Khnum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
KhnumKhnum
in hieroglyphs
[hide]Part of a series
of articles on
Ancient Egyptian religion
Main Beliefs
Paganism · Pantheism · Polytheism
Soul · Duat
Mythology · Numerology
Practises
Offering formula · Funerals · Heka
Deities
Amun · Amunet · Anubis · Anuket
Apep · Apis · Aten · Atum
Bastet · Bat · Bes
Four sons of Horus
Geb · Hapy · Hathor · Heget
Horus · Isis · Khepri · Khnum
Khonsu · Kuk · Maahes · Ma'at
Mafdet · Menhit · Meretseger
Meskhenet · Monthu · Min · Mnevis
Mut · Naunet · Neith · Nekhbet
Nephthys · Nut · Osiris · Pakhet
Ptah · Ra · Ra-Horakhty · Reshep
Satis · Sekhmet · Seker · Selket
Sobek · Sopdu · Set · Seshat · Shu
Taweret · Tefnut · Thoth
Wadjet · Wadj-wer · Wepwawet · Wosret
Texts
Amduat · Books of Breathing
Book of Caverns · Book of the Dead
Book of the Earth · Book of Gates
Book of the Netherworld
Other
Atenism · Curse of the Pharaohs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This box: view • talk • edit
In Egyptian mythology, Khnum (also spelled Chnum, Knum, or Khnemu) was one of the earliest Egyptian deities, originally the god of the source of the Nile River. Since the annual flooding of the Nile brought with it silt and clay, and its water brought life to its surrounds, he was thought to be the creator of the bodies of human children, which he made at a potter's wheel, from clay, and placed in their mothers' wombs. He later was described as having molded the other deities, and he had the titles Divine Potter and Lord of created things from himself.
In certain locations, such as Elephantine, since Khnum was thought of as a god pouring out the Nile, he was regarded as the husband of Satis (who did much the same), and the father of Anuket, who was the personification of the Nile. In other locations, such as Her-wer (Tuna el-Gebel perhaps), as the moulder and creator of the human body, he was sometimes regarded as the consort of Heket, or of Meskhenet, whose responsibility was breathing life into children at the moment of birth, as the Ka. Alternatively, in places such as Esna, due to his aspect as creator of the body, they viewed him as the father of Heka, the personification of magic, and consequently as the husband of Menhit.
Originally one of the most important deities, when other areas arose to greater prominence, it was the secondary function, as potter, that became his whole realm of authority, and instead, the Nile was considered the god Hapy, who was the Nile god in the more powerful areas. Khnum's name derives from this secondary association, – it means builder. However, Khnum's earlier position as 'moulder' of the other deities, leads to him being identified as Ra, or more particularly as the Ba of Ra. Since Ba was also the word for a Ram, he became thought of as having a Ram's head.
In art, he was usually depicted as a Ram-headed man at a potter's wheel, with recently created children's bodies standing on the wheel, although he also appeared in his earlier guise as a water-god, holding a jar from which flowed a stream of water. However, he occasionally appeared in a compound image, depicting the elements, in which he, representing water, was shown as one of four heads of a man, with the others being, – Geb representing earth, Shu representing the air, and Osiris representing death. Some think this is a depiction which may have had an influence on Ezekiel and Revelations, as Khnum had a Ram's head, Shu sometimes appeared with a Lion's head, Osiris was a human, and Geb had a goose on his head.
The worship of Khnum centred on two principal riverside sites, Elephantine Island and Esna, which were regarded as sacred sites. At Elephantine, he was worshipped alongside Anuket and Satis as the guardian of the source of the River Nile. His significance led to early theophoric names of him, for children, such as Khnum-khufwy – Khnum is my Protector, the full name of Khufu, builder of the Great Pyramid. Due to his importance, as an aspect of the life-giving Nile, and also the creator, Khnum was still worshipped in some semi-Christian sects in the second or third centuries[citation needed].
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Egyptian pantheon
Egyptian pantheon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
nṯrt "goddess"
in hieroglyphs
nṯr "god"
in hieroglyphs
Ancient Egyptian religion was polytheistic and often zoomorphic. The Egyptian term for goddess was neṯeret (nṯrt; netjeret, nečeret) and the term for god was neṯer (nṯr; also transliterated netjer, nečer). The hieroglyphs for these terms R8) are depicted as flags followed by an appropriate gender symbol.
The pharaoh was deified after death, and bore the title of nṯr nfr "the good god," if male. The title, "servant of god" was used for the religious leaders in the temples of gods, ḥmt-nṯr was applied to priestesses and ḥm-nṯr was applied to priests, with parallel constructions for goddesses, the religious leaders of their temples, and for dead pharaohs who were women.
The term, hemt-nṯr-nt imen "servant of the god, wife of Amun" was a title held by priestesses in the tenth (2,160 BCE) and twelfth (1991-1802 BCE) dynasties (Shafer, p 14), which was adopted by the female members of the royal family in the New Kingdom (the hereditary, royal lineage of Egypt was a matrilineality, carried by its women). The New Kingdom is dated from 1,570-1,070 BCE and includes the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth dynasties. The term "god father" jt-nṯr was an epithet of Thoth when he became identified as a counterpart to the goddess, Ma'at.
Ancient Egyptian culture persisted. That dynasty was ruled by a Hellenistic royal family for nearly 300 years, from 305 BCE. to 30 BCE, when the Romans conquered Cleopatra VII, the last pharaoh. Roman rule lasted until the final invasion by Muslim Arabs in 646 CE that ended 975 years of Græco-Roman rule over Egypt. During that time religious concepts had blended few aspects from the invading cultures with the native, but retained most of the Egyptian cults and deities for continuity with the long history of a culture that served as the authority for the government, maintained the royal lineage, and interwove their deities with their rulers—along with the developing Christian beliefs among some of the Romans.
Contents
[hide]
1 Regional pantheons during the Old Kingdom
2 Later regional pantheons
3 List of deities of Ancient Egypt
4 See also
5 External links
[edit] Regional pantheons during the Old Kingdom
Ancient Egyptian votiv statues of the godsIn the Old Kingdom, the third through sixth dynasties dated between 2,686 to 2,134 BCE, the pantheons of individual Egyptian cities varied by region. Beliefs can be split into five distinct localized groups during that time and which arose later:
the Ennead of Heliopolis, meaning the nine - consisted of Atum, Geb, Isis, Nut, Osiris, Nephthys, Seth, Shu, and Tefnut
the Ogdoad of Hermopolis, a changing myth which began with eight deities who were worshipped in four female-male pairs; the females were associated with snakes and the males with frogs: Naunet and Nu, Amaunet and Amun, Kauket and Kuk, Hauhet and Huh; first being a cult having Hathor and her son, Ra (and later, Horus as the son of Isis, who was an aspect of Hathor); later changing to a cult where Hathor and Thoth were the main deities over a much larger number of deities; and even later, Ra was assimilated into Atum-Ra through a merger with Atum of the Ennead cosmogeny; in the final version of the creation myth a lotus, a symbol held by Hathor, was said to have arisen from the waters after an explosive interaction, the lotus was said to have opened and revealed Ra, who later became identified as Horus also
the Khnum-Satis-Anuket triad of Elephantine, which was the dwelling place of Khnum, the ram-headed god of the cataracts, who guarded the origin of the waters of the Nile which was thought to issue from caves beneath the island; in Elephantine he was worshipped along with his counterpart, Satis, a more ancient gazelle-headed war, protector, and fertility deity who personified the flooding of the Nile, and Anuket, the fertility goddess who was the deification of the Nile, daughter to Satis, and became identified as their daughter in the triad. Other versions of myths identify Khnum with the creation of bodies in association with Heket, the goddess who breathed life into the bodies. In another variant Khnum is identified as the counterpart of Menhit and the father of Heka, a personification of law
[edit] Later regional pantheons
the Amun-Mut-Chons triad of Thebes that arose during the Middle Kingdom in 2134-1991 B.C.
the Ptah-Sekhmet-Nefertem triad of Memphis, which is unusual because these deities were not associated with each other before this triad was formalized, when beliefs about the Ennead and Ogdoad were merged after Memphis rose to prominence
[edit] List of deities of Ancient Egypt
Amun (also spelled Amen) - the hidden one, a local creator deity later married to Mut after rising in importance
Amunet - female aspect of the primordial concept of air in the Ogdoad cosmogony; was depicted as a cobra snake or a snake-headed woman
Anubis -jackal god of embalming and tomb-caretaker who watches over the dead
Anuket, goddess of the Nile River, the child of Satis and among the Elephantine triad of deities; temple on the Island of Seheil, giver of life and fertility, gazelle-headed
Apep (Apophis) - evil serpent of the Underworld, enemy of Ra and formed from a length of Neith's spit during her creation of the world
Apis - the Apis bull probably was at first a fertility figure concerned with the propagation of grain and herds; but he became associated with Ptah, the paramount deity of the Memphis area and also, with Osiris (as User-Hapi) and Sokaris, later gods of the dead and the underworld. As Apis-Atum he was associated with the solar cult and was often represented with the sun-disk of the cow deity between his horns, being her offspring. The Apis bull often represented a king who became a deity after death, suggesting an earlier ritual in which the king was sacrificed
The Aten - the sun disk or globe worshipped primarily during the Amarna Period in the Eighteenth Dynasty when representing a monotheistic deity advanced by Amenhotep IV, who took the name Akhenaten
Atum - a creator deity, and the setting sun
Bast, goddess, protector of the pharaoh and a solar deity where the sun could be seen shining in her eyes at night, a lioness, house cat, cat-bodied or cat-headed woman, also known as Bastet when superseded by Sekhmet
Bat - represented the cosmos and the essence of the soul (Ba), cow goddess who gave authority to the king, cult originated in Hu and persisted widely until absorbed as an aspect of Hathor after the eleventh dynasty; associated with the sistrum and the ankh
Bes - dwarfed demigod - associated with protection of the household, particularly childbirth, and entertainment
The four sons of Horus- personifications of the containers for the organs of the deceased pharaohs - Imsety in human form, contained the liver and was protected by Isis; Hapi in baboon form, contained the lungs and was protected by Nephthys; Duamutef in jackal form, contained the stomach and was protected by Neith; Qebehsenuef in hawk form, contained the large intestines and was protected by Serket
Geb - god of the Earth and first ruler of Egypt
Hapy - god embodied by the Nile, and who represents life and fertility
Hathor - among the oldest of Egyptian deities - often depicted as the cow, a solar deity who was the mother to the pharaoh, the golden calf of the bible, and later goddess of Love and Music
Heget - goddess of childbirth and fertility, who breathed life into humans at birth, represented as a frog or a frog-headed woman
Horus - the falcon-headed god, son of Isis, god of pharaohs and Upper Egypt
Isis - goddess of magical power and healing, "She of the Throne" who was represented as the throne, also the wife of Osiris and goddess of the underworld[citation needed].
Iusaaset - the "shadow" of Atum or Atum-Ra, a goddess who was seen as the mother and grandmother of the gods, referred to as the great one who comes forth
Khepry - the scarab beetle, the embodiment of the dawn
Khnum - a creator deity, god of the inundation
Khonsu - the son of Amun and Mut, whose name means "wanderer", which probably refers to the passage of the moon across the sky, as he was a lunar deity. In the late period, he was also considered an important god of healing
Kuk - the personification of darkness that often took the form of a frog-headed god, whose consort was the snake-headed Kauket
Maahes - he who is true beside her, a lion prince, son of Bast in Lower Egypt and of Sekhmet in Upper Egypt and sharing their natures, his father varied—being the current chief male deity of the time and region, a god of war, weather, and protector of matrilineality, his cult arrived during the New Kingdom era perhaps from Nubia and was centred in Taremu and Per-Bast, associated with the high priests of Amon, the knife, lotuses, and devouring captives
Ma'at - a goddess who personified concept of truth, balance, justice, and order - represented as a woman, sitting or standing, holding a sceptre in one hand and an ankh in the other - thought to have created order out of the primal chaos and was responsible for maintaining the order of the universe and all of its inhabitants, to prevent a return to chaos
Mafdet - she who runs swiftly - early deification of legal justice (execution) as a cheetah, ruling at judgment hall in Duat where enemies of the pharaoh were decapitated with Mafdet's claw; alternately, a cat, a mongoose, or a leopard protecting against vermin, snakes, and scorpions; the bed upon which royal mummies were placed in murals
Menhit - goddess of war - depicted as a lioness-goddess and therefore becoming associated with Sekhmet
Meretseger - goddess of the valley of the kings, a cobra-goddess, sometimes triple-headed, dweller on the top of or the personification of the pyramid-shaped mountain, Al-Qurn, which overlooked the tombs of the pharaohs in the Valley of the Kings
Meskhenet - goddess of childbirth, and the creator of each person's Ka, a part of their soul, thereby associated with fate
Menthu - an ancient god of war - nomad - represented strength, virility, and victory
Min - represented in many different forms, but was often represented in male human form, shown with an erect penis which he holds in his left hand and an upheld right arm holding a flail. As Khem or Min, he was the god of reproduction; as Khnum, he was the creator of all things, "the maker of gods and men". By the New Kingdom he was also fused with Amen in the deity Min-Amen-kamutef (Min-Amen- bull of his mother). Min's shrine was crowned with a pair of bull horns.
Mnevis - was the sacred bull of Heliopolis. The bull was associated with Ra as the offspring of the solar cow deity, and possibly also with Min. When Akhenaten abandoned the other god named Amun (Amen) in favour of the Aten he claimed that he would maintain the Mnevis cult. The cult may have retained his favor because of its solar associations.
