It's rare that the 2500th anniversary of a momentous event can be commemorated. In September of 480BC the fate of what would grow to be western civilisation hung in the balance as the forces of the Median Empire sought to conquer Hellas (Greece). Had they succeeded, the golden age of Greece, where philosophy, history, tragedy, democracy and so much more were either invented or bought to fruition, would not have occurred. No Herodotus, Thucydides, Socrates (followed by Plato and Aristotle), Phidias, Aristophanes or Sophocles.

The ‘western’ experiment was just getting started in the early part of the 5th century BC when two great invasions from Asia almost extinguished it. The first was turned back at Marathon in 490BC. The second, led by the Median king Xerxes at the head of an invasion force larger than any ever mustered (an army of 200000 -300000 and a navy of over 1000 vessels) arrived in Greece proper early in September of 480BC.

They were initially opposed at the pass of Thermopylae by a small Greek force led by Leonidas and 300 Spartan soldiers. The story of that battle has become immortalised as the 300 Spartans (and 700 Thespians) fought to the death to defend the pass.

After victory at Thermopylae, Xerxes moved on to take Athens which was one of his main aims in the invasion and then moved his army toward Corinth with the aim of over-running the rest of Greece. His navy also moved into the harbours of Athens. On or about 26 September the pivotal Battle of Salamis took place between about 700 Median vessels and 370 allied Greek vessels the majority of which came from Athens. It was the largest naval battle in history to that time and remains one of the largest of all time.

The result of that battle was total defeat for the invader. So complete was the Greek victory that Xerxes immediately departed and returned to Media. He did leave a land force of approximately 70000 which was in turn wiped out a year later but effectively the victory at Salamis had saved Greece

mhaze,

It would indeed have been a shame had Greece been
conquered and that the Ancient Greek culture that
lies at the basis of Western Civilization may have
never developed.

I studied the History of The Theatre
decades ago - including Greek Tragedies like "Medea"
by Euripides. "Oedipus Rex" (The King) by Sophocles,
and others.

When The National Theatre of Greece came to Melbourne
and Karofyllis Karabeti - one of Greece's leading actresses
at the time performed "Medea" at Her Majesty's Theatre
to a full house - it was dynamic.

I remember the first time our lecturer took us to see
Greek tragedy on film at the ABC Studios in Sydney.
Our class had not been prepared for what was coming. We
were not yet aware of the masks the actors wore for each
emotion or the stylized way of acting - so our immediate
reaction was one of laughter which infuriated our lecturer.

He went to great lengths to explain the technique to us.
It took a while, but that's how our love for Greek
drama developed.

That was just a snippet of our appreciation for things
Greek.

Again - Thank You for reminding us of this event of
major significance in European history - and how much we
owe to the Greeks.

Thanks mhaze- Lessons here for the modern era. Not sure if it makes us better than other cultures- but it's mine. Perhaps the Spartans would throw our leaders in the pit- a sign we've become too soft. What would the Spartans do with communists and China, wokism, political correctness, feminism, (homo)sexual politics? Freedom not free- be strong to be free! The power of the phalus relies on defending the next man- choose the best men of similar stature for the army- strong soldiers rely on strong families. Sharing makes difficulties better. A self reinforcing net.

We can learn how to rule with an iron fist
from the accounts of the stories. From the
all powerful Zeus, hot-headed Poseidon, and
much more.

But there's also Narcissus - and
the tragedy of vanity. There's Icarus who
did not listen to advice that was meant to
protect him. There are the Epic Poems of Homer -
The Odyssey, The Illiad. They all contain valuable
lessons on how to live, how to cope with
difficulties and even prevent them from happening in
the first place.

There's many lessons that we can learn from these
ancient sagas and apply to our modern age.
We can learn that - even the best of us have weaknesses.

Following the victory, the Greek homeland was safe from external threat for 150 years and in that time the foundations of western civilisation were laid. Athens carried the war to Asia and liberated the Greek cities on the east Aegean coast. During the Periclean golden age, art, literature, philosophy and architecture flourished. The notion of written history was invented by Herodotus and perfected by Thucydides.

This new Greek culture came to dominate the west Mediterranean and was carried first into Macedon and then, through the conquests of Alexander, into and throughout Asia and finally into Rome where it melded with Rome culture to refine western civilisation.

The importance of the events of September 480 BC can hardly be overstated.

Foxy,

I once saw a production of Lysistrata in a reconstructed Greek outdoor theatre in Thessalonica. It was written by Aristophanes around 411BC and is a comedy about women withdrawing all sex until the men achieve peace - the Peloponnesian war was raging at the time. Aristophanes was part of that extraordinary flowering of the arts in 5th century Athens. He virtually invented the staged comedy form.

The play as I saw it and the original was quite bawdy. The men, due to enforce celibacy, spend a good part of the play walking around with enormous erections - by enormous I mean 2 or 3 foot long. Benny Hill on steroids. But at the same time, highly political and critical of the Athenian leaders of the time - particularly Cleon.

He also did a play called "Acharnians" in which a destitute Megaran tries to sell his daughter by disguising her as a pig. In Athenian slang pig had roughly the same meaning as our 'pussy'. Imagine a man trying to sell his daughter disguised as a pussy. Hilarity and multiple double entendre ensues.

Fifth century Athens was one of the most productive and enduring times in all of human history. We would be a very different people without it and it was only possible because of the events of 480BC

mhaze,

I envy your attendance at being able to
attend an outdoor Greek theatre. The closest
thing I came to doing it was at the University
of Santa Cruz - which had a replica built.

cont'd ...

