I just heard about a movie that I’m very much looking forward to seeing: "Agora".
I was halfway through the trailer when I realized who Rachel Weisz was playing: Hypatia, one of the greatest women in all of history. It’s a story — a true one — of religious conflict in the Roman Empire as Christianity was becoming a major force, and the old multitheistic Egyptian religion was on its way out.
Hypatia was a scientist before there was modern scientist, a mathematician and great thinker who taught at the great Library of Alexandria. She was considered one of the greatest philosophers of her time, which then meant someone who studies the natural world. She was killed by a Christian mob during what was essentially an uprising. It’s one of history’s major tragedies.
I don’t know how historically accurate the movie will be — I am no expert in this field — but as a story it’s a good one, and features a very strong role model for young women. I hope it winds up playing somewhere near me.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Ah, you gotta love the Christian mobs. Now they know how to party!
September 7th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Um, thanks for the spoiler about the heroine being killed.
Glad you weren’t blogging when the Titanic trailer came out.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Is that the woman Carl Sagan tells the story of in his Cosmos series? That almost brought a tear to my eye. But I guess that’s just Sagan for ya.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Oh, it actually come through?! Who would have thought, historical themes popularity notwithstanding. This must be a good thing.
But all my initial angst about viewing this many-faceted tragedy came back when seeing that trailer. The pen might be mightier than the sword, but it also doesn’t hurt people as much.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Wow and directed by no less than Amenabar.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:41 am
That’s really interesting. I also would be interested in this.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:43 am
@Chris — Yeah, I do think that was the woman that Carl Sagan talked about in Cosmos.
I’ll have to check out this movie if it comes this way. Looks like it could be good!
September 7th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Rachel Weisz as Hypatia!!!
…I think I just jizzed my pants a little bit.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:49 am
I can’t wait to see how the Christians protest this movie. I wonder what arguments they will use. Maybe they’ll say that the people who sacked Alexandria and burned down the library weren’t Really Really Christians.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:51 am
The film is a “Holliwood” film, made with spanish money. Or in other words, a spanish film made in english language. Guy Hendrix Dyas (Indiana Jones IV) designed the sets. It was filmed in the same place where Gladiator was, in the island of Malta.
I love roman art and I have seen some mistakes in some sets (you can see photos in the official page), but the public will not notice that (the roman theatre for example, is not a real roman theatre). But the rest is impressive.
In Cannes it was said it was a bit slow, but anyway I want to see the film. The first film of Amenabar I saw was “Tesis”, years before “Abre los Ojos/Open your eyes”. And I knew then that he was going to be a great director.
Forgive my english.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:53 am
@Iason: No, they’ll just claim Hollywood is being anti-Christian, and that they’re a poor persecuted minority. There’s no need to address the historicity of the events when you can just whine about how nobody likes you.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Way do they use Lambda instead of A? It’s impossible to pronounce Lgorl.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Chris Lamb: “Is that the woman Carl Sagan tells the story of in his Cosmos series?”
Affirmative. Here’s an extract from the transcript of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos: A Personal Voyage:
September 7th, 2009 at 9:18 am
I can’t believe they made this movie.
I’ll tell you what, they better have done it properly. Damn those whose feelings may be hurt by historical truth.
I’ll be there opening day. I’d better leave angry, for the right reasons.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Here’s Carl himself telling the story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLlVnKOb4Mk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fec-2kIcyNc&feature=video_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iVguYDFyOI&feature=related
(tear trickling…)
September 7th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Don’t worry, in the final scene she’ll see the light and convert to Christianity, marry Archbishop Cyril (played in the movie by Mel Gibson) and live happily ever after!
Gotta love those Hollywood endings!
September 7th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Hypatia was a Neoplatonist philosopher. There’s no evidence to suggest she didn’t take on faith the accompanying ideas (supernatural aspects of the universe, like the afterlife, or a form of a creator, or a soul, and – even if she, like Plotinus dropped the idea of planets having supernatural influence on our lives – the idea that planets have souls) without any evidence being found for them, and instead strayed from or abandoned them.
So I guess she falls in the Ed Mitchell category – “Too bad she accomplished something commanding our respect, now we can’t slam her like any other woo-peddler ! Let’s ignore all the pseudoscience she probably was into and make her a role model for a few select parts. Like that dimwit Paracelsus – let’s just make him the father of medicine and not talk about how he loved alchemy, and sylphs and gnomes !”
September 7th, 2009 at 9:28 am
I would hope the filmmakers include in their story the important fact that the Christians of Alexandria, and the whole world even, were hardly a monolithic force united against paganism. What happened in Alexandria in the late 4th century had as much to do with local politics and rival factions (various sects of Christians, Jews, and pagans alike) than any sort of direct conflict between scholarly Platonists and the Church.
Not that a conflict wasn’t there and a clash probably inevitable, but it wasn’t a simple case of us vs. them.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Yay! Hypatia!
It seems like the more objectionable element in the movie for the religious right would be contrasting their faith with the pursuit of knowledge and asking questions.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Hollywood making a movie about a scientist that doesn’t plan to take over/destroy/enslave the world? WOW. Something I would want to see, even if I wasn’t the father of two well educated young girls.
IF the movie is accurate, I’m sure there would be some Christians protesting the violence. Perhaps the library wasn’t actually even built, it was just a hoax to frame the early christian Church.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:40 am
I am glad that they bring this sad part of history to everyones attention. Hypatia was the woman that Carl Sagan talks about in Cosmos, yes. Her brutal slaying and the destruction of the great library are symbols for the decline of the anthics and the start of the dark middle ages, the loss of knowledge and civilization.
Hypatia was by no means perfect though and she was involved in some risky politics. I hope that Hollyweird does get that right in the movie.
Also and I have to sadly say that despite that fact that I admire Rachel Weisz as an actress, Hypatia was (most likely) blond, as were so many Greeks at her time. Hollyweird just always likes to get that wrong. If the rest is alright and historically correct, I might look past that though.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:52 am
For those of you that are concerned about what hollywood might do to this story, relax, hollywood has nothing to do with this movie.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Leander, did you miss the part where this lady lived over 1500 years ago? The difference in knowledge and understanding between now and then is almost incomprehensible, and you have that as a nit to pick? Shesh, some people!
September 7th, 2009 at 10:20 am
@Phil,
“It’s a story — a true one — of religious conflict in the Roman Empire as Christianity was becoming a major force, and the old multitheistic Egyptian religion was on its way out.”
Egyptian religion?
I daresay you would have gotten an argument from the Romans about that.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:25 am
I’m also looking forward to this film. On the historicity, I hope everything will be more or less accurately portrayed. BUT… from the trailer: 1st century legionnaires on a 4th century setting? Damn! It’s not that difficult to get this details correctly. I can’t believe that after thoroughly study all sort of things to make a film on Hypatia, they can’t accurately portray something as easily documented as the Roman army. Unless, of course, that’s an intentional ahistoricity: the 1st century Roman legionnaire is the archetypal image we all have about a legionnaire.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:44 am
The Wikipedia entry makes her story seem not so cut and dry. Maybe it is just a poor source so I shall dig deeper.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Looks good, although as always Hollywood can only visualize Rome of the 1st century A.D., and is ignorant of the fact that it had undergone vast cultural changes between then and the early 5th century. So the Roman soldiers have uniforms of the 1st century, it looks like city government is envisioned along Late Republican lines, etc.
Also and I have to sadly say that despite that fact that I admire Rachel Weisz as an actress, Hypatia was (most likely) blond, as were so many Greeks at her time.
Most Greeks in antiquity were brunette.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Umm, Ray? You DO know where Alexandria is, right?