Mut (also spelled Mout), mother, was originally a title of the primordial waters of the cosmos, the mother from which the cosmos emerged, as was Naunet in the Ogdoad cosmogony, however, the distinction between motherhood and cosmic water lead to the separation of these identities and Mut gained aspects of a creator goddess
Naunet - a goddess, the primal waters from which all arose, similar to Mut and later closely related to Nu
Neith - goddess of war, then great mother goddess - a name of the primal waters, the goddess of creation and weaving, said to weave all of the world on her loom
Nekhbet - goddess depicted as a white vulture - protector of Egypt, royalty, and the pharaoh with her extended wings - referred to as Mother of Mothers, who hath existed from the Beginning, and Creatrix of the World (related to Wadjet); always seen on the front of pharaoh’s double crown with Wadjet
Nephthys - goddess of death, holder of the rattle, the Sistrum - sister to Isis and the nursing mother of Horus and the pharaohs represented as the mistress of the temple, a woman with falcon wings, usually outstretched as a symbol of protection
Nut - goddess of heaven and the sky - mother of many deities as well as the sun, the moon, and the stars
Osiris - god of the underworld after Hathor and Anubis, fertility, and agriculture - the oldest son of the sky goddess, Nut, and the Earth god, Geb, and being brother and later, the husband of Isis - and early deity of Upper Egypt whose cult persisted into the Sixth Century BC
Pakhet - she who tears - deity of merged aspects of Sekhmet and Bast, cult center at Beni Hasan where north and south met - lioness protector, see Speos Artemidos
Ptah - a creator deity, also god of craft
Ra - the sun, also a creator deity - whose chief cult centre was based in Heliopolis meaning "city of the sun"
Ra-Horakhty - god of both sky and Sun, a combination of Ra and Horus - thought to be god of the Rising Sun
Reshep - war god who was originally from Syria
Satis - the goddess who represented the flooding of the Nile River, ancient war, hunting, and fertility goddess, mother of the Nile, Anuket, associated with water, depicted with a bow and arrows, and a gazelle or antelope horned, and sometimes, feathered crown
Sekhmet - goddess of destruction and war, the lioness - also personified as an aspect of Ra, fierce protector of the pharaoh, a solar deity, and later as an aspect of Hathor
Seker- god of death
Selket- scorpion goddess, protectress, goddess of magic
Sobek - crocodile god of the Nile
Set - god of storms, later became god of evil, desert, also Lower Egypt
Seshat - goddess of writing, astronomy, astrology, architecture, and mathematics depicted as a scribe
Shu - embodiment of wind or air
Swenet - goddess of the ancient city on the border of southern Egypt at the Nile River, trade in hieroglyphs
Taweret - goddess of pregnant women and protector at childbirth
Tefnut - goddess, embodiment of rain, dew, clouds, and wet weather, depicted as a cat and sometimes as a lioness
Thoth - god of the moon, drawing, writing, geometry, wisdom, medicine, music, astronomy, magic; usually depicted as ibis-headed, or as a goose; cult centered in Khemennu
Wadjet - the goddess - snake goddess of lower Egypt, depicted as a cobra, patron and protector of Egypt and the pharaoh, always shown on crown of the pharaohs; later joined by the image of Nekhbet after north and south united; other symbols: eye, snake on staff
Wadj-wer - fertility god and personification of the Mediterranean sea or lakes of the Nile delta
Wepwawet - jackal god of upper Egypt
Wosret - a localized guardian goddess, protector of the young god Horus, an early consort of Amun, who was later superseded by Mut
[edit] See also
DINGIR
Pantheon (gods)
[edit] External links
List of Mythological Deities. Deurer, 1997
Gods and Goddesses. ancientegypt.co.uk.
List of Gods and Goddesses from Ancient Egypt
Egyptian Gods. gwydir.demon.co.uk.
discussion of Totemic Zootypes in the Egyptian pantheon by Gerald Massey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
nṯrt "goddess"
in hieroglyphs
nṯr "god"
in hieroglyphs
Ancient Egyptian religion was polytheistic and often zoomorphic. The Egyptian term for goddess was neṯeret (nṯrt; netjeret, nečeret) and the term for god was neṯer (nṯr; also transliterated netjer, nečer). The hieroglyphs for these terms R8) are depicted as flags followed by an appropriate gender symbol.
The pharaoh was deified after death, and bore the title of nṯr nfr "the good god," if male. The title, "servant of god" was used for the religious leaders in the temples of gods, ḥmt-nṯr was applied to priestesses and ḥm-nṯr was applied to priests, with parallel constructions for goddesses, the religious leaders of their temples, and for dead pharaohs who were women.
The term, hemt-nṯr-nt imen "servant of the god, wife of Amun" was a title held by priestesses in the tenth (2,160 BCE) and twelfth (1991-1802 BCE) dynasties (Shafer, p 14), which was adopted by the female members of the royal family in the New Kingdom (the hereditary, royal lineage of Egypt was a matrilineality, carried by its women). The New Kingdom is dated from 1,570-1,070 BCE and includes the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth dynasties. The term "god father" jt-nṯr was an epithet of Thoth when he became identified as a counterpart to the goddess, Ma'at.
Ancient Egyptian culture persisted. That dynasty was ruled by a Hellenistic royal family for nearly 300 years, from 305 BCE. to 30 BCE, when the Romans conquered Cleopatra VII, the last pharaoh. Roman rule lasted until the final invasion by Muslim Arabs in 646 CE that ended 975 years of Græco-Roman rule over Egypt. During that time religious concepts had blended few aspects from the invading cultures with the native, but retained most of the Egyptian cults and deities for continuity with the long history of a culture that served as the authority for the government, maintained the royal lineage, and interwove their deities with their rulers—along with the developing Christian beliefs among some of the Romans.
Contents
[hide]
1 Regional pantheons during the Old Kingdom
2 Later regional pantheons
3 List of deities of Ancient Egypt
4 See also
5 External links
[edit] Regional pantheons during the Old Kingdom
Ancient Egyptian votiv statues of the godsIn the Old Kingdom, the third through sixth dynasties dated between 2,686 to 2,134 BCE, the pantheons of individual Egyptian cities varied by region. Beliefs can be split into five distinct localized groups during that time and which arose later:
the Ennead of Heliopolis, meaning the nine - consisted of Atum, Geb, Isis, Nut, Osiris, Nephthys, Seth, Shu, and Tefnut
the Ogdoad of Hermopolis, a changing myth which began with eight deities who were worshipped in four female-male pairs; the females were associated with snakes and the males with frogs: Naunet and Nu, Amaunet and Amun, Kauket and Kuk, Hauhet and Huh; first being a cult having Hathor and her son, Ra (and later, Horus as the son of Isis, who was an aspect of Hathor); later changing to a cult where Hathor and Thoth were the main deities over a much larger number of deities; and even later, Ra was assimilated into Atum-Ra through a merger with Atum of the Ennead cosmogeny; in the final version of the creation myth a lotus, a symbol held by Hathor, was said to have arisen from the waters after an explosive interaction, the lotus was said to have opened and revealed Ra, who later became identified as Horus also
the Khnum-Satis-Anuket triad of Elephantine, which was the dwelling place of Khnum, the ram-headed god of the cataracts, who guarded the origin of the waters of the Nile which was thought to issue from caves beneath the island; in Elephantine he was worshipped along with his counterpart, Satis, a more ancient gazelle-headed war, protector, and fertility deity who personified the flooding of the Nile, and Anuket, the fertility goddess who was the deification of the Nile, daughter to Satis, and became identified as their daughter in the triad. Other versions of myths identify Khnum with the creation of bodies in association with Heket, the goddess who breathed life into the bodies. In another variant Khnum is identified as the counterpart of Menhit and the father of Heka, a personification of law
[edit] Later regional pantheons
the Amun-Mut-Chons triad of Thebes that arose during the Middle Kingdom in 2134-1991 B.C.
the Ptah-Sekhmet-Nefertem triad of Memphis, which is unusual because these deities were not associated with each other before this triad was formalized, when beliefs about the Ennead and Ogdoad were merged after Memphis rose to prominence
[edit] List of deities of Ancient Egypt
Amun (also spelled Amen) - the hidden one, a local creator deity later married to Mut after rising in importance
Amunet - female aspect of the primordial concept of air in the Ogdoad cosmogony; was depicted as a cobra snake or a snake-headed woman
Anubis -jackal god of embalming and tomb-caretaker who watches over the dead
Anuket, goddess of the Nile River, the child of Satis and among the Elephantine triad of deities; temple on the Island of Seheil, giver of life and fertility, gazelle-headed
Apep (Apophis) - evil serpent of the Underworld, enemy of Ra and formed from a length of Neith's spit during her creation of the world
Apis - the Apis bull probably was at first a fertility figure concerned with the propagation of grain and herds; but he became associated with Ptah, the paramount deity of the Memphis area and also, with Osiris (as User-Hapi) and Sokaris, later gods of the dead and the underworld. As Apis-Atum he was associated with the solar cult and was often represented with the sun-disk of the cow deity between his horns, being her offspring. The Apis bull often represented a king who became a deity after death, suggesting an earlier ritual in which the king was sacrificed
The Aten - the sun disk or globe worshipped primarily during the Amarna Period in the Eighteenth Dynasty when representing a monotheistic deity advanced by Amenhotep IV, who took the name Akhenaten
Atum - a creator deity, and the setting sun
Bast, goddess, protector of the pharaoh and a solar deity where the sun could be seen shining in her eyes at night, a lioness, house cat, cat-bodied or cat-headed woman, also known as Bastet when superseded by Sekhmet
Bat - represented the cosmos and the essence of the soul (Ba), cow goddess who gave authority to the king, cult originated in Hu and persisted widely until absorbed as an aspect of Hathor after the eleventh dynasty; associated with the sistrum and the ankh
Bes - dwarfed demigod - associated with protection of the household, particularly childbirth, and entertainment
The four sons of Horus- personifications of the containers for the organs of the deceased pharaohs - Imsety in human form, contained the liver and was protected by Isis; Hapi in baboon form, contained the lungs and was protected by Nephthys; Duamutef in jackal form, contained the stomach and was protected by Neith; Qebehsenuef in hawk form, contained the large intestines and was protected by Serket
Geb - god of the Earth and first ruler of Egypt
Hapy - god embodied by the Nile, and who represents life and fertility
Hathor - among the oldest of Egyptian deities - often depicted as the cow, a solar deity who was the mother to the pharaoh, the golden calf of the bible, and later goddess of Love and Music
Heget - goddess of childbirth and fertility, who breathed life into humans at birth, represented as a frog or a frog-headed woman
Horus - the falcon-headed god, son of Isis, god of pharaohs and Upper Egypt
Isis - goddess of magical power and healing, "She of the Throne" who was represented as the throne, also the wife of Osiris and goddess of the underworld[citation needed].
Iusaaset - the "shadow" of Atum or Atum-Ra, a goddess who was seen as the mother and grandmother of the gods, referred to as the great one who comes forth
Khepry - the scarab beetle, the embodiment of the dawn
Khnum - a creator deity, god of the inundation
Khonsu - the son of Amun and Mut, whose name means "wanderer", which probably refers to the passage of the moon across the sky, as he was a lunar deity. In the late period, he was also considered an important god of healing
Kuk - the personification of darkness that often took the form of a frog-headed god, whose consort was the snake-headed Kauket
Maahes - he who is true beside her, a lion prince, son of Bast in Lower Egypt and of Sekhmet in Upper Egypt and sharing their natures, his father varied—being the current chief male deity of the time and region, a god of war, weather, and protector of matrilineality, his cult arrived during the New Kingdom era perhaps from Nubia and was centred in Taremu and Per-Bast, associated with the high priests of Amon, the knife, lotuses, and devouring captives
Ma'at - a goddess who personified concept of truth, balance, justice, and order - represented as a woman, sitting or standing, holding a sceptre in one hand and an ankh in the other - thought to have created order out of the primal chaos and was responsible for maintaining the order of the universe and all of its inhabitants, to prevent a return to chaos
Mafdet - she who runs swiftly - early deification of legal justice (execution) as a cheetah, ruling at judgment hall in Duat where enemies of the pharaoh were decapitated with Mafdet's claw; alternately, a cat, a mongoose, or a leopard protecting against vermin, snakes, and scorpions; the bed upon which royal mummies were placed in murals
Menhit - goddess of war - depicted as a lioness-goddess and therefore becoming associated with Sekhmet
Meretseger - goddess of the valley of the kings, a cobra-goddess, sometimes triple-headed, dweller on the top of or the personification of the pyramid-shaped mountain, Al-Qurn, which overlooked the tombs of the pharaohs in the Valley of the Kings
Meskhenet - goddess of childbirth, and the creator of each person's Ka, a part of their soul, thereby associated with fate
Menthu - an ancient god of war - nomad - represented strength, virility, and victory
Min - represented in many different forms, but was often represented in male human form, shown with an erect penis which he holds in his left hand and an upheld right arm holding a flail. As Khem or Min, he was the god of reproduction; as Khnum, he was the creator of all things, "the maker of gods and men". By the New Kingdom he was also fused with Amen in the deity Min-Amen-kamutef (Min-Amen- bull of his mother). Min's shrine was crowned with a pair of bull horns.
Mnevis - was the sacred bull of Heliopolis. The bull was associated with Ra as the offspring of the solar cow deity, and possibly also with Min. When Akhenaten abandoned the other god named Amun (Amen) in favour of the Aten he claimed that he would maintain the Mnevis cult. The cult may have retained his favor because of its solar associations.
Mut (also spelled Mout), mother, was originally a title of the primordial waters of the cosmos, the mother from which the cosmos emerged, as was Naunet in the Ogdoad cosmogony, however, the distinction between motherhood and cosmic water lead to the separation of these identities and Mut gained aspects of a creator goddess
Naunet - a goddess, the primal waters from which all arose, similar to Mut and later closely related to Nu
Neith - goddess of war, then great mother goddess - a name of the primal waters, the goddess of creation and weaving, said to weave all of the world on her loom
Nekhbet - goddess depicted as a white vulture - protector of Egypt, royalty, and the pharaoh with her extended wings - referred to as Mother of Mothers, who hath existed from the Beginning, and Creatrix of the World (related to Wadjet); always seen on the front of pharaoh’s double crown with Wadjet
Nephthys - goddess of death, holder of the rattle, the Sistrum - sister to Isis and the nursing mother of Horus and the pharaohs represented as the mistress of the temple, a woman with falcon wings, usually outstretched as a symbol of protection
Nut - goddess of heaven and the sky - mother of many deities as well as the sun, the moon, and the stars
Osiris - god of the underworld after Hathor and Anubis, fertility, and agriculture - the oldest son of the sky goddess, Nut, and the Earth god, Geb, and being brother and later, the husband of Isis - and early deity of Upper Egypt whose cult persisted into the Sixth Century BC
Pakhet - she who tears - deity of merged aspects of Sekhmet and Bast, cult center at Beni Hasan where north and south met - lioness protector, see Speos Artemidos
Ptah - a creator deity, also god of craft
Ra - the sun, also a creator deity - whose chief cult centre was based in Heliopolis meaning "city of the sun"
Ra-Horakhty - god of both sky and Sun, a combination of Ra and Horus - thought to be god of the Rising Sun
Reshep - war god who was originally from Syria
Satis - the goddess who represented the flooding of the Nile River, ancient war, hunting, and fertility goddess, mother of the Nile, Anuket, associated with water, depicted with a bow and arrows, and a gazelle or antelope horned, and sometimes, feathered crown
Sekhmet - goddess of destruction and war, the lioness - also personified as an aspect of Ra, fierce protector of the pharaoh, a solar deity, and later as an aspect of Hathor
Seker- god of death
Selket- scorpion goddess, protectress, goddess of magic
Sobek - crocodile god of the Nile
Set - god of storms, later became god of evil, desert, also Lower Egypt
Seshat - goddess of writing, astronomy, astrology, architecture, and mathematics depicted as a scribe
Shu - embodiment of wind or air
Swenet - goddess of the ancient city on the border of southern Egypt at the Nile River, trade in hieroglyphs
Taweret - goddess of pregnant women and protector at childbirth
Tefnut - goddess, embodiment of rain, dew, clouds, and wet weather, depicted as a cat and sometimes as a lioness
Thoth - god of the moon, drawing, writing, geometry, wisdom, medicine, music, astronomy, magic; usually depicted as ibis-headed, or as a goose; cult centered in Khemennu
Wadjet - the goddess - snake goddess of lower Egypt, depicted as a cobra, patron and protector of Egypt and the pharaoh, always shown on crown of the pharaohs; later joined by the image of Nekhbet after north and south united; other symbols: eye, snake on staff
Wadj-wer - fertility god and personification of the Mediterranean sea or lakes of the Nile delta
Wepwawet - jackal god of upper Egypt
Wosret - a localized guardian goddess, protector of the young god Horus, an early consort of Amun, who was later superseded by Mut
[edit] See also
DINGIR
Pantheon (gods)
[edit] External links
List of Mythological Deities. Deurer, 1997
Gods and Goddesses. ancientegypt.co.uk.