Sorry - I meant to say the University of Calirornia
in Santa Cruz. It had a very strong Humanities
Department and an interest in Greek theatre.
The following may be of interest:

http://classicalstudies.ucsc.edu/news-events/news-archive/music-2011.html

The magnificent culture produced in ancient Greece has been mainly lost. From "The History of Philosophy" by Grayling:

"There is a wall standing between us and the world of antiquity: the period of decline and fall of the Roman Empire and the rise to dominance of Christianity. Edward Gibbon connected the two phenomena, blaming the former on the latter. He is in significant part right. Remember that in 313 CE the Emperor Constantine gave Christianity legal status and protection by the Edict of Milan and not long afterwards, in 380 CE, the Emperor Theodosius I decreed by the Edict of Thessalonica that Christianity was to be the official religion of the Empire outlawing others. The change brought rapid
results. From the fourth century of the Common Era (CE, formerly cited as AD) onwards a vast amount of the literature and material culture of antiquity was lost, a great deal of it purposefully destroyed. Christian zealots smashed statues and temples, defaced paintings and burned 'pagan' books, in an orgy of effacement of previous culture that lasted for several centuries. It has been estimated that as much as 90 per cent of the literature of antiquity perished in the onslaught. The Christians took the fallen stones of temples to build their churches, and over-wrote the manuscripts of the philosophers and poets with their scripture texts. It is hard to comprehend, still less to forgive, the immense loss of literature, philosophy, history and general culture this represented. Moreover, at the time Christianity existed in a number of mutually hostile and competing versions, and the effort - eventually successful - to achieve a degree of consensus on a 'right' version required treating the others as heresies and aberrations requiring suppression, including violent suppression."

Through the study of Latin or ancient Greek classics
students develop linguistic and analytical skills
which serve them well in a variety of contexts.

Like all fields in the Humanities the study of the
ancient world has unlimited potential to make a
person a more thoughtful, articulate, and critically
astute human being.

The best reason to study Classics is the material
itself. Ancient art, literature, architecture,
science, philosophy, and law have survived the
millennia partly due to chance but also because of
their enduring power to inspire thought.

cont'd ...

My apologies. I forgot to add and acknowledge
the link that summed up the question "Why
Study Classics" by Dana and David Dornsife
at the University of Southern California
(my old stomping ground). There's more at:

http://dornsife.usc.edu/clas/why-study/

They sum things up rather well.

mhaze,
>The importance of the events of September 480 BC can hardly be overstated

On the contrary, I think that's exactly what you're doing! Greek states rose, fought and fell before and after that. The Greek culture and ideas of freedom had already started to spread to Rome, which had by then developed a form of democracy that would be recognisable today (unlike the original Athenian form). Meanwhile Sparta was a totalitarian dystopia much worse than anything it was fighting against.

Did those events have much long term impact? Probably, but you can say that about many ancient battles - there's no need to overstate the importance of this one. Despite the myths of movie makers, western civilisation did not hinge on its outcome.

We are told that -

"It is very unlikely that world civilization would
be the same today if the Persians had defeated the
Athenians at Marathon. The mighty army of Darius I
would have conquered Athens and established Persian
rule there, putting an end to the newborn Athenian
democracy of Pericles."

"In effect, this would certainly have destroyed the
idea of democracy as it had developed in Athens at
the time."

There's more at the following link:

http://greekreporter.com/2021/-3/11/battle-of-marathon-saved-western-civilization-2500-years-ago/

cont'd ...

There's much more on the web.

Here's another link worth reading:

http://historycollection.com/greeks-defeat-persians-save-greek-civilization-epic-battle/

Though the Greek language was universal in the Roman Empire, its intellectual culture had been overtaken by the ruthlessness of Rome by the turn if the millinia. It was ultimately the violence and decisions made by Rome that put to death independant thinkers.

Just look at the history of Rome and the Jewish State as recorded in the New Testament. Herod appointed by Rome took the head of John the Baptizer, and Rome later crucified 300 Jews for rejecting Roman taxes on their offerings including Jesus Christ, putting to death the apostle Paul in Rome following his defence before a Roman Court.

Foxy,

" if the Persians had defeated the Athenians at Marathon"

Its very true that the victory at Marathon saved Greece and ushered in the 5th century golden age. The difference with Salamis and to a lesser extent Plataea is that it ended, for all time, the Median threat to Hellas whereas Marathon blunted the threat for a short while only and encouraged the Mede to redouble their efforts.

I consider myself a bit of an expert on Marathon. I think there are very few books or academic articles on the battle that I haven't read. I once spent 3 glorious days wandering the plain of Marathon and paying my respects to the 192 Athenians and 11 Plataeans interred there.

Had the Athenians lost that battle, the city would have been erased. The Persians had vowed to carry the entire population into slavery back in Asia. The people of Eretria which was conquered a few days before Marathon, were indeed returned in chains to Asia.

While Marathon gave Athens and the new democracy confideceto forge forward, the threat continued. One of the events which I find most revealing about the quality of the Athenians at that time was the story of the silver mines at Laurium. Not long after Marathon, silver was discovered near Athens. The windfall was owned by the whole state. Initially it was decided that the proceeds would be distributed among the people. But Themistocles persuaded them to instead, forego the money and instead invest it in building a fleet. It was that fleet that won the victory at Salamis.

Aidan,

"Greek states rose, fought and fell before and after that."

But that's the point. They wouldn't have risen after that. They would have been incorporated into the Persian empire and any non-conforming processes suppressed. In the previous half-century that same thing had happened to the city of Miletus on what is now the Turkish west coast. Miletus had been a centre for philosophy and science. But all that was squashed after it fell under the Persian yoke. The same fate would have befallen Athens.