September 7th, 2009 at 10:57 am
First of all, I have been telling people this story for well over two decades. Usually to people who are telling me that “The Church” (fill in your preference) should run everything. Hey! There was such a time. Now we call it the dark ages. This was the beginning of all that.
Second, I agree with Larian LeQuella. People should be judged in the context of the time they lived in. After all, that old quack Newton believed in alchemy. Alfred Russel Wallace was a ghost chaser and studied phrenology.
I hope future generations will forgive us our peccadilloes, the ones that are so second nature to us that we can’t see them in the light of today!
September 7th, 2009 at 11:10 am
@Larian LeQuella
No, I didn’t. But taking things on faith without evidence for their existence is irrational, no matter when you live or what else you accomplanish.
And I don’t think it’s nit-picking to point out the fishiness of cherry-picking information about people to make them shine in a light that you like, and that supports your ideas. There’s no evidence to suggest or reason to believe that she wasn’t, like virtually every other Neoplatonist of her time, propagating ideas that from a modern scientific view would be considered deeply superstitious and pseudoscientific.
But how does Phil describe her ? As “a mathematician and great thinker”. No mention of her being an astronomer (which in those days meant almost certainly that you were subscribing to astrological ideas as well), or a Neoplatonist. It’s just like in school, where they tell you about Paracelsus, Hippocrates, Pythagoras, Plato etc., without ever mentioning large parts of their ideas that would be deemed superstitious today.
And such a selctive way of portrayal is “anti-knowledge”, and Phil is engaging in the same thing. And just because he does so in passing, doesn’t mean it’s less deplorable or that I’m nitpicking.
Hell, he even goes further and claims being a philosopher in those days meant “someone who studies the natural world” – that was just one part of what being a philosopher meant back then. Among others it also meant doing pretty much anythig philosophers do today, and pretty much what priests do today – explain the unseen parts of the universe. Which most philosophers back then believed in. Ah, the cherries.
Call me nit-picking all you like, but such selective and distorting writing is, again, “anti-knowledge” – and all the more baffling coming from someone who seems to love the word “anti-science” more than anything.
@Buffalodavid
Sure, people should be judged in historical context – but I’d like to do so based on information as complete as possible, not on some nuggets that make them look better than if you had the complete image.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Calling the Christians a mob suggests that their actions weren’t directed from above.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:15 am
@ Ray:
I daresay you would have gotten an argument from the Romans about that.
Actually, the Romans were quite fond of foreign cults. The Egyptian goddess Isis was very popular in Rome, as were countless mystery religions. Mithras, a very ancient god from Persia, was probably the most common god worshipped by those in the military.
It took centuries for Christianity to irradicate all its rivals, ultimately succeeding long after it had become the official state religion.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Has anyone noticed that in a multitheistic society women of ability can fulfill their potential and in the monotheistic Christianity societies they are blocked and even sabotaged?
September 7th, 2009 at 11:25 am
@Buffalodavid,
No the “Dark Ages” are not what is used to term when the Church ruled. For one that term was coined in the 14th century, second we know more about what happened because of modern archeology and so it is typically only used when referring to parts of European history that are still “Dark” because of lack of historical records which interestingly enough can actually be attributed to areas prior to heavy Christian influence and so few records being kept by the historians of the time under the the Church.
Regards,
Caleb
September 7th, 2009 at 11:27 am
@Leander
I see what your trying to do, and I appreciate it surely. But yea, you do have to judge in historical context and give credit where credit is due.
Like my mother always told me, “nobody is perfect”. Doesn’t mean everytime we say something good about someone we have to make a footnote of every imperfection a person ever had.
George Washington was a pretty amazing dude and I have serious doubts that the U.S. would have continued for any considerable length of time without his leadership and ability to think of the greater good. But the dude also owned slaves. Doesn’t mean we should shun him from our lists of great Presidents and spit upon his grave. We judge in historical context.
Now, if people tried to convience us that Hypatia was anything but the perfect scientist and atheist, you’d have a point. But I really don’t see that happening here.
@Molly
I’m not a super-scholar of ancient civilizations, but I have a feeling that most of the time women were probably repressed in multitheistic societies just as much. It’s just that we tend to remember the ones who did rise above the restraints. Christianity probably has an equal number of women who managed to beat the odds.
But maybe I’m wrong.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:31 am
This movie is currently 50%-50% at rotten tomatoes dot com. I’m reading the reviews now…
September 7th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Cool! I’m glad someone is taking notice of Hypatia’s story.
I hope the filmmakers don’t screw this up.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
@Leander
The greek-roman background Hypatia came from was prepared to replace believe with science, or at least not let religion stand in the way of science. I must admit I can’t remember which greek philosopher figured out the Earth was round and tried to make an estimate but it is a stark contrast with the Christians who, many centuries later, defend their religion against scientific insight like a round Earth that was not the center of the universe.
Hypatia, in her time, had the correct, scientific attitude. The Christians were on the wrong path. It took Europe a very long time to shed the darkness. With the likes of Hypatia, we would have been a lot further.
Hypatia, or who would have come after here, would have figured out, among other things astronomy was non-sense and done away with their gods.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Weird, Agora means Now in portuguese.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
@McCorvic
@Erwin Blonk
I largely agree with both of you on what you wrote, but I feel like you might be missing my point. I’m neither trying to deny Hypatia her credit, nor equate her culture and its views and methods with those of the Christians. I have great sympathy for people like Hypatia – but for the characters as a whole, with all their contradictions and “darker sides”.
That’s what I was taking issue with – Phil described her in a way that makes her very attractive intellectually to any scientifically-minded modern-day person, and he drops all the labels that might make her appear backwards from our perspective. Willingly or not, this is a cultural bias that I find troubling. It wouldn’t even have been so hard to give a well-rounded description of her. All he would have needed to do was drop the stumpingly limited definition of ancient philosophy, and instead add “Neoplatonist” and “astronomer” to “mathematician and great thinker”. That’s the complete image I prefer over one adapted to the likes and dislikes of our historical and cultural context.
I just happen to be wary of mentioned cultural bias, especially in matters of history, and I find it every bit as dangerous as pseudoscience. Though it’s just a detail in a minor post, I don’t see why – on a blog where, no offense, people spend hours mouthing off about the harmless antics of ufologists – a much less harmless detail like this shouldn’t get a little space.
On a sidenote, and concerning historical context – the bible comes from cultures and eras that littered it with stories of rape, violence, incest, war and genocide, yet it contains (even in the Old Testament) amongst these things ethical ideas that are on par with those of our day and age. Seen in historical context, that’s quite an accomplishment, yet I wonder (maybe unrightfully so) how many people on here would champion the bible with the same passion with which Phil champions Hypatia.
September 7th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Erwin Blonk: “I must admit I can’t remember which greek philosopher figured out the Earth was round and tried to make an estimate but it is a stark contrast with the Christians who, many centuries later, defend their religion against scientific insight like a round Earth that was not the center of the universe.”
Eratosthenes was the mathematician who figured this out. He was also- to fit the topic- the librarian of the great library of Alexandria at some point.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
now we can’t slam her like any other woo-peddler
Well, there’s the whole thing about living 1500 years ago, too.
You need to be a tad forgiving of folks before the Enlightenment.
Weren’t the early Christians called atheists because they rejected the pagan deities?
September 7th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Eratosthenes was the mathematician who figured this out.
Eratosthenes made the first good estimate of the size (within 10%?), but Pythagoras settled on the sphere shape a couple centuries earlier. I think Plato was a “sphereist” as well.
Me, I still favor the whole giant turtle thing.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Thanks Christianity!
September 7th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
@ Leander:
Seen in historical context, that’s quite an accomplishment, yet I wonder (maybe unrightfully so) how many people on here would champion the bible with the same passion with which Phil champions Hypatia.
