Science v. Religion: The perfect metaphor

Jim Downey's picture

The next time someone tells you that science and religion don't have to be at odds, remember this little news item. It is perhaps the perfect metaphor for the relationship of the two.

From the 12/26/06 LA Times comes the story of how modern science is reclaiming a lost work of Archimedes, which had been erased to accomodate use as a religious text:

The sheepskin parchment originally contained a 10th century Greek text, which was erased by a 13th century scribe who replaced it with prayers. Seven hundred years later, a forger painted gilded pictures of the Evangelists on top of the faded words.

Underneath it all, however, is an exceptional treasure — the oldest surviving copy of works by the ancient Greek mathematician and engineer Archimedes of Syracuse, who lived in the 3rd century BC.


Palimpsests
such as this are fairly common, since parchment is both expensive and durable, able to be scrubbed clean and reused when the previous text is no longer wanted or valued. As a book conservator, I have seen and worked on a couple of these items.

But nothing like this one, which contains text residue from the original book. Again, from the LA Times article:

Knowledge of Archimedes' work is derived from three books.

Codex A, transcribed around the 9th century, contained seven major treatises in Greek. Codex B, created around the same time, had at least one additional work by Archimedes and survived only in Latin translation.

Codex C has been an enigma.

It was originally copied down in 10th century Constantinople, now known as Istanbul. Three centuries later, the manuscript was in Palestine. By then, it was no longer a precious vestige of ancient learning but an obscure text that could be put to better use as a prayer book.

So, the monastic scribe literally erased the words of Archimedes, in order to use the parchment for a religious text. The book was discovered about the turn of the last century, and a Danish expert on Archimedes by the name of Heiberg studied it carefully, using a magnifying glass. He was able to read about 80% of the original Archimedes text residual, under the religious text.

More recently (the book was 'lost' again for most of the 20th century), modern science has come to the fore again in order to try and recover an additional 18% of the text, using a combination of ultraviolet and then X-Ray imaging techniques, including text which had been completely lost previously:

Bergmann's X-ray work had produced a black-and-white picture of a page from "The Method of Mechanical Theorems," a text found only in the palimpsest.

***

The X-ray image also revealed a section of "The Method" that had been hidden from Heiberg in the fold between pages. It contained part of a discussion on how to calculate the area inside a parabola using a new way of thinking about infinity, Netz said. It appeared to be an early attempt at calculus — nearly 2,000 years before Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz invented the field.

So, there you have it. Early work in the science of mathematics, scraped away and covered over with religion, only to be reclaimed by science and scholarship again. Could there be a more perfect metaphor for the relationship between science and religion?

Jim Downey

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
naremannis's picture

people

I agree with it.

John Wilkins's picture

To be fair...

... palimpsests were typically books that had become largely unreadable, for which there was a later copy. The vellum was expensive and reuseable, so it was very common for old books to be reused for other purposes, when there was another more readable copy about. It's not that they decided prayer was more important than geometry, so much as an unusable geometry text could be recycled.

The standard balance of medieval literature in these monasteries was classical and religious. It is not that monastery's fault that the Archimedes text did not survive later. In fact, many of these texts are only known through copies from monastic libraries.

Sorry to rip on the metaphor...

Jim Downey's picture

I'm not sure...

John, I'm not sure I agree with that, since it is at odds with my experience and training. Typically, the inks used were fairly stable, given storage and handling conditions of the period (I've worked on a number of manuscript books ranging back to the 11th century). Some of the inks used were light friable or water soluable, but so long as those problems weren't present, the pigments usually lasted until they were washed away or scraped clean.

Now, there are instances where a text was no longer understood, because of language differences or even the style of writing being so antiquated that it was no longer current, so the parchment was recycled in the way you suppose. Is this what you mean?

Jim Downey

"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller

decrepitoldfool's picture

Diego De Landa

Diego de Landa (1562)
"We found a large number of these books in these characters and, as they contained nothing in which there was not to be seen superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they regretted to an amazing degree and which caused them great affliction."
Robert Sharer, The Ancient Maya, p. 513

Unfortunately no way to get those books back short of time travel.

Jim Downey's picture

Countless examples.

That's a good one. There are countless examples through history of religiously-motivated destruction of entire libraries, such as the Library at Alexandria.

Part of the history of early printing is exactly this sort of tension, with itinerant printers trying to stay one step ahead of the religious authorities. Even the printing of the Bible in the vernacular was cause for considerable repression.

Jim Downey

"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller

Aerik's picture

IIDB

When this story came up on the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, I tried to remind fellow commenters how this still occurs today in a more bold and honest fashion. Creationist organizations in the United States have been known to urge parents and other devout members to go into school or public libraries, use permanent marker to cover up evolutionary or other 'non-biblical' text in textbooks, history books, and science books, and write in 'biblically correct' substitutions.

Is it any different than a monk erasing Archimedes just to write some irrelevant prayer? Nope. It's not different in practice nor intent. It's un-scholarly, it's dishonest, it's sneaky, it's greedy, it's malevolent, it's wrong.

Jim Downey's picture

Interesting.

Got a link for that discussion? It sounds interesting. I wasn't aware that there was any kind of organized effort in this regard.