List of Gods and Goddesses from Ancient Egypt
Egyptian Gods. gwydir.demon.co.uk.
discussion of Totemic Zootypes in the Egyptian pantheon by Gerald Massey
False awakening
False awakening
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A false awakening is an event in which someone dreams they have awoken from sleep. This illusion of having awakened is very convincing to the person. After a false awakening, people will often dream of performing daily morning rituals, believing they have truly awakened. A dream in which a false awakening takes place is sometimes colloquially referred to as a "double dream", or a "dream within a dream".
Contents
[hide]
1 Relationship to lucidity
2 Relationship to simulated reality
3 Realism and unrealism
4 Repetition
5 Types of false awakenings
5.1 Type 1
5.2 Type 2
6 See also
7 References
[edit] Relationship to lucidity
A false awakening may occur either following an ordinary dream or following a lucid dream (one in which the dreamer has been aware of dreaming). Particularly if the false awakening follows a lucid dream, the false awakening may turn into a ‘pre-lucid dream' [1], that is, one in which the dreamer may start to wonder if they're really awake and may or may not come to the correct conclusion.
[edit] Relationship to simulated reality
A false awakening has significance to the simulation hypothesis which states that what we perceive as "true" reality is in truth an illusion as evidenced by our minds' inability to distinguish between reality and dreams. Therefore, advocates of the simulation hypothesis argue that the probability of our "true" reality being a simulated reality is affected by the prevalence of false awakenings.
[edit] Realism and unrealism
Certain aspects of life may be dramatized, or out of place in false awakenings. Things may seem wrong: details, like the painting on a wall, not being able to talk or difficulty reading (purportedly reading in lucid dreams is often difficult or impossible[2]). In some experiences, the human senses are heightened, or changed. For instance, one may be able to see things in greater detail, or lesser detail, or one may feel an intense burst of fear and anxiety, or possibly pleasure.[citation needed]
[edit] Repetition
Because the dreamer is still dreaming after a false awakening, it is possible for there to be more than one false awakening in a single dream. Often, dreamers will seem to have awakened, begin eating breakfast, brushing teeth, and so on and then find themselves back in bed, begin daily morning rituals, believe that they have awakened, and so forth. The French psychologist Yves Delage[3] reported an experience of his own of this kind, in which he experienced four successive false awakenings. The philosopher Bertrand Russell even claimed to have experienced ‘about a hundred’ false awakenings in succession while coming round from a general anaesthetic.[4]
[edit] Types of false awakenings
Celia Green suggested a distinction should be made between two types of false awakening[5]:
[edit] Type 1
Type 1 may be thought of as the ‘common-or-garden’ sort, in which the dreamer seems to wake up, but not necessarily in realistic surroundings, that is, not in their own bedroom. A pre-lucid dream may ensue. More commonly, dreamers will believe they have awakened and then ‘fall back asleep’ in the dream.
[edit] Type 2
The Type 2 false awakening seems to be considerably less common. Green characterised it as follows: ‘[…]the subject appears to wake up in a realistic manner, but to an atmosphere of suspense[…]His surroundings may at first appear normal, and he may gradually become aware of something uncanny in the atmosphere, and perhaps of unwonted sounds and movements. Or he may “awake” immediately to a “stressed” and “stormy” atmosphere. In either case, the end result would appear to be characterized by feelings of suspense, excitement or apprehension.’[6]
Charles McCreery[7] drew attention to the similarity between this description and the description by the German psychopathologist Karl Jaspers (1923) of the so-called ‘primary delusionary experience’ (a general feeling which precedes any more specific delusory belief). Jaspers wrote: ‘Patients feel uncanny and that there is something suspicious afoot. Everything gets a new meaning. The environment is somehow different – not to a gross degree – perception is unaltered in itself but there is some change which envelops everything with a subtle, pervasive and strangely uncertain light[…]Something seems in the air which the patient cannot account for, a distrustful, uncomfortable, uncanny tension invades him[…].’[8]
McCreery suggests that this phenomenological similarity is not accidental, and results from the fact that both phenomena, the Type 2 false awakening and the primary delusionary experience, are phenomena of sleep.[9] He suggests that the primary delusionary experience, like other phenomena of psychosis such as hallucinations and secondary or specific delusions, represents an intrusion into waking consciousness of processes associated with Stage 1 sleep. It is suggested that the reason for these intrusions is that the psychotic subject is in a state of hyper-arousal, a state which can lead to what Ian Oswald called ‘micro-sleeps’[10] in waking life.
[edit] See also
Dream
Dream argument
Hallucinations in the sane
Hypnagogia
Lucid dreaming
Nightmare
Simulated reality
Sleep paralysis
Waking Life
[edit] References
^ Green, C. (1968). Lucid Dreams. London: Hamish Hamilton.
^ see Green, C., and McCreery, C. (1994). Lucid Dreaming: the Paradox of Consciousness During Sleep. London: Routledge,Ch. 10, for a discussion of this topic
^ Delage, Y. (1919). Le Rêve. Paris: Les Presses Universitaires de France.
^ Russell, B. (1948). Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. London: Allen and Unwin.
^ Green, C. (1968). Lucid Dreams. op.cit.
^ Green, C. (1968). Lucid Dreams. op.cit., p.121.
^ McCreery, C. (1997).‘Hallucinations and arousability: pointers to a theory of psychosis’. In Claridge, G. (ed.): Schizotypy, Implications for Illness and Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
^ Jaspers, K. (1923). General Psychopathology (translated by J. Hoenig and M.W. Hamilton). Manchester: Manchester University Press (first published in Germany, 1923, as Algemeine pathologie), p.98.
^ McCreery, C. (2008). "Dreams and psychosis: a new look at an old hypothesis." Psychological Paper No. 2008-1. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Online PDF
^ Oswald, I. (1962). Sleeping and Waking: physiology and psychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A false awakening is an event in which someone dreams they have awoken from sleep. This illusion of having awakened is very convincing to the person. After a false awakening, people will often dream of performing daily morning rituals, believing they have truly awakened. A dream in which a false awakening takes place is sometimes colloquially referred to as a "double dream", or a "dream within a dream".
Contents
[hide]
1 Relationship to lucidity
2 Relationship to simulated reality
3 Realism and unrealism
4 Repetition
5 Types of false awakenings
5.1 Type 1
5.2 Type 2
6 See also
7 References
[edit] Relationship to lucidity
A false awakening may occur either following an ordinary dream or following a lucid dream (one in which the dreamer has been aware of dreaming). Particularly if the false awakening follows a lucid dream, the false awakening may turn into a ‘pre-lucid dream' [1], that is, one in which the dreamer may start to wonder if they're really awake and may or may not come to the correct conclusion.
[edit] Relationship to simulated reality
A false awakening has significance to the simulation hypothesis which states that what we perceive as "true" reality is in truth an illusion as evidenced by our minds' inability to distinguish between reality and dreams. Therefore, advocates of the simulation hypothesis argue that the probability of our "true" reality being a simulated reality is affected by the prevalence of false awakenings.
[edit] Realism and unrealism
Certain aspects of life may be dramatized, or out of place in false awakenings. Things may seem wrong: details, like the painting on a wall, not being able to talk or difficulty reading (purportedly reading in lucid dreams is often difficult or impossible[2]). In some experiences, the human senses are heightened, or changed. For instance, one may be able to see things in greater detail, or lesser detail, or one may feel an intense burst of fear and anxiety, or possibly pleasure.[citation needed]
[edit] Repetition
Because the dreamer is still dreaming after a false awakening, it is possible for there to be more than one false awakening in a single dream. Often, dreamers will seem to have awakened, begin eating breakfast, brushing teeth, and so on and then find themselves back in bed, begin daily morning rituals, believe that they have awakened, and so forth. The French psychologist Yves Delage[3] reported an experience of his own of this kind, in which he experienced four successive false awakenings. The philosopher Bertrand Russell even claimed to have experienced ‘about a hundred’ false awakenings in succession while coming round from a general anaesthetic.[4]
[edit] Types of false awakenings
Celia Green suggested a distinction should be made between two types of false awakening[5]:
[edit] Type 1
Type 1 may be thought of as the ‘common-or-garden’ sort, in which the dreamer seems to wake up, but not necessarily in realistic surroundings, that is, not in their own bedroom. A pre-lucid dream may ensue. More commonly, dreamers will believe they have awakened and then ‘fall back asleep’ in the dream.
[edit] Type 2
The Type 2 false awakening seems to be considerably less common. Green characterised it as follows: ‘[…]the subject appears to wake up in a realistic manner, but to an atmosphere of suspense[…]His surroundings may at first appear normal, and he may gradually become aware of something uncanny in the atmosphere, and perhaps of unwonted sounds and movements. Or he may “awake” immediately to a “stressed” and “stormy” atmosphere. In either case, the end result would appear to be characterized by feelings of suspense, excitement or apprehension.’[6]
Charles McCreery[7] drew attention to the similarity between this description and the description by the German psychopathologist Karl Jaspers (1923) of the so-called ‘primary delusionary experience’ (a general feeling which precedes any more specific delusory belief). Jaspers wrote: ‘Patients feel uncanny and that there is something suspicious afoot. Everything gets a new meaning. The environment is somehow different – not to a gross degree – perception is unaltered in itself but there is some change which envelops everything with a subtle, pervasive and strangely uncertain light[…]Something seems in the air which the patient cannot account for, a distrustful, uncomfortable, uncanny tension invades him[…].’[8]
McCreery suggests that this phenomenological similarity is not accidental, and results from the fact that both phenomena, the Type 2 false awakening and the primary delusionary experience, are phenomena of sleep.[9] He suggests that the primary delusionary experience, like other phenomena of psychosis such as hallucinations and secondary or specific delusions, represents an intrusion into waking consciousness of processes associated with Stage 1 sleep. It is suggested that the reason for these intrusions is that the psychotic subject is in a state of hyper-arousal, a state which can lead to what Ian Oswald called ‘micro-sleeps’[10] in waking life.
[edit] See also
Dream
Dream argument
Hallucinations in the sane
Hypnagogia
Lucid dreaming
Nightmare
Simulated reality
Sleep paralysis
Waking Life
[edit] References
^ Green, C. (1968). Lucid Dreams. London: Hamish Hamilton.
^ see Green, C., and McCreery, C. (1994). Lucid Dreaming: the Paradox of Consciousness During Sleep. London: Routledge,Ch. 10, for a discussion of this topic
^ Delage, Y. (1919). Le Rêve. Paris: Les Presses Universitaires de France.
^ Russell, B. (1948). Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. London: Allen and Unwin.
^ Green, C. (1968). Lucid Dreams. op.cit.
^ Green, C. (1968). Lucid Dreams. op.cit., p.121.
^ McCreery, C. (1997).‘Hallucinations and arousability: pointers to a theory of psychosis’. In Claridge, G. (ed.): Schizotypy, Implications for Illness and Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
^ Jaspers, K. (1923). General Psychopathology (translated by J. Hoenig and M.W. Hamilton). Manchester: Manchester University Press (first published in Germany, 1923, as Algemeine pathologie), p.98.
^ McCreery, C. (2008). "Dreams and psychosis: a new look at an old hypothesis." Psychological Paper No. 2008-1. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Online PDF
^ Oswald, I. (1962). Sleeping and Waking: physiology and psychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lucid dream
Lucid dream
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hypnos and Thanatos, Sleep and His Half-Brother Death by John William WaterhouseWikibooks has a book on the topic of
Lucid DreamingA lucid dream is a dream in which the person is aware that he or she is dreaming while the dream is in progress, also known as a conscious dream. When the dreamer is lucid, he or she can actively participate in the dream environment without any of the inhibitions or limitations that otherwise would feel natural to persons who incorrectly believe they are in the "real" waking world. Lucid dreams can be extremely real and vivid depending on a person's level of self-awareness during the lucid dream.[1]
A lucid dream can begin in one of two ways. A dream-initiated lucid dream (DILD) starts as a normal dream, and the dreamer eventually concludes that he or she is dreaming, while a wake-initiated lucid dream (WILD) occurs when the dreamer goes from a normal waking state directly into a dream state with no apparent lapse in consciousness.
Lucid dreaming has been researched scientifically, and its existence is well established.[2][3] Scientists such as Allan Hobson, with his neurophysiological approach to dream research, have helped to push the understanding of lucid dreaming into a less speculative realm.
Contents
[hide]
1 Scientific history
2 Research and clinical applications
2.1 Neurobiological model
2.2 Treatment for nightmares
2.3 Perception of time while lucid dreaming
2.4 Near-death and out-of-body experiences
3 Cultural history
4 Induction methods
4.1 Dream recall
4.2 Mnemonic induction of lucid dreams (MILD)
4.3 Wake-back-to-bed (WBTB)
4.4 Cycle adjustment technique (CAT)
4.5 Wake-initiation of lucid dreams (WILD)
4.6 Lucid Dream Supplements (LDS)
4.7 Lucid Dream Induction Devices (LDID)
4.8 Additional techniques
5 Reality testing
5.1 Dream signs
6 Supplements
7 Prolonging lucid dreams
8 Other associated phenomena
8.1 Rapid eye movement (REM)
8.2 False awakening
8.3 Sleep paralysis
8.4 Out-of-body experience
9 Rarity of lucid dreams
10 See also
11 Notes
12 Further reading
13 External links
[edit] Scientific history
The first book on lucid dreams to recognize their scientific potential was Celia Green's 1968 study Lucid Dreams.[4] Reviewing the past literature, as well as new data from subjects of her own, Green analyzed the main characteristics of such dreams and concluded that they were a category of experience quite distinct from ordinary dreams. She predicted that they would turn out to be associated with rapid eye movement sleep (REM sleep). Green was also the first to link lucid dreams to the phenomenon of false awakenings.
Philosopher Norman Malcolm's 1959 text Dreaming[5] had argued against the possibility of checking the accuracy of dream reports. However, the realization that eye movements performed in dreams affected the dreamer's physical eyes provided a way to prove that actions agreed upon during waking life could be recalled and performed once lucid in a dream. The first evidence of this type was produced in the late 1970s by British parapsychologist Keith Hearne. A volunteer named Alan Worsley used eye movement to signal the onset of lucidity, which were recorded by a polysomnograph machine.
