How the Scientific Revolution led the West into Despair

I wrote the following letter after reading the book Assumptions that Affect our Lives by Christian Overman. After proofing my letter, I realized it presents a part of the concern I have about modern science. The letter assumes understanding of a perspective, however, that I need to very, very briefly identify to make the letter more meaningful to my readers.

Francis Schaeffer, Carver T. Yu (Being and Relation: A Theological Critique of Western Dualism and Individualism), James W. Sire (The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog) and Christian Overman all elaborate to one degree or another what Schaeffer calls the “line of despair.” Essentially, the change in worldview from some form of theistic worldview to one that provides no meaning, purpose or context for mankind leads to nihilism in various forms and to varying degrees. All these authors, except for Yu who is cited below, do not consider the Scientific Revolution as playing a part in that descent into despair in the Western world.

I suspect many of my readers are unaware of such a descent because it isn’t evident in the general population – or so one would think. I encourage reading the works of Schaeffer and the others listed above before deciding that your impression of the state of affairs in our Western culture is correct. Until then, assume for the moment that their assessment is true and consider what I wrote to Christian Overman below.

---

Mr. Overman: I’m enjoying your book Assumptions that Affect our Lives. I’ve been pursuing this same topic from a different perspective, in particular, the affect of science on Western civilization and Western Christianity. I’ve done a lot of reading over the last few years on the history of science and I’ve found that Greek philosophy and certain occult arts are at the very foundation without question. In other words, modern science was founded in and upon much of the same worldview that you elaborate in your book. Several books I’ve read have shown how the affect science has had on the Western worldview line up very much with those effects you express concern about.

In particular, in The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, Edwin Arthur Burtt states the following which I present here very, very briefly. “Till the time of Galileo it had always been taken for granted that man and nature were both integral parts of a larger whole, in which man’s place was the more fundamental.” Later in the same paragraph, he states, “Man begins to appear for the first time in the history of thought as an irrelevant spectator and insignificant effect of the great mathematical system which is the substance of reality.” He goes on to explain the metaphysical implications of the work of Descartes and Newton, as well as that of Galileo, which come out of the scientific revolution and have led to the modern problems you elaborate.

Another interesting book is Carver T. Yu’s Being and Relation: A Theological Critique of Western Dualism and Individualism . He writes from a Chinese, professedly-Christian, perspective and puts forth that Western science is at the root of the problems in Western civilization, which he elaborates much the same as did Francis Schaeffer in his works – the same problems as Schaeffer elaborated, though Schaeffer expressed esteem for science. He then contrasts the Western view of reality with the Hebrew view, briefly, random particles under the capricious laws of physics (western science) vs. God working through history (Hebrew). He cites Eliade in the following statement regarding this impact on Western Christianity: “From this it would appear that, even for a genuine Christian, the world is no longer felt as the work of God .” We might contest that, but perhaps there is more of this thinking in us than we’d like to admit. In any case, I think he has a point that even applies to Western Christianity, and certainly Western civilization as a whole, that science has affected our view of reality vs. the Hebrew view.

James A. Connor, in Kepler’s Witch: An Astronomer’s Discovery of Cosmic Order Amid Religious War, Political Intrigue, and the Heresy Trial of His Mother , talks about the impact of Kepler’s and Galileo’s work leaving man and the universe without meaning. He says, “Later generations seemed to think that the geocentric model promoted the dignity of humanity’s place in the universe, as the apple of God’s eye, while the Copernican system turned this around and set the earth spinning meaninglessly through a meaningless universe .” One problem with the former view, however, was that it was not purely Biblical but heavily influenced by Aristotle’s and Greek philosophy’s view of meaning and purpose. However pagan it may have been, I think we’d have to agree that view is probably closer to a Biblical view than is meaninglessness.

An additional comment on this view of the meaninglessness of matter and the universe comes from a strange reference: Julius E. Heuscher, M.D., F.A.P.A., A Psychiatric Study of Fairy Tales, Their Origin, Meaning and Usefulness . He says, “The rapid development of the physical sciences was favored by either denying reality to, or splitting off, ‘meaningfulness.’ Only when we fully recognize that natural science is the product of a limiting hypothesis ( ‘How does the world appear, if we assume that it has no meaning’ ), can we begin to integrate its fruits in a newly significant conception of the world.” This conception would probably have to be judged anti-Biblical.

There is more which I am trying to elaborate in a kind of draft form on my blog casualmusings.blogspot.com. This doesn’t begin to describe what I am finding as far as the inclusion of occult arts in the development of, as well as the motivation for science.

I have read the book by Pearcey and Thaxton, The Soul of Science , but I think it fails to look critically at the pagan and occult influences on sciences but rather accepts them uncritically as somehow neutral. I fail to see how neo-Platonism and Pythagoreanism and even Aristotle, all pagans with no foundation in anything approaching a Hebrew worldview, could possibly be acceptable to Christians, similarly as you’ve stated in your book regarding the influence of Greece on the modern West. Pearcey and Thaxton try to make the point that the worldview of Christianity was uniquely responsible for the scientific revolution. Rather we find that Christians were immersed in all manner of paganism. I also don’t think we should consider any atheistic influence of the Ionians as any better.

The bottom line: I think the decline you speak of didn’t start 50 or even 200 years ago. I think the decline started in the 2nd century when Christians began adopting aspects of Greek thought through philosophy, propelled by Augustine’s reconciling Plato (Neo-Platonism) with Christianity, furthered by Aquinas’ acceptance of Aristotle, continued by Copernicus’, Kepler’s and Galileo’s resurgence of Neo-Platonism and Pythagoreanism, and especially capped off by Newton’s occult involvement (alchemy and a little black magic) in his development of his theories. In fact, a professor of Eastern philosophy at a local university – not a believer himself – said that all the members of the Royal Society were involved in the occult, most notably Rosicrucianism and alchemy. For Newton, see Michael White’s biography Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer . Of course, these are just the highpoints. Most men in the development of science were professing Christians, yet all were more influenced by worldviews antagonistic to a truly Christian worldview. In other words, I think modern Christianity has missed the negative influence of science. I recognize in that statement that science is a very, very general term.

One last quote by Newbigin, repeated by Hiebert in The Flaw of the Excluded Middle : “…Western Christian missions have been one of the greatest secularizing forces in history.” Should not this indicate to us, if true, that even modern Christianity has been negatively affected by something that has secularized our Christianity to a large degree? Could not this culprit be, in part, science?

Anyhow, any thoughts you have on this would be welcome as I work through this.

Rob Walsman

Opposition to Evolution is Making a Difference

One evening, while driving home from officiating a basketball game, I was listening to the radio program of physicist Dr. Michio Kaku. He made a comment that intrigued me, something to the effect that modern medicine wouldn't be what it is today without Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I sent him an e-mail to find out why that might be so, but all I got was a reply apologizing that he cannot respond to as many e-mails as he gets everyday - please feel free to call into the program. Well, I haven't done that yet, but I did come across a chapter of the book Evolutionary Medicine edited by W. R. Trevathan, J. J. McKenna and E. O. Smith (New York, Oxford University Press, 2nd edition). The chapter was written by R. M. Nesse and is titled "The Importance of Evolution for Medicine."