Jim Downey

"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller

Aerik's picture

here's our link

Here's the link to the thread.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=191034

While I can't provide a link to this behavior of modern Christians doing this in libraries, it has been known to happen. After dinner, I'll sniff around and see if I can provide a link to a news or blog item highlighting an incident.

Edit: continued...

Here we go. This took some seriously weird googling, but I found this link at theology web.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=36696
It's a thread about a father encouraging exactly what I'm talking about, with joyful tears and praise. and it was Answers in Genesis who inculcated him. More links here: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_prayer_news_dinosaurs.htm the inciting incident, and the post came accompanied with this file http://www.answersingenesis.org/australia/newsletters/AUST-July%202004.p... , illustrating how AiG encourages strict biblical history to a zealous fervor.

Mike G. explained that even his 5-year-old son watched a Ken Ham video series which con-tained information about dinosaurs. He wrote, "I was not real sure if my son was grasping any of the information... . Well, tonight at bed-time I realized that he has been getting a healthy dose of the truth... . He asked me why the scientists want to deceive people by telling lies about creation and dinosaurs. When I explained that if they admitted to the fact of God creating everything that they would have to face their own sin, my son thought about it for a second and then said, "Daddy I know what I am going to do when I get older and can read by myself ... I am going to go to the library and get all of the science books and erase all of the lies in them." Needless to say I wept and thanked God for my son. ...' You can teach your young ones the truth. One of the finest creationist books on the subject is Dinosaurs by Design. Beautifully illustrated, it is packed with information to help children think biblically about those 'missionary lizards'. See page 10 for a special price this month.

RickU's picture

Sickening

And this is why I agree w/ Dawkin's assertion that teaching religious beliefs to young children is child abuse. That poor kid doesn't even have a chance...

Aerik's picture

Prophetic

Actually, before I became the super-strong atheist that I am, I ran into this scientist and author before Richard Dawkins:

I was actually researching child abuse, when I came up on this site, a collection of essays against spanking. But in it is my favorite essay taking a stand against religious indoctrination ever.

http://nospank.net/humphrey.htm

It's entitled, "What Shall We Tell the Children?" and was given by Nicholas Humphrey (HomePage), from the Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science of the London School of Economics.

I'll give you a run-down of his long speech to Amnesty International that I linked to above. Nicholas Humphrey compares the teaching of religion to children to mandatory female circumcision. No matter how we feel about multiculturalism, it is a violation of that person's rights as a human being to restrict their ability to explore their body to their fullest extent, as they have the right to be treated as an end to themselves. --> And so with the body, so with the mind. Teaching religion to children restricts and hinders their minds in such a way as to cripple them in ways no less serious than circumcision or knocking their teeth out and locking them in a dungeon. And nobody can take away that one essential right, not even by parents. In the end, the only morally defensible worldview is the scientific one, for it is the only worldview we can say that a person would choose for themselves given all the possible choices and all the proper experience.

Think of those cases, not so uncommon, when it has become a central plank of someone's belief system that they must not let themselves be defiled by mixing with others. When, because of their faith, all they want to hear is one voice, and all they want to read is one text. When they treat new ideas as if they carry infection. When, later, as they grow more sophisticated, they come to deride reason as an instrument of Satan. When they regard the humility of unquestioning obedience as a virtue. When they identify ignorance of worldly affairs with spiritual grace... In such case, it hardly matters what their minds may still remain capable of learning, because they themselves will have made certain they never again use this capacity.

The question was, does childhood indoctrination matter: and the answer, I regret to say, is that it matters more than you might guess. The Jesuit did know what he was saying. Though human beings are remarkably resilient, the truth is that the effects of well-designed indoctrination may still prove irreversible, because one of the effects of such indoctrination will be precisely to remove the means and the motivation to reverse it. Several of these belief systems simply could not survive in a free and open market of comparison and criticism: but they have cunningly seen to it that they don't have to, by enlisting believers as their own gaolers. So, the bright young lad, full of hope and joy and inquisitiveness, becomes in time the nodding elder buried in the Torah; the little maid, fresh to the morning of the world, becomes the washed up New Age earth mother lost in mists of superstition.

...

Jim Downey's picture

Excellent.

That's an excellent piece. Thanks.

Jim Downey

"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller

Aerik's picture

You're Welcome!

Hey, I'm always glad to drop that link. I do it quite often in comment threads and forums. Too bad I don't get much feedback about it.

I wish somebody would, especially for this part:

By contrast conversions from science back to superstition are virtually unknown. It just does not happen that someone who has learnt and understood science and its methods and who is then offered a non-scientific alternative chooses to abandon science. I doubt there has ever been a case, for example, of someone who has been brought up to believe the geological theory of volcanoes moving over to believing in divine anger instead, or of someone who has seen and appreciated the evidence that the world is round reverting to the idea that the world is flat, or even of someone who has once understood the power of Darwinian theory going back to preferring the story of Genesis.

Emphasis mine.

At first it may seem that Francis Collins is a direct contradiction of that last one. If Nicholas Humphrey were a known and public atheist, I'm sure creationists would be tackling this assertion left and right. It'd be easy to dismiss, though, for in his defense, Collins has said some pretty wacky and wrong things about the alleged problems of evolution. He studied DNA, but apparently he sure didn't study any evolution! Not well, anyways.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content