" Sparta was a totalitarian dystopia much worse than anything it was fighting against."

Well that's probably a little harsh. But the Greek legacy that was saved at Salamis and passed onto western civilisation wasn't from Sparta, it was from Athens.

"The Greek culture and ideas of freedom had already started to spread to Rome, which had by then developed a form of democracy that would be recognisable today "

Well that's not true, at least not true in 480BC. Frankly we know little with any certainty about Rome from that period since much of the information was lost during Brennus's sacking of Rome c390BC. It's true the Romans claimed that they were already developing their democracy alongside Athens but that cannot be ascertained. Much of that was later Roman myth-making. For example they claimed their democracy started in 509BC which just happened to beat the reforms of Cleisthenes which occurred in 508BC. But the Roman claim has no basis in fact.

While it is true that the eventual Roman democracy was closer to us than the Athenian one, it was much more like the British democracy of say 1800 than our current version.

" Despite the myths of movie makers..."

I'm not sure which movies you refer to. But the notion that Greek civilisation was the foundation of western civilisation is very much based on a thorough understanding of the basics of each and a long view of the flow of history.

Josephus,

"Though the Greek language was universal in the Roman Empire..."

Well no. Latin was universal. Greek was however ubiquitous in the eastern empire. Most (all?) educated Romans spoke both.

Remember that Alexander had carried the Greek language and Greek culture to all what we today call the Middle East. By the time of Jesus, Greek culture had been in Israel for over 300 years. The teaching of Jesus and especially Paul was an amalgam of Jewish tradition with Greek philosophy and thinking.

The Romans certainly suppressed much individual thinking, especially in the later empire. But they had already imbued much from Greece. Notions of philosophy, historic research, science, empiricism, rule of law, and individualism remained in the Roman polity and were ultimately passed onto its conquers and, eventually, us.

The magnificence of ancient Athens was in the outpouring of culture from it. Had the Persians conquered it is doubtful that it would have happened.

Athens is popularly known as the birth place of democracy. However, that is questionable. Democracy, as expressed by assemblies of people deciding on action, predates the democracy of Athens. John Keane’s “The Life and Death of Democracy”:

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

“Not only does Keane propose that democratic assemblies have Eastern origins, Keane also strongly questions the old assumption that democracy is a universal norm that reflects Western values; hence, he argues that the future of democracy is tied neither to the West, nor to representative democracy, its current most widely adopted form.”

In the Bible is an account of an assembly of ancient Israelites rejecting the theocracy of Samuel’s sons and requesting a monarchy.
Samuel 1 8:7 "And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."

The above quote carries the idea that a democratic decision can reject democracy.

There are many definitions of democracy. The Athenian democracy, due to its rejection of votes by women, foreigners even though their families had lived in Athens for many generations and slaves would not be considered a democracy in today’s world. In my view of democracy Australia and most other countries called democracies fall short of actually being a democracy.

For a Democratic State to function all citizens must agree on the same values and rules. Democratic States are failing today because of social conflicts bordering on Civil wars. It is the citizens who must be united on what democracy means. Does it mean the right of citizens to hold conflicting views? Are there God given principles that make a society great? It seems all societies based on control or violence of its citizens fail in the long run

Dear Josephus,

If there were such a thing as God given principles we would have no way of knowing what they were. Different theistic religions have different ideas of those principles. If there is a God maybe he, she, or it would have different principles from those that are expressed in any religion. The best we can do is to let citizens of any and no religion democratically decide what principles they want to live under.

mhaze,

Wow! what an interesting topic you've raised here.
Thank you. I certainly am no expert on this subject.
I am enjoying doing the research. Such a change from
the usual politics.

Jordan Peterson apparently believes that religion is a collection of cultural knowledge on the ideal (leader) in the case of Christianity developed over two thousand years. So based on this one would assume that the appropriate religion to defer to in the Australian context would be British Anglicanism though prior to 1500's England was Catholic and Scotland had their own Christian religious traditions. Liberalism tries to bury other cultures under their ideology in the name of objectivity- but all cultures (including Liberalism) could be said to be subjective.

The crunch that occurs between cultures is a result of the overpopulation and expansion of cultures mentioned as far back as Plato's Republic.

Mass cultures such as globalism and 1640's Locke Liberal Democracy are inevitably dehumanizing and individually unidentifiable. The human mind find it difficult to conceptualize very large societies and find them alienating.

Population is the problem. Every culture deserves their own nation.

Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision
for the limits of the world.

(Arthur Schopenhauer).

Just to cover some of the points raised:

Was Athens a democracy? It depends on how you look at it and what criteria you want to use. If you say that it wasn’t as inclusive as our democracy (eg women has no say) and therefore it wasn’t a democracy, that’s one take. But by that standard, Whitlam wasn’t democratically elected since the 1972 vote excluded 18-21 yr olds. The word means rule by the demos ie the people, the citizenry. By that standard it was a democracy since all Athenian citizens had a say, or at least the right to a say in all decisions. By the standards of the time, where the entire planet was either a monarchy or ruled by ‘the few’, Athens was revolutionary.

Was it the first democracy? I’m agnostic on that. It’s possible others existed before it although I think the evidence is a long way from convincing and more a case of people thinking it exists because they want it to exist. Again, it was the first in Europe and, more importantly, one of the influences on those societies that created modern democracy. Not the main influence, mind you. That was Rome which heavily influenced the US founders. Hence words like ‘Senate’ . But the legacy the Athenian democracy bequeathed was the view that the people can and should control their own fate, and the legacy of 480BC is that a free people fighting for their freedom will prevail over those fighting for a ruler.
But the bequest of Athens is not its democracy which in the end failed. It’s the art, literature, architecture, philosophy, science, history. But most importantly, it’s the notion of the individual who has inherent purpose but who also has obligations to the state and society in general.
Might I also suggest a reading of Pericles’ Funeral Oration. A great speech in and of itself recorded by Thucydides. It is suggested it was the inspiration for Lincoln’s Gettysburg address:
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/thucydides.html

Just because I find it interesting:

On or around 7 September 480BC, the Spartan king Leonidas and a relatively small army blocked the Persian advance at the narrow pass at Thermopylae.

