Here follows the defence which Aristides the philosopher made before Hadrian the King on behalf of reverence for God.
...All-powerful Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus, venerable and merciful, from Marcianus Aristides, an Athenian philosopher.
I. I, O King, by the grace of God came into this world; and when I had considered the heaven and the earth and the seas, and had surveyed the sun and the rest of creation, I marvelled at the beauty of the world. And I perceived that the world and all that is therein are moved by the power of another; and I understood that he who moves them is God, who is hidden in them, and veiled by them. And it is manifest that that which causes motion is more powerful than that which is moved. But that I should make search concerning this same mover of all, as to what is his nature (for it seems to me, he is indeed unsearchable in his nature), and that I should argue as to the constancy of his government, so as to grasp it fully,--this is a vain effort for me; for it is not possible that a man should fully comprehend it. I say, however, concerning this mover of the world, that he is God of all, who made all things for the sake of mankind. And it seems to me that this is reasonable, that one should fear God and should not oppress man.
I say, then, that God is not born, not made, an ever-abiding nature without beginning and without end, immortal, perfect, and incomprehensible. Now when I say that he is "perfect," this means that there is not in him any defect, and he is not in need of anything but all things are in need of him. And when I say that he is "without beginning," this means that everything which has beginning has also an end, and that which has an end may be brought to an end. He has no name, for everything which has a name is kindred to things created. Form he has none, nor yet any union of members; for whatsoever possesses these is kindred to things fashioned. He is neither male nor female. The heavens do not limit him, but the heavens and all things, visible and invisible, receive their bounds from him. Adversary he has none, for there exists not any stronger than he. Wrath and indignation he possesses not, for there is nothing which is able to stand against him. Ignorance and forgetfulness are not in his nature, for he is altogether wisdom and understanding; and in Him stands fast all that exists. He requires not sacrifice and libation, nor even one of things visible; He requires not aught from any, but all living creatures stand in need of him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Very poetic - though hardly more than poetry.
...and welcome back to Blogging. I hope that you intend to stay around for a while - all other things considered....
Thanks, CK.
In the Roman culture of his time, Aristides risked being put to death for his poetry. Though that was not his fate, his contemporary, Justin Martyr, wrote the following poetic lines to the Roman Senate under Marcus Aurelius and they were not so lightly dismissed:
I too, therefore, expect to be plotted against and fired to the stake, by some of those I have named, or perhaps by Crescens, that lover of bravado and boasting; for the man is not worthy of the name of philosopher who publicly bears witness against us in matters which he does not understand, saying that the Christians are atheists and impious, and doing so to win favour with the deluded mob, and to please them. For if he assails us without having read the teachings of Christ, he is thoroughly depraved, and far worse than the illiterate, who often refrain from discussing or bearing false witness about matters they do not understand. Or, if he has read them and does not understand the majesty that is in them, or, understanding it, acts thus that he may not be suspected of being such [a Christian], he is far more base and thoroughly depraved, being conquered by illiberal and unreasonable opinion and fear. For I would have you to know that I proposed to him certain questions on this subject, and interrogated him, and found most convincingly that he, in truth, knows nothing. And to prove that I speak the truth, I am ready, if these disputations have not been reported to you, to conduct them again in your presence. And this would be an act worthy of a prince. But if my quesions and his answers have been made known to you, you are already aware that he is acquainted with none of our matters; or, if he is acquainted with them, but, through fear of those who might hear him, does not dare to speak out, like Socrates, he proves himself, as I said before, no philosopher, but an opionative man; at least he does not regard that Socratic and most admirable saying: "But a man must in no wise be honoured before the truth." But it is impossible for a Cynic, who makes indifference his end, to know any good but indifference.
Alas, he was not fired to the stake, but beheaded.
LB said: In the Roman culture of his time, Aristides risked being put to death for his poetry.
Many people have risked such things thoughout history. Giordano Bruno comes to mind - put to death in Christian Rome for his heretical ideas of a universe filled with habitable worlds (amongst other things) in 1600.
Holding or speaking dangerous ideas does not, in itself, make those ideas true. Holding an idea fervently, in itself, does not make it true. Strength of belief does not make it true. Truth is independent of all that and independent of us too.
If truth is independent of us and sincerity is not a factor, did Bruno die for truth or sincerity? If his death was attributable mainly to his belief of a multitude of habitable worlds, what was the factual basis of his belief? It seems Bruno's reasoning was that an infinite God would create an infinite universe. (But that doesn't follow does it? At least not by necessity. I wouldn't risk my life over such logic.) 400 years later we are finding out just how incalculably long the odds are of even one habitable world. The universe certainly isn't filled with them.
The "poetry" of Aristides and Justin Martyr showed more concern for facts and evidence than the "science" of Bruno.
LB said: If truth is independent of us and sincerity is not a factor, did Bruno die for truth or sincerity? If his death was attributable mainly to his belief of a multitude of habitable worlds, what was the factual basis of his belief?
I think that Bruno's death was attibutable to the fact that the Catholic church of the time didn't take too kindly to being argued with. Where we today hear debate, back then they heard heresy. Arguing with the Catholic church when it had a great deal more power than it does today was hardly life enhancing if they caught you!
LB said: 400 years later we are finding out just how incalculably long the odds are of even one habitable world. The universe certainly isn't filled with them.
I think that the odds of finding life elsewhere in the *Galaxy* are pretty good - never mind the rest of the Universe. It actually wouldn't surprise me too much if we discovered other life forms that have evoloved independently right here in our Solar system.
LB said: The "poetry" of Aristides and Justin Martyr showed more concern for facts and evidence than the "science" of Bruno.
[laughs] Our world views are *so* different!
I think that Bruno's death was attibutable to the fact that the Catholic church of the time didn't take too kindly to being argued with.
This may be true to some degree, but that's not my point. I can't (nor do I care to) defend the Church's actions. My question is, did he die for holding beliefs for which he could verify or even give a good argument? Can you explain why a person would choose to suffer rather than recant an uncertain and unsupportable claim (which his certainly was)?
I think that the odds of finding life elsewhere in the *Galaxy* are pretty good...
Why do you think that?
...and are you willing to die for it?
LB asked: did he die for holding beliefs for which he could verify or even give a good argument?
Well, obviously he couldn't verify his beliefs as they are yet to be verified. I don't know how good his argument was - though I suggest it wasn't that good since he would have been unaware of much of the knowledge we now have about chemistry, biology and astronomy & much else besides.
LB asked: Can you explain why a person would choose to suffer rather than recant an uncertain and unsupportable claim (which his certainly was)?
No idea. Pride maybe? Maybe he *did* recant but the Catholic Church didn't believe him.
LB asked: Why do you think that?
[laughs] We've has this argument before haven't we?
Basically its a statistical thing. There are *lots* of stars, apparently planets are common, its likely that some planets are in the sweet zone, its likely that some of them (if not most) will have liquid water. If such planets exist for long enough life will probably emerge there. The universe is *old* therefore it is likely that there *has* been enough time. Hence it is probable (IMO) that life exists elsewhere in the Galaxy.
LB asked: ...and are you willing to die for it?
[laughs]
Of course not! What a silly thing to die for!
Post a Comment