Hearne's results were not widely distributed. The first peer-reviewed article was published some years later by Stephen LaBerge at Stanford University, who had independently developed a similar technique as part of his doctoral dissertation.[6]
During the 1980s, further scientific evidence to confirm the existence of lucid dreaming was produced as lucid dreamers were able to demonstrate to researchers that they were consciously aware of being in a dream state (again, primarily using eye movement signals).[7]
Additionally, techniques were developed which have been experimentally proven to enhance the likelihood of achieving this state.[8]
Research on techniques and effects of lucid dreaming continues at a number of universities and other centers, including LaBerge's Lucidity Institute.
[edit] Research and clinical applications
[edit] Neurobiological model
Neuroscientist J. Allan Hobson has hypothesized as to what might be occurring in the brain while lucid. The first step to lucid dreaming is recognizing that one is dreaming. This recognition might occur in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is one of the few areas deactivated during REM sleep and where working memory occurs. Once this area is activated and the recognition of dreaming occurs, the dreamer must be cautious to let the dream delusions continue but be conscious enough to recognize them. This process might be seen as the balance between reason and emotion. While maintaining this balance, the amygdala and parahippocampal cortex might be less intensely activated.[9] To continue the intensity of the dream hallucinations, it is expected the pons and the parieto-occipital junction stay active.[10]
[edit] Treatment for nightmares
People who suffer from nightmares would benefit from the ability to be aware they are dreaming. A pilot study was performed in 2006 that showed that lucid dreaming treatment was successful in reducing nightmare frequency. This treatment consisted of exposure to the idea, mastery of the technique, and lucidity exercises. It was not clear what aspects of the treatment were responsible for the success of overcoming nightmares, though the treatment as a whole was successful.[11] Australian psychologist, Milan Colic, has explored the application of principles from narrative therapy with clients' lucid dreams to reduce the impact not only of nightmares during sleep, but also depression, self-mutilation, and other problems in waking life. Colic found that clients' preferred direction for their lives, as identified during therapeutic conversations, could lessen the distressing content of dreams, while understandings about life - and even characters - from lucid dreams could be invoked in 'real' life with marked therapeutic benefits.[12]
[edit] Perception of time while lucid dreaming
The rate that time passes while lucid dreaming has been shown to be about the same as while waking. However, a 1995 study in Germany indicated lucid dreaming can also have varied time spans, in which the dreamer can control the length. The study took place during sleep and upon awakening, and required the participants to record their dreams in a log and how long the dreams lasted. In 1985, LaBerge performed a pilot study where lucid dreamers counted out ten seconds while dreaming, signaling the end of counting with a pre-arranged eye signal measured with electrooculogram recording.[13] LaBerge's results were confirmed by German researchers in 2004. The German study, by D. Erlacher and M. Schredl, also studied motor activity and found that deep knee bends took 44% longer to perform while lucid dreaming.[14]
[edit] Near-death and out-of-body experiences
In a study of fourteen lucid dreamers performed in 1991, people who perform wake-initiated lucid dreams (WILD) reported experiences consistent with aspects of out-of-body experiences such as floating above their beds and the feeling of leaving their bodies.[15] Due to the phenomenological overlap between lucid dreams, near death experiences, and out-of-body experiences, researchers say they believe a protocol could be developed to induce a lucid dream similar to a near-death experience in the laboratory.[16]
[edit] Cultural history
Even though it has only come to the attention of the general public in the last few decades, lucid dreaming is not a modern discovery.
A very early example of lucid dreaming is in a letter written by St. Augustine of Hippo in 415 AD.[17]
As early as the eighth century, Tibetan Buddhists were practicing a form of yoga supposed to maintain full waking consciousness while in the dream state.[18] This system is extensively discussed and explained in the book Dream Yoga and the Practice of Natural Light.[19] One of the important messages of the book is the distinction between the Dzogchen meditation of Awareness and Dream Yoga. The Dzogchen Awareness meditation has also been referred to by the terms Rigpa Awareness, Contemplation, and Presence. Awareness during the sleep and dream states is associated with the Dzogchen practice of natural light. This practice only achieves lucid dreams as a secondary effect—in contrast to Dream yoga which is aimed primarily at lucid dreaming. According to Buddhist teachers, the experience of lucidity helps us to understand the unreality of phenomena, which would otherwise be overwhelming during dream or the death experience.
An early recorded lucid dreamer was the philosopher and physician Sir Thomas Browne (1605–1682). Browne was fascinated by the world of dreams and stated of his own ability to lucid dream in his Religio Medici: "... yet in one dream I can compose a whole Comedy, behold the action, apprehend the jests and laugh my self awake at the conceits thereof;"[20]
Marquis d'Hervey de Saint-Denys was probably the first person to argue that it is possible for anyone to learn to dream consciously. In 1867, he published his book Les Reves et les Moyens de Les Diriger; Observations Pratiques (Dreams and How to Guide them; Practical Observations), in which he documented more than twenty years of his own research into dreams.
The term lucid dreaming was coined by Dutch author and psychiatrist Frederik van Eeden in his 1913 article "A Study of Dreams".[21] This book was highly anecdotal and not embraced by the scientific community. Some consider this a misnomer because it means much more than just "clear or vivid" dreaming.[22] The alternative term conscious dreaming avoids this confusion. However, the term lucid was used by van Eeden in its sense of "having insight", as in the phrase a lucid interval applied to someone in temporary remission from a psychosis, rather than as a reference to the perceptual quality of the experience which may or may not be clear and vivid.
In the 1950s, the Senoi hunter-gatherers of Malaysia were reported to make extensive use of lucid dreaming to ensure mental health, although later studies refuted these claims.[23]
[edit] Induction methods
Many people report having experienced a lucid dream during their lives, often in childhood. Children seem to have lucid dreams more easily than adults. Although lucid dreaming is a conditioned skill,[24] achieving lucid dreams on a regular basis can be difficult, even with training. Over time, several techniques have been developed to achieve a lucid dreaming state intentionally. The following are common factors that influence lucid dreaming and techniques that people use to help achieve a lucid dream:
[edit] Dream recall
Dream recall is simply the ability to remember dreams. Good dream recall is often described as the first step towards lucid dreaming. Better recall increases awareness of dreams in general; with limited dream recall, any lucid dreams one has can be forgotten entirely.
The main technique used to improve dream recall is to keep a dream journal, writing down any dreams remembered the moment one awakes. An audio recorder can also be very helpful[25]. It is important to record the dreams as quickly as possible as there is a strong tendency to forget what one has dreamt.[26] It is suggested that for best recall, the waking dreamer should keep eyes closed while trying to remember the dream, and that one's dream journal be recorded in the present tense[25]. Describing an experience as if presently in it can help the writer to recall more accurately the events of their dream.[citation needed]
Dream recall can also be improved by staying still after waking up.[26] This may have something to do with REM atonia (the condition of REM sleep in which the motor neurons are not stimulated and thus the body's muscles do not move). If one purposely prevents motor neurons from firing immediately after waking from a dream, recalling said dream becomes easier. Similarly, if the dreamer changes positions in the night, they may be able to recall certain events of their dream by testing different sleeping positions.[citation needed]
[edit] Mnemonic induction of lucid dreams (MILD)
The MILD technique is a common technique developed by Dr. Stephen LaBerge used to induce a lucid dream at will by setting an intention, while falling asleep, to remember to recognize that one is dreaming or to remember to look for dream signs when one is in a dream.
[edit] Wake-back-to-bed (WBTB)
The wake-back-to-bed technique is often the easiest way to encourage a lucid dream. The method involves going to sleep tired and waking up five to six hours later. Then, focusing all thoughts on lucid dreaming, staying awake for an hour and going back to sleep while practicing the MILD method. A 60% success rate has been shown in research using this technique.[27] This is because the REM cycles get longer as the night goes on, and this technique takes advantage of the best REM cycle of the night. Because this REM cycle is longer and deeper, gaining lucidity during this time may result in a lengthier lucid dream.[27]
[edit] Cycle adjustment technique (CAT)
The cycle adjustment technique, developed by Daniel Love, is an effective way to induce lucid dreaming. It involves adjusting one's sleep cycle to encourage awareness during the latter part of the sleep. First, the person wakes up 90 minutes before normal wake time until their sleep cycle begins to adjust. After this, the normal wake times and early wake times alternate. On the days with the normal wake times, the body is ready to wake up, and this increases alertness, making lucidity more likely.
[edit] Wake-initiation of lucid dreams (WILD)
The wake-initiated lucid dream "occurs when the sleeper enters REM sleep with unbroken self-awareness directly from the waking state".[28] There are many techniques aimed at entering a WILD. The key to these techniques is recognizing the hypnagogic stage, which is within the border of being awake and being asleep. If a person is successful in staying aware while this stage occurs, he or she will eventually enter the dream state while being fully aware that it is a dream.
There are key times at which this state is best entered; while success at normal bedtime after having been awake all day is very difficult, it is relatively easy after sleeping for 3–7 hours or in the afternoon during a nap. Techniques for inducing WILDs abound. Dreamers may count, envision themselves climbing or descending stairs, chant to themselves, control their breathing, count their breaths to keep their thoughts from drifting, concentrate on relaxing their body from their toes to their head, or allow images to flow through their "mind's eye" and envision themselves jumping into the image to maintain concentration and keep their mind awake, while still being calm enough to let their body sleep.
During the actual transition into the dream state, one is likely to experience sleep paralysis, including rapid vibrations,[15] a sequence of loud sounds and a feeling of twirling into another state of body awareness, "to drift off into another dimension", or the feeling like passing the interface between water into air face-front body first, or images or sceneries they are thinking of and trying to visualize gradually sharpen and become "real", which they can actually "see", instead of the fuzzy indefinable sensations one feels when trying to imagine something when wide awake.
[edit] Lucid Dream Supplements (LDS)
The Lucid Dream Supplement (LDS) technique was co-founded by Scot Stride and Thomas Yuschak[29][30] in October, 2005. This technique received its motivation from seminal research initially carried out by LaBerge in 2004 [31]. The LDS method uses primarily non-prescription supplements that are ingested to produce favorable conditions for the brains neurotransmitters and receptor sites during REM sleep. By increasing or balancing the levels of Acetylcholine, Serotonin, Dopamine and Norepinephrine the person can significantly influence dream vividness, memory, clarity, awareness and mood. Enhancing these mental states during REM sleep significantly increases the odds of becoming lucid. The LDS technique can be combined with other techniques (like WBTB or WILD) to complement or amplify them to produce even better results. Yuschak describes the details of the technique in his book. [29] Based on anecdotal accounts from various website forums, many people who have experienced difficulties with the other techniques, for whatever reason, are using LDS as an aid in overcoming their obstacles. Some people use LDS to jump start their LD practice and then move on to one of the other traditional methods. Other people use it recreationally to experience more memorable and vivid dreams than they normally would. Most, if not all, of the LDS research occurring today is by private study groups not affiliated with any university, corporate or government agency.
[edit] Lucid Dream Induction Devices (LDID)
Lucid dream induction is possible by the use of a physical device. The general principle works by taking advantage of the natural phenomenon of incorporating external stimuli into one's dreams. Usually a device is worn while sleeping that can detect when the sleeper enters a REM phase and triggers a noise and/or flashing lights with the goal of these stimuli being incorporated into the dreamer's dream. For example flashing lights might be translated to a car's headlights in a dream.
A well-known dream-induction device is the NovaDreamer, designed in 1993 by experienced lucid dreamer Craig Webb, now an international speaker/trainer and executive director of The DREAMS Foundation[32]. The NovaDreamer has been discontinued as of 2006. However, a newer version is being worked on, but as of now is not available.[33]
The REM Dreamer is a cheaper and more widely available version of the NovaDreamer. It has one motion sensor in the right eye that is best at recognizing horizontal movement of the eyes. When it picks up the eye’s movement it goes through a series of flashing LED lights that filter through into the person’s dream and triggers lucidity. Combining this with MILD can be incredibly effective.[34]
Another induction stimulus is vibration. A small vibrator placed on the hand, arm or ankle and triggered by REM activity, or a timer, can also serve as a cue to trigger a lucid dream.[35]
[edit] Additional techniques
Reality tests (as below) practiced in waking life can lead to a test taking place within a dream, leading to the realization that one is dreaming.
Meditation and involvement in a conscious focusing on activities can strengthen the ability to experience lucid dreams by making the person more susceptible to noticing small discrepancies of their surroundings.[citation needed]
There is good reason to believe hypnotic suggestion may help one achieve lucidity.[36] Michael Katz referenced using simple hypnotic induction for the purpose of initiating lucid dreams in his introduction to the first edition of the book Dream Yoga and the Practice of Natural Light. From the early 1980s, he went on to use this "guided nap" technique during dream yoga and lucid dream training. He conducts training internationally and maintains an archive of examples.[37]
[edit] Reality testing
Reality testing (or reality checking) is a common method used by people to determine whether or not they are dreaming. It involves performing an action with results that will be different if the tester is dreaming. By practicing these tests during waking life, one may eventually decide to perform such a test while dreaming, which may fail and let the dreamer realize that they are dreaming.
Common reality tests include:
The nose reality check: Pinch your nose and if you are able to breathe without using your mouth, it's a dream[38]
Try to stick your finger through the palm of your hand[39]
Looking at one's digital watch (remembering the time), looking away, and looking back. As with text, the time will probably have changed randomly and radically at the second glance or contain strange letters and characters. (Analog watches do not usually change in dreams, while digital watches have great tendency to do so.)[40]
Flipping a light switch. Light levels rarely change as a result of the switch flipping in dreams.[41]
Looking into a mirror; in dreams, reflections from a mirror often appear to be blurred, distorted or incorrect.[41]
Looking at the ground beneath one's feet or at one's hands. If one does this within a dream the difference in appearance of the ground or one's hands from the normal waking state is often enough to alert the conscious to the dream state.[42]
[edit] Dream signs
It has been suggested that Dream sign be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)
Another form of reality testing involves identifying one's dream signs, clues that one is dreaming. Dream signs are often categorized as follows:
Action — The dreamer, another dream character, or a thing does something unusual or impossible in waking life, such as being able to fly, being able to walk through walls, being able to change the setting illogically, or noticing photographs in a magazine or newspaper becoming three-dimensional with full movement.
Powerlessness — There may typically be a sensational loss of bodily strength.
Context — The place or situation in the dream is strange and includes fictional characters or places.
Form — The dreamer, another character, or an object changes shape, is oddly formed, or transforms. This may include the presence of unusual clothing or hair, or a third person view of the dreamer.
Awareness — A peculiar thought, a strong emotion, an unusual sensation, a loss of normal logic, or an altered perception. In some cases when moving one's head from side to side, one may notice a strange stuttering or 'strobing' of the image.
