The Italian philologist, Lorenzo Valla, studied the Latin document “The Donation of Constantine”, which purported to the legitimize the land grab of the Western Roman Empire by the Catholic Church. Using historical, linguistic and philological evidence in 1440, he pronounced it a fake. He found that words and constructions in the document could not possibly have been used by anyone in the time of Emperor Constantine at the beginning on the 4th Century. Words like “feudum”, for instance appeared in the document, a word invented in the 7th Century. He was “skeptical, empirical, he drew a hypothesis, he was rational, he used abstract reasoning and textual phenomena as evidence…..He was the founder of stemmatic philology”.
Using similar techniques, Erasmus demonstrated that the concept of the Trinity did not appear in bibles before the 11th Century, while Joseph Sealiger reconstructed all the ancient Egyptian dynasties back to 5285 b.c, thus predating the Bible’s chronology for the creation of the Earth by 1,300 years. (A light editing of part of an article by Michael Schermer in “Scientific American”).
These are early examples of the scientific method and clashes with “belief” of tens of thousands of religious people of many faiths, who believe in the words of simple herdsmen and agrarians to be the word of God, interpreting the world around them to the best of their ability and imagination.
Epicureanism, on the other hand, is based upon science, upon fact examined, pored over and gradually accepted after thorough testing. It is the faith for rational human beings, who prefer fact over myth.
Post from Jane Dean:
I’m surprised to hear that Epicurus based his teachings on the scientific method. I understand it was Karl Popper (1902 -1994) who introduced the hypothetico deductive method of scientific research, based on observations and experiment.
He formulated a hypothesis, and tried to prove it wrong. You can never prove something to be Absolutely true or right because there could always be an exception to the “rule”. For example “all swans are white” holds until someone sees a black one. Results of experiments then have to be replicated, and the hypotheses only hold if or until no one can find otherwise. We then have a scientific theory.
Are you saying that Epicurus did this with his hypothesis that there should be moderation all things for people to be happy?”
I admire Karl Popper whose work has influenced how I think about so many aspects of history. Millennia before Popper, others approached reality with a scientific mindset, even though not yet systematized procedures. Thales of Miletus and the Ionian scientists in general, Hellenistic science, and the Medieval monastics, especially the Franciscans, also did solid science.
Science, though, deals with the physical world and doesn’t claim that its methods can answer qualitative questions. Religions tackle the BIG qualitative questions about ultimate meanings of human experience and, unsurprisingly, come up with some truths and a lot of nonsense. Even denying there is any meaning at all, is an answer to a perfectly valid question.
From this point of view, Epicurus observed the realities of his time and trusted empirical knowledge which led to his emphasis on moderation and rejection of fear as a driver in human happiness. From that point of view he could be considered “scientific.” From another point of view, and I’m using “religious” is the broadest terms, his ethical teachings might be considered “religious.” This is, I think, a very moderate conclusion. 🙂
Epicurus followed Democritus in postulating the idea of atoms constituting matter on Earth. He didn’t have a laboratory, microscopes and all thes scientific equipment we now have, but his school of thought influenced every seeker after truth down to the present. He was right about atoms, was he not? He was careful not to appear an atheist, but he thought the gods on Mount Olympus bickered on and never involved themselves in human affairs. His thoughts are encompassed in the work of Lucretius, “de rerum Natura”. This work is a summary of science as far as could be established at the time. It isan extensive work; please try to read it (I don’t understand some of it myself). When it was rediscovered in more modern times it laid the basis on modern science and influenced Galileo, Newton etc. Please also read “The Swerve”, an excellent read, which will explain better than I can how science progressed from Epicurus and the ancient Greeks. I didn’t mean to infer that Epicurus himself invented the scientific method; but modern followers of the thought of Epicurus certainly subscribe to all science based on observation and experiment, as opposed to belief.
By the way,