced mathematics in the stud% of
movement9 he implicitl% attributed to nature an ontological
$ualit% that ?ree& and scholastic metaph%sics reserved for
the uncreated7 Lepler went even further7 .is laws of
planetar% movement9 which ?alileo unfortunatel% ignored9
were based on the radical premise that the planets floated
5(
I'.0)#450I/6)
freel% in space <the accepted view being that the% were
fi:ed on cr%stal spheres>9 and were moved b% the Bun7
This suggested his second law to him: orbital movements
decrease and increase with distance from the sun7 The so
called first law came in fact as a conclusion of the second7
6n ellipsis was more suitable than a circle for a pendulum
li&e movement7
Lepler confesses to having attempted over and over again
to define the orbit of 4ars9 but ever% time the planet was
off b% few minutes7 .e went on b% trial and error sevent%
times before he found the mathematical e:pressions of the
two laws7 .is brilliant third law <the s$uare of the orbit is
proportional with the cube of the semi2a:is> came to him as
a part of his concept of harmon% of spheres7 6t the time9
the theological2cosmological significance of the music of
spheres9 <of absent scientific worth>9 was more important to
him and the public than his third law9 used toda% b% the
Lepler mission to establish the distance at which an e:o2
planet orbits its star7
I wanted to become a theologian9 wrote Lepler7 @/or a
long time I was restless Now, however, behold how
through my effort God is being celebrated in astronomy
<.olton9 -0>7 Dhat is the theolog% behind Lepler*s laws;
Cirst9 he transferred to the Bun the power to &eep the
planets moving7 In other words9 he transferred to nature
what used to be attributed to ?od onl%7 Becondl%9 he
believed in the e:istence of a cosmic harmon% of
theological significance7 6nd last9 he believed that this
harmon% was mathematical7
5"
I'.0)#450I/6)
Lepler*s lifewor& is the transition from medieval to modern
science7 .e was searching for meaning and finale cause and
ever% time bumped into mathematical laws7 .is music of
spheres is almost forgotten7 .is laws were instrumental for
.erman 5berth to calculate the tra8ector% of the 6pollo
missions7 Lepler himself wrote a fiction about a trip to the
4oon9 but his science pla%ed no role7 .e dream2wal&ed
there b% magic7
The concept that nature was mathematical was threatening
the traditional role of the Fible in natural theolog%7
1nother way at looking at this *uestion of the
evolution of religious thought is to note that any
verbal form of statement which has been before the
world for sometime discloses ambiguities. and that
often such ambiguities strike at the very heart of the
meaning <ou have to take into account the whole
reaction of human nature to the scheme of thought
'his reaction is of mixed character, including
elements of emotion derived from our lower
natures It is here that the impersonal criticism of
science and of philosophy comes to the aid of
religious evolution <Dhitehead9 1+0>
The founders of modern science did not doubt that the
Fible was the word of ?od7 It was words in themselves
the% did not trust7 The% followed 6hmes rather than
Bolomon7 The difference between the two is that
Bolomon*s wisdom is personal7 6nd so is the meaning of
words7
55
I'.0)#450I/6)
The% never intended to to strip life of meaning9 words and
emotions7 Yet li&e the builders of Fabel9 the% found words
confusing and inade$uate to reach heaven through them9
and turned to mathematics7
In other words9 the% gave up loo&ing for causa finalis7
0ature reveals itself to human mind meaningless7 Dhen
meaning is found9 science ceases7 The cosmic feeling of
na&edness of 6dam and )ve after eating from the tree of
&nowledge is the price of scientific &nowledge7 The
universe is indeed loo&ed through a serpent*s e%es7
5,
I'.0)#450I/6)
&e1els
/uring his ?alileo address delivered in In 1++09 'ardinal
Rat1inger vindicated the In$uisition for having been more
faithful to reason and sociall% responsible than ?alileo7 The
'ardinal $uoted from Paul Ce%erabend*s boo& 6gainst
4ethod:
'he #hurch at the time of Galileo not only kept
closer to reason as defined then, and, in part, even
now It also considered the ethical and social
conse*uences of Galileo0s views Its indictment of
Galileo was rational <Ce%erabend91!5>
Dhat he overloo&ed was Ce%erabend*s own conclusion
regarding the reactionar% character of dominant rationalit%7
Reason is the lu:ur% of the powerful7 The 'hurch and the
)mpire summoned the most distinguished scholars for a
few centuries to frame the theologicalAmetaph%sical
statement of faith7 The s%stem was so well2elaborated9 so
logic2proved9 that the common mind could not stand it7
6n% definitive s%stem of truth leads to an in$uisition7 6nd
even without it9 the definitive9 non2negotiable truth
becomes itself in$uisitorial to the wea&er minds7
'hristianit% has emerged as a religion of the wea&7 The
slaves and illiterates that constituted the ma8orit% of the
earl% church members could not amount the necessar%
5-
I'.0)#450I/6)
brain power for an alternative e:planation of the world7
The% did not challenge the m%thological2metaph%sical
picture handed to them7 The% onl% reinterpreted its
meaning7
The core of 'hristianit% is faith7 6ccording to Bt7 Paul9
faith is the opposite of beholding7 The word theory comes
from the ?ree& for beholding7 Caith is not another theor% of
realit%7 It is rather a new hermeneutics of e:isting theories
and facts7 Kust as the Kewish prisoners in Fab%lon
reinterpreted the Bumero26&&adian creation m%th9 so did
the poor in the spirit in the )mpire give a new meaning to
Kewish apocal%ptic and ?ree& metaph%sics7
The promulgation of a perfect s%stem of metaph%sics b%
the Imperial 'hurch9 and its subse$uent development in
scholastic thought9 was the end of faith7 Caith is an inner
motive acting in the absence of a comprehensive theor%7
The definitive rationale for belief made faith dangerous7
'onfronted with the elaborated rationalism of the 'hurch9
the obstinate dissident appeared malicious9 rebellious9 or
even possessed7 There was no valid argument against
'hristianit% during the 4iddle 6ges7
It was the seventeenth2centur% Bcientific Revolution that
administered the lethal blow to 'hristian metaph%sics7 This
was b% no means a simpl% intellectual development7 The
emerging social forces needed to demolish the dominant
ideolog%7 Bcience was the onl% effective instrument to
attac& the metaph%sicalAtheological foundation of medieval
power7 5n the other hand9 'hurch and Btate clung to old
58
I'.0)#450I/6)
metaph%sics for the same reason7 Philosophical demands
for rationalit% were indented to undermine science7
&uch ;irrational0 methods of support are needed
because of the ;uneven development0 @,arxC%eninA
of different parts of science #opernicanism and
other essential ingredients of modern science
survived only because reason was fre*uently
overruled in their past <ibid7 105>
The rationali1ation of the e:isting order is9 according to
4ar:9 a tool of the Jdominant classes*7 The in$uisition was
itself the most rational 8ustice s%stem during the 4iddle
6ges7 The 'hurch was @closer to reason as defined thenE
because the 'hurch sided with the old order7
Ce%erabend <1> opens his wor& on ?alileo $uoting from
3enin:
!istory as a whole, and the history of revolutions in
particular, is always richer in content, more varied,
more multiform, more lively and ingenious than is
imagined in order to accomplish its task the
revolutionary class must be able to master all forms
or aspects of social activity without exception
0arrowing on science fails to account for the Revolution
part in the Bcientific Revolution7 Dhat caused the radical
rethin&ing of the world in the seventeenth centur%; Dho
were the Jrevolutionar% class*7 Dhat was their agenda7
Dhat Jforms or aspects of social activit%* did the% emplo%;
5+
I'.0)#450I/6)
The common pre8udice is that the Bcientific Revolution was
a historical necessit%9 a natural result in the evolution of
&nowledge7 Buch an e:planation ignores that the most
learned scholar at the beginning of the seventeenth centur%
did not &now more about the universe than a ?ree&
philosopher at the beginning of the 'hristian era7
The pursuit of scientific truth is onl% a part of the stor%7
)merging new forces were plotting to reverse the social
order7 The% recogni1ed in science a formidable asset to
challenge the theological foundation of the status $uo7
Bcience was to them a conspiratorial activit%7
The epitome of such activities was the Rosicrucian societ%9
a secret order promoting the @Bniversal "eformation of
,ankind7 Rosicrucianism taught that ?od intended to
transfer his power over nature to man&ind7 It was his will
that man should ac$uire the abilit% to heal9 e:tend life9 and
ultimatel% discover the secret of immortalit%7 This was to
be done b% @torturingE nature to ma&e her divulge its
secrets7 In other words9 it was e:periment rather than
philosoph% that held the &e% to power b% &nowledge7
Dhat had discouraged the classics from pursuing scientific
&nowledge was the shortness of life7 5ne individual could
accumulate the whole range of liberal arts7 Yet he could
barel% learn few things if an% about nature after a life of
research7 In answer to this9 the Rosicrucian societ% inspired
the scientist to practice the humilit% and selflessness of an
apostle7 .e did not wor& for own his glor%9 but for the
general good7 If life was too short9 the societ% transcended
,0
I'.0)#450I/6)
it7 The accumulated results of man% generations will
ultimatel% lead to full surrender of nature7
2hat think you, loving people, and how seem you
affected, seeing that you now understand and know,
that we acknowledge ourselves truly and sincerely
to profess #hrist, condemn the $ope, addict
ourselves to the true $hilosophy, lead a #hristian
life, and daily call, entreat and invite many more
unto our /raternity, unto whom the same %ight of
God likewise appeareth <'onfessio>
This concept led to to the establishment of the Invisible
'ollege and the Respublica 3iteraria <Republic of 3etters>7
Philosophers on both sides of the Religious Dars created
an )uropean communit% through letter e:change7 0ew
ideas and discoveries were sub8ected to scrutin% b% ever%
citi1en of the virtual republic7 This was the origin of
modern peer review7 The Invisible 'ollege was a
forerunner to the Ro%al Bociet% of 3ondon7
The Rosicrucian societ% and its branches was not the onl%
secret societ% that cradled the Bcientific Revolution7
Creemasonr% is probabl% the best &nown7
/or what we do presage is not in grosse,
/or we are brethren of the "osie #rosse.
2e have the ,ason 2ord and second sight,
'hings for to come we can foretell aright
D !enry 1damson, 'he ,uses0 'hrenodie <1,(8>7
The association of natural philosophers with secret
societies was e:ploited b% the representatives of the old
,1
I'.0)#450I/6)
order to reinforce pre8udice against science7 The members
of such societies were allegedl% conversing with fallen
spirits in their lodges7 It was believed that science had
demonic origins7 Bimilar sentiments are still entertained
among conservative 'hristians7
,!
