History reveals the many questions posed by all who were curious. History also tells us the various means used to answer these questions. These means range from mythological to scientific explanations. By today's standards, a scientific explanation seems to bear more truth and rigor in methods used to arrive at the truth than any other means of explanation. Though the reasonable approach to answer a question apparently would be through science, it has not been the safest approach, as history also tells us. Explanations of natural phenomena have been wrapped within the coating of religion and politics of the time. Therefore, attempts to reach a definitive truth were stymied by the will of religion and politics. Clearly, as the coating of religion and politics eroded over time, so too have the methods attaining a definitive truth evolved. These methods, when minimally influenced or altogether independent of religion and politics, are known as scientific. In this essay I will argue, using ancient texts such as Hesiod's Theogony, Plato's Timaeus, along with classical works by Galileo, Kepler among others, that where religion had significant power over what should be accepted as the truth, science was forced to attribute the findings to a divine purpose, thereby limiting access to the observable truth, which often times existed outside the realm of religion. Conversely, where religion was significantly weakened, science evolved to provide definitive truths, which at times clashed with religious views. To illustrate this even further, I will contrast Plato's understanding of vision, with what has been scientifically proven independent of a religious perspective.

      Hesiod's Theogony is often seen as the first story to give a full account of how the gods, universe and humankind came into being(1). Hesiod's myth presents the Olympian Gods with human characteristics, i.e., emotions, desires, needs, etc. It is through these characteristics they constructed the world and everything within it. The creation of the world is therefore attributed to that which is divine and unattainable by humankind. However, the divine can reach humankind, which may instill fear in mortals, thereby forcing mortals to praise the divine. Such a connection to the need to praise and believe in the deities can be made and used to explain why the need to praise and abide by the rules of a divine creator would easily be propagated for centuries. It would be difficult to prove that worship of some sort was not going on prior to Hesiod's account, as there may have been no other way to explain the creation of the universe and humankind. Religion set the foundation for how people were to view the world and themselves in it along with the level of fear one should have, should one deviate from these ideas. However, the means by which we come to believe that the deities are indeed responsible for all natural phenomena will not go unquestioned. The extent to which the deities are in full control of all phenomena is questioned by Plato in Timaeus. Plato, however, does not separate observable phenomena from a divine force, but offers a means by which we can understand and reconcile the two.

      Plato challenges Hesiod on his account of creation and the role the gods play in the lives of humankind. He condemns Hesiod for telling stories that are not true but are not false and that he "does not tell falsehoods well"(2). In essence, Plato may be questioning how scientific Hesiod's work may be. If Hesiod's claims cannot be falsified, they may not be scientific. Plato goes on in Timaeus to combine what amounts to mathematics, astronomy, anatomy and physiology to explain observable phenomena. He does, however, hold a divine architecture accountable. The main difference we see in Plato's explanation of the creation of the universe and humankind is the absence of the plethora of deities seen in Theogony, and the noticeable presence of one demiurge. This singular use of the divine may account for the plural use of the inchoate aforementioned natural sciences at the time.

      Though it is unclear to what extent Plato was reverent due to social pressures, it is clear that he does believe that all observable phenomena are caused by the ingenuity of a divine creator. He states in Timaeus: "...And that is why we should distinguish two kinds of cause, the necessary and the divine, and should search in everything for the divine cause, if we are to attain as blessed a life as our nature permits..."(3). This quotation provides us with insight into how an attempt at attaining a truth was wrapped in the coating of religion or belief. Hereafter, as Plato attempts to reach the truth of observable phenomena, he does so using the new sciences, but with the assumption that all truth must lead back to a divine cause and so, the "truth" is nonetheless explained to conform to a religious belief of some sort, and not independent thereof. This approach used to reconcile religious belief and science lasted for more than twelve hundred years(4). There will be more on Plato later, after I discuss the removal of the religious coat altogether, in order to get to an observable truth.

      Fast forward to the year 1517 when the church is experiencing a tenuous fissure known as the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther had nailed his 95 theses on a church door, creating hostility within the church(5). That act lead not only to religious reform, but also to the scientific revolution. Among those, who were involved in the church at this time was Nicholaus Copernicus, a mathematician assigned the duty of adjusting the calendar to accurately predict the solstices and equinoxes. In such an undertaking Copernicus decided to rely strictly on science to reach the truth(6). By using this approach Copernicus argued that the earth indeed revolved around the sun and on its axis, a conclusion that contradicted both the church and the works of Aristotle. Copernicus died shortly after the publication of his works, which was not well received until it read by Tycho Brahe, further interpreted by Johannes Kepler and strongly supported by Galileo Galilei. One should take note that although, the Protestant Reformation was taking place, it only served to strengthen the church's resolve in maintaining power, so both Kepler and Galileo were very careful in their writings to indicate that their findings did not conflict with the views of the church. However, a close analysis of both their prefaces will reveal that such comments were only made to appease the church. Nonetheless, here history shares with us the first examples of attempts to remove the influence of religion on methods used to obtain the truth. When the influence of religion is in fact removed, the truth is remarkably different than what is expected. So now is this the case with Plato. If Plato were to remove his idea that we should search in everything for the divine cause, would we observe something different than if we were to search in everything for the divine cause? The answer is yes. Let us look at his notion of seeing and compare it with what we know today about the same subject.

      In regards to the eyes, Plato writes: "...The first of the organs constructed were the light-bearing eyes...They found a way to make a distinct stuff out of that portion of fire which has the ability to shed gentle light without burning..."(7). Here Plato details an account of how vision works, but notice his connection to the demiurge and gods. In Plato's analysis, we see he strongly believes the earth is comprised of four elements, water, air, fire, earth and these elements come strictly from the divine, so all things must be made up of these elements and can be explained using these elements. Plato continues to tell us that the portion of fire that sheds light exits our eyes and meets the same light emitted from another object. These two lights will meet and the outside object's impulses will transmit to the soul. Modern day science tells us something different. In fact, light is reflected off an object and hits the neurosensory region of the eye, which then transmits impulses to the brain to create an image. Here is a clear example of how religion coats the methods used to obtain the truth.

      In conclusion, using the examples of Hesiod, Plato, Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, we see that the evolution of science is just that and evolution that required the removal of the coat of religion in order for it to develop. The significance of this conclusion is widespread. As we look to teachings and discoveries of the past and analyze them, we should be aware that these truths may have been coated by religion and therefore concluded something different. When looking for truths of the past, we should look at the methods used and determine whether these methods were influenced or independent of religion.

1. Lenardon, Robert 2007. Classical Mythology. Oxford Press 2007, p. 55.
2. Belfiore, Elizabeth, Lies Unlike the Truth: Plato on Hesiod, Transactions of the American Philological Association, 1985.
3. Plato, Timaeus and Critias, Oxford World’s Classics, 2008 p 67.
4. Isenhour, Thomas, The Evolution of Science, 2013 p 39.
5. Chambers Mortimer, et al., The Western Experience, 2003 p 448.
6. Isenhour, Thomas, The Evolution of Science, 2013 p 42.
7. Plato, Timaeus and Critias, Oxford World’s Classics, 2008 p 35.

-O. James

© Orin James 2014