Scholarly Hypatia Was Murdered by a Degenerate Clique of Christian Fundamentalists

[Red Terror]

Scholarly and saintly Hypatia of Alexandria Was Murdered by a Degenerate Clique of Christian Fundamentalists. How many people remember her contributions to science? Religion and science do not mix.

[tailor STATELY]

Interesting article... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

Your argument (Hypatia of Alexandria Was Murdered by a Degenerate Clique of Christian Fundamentalists therefor Religion and science do not mix.) IMHO leans toward a post hoc, ergo propter hoc conclusion http://skepdic.com/posthoc.html .

The events I see in the wikipedia article appear to be spurred by politics more than anything else: "According to contemporary sources, Hypatia was murdered by a Christian mob or by Christian zealots known as Parabalani after being accused of exacerbating a conflict between two prominent figures in Alexandria, the governor, Orestes, and the bishop, Cyril of Alexandria." Note: executed by zealots similar to those who have a propensity for violence even today.

Not all followers of religion are zealots - prolly a HUGE minority based on current events; to further define the word 'zealot'... Google: "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals."

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[YesNo]

Given the Big Bang and Quantum Physics it is more likely that science and atheism do not mix.

I watched a YouTube video by Inspiring Philosophy recently ("Is Atheism a Delusion?"). You might find it interesting for the references he gives. I've even read the one by Barrett he mentioned. (He is some sort of Christian. I don't know what kind, but his points do not depend on Christianity.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o

[Red Terror]

Scholarly and saintly Hypatia of Alexandria Was Murdered by a Degenerate Clique of Christian Fundamentalists. How many people remember her contributions to science? Religion and science do not mix.

Dude, what are you taking about???? In those days there was no separation between church and state just as there was no separation between church and science. In other words, there was no separation between politics and religion.

[YesNo]

Dude, what are you taking about???? In those days there was no separation between church and state just as there was no separation between church and science. In other words, there was no separation between politics and religion.

Today, atheists think there is no separation between atheism and science. But there is.

It is your claim that science and religion do not mix that I am objecting to. My claim: Science and religion mix very well.

If you check the link that I provided you will see references to scientific evidence that theism is the biological default position for our species. On top of that default position the various religions and atheistic traditions formed through cultural activity.

I have noticed three overlapping problems with the various religions (including atheism) although many of these religions also enhance the default theistic position:

1) Imperialism: Claiming that followers of other religions go to hell because they have a different opinion is a form of imperialism. Also claiming that people who do not support atheism are suffering under some "viral meme" is imperialistic. They are both missionary positions to build a larger political group.

2) Dehumanization: Burning people at the stake is a form of dehumanization. Also atheistic justifications for genocide fall under this category.

3) Idolatry: This is another form of dehumanization where texts are made sacred. Those sacred texts are also mathematical texts atheists use to justify determinism. Essentially, taking what is subjective and reducing it to what is objective and then "worshiping" that object is what I mean by idolatry.

[Pompey Bum]

Scholarly and saintly Hypatia of Alexandria Was Murdered by a Degenerate Clique of Christian Fundamentalists. How many people remember her contributions to science? Religion and science do not mix.

Oh, dear. First of all "scholarly Hypatia" was a Neoplatonist philosopher whose mathematics and astronomy would have reflected as mystical and ultimately as monotheistic a perspective (giving primacy to a transcendent One) as any Christian theologian--some of whom deeply admired her. RT's source on Hypatia, the 2009 film Agora, apparently includes the ahistorical information that Hypatia was persecuted for advancing a claim of heliocentrism. This seems to be an attempt to create resonance with Galileo's case more than a thousand years later (oh, those rotten Christians just never give up on that one). But I have not seen Agora (nor even watched RT's video), and I really should give it a proper gander. Heh heh.

The suggestion that Hypatia was murdered by "a degenerate clique of Christian fundamentals" is also anachronistic. Hypatia was killed in the early 5th century. Christian fundamentalism (which is not the same thing as Biblical literalism) did not exist until the end of the 19th century. The term was not even coined until the 1920s. Oh wait, I know how much Red likes Wikipedia so here ya go:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chri...fundamentalism

Of course, degenerate people are never pleasant--especially the cliquey ones. But Hypatia was just not murdered by Focus on the Family. For what it's worth, though, I share your opinion that religion and science don't mix.