I'.0)#450I/6)
eres%
6t the the core of the modern2scientific rethin&ing of the
world lies the belief that ?od has transferred @his
attributes, essential powers, and capacities to other entities
or realms of beingE <?illespie !-">7 This revolutionar%
concept was grounded in the uni$uel% 'hristian @notion of
divine incarnation that bridged the gap between God and
manE <ibid7 1(!9 1((>7 The same is the reason wh% the
Bcientific Revolution occurred onl% in 'hristianit%9 even if
Islam9 'hina or India were ahead in science at some point7
4odern science is a 'hristian heres%7
To legitimate this belief9 the new philosoph% had to answer
a basic $uestion: b% what means did ?od effectuate such
transfer of power7 Two opposite answers were proposed in
the seventeenth centur% b% Rene /escartes and Thomas
.obbes7
The lifewor& of Rene /escartes is generall% associated with
the nascence of modern secularism7 0evertheless9
/escartes* ac&nowledged aim was a new 'hristian
rationalism that could heal the 0ominalist crisis7 .e
ac$uired his education in a Kesuit school9 and made several
attempts to have his s%stem replace 6ristotle in Kesuit
education7 .e continued to profess 'atholic faith through
the end of his life9 though he lived mostl% among
,(
I'.0)#450I/6)
Protestants9 8ust as Lepler remained faithful to
Protestantism at the court of a 'atholic monarch7
The ps%chological cause underl%ing /escartes* $uest was
his war e:perience7 .e was a soldier fighting on either side
of the Dar of Religions7 This gave him a first hand
understanding on the lethal nature of blind faith and creedal
allegiance7 5ld time religion had become a historical
liabilit% in )urope7 .e concluded that neither 3uther*s faith
nor the cultural illusions of humanism were the wa% to go7
The 5ld Dorld needed another &ind of Reformation9 and
/escartes was eager to ma&e his offer7
The inception of /escartes* s%stem was generated b% his
contacts with the Rosicrucian societ%7 In 1,1( the &ing and
elector Crederic& of Fohemia married )lisabeth Btuart9 the
daughter of Ling Kames of )ngland and Bcotland7 4an%
representatives of the )nglish secret societies accompanied
the $ueen and became part of the intellectual life in
?erman%7 /escartes was then in Fohemia as a soldier9 and
ac$uainted some of them7
6lthough never becoming a member of the Rosicrucian
societ%9 /escartes adopted their beliefs7 .e embraced
Crancis Facon*s ma:im that &nowledge is power7 .e did
also allow that ?od intended to transfer to man&ind his
power over nature7 3i&e the Rosicrucians9 /escartes
believed that the ills of his time were to be solved b%
science rather than piet%7 Yet he found unsatisfactor% their
poetical approach7 .e re8ected also the flat empiricism of
Facon7
,"
I'.0)#450I/6)
In the introduction his /iscourse on 4ethod with9
/escartes urges his reader to consider the difference
between the t%pical medieval cit% and an imperial
metropolis7 The former unwraps a disorderl% accumulation
of architectural features7 The latter displa%s the wor& of
rational planning7 5ne is the impersonal product of random
minds7 The other is the wor& of one single individual7 The
message is clear7 Btop trusting traditions or the opinion of
ma8orit%7 The path to truth is open onl% to the individual
mind7
Dhat individual; Dho is to be entrusted with power to
demolish and rebuild our inner world; The old answer was
implicit faith9 trusting an authorit% e:traneous to the self7
This authorit% could be the collective reasoning of
scholastic theologians9 the voice of the 'hurch9 the Fible9
even private revelations7 /escartes turned the table7 .e
as&ed his readers to doubt ever% e:ternal source of truth7
/oubt an% authorit%9 doubt ?od9 doubt %our own
assumptions and senses7 Yet his purpose was not
s&epticism7 /oubting ever%thing was a method to discover
what could not be doubted7
/oubtless is onl% the fact that one doubts7 In other words9
doubt ascertains the doubting self9 hence the &e% statement
@cogito ergo sumE9 originall% @dubito ergo sumE
</escartes9 /iscourse9 (0>7 The thin&ing self discovers
himself as the onl% certitude7 Therefore it is the thin&ing
self that should be given final authorit% to reconstruct the
shattered world of traditional 'hristianit%9 on no other basis
than the thin&ing self himself7 In the hindsight9 it is not
,5
I'.0)#450I/6)
difficult to read the Crench Revolution between the lines of
this cogitative individualism9 though /escartes never
ac&nowledged revolutionar% intent7
/escartes will later define the substance of the thin&ing self
as infinite will </escartes9 4editations9 58>7 5ur
&nowledge might be limited9 but our sub8ectivit% is
$ualitativel% the same as ?od*s own7
It was a daring profession of faith7 .egel saw in it the
seafarer cr%ing land7 5thers thought it was the ultimate
shipwrec&7 To /escartes himself9 it was instrumental to
frame his own ontological argument7 ?od must e:ist9
because he is b% definition infinite sub8ectivit%9 and infinite
sub8ectivit% is the substance of e:istence7
5nce the thin&ing self ascertained9 /escartes proceeds to
rebuild &nowledge on this foundation7 The world is defined
as the ontological opposite to the thin&ing self7 If self is
will9 the world is e:tension7 The self perceives e:tensions
as representations in the brain7 The% are not to be trusted9
as the% are not under the power of self7 @-xcept our own
thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power
</escartes9 /iscourse9 !,>7 It is is b% reducing e:tension to
thought that the world comes under the power of the
thin&ing self7
'artesian geometr% is e:tension brought under the laws of
the thin&ing2self7 ?eometr% is no longer the Platonic
contemplation of the uncreated7 It becomes the assertion of
?od2li&e sub8ectivit% over creation7 6ccordingl%9 necessit%
becomes the sub8ugation of contingenc% b% sub8ectivit%7
,,
I'.0)#450I/6)
There*s no true necessit% outside the self9 onl% the
limitation imposed b% the %et un&nown and uncon$uered7
The bottom line is that science is not possible unless
e:tension is reduced to mathematical e:pression7 /escartes
built on this epistemolog% his own research in optics9
anatom% and mechanics7 The concept that science is the
mathematical reconstruction of world is of the essence of
modern science7 Yet as his mathematics was limited to
anal%tical geometr%9 'artesian science was mere
mechanistic7
/escartes intended to develop his own 'opernican s%stem9
but the ?alileo affair made him step bac&7 .e proposed
though that in order to understand creation9 we must start
from the premises that ?od created the primordial elements
in an empt% space9 and allowed them to self2organi1e b%
the laws of ph%sics7 The ne:t step is recreating the world in
our mind from primordial elements </escartes9 /iscourse9
(+2"0>7 5nce the elements pieced bac& together9 we have
comprehended the laws of nature7
It was an idea well ahead of its time7 )ver% aspect of realit%
from atom to stars9 and from viruses to comple: organisms9
are intelligible in modern science onl% within an
evolutionar% paradigm7
It is an unnoticed iron% of modernit% that the 'artesian
pro8ect stands or falls with faith in ?od7 Dho warrants the
universal validit% of mathematics and logic; /escartes
considered three scenarios7
,-
I'.0)#450I/6)
In the first case9 he accepts the atheist h%pothesis7 If the
world is an accident9 there*s no reason for it to be
intelligible7 In the second9 ?od e:ists but he is a deceiver7
In this situation we are the un&nowing victims of cosmic
delusion7 The third h%pothesis stipulates that ?od e:ists
and cannot lie to us7 5nl% in this case9 apodeictic science is
possible7
'onsistenc% re$uired an apodeictic <should we sa%
'artesian;> argument for the e:istence of ?od7 /escartes
appealed to the ontological argument: ?od must be perfect
because we are able to thin& perfection7 .e sounds
unconvincing7
The first to notice this wea&ness was an )nglish scholar
committed to the same ideals7 Kust li&e /escartes9 Thomas
.obbes believed in the pro8ect of a comprehensive science
that would ma&e man able to con$uer nature and better his
life <.obbes>7 3i&e /escartes9 he believed that )uclidean
geometr% was the &e% to such science9 and ?alilean
mechanics was its best model7 .e even went further than
him in daring to propose the rational rearrangement of
societ%9 becoming the first political scientist7
Yet .obbes found the s%stem proposed b% /escartes fatall%
flawed <Flumenau9 !!,>7 5ne serious problem was his
epistemolog%7 .ow could a non2corporeal mind perceive
and imagine corporeal entities; .obbes contented that
mind was not substantial7 5nl% corporeal entities possessed
ontological status7 The nature of corporealit% is movement
and change7 'orporeal ob8ects interact9 generating change
and movement b% the laws of ph%sics7
,8
I'.0)#450I/6)
It is b% the same laws that the motion of ob8ects generate
impressions on our senses and representations in our brains7
Yet unli&e animals9 human mind operates with a set of
signs9 li&e words9 concepts and numbers9 that stand for
representations in thin&ing7 Thought is not a substance in
itself9 but a rearrangement of representations through
secondar% signs7 It is b% such s%mbolic reflection that the
memor% of the past and anticipation of future events is
made possible9 consciousness being a b%product7
Bcience consists in models of realit% with mental signs as
the building bloc&s7 Bcience is not9 and cannot be
apodeictic7 Buch models are onl% relative and probabilistic7
The% do not reveal unto us the thing in itself7 0either do we
need ?od as a guarantor of truth7 Lnowledge is power9 not
absolute truth7 The scientific model is validated b% its
efficienc% in the con$uest of nature7
.obbes* s%stem entails two heterodo: ideas7 Cirst9 if mind
is corporeal9 there*s no such thing as an immortal soul7
Becond9 if corporealit% is substantial9 ?od is corporeal too7
Yet trinit% is unthin&able without an non2corporeal
substance7
Buch ideas lead to the suspicion of atheism7 Yet .obbes
found strong arguments in the Fible7 The 6pocal%ptic
prophecies spea& about bodil% resurrection and the
annihilation of the lost7 The elected will spend eternal life
in new bodies9 on a new earth9 in the ph%sical &ingdom of
Kesus7
,+
I'.0)#450I/6)
0atural theolog% is another chapter in .obbes* heterodo:%7
.e accepted that ?od was the first mover9 but not the
unmoved mover7 6 corporeal ?od has a histor% and
e:periences change7 Yet as prime mover9 his purpose and
intentions are be%ond human scrutin%7 De have to accept
what the Fible sa%s of him9 although .obbes contends that
we have no logical argument to demonstrate the divine
origin of the Bcriptures7
.obbes re8ected the concept of final cause7 In other words9
what happens9 happens because it has a cause9 %et it does
not happen for a purpose7 ?od is the initial cause9 %et he
does not not interfere in the natural chain of cause and
effect7 )ven the miracles recorded in the Fible had natural
causes inscrutable to the human witness7 .uman freedom is
an illusion7 ?od has predestined us through an unbrea&able
chain of causes and effects7
In the nineteenth centur%9 the 'hristian2humanist concept
that ?od has transferred to man orAand to nature his self2
defining power was reversed7 It was man who pro8ected his
latent potential on an imaginar% ?od7 @'he consciousness
of the infinite is nothing else but the consciousness of
infinity of the consciousness <Ceuerbach9 !1>7 To this 4a:
Btirner replied that not onl% religion9 but ever% ideolog%
that claims to transcend the individual9 is an alienation of
man from his ontological essence <Btirner>7 The purpose of
the new humanism was to return man to himself7 The
$uestion was how7
/escartes had affirmed the ontological priorit% of
sub8ectivit%7 .obbes had upheld the precedence of nature
-0
I'.0)#450I/6)
mirroring itself into the sub8ective mind7 The nineteenth
centur% wal&ed this bifurcated path to both ends7 0iet1sche
believed that Jthe will to power* was the substance of all
e:istence7 The 4ar:ist faith <as e:pressed b% )ngels and
3enin> was @the consciousness of necessity7 It was a
repla% of the /escartesA.obbes controvers%9 absent ?od7
#nli&e later epigones9 the nineteenth2centur% atheist was a
person of deep faith7 The .egelianA4ar:ist @consciousness
of necessityE9 and 0iet1sche*s will to power9 were
absolutes7 The avowed aim of nineteenth2centur% atheists
was the full empowering of humanit%7
0iet1sche understood well 3uther*s dictum that onl% ?od
has free will7 .e thought that modern science has
empowered man to &ill ?od7 This was 0iet1sche*s wa% to
man*s liberation7 0evertheless9 the nemesis of his liberation
was not to be the 'hristian ?od9 but the rival atheism of
4ar:7
4ar: echoes .obbes:
Natural science will in time incorporate into itself
the science of man, +ust as the science of man will
incorporate into itself natural science4 there will be
one science <Kessop (0">
6nd there will be of course nothing left to sub8ectivit% and
free will7 )nsuing histor% will witness various ideologies9
propped b% science9 attempting to &ill the individual7 This
might e:plain the parado: of twentieth2centur% 'hristians
who fell in love with 0iet1sche7 .e inspired them to resist7
-1
I'.0)#450I/6)
&elati"it%
?ut you must note this4 if God exists and if !e
really did create the world, then, as we all know,
!e created it according to the geometry of -uclid
and the human mind with the conception of only
three dimensions in space <et there have been and
still are geometricians and philosophers, and even
some of the most distinguished, who doubt whether
the whole universe, or to speak more widely, the
whole of being, was only created in -uclid0s
geometry. they even dare to dream that two parallel
lines, which according to -uclid can never meet on
earth, may meet somewhere in infinity I have come
to the conclusion that, since I can0t understand
even that, I can0t expect to understand about God I
acknowledge humbly that I have no faculty for
settling such *uestions, I have a -uclidean earthly
mind, and how could I solve problems that are not
of this world7 1nd I advise you never to think about
it either, my dear 1lyosha, especially about God,
whether !e exists or not 1ll such *uestions are
utterly inappropriate for a mind created with an
idea of only three dimensions @9ostoevsky, EFGA
Dh% should 6l%osha never call into $uestion the
absoluteness of )uclid; .ow could such $uestioning
-!
I'.0)#450I/6)
endanger his faith; Dhat frightening revelation awaits at
the door; Ivan &nows the answer because he is alread%
wal&ing the line7
Dhen 4eno dared Bocrates to answer how he could &now
he found the truth9 as long as he did not &now the truth
beforehand9 the latter relied on geometr%7 The propositions
of )uclid proved that absolute truth was innate with the
intellect7 6nd absolute truth must have originated in an
absolute mind7 It implied the e:istence of ?od7
0evertheless9 it is absolute truth that impels Ivan to doubt
?od7 .e has 8udged ?od b% the absolute standards of good
and 8ustice and found him wanting7 Yet how could good
and 8ustice be absolute if ?od was not their source; This is
Ivan*s )uclidean dilemma7 /eep in his mind he &nows the
answer and is afraid of it7 6nd here enters the /evil7
The visit occurs during a nightmare7 Ivan &nows that the
/evil is onl% an apparition7 The /evil answers b% urging
Ivan to radicali1e his 'artesian philosoph%7 /escartes infers
in his 4editations that representations are willed b% the
self7 Yet to avoid the pit of relativism9 /escartes places
?od above the thin&ing self7 Truth is possible because ?od
wills that one plus one e$uals two7 ?eometr% represents the
will of ?od7 4oral absolutes are the will of ?od7
6ll Ivan has to do is to ta&e the place of ?od9 and abandon
the preconceived notion of ob8ective truth7 The /evil has a
scientific fact to draw on7 The universe is mathematicall%
indeterminate7 )uclid is relative to the earth7 .ence there*s
no such thing as geometrical truth7 /escartes* ontological
-(
I'.0)#450I/6)
argument is thus rendered superfluous7 The onl% thing left
is the ontolog% of self7
<ou see, like you, I suffer from the fantasy and so I
love the realism of earth !ere, with you,
everything is circumscribed, here all is formulated
and geometrical, while we have nothing but
indeterminate e*uationsH I wander about here
dreaming 2ell, if you like, I have the same
philosophy as you, that would be true :e pense,
donc +e suis, I know that for a fact. all the rest, all
these worlds<ibid7>
The /evil invites Ivan to follow him on the forbidden
territor% where parallel lines meet7 The onl% condition
re$uired is what Ivan had warned his brother against: thin&
out of %our earthl%9 )uclidean mind7 Ivan will never return
from the uncharted be%ond7
/ostoevs&% obviousl% believed that geometrical relativit%
would conduct to outright relativism7 .e did also anticipate
the dialectics of 'artesian rationalism9 modernit% turning
into postmodern relativism7 Yet the onl% alternative he was
able to offer was a Blavonic utopia with barefoot saints
e:orcising the demons of modernit%7
The 0a1i documentar% /er )wige Kude <The )ternal Kew>
denounced relativistic ph%sics as @:ewish scienceE <a label
ignored b% their own scientists when testing )instein*s
predictions regarding atomic energ%>7 The politicall%
correct euphemism for :ewish science is now liberal
science7 6 good e:ample is the article 'heory of relativity9
-"
I'.0)#450I/6)
on 'onservapedia7 The author holds that: &ome liberal
politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to
apply the relativistic concept of ;curvature of space0 to
promote a broad legal right to abortion7 The article
referred at uses space curvature as a metaphor for state
legislatures bending constitutional law <though the
relativistic bending is actuall% effectuated b% local
conservatives on the constitutional right to abortion>7
The statement has been ridiculed at the other end of
ideological divide9 but the author has a point7 6ccording to
Fertrand Russell <"">9 the statement @we hold these truths
to be self(evident in the /eclaration of independence
reveals the )uclidean core of our laws7 5ur )ternal Herities
are also an e:trapolation of )uclid7 'he whole conception
of an eternal world, revealed to the intellect but not not the
senses, is derived from him <ibid79 (->7 'hristian
metaph%sics was built on an ontologicalAepistemological
paradigm inherited from P%thagoras through Plato7 Foth
believed that the /emiurge fashioned the world after
geometrical patterns9 these patterns being apprehended as
innate &nowledge b% the rational soul7 Crom here9 Plato
inferred that the concepts of good9 beaut%9 and 8ustice9 must
also be ontologicall% self2standing and epistemologicall%
self2evident7
The seventeenth2centur% Bcientific Revolution drew on
Plato*s idea too7 ?alileo reiterated Timaeus when sa%ing
that ?od wrote the boo& of nature @in mathematical
language, and the symbols are triangles, circles and other
geometrical figures <Furtt9 -5>7 /escartes relied on
-5
I'.0)#450I/6)
geometr% as a model of apodeictic truth7 .obbes was
inspired b% the Propositions of )uclid7 'hristian theolog%
and the Bcientific Revolution shared common )uclidean
ground7 The onl% e:ception was ?alilean relativit%7
Dhat is relativit%; In plain words9 is the prediction that the
laws of nature will manifest in the same wa% in ever%
referential frame7 Imagine %ou are on a subsonic plane7 The
flight attendant is wal&ing bris&l% along the aisle7 If
watched from the ground9 she would be found brea&ing the
sound barrier7 0evertheless9 %ou will not hear the familiar
sonic boom9 because her referential frame is the plane9 not
the ground observer7
?alileo used the principle of relativit% to refute the tower
argument7 Yet 0ewton found absolute relativit%
$uestionable7 Rotating the water in a buc&et is different
from rotating a buc&et against stationar% water7 There are
mechanical forces li&e the centrifugal force that show
which ob8ect is reall% moving7 The relation between
acceleration9 mass and energ% re$uired an absolute
benchmar& for movement7 This benchmar& should be
absolute space and time7
0ewton was unable to find an% ph%sical evidence for
absolute space and time7 .e did not hesitate to offer a
theological rationale instead7 6lwa%s on guard against
scholastic metaph%sics9 0ewton turned to those Kewish
theologians that defined ?od as the ultimate place7
!e endures forever, and is everywhere present.