Briefly, Nesse states that, while the Theory of Evolution has made major significant contributions to medicine, there is still much work to do. In quoting Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's grandfather, regarding his vision of a single theory to unify all of medicine, Nesse makes clear that he believes Evolution to be that unifying theory. He then says the following (pp. 420-1):

Of course, there was no real theory to justify Erasmus Darwin’s vision until his grandson Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace discovered natural selection. In the century and a half since the publication of The Origin of Species (1859), one would think that these ideas would have been applied to medicine in every possible way, but it now appears that we are still just getting started. Why it has taken so long is a good question for historians; the one available history of Darwinian medicine is not yet available in English (Zampieri, 2006).

While we wait for historians to address the issue, some reasons for the delay seem straightforward. One is the slow acceptance of Darwinism in general. Opposition from religious quarters is part of the picture. Some doctors are creationists, and a remarkable number of physicians think intelligent design is a viable alternative to evolution. They are too few to constitute a major obstacle in themselves, but together with community sentiment, they make deans and other leaders wary of public commitments to evolution that may arouse controversy. [emphasis mine]

In other words, the voices of opponents to Evolution have not lost the battle. There are voices out there which see this opposition as an irrational hindrance to the advance of medicine just the same as the Catholic church's opposition to Galileo, and they would lay the blame of lost lives at the feet of Darwin's opponents, but this case is made more subtly at this time mostly because there is no evidence to make so strong a case. They save such vociferous attacks for embryonic stem cell research.

It surprised me to see such an admission. I have heard of cases of researchers being ostracized for opposing Darwinism or even suggesting it may not be true, but thankfully these seem to be isolated cases, at least one would hope so. Then again, Ben Stein's film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" tries to make the contrary case. Wherever the full truth may lie, it seems supporters of Intelligent Design and Creationism are having some effect.

The Double Standard of Opposing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

But [embryonic stem cell] research is controversial because days-old embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells. They typically are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away. – Indianapolis Star, “Obama to reverse limits on stem cell research funds,” March 7, 2009, p. A6

Christians and other pro-life advocates have opposed stem cell research on the grounds that embryos have to be destroyed in order to cull the stem cells, as this article makes clear. What I hadn't realized is where these stem cells come from – fertility clinics. If we are honest with ourselves, we should see that we are applying a double standard: either we should accept embryonic stem cell research or we should oppose the forms of fertility treatment that produce these embryos.

Some fertility treatments entail fertilizing ova, yielding embryos outside the would-be mother’s body. Some of these embryos are then implanted in the mother’s womb, some are frozen and some are discarded. What is the difference between destroying these embryos to cull stem cells and destroying them just because they aren't needed anymore? Ethically, it would seem that destroying leftover embryos for a purpose – to harvest stem cells – is better than destroying them because they are no longer needed or wanted.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing for culling stem cells from embryos. What I’m arguing is that destroying embryos for any reason is wrong in God’s eyes. In other words, Christians should oppose this kind of fertility treatment as well as harvesting stem cells from embryos. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Christians don’t seem to want to go that far. Why? Because infertility is painful, and how can we refuse this option to Christian couples who are unable to conceive otherwise?

We get to the argument of my previous post: compromise in these painful situations is quite compelling. In this case, however, the reasoning for taking advantage of this fertility treatment is not a question of responsibility as it would be in the case of a man unable to provide for his family by refusing life-restoring stem cell therapy. This is simply a case of wanting what we want at any cost, even if it means the destruction of one’s own embryos to get it. That sounds pretty crass.

Yes, the pain Hanna felt (1 Samuel 1) is with couples today. It seems callous of me or anyone else to suggest they forego this fertility treatment in order to experience having children like most people do. But isn’t it just as callous to do so at the expense of perhaps a dozen would be children that we bring into being for the express purpose of having only one of them actually be born without regard for the rest of them. We want what we want when we want it and will do whatever is necessary to achieve our wants regardless of the cost to these children.

The question comes down to this: are these embryos life or not? If they are, we should reject stem cell harvesting and fertility treatments that destroy embryos regardless of what that means we will have to do without. If they are not life, then Christians and pro-lifers should not oppose embryonic stem cell research. To do so would be to live by a double standard.

There are even more basic questions here: Are we willing to live within God’s righteous limitations regardless of what that costs us? What are those limits? Does He offer alternative provisions for these problems which we are not willing to seek and wait for, let alone recognize because they are too hard to come by or not what we want? More on these questions later...

The Ethical Dilemma of Fetal Stem Cell Therapy - Compelled to Compromise

“Mice with spinal cord injuries regained much of their ability to walk normally after getting injections of stem cells taken from the brains of human fetuses … The work strengthens recent evidence that various kinds of stem cells – including some from human embryos and others from fetuses – have the capacity to nurse injured nerve cells back to health and in some cases even become replacement neurons themselves. … [The stem cells] are the progeny of human cells retrieved from the brains of 16- and 18-week aborted fetuses.” – The Indianapolis Star, September 20, 2005, p. A3.

This article said that several companies were hoping to test this therapy in humans since it has been so successful in lab mice. What happens if the stem cells from aborted fetuses or even embryos are proven to restore function to humans with various kinds of nerve damage, whether from diseases such as Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, or spinal cord injuries? Should Christians be willing to receive this therapy? Most Christians I know oppose this research.

Let me pose the following scenario: a Christian man has an injury which paralyzes him. He is no longer able to provide for his family as a result. Let’s say this therapy has been proven effective in humans and has been approved by the FDA. Should this man receive stem cells harvested from an aborted fetus? Refusing this treatment is no longer a hypothetical situation for this man and his family. Even his friends are likely to encourage him to receive the treatment. Suddenly, it is no longer so easy for us to refuse him access to this treatment purely on ethical grounds, nor for him to refuse it. In fact, it seems rather irresponsible to refuse this treatment. Principles can easily fall by the wayside when the stakes are so high.

I was quite surprised, when I posed this scenario to some dear Christian friends, to hear them say they saw no problem with such treatment. They posed the following counter-scenario, one which actually happened in our city not long before our conversation. Some kids egged a man’s truck as he drove by. Angered, he went back to confront them. One of the kids pulled out a gun, shot and killed him. His organs were harvested for use by people on various organ donor lists. His organs saved or greatly improved the quality of life of a number of individuals. My friends said there is absolutely no difference between the scenario I posed and this one, except that abortion is legal and murder is not. If anything, the latter scenario should be less acceptable to us than the former.

These friends are definitely pro-life. They do not in any way support abortion. Yet, they raise a good point, and their reasoning has enabled them to not even think twice about accepting stem cell therapy, should the need arise. What is the ethical difference? The fetus is not aborted for the purpose of harvesting stem cells any more than the man was murdered for the purpose of harvesting organs. As much as we hate murder and abortion, why should that stop us from taking advantage of these therapies?