I think you’d find most people who read Dr. BA’s blog (including, ahem, those of us who “spend hours mouthing off” at UFO nutters) perfectly open to recognizing the better aspects of biblical morality. Where most would (and do) take umbrage, is when those aspects are mistaken for literal gifts and/or mandates from God, as opposed to useful and good human invention.
BTW, I think your comments on the complexities of Hypatia’s character are right on. In that same vein, however, I think you can make a case that the Greek philosophers, particularly of Alexandria, were more adept at viewing their “philosophy” with the eyes of nascent objectivity, certainly moreso than the average Christian of the same age as Hypatia. The Greeks had their chimeras, but they were quicker to recognize them as metaphors for something they didn’t quite understand just yet.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
@kuhnigget
“I think you’d find most people who read Dr. BA’s blog (including, ahem, those of us who “spend hours mouthing off” at UFO nutters) perfectly open to recognizing the better aspects of biblical morality.”
I wouldn’t be surprised. But I’d be surprised if anybody on here (including myself) would actively “advertise” the bible as a book, by pointing out those better aspects of morality. But that’s exactly what Phil does, “advertising” Hypatia by pointing out her (from our perspective) better aspects and dropping the “less fortunate” ones.
Not being indoctrinated by Christianity, we can look at the bible as a whole, a stunningly complex (from historical, ethical and anthropological perspectives) collection of writings – but we wouldn’t select the parts we agree with and then sell the whole book (let alone Christianity) by advertising these. Granted, Phil didn’t intend to write a biographical sketch of Hypatia, but still, I would have liked a more complete description of who she was, and less advertising based on some select labels. And why would she need that filtered description ? Neoplatonist, astrologer, I personally don’t take issue with these things, it’s the whole spectrum of human personality and its contradictions that I find fascinating – and the limiting description of such a complex character that I dislike.
But I agree with you, the Greek philosophers had a lot less fanaticism and a lot more healthy curiosity than their Christian contemporaries. It’s what I love about them – they love their gods, yet are ready to question them.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
@Ray Not to worry, that was just Phil being his usual rather under-educated self. No shades of grey when there are cheap shots to be made. Any death like hers from violence is a tragedy, but it could just as easily have been the other way around (and of course, often was). Both “sides” belonged to a society that we here would mostly be aghast at today (as Sagan was well aware). For a much more educated and nuanced view of Hypatia’s time, read Leander above.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I heard a discussion about this film on Woman’s Hour on Radio 4 earlier this year. It’s still on line, about 11 minutes long. I think it’s available outside the UK.:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/01/2009_20_thu.shtml
Note: although this was broadcast midmorning, Radio 4 doesn’t have a watershed. I think I’d rate this as a PG.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
There are a few reviews at Rotten Tomatoes if anyone is interested.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
@coolstar
“(as Sagan was well aware)”
Good point about Sagan there. I think he’d be similarly aghast at the one-dimensionality of the contemporary skeptical movement.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
@Molly
See Greece.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I’m afraid we’re getting into George-Washington-and-the-cherry-tree territory here. Back in the 1970s, I researched the subject of Hypatia as thoroughly as it is possible to do without actually knowing Greek; I’ve read all the known primary sources in translation; where I couldn’t find a translation, I commissioned one. (I was in love with an actress, and wanted to write a tragedy, despite a crippling lack of talent. The funny part is that these days I’m married to a playwright.)
While there is no doubt that Hypatia was a remarkable woman, we actually know almost nothing about her actual work. She may have been a mathematician, physicist, etc., she may have been like the 18-19th century women who were famous as hostesses for intellectual salons, or she may have been pretty much anywhere on the line between. The evidence doesn’t tell us.
She had at least one Christian friend, Synesius of Cyrene, Bishop of Ptolemais. I see him listed as a character in the film.
As to the library of Alexandria, it seems to have been destroyed several times over a period of some seven hundred years by everyone from Julius Caesar to Amr ibn al ‘Aas. Whether one of those destructions was in Hypatia’s lifetime is uncertain; no contemporary source actually says so, although the pagan temple that the library was attached to is known to have been destroyed by (Christian) imperial policy.
In a way, Hypatia had her revenge. Her memory seems to have survived in the figure of St. Catherine!
I’m not sure how much of a schrei the fundies will actually produce over the movie. There is an existing Protestant tradition of using Hypatia as a stick to beat the dreaded Cath’lics with (e.g., Kingsley’s novel), although, logically speaking, they should be pointing their fingers at the Egyptian (Coptic) Church, who are the heirs of Archbishop Cyril.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Maybe the early Christians copt a plea….
September 7th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
[...] Plait posted this trailer over at Bad Astronomy. You need to watch [...]
September 7th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
@Leander
Your concern is noted.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
The Straight Dope has an article on the burning(s) of the Library of Alexandria.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
@Leander
So your
nit pickingcriticism of Phil is that in a 170 word blurb for a movie he hasn’t written a detailed treatise on the scientific, historical, philosophical and religious underpinnings of western thought and its relationship to Hypatia based on the lack of a deep and complex biographical account of her life, beliefs, studies and ultimate tragic demise?BTW, I reckon Phil saying that Hypatia was a philosopher who studied the natural world is because modern philosophy, as it commonly understood, doesn’t involve studying the natural world. Most people think philosophy is esoteric navel gazing. The natural philosophers of the past got “their hands dirty”.
Yep, needless nit picking.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
@shane
“Most people think philosophy is esoteric navel gazing.”
Haha, I’d really like to see some data on that claim. Besides, no matter what reasons Phil had, his definition of ancient philosophy is limited and incomplete, period. Also note how he didn’t say “back then being a philosopher also meant”…
Besides that, I explained in my previous comments on this post why I think it’s justified to criticize a detail like this, and how Phil wouldn’t have needed to write a “detailed treatise on the scientific, historical, philosophical and religious underpinnings of western thought and its relationship to Hypatia based on the lack of a deep and complex biographical account of her life, beliefs, studies and ultimate tragic demise”, but instead only make some *minor* changes to his original posts. If you want to ignore this, go ahead, but don’t expect people to give you compliments for your intelligence or observational skills.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
@Leander
I still say needless nit picking. It is a bit like saying that Hypatia was a mathematician and then you wanting a complete explanation that mathematicians then had an incomplete understanding of zero so she wasn’t a mathematician as we understand it because she couldn’t do calculus. Or, we could just say she was a mathematician.
Ask any Joe Bloggs in the street what is a philosopher. Apart from blank stares you may get a “Plato was a philosopher” or something.
BTW, they’re certainly lining up to smack you down over at Pharyngula. Ouch.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
@ 26. calebthechemis
“The Wikipedia entry makes her story seem not so cut and dry. Maybe it is just a poor source so I shall dig deeper.”
Excuse me, but Maybe?! The whole wikipedia anybody-can-edit deal means that any nutjob with an internet connection can edit any entry. Given the contentious exchange between Leander and others, what do you think can happen on wikipedia? Not a scholarly source folks.
@ Leander
Consider that Hypatia did not have the opportunity to live out her life and possibly make the breakthroughs that would have overturned the out-moded beliefs you speculate she likely had? As John W. Kennedy claims, we know almost nothing about her work. Why is that? Oops! Religious fanatics burned it all (if not Christian in the 5th century then the Moslem version a while later). In the first century after Emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion Christians throughout the empire embarked on a book burning spree. Even if we lack evidence of Christians burning the library at Alexandria, we do have evidence they burned loads of books all over the empire. They also looted pagans’ property, which Constantine had to order them to give back. (Naughty, naughty). This is not intended to address your post, others have done that. I thought a broader context would prove helpful.