and, by existing always and everywhere, he
-,
I'.0)#450I/6)
constitutes duration and space &ince every particle
of space is always, and every indivisible moment of
duration is everywhere, certainly the ,aker and
%ord of all things cannot be never and nowhere
<0ewton9 5"5>
It is often suggested that 0ewton*s natural theolog%
purports a sort of ?od of gaps7 Indeed9 he left room for
?od*s intervention where his e$uations did not suffice7
3aplace would proudl% declare a centur% later that he
needed not @this hypothesisE9 after he filled 0ewton*s
holes7 0evertheless9 0ewton*s ?od was not an
epistemological trump card7 .e reali1ed that cosmolog%
could not dispense with ontolog%7
Yet if ?od constitutes infinite duration and space9 how
could he be a definite being; 0ewton distinguishes between
absolute and relative truth about ?od9 8ust as his ph%sics
differentiates absolute and relative movement7 .e ta&es
such e:pressions as @God of IsraelE or @my God as
relativel% true7 Yet ?od in absolute sense is the
Pantocrator9 the absolute ruler of the universe7 5ne thing
was certain: the concept of absolute space and time did not
fare well with a trinitarian ?od7
The problem with 0ewton*s concept of ?od is its scientific
liabilit%7 If ?od is con2substantial with absolute space and
time9 and the concept of absolute good and evil is
contingent upon )uclidean geometr%9 relativit% is indeed
atheistic and conductive to moral relativism7
--
I'.0)#450I/6)
0evertheless9 as we have seen9 Bolomon*s is a statement
about the relativit% of space7 ?eneral Relativit% shows that9
indeed9 the value of is not constant throughout the
universe <)instein9 +,>7 Relativit%9 as the ultimate
demolition of the )uclidean metaph%sics and theolog%9
opens the wa% for the .ebrew concept of ?od as his own
place and the place of the world7
The same applies to the concept of truth7 Drote )instein:
'he concept true does not tally with the
assertions of pure geometry, because by the word
true we are eventually in the habit of designating
always the correspondence with a real ob+ect.
geometry, however, is not concerned with the
relation of the ideas involved in it to ob+ects of
experience, but only with the logical connection of
these ideas among themselves <ibid79 !>
Bocrates* argument in 4eno is put to rest7 Yet victor% does
not go to the sophist7 The demise of )uclidean truth leaves
us with two more options7 5ne is /escartes* argument of
?od as direct source of apodeictic truth7 The other is
.obbes argument of efficienc% as source of probabilistic
truth7 4odern thought is b% and large on the side of
.obbes7 0evertheless9 the cosmic scope of )instein*s
theor% calls for /escartes7
-8
I'.0)#450I/6)
&ethinking -imaeus in a relati"istic uni"erse
In 188- 6lbert 4ichelson and )dward 4orle% published in
the 6merican Kournal of Bcience a scientific report
headlined 8n the "elative ,otion of the -arth and the
%uminiferous -ther7 The report is &nown toda% as the
4ichelson24orle% e:periment7 The purpose of the
e:periment was to detect the aether wind7
It had alread% been established that light was an
electromagnetic wave7 6ccording to 4a:well*s laws9
electromagnetic waves travel at the constant speed of
18,9000 miles per second in a vacuum7 It was also &nown
for a fact that the earth orbits the sun at a speed of around
187-5 miles per second7 The sun itself moves through the
gala:% at "8,9000 miles per hour7
6ccording to the principle of relativit%9 4a:well*s laws
should be the same in ever% referential s%stem7 Dhich
means that regardless of whether the earth moves toward9
or awa% from a source of light9 the beans should hit the
earth with the same 18,9000 miles per second7 Yet this
would contradict ?alilean relativit% as it stipulates that the
speed of the earth should be added to9 or respectivel%
subtracted from9 the speed of light7
In order to solve this parado:9 nineteenth2centur% scientists
invented aether7 It was h%pothesi1ed that electromagnetic
waves pulsate through an immobile subtle medium7
-+
I'.0)#450I/6)
'onse$uentl%9 the speed of the earth relative to the
h%pothetical aether would have been the same as the speed
of the earth relative to absolute space7 4ichelson and
4orle% attempted to measure it7
#sing a half2silvered mirror9 the% split a beam of light at
right angle7 The two beams were reflected bac& from two
mirrors set at the end of two long arms7 It made sense to
e:pect the beam of light traveling across the aether wind to
face the problem of a swimmer getting in straight line
across a river7 6ccording to the ?alilean transformations9
he has to swim an e:tra distance e$ual with the speed of the
river multiplied b% time7 In other words9 the beam of light
perpendicular on the earth orbit should travel a longer
distance than the other because of the would2be aether
wind7
The e:periment %ielded a parado:ical result7 It loo&ed li&e
the earth hung immobile in space7 The two beams traveled
e$ual distances in e$ual times disregarding earth motion
and classical mechanics7 6s predicted b% the principle of
relativit%9 4a:well*s laws were the same regardless of
movement7 Dhat didn*t wor& was the ?alilean
transformations7 To save the da%9 .endri& 6nton 3orent1
complemented them with the so2called 3orent1
transformations7
3orent1 based his transformations on the a:iom that an%
moving ob8ect becomes shorter in the direction of its
movement9 to the effect that the speed of light loo&s alwa%s
constant7 Yet the e$uations derived from this new principle
impl% other parado:es7 The moving ob8ect*s length
80
I'.0)#450I/6)
becomes 1ero when it reaches the speed of light7 )ven
more9 it is e:pressed b% a radical from a negative number
<an imaginar% number>9 when the speed e:ceeds the speed
of light7 To ma&e the matter worse9 time is indefinite when
space is 1ero7
In 1+05 6lbert )instein decided that it was time for ph%sics
to claim the no man*s land between theolog% and science
previousl% occupied b% metaph%sics7 0ewton was right to
enter the ontological debate about the nature of space and
time as part of his natural philosoph%7 .e was onl% wrong
in his assumption that absolute space and time e:ists7
)instein*s solution was incredibl% simple: forget %our self2
evident )uclidean a:ioms and ta&e the 3orent1
transformations for what the% impl%7 Bpace is 1ero and time
is indefinite at the speed of light7 6n% particle that e:ceeds
the speed of light moves through an imaginar% space7
6s 0ewton rightl% inferred9 the relation between
acceleration9 mass9 and energ% implies an absolute
benchmar&7 .is mista&e was the idea that this absolute
referential frame is absolute space and time7 The onl%
absolute in the universe is the speed of light7 6ccelerating
an ob8ect re$uires application of energ% proportional to its
mass7 This ma&es the difference between absolute
movement and relative movement7 Yet acceleration is not
relative to absolute rest but to the speed of light7 The speed
of light means infinite mass7 6ccelerating toward the speed
of light means an increase in mass toward infinite7
Reaching the speed of light would impl% the application of
infinite energ% and is therefore impossible7
81
I'.0)#450I/6)
There are two fundamental transformations that define
movement relative to the speed of light as an absolute crest7
The first one is the mutual transformation of space and
time7 6s we all &now9 speed is space multiplied b% time7 6s
the speed of light is the absolute threshold9 time must
increase and space must decrease as the moving ob8ect
approaches it9 so that the ratio remains constant7 The other
transformation is that of mass and energ%9 e:pressed in the
famous e$uation e[mc
!
7
There is no longer time and space9 mass and energ%7
There*s timeAspace and massAenerg% now7 The two paired
entities will merge in ?eneral Relativit% one decade later7
)instein radicali1ed relativit% to the ultimate conclusion7 If
the laws of the universe are the same in an% referential
frame9 then gravitation and acceleration manifest the same
laws7 De all &now this from our e:perience of driving on
curves or ta&ing off in a plane7
To )instein it meant that acceleration and gravitation are
both spaceAtime curvature7 4assAenerg% becomes thus 8ust
another manifestation of spaceAtime7 Relativit% is science
tac&ling with ontolog%7 In this respect9 some fears are not
without reason7
The universe was not fashioned after )uclidean forms7 The
Propositions of )uclid do not contain eternal truth7 The sum
of a triangle*s angles do not alwa%s e$ual 180 degrees7
Parallel lines meet somewhere in the universe7 The value of
is different on earth then it is in the vicinit% of a blac&
hole7 Bpace and time bent9 contract9 and e:tend9 in relation
with speed9 mass and energ%7 The fabric of space2time has
8!
I'.0)#450I/6)
grown from point 1ero9 is pierced and teared up in blac&
holes9 and will most li&el% vanish along with the universe
in the ultimate singularit%7
This is the epistemological trespass that Ivan warned his
brother against and the /evil lured him into7 Cor if our self2
evident truths about the nature of space and time are simple
pre8udices reflecting the limited span of our evolutionar%
e:perience9 would we not sa% the same about the )ternal
Herities that undergird our moral and social values; The
?ree& ?od that has been incorporated in the 'hristian
dogma is incumbent upon )uclidean rationalism7
5n the other hand9 Relativit% is a lethal argument against
the common concept of ?od7 If the philosophical ?od is
outside time <along with absolute space>9 the popular ?od
is in space and time7 6s 4ood% <188-> stated in his tract9
he inhabits an eternal dwelling2place7 .e might not be
material but he is still corporeal7 .e radiates uncreated
light7 Yet none of this are eternal according to Relativit%7
Dhere was ?od before space and time came into
e:istence;
6nother problem with fol&s% theolog% is the wee&l%
Babbath7 6lthough Kesus declared that @the &abbath was
made for manE <4ar& !:!->9 the shadow of ancient
superstition still casts itself on the 3ord*s /a% liturg%:
?efore the world was created, there was none to
praise God and know !im 'herefore !e created
the angels and the holy !ayyoth, the heavens and
their host, and 1dam as well 'hey all were to
8(
I'.0)#450I/6)
praise and glorify their #reator 9uring the week of
creation, however, there was no suitable time to
proclaim the splendor and praise of the %ord 8nly
on the &abbath, when all creation rested, the beings
on earth and in heaven, all together, broke into
song and adoration when God ascended !is throne
and sate upon it <?in1berg9 8(>
The Babbath is absolute9 universal time7 4oreover9 the
concept of one single pulse throughout the universe9 angels
and 'hurch9 is of the essence in all Kudeo2'hristian liturg%7
If heaven and earth are distant in space9 we would li&e to
imagine that the% at least e:perience worship
simultaneousl%7 )schatolog% is also understood as one
universal event7 Relativit% separates the cloc&s in the
universe7
6nd %et9 6lbert )instein put his ph%sics in one theological
metaphor as brief and elegant as e[mc
!