Let me put another twist on it: if this therapy using fetal stem cells works, will it make the battle to reverse Roe v. Wade all the more difficult? Will it possibly weaken the will of those who oppose abortions – even Christians – making us more willing to look the other way? Most likely it will. If nothing else, this thinking should make us willing to do the irresponsible thing – be willing to refuse to be restored to wholeness by the death of a fetus.

I think you can imagine that if this therapy proves out, it will only take a generation or two before Christians concede that this therapy is acceptable. In fact, I think that all it will take is one member of our church to be in a position to benefit from this therapy and most all of the church will lay aside any qualms. To do otherwise would seem to be extremely callous. For this family to do without this therapy also might entail the whole local Body of Christ coming together to help the family go without, which is something almost unheard of in churches, at least for the long haul. But even if we could help provide for the family, asking that man, or especially a child, to forego a normal life still seems heartless. There is almost no way the church will be able to hold to its principles in the face of such a choice.

This begs the following question: what else has there been to which the church has objected on such ethical grounds or grounds of faith which we now consider acceptable without blushing or questioning or even being aware that there was ever any concern at all? I won’t go into it here, but there have been many objections of Christians through history – rightly or wrongly – which have been forgotten. Qualms have been allayed, and we have gone the way of the world without even being aware there ever was a concern at all. This king of reasoning and success has been far too compelling for Christianity to hold out against it.

Let me close with a portion of a script from an episode of Star Trek Voyager called “Phage” which originally aired February 6, 1995, prior to the stem cell debate coming to a head. A member of an alien race has harvested the lungs of one of Voyager’s crew members to replace his own. The crew member is on artificial life support, when Voyager finally captures the alien and the person to whom he gave the harvested lungs. It is interesting to note that the writers of this episode seem to indicate that there must be limits on therapies, that one must be willing to die rather than to cross certain ethical bounds. It’s rather refreshing to see someone in popular culture suggest such ethical limits.

JANEWAY: You’re on the Starship Voyager. I’m Captain Kathryn Janeway of the United Federation of Planets.

DERETH: I am Dereth … of the Vidiian Sodality.

JANEWAY: You attacked one of our crew members and you lured us into this asteroid. Why?

DERETH: We are gathering replacement organs and suitable biomatter. It is the only way we have to fight the phage.

JANEWAY: A virus? Some kind of disease?

MOTURA: Yes. It attacked our people over two millennia ago. It consumes our bodies, destroys our genetic codes and cellular structures.

JANEWAY: So you harvest the bodies of other beings to replace your own tissues as they’re consumed by this … phage?

MOTURA: Our immunotechnology cannot keep up. The phage adapts. It resists all attempts to destroy it. Our society has been ravaged. Thousands die each day. There is no other way for us to survive.

JANEWAY: I have a great … sympathy for what your race has endured. But I cannot allow you to keep the organs you removed from one of our crew members. We need them back immediately.

DERETH: I’m afraid that isn’t possible. I have already biochemically altered the air-breathing organs and grafted them into Motura’s body. They are a part of him now.

MOTURA: He is my honatta. His task is to find the organs I need for survival. We … we try to extract them from the dead …

DERETH: But sometimes, when the need is immediate, more aggressive actions are required.

JANEWAY: So now I am left with the same choice you made – whether to commit murder to save a life, or to allow my own crewman to die while you breathe air through his lungs.

MOTURA: It must be impossible for you to understand how any civilized people could come to … this. Before the phage began, we were known as educators and explorers – a people whose greatest achievements were artistic. I, myself, am a sculptor of note on my world. All I can say is that when your entire existence is at stake …

DERETH: You don’t have to explain yourself , Motura.

MOTURA: If the consequence of this act is a death sentence, so be it. At least it will put an end to my suffering.

JANEWAY: I can’t begin to understand what your people have gone through. They may have found a way to ignore the moral implications of what you’re doing, but I have no such luxury. I don’t have the freedom to kill you to save another. My culture finds that to be a reprehensible and entirely unacceptable act. If we were closer to home, I would lock you up and turn you over to my authorities for trial, but I don’t even have that ability here, and I am not prepared to carry you forever in our brig. So I see no other alternative … but to let you go.

My reply to Immo

My reply to Immo’s comments on Is there such a thing as “secular medicine”? – Part 3 became so long that I decided to make it a less formal post than my others. So here’s my reply to Immo.


Immo: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I hope you'll read more of my posts, in particular Chronic Disease: Two Worldviews posted in March, 2006 and the comments posted there. This issue is very complicated, and I interacted briefly with one thoughtful brother there which I won’t repeat here.

I want to first comment on the Christian contribution to sanitation. Can you give me a reference to the observation of Jewish midwives contributing to improved sanitation. I have excerpts from a book written in 1860 by J.P. (Ignaz P.) Semmelweis who studied childbed fever, finally determining statistically that hand washing made the difference – that’s really abbreviating all he went through to get to his conclusion. In the portion of this book that I have and all the googling I've done on it so far, there is no mention of any Jewish influence – nor any Christian influence for that matter. (I’m still looking for a complete copy to verify this.) He did note that midwives washed their hands, but their faith wasn’t noted, whether Jewish, Christian, atheist, etc., or that their faith had any clear bearing on their practice. I'm reading a book right now that makes the assertion that Christian theology hindered the development of the current germ theory and sanitation measures because of theology.

In Matthew 15:1-3, Jesus defended the practice of the disciples of not washing their hands when they “ate bread.” The practice was simply a tradition of the leaders of Israel and not law. If hand washing was important, why did Jesus not urge His disciples to do so, not for tradition’s sake but for health’s sake? That doesn’t mean they never washed their hands before eating, but it would indicate that it wasn’t considered important to Jesus. Add that if hand washing was so very important for health, why was it not mentioned in the OT law? Yet, the value seems to have been proven today. Has something changed, and if so, what?

All the required washing was ceremonial ablution only some of which might be considered health related. For example, a woman has certain cleansing to perform after menstruation. The focus seems to be solely ceremonial, as with the emission of semen by a man. Washing was to take place after each emission. We don’t recognize any health-related value to these today. But after relieving oneself, far from the camp and burying it, there is no mention of any washing at all required, ceremonial or otherwise. These washings seem to be strictly ceremonial.

Here's one recurring problem: without a doubt, people who professed to be Christians or Jews have made significant contributions to science. In reality, until the last 200 years or so, that was almost everyone in the West – at least nominally. Yet, I'm coming up empty on any substantive or material contribution of Judaism or Christianity to these scientific theories. They didn’t draw something out of their theology or religion to form their theories. All these Christians and Jews got the content of the ideas and theories from pagan and occult practices, worldviews and thinking. For example, the Pythagorean belief that number was reality, even more so than the world we can directly observe, led to the current mathematical modeling of the world in physics and other sciences. The Pythagoreans worshipped number and were a secretive, sacrificial cult. The motivation for Copernicus and Kepler to place the sun at the center of the solar system came from neo-Platonism which had a kind of sun cult, the sun becoming associated with Jesus for Christian neo-Platonists.