@ Erwin Blonk Says:
“I must admit I can’t remember which greek philosopher figured out the Earth was round …”
Others answered this already, but I would like to add a little something about Eratosthenes:
Eratosthenes figured out the circumference of the Earth to within about 100 miles of 20th century measurements. He did so by correlating the length of a shadow of an obelisk in Alexandria on the day the sun could be seen in the bottom of a well in a village in southern Egypt with the distance between Alexandria and that village. Great stuff you can do with a little geometry.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
@shane
I’ll just agree to disagree with you on the nit-picking thing, reminding you of the fact that this doesn’t really seem to be such a problem for other people on here as it is for you.
Ask any Joe Bloggs in the street whether the government is suppressing truth about UFOs. Wow, great source for “data”. Fact remains, two more words, and instead of culturally biased and incomplete, Phil’s “job description” of Hypatia would have been accurate. Not much effort, not much reason to not include it.
@Steven Dunlap
“As John W. Kennedy claims, we know almost nothing about her work. ”
Common sense suggests, especially in absence of further information, that she, like her contemporaries, in many ways was entertaining ideas we’d consider irrational and superstitious. Considering that, there’s no reason to assume she was exclusively a rational thinker and mathematician as we understand it today, and as Phil suggests it.
Broader context or not, I’m unclear on what the Christians have to do with this to the extent you mention them – no matter how much book-burning they did, it’s still no justification of selectively presenting historical figures.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
@Leander
Joe Bloggs is generally used to provide an example of what is commonly understood, or misunderstood for that matter. We’re not looking for knowledge from Joe. Hence Phils definition of philosopher is provided as a counterpoint to what Joe Bloggs may perceive a philosopher to be. Phil isn’t writing a scholarly article aimed at academics it is a blurb for a movie.
If I say what a pretty flower and you say no it isn’t just a flower it is actually a daisy and more correctly bellis perennis then you’re nit picking.
Pretentious nit picking picks at my nit. As to whether it is a problem or not for others? Meh. Having said that though, IVAN3MAN, please keep up the good work. I find I3M’s zealous pedantry totally diverting and fun.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
>Um, thanks for the spoiler about the heroine being killed.
It’s common knowledge. Don’t see “Alexander” or “300″ – you won’t like the endings.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
@shane
“Joe Bloggs is generally used to provide an example of what is commonly understood, or misunderstood for that matter.”
All the more reason to give a full description of what it meant to be an ancient philosopher, wouldn’t you think ? Otherwise, blah. Blah blah blah. Blah.
No disrespect, but I’m really too tired to repeat things I’ve already posted. You’ll find all the reply to what you had to write in my previous posts.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
@ John W. Kennedy:
As to the library of Alexandria, it seems to have been destroyed several times over a period of some seven hundred years by everyone from Julius Caesar to Amr ibn al ‘Aas.
Indeed. And we have to be careful about our usage of the very word, library. Most likely, the “library” of Alexandria was a collection of books (scrolls, papyrii, et al) spread out over many different locations, the temple annex you mention, for one. That these structures were destroyed at various times by various people over the centuries is a historic fact. The exact nature of those destructions is rather more fuzzy and informed more by legend than actual evidence.
@ Shane:
Ask any Joe Bloggs in the street what is a philosopher. Apart from blank stares you may get a “Plato was a philosopher” or something.
Don’t all philosophers have names that start with the letter, N?
Sorry, my weekly Python reference.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
@KC
Or The Passion Of The Christ.
Best spoiler ever though… Mayor Quimby giving away the twist in the Crying Game.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
@Leander
No wonder you’re tired. You’ve just got a personalised berating from PZ a little while ago. “Pugnacious Twit”? Believe it or not I’m impressed.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
@shane
Yeah, that taught me…that I feel much better over here. Seriously, “believe it or not”. Things are so much more civilized, despite how heated I have seen things get here. Well, I don’t mind being called a pugnacious twit by a guy like him though. It means I must have scratched him some way.
Of course, like I mentioned over there, he already included his way out of the conversation the second he picked it up. Poor fella. I really don’t know whether to laugh about or pity him.
But that really had sth.to do with the “blah” and my lack of energy. Again, no disrespect
September 7th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
“Well, I don’t mind being called a pugnacious twit by a guy like him though. It means I must have scratched him some way.”
When you care more about who you wound than the merit of your arguments, you’re not saying great things about yourself and you’re not providing a testament to your knowledge. In fact, based on what I saw on Pharyngula, you’re using the ridiculous canard that one can’t critique a religious stance on a scientific fact without having read and “understood” religious dogmas to your liking. Clearly you missed the point.
“Poor fella. I really don’t know whether to laugh about or pity him.”
Yes, PZ is a poor fella for being pestered by someone who tries to expound on topics he knows little to nothing about and indulges in an ego-stroking afterwards. Don’t pity people who are more knowledgeable than you. It only makes you look petty.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
@ 60. kuhnigget Says:
“The exact nature of those destructions is rather more fuzzy and informed more by legend than actual evidence.”
Not really. We do have indirect evidence. Historians have some sources that make reference to the existence of works, that they once were housed in the library at Alexandria, and we know we do not have any copies. Of the great Greek playwrights, just as one off-hand example, we know that Sophocles wrote about 120 plays (forget the exact #, it’s late) but we only have what, 7 that survived? All the other great Greeks: Euripides, Aeschylus, et al, we have much the same story. And the plays of Sophocles that survived are not even his best work. Carl Sagan wrote “It is a little as if the only surviving works of a man named William Shakespeare were Coriolanus and A Winter’s Tale, but we had heard that he had written certain other plays, unknown to us but apparently prized in his time, works entitled Hamlet, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, King Lear, Romeo and Juliet.”
September 7th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
@ 56. Leander Says:
“Common sense suggests, especially in absence of further information, …
Broader context or not, I’m unclear on what the Christians have to do with this to the extent you mention them – no matter how much book-burning they did, it’s still no justification of selectively presenting historical figures.”
This pretty much misses the point. Perhaps I failed to articulate it very well. I, too, wish we had more than a guess based on supposition and that we had actual evidence, but, well, religious fanatics burned it. Supposition is all they left us.
Instead of drowning in the minutia of whose supposition (yours of Phil Plait’s) is better, I suggest contemplating the incalculable loss. That’s really the bigger point, of the movie and IMHO of the post in question.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I suppose the lesson in all this is don’t put all your eggs in one basket. That and next time invent the printing press a thousand years earlier.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
@ Leander
I get the impression that you’re the kind of person who just likes to hear himself talk, and doesn’t quite deep down believe in the things he preaches. No offense, lots of people are this way and manage to lead any regular sort of life.
“And why would she need that filtered description ? Neoplatonist, astrologer, I personally don’t take issue with these things, it’s the whole spectrum of human personality and its contradictions that I find fascinating – and the limiting description of such a complex character that I dislike.”
Yes, you really sold your side there by replacing one simplistic label for another. The truth is, it’s Phil’s site and he’s going to post whatever the heck he wants, however abbreviated, and to criticize his style (however poignant you may think yourself to be at criticism, ahem) is moot. You’re getting pumped up over *writing on the internet*, bro.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
@ Steven Dunlap:
I was referring to the destructions of the actual buildings, not the collected works within. As you stated, there are many references to what was lost. Where it was lost and when are another matter.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
I reckon we have modern parallels too… the “lost” Dr Who and Apollo 11 tapes.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
.@12 Robert Madewell Says:
Way do they use Lambda instead of A? It’s impossible to pronounce Lgorl.
That is Hollywood for you. They used it because it looked like it was ancient and carved in stone. They habitually do the same thing with a mock-cyrillic for movies with Russians in them. The resulting words are even harder to say when you try to say the backwards Rs and Ns as the real Russian sounds YA and E.