: God plays no dice7
Dhat did he understand b% ?od; Fefore an%thing else9
)instein*s ?od is the closest thing to the .ebrew ultimate
maIown ) dwelling place7 6s Philo put it9 ?od is
containing things, and being contained by nothing
whateverE7 0ewton*s ?od was con2substantial with
absolute time and space7 The relative and transient nature
of )instein*s space2time raises the $uestion of an absolute
locus in which relative space2time is contained7
It is9 of course9 intellectuall% legitimate to thin& that
ever%thing is 8ust relative and e:istence is nothingness7 ?od
is a matter of faith7 The point here is that )instein*s ?od is
closer to the .ebrew ultimate dwelling place than to the
8"
I'.0)#450I/6)
?ree& /emiurge7 It is therefore not b% accident that
Relativit% vindicates Bolomon*s non2)uclidean 7 Bpace
curvature ma% change the ratio of the circumference to the
radius in different places in the universe7
0evertheless9 )instein is in a certain wa% closer to
P%thagoras and Plato than to ?alileo and 0ewton7 )ver%
scientific theor% of the universe before him was built on
mechanical force7 )instein returned to geometr%7 True9 his
geometr% is not about timeless shapes7 It is the geometr% of
space2time7 Yet ever% var%ing propriet% of the relativistic
space2time is as deductible from non2)uclidean a:ioms as
the Propositions of )uclid are from their own7 This new
non2)uclidean rationalit% of the universe helps us revisit
two theological issues that have fallen into decrepitude with
the demise of metaph%sics7
5ne issue is the dogma of Trinit%7 0ewton found the
Trinit% incompatible with absolute space and time7 Yet
relative space2time and non2)uclidean geometr% suggests
the ontological relativit% of arithmetics7 5ne and three are
onl% abstractions of spatio2temporal succession in our
universe7 6rithmetics does not count before the Fig2Fang7
The other issue is the 6ugustinian definition of time7
6ugustine believed that the succession of events in our life
is a ps%chological illusion7 6ll events coe:ist
simultaneousl% in relation to ?od7 Therefore9 he claimed9 it
is inappropriate to as& wh% .e did not create the world
sooner than si: thousand %ears ago7 There*s no sooner and
later with ?od7 )ternit% means simultaneit%7 Time means
85
I'.0)#450I/6)
succession7 De a prisoners of time9 prisoners of our
perception of events7
The 6ugustinian concept of simultaneit% was an able
metaph%sical solution for such theological difficulties as
the for2&nowledge of ?od9 predestination or the problem of
evil7 It was undergirded b% an )uclidean ontolog% of
absolute space and illusor% time and movement7 The
Bcientific Revolution brought in the rationalit% of time and
the substantiall% of movement7 5ntological simultaneit%
had no place in 0ewton*s universe7 It ma&es sense though
in the relativistic universe where time is 8ust another
dimension of space7 The clearest e:planation of this
concept was given <before )instein> b% .7 ?7 Dells in The
Time 4achine:
'here are really four dimensions, three which we
call the three planes of &pace, and a fourth, 'ime
'here is, however, a tendency to draw an unreal
distinction between the former three dimensions
and the latter, because it happens that our
consciousness moves intermittently in one direction
along the latter from the beginning to the end of our
lives 'here is no difference between 'ime and any
of the three dimensions of &pace except that our
consciousness moves along it <Dells9 Time
4achine9 1+,>
0ot surprisingl%9 )instein was on the side of 6ugustine as
regards the feasibilit% of free will7 )ven his statement that
?od pla%s no dice is a profession of faith in a &ind
8,
I'.0)#450I/6)
geometrical predestination in a $uadric2dimensional life
plane9 8ust li&e in Dells* novel7
The most important theological implication of )instein*s
theor% is though what he called the greatest m%ster% of the
universe: intelligibilit%7 The non2)uclidean intelligibilit% of
the universe is much be%ond what could be e:pected from
simian brain adaptation7 @'here is no logical way to the
discovery of elemental laws 'here is only the way of
intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying
behind the appearanceE <?aither9 10-,>7 To )instein9 this
intuition is essentiall% religious7 @-very one who is
seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes
convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the
Bniverse(a spirit vastly superior to that of man <Isaacson9
((8>7 Dhat we have here is a geometricall% defined
universe7 6 rational2geometrical universe led to rational
metaph%sics with the ?ree&s7 0on2euclidean rationalit%
leads to non2)uclidean metaph%sical $uestions7 )instein
himself touched on some of them9 but the% have remained
largel% une:plored7
8-
I'.0)#450I/6)
Darwin and the colla/se of meta/h%sics into
1iolog%
/aniel /ennet called the concept of natural selection
@dangerousE because9 he holds9 natural selection e:plains
ever%thing9 from the fine2tuned universe to the world of
ideas7 The argument is $uestionable7 You don*t have to be a
believer to doubt that natural selection is able to e:plain
ever%thing7 T7 .7 .u:le% and Btephen Ka% ?ould are 8ust
two e:amples of agnostic evolutionists who found natural
selection insufficient to e:plain the comple:it% of life7
/arwin*s trul% dangerous idea was revealed In 18-!7 5n
that %ear he published The ):pression of the )motions in
4an and 6nimals7 The boo& used9 for the first time in the
histor% of science9 photographies to produce evidence7 This
made it ver% e:pensive9 but also ver% efficient to
demonstrate /arwin*s point: animals and humans share a
common set of facial muscles to e:press similar emotions7
It was believed that humans possessed an uni$ue set of
facial muscles for the purpose of e:pressing their eternal
souls7 In other words9 our facial e:pressions must be as
?od2li&e as our souls7 It is habitual to imagine angels
smiling or cr%ing7 5r to visuali1e the eternal countenance
of ?od radiating with &indness <or frowning at sin>7 De
smile9 frown9 e:press our adoration9 8o%9 sadness9 after an
88
I'.0)#450I/6)
eternal pattern that is common to ever% rational being made
in the image of ?od7
J0ot e:actl%* I sa%s /arwin7 JKust loo& at those mon&e%s*7
De understand better than /arwin did the chemistr% of
emotions7 It is essentiall% the same across all mammalian
orders and species7 )ven more9 it is an evolved version of
the most primitive chemistr% of life7 6n irritated insect is
bu11ing the familiar pitch of a grumble7 'ould this be
because both insect wings and vocal strings have evolved
from the same 'ambrian gills; De landed on the 4oon
prompted b% the same brain reactions that pushed the
/evonian fish to land on the shore about "00 million %ears
ago7 De still have the /evonian fish inside us <Bhubin>7
This is perhaps wh% there*s something fish% in our loftiest
ideals7
/arwin &new little about these7 .e onl% demonstrated the
common anatom% of emotions among superior mammals7
.e concluded in his noteboo&:
$lato says in $haedro that our ;imaginary ideas0
arise from the preexistence of the soul, and are not
derivable from experienceDread monkeys for
preexistence
If certain truths seem self2evident to us9 it is not because we
have a rational soul of divine substance7 It is because we
have a simian brain7 )volution is imperfect9 and so are our
imaginary ideas evolved in the Pleistocene caves7
,etaphysics is instantly collapsed into biology <?opni&9
8+
I'.0)#450I/6)
8->7 Bo9 here we are9 na&ed in a bli11ard9 no mammalian fur
or metaph%sical illusions to protect us7
De will turn to a sci2fi classic that e:plores this condition
in depth7 .7 ?7 Dells was a man of man% $uestions7 .e
interviewed great social e:perimenters li&e 3enin9 Btalin
and Roosevelt7 In The Island of /octor 4oreau9 Dells
interviewed ?od on human evolution7 6ctuall%9 his
character interviews /octor 4oreau9 %et it is not hard to
see through the fictional scientist7
The narrator is trapped on a remote Island where a
notorious vivisectionist named /octor 4oreau is
attempting to reshape animals into humans7 6s one
e:periment fails after another9 the island has become
populated b% a bi1arre tribe of half2human creatures7
Their leader is @a gray thing named the &ayer of the %aw7
.e leads the rest of the beasts in a sort of religion
consisting in the worship of /octor 4oreau and his
assistant9 4ontgomer%9 along with the liturgical reciting of
the 3aw7 The narrator will complete the trinit%9
<suggestivel%9 as @the one who walked in the seaE>9 not
without 6r%an doubts on the part of some beasts7
The 3aw is a series of taboos li&e not wal&ing on all four9
or not clawing the bar&7 The narrator learns that the beast
were ever repeating and ever breakingE the law <sounds
familiar>7 .owever9 some special prohibitions were strictl%
enforced9 li&e that against tasting blood <this sounds
familiar too>7 The aim of the 3aw was to &eep the half2
human beasts from returning into full animalit%7
+0
I'.0)#450I/6)
The onl% reason for a beast to act human is fear7 6ll beasts
have vivid recollections from @the !ouse of $ain9 which
is how the% name the laborator% were 4oreau had created
them <an obli$ue remar& at hell9 and a hint at the ordeal of
human evolution>7 6n% severe law2brea&ing is followed b%
another internment for remedial vivisection7 Yet the
narrator learns that the %aw, especially among the feline
?east $eople, became oddly weakened about nightfall
when they would dare things they never seemed to dream
about by day <Dells9 The Island9 8!>7 It is not hard to read
another innuendo in this7
The narrator pities the animals that:
> stumbled in the shackles of humanity, lived in a
fear that never died, fretted by a law they could not
understand. their mock(human existence, begun in
an agony, was one long internal struggle, one long
dread of ,oreauDand for what <ibid79 +,>
This is the $uestion he would li&e to as& the allegorical
/octor 4oreau7
.ow can animals act li&e people; The doctor answers b%
e:plaining the animal origin of the human nature7
Jery much indeed of what we call moral education,
he said, is such an artificial modification and
perversion of instinct. pugnacity is trained into
courageous self(sacrifice, and suppressed sexuality
into religious emotion <ibid79 -">
+1
I'.0)#450I/6)
Das manli&e his purpose; !e confessed that he had
chosen that form by chance 8nce or twice <ibid7>7 Das
this aimless e:periment worth% of the terrible cost in pain;
/octor 4oreau does not care about pain7 0either does ?od7
6lthough Dells interviews ?od metaphoricall%9 the
answers come through a scientist whose portrait ma% be
recogni1ed in the grim mas& of /octor 4oreau7 Fetween
188" and 188- Dells had studied biological evolution with
Thomas .enr% .u:le% at the 0ormal Bchool of Bcience in
3ondon7 6 pioneer in the field of human evolution9 .u:le%
insisted that our ethics had no evolutionar% footing in
nature7 This was also the reason wh% the avowed agnostic
<it was .u:le% that coined the term> was s&eptical about the
prospect of a humanit% without ?od7
The &illing of 4oreau and 4ontgomer% b% Feast People
brings the e:periment to an end7 The faithful /og2man
denounces in preach% language the new ?od2is2dead
philosoph% of the Feast People7
'hey are mad. they are fools, said the 9og(man
-ven now they talk together beyond there 'hey
say, ;'he ,aster is dead 'he 8ther with the 2hip
is dead 'hat 8ther who walked in the &ea is as we
are 2e have no ,aster, no 2hips, no !ouse of
$ain, any more 'here is an end 2e love the %aw,
and will keep it. but there is no $ain, no ,aster, no
2hips for ever again0 &o they say ?ut I know,
,aster, I know <ibid79 11+>
+!
I'.0)#450I/6)
.owever9 mammalians without master and whip have no
incentive the sta% human7 The% revert to full animalit% and
vanish without trace7
4an has &illed ?od7 Dill man outlive him for long;
Dells believes that reason is a survival adaptation ac$uired
in e:ceedingl% difficult circumstances7 5nce survival made
eas% b% civili1ation9 reason becomes an withering atavism7
The philosophical dead of ?od has removed the barriers of
fears and will accelerate its demise7
'ould there be another route between a ?od who denies
animal life and a life that is essentiall% animal; Dells will
attempt to answer this $uestion in 1+1, in an essa% headed
?od the Invisible Ling7 The problem with /octor 4oreau
is the concept of the infinite ?od7 The infinite ?od is an
impenetrable curtain. the ultimate of existence is a Jeiled
?eing, which seems to know nothing of life or death or
good or ill <Dells9 Invisible Ling9 1">7 6 personal2infinite
?od is a contradiction of terms7 The infinite ?od is no
more than the limit of understanding, the unknown beyond
It may be of practically limitless intricacy and possibility
<ibid7>7 5ne might recogni1e here )instein*s ?od7
Yet unli&e )instein9 Dells feels no compelling thrill before
a ?reat Fe%ond that is indifferent to our pain and values7 In
a wa% that parallels the gnostic doctrines9 he turns to a
limited personal ?od9 that has nothing to do with the
creation of the universe7 5n the contrar%9 he is the son of
man <ibid79 8,>9 a creation of our collective self7
+(
I'.0)#450I/6)
To Dells9 ?od is neither the dreadful ruler nor the
sentimentali1ed redeemer of the wea&7 .e is the captain of
human adventure9 a tough lover of his soldiers <ibid7>7 6nd
although opening a large door to an% &ind of personal ?od9
or9 in Dilliam Kames* language9 an% religious e:perience9
he is careful to sta% on the ground of logical2positivism7
Dells $uotes the @hard(shell 9arwinian evolutionistE
<ibid7> /r7 'halmers 4itchell as the latter is discussing
Lant*s famous passage: @'wo things fill my mind with
ever(renewed wonder and awe the more often and deeper I
dwell on themDthe starry vault above me, and the moral
law within me <ibid79 85>7 4itchell accepts Lant*s
statement as a biological fact7 .e accepts the
transcendentall% of the moral law as the work of the blood
and tears of long generations of men <ibid79 8,>7 The law
is not rooted in the metaph%sical realm7 0either is it innate
in the individual7 It has its seat in:
\ his traditions, in his customs, in his literature
and his religion Its creation and sustenance are the
crowning glory of man, and his consciousness of it
puts him in a high place above the animal world
<ibid7>
Dells is adding to this concept onl% the statement that
G89 "-&$8N9&, that he GIJ-& courage and the power
of self(suppression to our weakness <ibid7 8->7 This is the
true ?od worth% of worship9 not the dreadful /octor
4oreau9 the amoral and indifferent Fe%ond7
+"
I'.0)#450I/6)
6s alread% mentioned9 it is not hard to notice the parallel
between /octor 4oreau and the gnostic /emiurge7 4an is
the prisoner of ?od in an unfriendl% universe7 In both cases
salvation comes through a limited ?od7 The onl% difference
is that Dells is decoding religion in the language of logical2
positivism7 6bsent metaph%sics9 ?od becomes a
ps%chosocial construct9 necessar% to &eep humanit% afloat7
6nd %et9 li&e the faithful /og2man in Dells* d%stopia9 man
continues to hope against hope that his cultural illusions
have an ontological basis7 /arwin himself gave voice to
this concept in his conclusion at the end of the 5rigin of
Bpecies: @> as natural selection works solely by and for
the good of each being, all corporeal and mental
endowments will tend to progress towards perfection
</arwin9 5rigins9 (05>7 Buch teleological undertones
became more e:plicit with other champions or populari1ers
of his theor% li&e .aec&el and Bpencer7
This biological faith is well represented in the iconic march
of progress9 sporting a &nuc&le2wal&ing ape that evolves
through staggering intermediar% lin&s9 and brutish
caveman9 into modern humanit%7 5ne would have onl%
e:pected nineteenth2centur% progressive theolog% to
pigg%bac& on such sentiments7
The problem with Dells* biological gnosticism is that a
sociocultural ?od cannot save7 Dhen humanit% itself is a
cultural illusion9 salvation becomes onl% the ultimate
illusion7 BiddhNrtha ?autama was right:
+5
I'.0)#450I/6)
2ere there is not the unborn, unoriginated, unmade
and unconditioned, there would be no escape for
the born, originated, made and conditioned7
De must turn to the Heiled Feing for our salvation7
+,
I'.0)#450I/6)
4iet!sche and the ascent of 1iolog% into the
meta/h%sics of /resence
5n !! 4a% 18,09 'harles /arwin wrote to the renowned
botanist 6sa ?ra%:
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and
omnipotent God would have designedly created the
Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their
feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars
</arwin9 3ife = 3etters9 105>
/arwin9 a theologian b% training9 and a 'hristian b% temper
and education9 preferred random evolution to a ?od who
would have created the Ichneumonidae7 It was a defensive
mechanism7 Ivan Larama1ov*s image of the tortured who
loves the torturer9 or9 should we sa%9 a caterpillar*s love for
the wasp9 as an analog% for loving ?od9 is brought to our
mind7 5ne becomes agnostic as an alternative to becoming
insane7
In 18,! /arwin wrote about another e:ample of
reproductive success7 The gruesome cunningness of
Ichneumonidae9 providing fresh meat for its larvae9 is
replaced with the charming sophistication of flowers9
trading nectar for reproductive advantage7 In a pioneering
wor& called The Harious 'ontrivances b% which 5rchids
+-
I'.0)#450I/6)
6re Certili1ed b% Insects9 he showed how flowers and
pollinating insects have co2evolved7
There*s hardl% a pulpit argument for creation b% design that
omits flowers7 Dhat is their purpose9 if not to lift up our
souls from the valle% of tears; The beaut% of flowers is
gratuitous and timeless9 seasonal fading notwithstanding7 In
heaven @they0ll never fade <Dhite9 18>7 De see here the
legac% of the B%mposium9 with a Puritan note opposing the
selfless e:hibition of flowers to se:% fashions7
The problem with this concept is that floral beaut% is all
about fads and se:% fashion7 Clowers have not evolved to
please our eternal soul9 but to attract bees7 The% change
their forms and colors in geological time9 for the same
reason that women change their appearance and st%le: to
catch the e%e of the pollinator7 Bome orchids even emit a
sort of drug that matches the chemistr% of the the females
of certain species of bee or wasp9 to deco% the male
<6ttenborough9 1-">7
Clowers are not more altruistic than the Ichneumonidae7
Foth are e:amples of evolutionar% success7 Clowers and
Ichneumonidae9 s%mbiosis and parasitism9 are onl%
e:amples of using another species to enhance reproductive
success7 Dhether the chosen method is e:ploitation or
cooperation9 it matters not to evolution7 0ature is blind to
our values7
6nd %et9 even the cold e%e of /arwin turned in horror from
the Ichneumonidae7 5n the other hand9 he spared not the
unscientific epithet beautiful </arwin9 'ontrivances9 19 !9
+8
I'.0)#450I/6)
1!9 "(9 !159 !!59 !!"9 !8!> in his wor& on pollination7 Das
/arwin tempted to 8udge evolution b% standards e:ternal to
biolog%; 5r is nature more than natural selection and
survival of the fittest;
Dh% are we charmed b% bees and flowers9 but disgusted b%
parasites; 5ne might argue here that beaut% is in the e%e of
the beholder7 De might have evolved to li&e flowers
because of our fructivorous nature7 Dh% would we then
abhor the sophisticated Ichneumonidae and empathi1e with
the caterpillar; 6fter all9 we do have an evolved taste for
cruelt% and cunningness7 Kust loo& at the best rated shows7
The usual answer is that we simpl% pro8ect our social
values on nature7 6nd %et9 is nature reall% blind to
e:cellenc% and beaut%; /arwin himself argued that it is
not7 .e reali1ed that natural selection alone cannot e:plain
evolution7 Clowers are onl% an e:ample7 .e credited se:ual
selection for such evolutionar% bonuses as birds song or the
peacoc& tail7 .e found it even more important in human
evolution7 /arwin $uotes Bchopenhauer to ma&e his point:
'he final aim of all love intrigues, be they comic or
tragic, is really of more importance than all other
ends in human life 2hat it all turns upon is nothing
less than the composition of the next generation It
is not the weal or woe of any one individual, but
that of the human race to come, which is here at
stake </arwin9 /escend9 5++>
The engine driving evolution might be indifferent to good
and evil9 %et it has a sharp e%e for beaut%7 ?ratuitous
++
I'.0)#450I/6)
activities such as romance and poetr% appear to be more
important than the improperl% called social /arwinism in
the evolution of human nature7
Clowers are the ultimate s%mbol of such evolutionar%
forces7 The% have been unstoppable for the last 1(0 million
%ears b% a mechanism that involves se:ual selection at its
base9 and builds on it an intricate web not tied to direct
survival or battle for resources7 The best e:ample of such a
mechanism in the animal world is man7 It is not therefore
b% accident that flowers have been our companion through
the valle% of tears7 The% are so much li&e us7
If Bocrates9 in the B%mposium9 too& up his disciples from
passing se:ual charms to eternal beaut%9 /arwin is leading
us bac& to se: and fading beaut%7 0onetheless9 his beaut% is
no less ontological7 The ontolog% of /arwinism is implied
in the fact that change and movement9 not timelessness9 is
of the substance in e:cellenc% of an% &ind7
#onsider the liliesE <3u&e 1!:!->7 #nli&e Plato9 the
4essiah was not interested in timeless beaut%7 5n the
contrar%9 the lilies had to be considered e:actl% because
their transient character7 The glor% of ?od is full% present
in @which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into
the oven <!8>7 The full power of life is recogni1ed in ever%
fading flower and ever% passing moment7
.ow about considering the Ichneumonidae; If we see ?od
in the lilies9 should we reinvent the devil to e:plain
parasites; Is there another criterion intrinsic to nature
e:cept struggle and survival; Criedrich 0iet1sche was
100
I'.0)#450I/6)
frustrated at what he saw as the failure of /arwin to follow
through the metaph%sical implications of his own theor%7
'he error of the 9arwinian school became a
problem to me4 how can one be so blind as to make
this mistake7 'hat will to power, in which I
perceive the ultimate reason and character of all
change, explains why it is that selection is never in
favour of the exceptions, and of the lucky cases4 the
strongest and happiest natures are weak when they
are confronted with a ma+ority ruled by gregarious
instincts and the fear which possesses the weak ,y
general view of the world of values shows that in
the highest values which now sway the destiny of
man, the happy cases among men, the select
specimens, do not prevail4 but rather the decadent
specimens ) perhaps there is nothing more
interesting in the whole world than this unpleasant
spectacle <0iet1sche9 Dill to Power9 15+>
Dhat 0iet1sche meant was that e:cellenc% and surviving
success were different things7 The evolutionar% success of
parasites is a telling e:ample7 The scientific torture of its
victim b% the Ichneumonidae has monstrous parallels
among our own species7 0ot few will e:onerate them in the
name of /arwin and9 %es9 0iet1sche7 Yet what drives
evolution up and on is9 according to 0iet1sche9 an inner
instinct of life to e:pand9 to e:plore9 to con$uer9 to grow9 to
e:perience9 to create and recreate itself: flower power7
It is indeed reproductive success that pushes forward the
co2evolution of flowers and bees7 Yet it is the reproduction
101
I'.0)#450I/6)
of the happ% creature rather than the 4althusian starving
selection7 This is wh% we love flowers and %et loath
parasites7 6nd this is also wh% some people love flower
power <in political sense> rather than social /arwinism <in
Bpencerian sense>7
The concept that natural selection does not necessaril% lead
to progress and e:cellenc% was held in modern
evolutionar% science b% Btephen Ka% ?ould7 .e argues that
the inherent tendenc% of evolution is not toward comple:it%
but diversification7 Fecause minimum comple:it% hits a
wall be%ond which life is no longer possible9 diversification
e:tends toward the open field of comple:it%7 This generates
the false impression that evolution is bent toward
comple:it%7
Yet adaptation can move an organism toward
simplification9 parasites being the e:ample again7 ?ould
reminds us that the greatest stor% of evolutionar% success is
bacteria9 while the epitome of demise in the histor% of life
is the super2built dinosaur7 The distribution of comple:it%
in the histor% of life has remained constant9 but as life
continues to diversif%9 its short tail of comple: organisms
grows to the same e:tent7
6lthough ?ould builds his argument on statistics and
paleontolog% rather than metaph%sics9 his leaves open room
for speculation7 6 luc&% accident and a miracle are
phenomenologicall% identical7 ?ould himself recounts his
unli&el% healing of cancer as a telling e:ample of how
statistical distribution generates winners and losers in the
game of life7 Dhether or not a cancer healing or the
10!
I'.0)#450I/6)
evolution of the human brain are miracles is a matter of
speculation7 ?ould onl% shows that both are highl% unli&el%
and not inherent7
0iet1sche*s intuition was not unfounded7 0onetheless9 his
intention was not to critici1e the scientific theor% but to
clarif% its e:istential implications7 In brief9 that the struggle
between the element of fear and the herd instinct on one
hand9 and courage9 individualism and creativit%9 on the
other9 has ontological roots much deeper than the social
e:pression of good and evil7
Dhen /arwin first red @read monkeys for preexistence in
Plato9 he attributed to instinct what the latter had attributed
to the immortal soul7 .ow can instinct be converted into
&nowledge; The solution proposed b% 0iet1sche was that
&nowledge is not something innate in human nature9 but
rather a compromise of conflicting instincts7
2hat does Knowing ,ean7 Non ridere, non
lugere, ne*ue detestari, sed intelligereH says
&pino3a, so simply and sublimely, as is his wont
Nevertheless, what else is this intelligere
ultimately, but +ust the form in which the three other
things become perceptible to us all at once7 1
result of the diverging and opposite impulses of
desiring to deride, lament and execrate7 ?efore
knowledge is possible each of these impulses must
first have brought forward its one(sided view of the
ob+ect or event 'he struggle of these one(sided
views occurs afterwards, and out of it there
occasionally arises a compromise, a pacification, a
10(
I'.0)#450I/6)
recognition of rights on all three sides, a sort of
+ustice and agreement4 for in virtue of the +ustice
and agreement all those impulses can maintain
themselves in existence and retain their mutual
rights <0iet1sche9 ?a% Bcience9 !,1>
The biological genesis of &nowledge does not ma&e
thought superfluous7 5n the contrar%9 it places the
'artesian dictum in a deeper perspective that paves the wa%
for Creud7
/or a very long time conscious thinking was
regarded as the only thinking4 it is now only that
the truth dawns upon us that the greater part of our
intellectual activity goes on unconsciously and
unfelt by us. I believe, however, that the impulses
which are here in mutual conflict understand
rightly how to make themselves felt by one another,
and how to cause pain4 ) the violent sudden
exhaustion which overtakes all thinkers may have
its origin here @it is the exhaustion of the battle(
fieldA 1ye, perhaps in our struggling interior there
is much concealed heroism but certainly nothing
divine, or eternally(reposing(in itself, as &pino3a
supposed <ibid7>
Thin&ing is the result of a deep unconscious conflict7 This
is wh% the mind is a battlefield and the thin&er a bleeding
warrior7 Reason is no longer the metaph%sical substance of
things7 It becomes a reprogramming of animal instincts9 an
instrument to navigate the irrational universe7 6t the deep
end of thought9 science entails repulsion and hate for
10"
I'.0)#450I/6)
Ichneumonidae and enthrallment with flowers7 )ven more9
conflicting impulses are in themselves e:pressions of a
cosmic struggle of the will to power against impeding
obstructions7
The intrinsic relativism of 0iet1sche*s thought was