Cohesion — Sometimes the dreamer may seem to teleport to another location in a dream, without a noticeable transition.
[edit] Supplements
Several drugs have been shown to improve the probability of a lucid dream occurring and/or increase the length of such a dream:
Galantamine is a nootropic that can substantially increase the odds of success when used along with a lucid dream or out-of-body experience induction technique.[29][30][31] Choline bitartrate or Alpha-GPC can be used with Galantamine to increase its effectiveness.[43]
An amino acid blend made up of 2000 mg L-aspartic acid, 4000 mg L-glutamine, and 300 mg L-theanine can greatly increase the odds of having a lucid dream.[44]
5-HTP can increase the chances of success of having a lucid dream by taking advantage of the REM rebound effect.[45]
Melatonin has been shown clinically to increase the time spent in REM sleep in the morning hours (as the dose is wearing off). It is theorized that this phenomenon is due to a REM rebound effect.[46]
Vitamin B6 can increase dream vividness when taken with tryptophan. This is due to the role this vitamin plays in the conversion of tryptophan to serotonin.[47]
[edit] Prolonging lucid dreams
One problem faced by people wishing to lucid dream is awakening prematurely. This premature awakening can be frustrating after investing considerable time into achieving lucidity in the first place.
Stephen LaBerge proposed two ways to prolong a lucid dream. The first technique involves spinning one's dream body. He proposed that when spinning, the dreamer is engaging parts of the brain that may also be involved in REM activity, helping to prolong REM sleep. The second technique is rubbing one's hands. This technique is intended to engage the dreamer's brain in producing the sensation of rubbing hands, preventing the sensation of lying in bed from creeping into awareness. LaBerge tested his hypothesis by asking 34 volunteers to either spin, rub their hands, or do nothing. Results showed 90% of dreams were prolonged by hand rubbing and 96% prolonged by spinning. Only 33% of lucid dreams were prolonged with taking no action.[48]
Once the initial barrier of lucidity is broken, the dreamer’s next obstacle is the excitement of being conscious within a dream. It is key that the dreamer immediately relaxes upon becoming lucid. There are many methods that work, but in general saturating any of the senses with stimuli from the dream is important. Vision is usually the first sense to fade away, with touch commonly being the last. If the dream starts to fade, you can grab a hold of anything close by, making sure to feel the tactile sensation. Other techniques include shouting in a loud and clear voice, “INCREASE LUCIDITY!” inside the dream. People are often reluctant to do this, but it significantly stabilizes the dream and increases its vividness. The well-known author, Carlos Castaneda, suggests that the dreamer touch their tongue to the roof of their mouth, an action that greatly increases the realness of the dream.[49]
[edit] Other associated phenomena
REM Sleep. EEG highlighted by red box. Eye movements highlighted by red line.
[edit] Rapid eye movement (REM)
When a person is dreaming, the eyes move rapidly. Scientific research has found that these eye movements correspond to the direction in which the dreamer is "looking" in his/her dreamscape; this has enabled trained lucid dreamers to communicate whilst dreaming to researchers by using eye movement signals.[13]
[edit] False awakening
In a false awakening, one suddenly dreams of having been awakened. Commonly in a false awakening, the room is similar to the room in which the person fell asleep. If the person was lucid, they often believe that they are no longer dreaming and may start exiting the room and so forth.
This can be a nemesis in the art of lucid dreaming, because it usually causes people to give up their awareness of being in a dream, but it can also cause someone to become lucid if the person does a reality check whenever he/she awakens. People who keep a dream journal and write down their dreams upon awakening sometimes report having to write down the same dream multiple times because of this phenomenon. It has also been known to cause bedwetting as one may dream that they have awoken to go to the restroom, but in reality are still dreaming.
False awakenings can be a great vehicle toward lucidity. The makers of induction devices such as the NovaDreamer and the REM Dreamer recommend doing a reality check every time you awake so that when a false awakening occurs you will become lucid. People using these devices have most of their lucid dreams triggered through reality checks upon awakening.[50]
[edit] Sleep paralysis
During REM sleep the body is paralyzed by a mechanism in the brain in order to prevent the movements, which occur in the dream, from causing the physical body to move. However, it is possible for this mechanism to be triggered before, during, or after normal sleep while the brain awakens. This can lead to a state where a person is lying in his or her bed and he or she feels paralyzed. Hypnagogic hallucination may occur in this state, especially auditory ones. Effects of sleep paralysis include heaviness or inability to move the muscles, rushing or pulsating noises, and brief hypnogogic imagery. Experiencing sleep paralysis is a necessary part of WILD, in which the dreamer essentially detaches his "dream" body from the paralyzed one.
[edit] Out-of-body experience
An out-of-body experience (OBE or sometimes OOBE) is an experience that typically involves a sensation of floating outside of one's body and, in some cases, perceiving one's physical body from a place outside one's body (autoscopy). About one in ten people has had an out-of-body experience at some time in their lives.[51] Scientists know little about the phenomenon.[52]
[edit] Rarity of lucid dreams
Puzzling to many people, given the frequent bizarreness, illogic and dislocation of dreams, is why dreamers are not lucid all of the time. How can our dreaming selves accept as real so many settings, images and events that in waking life, we assume, would immediately jolt us into disbelief? The answer to this has been approached in three categories of investigation.
Depth psychology: the thrust of personality and psychotherapeutic approaches to this issue suggest that the unconscious “dream-work” is repressing or inhibiting critical evaluation of the dream in order to perform its salutary function. “Belief” in the dream symbols and experience is required for healing, personality integration or catharsis to take place. Lucidity can only arise if a person is relatively free of un-reconciled conflicts which form barriers.[53]
Physiology: “seeing is believing” to the brain during any mental state. Even waking consciousness is liable to accept discontinuous or illogical experience as real if presented as such to the brain. [54] Dream consciousness is similar to that of a hallucinating awake subject. Dream or hallucinatory images triggered by the brain stem are considered to be real, even if fantastic. [55] The impulse to accept the evident is so strong the dreamer will often invent a memory or story to cover up an incongruous or unrealistic event in the dream. “That man has two heads!” is usually followed not with “I must be dreaming!” but with “Yes, I read in the paper about these famous Siamese twins.” [56]
Developmental psychology: this approach suggests that the dream world is not bizarre at all when viewed developmentally, since we were dreaming as children before we learned all of the physical and social laws that train the mind to a “reality.” Fluid imaginative constructions may have preceded the more rigid, logical waking rules and continue on as a normative lifeworld alongside the acquired, waking lifeworld. Dreaming and waking consciousness differ only in their respective level of expectations, the waking “I” expecting a stricter set of “reality rules” as the child matures. The experience of “waking up” normally establishes the boundary between the two lifeworlds and cues the consciousness to adapt to waking “I” expectations. At times, however, this cue is false—a false awakening. Here the waking “I” (with its level of expectations) is activated even though the experience is still hallucinatory. Incongruous images or illogical events during this type of dream can result in lucidity as the dream is being judged by waking “standards.” [57]
[edit] See also
Astral projection
Dream argument
Dream question
Hemi-Sync
List of published dream diaries
Pre-lucid dream
The Art of Dreaming
[edit] Notes
^ Lucid Dreaming FAQ LaBerge, S. & Levitan, L. (2004). Version 2.3
^ Watanabe Tsuneo (March 2003). "Lucid Dreaming: Its Experimental Proof and Psychological Conditions". Journal of International Society of Life Information Science 21 (1): 159–162.
^ LaBerge, Stephen (1990). in Bootzen, R. R., Kihlstrom, J.F. & Schacter, D.L., (Eds.): Lucid Dreaming: Psychophysiological Studies of Consciousness during REM Sleep Sleep and Cognition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, pp. 109 – 126.
^ Green, C., Lucid Dreams, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1968.
^ Malcolm, N., Dreaming, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1959.
^ Laberge, S. (1980). Lucid dreaming: An exploratory study of consciousness during sleep. (Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 1980), (University Microfilms No. 80-24, 691)
^ LaBerge, Stephen (1990). in Bootzen, R. R., Kihlstrom, J.F. & Schacter, D.L., (Eds.): Lucid Dreaming: Psychophysiological Studies of Consciousness during REM Sleep Sleep and Cognition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, pp. 109 – 126.
^ LaBerge, Stephen; Levitan, Lynne (1995). "Validity Established of DreamLight Cues for Eliciting Lucid Dreaming". Dreaming 5 (3). International Association for the Study of Dreams.
^ Muzur A, Pace-Schott EF; Allan Hobson (November 2002). "The prefrontal cortex in sleep" (PDF). Trends Cogn Sci 1;2(11): 475–481.
^ Hobson, J. Allan (2001). The Dream Drugstore: Chemically Altered States of Consciousness (in English). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 96-98. ISBN 978-0262582209.
^ Spoormaker,-Victor-I; van-den-Bout,-Jan (October 2006). "Lucid Dreaming Treatment for Nightmares: A Pilot Study". Psychotherapy-and-Psychosomatics. 75 (6): 389–394. doi:10.1159/000095446.
^ Colic, M. (2007). 'Kanna's lucid dreams and the use of narrative practices to explore their meaning.' The International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work (4): 19-26.
^ a b LaBerge, S. (2000). "Lucid dreaming: Evidence and methodology". Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (6): 962–3. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00574020.
^ Erlacher, D.; Schredl, M. (2004). "Required time for motor activities in lucid dreams". Perceptual and Motor Skills 99: 1239–1242. doi:10.2466/PMS.99.7.1239-1242.
^ a b Lynne Levitan; Stephen LaBerge (1991). "Other Worlds: Out-of-Body Experiences and Lucid Dreams". Nightlight 3 (2-3). The Lucidity Institute.
^ Green, J. Timothy (1995). "Lucid dreams as one method of replicating components of the near-death experience in a laboratory setting.". Journal-of-Near-Death-Studies 14: 49-.
^ Letter from St. Augustine of Hippo
^ (March 2005). The Best Sleep Posture for Lucid Dreaming: A Revised Experiment Testing a Method of Tibetan Dream Yoga. The Lucidity Institute.
^ Dream Yoga and the Practice of Natural Light, 2nd edition, Snowlion Publications; authored by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, an eminent Tibetan Lama, and his student Michael Katz, a Psychologist and lucid dream trainer.
^ Religio Medici, part 2:11. Text available at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/relmed/relmed.html
^ Frederik van Eeden (1913). "A study of Dreams". Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 26.
^ Blackmore, Susan (1991). "Lucid Dreaming: Awake in Your Sleep?". Skeptical Inquirer 15: pp 362 – 370.
^ G. William Domhoff (2003). Senoi Dream Theory: Myth, Scientific Method, and the Dreamwork Movement. Retrieved July 10, 2006.
^ LaBerge, Stephen (1980). "Lucid dreaming as a learnable skill: A case study". Perceptual and Motor Skills 51: 1039–1042.
^ a b Webb, Craig (1995). "Dream Recall Techniques: Remember more Dreams" (html). The DREAMS Foundation.
^ a b Stephen LaBerge (1989). "How to Remember Your Dreams". Nightlight 1 (1). The Lucidity Institute.
^ a b Stephen LaBerge; Leslie Phillips, Lynne Levitan (1994). "An Hour of Wakefulness Before Morning Naps Makes Lucidity More Likely". NightLight 6 (3). The Lucidity Institute.
^ Stephen LaBerge; Lynne Levitan (1995). "Validity Established of Dreamlight Cues for Eliciting Lucid Dreaming". Dreaming 5 (3): 159–168. The Lucidity Institute.
^ a b c Thomas Yuschak (2006). Advanced Lucid Dreaming, 1st ed., Lulu Enterprises. ISBN 978-1-4303-0542-2.
^ a b Thomas Yuschak (2007). Pharmacological Induction of Lucid dreams.
^ a b "Substances that enhance recall and lucidity during dreaming". Stephen LaBerge - US Patent. Retrieved on 2007-10-29.
^ Foremski, Tom (1994-05-01). "Getting into your Dreams", San Francisco Examiner. .
^ http://www.lucidity.com/novadreamer.html Novadreamer Lucid Dream Induction Device] at The Lucidity Institute
^ [1] REM Dreamer
^ [2]The Problem of Induction: A Panel Discussion
^ Oldis, Daniel (1974). The Lucid Dream Manifesto, pages 52-53. ISBN 0-595-39539-2.
^ Dzogchen Community Of New York: Lucid Dreams of Community Members[dead link] KUNDROLLING,
^ [3] Reality Check
^ [4] Reality Check
^ Reality testing, Lucid Dreaming FAQ at The Lucidity Institute. (October 2006)
^ a b Lynne Levitan, Stephen LaBerge (Summer 1993). "The Light and Mirror Experiment" . Nightlight 5 (10). The Lucidity Institute.
^ H. von Moers-Messmer, "Traume mit der gleichzeitigen Erkenntnis des Traumzustandes," Archiv Fuer Psychologie 102 (1938): 291-318.
^ What is the Role of Choline in Lucid dreaming? Thomas Yuschak.
^ Substances that facilitate lucid dreaming – A Case Study. Thomas Yuschak.
^ 5-HTP (5-hydroxytryptophan). Thomas Yuschak.
^ Melatonin. Thomas Yuschak.
^ Ebben, M., Lequerica, A., & Spielman A. (2002). Effects of pyridoxine on dreaming: a preliminary study. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 94(1), 135–140.
^ Stephen LaBerge (1995). "Prolonging Lucid Dreams". NightLight 7 (3-4). The Lucidity Institute.
^ Carlos Castaneda, "The Art of Dreaming"
^ [5] NovaDreamer Operation Manual
^ First Out-of-body Experience Induced In Laboratory Setting. ScienceDaily (Aug. 24, 2007)
^ Out-of-body or all in the mind? BBC news (2005).
^ Sparrow, Gregory Scott (1976). Lucid Dreaming: Dawning of the Clear Light. A.R.E Press, pages 52-53. ISBN 87604-086-5.
^ LaBerge, Stephen (2004). Lucid Dreaming: A Concise Guide to awakening in Your Dreams and in Your Life. Sounds True, page 15. ISBN 1-59179-150-2.
^ Jouvet, Michel (1999). The Paradox of Sleep: The Story of Dreaming. MIT, page 75. ISBN 0-262-10080-0.
^ McLeester, #### Ed. (1976). Welcome to the Magic Theater: A Handbook for Exploring Dreams. Food for Thought, page 99. OCLC 76-29541.
^ Oldis, Daniel (1974). Lucid Dreams, Dreams and Sleep. USD Press, pages 173-178, 191. ISBN 978-1-60303-496-8.
[edit] Further reading
Austin, James (2000). [6]Zen and the Brain: Toward and Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness. ISBN 978-0-262-01164-8.
Brooks, Janice; Vogelsong, Jay (2000). The Conscious Exploration of Dreaming. ISBN 1-58500-539-8.
Castaneda, Carlos. The Art of Dreaming. New York: HarperCollins, 1993.