What I’d love to find are examples of purely-Christian thought, rather than pagan thinking with a possible Christian veneer, that led to modern scientific discoveries. Even two Christians who wrote the Soul of Science with the thesis that only Christianity could have fostered modern science because of its view of reality failed to provide even one example of it. They did state that they believed Kepler was driven by his Christian worldview to resolve a discrepancy in his understanding of the orbit of Mars with the data, but they provide no support or argument for it. They simply made the assertion.

So, if you can point me toward documentation of at least this one instance of a Jewish contribution, I'd appreciate it. Even then, however, will we be able to come up with it from the Scriptures or was it merely the tradition of men? I don’t think the Scriptures recommend the practice of washing hands when caring for a woman in childbirth or any kind of medical care. The Scriptures don’t forbid it nor do they recommend it – they are silent on the matter. So, even if it were a practice of Jewish midwives, it would be hard to show it came from the Lord.

The two toughest issues for me are Luke the physician and the lack of godly alternatives we seem to have. Luke, the “beloved iatros” (Colossians 4:14) – iatros is the Greek word for physician and also for healer – makes one wonder as you asked, what kind of physician and did he practice it after meeting Jesus? Or might it be “Luke the beloved healer” with the gift of healing. But one early-Christian writer refers to Luke as practicing medicine as a profession. That would seem to eliminate the “gift” of healing. I think he would have refused payment for God’s free gift. One thing is for certain, however, that it was not like today’s medicine and was probably Greek “secular” medicine – Hippocratic medicine. It was most likely not medicine associated directly with pagan cults, I would think. The Bible, however, is amazingly silent on the issue of “secular” medicine. That silence could be taken as tacit approval or a complete lack of need for it. Of course, the silence does not extend to pharmakeia – that, at least in some form, being completely condemned. But, in any case, Luke muddies the issue for me.

As for oil, I take it as simply applying oil. But I cannot see how to take it as a medicinal application, and we can’t see today how it could be of any real aid in the vast majority of cases. To say that it was understood to be medicinal raises a problem: the Scriptures (in James 5) would be promoting something as being of medicinal value which in reality is of no medicinal value at all in most cases. Thus, the Scriptures would not be reliable in this matter. Thus, I do not think the intent is medicinal. So it would have to be seen as being more symbolic – of the Holy Spirit? – or simply soothing to a person suffering. I really don’t know which way to go with that, yet. I just have trouble seeing it as the Scriptures supporting the medicine of the day, which today is believed to be largely false. See the comments attached to Chronic Disease: Two Worldviews for further comments on this.

The second problem I mentioned is still outstanding: if there is a problem with modern medicine in whole or just in part, what do we do with medical issues that modern medicine can easily handle when the Biblical recommendations fail? Let me put it this way. If a person you knew were paralyzed, and there was a fetal stem cell therapy which could restore the use of his legs and put him back to work earning a living for his family, would you recommend he stay paralyzed awaiting the Lord’s healing, or should he avail himself of the stem cells from an aborted fetus? It may seem like a different issue, but it’s not all that different. Perhaps another example would help, very current in Africa. If modern medicine fails, and Christians know a witch doctor who has success with that issue, is it okay for them to go to the witch doctor? This is a real issue for our brothers and sisters in Africa. Is healing the ultimate goal regardless of the modality or cost? The reality is that I know of no Christian, except for those we consider kooks, which refuse medical care on the basis of conscience. Those who do refuse, seem to have extreme views, people die, and they face charges when a minor under their care dies or suffers needlessly without the shunned treatment. I can understand their point of view, but they and I am at a loss to explain why strict adherence to the Scriptures fails to provide the hope of healing the Scriptures seem to raise for us. Recourse to pagan means seems the only option.

Let me ask: what would happen if there were a fetal stem cell therapy – a distinct possibility today – which could restore a paralyzed child’s use of his legs, in part or wholly, and the child’s parents refused the treatment because of the source of the stem cells – an aborted fetus? Would those parents then be charged with neglect? Actually, I doubt that even Christian parents would refuse the therapy, no matter where the stem cells came from. It’s so easy to reason, in this case, that the fetus has already been killed, they hadn’t killed it or ordered it killed, so why not benefit? Isn’t it just the same as harvesting organs from an adult murder victim. The issue is very complex, just from the standpoint of ethics, let alone any potential compromise with the teaching of Scripture because of pagan origins entering the equation.

James 5, Mark 16, the existence of the gift of healing and other passages, even in the OT, seem to raise the expectation of the Lord healing rather than relying on contemporary medicine – contemporary in whatever day. If that healing fails, do the Scriptures allow for or even encourage the use of whatever means to obtain healing? If not, where do we draw the line? Is that line drawn based on the severity of the ailment or the nature of the cure? That’s not an easy question to answer, if you think about it. If you say the severity of the ailment, then any cure will do if the ailment is serious enough or painful enough. If you say the nature of the cure, then a person should be willing to die, continue to suffer pain or remain paralyzed if no acceptable cure is available. All this is assuming, of course, that Biblical healing hasn’t “worked.” As one brother put it to me, “It just doesn’t work.” Some say it sometimes works, but modern medicine seems the most reliable and safest route. The better question, then, is why? The easy answer is that God doesn’t work that way anymore, but I don’t think the Scriptures support this. If it is His desire to work that way today, the answer to why He isn’t could be very disconcerting.

An interesting comment in regard to looking first to God for healing was made by some English Christians in the 16 th and 17 th centuries. They believed it impious to look to God in any matter until all natural means had been exhausted. In other words, God was a last resort. At first, this bothered me until I read a comment by one Christian who, when called to minister to people dying of some deadly disease like the plague, refused to go believing it a greater abomination to do so when all that was needed was to improve the sanitation in that part of town, and the people wouldn’t get sick in the first place. While he seems a bit cold hearted, the reasoning isn’t without merit. If a person is wasteful with his money and asks God to fix his woeful financial situation, we would rightly tell him to stop praying and start a budget.

On guilt by association: first, the pagan gods are no gods, they are demons (Psalm 106:37, 1 Corinthians 10:20). If they were just sacrificing to blocks of stone and nothing more, there would be no concern at all, but demons are involved in their lives. There is also the issue of “doctrines [teachings] of devils” which people adhere to (1 Timothy 4:1). Second, I agree that the mere similarity of things is of little consequence. What is of concern, however, is learning “doctrines of demons” from pagans and incorporating those ideas into our thinking and beliefs. That is syncretism, and that is my concern.