Then again they soom to think all Roman soldiers wear the segmented armor and gallic model helmets. Maybe it was “Life of Brian” surplus.
At least they did not use “O Fortuna” from Carmina Burana for the trailer music.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:06 am
@ Dave H & Robert Madewell:
Way do they use Lambda instead of A? It’s impossible to pronounce Lgorl.
Ha! I didn’t even notice that. Reminds me of the..erm…adult film I once saw…uhh…at a friend’s house…with the title “Greek Holiday.” The “double-E” in Greek was replaced with a double-sigma, presumably because it looked all Greeky, more so than a couple of epsilons…which look boringly like E’s.
Dum ol’ Hollywood types.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Wow, Leander.
You really are amazingly, stupendously, incredibly dishonest. Or stupid. Take your pick.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:02 am
@ Leander
“All the more reason to give a full description of what it meant to be an ancient philosopher, wouldn’t you think ? Otherwise, blah. Blah blah blah. Blah.”
When you just said that only two words were necessary. Make up your mind or leave.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:04 am
Rachel Weisz playing a librarian? I can’t wait for The Mummy to show up!
September 8th, 2009 at 3:39 am
Year 391, Islam?!
September 8th, 2009 at 5:36 am
@Greg Fish
“When you care more about who you wound than the merit of your arguments, you’re not saying great things about yourself and you’re not providing a testament to your knowledge.”
Out of that little comment of mine you are able to divine or conclude that I care more about wounding someone than the merit of my arguments ? Huh, stunning. Anyway, as they like to say at Pharyngula…your concern is noted
“In fact, based on what I saw on Pharyngula, you’re using the ridiculous canard that one can’t critique a religious stance on a scientific fact without having read and “understood” religious dogmas to your liking. Clearly you missed the point.”
I don’t really like to drag this over here. In short, I was just trying (and maybe failing) to show that critique of a religious stance without knowing this religion’s primary sources and having them mulled over from various directions (I gave examples at Pharyngula, and my liking doesn’t enter into it anywhere, it’s standard ways of looking at religion – you’re putting words into my mouth, that’s neither cool nor appreciated) is very limited and makes whoever does it look very uninformed. It’s after all quite easy to take cheap shots at the dumb and informed parts of a group than at the more intelligent members, but it’s not very academic or intelligent.
Anyway, good PZ has you looking out for him, even over here. That poor chap of course never would indulge in ego-stroking. And yeah, I’m pretty sure PZ is much more knowledgeable than me in his pet areas, but I’d take the challenge any day outside of the topics on which he has learned his stance by heart for decades.
@Steven Dunlap
“Instead of drowning in the minutia of whose supposition (yours of Phil Plait’s) is better, I suggest contemplating the incalculable loss.”
That she was an astronomer and Neoplatonist is no supposition at all, just as her being a mathematician and a thinker/philosopher isn’t. And that is the whole point of my comments here – incalculable loss of that kind is a very sad thing, that’s why have such a problem with Phil presenting only half of what we can say with relative certainty today. I suggest contemplating that in context of my previous comments.
@Damon
“I get the impression that you’re the kind of person who just likes to hear himself talk, and doesn’t quite deep down believe in the things he preaches.”
You’re almost right about the first part. But it’s not vanity – it’s just that it is a lot of fun for me to think about things, to formulate these thoughts, to formulate them in a language that’s not my first language (keeps me in shape with that language), and to try and formulate them in ways that make people understand these thoughts. You could say I really like to talk, but for these reasons. If at all, vanity enters into that only in small, very average amounts. No matter which way, you’re right there’s nothing wrong with that. Most of us have quite some qualities and some really annoying sides side by side within us. See where I’m going ? The complexity of that is what’s fun and important, not cherry-picking and in the process misrepresenting characters to make them appear more likeable.
On the second part, you’re spot-on – I don’t believe in anything I say. I might be convinced beyond reasonable doubt of its validity at the moment I state it, but unlike a believer I’m always aware that I might be wrong, and ready to change my opinion.
“Yes, you really sold your side there by replacing one simplistic label for another.”
What label was replaced ? I’m not sure I know what you mean.
“The truth is, it’s Phil’s site and he’s going to post whatever the heck he wants, however abbreviated, and to criticize his style (however poignant you may think yourself to be at criticism, ahem) is moot. You’re getting pumped up over *writing on the internet*, bro.”
The truth is that on Phil’s site he included a comment function, and I’m gonna use it for whatever the heck I want. And since it’s Phil’s site, I’m pretty sure he can moderate comments on his own if he sees fit. But don’t worry, I’m also pretty sure he’s happy to have you help him pointing out that he can do whatever he wants. You’re getting pumped up over *someone commenting on the internet on someone writing on the internet*, bro.
@EmaNymton
Are you trying to turn this very much civilized thread into a Pharyngula-quality morass ?
September 8th, 2009 at 5:46 am
Erwin Blonk, #38:
I assume that, in your last sentence, you meant to say, “astrology was nonsense”!!!!!!
#41 and 43: #43 is correct. Eratosthenes was the first to measure the size of the Earth, and he did so with remarkable accuracy, by the method described in #60. but he was certainly not the first to realise that it was spherical. Pythagoras and others realised that a couple of centuries earlier, by the rather simple method of observing the shape of its shadow during a lunar eclipse.
September 8th, 2009 at 6:34 am
Oh, Rachel Weisz, not Raquel Welch, how disappointing
September 8th, 2009 at 7:23 am
A lot of atrocities have been done in the name of Christianity because certain individuals used it as an excuse to justify the crimes they wanted to perpertrate and to sucker the populace into doing their dirty work.
Remember how low literacy levels were so nobody could check things out for themselves. Later on in history as people were translating the Bible into the mother tongues of people around, the Roman Catholic church, at that time more so, was actually a political institution with a veneer of religion, banned on pain of death the reading or posessing of copies of the bible by non ordained individuals.
Remember William Tyndale who was executed for translating the Bible into English.
The Roman Catholic church, and to some extent the Protestant church of England wanted to exact control on the populace by denying them the Bible to read on their own. Why, because some of the things the priests were telling them to do were not supported by the Bible. True Christianity condemns a lot of things done in it’s name.
In the New Testament there is no instruction to kill anyone, however if the people do not have access to the scriptures so they can study them as a double check, like the Bereans did in Acts 17:11 with the Apostle Paul, any orator skilled in being authoratitive could manipulate them into carrying out a number of atrocites, exactly the way test subjects in the 1960′s gave what they thought were lethal electric shocks in the Milgram experiments.
September 8th, 2009 at 7:32 am
“I don’t know how historically accurate the movie will be”
Take a look at this.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/05/agora-and-hypatia-hollywood-strikes.html
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/05/general-addenda.html
September 8th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Sticks,
Since we are to take the ENTIRE Bible as the literal Word of God, your implied rejection of the Old Testament would be regarded as heresy. Remember, that’s the part of the Bible that tells exactly how God created the 6,000 year old world.
Christians would have happily burned you alive for your viewpoint..and not that long ago, either.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:14 am
@Daffy
In Christian teaching we are taught that we are under a new covenant, (See Hebrews 8). It is not that the OT is being rejected, but that it was superceded by the New Covernant.
It is analagous to America before and after the Revolutionary war of independence. Before they were governed by British Law, after they were under American Law.
As Christians we are governed by the New Covernent or New Testament, although the Old Testament gives a lot of background. In the New Testament, there are no commands to kill anyone. Therefore thos who killed Hypatia were not following the scriptures, infact they were acting contrary to scripture. To say Hypatia was killed by a “Christian mob” seemed to imply that all Christians today were also guilty of her murder.