Conesa-Sevilla, Jorge (2004). [7]Wrestling With Ghosts: A Personal and Scientific Account of Sleep Paralysis--and Lucid Dreaming. ISBN 978-1413446685.
Conesa-Sevilla, Jorge (2003). Sleep Paralysis Signaling (SPS) As A Natural Cueing Method for the Generation and Maintenance of Lucid Dreaming. Presented at The 83rd Annual Convention of the Western Psychological Association, May 1-4, 2003, in Vancouver, BC, Canada..
Conesa-Sevilla, Jorge (2002). [8]Isolated Sleep Paralysis and Lucid Dreaming: Ten-year longitudinal case study and related dream frequencies, types, and categories. Sleep and Hypnosis, 4, (4), 132-143..
de Saint-Denys, Hervey (1982). Dreams and How to Guide Them. ISBN 0-7156-1584-X.
Gackenbach, Jayne; Laberge, Stephen (1988). Conscious Mind, Sleeping Brain. ISBN 0-306-42849-0.
Garfield, Patricia L. (1974). Creative Dreaming. ISBN 0-671-21903-0.
Godwin, Malcom (1994). The Lucid Dreamer. ISBN 0-671-87248-6.
Green, Celia (1968). Lucid Dreams. ISBN 0-900076-00-3.
Green, Celia; McCreery, Charles (1994). Lucid Dreaming: The Paradox of Consciousness During Sleep. ISBN 0-415-11239-7.
LaBerge, Stephen (1985). Lucid Dreaming. ISBN 0-87477-342-3.
LaBerge, Stephen (1991). Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming. ISBN 0-345-37410-X.
McElroy, Mark (2007). Lucid Dreaming for Beginners: Simple Techniques for Creating Interactive Dreams. ISBN 978-0-7387-0887-4.
Wangyal Rinpoche, Tenzin (1998). Tibetan Yogas Of Dream And Sleep. ISBN 1-55939-101-4.
Warren, Jeff (2007). "The Lucid Dream", The Head Trip: Adventures on the Wheel of Consciousness. ISBN 978-0679314080.
Yuschak, Thomas (2006). Advanced Lucid Dreaming - The Power of Supplements. ISBN 978-1-4303-0542-2.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hypnos and Thanatos, Sleep and His Half-Brother Death by John William WaterhouseWikibooks has a book on the topic of
Lucid DreamingA lucid dream is a dream in which the person is aware that he or she is dreaming while the dream is in progress, also known as a conscious dream. When the dreamer is lucid, he or she can actively participate in the dream environment without any of the inhibitions or limitations that otherwise would feel natural to persons who incorrectly believe they are in the "real" waking world. Lucid dreams can be extremely real and vivid depending on a person's level of self-awareness during the lucid dream.[1]
A lucid dream can begin in one of two ways. A dream-initiated lucid dream (DILD) starts as a normal dream, and the dreamer eventually concludes that he or she is dreaming, while a wake-initiated lucid dream (WILD) occurs when the dreamer goes from a normal waking state directly into a dream state with no apparent lapse in consciousness.
Lucid dreaming has been researched scientifically, and its existence is well established.[2][3] Scientists such as Allan Hobson, with his neurophysiological approach to dream research, have helped to push the understanding of lucid dreaming into a less speculative realm.
Contents
[hide]
1 Scientific history
2 Research and clinical applications
2.1 Neurobiological model
2.2 Treatment for nightmares
2.3 Perception of time while lucid dreaming
2.4 Near-death and out-of-body experiences
3 Cultural history
4 Induction methods
4.1 Dream recall
4.2 Mnemonic induction of lucid dreams (MILD)
4.3 Wake-back-to-bed (WBTB)
4.4 Cycle adjustment technique (CAT)
4.5 Wake-initiation of lucid dreams (WILD)
4.6 Lucid Dream Supplements (LDS)
4.7 Lucid Dream Induction Devices (LDID)
4.8 Additional techniques
5 Reality testing
5.1 Dream signs
6 Supplements
7 Prolonging lucid dreams
8 Other associated phenomena
8.1 Rapid eye movement (REM)
8.2 False awakening
8.3 Sleep paralysis
8.4 Out-of-body experience
9 Rarity of lucid dreams
10 See also
11 Notes
12 Further reading
13 External links
[edit] Scientific history
The first book on lucid dreams to recognize their scientific potential was Celia Green's 1968 study Lucid Dreams.[4] Reviewing the past literature, as well as new data from subjects of her own, Green analyzed the main characteristics of such dreams and concluded that they were a category of experience quite distinct from ordinary dreams. She predicted that they would turn out to be associated with rapid eye movement sleep (REM sleep). Green was also the first to link lucid dreams to the phenomenon of false awakenings.
Philosopher Norman Malcolm's 1959 text Dreaming[5] had argued against the possibility of checking the accuracy of dream reports. However, the realization that eye movements performed in dreams affected the dreamer's physical eyes provided a way to prove that actions agreed upon during waking life could be recalled and performed once lucid in a dream. The first evidence of this type was produced in the late 1970s by British parapsychologist Keith Hearne. A volunteer named Alan Worsley used eye movement to signal the onset of lucidity, which were recorded by a polysomnograph machine.
Hearne's results were not widely distributed. The first peer-reviewed article was published some years later by Stephen LaBerge at Stanford University, who had independently developed a similar technique as part of his doctoral dissertation.[6]
During the 1980s, further scientific evidence to confirm the existence of lucid dreaming was produced as lucid dreamers were able to demonstrate to researchers that they were consciously aware of being in a dream state (again, primarily using eye movement signals).[7]
Additionally, techniques were developed which have been experimentally proven to enhance the likelihood of achieving this state.[8]
Research on techniques and effects of lucid dreaming continues at a number of universities and other centers, including LaBerge's Lucidity Institute.
[edit] Research and clinical applications
[edit] Neurobiological model
Neuroscientist J. Allan Hobson has hypothesized as to what might be occurring in the brain while lucid. The first step to lucid dreaming is recognizing that one is dreaming. This recognition might occur in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is one of the few areas deactivated during REM sleep and where working memory occurs. Once this area is activated and the recognition of dreaming occurs, the dreamer must be cautious to let the dream delusions continue but be conscious enough to recognize them. This process might be seen as the balance between reason and emotion. While maintaining this balance, the amygdala and parahippocampal cortex might be less intensely activated.[9] To continue the intensity of the dream hallucinations, it is expected the pons and the parieto-occipital junction stay active.[10]
[edit] Treatment for nightmares
People who suffer from nightmares would benefit from the ability to be aware they are dreaming. A pilot study was performed in 2006 that showed that lucid dreaming treatment was successful in reducing nightmare frequency. This treatment consisted of exposure to the idea, mastery of the technique, and lucidity exercises. It was not clear what aspects of the treatment were responsible for the success of overcoming nightmares, though the treatment as a whole was successful.[11] Australian psychologist, Milan Colic, has explored the application of principles from narrative therapy with clients' lucid dreams to reduce the impact not only of nightmares during sleep, but also depression, self-mutilation, and other problems in waking life. Colic found that clients' preferred direction for their lives, as identified during therapeutic conversations, could lessen the distressing content of dreams, while understandings about life - and even characters - from lucid dreams could be invoked in 'real' life with marked therapeutic benefits.[12]
[edit] Perception of time while lucid dreaming
The rate that time passes while lucid dreaming has been shown to be about the same as while waking. However, a 1995 study in Germany indicated lucid dreaming can also have varied time spans, in which the dreamer can control the length. The study took place during sleep and upon awakening, and required the participants to record their dreams in a log and how long the dreams lasted. In 1985, LaBerge performed a pilot study where lucid dreamers counted out ten seconds while dreaming, signaling the end of counting with a pre-arranged eye signal measured with electrooculogram recording.[13] LaBerge's results were confirmed by German researchers in 2004. The German study, by D. Erlacher and M. Schredl, also studied motor activity and found that deep knee bends took 44% longer to perform while lucid dreaming.[14]
[edit] Near-death and out-of-body experiences
In a study of fourteen lucid dreamers performed in 1991, people who perform wake-initiated lucid dreams (WILD) reported experiences consistent with aspects of out-of-body experiences such as floating above their beds and the feeling of leaving their bodies.[15] Due to the phenomenological overlap between lucid dreams, near death experiences, and out-of-body experiences, researchers say they believe a protocol could be developed to induce a lucid dream similar to a near-death experience in the laboratory.[16]
[edit] Cultural history
Even though it has only come to the attention of the general public in the last few decades, lucid dreaming is not a modern discovery.
A very early example of lucid dreaming is in a letter written by St. Augustine of Hippo in 415 AD.[17]
As early as the eighth century, Tibetan Buddhists were practicing a form of yoga supposed to maintain full waking consciousness while in the dream state.[18] This system is extensively discussed and explained in the book Dream Yoga and the Practice of Natural Light.[19] One of the important messages of the book is the distinction between the Dzogchen meditation of Awareness and Dream Yoga. The Dzogchen Awareness meditation has also been referred to by the terms Rigpa Awareness, Contemplation, and Presence. Awareness during the sleep and dream states is associated with the Dzogchen practice of natural light. This practice only achieves lucid dreams as a secondary effect—in contrast to Dream yoga which is aimed primarily at lucid dreaming. According to Buddhist teachers, the experience of lucidity helps us to understand the unreality of phenomena, which would otherwise be overwhelming during dream or the death experience.
An early recorded lucid dreamer was the philosopher and physician Sir Thomas Browne (1605–1682). Browne was fascinated by the world of dreams and stated of his own ability to lucid dream in his Religio Medici: "... yet in one dream I can compose a whole Comedy, behold the action, apprehend the jests and laugh my self awake at the conceits thereof;"[20]
Marquis d'Hervey de Saint-Denys was probably the first person to argue that it is possible for anyone to learn to dream consciously. In 1867, he published his book Les Reves et les Moyens de Les Diriger; Observations Pratiques (Dreams and How to Guide them; Practical Observations), in which he documented more than twenty years of his own research into dreams.
The term lucid dreaming was coined by Dutch author and psychiatrist Frederik van Eeden in his 1913 article "A Study of Dreams".[21] This book was highly anecdotal and not embraced by the scientific community. Some consider this a misnomer because it means much more than just "clear or vivid" dreaming.[22] The alternative term conscious dreaming avoids this confusion. However, the term lucid was used by van Eeden in its sense of "having insight", as in the phrase a lucid interval applied to someone in temporary remission from a psychosis, rather than as a reference to the perceptual quality of the experience which may or may not be clear and vivid.
In the 1950s, the Senoi hunter-gatherers of Malaysia were reported to make extensive use of lucid dreaming to ensure mental health, although later studies refuted these claims.[23]
[edit] Induction methods
Many people report having experienced a lucid dream during their lives, often in childhood. Children seem to have lucid dreams more easily than adults. Although lucid dreaming is a conditioned skill,[24] achieving lucid dreams on a regular basis can be difficult, even with training. Over time, several techniques have been developed to achieve a lucid dreaming state intentionally. The following are common factors that influence lucid dreaming and techniques that people use to help achieve a lucid dream:
[edit] Dream recall
Dream recall is simply the ability to remember dreams. Good dream recall is often described as the first step towards lucid dreaming. Better recall increases awareness of dreams in general; with limited dream recall, any lucid dreams one has can be forgotten entirely.
The main technique used to improve dream recall is to keep a dream journal, writing down any dreams remembered the moment one awakes. An audio recorder can also be very helpful[25]. It is important to record the dreams as quickly as possible as there is a strong tendency to forget what one has dreamt.[26] It is suggested that for best recall, the waking dreamer should keep eyes closed while trying to remember the dream, and that one's dream journal be recorded in the present tense[25]. Describing an experience as if presently in it can help the writer to recall more accurately the events of their dream.[citation needed]
Dream recall can also be improved by staying still after waking up.[26] This may have something to do with REM atonia (the condition of REM sleep in which the motor neurons are not stimulated and thus the body's muscles do not move). If one purposely prevents motor neurons from firing immediately after waking from a dream, recalling said dream becomes easier. Similarly, if the dreamer changes positions in the night, they may be able to recall certain events of their dream by testing different sleeping positions.[citation needed]
[edit] Mnemonic induction of lucid dreams (MILD)
The MILD technique is a common technique developed by Dr. Stephen LaBerge used to induce a lucid dream at will by setting an intention, while falling asleep, to remember to recognize that one is dreaming or to remember to look for dream signs when one is in a dream.
[edit] Wake-back-to-bed (WBTB)
The wake-back-to-bed technique is often the easiest way to encourage a lucid dream. The method involves going to sleep tired and waking up five to six hours later. Then, focusing all thoughts on lucid dreaming, staying awake for an hour and going back to sleep while practicing the MILD method. A 60% success rate has been shown in research using this technique.[27] This is because the REM cycles get longer as the night goes on, and this technique takes advantage of the best REM cycle of the night. Because this REM cycle is longer and deeper, gaining lucidity during this time may result in a lengthier lucid dream.[27]
[edit] Cycle adjustment technique (CAT)
The cycle adjustment technique, developed by Daniel Love, is an effective way to induce lucid dreaming. It involves adjusting one's sleep cycle to encourage awareness during the latter part of the sleep. First, the person wakes up 90 minutes before normal wake time until their sleep cycle begins to adjust. After this, the normal wake times and early wake times alternate. On the days with the normal wake times, the body is ready to wake up, and this increases alertness, making lucidity more likely.
[edit] Wake-initiation of lucid dreams (WILD)
The wake-initiated lucid dream "occurs when the sleeper enters REM sleep with unbroken self-awareness directly from the waking state".[28] There are many techniques aimed at entering a WILD. The key to these techniques is recognizing the hypnagogic stage, which is within the border of being awake and being asleep. If a person is successful in staying aware while this stage occurs, he or she will eventually enter the dream state while being fully aware that it is a dream.
There are key times at which this state is best entered; while success at normal bedtime after having been awake all day is very difficult, it is relatively easy after sleeping for 3–7 hours or in the afternoon during a nap. Techniques for inducing WILDs abound. Dreamers may count, envision themselves climbing or descending stairs, chant to themselves, control their breathing, count their breaths to keep their thoughts from drifting, concentrate on relaxing their body from their toes to their head, or allow images to flow through their "mind's eye" and envision themselves jumping into the image to maintain concentration and keep their mind awake, while still being calm enough to let their body sleep.
During the actual transition into the dream state, one is likely to experience sleep paralysis, including rapid vibrations,[15] a sequence of loud sounds and a feeling of twirling into another state of body awareness, "to drift off into another dimension", or the feeling like passing the interface between water into air face-front body first, or images or sceneries they are thinking of and trying to visualize gradually sharpen and become "real", which they can actually "see", instead of the fuzzy indefinable sensations one feels when trying to imagine something when wide awake.