Enough thoughts for this post. Thanks for taking time to read and comment.
Rob

Is there such a thing as "secular medicine"? - Part 3

[Continued from part 2]

Pharmacy

Finally, I want to add one more indication of what might be considered the pagan/religious and certainly occult foundation of Western medicine. Before I elaborate evidence for this, I want to present what Anderson and Jacobson say regarding medication. Keep in mind that Jacobson is an osteopath, and neither man completely discourages the use of any form of medicine despite the potential harm to “our spirituality.” While they recognize the topical use of something that might be construed as medication, such as the lump or cake of figs – hardly a medication in the modern sense – applied to the boil of Hezekiah,[1] they say the following:

Nowhere in Scripture do we find Hebrews or Christians taking herbs or drugs orally.[2]

The oral use of herbs during biblical days was largely confined to pagan cultures whose religious belief systems were directly related to their practice of medicine. … Biblically, the only things on record as being taken by mouth are food and drink. (Please note: The King James Version uses the word ‘herbs’ to refer to plant foods, particularly vegetables. …)[3]

While there is little biblical basis for putting anything other than food and drink in your mouth, we have attempted to leave room for the value and appropriateness of these potential remedies.[4]

So, it seems that anything recommended by the Scriptures that might be considered medication, such as a little wine for Timothy’s stomach and other ailments,[5] is normal nourishment. One might say Paul is recommending a slight change of diet. I myself benefited from this advice. I was on a two-week business trip in Washington, D.C. I figure there was something in the water there that threw off my digestion, and I was feeling a little puny all the first week. As I sat in the restaurant trying to decide whether I was really wanting food, I thought of Paul’s recommendation to Timothy. At first, I dismissed it because I didn’t drink wine at the time, but I was wanting some relief, so I gave it a try. After a few sips of white wine, I discretely belched a couple of times, and I instantly felt completely well. I had no other digestive problems on that trip. Is this medication? I would say not – it’s food and drink – a change of diet. Furthermore, it may well have been the Lord’s prompting me with His solution to my problem especially since I thought of the Scripture passage.

There is no indication in the Bible of any recommendation or support for the use of oral or internal medication. One might rightly say that a lack of support does not constitute a condemnation. The use of oral medications, however, is mentioned in the Bible. There is an association in history – and in the Bible – between religion, magic and medications of various kinds that cannot be taken lightly. Nutton states the following regarding the origin of at least some of the knowledge of medicines:

According to Homer, Machaon and his brother Podalirius come from a medical family and their knowledge of drugs descends, via their father Asclepius, from Chiron the Centaur.[6]

Jayne states the following:

Accounts of cures by following directions received through dreams and visions are more common and are often more circumstantial. An extant fragment from the shrine at Lebena records cures due to the application of remedies indicated by the god in visions. The remedies prescribed varied widely from mild and innocent purgatives, roots, herbs, diets, fasts, baths, and rubbings with ointments, to gymnastics and general regimen. These various measures were usually applied with some sympathetic magic, or were accompanied by the use of magic formulas and incantations. … During the third century B.C. Hierophilos remarked that remedies were the gifts of the gods, and, when rightly used, were ‘the hands of the gods’ … Purifications and fasting before incubation, followed by prescriptions received by visions or dreams, appear as the ordinary procedure in the cults of many deities, heroes and heroines; exemplified especially in those of Hades, Dionysos, and Amphiaraos, as well as that of Asklepios …[7]

We see these medicinal remedies being revealed, if you will, via dreams in the pagan cults of the gods and clearly accompanied by magic. Mary Hamilton states the following:

The gods in whose temples incubation was practised were chthonian deities, heroes who had gone down into the earth and were invested with her powers. Two of the chief faculties of the earth were the power of sending dreams, and the gift of healing. … The healing powers of the earth were expressed in the production of herbs that gave life or death, and were transmitted to the chthonian gods who had entered into her.[8]

The difficulty here is whether the medicinal virtues of certain herbs was stumbled upon by ancient peoples, was perhaps the result of their research, or was revealed to them by the gods, we don’t know for sure. In our secularized view of the world we live in, we’d prefer to think of these occurrences in more rational terms, not as having any spiritual meaning whatsoever. What we do know, however, is that patients and priests alike received prescriptions in dreams during incubation rites in the temples of these healing gods. We also know that there is a distinct absence of the mention of the use of these remedies in the Bible and a clear condemnation both of the gods and of all practices associated with them. Lastly, it is clear that the idea of the earth producing medicinal remedies comes from a pagan/occult worldview and not from the Hebrews. But the Scriptures provide even clearer evidence of at least a concern with medicinal remedies.

Pharmakeia

We get our word pharmacy from the Greek word pharmakeia, which appears in the New Testament three times. The Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon defines it simply as the use of drugs, potions, spells, poisons or witchcraft. Strong’s (5331) defines it simply as “medication (‘pharmacy’), i.e. (by extens.) magic (lit. or fig.).” Thayer’s Lexicon “the use or the administering of drugs,” poisoning and “sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it … the deceptions and seductions of idolatry.” Given what I’ve cited from other authors above, this definition should not be surprising. The development and use of drugs is seen to be exclusively pagan and not at all secular.

Pharmakeia appears three times in the New Testament: Galatians 5:20 (witchcraft, a work of the flesh), Revelation 9:21 (sorceries, that people refused to repent of), and Revelation 18:23 (sorceries, which will deceive all nations).

A related word is pharmakeus. Liddell-Scott defines it as a poisoner, sorcerer, druggist or apothecary. Strong’s (5332) gives “(a drug, i.e. spell-giving potion); a druggist (‘pharmacist’) or poisoner, i.e. (by extens.) a magician.” Thayer’s gives us “one who prepares or uses magical remedies,” a sorcerer. It appears only once in the New Testament: Revelation 21:8 (sorcerers, will be sent to the lake of fire).

Finally, pharmakos: Liddell-Scott defines it as a poisoner, sorcerer or magician. Strong’s (5333) gives refers to 5332. Thayer’s gives “pertaining to magic arts.” It appears only in Revelation 22:15 (sorcerers, those left outside the New Jerusalem).

From all I’ve presented above and far more evidence in all my reading, there can be no question that the origin of pharmaceuticals – even the idea of such a treatment – comes from pagan occult practices “revealed” by their gods and intertwined with magic. Keep in mind that while these idols are nothing at all, there are demons acting behind them.[9] There is a spiritual reality the Bible recognizes without question. All these practices were clearly forbidden by the Lord: participating in the cults of pagan gods in any form whatsoever, and participating in any form of magic.

No Form of Medicine is Christian

If there was any doubt – or ignorance – of the pagan origins of modern medicine, the evidence of the previous posts should make it clear. Returning to the first two statements on the back of Anderson and Jacobson’s book, we see something that should concern us at least to some degree:

Every system of medicine is founded on a religious system of thought.