Note: executed by zealots similar to those who have a propensity for violence even today.

Not all followers of religion are zealots - prolly a HUGE minority based on current events; to further define the word 'zealot'... Google: "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals."

I have to respectfully disagree with your approach, tailor. Hypatia's assassins cannot be written off as mere zealots. Zealots they were, of course, and a dangerous mob, but they were also the means by which the Christian political elite got rid of this influential Neoplatonist thinker. And that was part of a wider, longer, deliberate, mainstream crackdown on other religions (including Hellenism and Neoplatonism) in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. I cite Oxford professor Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years:

"The Council of Constantinople...radically narrowed the boundaries of acceptable belief in the Church, creating a single Imperial Christianity backed up by military force. It was one half of a profound transformation in of Christian status in the empire in the 380s. The declaration of Constantine and Licinius at Milan back in 313 had proclaimed general toleration. That had been a reaffirmation of traditional Roman practice, with the one great exception of Christianity, which had leapt from persecuted to favoured religion. Now 'Catholic' Christianity was given monopoly status, not just against its own Christian rivals but against all traditional religion: ancient priesthoods lost all privileges and temples were ordered to be closed even in the most remote districts. The process began with a decree in Constantinople in 380, but politics intervened to accelerate the new situation. In 392 a barbarian general of the Roman army named Arbogast backed a coup d'etat against the legitimate Western emperor, Valentinian II, who was murdered and replaced with a modest and competent academic of traditionalist [that is Hellenic pagan] sympathies named Eugenius.

"Moves to restore honour and equal treatment to the old religion had not got very far when, in 394, Theodosius intervened from the East and destroyed the usurping regime. His conclusion, naturally enough, was that his policy, already launched in the East, should be extended throughout the empire. The Olympic Games were no longer celebrated after 393. Further decrees after his death banned non-Christians from service in the army, imperial administration or at court. This was backed up by ruthless action: some of the most beautiful and famous sacred places of antiquity went up in flames together with a host of lesser shrines. Monks were prominent agitators in the crowds which exulted in the destruction, and dire consequences are always likely to follow rampaging mobs. Perhaps the most repulsive case was the death in 415 of the Neoplatonist philosopher Hypatia, so well respected for her learning that she had overcome the normal prejudices of men to earn pre-eminence in the Alexandrian schools. Christian mobs were persuaded that she was instrumental in preventing the Prefect of Egypt from ending a quarrel with Bishop Cyril of Alexandria, so she was dragged from her carriage, publicly humiliated, tortured and murdered. The perpetrators went unpunished. It was a permanent stain on the episcopate of Cyril and few Christian historians have had the heart to excuse it. Nearly fifteen hundred years later, the breezy Anglican clerical novelist Charles Kingsley used Hypatia's story to annoy Roman Catholics, casting them in a none-too-veiled parallel in the role of the intolerant Alexandrian killers."

Thus the murder of Hypatia cannot be dismissed as the action of a few fanatics. By the start of the 5th century century, intolerance had become a matter of policy. Violent mobs--in this case drawn from the urban poor--simply became a handy weapon for bringing the policy to innocent victims like Hypatia. The perversion of Christianity was not incidental. It was institutional.

[tailor STATELY]

Hey PB: My leap is from a present view. I agree with your analysis on faith, will read more when I can, that in the time of Hypatia: Religion and science did not mix... but that times have changed.

MT: Ok, you agree with PB, cool. The original argument, at least to me, was all too general and is therefor false. "In those days there was no separation between church and state just as there was no separation between church and science. In other words, there was no separation between politics and religion." I have no problem with the analysis that in the past things were different. IMHO a more proper analysis for today would be religion and politics do not mix... which I would agree with whole heartedly. I disagree that for today that religion and science do not mix. Again the original argument is too general IMHO.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[Pompey Bum]

Oh, no. You were quite right that RT's logic was specious, and for exactly the reasons you said. In my view religion and science do not mix, but that has nothing to do with what RT thinks he knows about Hypatia. In fact, I imagine that if he really thought it through, RT would decide (as an atheist and a communist) that science must replace religion, and therefore they must interact polemically. I cannot read YN's posts anymore, but I know his philosophical paganism requires him to marry the two. My own belief is that religion makes lousy science and science makes lousy religion. Best to keep them apart for now. But again, I'd be very surprised if that's what RT meant. I'm pretty sure we only agree on paper.