recogni1ed b% man% postmodernists as their own7
0iet1sche*s criticism of the /arwinian school is indeed part
of a broader uncovering of the illusions of the
)nlightenment7 .e anticipated the crisis of modernit% and
the eruption of nihilism7 0evertheless9 his agenda was in
radical opposition to the postmodernist goals7
Fefore an%thing else9 8ust li&e /escartes and .obbes9
0iet1sche believed that true &nowledge is scientific7 .e had
a good instinct for soundness in the new theories of his
time7 .is eternal return philosoph% was grounded in
brea&through scientific ideas on the relativit% of time
<Fabich = 'ohen9 18+>7 The will to power concept is built
on an atomistic theor% inspired b% /emocritus7 0iet1sche
infers that atoms are @only moments of the will to powerE
<ibid7 !8> determined in relation to anthropological will9 in
a wa% that sounds almost as a metaphor of modern $uantum
ph%sics7
In other words9 0iet1sche embraced what .eidegger will
denounce at him as a metaph%sics of presence9 knowledge
and in*uiry that posit being as physis that rise and come
to presence under their own power and those that derive
from the arts and crafts <.eidegger9 18+>7 Postmodern
attitudes on science are reflections of .eidegger*s stand
105
I'.0)#450I/6)
against the metaph%sics of presence9 rather than its
appropriation b% 0iet1sche7
6bove all9 it is 0iet1sche*s primar% re8ection of the
gregarious that ma&es him incompatible with post2
modernism7 .e would re8ect ethnocentrism and
multiculturalism ali&e9 8ust as he ranted against both the
Kews and antisemitism in the same breath7
0iet1sche*s epistemolog% was indeed perspectivist7 .e
believed that truth is relative in the sense that perspectives
are mapped b% the interaction between the self and @each
atomic *uantum event and every molecular society
<Fabich = 'ohen9 "1>7 Yet unli&e postmodern thin&ers he
believed in the superman7 The superman involves not onl%
the surpassing of socio2cultural perspectives9 but also that
of biolog%7 .e answers /arwin*s @read monkeys for
preexistence in prophetic idiom:
,an is something that is to be surpassed 1ll beings
hitherto have created something beyond themselves
1nd ye want to be the ebb of that great tide and
rather go back to the beast than surpass man7
2hat is the ape to man7 1 laughing stock, a thing
of shame 1nd +ust the same shall man be to the
&uperman4 a laughing stock, a thing of shame
<0iet1sche9 Marathustra9 ">7
Though truth is relative9 the human <and inherentl% ape>
perspective on truth can and should be surpassed7
Dhat impedes this surpassing is a divinit% that ma&es the
individual an ob8ect of absolute knowledge and absolute
10,
I'.0)#450I/6)
control <Tillich9 185>7 The dead of ?od opens the wa% to
&nowledge because it opens the wa% to e:ceed socio2
cultural or evolutionar% conditioned perspectives7
Indeed, we philosophers and free spirits feel,
when we hear the news that the old god is dead,
as if a new dawn shone on us. our heart overflows
with gratitude, ama3ement, premonitions,
expectation 1t long last the hori3on appears free to
us again, even if it should not be bright. at long last
our ships may venture out again, venture out to face
any danger. all the daring of the lover of
knowledge is permitted again. the sea, our sea, lies
open again. perhaps there has never yet been such
an open sea <?a% Bcience9 !-+>
The open sea metaphor originates with Crancis Facon7 Its
ta&ing up is not accidental7 The outset of the Bcientific
Revolution was a change in perspective9 illustrated b% the
ship navigating into open sea7 The dead of ?od is another
change in perspective7
Cor all his anti2'hristian rants9 0iet1sche saw the
seventeenth2centur% rethin&ing of 'hristian metaph%sics
through its end9 in an age when the rules of the games
prohibited science from adventuring on the ground of
theolog%7 .e managed to do it while sta%ing in the tide of
histor%9 b% bringing prophetic language at his command7
/uring the ne:t centur%9 his thought will enable a few
intellectuals to untangle 'hristianit% from its obsolete
metaph%sics7
10-
I'.0)#450I/6)
5ne of them was Paul Tillich7 .e saw the 'hristian origin
of the concept of will as ultimate being in the writings of
6ugustine9 /uns Bcotus and 3eibni1 <Tillich9 !,>7
6ccording to Tillich9 0iet1sche*s will to power is @neither
will in psychological sense, nor power in sociological
sense It designates the self(affirmation of life, including
self preservation and growthE <ibid7>7 Tillich used the more
sensitive courage to be within a framewor& intended to be
scientificall% contemporar% and 'hristian at the same time7
108
I'.0)#450I/6)
Concluding the Erasmus5Luther contro"ers%
/arwin*s dilemma was implicit in the )rasmus23uther
controvers%7 3uther grounded his argument that onl% ?od
had free will in the 'reatorAcreature dichotom%7 @1 cause
and reason are assigned for the will of the creature, but not
for the will of the #reator. unless you set up over him
another #reator <3uther9 !15>7 'onse$uentl%9 man could
possesses free will onl% to the e:tent that he were his own
creator7 4oreover9 as a part of nature9 man cannot have an%
power that is e:trinsic to nature7 In order for man to be his
creator9 nature must have created itself too7
6s we have alread% seen9 )rasmus resorted to the ?enesis
blessing9 be fruitful, and multiply9 as an argument that
?od had imparted to secondar% causes the power to act and
reproduce7 Cree will was based on ?od*s act of imparting
to nature his creative power7
Cor what is worth to our topic9 the $uestion whether nature
and man were made b% ?od or have made themselves is an
issue that has defined 'hristianit% since the inception of
modernit%7 The theological concept has preceded scientific
evolution b% three centuries7 'reationism should therefore
be interpreted theologicall%7
It is not 8ust misunderstanding of science that ma&es
conservative 'hristians cling to a premodern worldview7
6ctuall%9 the brain2power spent in futile attempts to build a
10+
I'.0)#450I/6)
scientific model of short earth histor%9 or to counter
evolution9 is trul% impressive7 The divide is theological7
'onservative 'hristians have sided with 3uther in the
controvers% on free will and have accordingl% refused to
pass the threshold of modernit%7 The% are not done %et with
the Religious Dars7
5n the modern side of the theological divide9 we ma%
affirm <with full scientific support> that ?od has chosen
evolution in order to allow us freedom7 Yet freedom is not
free9 so that painful growth9 struggle for e:istence9 parasites
and predation9 are part of the cost7 Infantile faith9 with its
vision of a place with unfading flowers and sill% happiness9
is a trade off7 De give up freedom to spare its cost7 Ciat
creation and cultist eschatolog% are the two ends of a
theolog% of defection7
'linical studies suggest that disabling the am%gdala leads
to lac& of self2control or impaired capacit% to ma&e
decisions7 Dhat ma&es the difference is that am%gdala has
evolved long before consciousness7 6n e:periment
showing that patterns of brain activit% predicting a decision
were present few seconds before the sub8ects became aware
of ma&ing a choice <0ature9 !011>9 has been $uoted as an
argument to trump the realit% of free will7 .owever9 what
the e:periment showed was that the power to chose is
rooted in our deeper instincts9 rather than in the thin
cortical shell were more recent and imperfectl% evolved
brain activities are located7 The most advanced artificial
intelligence performs in simple tas&s much lesser than the
insect brain7 The difference between artificial intelligence
110
I'.0)#450I/6)
and bugs is that computers are made9 while bugs have
evolved7 There*s is no free will without evolution7
De do not possess a transcendental mind7 5ur ps%che is
part of nature7 In a mechanistic universe9 we would have no
freedom at all9 as .obbes rightl% inferred7 The basis of
freedom lies in the evolutionar% fact that life is a game9 and
that this game has grown comple: to the point of
mathematical chaos7 Remember 4alcolm e:plaining chaos
theor% in Kurassic Par&; %ife will find a way7 /eep
within each choice we ma&e are condensed (75 billions
%ears of innumerable instances when life found a wa%7
In order to understand the theolog% of this game9 we will
have to revisit the mathematics of Pascal*s wager7 5n
6ugust !"9 1,5"9 Flaise Pascal wrote a brief letter to his
friend Pierre de Cermat7 The topic was how to compute the
probabilit% of winning a game7 The two had gambled in a
cafe in Paris9 but the game was interrupted b% a call7 The%
decided that the winner was that pla%er who
mathematicall% had the best chance to win the game7 Yet
how could one calculate chance; Pascal proposed that all
the% had to do was to divide the number of the e$uall%
probable combinations to the number of the possible
outcomes of the game7
The letter set the basis for the probabilit% theor% in
mathematics7 It turned gambling into a science and9 out of
the gambling room9 a science of assessing the future7 In
time9 it will provide the tool to investigate non2linear events
from weather to stoc&2mar&et9 and from $uantum ph%sics
to ris&2assessment7
111
I'.0)#450I/6)
To Pascal himself it was a wa% to rethin& the ontological
argument7
Probabilit% mathematics opens the realm of chance to
human scrutin%7 5n the same time9 ?od himself becomes a
matter of probabilit%7 Pascal*s faith is calculated gambling7
It goes li&e this: If one bets on ?od <call it faith if %ou li&e>
and he does e:ist9 one wins7 If he does not e:ist9 one has
nothing to lose7 If he e:ists and one does not bet on him9
one loses ever%thing7
5ur purpose in this chapter is to rethin& Pascal*s wager in
reverse7 To consider ?od to be the pla%er and man to be the
bet7
5f course9 this raises the $uestion if ?od is a gambler7 It
seems that both the Fible and the boo& of nature support
this view7
The Fible has a lot of instances where the will of ?od is
accomplished b% casting lots before ?od7 The gentile
seafarers who cast Konah into the sea first consulted the
gods b% casting lots7 The disciples @gave forth their lots
<6cts 1:!,> to determine who would succeed Kudas7 Rain
and weather9 the outcome of war and business9 ever%thing
that we &now to be a matter of probabilities9 is defined in
the Fible as the wa% of ?od7
Theologicall%9 Bt7 Paul spa&e of incarnation as a dangerous
gamble for ?od7 The 'hrist was born under @the lawE <?al
":"> with all the ris& involved7 Those who find the word
gambling inappropriate might consider that the onl%
alternative is that of faking the ris&7
11!
I'.0)#450I/6)
Crom the angle of natural theolog%9 it is a matter of fact that
the universe is governed b% probabilistic laws at both ends7
6t the bottom of things9 $uantum ph%sics describes a
nondetermined world7 6t the higher end of comple:it%9 life
is governed b% the laws of mathematical chaos7 4odern
philosophers and theologians agree that the
nondetermination of the universe is essential for the realit%
of free will7
The issue of freedom involves collateral $uestions7 /id
?od resort to gambling li&e mone%2laundr%men do9 to erase
his fingerprints in creation; 6theism was made thus
possible in order for faith to be intellectuall% uncompelled7
De are here because the universe hit the luc&% numbers a
couple of time7 The first instance is the fine tuning of the
fundamental forces7 The second is the 1A1 million
matterAantimatter as%mmetr%7 The third is the as%mmetric
distribution of matter2energ%7 The fourth is the energ% level
of the carbon atom that ma&es carbon9 the element of life9
so abundant in the universe7 The fifth is the apparition of
life7 The si:th is the evolution of life7 The seventh is man7
?iven the age and the si1e of the universe9 all these are
possible combinations7 Dhat is impossible is the game
without a pla%er7 To push things further9 if the universe is a
vast casino9 the protocol was set for the house to be the
ultimate winner7 The bet is man7
4an is the heres% of evolution7 5ur big brain is an
e:pensive liabilit% in the wild7 It involves a waste of
metabolic resources with little surviving benefit7 It also
11(
I'.0)#450I/6)
implies a trade off between digestive and brain tissue9 that
ma&es us dependent on coo&ing7 6bstract thin&ing is
conditioned b% a large and comple: brain9 and that in turn
involves a big s&ull7 5n the other hand9 bipedal wal&ing
necessitates a narrow pelvis7 Fig s&ull plus narrow pelvis
e$uals dangerous and painful birth7 .uman nature is
counter2adaptive7
/arwin himself was aware of the parado:7 .e remar&ed
that humans displa% the unparalleled abilit% @to keep with
an unchanged body in harmony with the changing
universe </arwin9 /escend9 15!>7 0atural selection9 that
chec&s the development of non2adaptive or harmful
features in other species9 is overruled b% our abilit% to
ad8ust the environment to our peculiarities7
6 disproportionate corte: allows us to overwrite the
behavioral script written in the mammalian /067 This is
wh% we are able of such gratuitous activities as art and
science9 or of sacrificing ourselves for causes having
nothing to do with the selfish gene7 5n the other hand9 we
turned our big brain into an instrument of gambling with
endogenous and e:ogenous chemicals7 Reproduction was
hi8ac&ed b% se:ual fantas%7 De &ill and die for sport7
/arwin &new that natural selection cannot e:plain such
counter2adaptive features7 .e resolutel% re8ected Dallace
supposition that the brain parado: was evidence of a
@higher powerE <Frowne9 (18>9 and credited se:ual
selection for its evolution7 Yet biolog% is onl% part of the
pu11le7 Fig brain considered9 human nature remains hard to
e:plain7
11"
I'.0)#450I/6)
4an spent most of his evolutionar% histor% crawling at the
bottom of the food chain in 6frica7 .is mind was shaped in
fear7 .e awed the lion as a top predator and the main
source of big &ill to scavenge7 /uring the da% he loo&ed up
in fear to the s&% whence predator% birds ambushed7 /uring
the night he shivered at ever% noise and feared the serpent
snea&ing into the arboreal refuge7 6nd he crept in the
submission position before the more powerful in the