No system of medicine can claim Christianity as its birthright. …[10]

Consider the historical case of Christianity and the humoral medicine of Hippocrates that prevailed from around 500 B.C. through the mid-1800s.[11] Briefly, it stated that there are four humors in the body: blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile or gall. These needed to be kept in an appropriate balance. Disease was caused by an imbalance. In order to restore the balance doctors used bloodletting and leeches if there was an excess of blood or purgatives for an excess of bile, etc. Drugs were also used to correct the balance.[12]

In addition to this, astrology was a part of diagnosis, prognosis and prescriptions, as well as in the collection of herbs, some ingredients in drugs and the preparation of remedies. Care was also taken as to the best times, astrologically, to administer various treatments, including surgery. Astrology permeated medicine. It was also believed that each person had a particular balance of the humors which determined his temperament,[13] and the influence of the stars and planets at birth – or some insisted it was conception – would determine a person’s health and tendencies toward certain illnesses. Lawrence Principe likens this belief to modern genetics – the two ideas being very similar though genetics is much more accepted today than astrological influences.[14] After stating that the origin of the humoral theory of medicine comes from an “Ayurvedic/Hindu-based philosophy of medicine,” they say:

Despite the fact that [humoralism’s] presuppositions were totally incompatible with Christian faith, the Church embraced it throughout a majority of its tenure.[15]

Astrology was just as incompatible, yet Christians practiced this medicine from late in the classical period until modern Western medicine took over in the mid-nineteenth century. The stance of the early Church on this will be addressed later. There is one element that was resurrected among Christians by Tim LaHaye in the 1960s in his book Spirit-Controlled Temperament.[16] He states that there are four basic temperaments – and twelve blends of those four – in all people which determine to a large extent how we approach life. Those temperaments are related to the four humors: sanguine (blood), phlegmatic (phlegm), melancholic (black bile) and choleric (yellow bile).[17] This philosophy that is “totally incompatible with Christian faith,” according to Anderson and Jacobson, was resurrected in part by a Christian counselor.

So, there is historical precedent for Christians practicing a form of medicine that is “totally incompatible” with their faith, at least per Anderson and Jacobson. This issue will be the topic of further consideration in later posts. Even without a determination, the issue raises many other questions.

From the above evidence, all systems of medicine are founded upon pagan religion which are antithetical to our Heavenly Father, at least the religions.[18] The question then remains as to whether this makes any difference whatsoever at all. Does the fact that a system of thought and practice is founded in the occult render it forever dangerous? Can it be redeemed? Does secularizing it neuter it of its power and render it safely useful to Christians and pleasing to our Father? Does simply extracting that part which is scientifically verifiable from the religious make it safe? Or might there be residual ill effects no matter what we do? If so, what is our alternative since there exists no truly Christian medicine? Remember what Anderson and Jacobson said of alternatives to Western medicine, that they “may be the biggest threat to our spirituality in the twenty-first century.”[19] Might it be true that even secular Western medicine is such a threat? I think as we proceed to investigate this in future posts we will see that perhaps most of secular Western medicine is just as great a threat as any of the worst forms of medicine critiqued by Anderson and Jacobson. The question of a truly Christian alternative is just as worthy of our attention. Anderson and Jacobson call for such an alternative, yet they consider it beyond the scope of their book to begin to suggest what that might be beyond certain hints.

Let me end with this thought from Anderson and Jacobson, if you are still tempted to believe that secular medicine – and even science – is somehow truly secular and hence safe from any spiritual influence.

… medicine does not exist without a belief system. When humoralism was finally rejected, it was replaced by the religion of science.[20]

And that religion of science may not be entirely divorced from its occult influences.

Rob

---

[1] 2 Kings 20:7.

[2] Anderson & Jacobson, p. 225.

[3] Ibid., p. 226-7.

[4] Ibid., p. 233.

[5] 1 Timothy 5:23.

[6] Nutton, p. 38.

[7] Jayne, pp. 231-2.

[8] Hamilton, pp. 2-3.

[9] Deuteronomy 32:17, Psalm 106:37, 1 Corinthians 10:20-21. See also the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT), Volume 1, p. 452.

[10] Anderson & Jacobson, back cover.

[11] Ibid., p. 18.

[12] Temkin, p. 12.

[13] Thorndike, Lynn, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, 8 Vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1934, 4th ed. 1966), Vol. 1, pp. 632-3, 673-4, Vol. 2, pp. 56, 151, 670-1, 855-6, 893-4.

[14] Principe, Lawrence, The History of Science: Antiquity to 1700, Parts 1-3, (Chantilly, VA: Johns-Hopkins University, Teaching Company, 2002) (lectures series), Lecture 22, "Medieval Latin Alchemy and Astrology."

[15] Anderson & Jacobson, p. 18.

[16] LaHaye, Tim, Spirit-Controlled Temperament (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1966). There are several revised editions since.

[17] Anderson & Jacobson, p. 120. Pachter, Henry M., Magic into Science: The Story of Paracelsus ( New York: Henry Schuman, Inc., 1951), p. 38.

[18] Romans 8:7-8, James 4:4.

[19] Anderson & Jacobson, p. 10.

[20]Ibid., p. 133 – emphasis added.

Is there such a thing as "secular medicine"? - Part 2

[Continued from part 1]
Early Religion and Medicine Inseparable
Nutton further notes the religious ties of classical secular medicine:

The relationship between religious and secular healing, and between their practitioners, is far too complex to fit a neat opposition between religion and medicine …[1]

In other words, the boundary between the two, if one existed, is nearly impossible to delineate. Nutton then makes the following comment, no doubt reflected in the Hippocratic Oath, joining this tactic of Satan with so-called secular medicine:

… Asclepius came to symbolise not just the power of the gods to heal and save but also the art of medicine itself as contrasted with other healing alternatives. Asclepius possessed the skills, talents and attributes of the good human doctor. For a doctor to reject Asclepius and his healings might also be for him to reject the very things for which medicine was thought to stand. In this way religious and secular healing reinforced rather than opposed each other.[2]

What we see in these comments is that so-called secular or Hippocratic medicine remained very tied up with the cult of Asclepius most notably, as well as other pagan religious beliefs, in part due to the belief that Hippocrates (c.460-c.370 BC) was a descendent of Asclepius,[3] but also because of the long history of medicine as an integral part of pagan religion. Jayne tells us that the serpent symbolized Asclepius himself,[4] so it can readily be seen, then, why the rod of Asclepius with the single serpent is a symbol of his power to heal and the apparent character of his healing work, and why it has carried over to this day. The rod of Asclepius represents in a single symbol the essence of the Hippocratic Oath, the essence of medicine which is so very important to our modern concept of medicine – one might call it the soul of Western medicine – which is firmly rooted in the cult of Asclepius.
Furthermore, some ancient sources claim that Hippocrates borrowed his cures from the testimonies inscribed on the walls of the temple of Asclepius at Cos, which were quite amazing to any reader. One example is the testimony of a man who went to a temple of Asclepius with one eye and left with two, the god having applied an ointment of some sort to his eye socket while he slept in the temple – a part of a broader ritual called incubation.[5] Hippocrates looked for patterns of working, just as the Greek philosophers looked for laws of Nature – procedures that could be repeated outside the healing temples.[6] He is considered the first major practitioner of secularized medicine, yet, seeing the above, how secular was it in reality?
Galen (129-c.200 or 216 AD), who influenced Western medicine for about 1600 years or more, is reported to have been called into the study of medicine by Asclepius when he appeared in a dream to Galen’s father Nicon.[7] Later, as Galen – “an avowed ‘worshipper of Asclepius’” – pursued medicine, Asclepius appeared to him on occasion in dreams, and Galen reportedly corrected his notes according to the counsel of Asclepius in his dreams.[8]
This is all well and good, but we tend to think of Greek and Roman mythology as quaint stories or fables, and we forget that this was the polytheistic religion of the Greeks and Romans. The works of mythology were their equivalent of our Old Testament, at least to some degree – these works are the history of their gods and their beliefs. As Paul said, even though we know these gods are nothing, there are demons who work behind the scenes.[9] As I said earlier, the “god of this world” is seeking to keep people away from Jesus, the only true Savior and mediator between God and men. We dare not take lightly these associations with pagan gods, which is in reality occult.
The Eye of Horus
One last symbol I want to address is the Rx symbol found on pharmacies and on prescription pads. It is often referred to as the eye of Horus or at least derived from it.[10] Horus was an Egyptian healing god. Walter Jayne says the following, which may have influenced the thinking of early practitioners:

All the people wore about the neck amulets, charms, and talismans of stone or knots of cloth on which magic words of power had been inscribed, or over which priests had recited magic texts, the ‘eye of Horus,’ ‘the intact eye’ (uzait), which gave health and soundness of sight, being the most popular protection against illness.[11]

Günther Eichhorn adds the following explanation as to how this symbol may have carried over to the present day:

The Eye of Horus was believed to have healing and protective power, and it was used as a protective amulet, and as a medical measuring device, using the mathematical proportions of the eye[12] to determine the proportions of ingredients in medical preparations. … The Egyptians did write prescriptions. Those prescriptions were first magical verses, and then the real prescription. The Eye of Horus was an important part of the magical part of the prescription. With time the magical part became smaller, and the real prescription more important. Eventually, all that was left of the magical verse was the Eye of Horus. It remained in prescriptions to this day as the R at the beginning of each prescription …[13]

Medicine, the gods and magic
Add to all this these words of Eusebius (c.263-c.339 AD) which refer to another Egyptian god of healing, one of the most ancient of Egyptian gods, Apis:

The healing art is said to have been invented by Apis the Egyptian . . . and afterwards improved by Aesculapius.[14]

In other words, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea of Palaestina and referred to as the “Father of Church History,” is saying that one of the most ancient men of Egypt and one of early Greece, both deified after their deaths to become healing gods of their peoples and both thoroughly pagan, were what one might call the fathers of the healing arts of the West. Add to this that Jayne, in his book The Healing Gods of Ancient Civilizations, says all the healing arts were completely entwined with their gods and some form of magic or similar occult practice. Only of ancient Babylon and Assyria does he say there might have been some form of what we might call secular medicine which was considered less effective than the healing provided in their temples, and those physicians were “held in comparatively small esteem” compared to the priests.[15] This comment regarding medicine in ancient Egypt typifies this belief in the ancient world:

Remedies without magic were valueless or failed of their full effect ... Healing had developed with magic, it was inseparably connected with it, and all evidence indicates that it was never emancipated from it.[16]

As I began reading Jayne’s work, I thought to myself that surely some medical care was performed apart from the gods and magic, such as setting broken bones. As it turns out, there were incantations for even this type of medical care. Jayne provides no evidence of any accompanying manipulation of the bones such as setting the bones as practiced today.
Recently, I saw a program on the History Channel regarding what archeologists now believe about the work force of ancient Egypt that built the pyramids. They were not slaves but more of a union-style workforce that was well cared for. The program made a special point of the quality of medical care received by showing the leg bone of a worker’s mummified remains. The leg had evidently been broken, and a purported expert indicated surprise at the high level of medical care for the period in the handling of this leg injury. The medical treatment for a broken bone in ancient Egypt was an incantation. Could this be an indication that this practice was perhaps efficacious?[17] If not, their knowledge of dealing with this injury surprised the researchers.
[Continued in part 3]

---

[1] Nutton, p. 103.
[2] Ibid., p. 114 – emphasis added.
[3] Ibid., p. 56 – Nutton cites a passage in Plato’s Protagoras as the authority of this claim.
[4] Jayne, Walter Addison, M.D., The Healing Gods of Ancient Civilizations, (New Hyde Park, NY: University Books, Inc., 1962, originally published 1925), p. 242.
[5] Ibid., p. 230.
[6] Temkin, p. 54, is somewhat suspicious of this claim, yet admits it is an open question. Nutton claims this is “demonstrably false” (Nutton, p. 61), yet I had trouble following her references to support this claim. In fact, in the very next sentence, she states that Galen believed Hippocrates recorded “at least part of the collection … to preserve the oral doctrines of the family of Asclepiads that were in danger of disappearing because they were handed down only by word of mouth.” In any case, I find it hard to believe that Hippocrates was able to ignore completely his pagan background and start from scratch. She clearly has somewhat of a secularized bias as a general tone of her work.
[7] Nutton, p. 217.
[8] Ibid., p. 279.
[9] 1 Corinthians 10:20-21.
[10] Jayne, p. vi, see also http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/e/eye_of_horus.html.
[11] Ibid., pp. 40-41.
[12] For these mathematical properties, see Wikipedia – Eye of Horus.
[13] Eichhorn, Günther, “Ancient Egyptian Symbols” from http://gei.aerobaticsweb.org/egypt_symbols.html noted on July 26, 2008 – emphasis added.
[14] Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel), Tr. E. H. Gifford (1093), Book X, VI, 26. See this link for the text. Note that “Aesculapius” is the Roman form of the Greek Asclepius.
[15] Jayne, p. 104.
[16] Ibid., p. 45.
[17] I can’t find a reference for this particular program. If any of my readers saw it and can help me with this, I would appreciate it.

Is there such a thing as "secular medicine"? - Part 1

I just read a book entitled The Biblical Guide to Alternative Medicine by Dr. Neil T. Anderson and Dr. Michael Jacobson.[1] It attempts to give some form of guidance to Christians for determining which forms of medicine are acceptable to Christians, and which ones Christians should avoid. The authors put it this way:

The invasion of … unbiblical medical philosophies and practices into the Church may be the biggest threat to our spirituality in the twenty-first century. We routinely come across Christians who have subjected themselves to pseudomedical practices that leave them in spiritual bondage.[2]

While they don’t elaborate in this book as to kind of spiritual bondage they are referring to, it is clearly a warning. The problem is that the whole book is lacking even one form of medicine that isn’t unbiblical in some way and, hence, according to what they say above, a potential threat to Christian spirituality. They state clearly that no existing form of medicine fits the criteria of evaluation they provide – even mainstream, Western medicine is one of these unbiblical invaders. At the same time, they provide a confusing message that allows for some Christians to participate in all forms of medicine they evaluate in this book, even those they consider spiritually dangerous.