[edit] Lucid Dream Supplements (LDS)
The Lucid Dream Supplement (LDS) technique was co-founded by Scot Stride and Thomas Yuschak[29][30] in October, 2005. This technique received its motivation from seminal research initially carried out by LaBerge in 2004 [31]. The LDS method uses primarily non-prescription supplements that are ingested to produce favorable conditions for the brains neurotransmitters and receptor sites during REM sleep. By increasing or balancing the levels of Acetylcholine, Serotonin, Dopamine and Norepinephrine the person can significantly influence dream vividness, memory, clarity, awareness and mood. Enhancing these mental states during REM sleep significantly increases the odds of becoming lucid. The LDS technique can be combined with other techniques (like WBTB or WILD) to complement or amplify them to produce even better results. Yuschak describes the details of the technique in his book. [29] Based on anecdotal accounts from various website forums, many people who have experienced difficulties with the other techniques, for whatever reason, are using LDS as an aid in overcoming their obstacles. Some people use LDS to jump start their LD practice and then move on to one of the other traditional methods. Other people use it recreationally to experience more memorable and vivid dreams than they normally would. Most, if not all, of the LDS research occurring today is by private study groups not affiliated with any university, corporate or government agency.
[edit] Lucid Dream Induction Devices (LDID)
Lucid dream induction is possible by the use of a physical device. The general principle works by taking advantage of the natural phenomenon of incorporating external stimuli into one's dreams. Usually a device is worn while sleeping that can detect when the sleeper enters a REM phase and triggers a noise and/or flashing lights with the goal of these stimuli being incorporated into the dreamer's dream. For example flashing lights might be translated to a car's headlights in a dream.
A well-known dream-induction device is the NovaDreamer, designed in 1993 by experienced lucid dreamer Craig Webb, now an international speaker/trainer and executive director of The DREAMS Foundation[32]. The NovaDreamer has been discontinued as of 2006. However, a newer version is being worked on, but as of now is not available.[33]
The REM Dreamer is a cheaper and more widely available version of the NovaDreamer. It has one motion sensor in the right eye that is best at recognizing horizontal movement of the eyes. When it picks up the eye’s movement it goes through a series of flashing LED lights that filter through into the person’s dream and triggers lucidity. Combining this with MILD can be incredibly effective.[34]
Another induction stimulus is vibration. A small vibrator placed on the hand, arm or ankle and triggered by REM activity, or a timer, can also serve as a cue to trigger a lucid dream.[35]
[edit] Additional techniques
Reality tests (as below) practiced in waking life can lead to a test taking place within a dream, leading to the realization that one is dreaming.
Meditation and involvement in a conscious focusing on activities can strengthen the ability to experience lucid dreams by making the person more susceptible to noticing small discrepancies of their surroundings.[citation needed]
There is good reason to believe hypnotic suggestion may help one achieve lucidity.[36] Michael Katz referenced using simple hypnotic induction for the purpose of initiating lucid dreams in his introduction to the first edition of the book Dream Yoga and the Practice of Natural Light. From the early 1980s, he went on to use this "guided nap" technique during dream yoga and lucid dream training. He conducts training internationally and maintains an archive of examples.[37]
[edit] Reality testing
Reality testing (or reality checking) is a common method used by people to determine whether or not they are dreaming. It involves performing an action with results that will be different if the tester is dreaming. By practicing these tests during waking life, one may eventually decide to perform such a test while dreaming, which may fail and let the dreamer realize that they are dreaming.
Common reality tests include:
The nose reality check: Pinch your nose and if you are able to breathe without using your mouth, it's a dream[38]
Try to stick your finger through the palm of your hand[39]
Looking at one's digital watch (remembering the time), looking away, and looking back. As with text, the time will probably have changed randomly and radically at the second glance or contain strange letters and characters. (Analog watches do not usually change in dreams, while digital watches have great tendency to do so.)[40]
Flipping a light switch. Light levels rarely change as a result of the switch flipping in dreams.[41]
Looking into a mirror; in dreams, reflections from a mirror often appear to be blurred, distorted or incorrect.[41]
Looking at the ground beneath one's feet or at one's hands. If one does this within a dream the difference in appearance of the ground or one's hands from the normal waking state is often enough to alert the conscious to the dream state.[42]
[edit] Dream signs
It has been suggested that Dream sign be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)
Another form of reality testing involves identifying one's dream signs, clues that one is dreaming. Dream signs are often categorized as follows:
Action — The dreamer, another dream character, or a thing does something unusual or impossible in waking life, such as being able to fly, being able to walk through walls, being able to change the setting illogically, or noticing photographs in a magazine or newspaper becoming three-dimensional with full movement.
Powerlessness — There may typically be a sensational loss of bodily strength.
Context — The place or situation in the dream is strange and includes fictional characters or places.
Form — The dreamer, another character, or an object changes shape, is oddly formed, or transforms. This may include the presence of unusual clothing or hair, or a third person view of the dreamer.
Awareness — A peculiar thought, a strong emotion, an unusual sensation, a loss of normal logic, or an altered perception. In some cases when moving one's head from side to side, one may notice a strange stuttering or 'strobing' of the image.
Cohesion — Sometimes the dreamer may seem to teleport to another location in a dream, without a noticeable transition.
[edit] Supplements
Several drugs have been shown to improve the probability of a lucid dream occurring and/or increase the length of such a dream:
Galantamine is a nootropic that can substantially increase the odds of success when used along with a lucid dream or out-of-body experience induction technique.[29][30][31] Choline bitartrate or Alpha-GPC can be used with Galantamine to increase its effectiveness.[43]
An amino acid blend made up of 2000 mg L-aspartic acid, 4000 mg L-glutamine, and 300 mg L-theanine can greatly increase the odds of having a lucid dream.[44]
5-HTP can increase the chances of success of having a lucid dream by taking advantage of the REM rebound effect.[45]
Melatonin has been shown clinically to increase the time spent in REM sleep in the morning hours (as the dose is wearing off). It is theorized that this phenomenon is due to a REM rebound effect.[46]
Vitamin B6 can increase dream vividness when taken with tryptophan. This is due to the role this vitamin plays in the conversion of tryptophan to serotonin.[47]
[edit] Prolonging lucid dreams
One problem faced by people wishing to lucid dream is awakening prematurely. This premature awakening can be frustrating after investing considerable time into achieving lucidity in the first place.
Stephen LaBerge proposed two ways to prolong a lucid dream. The first technique involves spinning one's dream body. He proposed that when spinning, the dreamer is engaging parts of the brain that may also be involved in REM activity, helping to prolong REM sleep. The second technique is rubbing one's hands. This technique is intended to engage the dreamer's brain in producing the sensation of rubbing hands, preventing the sensation of lying in bed from creeping into awareness. LaBerge tested his hypothesis by asking 34 volunteers to either spin, rub their hands, or do nothing. Results showed 90% of dreams were prolonged by hand rubbing and 96% prolonged by spinning. Only 33% of lucid dreams were prolonged with taking no action.[48]
Once the initial barrier of lucidity is broken, the dreamer’s next obstacle is the excitement of being conscious within a dream. It is key that the dreamer immediately relaxes upon becoming lucid. There are many methods that work, but in general saturating any of the senses with stimuli from the dream is important. Vision is usually the first sense to fade away, with touch commonly being the last. If the dream starts to fade, you can grab a hold of anything close by, making sure to feel the tactile sensation. Other techniques include shouting in a loud and clear voice, “INCREASE LUCIDITY!” inside the dream. People are often reluctant to do this, but it significantly stabilizes the dream and increases its vividness. The well-known author, Carlos Castaneda, suggests that the dreamer touch their tongue to the roof of their mouth, an action that greatly increases the realness of the dream.[49]
[edit] Other associated phenomena
REM Sleep. EEG highlighted by red box. Eye movements highlighted by red line.
[edit] Rapid eye movement (REM)
When a person is dreaming, the eyes move rapidly. Scientific research has found that these eye movements correspond to the direction in which the dreamer is "looking" in his/her dreamscape; this has enabled trained lucid dreamers to communicate whilst dreaming to researchers by using eye movement signals.[13]
[edit] False awakening
In a false awakening, one suddenly dreams of having been awakened. Commonly in a false awakening, the room is similar to the room in which the person fell asleep. If the person was lucid, they often believe that they are no longer dreaming and may start exiting the room and so forth.
This can be a nemesis in the art of lucid dreaming, because it usually causes people to give up their awareness of being in a dream, but it can also cause someone to become lucid if the person does a reality check whenever he/she awakens. People who keep a dream journal and write down their dreams upon awakening sometimes report having to write down the same dream multiple times because of this phenomenon. It has also been known to cause bedwetting as one may dream that they have awoken to go to the restroom, but in reality are still dreaming.
False awakenings can be a great vehicle toward lucidity. The makers of induction devices such as the NovaDreamer and the REM Dreamer recommend doing a reality check every time you awake so that when a false awakening occurs you will become lucid. People using these devices have most of their lucid dreams triggered through reality checks upon awakening.[50]
[edit] Sleep paralysis
During REM sleep the body is paralyzed by a mechanism in the brain in order to prevent the movements, which occur in the dream, from causing the physical body to move. However, it is possible for this mechanism to be triggered before, during, or after normal sleep while the brain awakens. This can lead to a state where a person is lying in his or her bed and he or she feels paralyzed. Hypnagogic hallucination may occur in this state, especially auditory ones. Effects of sleep paralysis include heaviness or inability to move the muscles, rushing or pulsating noises, and brief hypnogogic imagery. Experiencing sleep paralysis is a necessary part of WILD, in which the dreamer essentially detaches his "dream" body from the paralyzed one.
[edit] Out-of-body experience
An out-of-body experience (OBE or sometimes OOBE) is an experience that typically involves a sensation of floating outside of one's body and, in some cases, perceiving one's physical body from a place outside one's body (autoscopy). About one in ten people has had an out-of-body experience at some time in their lives.[51] Scientists know little about the phenomenon.[52]
[edit] Rarity of lucid dreams
Puzzling to many people, given the frequent bizarreness, illogic and dislocation of dreams, is why dreamers are not lucid all of the time. How can our dreaming selves accept as real so many settings, images and events that in waking life, we assume, would immediately jolt us into disbelief? The answer to this has been approached in three categories of investigation.
Depth psychology: the thrust of personality and psychotherapeutic approaches to this issue suggest that the unconscious “dream-work” is repressing or inhibiting critical evaluation of the dream in order to perform its salutary function. “Belief” in the dream symbols and experience is required for healing, personality integration or catharsis to take place. Lucidity can only arise if a person is relatively free of un-reconciled conflicts which form barriers.[53]
Physiology: “seeing is believing” to the brain during any mental state. Even waking consciousness is liable to accept discontinuous or illogical experience as real if presented as such to the brain. [54] Dream consciousness is similar to that of a hallucinating awake subject. Dream or hallucinatory images triggered by the brain stem are considered to be real, even if fantastic. [55] The impulse to accept the evident is so strong the dreamer will often invent a memory or story to cover up an incongruous or unrealistic event in the dream. “That man has two heads!” is usually followed not with “I must be dreaming!” but with “Yes, I read in the paper about these famous Siamese twins.” [56]
Developmental psychology: this approach suggests that the dream world is not bizarre at all when viewed developmentally, since we were dreaming as children before we learned all of the physical and social laws that train the mind to a “reality.” Fluid imaginative constructions may have preceded the more rigid, logical waking rules and continue on as a normative lifeworld alongside the acquired, waking lifeworld. Dreaming and waking consciousness differ only in their respective level of expectations, the waking “I” expecting a stricter set of “reality rules” as the child matures. The experience of “waking up” normally establishes the boundary between the two lifeworlds and cues the consciousness to adapt to waking “I” expectations. At times, however, this cue is false—a false awakening. Here the waking “I” (with its level of expectations) is activated even though the experience is still hallucinatory. Incongruous images or illogical events during this type of dream can result in lucidity as the dream is being judged by waking “standards.” [57]
[edit] See also
Astral projection
Dream argument
Dream question
Hemi-Sync
List of published dream diaries
Pre-lucid dream
The Art of Dreaming
[edit] Notes
^ Lucid Dreaming FAQ LaBerge, S. & Levitan, L. (2004). Version 2.3
^ Watanabe Tsuneo (March 2003). "Lucid Dreaming: Its Experimental Proof and Psychological Conditions". Journal of International Society of Life Information Science 21 (1): 159–162.
^ LaBerge, Stephen (1990). in Bootzen, R. R., Kihlstrom, J.F. & Schacter, D.L., (Eds.): Lucid Dreaming: Psychophysiological Studies of Consciousness during REM Sleep Sleep and Cognition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, pp. 109 – 126.
^ Green, C., Lucid Dreams, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1968.
^ Malcolm, N., Dreaming, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1959.
^ Laberge, S. (1980). Lucid dreaming: An exploratory study of consciousness during sleep. (Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 1980), (University Microfilms No. 80-24, 691)
^ LaBerge, Stephen (1990). in Bootzen, R. R., Kihlstrom, J.F. & Schacter, D.L., (Eds.): Lucid Dreaming: Psychophysiological Studies of Consciousness during REM Sleep Sleep and Cognition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, pp. 109 – 126.
^ LaBerge, Stephen; Levitan, Lynne (1995). "Validity Established of DreamLight Cues for Eliciting Lucid Dreaming". Dreaming 5 (3). International Association for the Study of Dreams.
^ Muzur A, Pace-Schott EF; Allan Hobson (November 2002). "The prefrontal cortex in sleep" (PDF). Trends Cogn Sci 1;2(11): 475–481.
^ Hobson, J. Allan (2001). The Dream Drugstore: Chemically Altered States of Consciousness (in English). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 96-98. ISBN 978-0262582209.
^ Spoormaker,-Victor-I; van-den-Bout,-Jan (October 2006). "Lucid Dreaming Treatment for Nightmares: A Pilot Study". Psychotherapy-and-Psychosomatics. 75 (6): 389–394. doi:10.1159/000095446.
^ Colic, M. (2007). 'Kanna's lucid dreams and the use of narrative practices to explore their meaning.' The International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work (4): 19-26.
^ a b LaBerge, S. (2000). "Lucid dreaming: Evidence and methodology". Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (6): 962–3. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00574020.
^ Erlacher, D.; Schredl, M. (2004). "Required time for motor activities in lucid dreams". Perceptual and Motor Skills 99: 1239–1242. doi:10.2466/PMS.99.7.1239-1242.
^ a b Lynne Levitan; Stephen LaBerge (1991). "Other Worlds: Out-of-Body Experiences and Lucid Dreams". Nightlight 3 (2-3). The Lucidity Institute.
^ Green, J. Timothy (1995). "Lucid dreams as one method of replicating components of the near-death experience in a laboratory setting.". Journal-of-Near-Death-Studies 14: 49-.
^ Letter from St. Augustine of Hippo
^ (March 2005). The Best Sleep Posture for Lucid Dreaming: A Revised Experiment Testing a Method of Tibetan Dream Yoga. The Lucidity Institute.