Eventually they were betrayed by a Greek named Ephialtes (or maybe Epialtes) who showed the Persians a path around the blocked pass. The end result was the famous stand of the 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians.

Ephialtes was reviled at the time and his name became a by-word for traitor. But in one of those curious etymological quirks, it morphed over time and is now the Greek word for nightmare. So in a strange way his name lives on.

mhaze,

Did you ever see the film - "300?"

I remember the film. Watching it with
very mixed feelings.

It certainly had an impact. From the
brutality, blood soaked scenes, showing thousands
of horrible deaths - which got very depressing.
To the bravery of the men.

It certainly was fascinating history. Made more so
as more is learned about that period .

In Nature’s God Matthew Stewart contends that the founding fathers of the United States were inspired by Lucretius and Spinoza.

Nature’s God - Matthew Stewart (mwstewart.com)

"The ideas that inspired them were neither British nor Christian but largely ancient, pagan, and continental: the fecund universe of the Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius, the potent (but nontranscendent) natural divinity of the Dutch heretic Benedict de Spinoza. Drawing deeply on the study of European philosophy, Matthew Stewart pursues a genealogy of the philosophical ideas from which America’s revolutionaries drew their inspiration, all scrupulously researched and documented and enlivened with storytelling of the highest order. Along the way, he uncovers the true meanings of “Nature’s God,” “self-evident,” and many other phrases crucial to our understanding of the American experiment but now widely misunderstood."

David f, has no idea of what a civilized society is, as he assumes it is based in ignorance if it upholds theistic values of humanity.
1. All persons are made in the image of God
2. love your neighbour as yourself
3. Give care and wish well of your enemy
4. Be at peace with all persons
5. Care for the weak, sick and innocent
6. Let every able bodied person serve family and society

These principles make for a strong society

The misunderstanding is God is Creator of all reality, and all reflects his genius. We do not worship nature but the Genius of the Creator.

Foxy,

I've seen the first ten minutes of both those '300' films several times. But I just can't get past the historic errors in the films and the cavalier way the writers/directors treat well know facts.

There aren't enough blood pressure tablets in the state to get me through a entire film (grin!). I once sat down with a pad to keep track of the errors on the basis that it'd make a good essay. But after I'd filled a full page in the first scene, I gave up.

For example, the second film has Themistocles shooting Darius with a bow and arrow. Which is quite a feat since Darius was 4000 kms away and no self-respecting Greek soldier would use an arrow, considering it to be a dishonourable way to fight.

If you're interested in the nature of hoplite warfare there's an excellent book called 'A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite at War' written by an Australian which gives a real flavour to the nature of such battles. The first half of the book is entirely technical and can be skipped but the second half shows just what it was like to be eight rows deep in a phalanx.

My wife refuses to watch historic movies with me because I constantly point out the anomalies and errors. Don't get me started on Ben Hur or the 1960 Spartacus. And never watch the 'History Channel' .

There's a film called '300 Spartans' made in 1962 which is vastly better from an historical accuracy point of view.

Dear Josephus,

Australia is a free country, and you are entitled to hold whatever superstition you wish to hold. In a free country one can hold whatever views one wishes as long as one observes the law. The existence of any deity or deities is a matter of opinion not of fact.

mhaze,

Thank You for the book and film references. I'll
definitely follow them up.

My husband also annoys the heck out of me by pointing
out faults in things - be it films, architecture, or
other genres - including at times what I wear. He simply
can't go and watch a movie - without finding fault.
Whereas I'm a bit of a dreamer - I get lost in the
fantasy.

cont'd ...

There's so many films that I've enjoyed.

The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur (Charlton Heston),
Spartacus (Kirk Douglas), Alexander The Great
(Richard Burton), Julius Caesar (Marlon Brando),
Quo Vadis (Robert Taylor), and even Cleopatra
(Liz Taylor). I've managed to get a hold of many
that now are no longer available.

David F's comments on the founding of the US (at least at the time of the Declaration of Independence) and the Epicurean Lucritus and Spinoza's Inhuman God cautiously probably has some basis though perhaps not in the same way that we think. These ideas possibly influenced John Locke and John Stuart Mill.

Often when comparing modern with the ancient we need to correct for perspicacity.

In antiquity there was disagreement between Epicurean's and Stoic's- I favour the Stoic's.

I'm sure even the Stoic philosophy has items I would disagree with but Letters to Lucilius seems to be synonymous with manliness in a sense.

Perhaps Epicurean and Stoic thought could be considered as the female and male archetypes of Western society.

Epicureanism perhaps represents the Consumer Age too- echoing Edward Bernay's (nephew of Sigmund Freud) in his "sell to the emotions" principle- a principle which apparently appalled his uncle. BBC Journalist Adam Curtis talks about this in his series on "Happiness Machines". It seems many European psychologist's started coming to America around the 1930's.