The comment “any harbor in a storm” very much applies here. When suffering is great enough, relief is desperately welcomed no matter the source of the relief or the cost. This is not much different from African and Asian Christians going to witchdoctors for cures simply because they work when Western medicine fails, and relief is all that matters. What is of greater concern, however, is that many Christians aren’t even aware of the spiritual bondage Anderson and Jacobson are talking about, but for this series of posts, I want to address only the spiritual roots of Western medical practice rather than the consequences.

On the back cover, the authors – or publishers – make four statements which I will list here:

Every system of medicine is founded on a religious system of thought.

No system of medicine can claim Christianity as its birthright. For any given illness every person must discern which approach is best for them in light of biblical revelation and individual needs.

Despite the popular notion that the word “holistic” is a New Age concept, biblical medicine is definitely wholistic – and should be thought of and discerned as such.

Western medicine is not infallible and must be evaluated using the same criteria as other forms of medicine.[3]

The first two statements will likely come as a surprise to most of us. We can’t see the pagan religious foundations of Western medicine because it has become very secularized, and we have assumed it to be reasonably Christian. The pagan symbols are so ubiquitous that we hardly notice them anymore, certainly not as pagan.

The Caduceus and Rod of Asclepius

If you doubt this, consider the caduceus – the staff having wings and two snakes wrapped around it in a double-helix that appears in pharmacies, on ambulances, in hospitals and on pins worn by medical practitioners – the caduceus is found basically all over the medical profession.

I have heard some Christians say it is the bronze serpent made by Moses to heal the Israelites when they were bitten by a venomous snake. All the Israelites had to do was look at the bronze (“fiery” in the KJV) serpent and they would live.[4] Centuries later, Hezekiah had to destroy the serpent because the people were making sacrifices to it,[5] no doubt to try to regain some of its original healing power – perhaps beyond the healing of snake bites. Comforting as it might be for Jews and Christians to believe the caduceus is a memorial of Moses’ serpent, it is a false comfort.

Every source I’ve found thus far says the caduceus is from classical mythology. It is the rod, wand or staff of Hermes or Mercury, depending on whether you’re talking Greek or Roman mythology, respectively. The symbol with the single snake is the rod of Asclepius,[6] the Greek and Roman god of healing. The rod of Asclepius is generally used by professional associations whereas the wand of Hermes is used more often commercially. This isn’t hard and fast – I guess it’s a matter of taste.[7]

The reason for the rod of Asclepius being a symbol of medicine will become clear later. The wand of Hermes/Mercury is not so clear. The association seems to come from alchemy which later became chemistry and chemical pharmacy. Hermes was traditionally considered a master of alchemy whose purported works were passed down in the Hermetic Corpus, but this is speculatio"n on my part at this time. Details will have to await another post. However, Keith Blayney agrees with this assessment and adds the following:

The link between the caduceus of Hermes (Mercury) and medicine seems to have arisen by the seventh century A.D., when Hermes had come to be linked with alchemy. Alchemists were referred to as the sons of Hermes, as Hermetists or Hermeticists and as "practitioners of the hermetic arts". There are clear occult associations with the caduceus.[8]

The Hippocratic Oath

Consider also the Hippocratic Oath sworn by new doctors, at least in its older, probably original form. I won’t cite it all here, except to quote the first part:

I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath. …

Apollo was also a healing god of the Greeks, father of Asclepius. Hygieia and Panacea were the daughters of Asclepius. Notice the similarity of Hygieia to the word hygiene. Hygieia was the “goddess of health, cleanliness and sanitation.”[9] Panacea was the goddess of cures. Hygieia and Panacea had brothers, too, gods of diagnostics and surgery among them.[10] Medicine was a family affair, it seems. So it makes sense that the gods referenced by name would be these four, these being the most prominent healing gods of Greece and Rome throughout the classical period – at least from all my reading on the history of medicine.

Asclepius

Asclepius is a notable case. His cult and his few temples – sites of miraculous healing – presented great challenges to Christianity. Vivian Nutton makes the following observation regarding the prevalence of Asclepius in classical Greece and Rome:

Associations of worshippers of Asclepius are known from across the Greek world from the fourth or third century BC until the third century AD. No other divinity in Classical Greece made so swift or so effective a transition from a mainly local to a pan-Hellenic deity.[11]

We might be tempted to think of this as simply a human or sociological phenomenon, but we, as Christians, must keep in mind that the world is a battle field where the “god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”[12] Owsei Temkin illustrates one way this took place:

The healing god Asclepius, whose miracles were part of his official cult, became the main rival of the Christ.[13]

Mary Hamilton elaborates on this:

It is probable that Christianity in supplanting paganism found the work comparatively easy so far as the Olympian gods were concerned. Their aloofness from the practical affairs of man tended to alienate their worshippers, and it was a simple matter to cast off allegiance. A harder task awaited the new religion when it sought to dispossess the chthonian deities whose general beneficence and gifts of healing had bound them closely to the people. Worshippers were attracted and their devotion intensified by tangible benefits conferred and help given in times of stress. The faith thus practically engendered and rewarded proved a stubborn barrier to the onward march of Christianity. Paganism made its last stand in the temples of Serapis and Asklepios, and their powers of resistance were due to the cures performed under their auspices in the name of the god.[14]

Relief from suffering is one of the most powerful inducements to allegiance. One powerful technique in interrogating prisoners of war is to induce suffering and privation and then offer them relief contingent on their cooperation. So it seems this is one powerful tool of Satan as mentioned earlier – “any harbor in a storm.” So it was in the early centuries of the Church – pagans, and even suffering Christians, ran to where the power was found for healing. What makes this situation worse is the close relationship of religion and medicine – even if that religion is today’s secular humanism or scientific atheism.

[Continued in part 2]

---

[1] Anderson, Dr. Neil T. and Dr. Michael Jacobson, The Biblical Guide to Alternative Medicine ( Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 2003).

[2] Ibid., p. 10 – emphasis added.

[3] Ibid., back cover. In all these points, italics are those of the authors/publisher.

[4] Numbers 21:9-10.

[5] 2 Kings 18:4.

[6] There are many variants of spelling that I’ve found: Æsculapius and Asklepios among them. The different spellings depend upon whether the writers are citing Roman or Greek sources or those so inclined, such as writers in different regions.

[7] Wikipedia - Caduceus.

[8] Blayney, Keith, "The Caduceus vs the Staff of Asclepius (Asklepian)," first published September 2002, revised October 2005.

[9] Wikipedia - Hygieia.

[10] Wikipedia – Panacea.

[11] Nutton, Vivian, Ancient Medicine ( London: Routledge, 2004), p. 106.

[12] 2 Corinthians 4:4.

[13] Temkin, Owsei, Hippocrates in a World of Pagans and Christians (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), p. 75.

[14] Hamilton, Mary, Incubation; or, The Cure of Disease in Pagan Temples and Christian Churches (St. Andrews: W.C. Henderson & Sons, University Press, 1906), p. 109 – emphasis added.