As pointed out, it was one individual for political means who manipulate a crowd to have this woman murdered. This abuse of religious power was also alluded to in the New Testament, in fact Jesus spoke out against it on many a time.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Sticks,
I was brought up as a Christian…and, while there is disagreement (understatement of the year) between denominations, for the most part BOTH books are regarded as the infallible Word of God. If the NT allows one to cherry pick the OT, then, surely, all this nonsense about YEC should go away.
Btw, your comment is not really true, anyway. Jesus’s own words in Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
God sends angels to torture people in Revelation 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
So it ain’t just the OT.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:30 am
The amassed collection of knowledge lost with the Library of Alexandria is unimaginable and irreplaceable. It imparted harm and a setback to the advancement of civilization, to be certain. Carl Sagan in ‘Cosmos,’ episode one, ‘The Shores of the Cosmos,’ spoke of Hypatia as “the last light of the library whose martyrdom is bound up with the destruction of this place, seven centuries after it was founded.” If you have the series on DVD, he starts talking about the Library of Alexandria approximately 38 minutes into the program. Hypatia a few more minutes into his discussion. BTW, If you have a Netflix membership, Cosmos (complete series, 13 episodes of one hour each) is _currently_ available for streaming.
Phil’s mention of ‘Agora’ was good enough for me to want to see it, but the great Carl Sagan thinking it worthy of mention it in the wonderful and virtually timeless ‘Cosmos’ series makes it a done deal. Consider it placed in my Netflix saved DVDs queue, if I don’t catch it at the theater first.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:30 am
I thought the term was “polytheistic” or “polytheism”, not “multitheistic”.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:43 am
@ Sticks:
In the New Testament there is no instruction to kill anyone…
Luke 19:27: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
BTW, in that same passage from Luke, Jesus commands his disciples to go into a nearby village and steal a horse so he can ride into Jerusalem upon its back.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Leander:
What IS your native tongue?
GAry 7
September 8th, 2009 at 8:48 am
For being such a great thinker, she sure didn’t think very good about moving some of the most priceless books on the planet somewhere safe whilst the Christians were burning and looting. It was a priceless loss regardless of who was responsible. (Really? We still care who’s responsible? Does it matter?)
Love all the sniping and out of context bible verse murdering going on. Mathew 10 is about loving Jesus and putting him above all else. Go ahead and post the entire context while you’re at it Daffy:
29Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. 30But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
40He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. 41He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.
42And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.
Out of context bible arguing FTW! FYI – Christians are sinners, hypocrites, liars, etc – just like everyone else. Anyone who says otherwise, is…heh – lying. Accepting Christ is about love and forgiveness, everything else is man-made and centered.
Thanks for the heads up Phil – this movie looks great! Love your stuff!
September 8th, 2009 at 8:56 am
@Ricardo
Thanks for posting these links, good stuff.
@GaryAnsorge
With all due respect, I don’t see how that is relevant to this thread …
September 8th, 2009 at 9:10 am
“Accepting Christ is about love and forgiveness, everything else is man-made and centered.”
Tell that to the millions dead schmucks who were murdered in His holy name.
That said, I don’t think Christianity is any worse than the other major religions, it just isn’t any better. People kill people over religion (except, for the most part, Buddhism), and that is repugnant.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:17 am
@ Ricardo:
A quote from Tim O’Neill, in the blog you linked to, perfectly sums up the facts of the Hypatia murder:
Hypatia was murdered by the followers of one Christian leader for supporting a rival Christian leader. It was a political murder that had nothing to do with religion and less to do with science.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:54 am
All those who bash Christians for burning ancient texts should be aware that during the Middle Ages Christian monks preserved many documents (in some cases the last copies) in remote monasteries. See the book by historian Thomas Cahill, How the Irish Saved Civilization, for the whole story. History isn’t as simple as our pet animosities like to assume.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Certainly belies the odd conceit that if we all became Christians, violence would stop.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:55 am
“Hypatia was murdered by the followers of one Christian leader for supporting a rival Christian leader. It was a political murder that had nothing to do with religion and less to do with science.”
Nothing to do with religion? Since when does violence inspired by sectarian religious conflict have nothing to do with religion? In this context, politics and religion are not separable.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:59 am
“FYI – Christians are sinners, hypocrites, liars, etc – just like everyone else. Anyone who says otherwise, is…heh – lying. Accepting Christ is about love and forgiveness, everything else is man-made and centered.”
Until such time that god chooses to demonstrate irrefutable evidence for independent action upon the physical world, for all practical purposes, Christianity IS the actions of Christians. For good or for ill, nothing more and nothing less.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:04 am
98. Gary – there is definite recognition of the work that various monasteries did to preserve all kinds of knowledge during the Dark & Middle Ages. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church, as a whole, tended to surpress knowledge and advancement – anything they felt that might jepardize their control of the population.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:09 am
@kuhnigget
That passage in Luke is from a parable, Jesus was not advocating violence.
When Jesus was arrested and Peter attacked a servant of the priests with a sword he ordered him to stop and healed the servant that Peter had attacked.
@Daffy, it is not a matter of cherry picking, there are rules in the OT that do not apply to us, because they were part of the old law that was superseded.
As for quotes from the book of Revelation, that book is written in symbolic language that was understandable to the Jewish mind, so it is bound to look strange to us today. It is also suggested that Revelation was a prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE. The very first verse states that the events were soon to take place, and therefore, going by the Greek used, must be events in the past.
But I digress
Looking through that blog shows a very different story to the one presented by CS. It seems that the film Phil is promoting here is a total travesty of the truth.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:13 am
@amphiox,
I think about it more in this light. Take Cambodia as an example. Part of Pol Pot’s goal was to eliminate religion(I say this not to dog on Atheism but rather to use a parallel example). If he for instance had a rival leader that was of the same philosophy but disagreed with Pol Pot and had Pol Pot killed we wouldn’t say that the assassination was mostly based in his atheism but more so in his political motivations because it is dealing with leadership within a movement attempting to gain power. It is not that religion played no roll but what the historian is saying is that it has more to do with politics.
Regards,
Caleb
September 8th, 2009 at 10:16 am
“A lot of atrocities have been done in the name of Christianity because certain individuals used it as an excuse to justify the crimes they wanted to perpetrate and to sucker the populace into doing their dirty work.”
And therein lies the rub. The religion is particularly good at motivating lots of people to do things that they normally may not have been willing to do. It may indeed be the best of such motivators humans have yet developed, if the historical record is anything to go by. Therefore it is perfectly fair to ask, in the absence of the religion, would as much of the populace have been “suckered” into doing said “dirty work”, and would as much damage have been done.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:35 am
@ Sticks:
That passage in Luke is from a parable, Jesus was not advocating violence.
No, the preceding lines are the parable. At Luke 19:27, the parable is over and it’s Jesus talking to his disciples again, right before he goes to Jerusalem and right before he instructs his disciples to steal a horse.
You could try to make the case that Jesus was going to “slay” his enemies in the sense that he was going to defeat their arguments against him, but that would be a bit of a stretch.
Sorry, try again.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:40 am
@ amphiox:
Nothing to do with religion? Since when does violence inspired by sectarian religious conflict have nothing to do with religion? In this context, politics and religion are not separable.
Point taken, but what the blogger in question (and me, for quoting him) was trying to underscore, is that Hypatia herself was not murdered for her specific religion/anti-religion beliefs, rather she had the misfortune of supporting one religious leader over another. Yes, religion played a role, but in this case it took a back seat to the local political struggle between two rivals.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:12 am
It sounds interesting, but I would like to point out that if one is looking for historical accuracy, it’s pretty darned near impossible to even judge that, given the way things were recorded at the time. It’s difficult to know how much of her story was actual events, and how much was hyperbole added by those who saw Christianity as contributing to the fall of the Roman Empire. (This problem is certainly not limited to Hypatia. Herod probably wasn’t as much of a jerk as we all tend to think, given that what we think we know about him mostly comes from the unflattering accounts in the Bible and the writings of Josephus — neither of which were contemporary accounts, and both of which had plenty of reason to demonize him.)