It's interesting that David F seems to believe in the God of Spinoza (the Dutch-Hebrew heretic)- Einstein said the same apparently. I find Spinoza interesting- but I don't know much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

Happiness Machines: Directed by Adam Curtis. With Adam Curtis, Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays, Alfred Pritz. The first episode of the series introduces us to Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's American nephew, and his groundbreaking ideas on population control.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1139168

Apparently Matthew Stewart studied under the prestigious Sachs Foundation Scholarship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Stewart_(philosopher)

This looks interesting...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-management-myth/304883/

the fact that we are made in the image of the genius Creator is not a superstition as David F implies. He has a problem with the Bible that absorbs him, it is unfortunate he cannot understand current societies to base their society on its values.

Does David have a society that he can give that extolls his values?

" founding fathers of the United States were inspired by Lucretius and Spinoza."

They were among the most learned people of their age. I suspect that had multiple influences.

Dear Josephus,

God is a concept that was invented by humans. Humans have invented God, gods and many religions. Some religions maintain there is a god. Some do not. Some religions follow the Bible. Some do not. The Bible is a book written by humans and neither peer reviewed nor fact checked. Muslims follow the Koran. Jews omit the New Testament from their Bible. Theravada Buddhists consult the Tripitaka. Hindus rely on the Mahabarata. There is no reason to rely on any of these documents. None of them have been peer reviewed nor fact checked. As far as I am concerned all these documents embody superstitions.

S116 of the Australian Constitution which you and live under states:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

The Bible is one of many religious books, and it does not determine Australian law which you and I live under. It only has status for those who choose to follow it. Where it conflicts with Australian law Australian law prevails. The Bible states that thou shall not suffer a witch to live. If you follow the Bible and kill someone you think is a witch you either go to the loony bin or to prison.

We live in a secular state, and the Bible has no status under Australian law.

Matthew Stewart's book "Nature's God,"
looks interesting. Thank you David f.

" America's founders intended to liberate us not
just from one king but from the ghostly tyranny of
supernatural religion. Drawing deeply on European
philosophy, Matthew Stewart brilliantly tracks the
ancient pagan and continental ideas from which
American revolutionaries drew their inspiration."

"In the writings of Spinoza, Lucretius and other great
philosophers Stewart recovers the true meanings of
"Nature's God. "The pursuit of Happiness," and the\
radical political theory with which the American
experiment in self-government began."

http://amazon.com.au/Natures-Heretical-Origins-American-Republic/dp/0393351297

david f you misrepresent the Australian Constitution. It is based in the Westminster law and gives allegiance to the Crown, at this time being represented by Queen Elizabeth head of the Anglican Church and those that represent her like Governors General. That is a religious appointment under British law, and when one swears allegiance to this society they swear it on the Bible. Though many atheists are objecting and implementing all sorts of conflicting value systems. So Australia is a conglomorate of cultures and values with allegiances to foreign values and systems.

We are gradually loosing freedom of expression and belief to atheist bullies, and nature worshippers, and proporters of infantercide and sexual/ gender perversions. As new laws just passed in Victoria protect.

Josephus,

Tow Prime Ministers have sworn an Oath of Allegiance
to the Commonwealth instead of the Queen: Kevin
Rudd, and Paul Keating.

Julia Gillard chose an Affirmation instead of an
Oath of Allegiance.

Ed Husic swore an Oath on the Qur-an.

Josh Frydenberg - wearing a skull cap, swore on a
Jewish Holy Book lent to him by former Governor General
Zelman Cohen.

Also, the Queen's position in Australia is very different.
She is not the Queen of the British monarchy here, but the
Queen of Australia. There is a difference in her roles.

Dear Josephus,

Separation of religion and state are desirable and, I believe, necessary for a healthy democracy. In ancient Athens the great philosopher, Socrates, was condemned to death. One of the charges against him was impiety toward the gods. Lack of that separation flawed Athenian democracy.

Baptists were persecuted by the Church of England. Perhaps, the Baptist minister, Roger Williams, was mindful of that when he coined the expression, separation of church and state, and presided over Rhode Island colony which was the first unit of government anywhere in the world which had that separation in its basic law.

From Barry’s “Roger Williams and The Creation of the American Soul, NY: Viking (Penguin), 2012”

"The Bay's leaders, both lay and clergy, firmly believed that the state must enforce all of God's laws, and to do so the state had to prevent error in religion. This conviction they held fast to, for their souls and all the souls in Massachusetts plantation depended upon it.

Williams recognized that putting the state to that service required humans to interpret God's law. His views were not fully formed-how Massachusetts dealt with him would itself influence their formulation-but he believed that humans, being imperfect, would inevitably err in applying God's law. Hence, he concluded that a society built on the principles that Massachusetts espoused could at best only lead to hypocrisy, for he believed that forced worship "stinks in God's nostrils." At worst it would lead to a corruption not of the state which was already corrupt, but of the church, as it befouled itself with the state's errors. His understandings were edging him toward a belief he would later call "Soul Libertie." pp. 3-4

Religious people may think of the state as inevitably corrupt and its union with religion as corrupting religion.

"My husband also annoys the heck out of me by pointing
out faults in things.....including at times what I wear."

The 300 Spartans were brave men. But a men prepared to critique a woman's choice in clothing is on another level altogether. Either very brave or suicidal.

Dear Josephus,

The religious beliefs of most of us are generally the same as that of our parents. The religion of our parents are generally those of their parents. For most people that's the way it is. Do you think that if you were not born in your religion (I'm assuming you were, but maybe you were not) you would believe in the Christian doctrines? I used to believe in the religion of my parents, but I began to question. In the army I kept kosher by not eating meat since the meat the army served was not slaughtered in a ritually correct way. We were in the desert, and the army had issued us C-rations which was beef stew in a can. The other soldiers heated their C-rations in their mess kits, and the delicious odor assailed my nostrils. I heated my C-ration and ate it. God did not punish me, and my belly was delighted. I started to examine my religious beliefs, and they did not stand up to my examination. I discarded them, and no other religion made any more sense so I discarded religion altogether.