[mona amon]

Oh, dear. First of all "scholarly Hypatia" was a Neoplatonist philosopher whose mathematics and astronomy would have reflected as mystical and ultimately as monotheistic a perspective (giving primacy to a transcendent One) as any Christian theologian--some of whom deeply admired her. RT's source on Hypatia, the 2009 film Agora, apparently includes the ahistorical information that Hypatia was persecuted for advancing a claim of heliocentrism. This seems to be an attempt to create resonance with Galileo's case more than a thousand years later (oh, those rotten Christians just never give up on that one). But I have not seen Agora (nor even watched RT's video), and I really should give it a proper gander. Heh heh.

The suggestion that Hypatia was murdered by "a degenerate clique of Christian fundamentals" is also anachronistic. Hypatia was killed in the early 5th century. Christian fundamentalism (which is not the same thing as Biblical literalism) did not exist until the end of the 19th century. The term was not even coined until the 1920s. Oh wait, I know how much Red likes Wikipedia so here ya go:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chri...fundamentalism

Of course, degenerate people are never pleasant--especially the cliquey ones. But Hypatia was just not murdered by Focus on the Family. For what it's worth, though, I share your opinion that religion and science don't mix.



I have to respectfully disagree with your approach, tailor. Hypatia's assassins cannot be written off as mere zealots. Zealots they were, of course, and a dangerous mob, but they were also the means by which the Christian political elite got rid of this influential Neoplatonist thinker. And that was part of a wider, longer, deliberate, mainstream crackdown on other religions (including Hellenism and Neoplatonism) in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. I cite Oxford professor Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years:

"The Council of Constantinople...radically narrowed the boundaries of acceptable belief in the Church, creating a single Imperial Christianity backed up by military force. It was one half of a profound transformation in of Christian status in the empire in the 380s. The declaration of Constantine and Licinius at Milan back in 313 had proclaimed general toleration. That had been a reaffirmation of traditional Roman practice, with the one great exception of Christianity, which had leapt from persecuted to favoured religion. Now 'Catholic' Christianity was given monopoly status, not just against its own Christian rivals but against all traditional religion: ancient priesthoods lost all privileges and temples were ordered to be closed even in the most remote districts. The process began with a decree on Constantinople in 380, but politics intervened to accelerate the new situation. In 392 a barbarian general of the Roman army named Arbogast backed a coup d'etat against the legitimate Western emperor, Valentinian II, was murdered and replaced with a modest and competent academic of traditionalist [that is Hellenic pagan] sympathies named Eugenius.

"Moves to restore honour and equal treatment to the old religion had not got very far when, in 394, Theodosius intervened from the East and destroyed the usurping regime. His conclusion, naturally enough, was that his policy, already launched in the East, should be extended throughout the empire. The Olympic Games were no longer celebrated after 393. Further decrees after his death banned non-Christians from service in the army, imperial administration or at court. This was backed up by ruthless action: some of the most beautiful and famous sacred places of antiquity went up in flames together with a host of lesser shrines. Monks were prominent agitators in the crowds which exulted in the destruction, and dire consequences are always likely to follow rampaging mobs. Perhaps the most repulsive case was the death in 415 of the Neoplatonist philosopher Hypatia, so well respected for her learning that she had overcome the normal prejudices of men to earn pre-eminence in the Alexandrian schools. Christian mobs were persuaded that she was instrumental in preventing the Prefect of Egypt from ending a quarrel with Bishop Cyril of Alexandria, so she was dragged from her carriage, publicly humiliated, tortured and murdered. The perpetrators went unpunished. It was a permanent stain on the episcopate of Cyril and few Christian historians have had the heart to excuse it. Nearly fifteen hundred years later, the breezy Anglican clerical novelist Charles Kingsley used Hypatia's story to annoy Roman Catholics, casting them in a none-too-veiled parallel in the role of the intolerant Alexandrian killers."