Still, it’s a story that’s worth telling, and I hope they’ve made an effort to be historically accurate, even though the details are never going to be entirely clear. There’s a lot that *is* clear, and they should stick to that.
There’s a lot in common between the ancient first-century Christian mobs in Alexandria and the modern-day Janjaweed militias, including the moralistic justification for lethal force. That would be a good avenue to explore in a movie, because it has such visceral application right now. But people should bear in mind that there isn’t that much in common between the Christian mobs of First Century Egypt and Christians of today. I don’t know much about this movie, but it had better understand that distinction. I’m not saying that to apologize for Christianity. I’m speaking from the perspective of historical accuracy. Christianity changed a lot in this time period, and most of what we Americans would think of as Christianity is descended from the Catholic Church in Rome (even the Protestants), and uses a Creed which these ancient Christians would have considered heretical.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:34 am
No, Leander. I’m saying that there really are only two ways to explain what you say and how you say it. Given the amount of writing you’re able to accomplish, I’d say the best bet is that you feel no compunction to be honest.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
First post of Leander on Pharyngula:
From his first post here (stated ironically):
So when religion is concerned we need to take into account the historical, anthropological or sociological context (his words on Pharyngula), but when we talk about people who made significant advances for their time, they are to be judged by the pseudoscientific views they might have adhered to.
I think we can safely call Leander intellectually dishonest.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
kuhnigge
Verse 27 is still part of the parable, you have to look at verse 12 and verse 14 to see how they dove tale in to verse 27
Verse 12
He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return.
Verse 14
But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’
Verse 27
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
Verse 27 is being said by the nobleman who has been made king in the parable. It is not Jesus advocating violence
In fact in John 6:15 Jesus leaves an area because people are going to try and make him king by force.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
@ sticks:
Okay, I will stand corrected on who is speaking in verse 27. Thanks.
But I will now suggest that Jesus’ parable is an even worse incitement to violence. The nobleman’s enemies, who hate him and don’t want him to rule, are to be brought before him — by his command — to be slaughtered.
No approbation from Jesus, and a clear implication that, likewise, the people who do not want Jesus’ reign on earth to begin, will be brought before him and killed. Maybe people don’t want him to be their king either. Did he ever stop and think about that? No. Just bring ‘em to me and they’ll die.
And if, as the standard line goes, it’s a symbolic slaughter — because those same enemies don’t recognize Jesus as their saviour (from a vengeful God, we should note) they will “perish” unlike the good Christians who accept Jesus — then it’s still reprehensible. Mankind’s saviour should be able to save all mankind, shouldn’t he? Even those who don’t need or want his saving? Couldn’t he just let the others be?
Sorry, but either way it’s an incitement to, or anticipation of, violence against people whose sole crime is disagreeing with Jesus’ need to be head-honcho.
Which seems a perfectly legitimate position, given that three verses later he commands them to go steal a horse. Why? Apparently because his feet are sore and he wants to ride into Jerusalem.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
@EmaNymton
“No, Leander. I’m saying that there really are only two ways to explain what you say and how you say it.”
Looking at the tone of your previous post, you should be careful then to lecture people on how they say things…
@Pieter Kok
“So when religion is concerned we need to take into account the historical, anthropological or sociological context (his words on Pharyngula), but when we talk about people who made significant advances for their time, they are to be judged by the pseudoscientific views they might have adhered to.”
Too bad the HTML on here doesn’t allow for brightly flashing neon signs that read “ATTENTION, IRONY!!!” – there seems to be an urgent need for them. Also, did you not notice the quotation marks around that quote you’re referring to ? Could they be a hint that it’s not necessarily my opinion and way of talking that’s found between them ?
“I think we can safely call Leander intellectually dishonest.”
Safely ? Wanna try again ? And wow, have you even bothered to read and understand anything I wrote in the first comments in this thread here, in relation to religion (the bible), Hypatia and historical context ? You really should do this before you reply again, because this time, no offense – you made an ass of yourself.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Leander, that’s why I quoted you with the introduction “From his first post here (stated ironically):”
I hear irony glands popping all around. Thanks for the entertainment.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Huh. I overlooked that. So no flashing irony signs required then. And you’re welcome, though don’t celebrate too early – because if you actually did notice the irony, you still don’t seem to get the point of it.
It was never there to say that you’re supposed to judge “people who made significant advances for their time” based on “the pseudoscientific views they might have adhered to”, but to point out the worrisome behaviour of dropping any historical context that might even remotely associate them with ideas that are contrary to those for which the author wants to use such people as a shiny, glorious example.
I was being ironic especially because I despise intellectual dishonesty – if you tell people about something, give them all the information, don’t cherry-pick to make it look better. Don’t cherry-pick to get into people’s heads and influence the view that they are gonna have on the subject at hand. Let them make up their own minds based on a complete set of facts.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Leander, by pointing out that she probably believed in all sorts of nonsense you are not being honest and you do not judge her in the context of her time: The quality that made her stand out is that she went beyond some of the prevailing woo towards more rationality. That is the important thing here. In your original post, you implicitly judge her by present-day standards of rationality, while you want historical and sociological context when religion is concerned.
Do you not recognize the double standard?
September 8th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
@Pieter Kok
“Leander, by pointing out that she probably believed in all sorts of nonsense you are not being honest”
Yes I am. Much more honest than someone dropping this likely fact in order to make her a beacon of rationality. Besides – please show me where I gave the impression that I thought this “nonsense” made her any less of an amazing character.
“The quality that made her stand out is that she went beyond some of the prevailing woo towards more rationality.”
Where did I ever dispute that ? You’re still not getting it – I was not taking issue with Phil giving selective information because it gave an image of Hypatia that I didn’t like, but because I have a problem with cherry-picking information. If you bother to read some of the responses in this thread to my comments, you will find that most people didn’t have such problems grasping that fact.
“In your original post, you implicitly judge her by present-day standards of rationality, while you want historical and sociological context when religion is concerned.”
Again, while you notice it, the implications of my irony seem beyond you. Nothing in that post ever was about how I judge Hypatia. The only post of mine that came close to judging her actually stated that I had a great deal of sympathy for characters like her.
You know, unlike Phil I can like and admire a person like Hypatia while fully acknowledging that she might have held views that I’d find peculiar. And if I was trying to tell someone about her, I’d be very serious about giving them all the facts about her, no matter what views I think they might be forming about her based on that. I don’t need to manipulate other people’s views into one similar to mine by cherry-picking the facts.
And from what little we know about her, I doubt someone like Hypatia would have thought highly of such manipulation.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I guess a discussion with you really does end inevitably with the statement that your concern is noted.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
@Pieter Kok
Well, only if you choose so to take the easy way out. I find it baffling though that you would think someone pointing out behaviour as intellectually dishonest and even potentially dangerous as cherry-picking historical information should be shrugged off with “your concern is noted”.
September 8th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Manipulation? Intellectually dishonest? Potentially dangerous?
Seriously?
I think you are taking this so far over the top that your point is likely to enter low earth orbit any moment now. Enough with the provocative language, please. One can celebrate Hypatia without mentioning every little iota of information about her.
September 8th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
“Enough with the provocative language, please.”
More justification for your point of view, please. I gave reasons and explained my position in great detail – unless you don’t at least approximate that, don’t expect your post to be deserving of any further comment.