Seneca was a wise Roman and he wrote, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”

I think Seneca got it right, and religion is just another superstition.

david f, I do not follow the religion of my parents - they would be horrified to know my stance. I do not follow cultural rules of a religion, I relate my self in spirit to my Creator, who i accept as a genius, into whose image we were made. You might believe you were made by random events I do not.

mhaze,

My husband knows me well. He knows that
like the Spartan women - I am independent-minded.
And like them I enjoy and have more freedoms
and power than my counterparts. (smile).

There is no politics that is values free, they all hinge on the values held by the ones leading the Nation. Even atheistic Marxism upholds their values in laws. All political systems have flaws, some more inhumane than others. David has not given a country whose system satisgies all citizens.

Dear Josephus,

I was not created by random events. I was created by my father and mother having sexual intercourse. I have two creators - no more. No supernatural entity was involved. It is reasonable to assume you were created in the same way by two different people.

Why would your parents be horrified by your stance?

Josephus- Kudos on sticking to your principles- you might be interested in the similar debate on God between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK5M1BrQeG8

Here's a further analysis that might be of interest
on the subject:

http://nationalobserver.com/2018/06/26/analysis/sam-harris-and-jordon-peterson-waste-lot-time-then-talk-about-god-20-minutes

http://marionwest.com/2020/07/20/how-sam-harris-has-affected-my-opinion-on-jordon-peterson/

Foxy, One no longer available. The other an Add for a news article.

Oh! I see Davidf is made in the image of his parents with their subconcious beliefs and attitudes. He is in denial of anything beyond them incase he has to confer life to a desighner.

Josephus,

My apologies. I made a typo in both links - misspelling
Jordan Peterson's name. Here are the links again:

http://nationalobserver.com/2018/06/26/analysis/sam-harris-and-jordan-peterson-waste-lot-time-then-talk-about-god-20-minutes

http://merionwest.com/2020/07/20/how-sam-harris-has-affected-my-opinion-on-jordan-peterson/

I hope they work this time.

I would have loved to have been there when they had that debate.

The debate between Jordan Peterson & Sam Harris was over about five sessions and across multiple continents.

At the very least it would have been an interesting
exchange of arguments.

" We must respect the other fellow's religion,
but only in the sense and to the extent that we
respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and
his children smart."

(H.L. Mencken).

63rd Webinar - 18 September 2021
Challenging Leonidas:
Shattering the Myth of Spartan Warrior Supremacy
with Myke Cole
The last stand at Thermopylae made the Spartans legends in their own time, famous for their toughness, stoicism and martial prowess. But was this reputation earned? The Spartan hoplite enjoys unquestioned currency as history’s greatest fighting man, but is this simply down to the success of a propaganda machine that began working long before the battle at the Hot Gates? Covering Sparta’s full classical history from the foundation of the city-state through to its final overthrow by Rome in the 1st century BC, author Myke Cole challenges the long-held myths about this ancient Greek society and depicts a very different view of Spartan warfare – one punctuated by frequent and heavy losses. Looking at the major battles, with a special focus on previously under-publicized Spartan reverses that have been left largely unexamined, it reveals why Spartan society became dedicated to militarism, and examines the men who lived under its brutal rule.


Myke Cole has had a colorful and varied career, with service in war and crisis response with the CIA, the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), and the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence). He commanded the reserve at US Coast Guard Station New York, where he was responsible for maritime law enforcement and search-and-rescue operations around the island of Manhattan. He went on to work for the NYPD in cyber threat intelligence, and continues that work in the private sector. Most recently he has taken up firefighting in New York’s Hudson Valley.

Myke’s writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Daily Beast, The New Republic, and Foreign Policy. He is the author of Legion versus Phalanx: The Epic Struggle for Infantry Supremacy in the Ancient World and The Bronze Lie Shattering the Myth of Spartan Warrior Supremacy. Myke is also a popular fantasy and science fiction novelist with several major imprints. He appeared on CBS’ hit TV show Hunted,
and later starred on Discovery Channel’s Contact alongside fellow Osprey author Dr. Michael Livingston.

BECOME a MEMBER
or
LOGIN to UPGRADE

Dear Josephus,

There is simply no evidence for the existence of a designer. There is no reason for me to think there is a designer. There is an explanation for the majesty of life in all its forms. In "The Origin of the Species" Darwin beautifully expressed it.

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

Darwinian evolution has been superseeded with rational thought, there is design and unfolding development in all life and it began at one point. In the beginning - time, space - heavens and matter - earth were formed instantly. In our Solar system life began on Earth as plant, then as aquatic, then trees then creatures of the air then animals and humans finally humans with intelligent reasoning.

Dear Josephus,

Darwinian evolution has not been superseded. It is still the basis of biological science. Darwin continued a tradition started by Thales, recognized as the first philosopher in the Greek tradition. The ancient Greeks, like possibly many other people, believed that the actions of the gods caused various events. They believed that Zeus threw thunderbolts, and Poseidon caused storms at sea. Your belief in a designer god is an example of that kind of thinking. Thales who died in the sixth century BCE thought that natural events have natural causes. Darwin found some of the natural causes for the proliferation of life we have on earth. Evolutionary biologists are finding out more about various evolutionary mechanisms, but Darwin’s insights are still accepted.

Josephus- I find David F's position as lacking and prejudiced and dictatorial against many religious cultures- there is a difference between science and scientism- he probably doesn't intend on being prejudiced- but it's really hard to see things in a way that is counter to your own interest.