Thus the murder of Hypatia cannot be dismissed as the action of a few fanatics. By the start of the 5th century century, intolerance had become a matter of policy. Violent mobs--in this case drawn from the urban poor--simply became a handy weapon for bringing the policy to innocent victims like Hypatia. The perversion of Christianity was not incidental. It was institutional.

That was very informative, thanks Pompey. I'm glad history did not forget this terrible incident. Clearly the state and religion do not mix, nor religion and science, nor religion or anything else. Or the State and anything else, for that matter. Religion should be practiced by the individual, for spiritual purposes only. I wonder if RT will agree with this, or whether he only wants religion to be vanquished from the face of the world.

[Red Terror]

Oh, dear. First of all "scholarly Hypatia" was a Neoplatonist philosopher whose mathematics and astronomy would have reflected as mystical and ultimately as monotheistic a perspective (giving primacy to a transcendent One) as any Christian theologian--some of whom deeply admired her. RT's source on Hypatia, the 2009 film Agora, apparently includes the ahistorical information that Hypatia was persecuted for advancing a claim of heliocentrism. This seems to be an attempt to create resonance with Galileo's case more than a thousand years later (oh, those rotten Christians just never give up on that one). But I have not seen Agora (nor even watched RT's video), and I really should give it a proper gander. Heh heh.

The suggestion that Hypatia was murdered by "a degenerate clique of Christian fundamentals" is also anachronistic. Hypatia was killed in the early 5th century. Christian fundamentalism (which is not the same thing as Biblical literalism) did not exist until the end of the 19th century. The term was not even coined until the 1920s. Oh wait, I know how much Red likes Wikipedia so here ya go:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chri...fundamentalism

Of course, degenerate people are never pleasant--especially the cliquey ones. But Hypatia was just not murdered by Focus on the Family. For what it's worth, though, I share your opinion that religion and science don't mix.



I have to respectfully disagree with your approach, tailor. Hypatia's assassins cannot be written off as mere zealots. Zealots they were, of course, and a dangerous mob, but they were also the means by which the Christian political elite got rid of this influential Neoplatonist thinker. And that was part of a wider, longer, deliberate, mainstream crackdown on other religions (including Hellenism and Neoplatonism) in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. I cite Oxford professor Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years:

"The Council of Constantinople...radically narrowed the boundaries of acceptable belief in the Church, creating a single Imperial Christianity backed up by military force. It was one half of a profound transformation in of Christian status in the empire in the 380s. The declaration of Constantine and Licinius at Milan back in 313 had proclaimed general toleration. That had been a reaffirmation of traditional Roman practice, with the one great exception of Christianity, which had leapt from persecuted to favoured religion. Now 'Catholic' Christianity was given monopoly status, not just against its own Christian rivals but against all traditional religion: ancient priesthoods lost all privileges and temples were ordered to be closed even in the most remote districts. The process began with a decree on Constantinople in 380, but politics intervened to accelerate the new situation. In 392 a barbarian general of the Roman army named Arbogast backed a coup d'etat against the legitimate Western emperor, Valentinian II, was murdered and replaced with a modest and competent academic of traditionalist [that is Hellenic pagan] sympathies named Eugenius.