shrewdness7
The primeval terror can be traced in the religious
s%mbolism of eagles9 serpents and lions7 .umans continue
to feel watched b% a terrif%ing e%e in the s&%7 /ar&ness and
the serpent are archet%pal s%mbols of occult danger7 The
human primate still pra%s to his gods in the submission
position imprinted in the mammalian /067 This basic
relationship to divinit% as the alpha2male was further
elaborated into s%mbolic castration9 li&e circumcision9
pious emasculation or asceticism7
6bout "09000 %ears ago the scavenger moved suddenl% to
the top of the food chain in )urasia7 The Pleistocene man9
also &nown as 'ro24agnon after the site of his first
unearthing in 18,89 ma&es his apparition full% modern9
taller and larger2brained than we are9 agile9 creative9 and
endowed with artistic s&ills never to be surpassed b%
subse$uent generations7 4an evolved new techni$ues in
hunting and shaping stones9 and invented more
sophisticated weapons that along with good coordination
enabled him to ta&e on the largest mammals7 It is from the
115
I'.0)#450I/6)
same time that the first archaeological evidence of
s%mbolic thought and artistic endeavors are preserved7
De don*t &now what triggered the Pleistocene revolution7
.uman nature is not the result of progressive accumulation
of adaptive features7 )ver%thing we associate with being
human emerged abruptl% in the Pleistocene and we are still
loo&ing for clues as wh% such a thing li&e us e:ists in the
universe7
Fecause it coincides with man*s arrival in )urasia9 some
people thin& that the impulse came from the man of
0eanderthal through imitation orAand interbreeding7
'hanging weather patterns during the latest ice age might
have also pla%ed an important role in the evolution of our
behavior7 3earning became more and more important than
genetic memor%7 De do witness an increase in brain si1e
during the Pleistocene among a few other mammals that
traded genetic memor% for learning b% e:ploration and
imitation7 Yet the% are far less dramatic than the human
leap forward7
The single most important event generating the Pleistocene
revolution was not part of biological evolution7 It was the
invention of s%mbolic thought7 5ur brain alread% had the
biological capacit% to do it for the last two hundred
thousand %ears7 The 0eanderthal man had bigger brain7 Yet
it was the Pleistocene man that invented thought7
)ver% revolution creates its own art7 The Pleistocene
revolution has left its mar& in enduring cave paintings of
e:tinguished animals and m%sterious abstract signs7 @/or
11,
I'.0)#450I/6)
more than LMM generations artists have inherited the same
concerns and the same techni*ues It was by far the longest
lived tradition known to humankind <4ithen9 1"8>7 This
e$uals si: times the span of civili1ation7 'onse$uentl%9 the
Pleistocene revolution must have been the most defining
event in shaping humanit%7 @'here0s a human nature and
the main contours of that nature emerged in $leistocene
<?uthrie9 1!>7 4odern man is an alienated cave artist7 Bo9
who was the cave artist;
The blending of art and scientific observation reminds us of
the Renaissance art7 The difference consists in the fact that
the Renaissance artist was interested in the stud% of human
nature7 The cave artist was interested in animal nature7
/eath and se:9 hunting and cuddling9 courtship and
submission rituals9 are observed and represented in strict
detail7
#ontrary to popular literature, many $aleolithic
works do not seem to bear any obvious imprint of
ritual and magic but, rather, express more casual
and earthy themes /orensic work with fossil
handprints of the artists greatly changed the way I
looked at this art4 I found that all ages and both
sexes were making art, not +ust senior male
shamans ,y main conclusion is that preserved
$aleolithic art, unlike most tribal art, is a
graphic expression whose articulation we can
largely comprehend, and that the perspective of
natural history offers an essential dimension to that
appreciation. it is the code(breaker $aleolithic
11-
I'.0)#450I/6)
artist(hunters were keen students of natural history
Dthey had to be 'heir art is not an obtusely
symbolic language but something very deep and
very dear <?uthier9 HIII2IG>
The idea that the palaeolithic revolution was an adolescent
phenomenon at its core rather than the creation of old
shamans is essential in understanding what we reall% are7
6dolescence9 with all its unbounded life2force9 scientific
curiosit%9 adventuress9 gratuitous ris&9 interest in nature9
science9 and se:9 is what transpires in paleolithic art7 De
&now all these from e:perience7
6nd what else was adolescence than the brea&ing point in
our growth; It is the change in biological and social
perspectives9 that brings along the e:istential struggle
manifest in artistic creation and naturalist interest7
5n could point at 0iet1sche*s unconsummated adolescence
as the source of his preoccupation with the superman9 but
here la%s the point7 The Pleistocene man is not so much a
leap in biological evolution as it is a leap in biological
perspective7 6 second change9 in social perspective9 was
the invention of civili1ation7 6nd a third one9 in ontological
perspective9 was the reali1ation of ?od7
0iet1sche was right that the engine of this evolution was
not the struggle for survival9 8ust as the onset of
adolescence is rather hindered than stimulated b% a life at
the edge of starvation7 It is the will to conserve life9 grow
and e:pand9 will as ontological realit% that9 according to
Tillich9 is where 'hristianit% differed from classical
118
I'.0)#450I/6)
philosoph%7 It is ?od*s attribute imparted to nature and
man7
The scavenger returned about !09000 ago after the
revolution met its defeat b% natural disasters and
environmental povert% at the end of the ice2age7 The new
unpredictabilit% of nature and scarcit% of food generated a
feeling of insecurit% and determined man to cave into
ancestral fears7 It chec&ed e:ploring curiosit% that so often
leads bod% and mind on dangerous grounds7 It secured
survival b% the ancestral instinct of crawling and creeping7
4an bowed in the mammalian submission position before
the vast un&nown7
Preoccupation with death replaced the naturalistic
enthusiasm of the cave artist7 In an unpredictable world9
death is the realm of certaint%7 'loseness to the ancestors
was reassuring7 4an gave up the con$uest of the universe
to sta% b% the graves of his parents7 The modern cult of
patriotism comes from terra patris I the earth of the fathers
I and is rooted in that earl% practice that chained the living
to the s&eletons of the dead7
The first cities were necropolis <4ithen9 5,+>7 'ave art was
superseded b% grave art9 naturalism b% abstraction9
scientific curiosit% b% superstitious petition7 It was the great
negation of life in the dialectics of prehistor%7
.istor% began as a negation of the negation7 The necropolis
became urban2agricultural centers of collective production7
The cit% created the citi1en9 the second great leap in human
nature9 this time shaped b% social rather than natural forces7
11+
I'.0)#450I/6)
6rt returned to life9 with an emphasis on the social rather
than nature7 6bstraction became writing9 geometr% and
algebra9 the new tools for con$uering nature7
Yet civili1ation unleashed unprecedented new destructive
forces7 It is in his conte:t that man first turned to ?od7
To ma&e a brief point: if ?od had intended for man to be a
worshiping puppet9 fiat creation would have been the deal7
Yet if ?od is after cosmic partnership9 a painful histor% of
tears9 sweat and blood would be necessar%7 Dells* Jcaptain*
of the adventure of man with Jtough love* for his soldiers is
an attractive metaphor7
'hristianit% might have began as a religion of slaves9 but it
led trough a liberation and empowering much more radical
than 8ust removing the chains7 It was a religion of the
collective self9 but not gregarious7 #nfortunatel%9
'hristianit% has become a religion of the slavish9 eager to
trade their freedom for eternal securit%7 It reinvented ?od
as a benevolent t%rant9 and 'hrist as a sentimentali1ed
redeemer7 This is wh% the daring of as&ing and loo&ing for
true answers9 has removed itself outside organi1ed
'hristianit%7 The time is coming for the free spirits9 for the
courageous and the in$uisitive9 to claim their place in the
church7
1!0
I'.0)#450I/6)
-he commissar and the /reacher
In 1+,1 0i&ita Lhrushchev made a notorious statement
about the futilit% of heaven2tal& in the space2age7
1s to paradise, we have heard a lot about it from
the priests &o we decided to find out for ourselves
/irst we sent up our explorer, <uri Gagarin !e
circled the globe and found nothing in outer space
It0s pitch dark there, he said. no Garden of -den,
nothing like heaven &o we decided to send another
2e sent Gherman 'itov and told him to fly for a
whole day 1fter all, Gagarin was up there only an
hour and a half &o he might have missed paradise
2e told him to take a good look 2ell, he took off,
came back and confirmed Gagarin0s conclusion
!e reported there was nothing there @'ime, NFONA
3ess than half a centur% later9 Bhei& 4us1aphar flew to
space from the same launchpad that had blasted Yuri7 .e
became the first 4uslim to observe the Ramadan on the
International Bpace Btation7 The gates of the Paradise are
said to be open during the hol% feast7 Yet unli&e his
predecessor9 4us1aphar did not loo& for the ?arden7 .e
faced the earth as the default location of 4ecca and said his
pra%ers7
In the meanwhile9 the ?arden stor% was pulpit2read from
the 4oon orbit7 Bpace technolog% has replaced bron1e
1!1
I'.0)#450I/6)
swords in the oldest religious war7 The proletariat that sent
Yuri is turning disappointed e%es toward the heaven he
found missing7 Batellite communication is in the business
of miraculous healing7 Cort% percent of the nation that went
to the 4oon believe that dinosaurs crossed paths with men7
.ow was it that triumphant materialism gave wa% to
religious fundamentalism;
The transition was natural7 Clat materialism is a form of
religious fundamentalism7 The% cohabit and dispute the
same territor% e:traneous to the historical core of
modernit%7 The% are contingent upon the demise of
metaph%sical 'hristianit%7
<ou have of course read 9ostoevsky7 9o you see what a
complicated thing is man0s soul7 Dhen the Yugoslav
partisan 4ilovan /8ilas ob8ected against Btalin*s
ac$uiescence in Red 6rm%*s rapes9 the latter appealed to
/ostoevs&%7 Btalin*s point was that one cannot e:pect a
human being to remain rational under prolonged stress7
/ostoevs&%*s characters unmas& the essential irrationalit%
of human nature7
/ostoevs&% went his own wa% through ?agarin*s
e:perience7 .e bro&e in his %outh the painted glass of the
5rthodo: 'hurch to loo& into dar&ness7 The iconoclastic
act was followed b% a finding out similar to ?agarin*s
alleged @pitch dark there. no Garden of -den, nothing like
heaven7 /ostoevs&% learned that man cannot stand the
empt% night of the universe alone7 .e needs to believe in
the ?arden9 however irrational that would be7
1!!
I'.0)#450I/6)
This is wh% Btalin had the relics of 3enin laid at the center
of national worship in Lremlin7 The Boviet24ar:ist
e:periment was essentiall% religious rather than
materialistic in proper sense7 4ar:ist hagiograph% and
dogmatism9 the $uasi2liturgical mass choreograph% on red
letter da%s9 revolution2eschatolog% and great leaders
worship9 provide the most notable evidence7 )ven the
socialist pro8ect was9 according to /ostoevs&%9 a misguided
search for the Paradise7 The Hosto& missions were indeed
loo&ing for a ?arden7 Their failure to find it was s%mbolic
for the failure of the whole pro8ect7
Peculiar to such faith is the absence of transcendence7 This
is what the disappointed e:24ar:ist 6rthur Loestler reveals
in his essa% 'he <ogi and the #ommissar7 .e e:plains that
the commissar stands for the modern attempt to change the
world without transcendental absolutes7 .e is worshiped as
a hero9 in the .egelian sense of the individual who
@reaches out over the world and dominates it7 The
commissar becomes an ob8ect of faith9 as the impersonation
of the the dialectics of historical materialism7
It is critical for the commissar to severe histor% from an%
transcendence7 .e has to be an anti2meta2ph%sician7 The
best e:ample is 3enin as a philosopher7 In 1+08 he spent
the entire %ear at the Fritish 4useum 3ibrar%9 writing a
boo& against the ph%sics of )rnst 4ach7 6ccording to
3enin <(0,>9 4ach denies the existence of an ob+ective
reality independent of our mind @and holds anA idealist
and agnostic theory of knowledgeE7 4ach was neither
idealist nor agnostic <in sense of philosophical s&epticism>7
1!(
I'.0)#450I/6)
.e was a new2positivist who had abandoned crude
materialism for a sophisticated epistemolog%9 in which
ph%sical phenomena are redefined at the intersection of
ob8ective events and mental activities7
Bo9 what was wrong with this; 4ach*s materialism was too
nuanced7 6ll fundamentalism is contingent upon a world
picture in blac& and white7 The flat materialism of 4ar:
encouraged blind faith7 The elaborated in$uir% of 4ach
elicited even more $uestions7 The danger consists in the
deconstruction of what is assumed7 The instrument of
absolute power is the in$uisition9 and the basis of an%
in$uisition is an absolute statement of truth7
3enin*s suspicion against nuanced materialism is similar to
the suspicion of fundamentalists against more nuanced
theolog%7 The common ground of religious fundamentalism
and flat materialism is their dis8unction from histor%7
4ar:ism is an attempt to radicali1e the modern pro8ect7
Cundamentalism is the re8ection of modernit%7 Yet both
attitudes impl% belief in definitive statements be%ond
historical perspective7 It is an ideological re$uirement7
6bsolute statements constitute the foundation of absolute
power7 Cundamentalism is a power game7
6 good e:ample is the following complain against the
teaching of evolution at a 'hristian conservative
#niversit%:
-volution should be taught at our denominational
universities ?ut it should be taught as a competing
and inimical worldview to the biblical worldview
1!"