As Joseph Stiglitz says no one will support a system that is not in their interest.

As has been attributed to Voltaire "I may disagree what you say but support your right to say it"- I'd probably vary this axiom somewhat but it's an approximation.

Sadly the government and special interest groups have subtly engaged in policies regarding culture that have disadvantaged incumbents for a long time in contradiction to principles of mandate. At the same time they have engaged in propaganda against the people to justify these policies. The establishment will always have a different position to the popular position and will try the subvert the process- sadly the power establishment is often more nimble than the popular establishment.

Someone put it in the following way- there is a continual revolution between the elites and the sub-elites to obtain power. The Communists seem to be well aware of this process and use counter-revolutionary tactics to maintain communism. Mao recognized the potential of the academics to act as a counter-revolutionary centre and pre-emptively acted against them. You can see these pre-emptive actions against dissenting academics in the west today.

Politics is complicated- in the Cold War they talked of being "trapped in the Hall Of Mirrors" perhaps an allusion to the Palace of Versailles.

http://en.chateauversailles.fr/discover/estate/palace/hall-mirrors
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_73379.shtml
http://www.quora.com/In-psychology-what-does-it-mean-if-someone-is-in-a-hall-of-mirrors?share=1
http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=17086
http://text.npr.org/141682602

Dear Josephus,

The history of life can be found at:

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

Multicellular life can only existed for a small part of the history of the earth and human life a very much smaller part.

It's a fascinating story.

Dear Josephus,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life is a more concise account of the history of life.

Enjoy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Overview

In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[2][3] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[4] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[5] and philosophers such as Mary Midgley,[6] the later Hilary Putnam,[6][7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.[9]

More generally, scientism is often interpreted as science applied "in excess". This use of the term scientism has two senses:

Anti-scientism

Philosopher Paul Feyerabend, who was an enthusiastic proponent of scientism in his youth,[51] later came to characterize science as "an essentially anarchic enterprise"[52] and argued emphatically that science merits no exclusive monopoly over "dealing in knowledge" and that scientists have never operated within a distinct and narrowly self-defined tradition. In his essay Against Method he depicted the process of contemporary scientific education as a mild form of indoctrination, aimed at "making the history of science duller, simpler, more uniform, more 'objective' and more easily accessible to treatment by strict and unchanging rules."[53]

[S]cience can stand on its own feet and does not need any help from rationalists, secular humanists, Marxists and similar religious movements; and ... non-scientific cultures, procedures and assumptions can also stand on their own feet and should be allowed to do so ... Science must be protected from ideologies; and societies, especially democratic societies, must be protected from science ... In a democracy scientific institutions, research programmes, and suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control, there must be a separation of state and science just as there is a separation between state and religious institutions, and science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only road to truth and reality.
— Paul Feyerabend, Against Method, p. viii[54]

Dear Canem Malem,

I have no argument with Josephus' principles. They are probably to be kind and obey the law as long as it doesn't conflict what one sees as moral. Those are my principles, and I doubt that Josephus will be cruel or harm anyone for those principles. We differ in beliefs, but in a civilised country one lives peacefully with a person who has different beliefs.

Can religion and science co-exist?

" The late German-born physicist Albert Einstein
believed that science without religion was lame, and
religion without science was blind. But the debate
over whether science and religion can co-exist has
been going on since the dawn of mankind and continues
to divide opinion even today ..." as INCH magazine
found out.

It may be of interest to read the various opinions
on the subject given in the link below:

http://ineos.com/inch-magazine/articles/issue-7/debate/

It is OK for any of us to believe what we believe
as long as it doesn't do harm to others. It is not
OK however, for us to insist that everyone else
believe the same as us.

Thank You David F., for explaining your position.

Several statements in http://ineos.com/inch-magazine/articles/issue-7/debate/ the article Foxy referred to are questionable.

“But the debate over whether science and religion can co-exist has been going on since the dawn of mankind”

How can anyone know what humans were debating at the dawn of mankind?

How can anyone assume that humanity had the concepts of science or religion at the dawn of mankind?

The article also states, “Religion concerns the meaning and purpose of the world and of human life, the proper relation of people to the Creator and to each other, the moral values that inspire and govern people’s lives.”

All religions do not assume a creator. The idea of a creator is not a Buddhist notion. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion.

All religions do not contain moral values. In many of polytheistic religions one would worship the gods and seek the god’s favor, but the gods had no say on one’s moral code.

Whether science and religion can co-exist depends on how one defines religion. The author of the article has a limited view of religion and makes unverifiable assumptions.

Dear David F.,

The reason I chose to give that particular link
was because there were many various opinions being
expressed from a variety of people on the subject .
I thought it might be interesting to read what others
had to say on the subject of whether religion and
science can co-exist. It is OK to have different
opinions after all - our world was created with differences.

Dear David F.,

You objected to the phrase - "dawn of mankind".

I guess it depends on how one interprets that
remark.

Found on the web:

"Aristotle is considered by many to be the first
scientist. In Greece in the 4th century BC he
pioneered the techniques of logic, observation,
inquiry, and demonstration and these would shape
Western philosophical and scientific culture through
the Middle Ages and the early modern era and would
influence some aspects of the natural sciences even
up to the 18th century."

Hitler was so influenced by Darwin he felt he must now be responsible to raise a superior rase of humana and eradicate the lower species. Hitler believed the current science in his quest for a super race. He thought he was assisting evolution.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hitler_and_evolution

Hitler believed in evolution and not in creationism. He stated this not only in Mein Kampf but also in his second book, Zweites Buch.