"Moves to restore honour and equal treatment to the old religion had not got very far when, in 394, Theodosius intervened from the East and destroyed the usurping regime. His conclusion, naturally enough, was that his policy, already launched in the East, should be extended throughout the empire. The Olympic Games were no longer celebrated after 393. Further decrees after his death banned non-Christians from service in the army, imperial administration or at court. This was backed up by ruthless action: some of the most beautiful and famous sacred places of antiquity went up in flames together with a host of lesser shrines. Monks were prominent agitators in the crowds which exulted in the destruction, and dire consequences are always likely to follow rampaging mobs. Perhaps the most repulsive case was the death in 415 of the Neoplatonist philosopher Hypatia, so well respected for her learning that she had overcome the normal prejudices of men to earn pre-eminence in the Alexandrian schools. Christian mobs were persuaded that she was instrumental in preventing the Prefect of Egypt from ending a quarrel with Bishop Cyril of Alexandria, so she was dragged from her carriage, publicly humiliated, tortured and murdered. The perpetrators went unpunished. It was a permanent stain on the episcopate of Cyril and few Christian historians have had the heart to excuse it. Nearly fifteen hundred years later, the breezy Anglican clerical novelist Charles Kingsley used Hypatia's story to annoy Roman Catholics, casting them in a none-too-veiled parallel in the role of the intolerant Alexandrian killers."

Thus the murder of Hypatia cannot be dismissed as the action of a few fanatics. By the start of the 5th century century, intolerance had become a matter of policy. Violent mobs--in this case drawn from the urban poor--simply became a handy weapon for bringing the policy to innocent victims like Hypatia. The perversion of Christianity was not incidental. It was institutional.

Bullocks!!!!! Calling everything by its rightful name is the beginning of wisdom. These degenerates were fundamentalists avant la lettre. Ditto for the degenerates who threatened
Galileo with the stake if he did not renounce his scientific discoveries. The people who persecuted Galileo cited:

1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5 (but see varied interpretations of Job 26:7). Heliocentrism, the theory that the Earth was a planet, which along with all the others revolved around the Sun, contradicted both geocentrism and the prevailing theological support of the theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

There you go, Pompey Bum. Sweet trolling though.

[Pompey Bum]

That was very informative, thanks Pompey. I'm glad history did not forget this terrible incident. Clearly the state and religion do not mix, nor religion and science, nor religion or anything else. Or the State and anything else, for that matter. Religion should be practiced by the individual, for spiritual purposes only. I wonder if RT will agree with this, or whether he only wants religion to be vanquished from the face of the world.

You're welcome, Mona. Somehow truth survives all the barbarity.

Heliocentrism, the theory that the Earth was a planet, which along with all the others revolved around the Sun, contradicted both geocentrism and the prevailing theological support of the theory.

Oh, I see. Galileo, you say? Mmmmm, yes, fascinating. Well, I'll just wait here then while you bring me the evidence that Hypatia advanced an argument for heliocentrism. No, no, do take your time.

You know the movie I liked? Doctor Dolittle. I don't know, I just always wanted to talk with animals.

Found anything yet?

[Red Terror]

You're welcome, Mona. Somehow truth survives all the barbarity.




Oh, I see. Galileo, you say? Mmmmm, yes, fascinating. Well, I'll just wait here then while you bring me the evidence that Hypatia advanced an argument for heliocentrism. No, no, do take yout time.

You know the movie I liked? Doctor Dolittle. I don't know, I just always wanted to talk with animals.

Found anything yet?

In Hypatia's case they called her a witch --- straight from the case of Samuel and the witch of Endor. It is pure misogyny. I'm sure they had the case of Eve in mind when they persecuted her. They were just envious and jealous fellows.

[Pompey Bum]

In Hypatia's case they called her a witch

Well, true enough, Red Terror, but since that happened in the 7th century it didn't affect her murder in 415, right?

Anything on heliocentrism yet?

[Red Terror]

Well, true enough, Red Terror, but since that happened in the 7th century it didn't affect her murder in 415, right?

Anything on heliocentrism yet?

Hypatia also investigates the heliocentric model of the solar system proposed by Aristarchus of Samos; by having an object dropped from the mast of a moving ship she demonstrates to Orestes that a possible motion of the Earth would not affect the motion, relative to Earth, of a falling object on Earth. However, due to religious objections against heliocentrism, the Christians have now forbidden Hypatia to teach at the school. The Christians and the Jews come into conflict, committing violent acts against each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora_(film)

[Red Terror]

She also worked with the concept of ellipse --- that the earth did not revolve around the sun in a perfect circle but in an elliptical revolution. That last scene where she is being suffocated by her former slave, the movie had her looking at the ellipse on the ceiling or a skylight ... whatever you want to call it.