I'.0)#450I/6)
2e need our young people to know what it is they
are up against, yes, but when naturalistic evolution
is taught as fact or as the preferred and normative
worldview, then we can be sure that the enemy has
breached our lines
Dhat stri&es in this statement is not the re8ection of science
as such7 This might be wrong but is hardl% une:pected7 Yet
what one finds trul% surprising is the militari1ation of
language7 Bcientific debate is approached in terms of
warfare7 The dissenting scientist is brought to militar%
court7 Cacts are discussed ideologicall%7 It is the language
of the commissar7 Dh% should the preacher spea& li&e the
commissar; Fecause both have to defend a definitive
worldview as the foundation of their power7
Religious fundamentalism is dependent on gaps in the
&nowledge of realit%7 It is within such gaps that modernit%
collapses bac& into the bron1e2age worldview7 0ature is
restored to magic7 .eaven itself is seen as the ultimate
bron1e2age enclave7 ?od is imagined as an eastern
monarch9 court accessories9 li&e crown9 throne9 and slavish
entertainment9 never missing7 3ife is reduced to pristine
happiness: no tragic dilemma9 no more conflicts9 no
intellectual struggle7
If histor% and the laws of nature are parenthetical9 and
genuine realit% is m%thological9 how one lives should be
defined b% it7 Fac& are the taboos9 the fear9 the ignorance
and9 above all9 submission7 The fundamentalist 'hurch is a
bron1e2age enclave too7 Dhat defines primitive religion is
absence of speculative thought7 Religious leaders were
1!5
I'.0)#450I/6)
seers9 not abstract thin&ers7 Caith was based on what the
seer has seen or heard7
?agarin was a seer7 .e was lifted up 8ust li&e an
apocal%ptic prophet to to see things and tell other people
what he saw7 Prophets9 said 4achiavelli9 are agents of
power7 The Boviet seer returns from heaven and tells
people that the wor&er*s paradise is the onl% ?arden in
heaven and on earth7 Then an 6merican )vangelist comes
along telling them that another prophet saw the ?arden in
heaven two thousand or ma% be one2hundred2fift% %ears
ago7 Dhat is forbidden in both cases is the deconstruction
of what has been seen or heard7
4ood%*s tract .eaven is a fit illustration of what might be
labeled as materialistic in the fundamentalist representation
of heaven:
'here are some people who depend so much upon
their reason that they reason away God &cripture
tells us very plainly that God has a dwelling(place
'here is no doubt whatever about that 1 place
indicates personality God0s dwelling(place is in
heaven !e has a dwelling(place, and we are going
to be inmates of it 'herefore we shall see !im
2e believe this is +ust as much a place and +ust as
much a city as is New <ork, %ondon or $aris
<4ood%9 ,12,">7
The heaven over which Lhrushchev trumpeted his triumph
was 4ood%*s heaven7 5f course9 4ood% would have not
e:pected it to be found at orbital altitude7 Yet the difference
1!,
I'.0)#450I/6)
was onl% in distance7 Ho%ager might get there in a couple
of trillions %ears and find nothing7 Transcendence is absent
in both cases7
3ion Ceuchtwanger recounts the stor% of a Roman soldier
who made a discover% similar to that attributed to ?agarin7
Dhen the Romans bro&e into the Kewish temple during the
siege of Kerusalem9 a legionnaire loo&ed into the 4ost
.ol%7 To his disma%9 there was onl% a barren roc& where
the god of the Kews would have been7 Yahweh was absent
from his Temple7 The soldiers were ta&en over b% the
fren1% of destruction and &illing7
Bcience is a deconstruction of the temple of nature7 The e%e
meets barren roc&s where we have been taught to e:pect
the supernatural7 De have ta&en to pieces the pu11le of
realit% to put it bac& together7 In this process we have come
to reassemble man without soul9 the mind without divine
spar&9 the universe without architect9 life without the breath
of ?od7
3i&e the Kewish defenders of the temple9 fundamentalism is
fighting to &eep science awa% from the last inner sanctum9
some irreducible comple:it%9 some missing lin&9 some
ultimate gap in the laws of nature7 6ll along9 stone after
stone is removed9 chamber after chamber is open to human
scrutin%7 'here shall not be left here one stone upon
another, that shall not be thrown down <4at !":!>7
4aterialism is li&e the Roman soldier7 It points at the
barren roc&s as evidence of the absent ?od7 The
fundamentalist hopes against hope that his ?od is hiding in
the last inner sanctum7
1!-
I'.0)#450I/6)
There*s %et another side of the stor% of the empt% shrine7
Ceuchtwanger e:plains the astonishment of Romans b%
their inabilit% to grasp the abstract nature of the Kewish
?od7 5r rather the failure of the Kews to understand their
?od7 Ceuchtwanger9 a cosmopolitan Kew who ran&ed
Mionism along with 0a1ism9 believed that the destruction
of the temple was a historical chance for Kudaism to reclaim
its cosmopolitan core7
Is this histor% repeating itself within 'hristianit%; In other
words9 did science find ?od missing because 'hristianit%
failed to grasp and communicate his true nature;
Cundamentalism and flat materialism are modern versions
of Kewish 1ealotr% and Roman paganism7 5ne is fighting to
defend the gaps where his god is hidden7 The other gloats at
their scrutin%7
'ould this be our chance to find ?od;
1!8
I'.0)#450I/6)
References
6$uinas9 Thomas7 'ommentar% on 6ristotle*s Ph%sics7 Yale #niversit% Press9 0ew
.aven9 1+++7
6ttenborough9 /avid7 3ife in The #ndergrowth7 Princeton #niversit% Press9 Princeton9
!0057
6ugustine7 The 3iteral 4eaning of ?enesis9 Hol 17 6ncient 'hristian Driters7 Paulist
Press9 4ahwah9 1+8!7
6ugustine7 'onfessions Foo& GI7 GII7 GIII7
6ugustine7 The 'it% of ?od 6gainst the Pagans9 Foo&s 121(7
Fabich9 Fabette )79 Robert Bonn] 'ohen7 0iet1sche and The Bciences9 Foston Btudies in
the Philosoph% of Bcience9 Hol !0(7
Fec&mann9 Petr7 6 histor% of 7 Farnes = 0oble Foo&s9 1++(7
Feiser9 6rthur7 'oncept of 4odern Ph%sics7 4c?raw2.ill9 !00(7
Flumenau9 Ralph7 Philosoph% = 3iving7 Imprint 6cademic9 'harlottesville9 !00!7
Froadie9 Barah9 Barah Daterlow7 0ature9 'hange9 and 6genc% in 6ristotle*s Ph%sics: 6
Philosophical Btud%7 5:ford #niversit% Press9 0ew Yor&9 1+8!7
Frowne9 )7 Kanet7 'harles /arwin: The Power of Place9 Holume !7 Princeton #niversit%
Press9 Princeton9 !00!7
Furtt9 )dwin 6rthur7 The 4etaph%sical Coundations of 4odern Bcience7 /over
Publications9 0ew Yor&9 1+5"7
'onfessio Craternitatis7 The second Rosicrucian 4anifesto printed in 1,15 $uoted in
Caggionato9 Raffaella7 6 Rosicrucian #topia in )ighteenth2'entur% Russia: The 4asonic
'ircle of 07I7 0ovi&ov7 Bpringer9 /ordrecht9 !0057
/arwin9 'harles7 The /escent of 4an and Belection in Relation to Be:7 6ppleton and
'ompan%9 0ew Yor&9 18-!7
/arwin9 'harles7 The ):pression 5f The )motions In 4an and 6nimals7 6ppleton and
'ompan%9 0ew Yor&9 18++7
/arwin9 'harles7 The 3ife and 3etters of 'harles /arwin7 Holume !7 6ppleton and
'ompan%9 0ew Yor& and 3ondon9 1+117
1!+
I'.0)#450I/6)
/arwin9 'harles7 The 5rigin of Bpecies: F% 4eans of 0atural Belection9 Holume !7
6ppleton and 'ompan%9 0ew Yor&9 18+-7
/arwin9 'harles7 The Harious 'ontrivances b% which 5rchids are Certili1ed b% Insects7
Kohn 4urra%9 3ondon9 18+07
/ennett9 /aniel 'lement7 /arwin*s /angerous Idea: )volution and the 4eanings of 3ife7
Bimon = Bchuster9 0ew Yor&9 1++57
/errida9 Kac$ues7 Bpecters of 4ar:: The Btate of /ebt9 the Dor& of 4ourning and the
0ew International7 Routledge9 0ew Yor&9 1++"7
/escartes9 Rene7 /iscourse on the 4ethod7 Farnes = 0oble9 0ew Yor&9 !00"7
/escartes9 Rene7 4editations on Cirst Philosoph%7 Corgotten Foo&s9 !0087
/ostoevs&%9 C%odor7 Ignat 6vse%7 The Larama1ov Frothers7 5:ford #niversit% Press9
5:ford9 1++"7
)instein9 6lbert7 Relativit%: The Bpecial and ?eneral Theor%7 .enr% .olt and 'ompan%9
0ew Yor&9 1+!17
)rasmus9 /esiderius7 .%peraspistes7 'ollected Dor&s of )rasmus7 #niversit% of Toronto
Press9 Toronto9 !0007
)uripides7 The Tro8an Domen7 6dapted b% 0eil 'urr%7 4ethuen and 'o79 #nited
Lingdom9 1+,"7
Ceuerbach9 3udwig9 ?eorge )liot7 The essence of 'hristianit%7 'alvin Flanchard9 0ew
Yor&9 18557
Ce%erabend9 Paul7 6gainst 4ethod7 Herso9 0ew Yor&9 !0107
Cinocchiaro9 4aurice 67 The ?alileo affair: a documentar% histor%7 #niversit% of
'alifornia press7 Fer&ele%9 1+8+7
Coucault9 4ichel7 Power7 The 0ew Press9 0ew Yor&9 !0007
?aither '7 9 67 )7 'ava1os2?aither7 ?aither*s /ictionar% of Bcientific Uuotations7
Bpringer9 0ew Yor&9 !01!7
?alileo ?alilei7 /ialogue 'oncerning the Two 'hief Dorld B%stems9 Ptolemaic =
'opernican7 #niversit% of 'alifornia press9 Fer&ele%9 1+,-7
?illespie9 4ichael 6llen7 The Theological 5rigins of 4odernit%7 The #niversit% of
'hicago Press9 'hicago9 !00+7
?in1berg9 3ouis7 The 3egends of the Kews7 The Kewish Publication Bociet% in 6merica9
Philadelphia9 1+187
?opni&9 6dam7 6ngels and 6ges: 3incoln9 /arwin9 and the Firth of the 4odern 6ge7
Hintage Foo&s9 0ew Yor&9 !00+7
1(0
I'.0)#450I/6)
?ould9 Btephen Ka%7 Cull .ouse: The Bpread of ):cellence from Plato to /arwin7
.armon% Foo&s9 0ew Yor&9 1++,7
?uthrie9 R7 /ale7 The 0ature of Paleolithic 6rt7 The #niversit% of 'hicago Press9
'hicago !0057
.arnac&9 6dolf von7 .istor% of dogma9 Holume 17 3ittle Frown and 'ompan%9 Foston9
1+0!7
.arris9 3ee7 Bocrates or 4uhammad; Koseph Rat1inger on the destin% of reason7 The
Dee&l% Btandard9 Hol7 1!9 0o7 0(9 5ct !9 !00,7
.eidegger9 4artin7 0iet1sche9 Holumes 12!7 .arper 'ollins9 0ew Yor&9 1++17
.obbes9 Thomas7 /e 'orpore7 3ibrairie Philosophi$ue9 K7 Hrin9 1+++7
.olton9 ?erald Kames7 Thematic origins of scientific thought: Lepler to )instein7 ?erald
.olton9 1+887
Theor% of Relativit%7 http:AAwww7conservapedia7comATheor%^of^relativit%
Fenedict GHI7 Caith9 Reason and the #niversit% 4emories and Reflections7
http:AAwww7vatican7vaAhol%^fatherAbenedict^:viAspeechesA!00,AseptemberAdocumentsAhf^
ben2:vi^spe^!00,0+1!^universit%2regensburg^en7html
Isaacson9 Dalter7 )instein: .is 3ife 6nd #niverse7 Bimon = Bchuster9 !00-7
Kessop9 Fob9 Russell Dheatle%7 Larl 4ar:*s social and political thought: critical
assessments7 Routledge9 0ew Yor&9 1+++7
Kewish Hirtual 3ibrar%7 Bpace and Place <in Kewish Philosoph%>7
http:AAwww78ewishvirtuallibrar%7orgA8sourceA8udaicaAe8ud^000!^001+^0^18+(-7html
Kohn 4c'lintoc&9 Kames Btrong7 '%clopaedia of Fiblical9 theological9 and ecclesiastical
literature9 Holume -7 .arper = Frothers Publishers9 0ew Yor&9 18+"7
Laufman9 Dalter7 The Caith of a .eretic9 ?arden 'it%9 0ew Yor&9 1+,(7
Loestler9 6rthur7 Bpartacus7 Fantam Foo&9 0ew Yor&9 1+,!7
Loestler9 6rthur7 The Yogi and the 'ommissar7 4acmillan9 1+,-7
3enin9 Hladimir Il%ich7 4aterialism and )mpirio2'riticism: 'ritical 'omments on a
Reactionar% Philosoph%7 #niversit% Press of the Pacific9 !00!7
3uther9 4artin7 5n the Fondage of Dill7 T7 Fensle%9 3ondon9 18!(7
4achiavelli9 0iccolo7 The Prince7 Farnes = 0oble9 0ew Yor&9 !00(7
4ar:9 Larl9 The )ighteenth Frumaire of 3ouis Fonaparte7 185!7
4echanics in si:teenth2centur% Ital%: selections from Tartaglia9 Fenedetti9 ?uido #baldo9
= ?alileo7 #niversit% of Disconsin Press9 1+,+7
1(1
I'.0)#450I/6)
4ithen9 Bteven7 6fter the Ice7 6 global human histor%7 !09 0000259000 F'7 .arvard
#niversit% Press7 'ambridge9 !00(7
4ood%9 /wight 3%man7 .eaven: where it is9 its inhabitants9 and how to get there7 188-7
0euroscience vs philosoph%: Ta&ing aim at free will7 0ature "--7 !0117
0ewton9 Isaac9 Clori_n 'a8ori7 4athematical principles of natural philosoph%9 Holume II7
The s%stem of the Dorld7 #niversit% of 'alifornia Press9 Fer&ele%9 1+,!7
0iet1sche9 Criedrich7 ?a% Bcience7 Hintage Foo&s9 0ew Yor&9 1+-"7
0iet1sche9 Criedrich7 The birth of traged%: or9 .ellenism and pessimism7 )dinburgh
Press9 )dinburgh9 1+0+7
0iet1sche9 Criedrich7 The Dill to Power7 6n attempted transvaluation of all values9 Hol !7
?ordon Press9 1+-"7
0iet1sche9 Criedrich7 Thus Bpo&e Marathustra7 Corgotten Foo&s9 !0017
5c&ham7 Philosophical Dritings7 .ac&ett Publishing 'ompan%9 Indianapolis9 1++07
5rigen7 Koseph Dilson Trigg7 Routledge9 0ew Yor&9 1++87
Philo of 6le:andria7 The wor&s of Philo Kudaeus9 the contemporar% of Kosephus9 Holume
!7 ?eorge /ell = Bons9 0ew Yor&9 18+"7
Loranteng2Pipim9 Bamuel7 Ferean Foo&s9 Ferrien Bprings9 1++,7
Plato9 Timaeus7 Corgotten Foo&s9 !0087
Plato7 Parmenides7 Corgotten Foo&s9 !0087
Plato7 Protagoras7 Cerenit% Publishers9 33'9 Roc&ville9 !00+7
Plato7 The /ialogues of Plato9 Hol I7 'harles Bcribner*s Bons9 0ew Yor&9 1+087
Plato7 The Republic7 Hintage Foo&s9 1++17
Plato7 The B%mposium7 Corgotten Foo&s9 !0087
Proclus7 6 'ommentar% on the Cirst Foo& of )uclid*s )lements7 Princeton #niversit%
Press9 5:ford9 1++!7
Russell9 Fertrand9 The .istor% of Destern Philosoph%7 Routledge9 3ondon9 !00"7
Bagan9 'arl7 'ontact7 Poc&et Foo&s7 0ew Yor&9 1+8,7
Bhields9 'hristopher Kohn7 6ristotle7 Routledge9 0ew Yor&9 !00-
Bhubin9 0eil7 Your Inner Cish: 6 Kourne% Into the (752Fillion2Year .istor% of the .uman
Fod%7 Pantheon Foo&s9 !0087
1(!
I'.0)#450I/6)
Btirner9 4a:9 /avid 3eopold7 The )go and Its 5wn7 'ambridge #niversit% Press9
'ambridge9 1++57
Tertullian7 6gainst 4arcion9 Hol7 "7
The Fab%lonian Talmud9 Liddushin (0b7
The Foo& of )noch7 Corgotten Foo&s9 !00-7
The 'atholic )nc%clopedia9 Hol !7 The )nc%clopedia Press9 Inc79 0ew Yor&9 1+0-7
Tillich9 Paul7 The 'ourage to Fe7 Yale #niversit% Press9 !0007
Time9 Holume -89 Part !7 Kan 19 1+,17
Dells9 .7 ?7 ?od the Invisible Ling7 The 4acmillian 'ompan%9 0ew Yor&9 1+1-7
Dells9 .7 ?7 The Island of /octor 4oreau7 4anor9 Roc&ville9 !0087
Dells9 .7?7 Three Prophetic 0ovels of .7 ?7 Dells7 /over Publications9 Inc79 0ew Yor&9
1+,07
Dhite9 ?7 )llen7 )arl% Dritings7 Review and .erald9 .agerstown9 !0007
Dhitehead9 6lfred 0orth7 Bcience and the 4odern Dorld7 Cree Press9 0ew Yor&9 !0117
1((