September 9th, 2009 at 12:37 am
I have not had time to read all the comments, so I apologize if I’m duplicating some previous info.
Hypatia was murdered by a mob of monks, who might have been acting at the order of Bishop Cyril of Alexandria, but that is in dispute. However, he protected the murderers after her death (basically, they slashed her to pieces with sharp pieces of pottery in Cyril’s church), so he bears part of the blame.
However, the context of her murder was a political power struggle between Cyril and the city’s governor, Orestes. Hypatia was one of Orestes’ supporters. Cyril basically started the big fight by orchestrating attacks on Alexandria’s Jewish community, leading to the destruction of synagogues and the expulsion of Jews. Many Christians apparently were horrified by Cyril’s actions, but he had a large mob of monks. Don’t think of Friar Tuck in the Robin Hood tales here, think of Hitler’s Brown Shirts if you want to understand the role of monks in the 4th-5th-centuries Christian takeover of the Roman Empire.
September 9th, 2009 at 1:01 am
The Philosopher’s Zone did a good podcast on Hypatia recently. You can
find it here:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/philosopherszone/stories/2009/2530998.htm
“Hypatia of Alexandria was beautiful and clever, and, as far we know, never did anybody any harm, so why was she torn to pieces by an angry mob, armed (so some stories tell) with oyster shells? This week, we look at the woman and the heritage of what is probably the longest-standing philosophical tradition in Western civilisation: that rational yet mystical, sometimes Pagan, sometimes Christian, body of doctrines known as Neo-Platonism.”
September 9th, 2009 at 6:55 am
If this film doesn’t have giant alien robots that can change into trucks and airplanes and beat the crap out of each other while Megan Fox bounces around in a tank top, I ain’t watchin’ it!
September 13th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Nevertheless, it was, by most all accounts, a Christian mob that tore her clothes off and “flayed the flesh from her bones”.
You know, to death.
And incinerated her remains.
And Cyril WAS made a saint.
Most historical records agree on these cirumstances. Historical evidence as interpreted by most historians. Oh yes, no less. Professional scholars of that sort tend to make conclusions that often lead to a consensus. Heck, it happens.
So many possibilities, aren’t there? ANYTHING might have happened. Nobody knows, yes? It was so long ago, it’s impossible to piece together “exactly” what happened, right?
So why should any of this violence have been inflicted on a woman who was known to be working at the Library?
WAIT A MINUTE NOW…because there were “other” but no less legitimate cultural reasons for her persecution – BESIDES the fact she practiced an early form of science?
Like, say, that she happened to be a woman? That maybe she was also a smart woman who ?
So that obviously absolves the “early version of Christianity” of any culpability in her demise. RIGHT?
Anybody want to reintroduce the preposterously red herring of her Platonism or “paganism” now?
It’s fascinating. One gets to see people frothing at the mouth spitting their own tunes of history which far more careful scholars have managed to piece together over centuries, and suddenly we are confronted with an idiotic debate on what MAY have happened “instead”, historians of far more substantial repute be damned.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Wny is it that those on this blog, like most Neo-Atheist who try to claim inheritance from the Enlightenment, know so little of history but so many historical myths?
1: Can anyone prove that it was the big bad evil Christian Church that killed Hypatia? I know that this is the mythic version so popular with the likes off Sagan and other Humanists, but to claim her as your own is already discussed as not beign valid. I also woudl liek to note that the events surrouding her death seem less implicative of the evil Christian Mob tryign to suppress Sicnece and reason than you’d like to imagine.
2: THisalso wasnt the evil Christains burnign the library of Alexandria to rid the owrld of knwoeldge, and didnt plunge the wrld intot he Dark Ages. In fact, as the term has been used sicne the Enliughtenment, the Dark Ages never actuallyt occured. The time when Progress and civilisaiton ended, and Sicnece was lost, and all where oppressed, livign in ignorance and swaller because the Church Reigned supreme makes a good propagandist message agaisnt Christianity, but isnt an accurate reflection fo the Middle Ages. In fact, the Ealry Middle Ages saw techological and social progress.
3: That said, Daffy, Christians in the Early middle Ages would not have burned anyone at the stake for thinkign the Earht is older than 6000 years. Not only do the Scriptures not actually declare an age for the Earth, but Origens theology had been pretty prevailent in the time. Origen, who is considered a brilliant theologian to this day, thought the creation account was Allegory. Even St. Augustine had largley accepted a partial allegirical view of Creation.
3: Also, the whole “Jesus ordered his neemies slaun before him” bit is stupidity. I’m sorry, but the above portion was not the only part that was parable, the “Slay them befor eme” was put in the mouth fo Jeuss’s ficitonal king. It was part of the allegory, and that is how ancient Kings reacted.
That said, Jesus also didnt instruct his followers to steal a horse. I know the Anti-Christain sites ( And religiosu tolerance) say this, but come on, the text makes it plain that this was a prearranged endeavour since Jesus even told them what to tell the animals owners. Nothignin the text suggests its theft.
4: Speakign fo the above, had it ever occured to anyoen here that your Anti-Christain ( And supposeldy Anti-Religious, thogu in reality you all have a religion) bias may lead you to irrationally hate Christainity, and thus to accept bad arguemtns agaianst it?
5: By the way, Faith is not irraitonal. I know, I know, Faith is beleif withotu evidence. Beleioving soemthign withotu evidence is inherantly irraitonal. The problem with thjis definition is that its not one that wa sunderstood for the better part of 2000 years. Most peopel who used the word Faith in context of Christainity from the Bible onward to Augistine, BNonaventure, Aquinas, and even C.S.Lewis, understood Faith as confidence in a given proposition, not beleif wothout any evidence whatsoever. In facgt, Thomas Aquinas spend what, 30 years compiling raitonal arugments and evidence for Christianity?
I know its a popular oaert of the whoel Ahtiest Enlightenemnt narrative, but Faith relaly shuldnt be demonised and misdefiend.
6: That said, the Hypatia movie sounds liek tis just more of the same historical revisionism we saw in such filsm as Ridley Scotts Kingdom of Heraven, in which CHristaisn are depicted as evil, and Hypatia mad eto mouth modern Secular Humanist perspectives.
Thats just not the way it relaly worked though.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Incidentally, to those who repeat the tired old claim that the reason we dont have Hypatias work is because the Christians burnt them, please do read real history and not Anti-Christin tracts sometime.
Christians generlaly didnt kill Hypatia, and no evidence actually links Cyril to her death, other than a forged letter and writtigns of Damascius who sough tot use her death to turn the populace agaisnt Christianity.
She was killed for purly political reasons, not for beign a Pagan scholar. We have no reason to beleive the Church woudl have burned her works, and in fact the Church is principly the reason we still have any Pagan works.
Unlike the Enlughtenment and modern Neo-Atheist mythology about how CHrisaisn destoreyed Knowledge and created the Dark Ages, the truth is that Christian Monks laboured tirelessly to copy by hand the important works of civilisaiton, and did not limit themselves to Scripture and Church writtings.
The Christains copied Plato, for instance, and Homers surviving works.
More Pagan works were destoryed by the Illiterate Visigoths in order to secure the destruction fo the ROman Empire, to secure their own domenance, than by Christians in order to silence Pagan thinkers.
Given this, and considering hwo the Death of Hypatia was not condoned, but rather condemned by the Church Authorities of the itme, the idea that we do not have her work because the Church burned all of it is just ludecrous.
I know it spopular to Bash Christianity on here, but don’t you htink a little intellectual Honesty and accuracy woudl be better than the usual screeds about how evil Cbristianity is?
October 13th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I have just read that the NIGHT SKY that apperars in the movie is REAL, I mean a recreation of how the position of the stars was then.