“In the times before man, world history was primarily a presentation of geological events: the struggle of natural forces with one another, the creation of an inhabitable surface on this planet, the separation of water from land, the formation of mountains, of plains, and of the seas".

http://www.historyonthenet.com/hitlers-views-eugenics

i believe there in a mind behind creation, but I do not believe in 6 24 hour days, they were periods and the created chemistry was empowered to bring forth species except on the case of Gen 1: 1 Time, Space and matter, the spark of life. and the intelligence of and moral spirit of man. Everything emerged from the created chemistry that existed at day as the remainder of Genesis 1. records every thing else emerged from the existing chemistry.

There are moral principles in understanding there is a purpose for our existence. The reason why, and it it is not explained in science.

Dear Foxy,

I didn't object to the phrase, dawn of mankind. I objected to the idea that someone could assume there was such a thing as language at the time, and that humans were having debates about such concepts as science and religion.

From Evolution from ape to man. From Proconsul to Homo Heidelbergensis - YouTube

Three million years ago Australopithecus afarensis of East Africa evolved into the first humans. I don’t think they were having discussions about science and religion.

In my opinion science and most religions cannot comfortably coexist. I understand science to have as a basic idea the concept that natural events have natural causes. As far as we know, that idea was first expressed by Thales (c. 620-548 BCE), the first Greek philosopher.

Most religions contain a supernatural element. There is something outside of nature. One may fudge over that difference, but I believe the difference is irreconcilable. There are religions such as Unitarianism and humanistic Judaism that have eliminated the supernatural elements but keep certain practices and rituals. They are the exceptions which can coexist with science.

Dear Josephus,

Hitler was influenced by Social Darwinism. This was a particular interpretation of Darwin’s works that Darwin himself didn’t hold.

Social Darwinism - Wikipedia

“Social Darwinism refers to various societal practices around the worldand defined by scholars in Western Europe and North America in the 1870s that applied biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology, economics and politics.[1][2] Social Darwinism posits that the strong see their wealth and power increase while the weak see their wealth and power decrease. Various social Darwinist schools of thought differ on which groups of people are the strong and which are the weak, and also differ on the precise mechanisms that reward strength and punish weakness.[clarification needed] Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism, while others, emphasizing struggle between national or racial groups, support nationalism, authoritarianism, eugenics, racism, imperialism, communism and/or fascism.[3][4][5] The ideology of social Darwinism inspired the perpetrators of genocides including the Armenian genocide.

Social Darwinism declined in popularity as a purportedly scientific concept following the First World War, and was largely discredited by the end of the Second World War—partially due to its association with Nazism and partially due to a growing scientific consensus that it was scientifically groundless.[6][7] Later hypotheses that were categorized as social Darwinism were generally described as such as a critique by their opponents; their proponents did not identify themselves by such a label.[8][7] Creationists have frequently maintained that social Darwinism—leading to policies designed to reward the most competitive—is a logical consequence of "Darwinism" (the theory of natural selection in biology).[9] Biologists and historians have stated that this is a fallacy of appeal to nature, since the theory of natural selection is merely intended as a description of a biological phenomenon and should not be taken to imply that this phenomenon is good or that it ought to be used as a moral guide in human society.

In reply to David F's comments- My understanding it was Homo Erectus at the 3 million year mark rather than "Australopithecus" which was 160K years but I won't argue that point. I'm sure "human's" were coming down from the trees before this but they still needed the trees. I can't remember the year when humans separated from Chimps and Bonobo's. There is some contention as to the dates and whether the researchers follows the "Out of Africa" or "Multi-origin" theories. Neanderthal and Cromagnon man could be also be considered as related to modern humans more or less with each ethnic group.

There are sign posts in history that point to certain states of existence of humanity.

It's interesting that some want to attribute everything to Hitler. There is the public perception of Hitler, the private perception of Hitler, and a few other "archetypes". There seem to be many Hitler's. I'd have to check David F's assertions about Darwinism and Hitler- certainly as David F has said he wasn't the only one that the Social Darwinism Scientism can be attributed to- in a sense Social Darwinism may be partially true. Reality is complex- Jung's- Man And His Symbols discusses the holistic principle of reality and truth.

Dear David F.,

Thanks for adding your comments to the subject
of "Can Religion and Science co-exist?"
This debate will probably continue for
sometime yet.

cont'd ...

Dear David F.,

The following link may be of interest:

http://abc.net.au/news/science/2018-05-24/three-scientists-talk-about-how-their-faith-fits-with-their-work/9543772

Dear Foxy,

Although I posted that science and religion cannot reasonably coexist the fact is that they do coexist. We live with paradox. Bertrand Russell had an example. Think of a box with the statement in it, "All statements in this box are false." If the statement is true all statements in the box are not false. If the statement is true there is an unresolvable contradiction.

Science and religion can coexist, not only in society, but in the same person. If one googles 'religious scientists' there are many examples. My statement stated that science and religion cannot reasonably coexist. The fact is that science and religion unreasonably coexist.

Dear David F.,

As stated earlier this debate has been going on for
some time and continues to divide opinion even today.
It makes life interesting.

I look forward to our next discussion. For me this
one has now run its course.

Enjoy your day.

david f is in the same field as Bertrand Russell, both had damaging experiences with religion so it colours their logic. I am not saying that their experiences were not unjust Russell's was, as he lost his father in Rome.

What I am aserting is not religion, but conceptual understanding of who I am in history. His Story.

Thanks Josephus- your identity and your story is important.

Dear CM,

What a lovely thing to say.

In answer to Foxy's comment- It needed to be said.

Dear CM,

And Kudos for saying it!

Our identities and all our stories are important.
Sharing them is how we learn to understand each
other and become culturally aware and respectful.