^ Dream Yoga and the Practice of Natural Light, 2nd edition, Snowlion Publications; authored by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, an eminent Tibetan Lama, and his student Michael Katz, a Psychologist and lucid dream trainer.
^ Religio Medici, part 2:11. Text available at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/relmed/relmed.html
^ Frederik van Eeden (1913). "A study of Dreams". Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 26.
^ Blackmore, Susan (1991). "Lucid Dreaming: Awake in Your Sleep?". Skeptical Inquirer 15: pp 362 – 370.
^ G. William Domhoff (2003). Senoi Dream Theory: Myth, Scientific Method, and the Dreamwork Movement. Retrieved July 10, 2006.
^ LaBerge, Stephen (1980). "Lucid dreaming as a learnable skill: A case study". Perceptual and Motor Skills 51: 1039–1042.
^ a b Webb, Craig (1995). "Dream Recall Techniques: Remember more Dreams" (html). The DREAMS Foundation.
^ a b Stephen LaBerge (1989). "How to Remember Your Dreams". Nightlight 1 (1). The Lucidity Institute.
^ a b Stephen LaBerge; Leslie Phillips, Lynne Levitan (1994). "An Hour of Wakefulness Before Morning Naps Makes Lucidity More Likely". NightLight 6 (3). The Lucidity Institute.
^ Stephen LaBerge; Lynne Levitan (1995). "Validity Established of Dreamlight Cues for Eliciting Lucid Dreaming". Dreaming 5 (3): 159–168. The Lucidity Institute.
^ a b c Thomas Yuschak (2006). Advanced Lucid Dreaming, 1st ed., Lulu Enterprises. ISBN 978-1-4303-0542-2.
^ a b Thomas Yuschak (2007). Pharmacological Induction of Lucid dreams.
^ a b "Substances that enhance recall and lucidity during dreaming". Stephen LaBerge - US Patent. Retrieved on 2007-10-29.
^ Foremski, Tom (1994-05-01). "Getting into your Dreams", San Francisco Examiner. .
^ http://www.lucidity.com/novadreamer.html Novadreamer Lucid Dream Induction Device] at The Lucidity Institute
^ [1] REM Dreamer
^ [2]The Problem of Induction: A Panel Discussion
^ Oldis, Daniel (1974). The Lucid Dream Manifesto, pages 52-53. ISBN 0-595-39539-2.
^ Dzogchen Community Of New York: Lucid Dreams of Community Members[dead link] KUNDROLLING,
^ [3] Reality Check
^ [4] Reality Check
^ Reality testing, Lucid Dreaming FAQ at The Lucidity Institute. (October 2006)
^ a b Lynne Levitan, Stephen LaBerge (Summer 1993). "The Light and Mirror Experiment" . Nightlight 5 (10). The Lucidity Institute.
^ H. von Moers-Messmer, "Traume mit der gleichzeitigen Erkenntnis des Traumzustandes," Archiv Fuer Psychologie 102 (1938): 291-318.
^ What is the Role of Choline in Lucid dreaming? Thomas Yuschak.
^ Substances that facilitate lucid dreaming – A Case Study. Thomas Yuschak.
^ 5-HTP (5-hydroxytryptophan). Thomas Yuschak.
^ Melatonin. Thomas Yuschak.
^ Ebben, M., Lequerica, A., & Spielman A. (2002). Effects of pyridoxine on dreaming: a preliminary study. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 94(1), 135–140.
^ Stephen LaBerge (1995). "Prolonging Lucid Dreams". NightLight 7 (3-4). The Lucidity Institute.
^ Carlos Castaneda, "The Art of Dreaming"
^ [5] NovaDreamer Operation Manual
^ First Out-of-body Experience Induced In Laboratory Setting. ScienceDaily (Aug. 24, 2007)
^ Out-of-body or all in the mind? BBC news (2005).
^ Sparrow, Gregory Scott (1976). Lucid Dreaming: Dawning of the Clear Light. A.R.E Press, pages 52-53. ISBN 87604-086-5.
^ LaBerge, Stephen (2004). Lucid Dreaming: A Concise Guide to awakening in Your Dreams and in Your Life. Sounds True, page 15. ISBN 1-59179-150-2.
^ Jouvet, Michel (1999). The Paradox of Sleep: The Story of Dreaming. MIT, page 75. ISBN 0-262-10080-0.
^ McLeester, #### Ed. (1976). Welcome to the Magic Theater: A Handbook for Exploring Dreams. Food for Thought, page 99. OCLC 76-29541.
^ Oldis, Daniel (1974). Lucid Dreams, Dreams and Sleep. USD Press, pages 173-178, 191. ISBN 978-1-60303-496-8.
[edit] Further reading
Austin, James (2000). [6]Zen and the Brain: Toward and Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness. ISBN 978-0-262-01164-8.
Brooks, Janice; Vogelsong, Jay (2000). The Conscious Exploration of Dreaming. ISBN 1-58500-539-8.
Castaneda, Carlos. The Art of Dreaming. New York: HarperCollins, 1993.
Conesa-Sevilla, Jorge (2004). [7]Wrestling With Ghosts: A Personal and Scientific Account of Sleep Paralysis--and Lucid Dreaming. ISBN 978-1413446685.
Conesa-Sevilla, Jorge (2003). Sleep Paralysis Signaling (SPS) As A Natural Cueing Method for the Generation and Maintenance of Lucid Dreaming. Presented at The 83rd Annual Convention of the Western Psychological Association, May 1-4, 2003, in Vancouver, BC, Canada..
Conesa-Sevilla, Jorge (2002). [8]Isolated Sleep Paralysis and Lucid Dreaming: Ten-year longitudinal case study and related dream frequencies, types, and categories. Sleep and Hypnosis, 4, (4), 132-143..
de Saint-Denys, Hervey (1982). Dreams and How to Guide Them. ISBN 0-7156-1584-X.
Gackenbach, Jayne; Laberge, Stephen (1988). Conscious Mind, Sleeping Brain. ISBN 0-306-42849-0.
Garfield, Patricia L. (1974). Creative Dreaming. ISBN 0-671-21903-0.
Godwin, Malcom (1994). The Lucid Dreamer. ISBN 0-671-87248-6.
Green, Celia (1968). Lucid Dreams. ISBN 0-900076-00-3.
Green, Celia; McCreery, Charles (1994). Lucid Dreaming: The Paradox of Consciousness During Sleep. ISBN 0-415-11239-7.
LaBerge, Stephen (1985). Lucid Dreaming. ISBN 0-87477-342-3.
LaBerge, Stephen (1991). Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming. ISBN 0-345-37410-X.
McElroy, Mark (2007). Lucid Dreaming for Beginners: Simple Techniques for Creating Interactive Dreams. ISBN 978-0-7387-0887-4.
Wangyal Rinpoche, Tenzin (1998). Tibetan Yogas Of Dream And Sleep. ISBN 1-55939-101-4.
Warren, Jeff (2007). "The Lucid Dream", The Head Trip: Adventures on the Wheel of Consciousness. ISBN 978-0679314080.
Yuschak, Thomas (2006). Advanced Lucid Dreaming - The Power of Supplements. ISBN 978-1-4303-0542-2.
Dream wiki entry
Dream
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Dream (disambiguation).
"The Knight's Dream" by Antonio de Pereda.Dreams are the images, thoughts and feelings experienced while asleep, particularly strongly associated with rapid eye movement sleep. The contents and biological purposes of dreams are not fully understood, though they have been a topic of speculation and interest throughout recorded history. The scientific study of dreams is known as oneirology.
Contents
[hide]
1 Neurology of sleep and dreams
1.1 Discovery of REM
2 Dream theories
2.1 Activation-synthesis
2.2 Continual-activation
2.3 Dreams and memory
2.3.1 Hippocampus and memory
2.4 Functional hypotheses
2.5 Dreams and psychosis
3 Cultural history
4 Dream content
4.1 Emotions
4.2 Sexual content
4.3 Recurring dreams
4.4 Common themes
5 Relationship with mental illness
6 Dream interpretation
7 Other associated phenomena
7.1 Lucid dreaming
7.2 Dreams of absent-minded transgression
7.3 Dreaming and the "real world"
7.4 Recalling dreams
7.5 Déjà vu
7.6 Dream pre-programming
7.7 Dream incorporation
8 See also
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links
[edit] Neurology of sleep and dreams
Main article: REM sleep
EEG showing brainwaves during REM sleepThere is no universally agreed biological definition of dreaming. General observation shows that dreams are strongly associated with rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, during which an electroencephalogram shows brain activity to be most like wakefulness. Participant-nonremembered dreams during non-REM sleep are normally more mundane in comparison.[1] During a typical lifespan, a human spends a total of about six years dreaming[2] (which is about 2 hours each night[3]). It is unknown where in the brain dreams originate, if there is a single origin for dreams or if multiple portions of the brain are involved, or what the purpose of dreaming is for the body or mind.
During REM sleep, the release of certain neurotransmitters is completely suppressed. As a result, motor neurons are not stimulated, a condition known as REM atonia. This prevents dreams from resulting in dangerous movements of the body.
[edit] Discovery of REM
In 1953 Eugene Aserinsky discovered REM sleep while working in the surgery of his PhD advisor. Aserinsky noticed that the sleepers' eyes fluttered beneath their closed eyelids, later using a polygraph machine to record their brain waves during these periods. In one session he awakened a subject who was wailing and crying out during REM and confirmed his suspicion that dreaming was occurring.[4] In 1953 Aserinsky and his advisor published the ground-breaking study in Science.[5]
[edit] Dream theories
[edit] Activation-synthesis
In 1976, J. Allan Hobson and Robert McCarley proposed a new theory that changed dream research, challenging the previously held Freudian view of dreams as unconscious wishes to be interpreted. The activation synthesis theory asserts that the sensory experiences are fabricated by the cortex as a means of interpreting chaotic signals from the pons. They propose that in REM sleep, the ascending cholinergic PGO (ponto-geniculo-occipital) waves stimulate higher midbrain and forebrain cortical structures, producing rapid eye movements. The activated forebrain then synthesizes the dream out of this internally generated information. They assume that the same structures that induce REM sleep also generate sensory information.
Hobson and McCarly's 1976 research suggested that the signals interpreted as dreams originated in the brain stem during REM sleep. However, research by Mark Solms suggests that dreams are generated in the forebrain, and that REM sleep and dreaming are not directly related.[6] While working in the neurosurgery department at hospitals in Johannesburg and London, Solms had access to patients with various brain injuries. He began to question patients about their dreams and confirmed that patients with damage to the parietal lobe stopped dreaming; this finding was in line with Hobson's 1977 theory. However, Solms did not encounter cases of loss of dreaming with patients having brain stem damage. This observation forced him to question Hobson's prevailing theory which marked the brain stem as the source of the signals interpreted as dreams. Solms viewed the idea of dreaming as a function of many complex brain structures as validating Freudian dream theory, an idea that drew criticism from Hobson.[7] Unhappy about Holmes' attempts at discrediting him, Solms, along with partner Edward Nadar, undertook a series of traumatic-injury impact studies using several different species of primates, particularly howler monkeys, in order to more fully understand the role brain damage plays in dream pathology. Solms' experiments proved inconclusive, however, as the high mortality rate associated with using an hydraulic impact pin to artificially produce brain damage in test subjects meant that his final candidate pool was too small to satisfy the requirements of the scientific method.
[edit] Continual-activation
Combining Hobson's activation synthesis hypothesis with Solms's findings, the continual-activation theory of dreaming presented by Jie Zhang proposes that dreaming is a result of brain activation and synthesis; at the same time, dreaming and REM sleep are controlled by different brain mechanisms. Zhang hypothesizes that the function of sleep is to process, encode, and transfer the data from the temporary memory to the long-term memory, though there is not much evidence backing up this so-called "consolidation." Non-REM sleep processes the conscious-related memory (declarative memory), and REM sleep processes the unconscious related memory (procedural memory).
Zhang assumes that during REM sleep, the unconscious part of a brain is busy processing the procedural memory; meanwhile, the level of activation in the conscious part of the brain will descend to a very low level as the inputs from the sensory are basically disconnected. This will trigger the "continual-activation" mechanism to generate a data stream from the memory stores to flow through the conscious part of the brain. Zhang suggests that this pulse-like brain activation is the inducer of each dream. He proposes that, with the involvement of the brain associative thinking system, dreaming is, thereafter, self-maintained with the dreamer's own thinking until the next pulse of memory insertion. This explains why dreams have both characteristics of continuity (within a dream) and sudden changes (between two or more dreams).[8][9]
[edit] Dreams and memory
Eugen Tarnow suggests that dreams are ever-present excitations of long-term memory, even during waking life. The strangeness of dreams is due to the format of long-term memory, reminiscent of Penfield & Rasmussen’s findings that electrical excitations of the cortex give rise to experiences similar to dreams. During waking life an executive function interprets long term memory consistent with reality checking. Tarnow's theory is a reworking of Freud's theory of dreams in which Freud's unconscious is replaced with the long-term memory system and Freud's “Dream Work” describes the structure of long-term memory.[10]
Location of hippocampus
[edit] Hippocampus and memory
A 2001 study showed evidence that illogical locations, characters, and dream flow may help the brain strengthen the linking and consolidation of semantic memories. These conditions may occur because, during REM sleep, the flow of information between the hippocampus and neocortex is reduced.[11] Increasing levels of the stress hormone cortisol late in sleep (often during REM sleep) cause this decreased communication. One stage of memory consolidation is the linking of distant but related memories. Payne and Nadel hypothesize that these memories are then consolidated into a smooth narrative, similar to a process that happens when memories are created under stress.[12]
[edit] Functional hypotheses
There are many hypotheses about the function of dreams, including:[13]
During the night there may be many external stimuli bombarding the senses, but the mind interprets the stimulus and makes it a part of a dream in order to ensure continued sleep.[14] The mind will, however, awaken an individual if they are in danger or if trained to respond to certain sounds, such as a baby crying.
Dreams allow the repressed parts of the mind to be satisfied through fantasy while keeping the conscious mind from thoughts that would suddenly cause one to awaken from shock.[15]
Freud suggested that bad dreams let the brain learn to gain control over emotions resulting from distressing experiences.[13]
Jung suggested that dreams may compensate for one-sided attitudes held in waking consciousness.[16]
Ferenczi[17] proposed that the dream, when told, may communicate something that is not being said outright.
Dreams are like the cleaning-up operations of computers when they are off-line, removing parasitic nodes and other "junk" from the mind during sleep.[18][19]
Dreams create new ideas through the generation of random thought mutations. Some of these may be rejected by the mind as useless, while others may be seen as valuable and retained. Blechner[20] calls this the theory of "Oneiric Darwinism."
Dreams regulate mood.[21]
Hartmann[22] says dreams may function like psychotherapy, by "making connections in a safe place" and allowing the dreamer to integrate thoughts that may be dissociated during waking life.
More recent research by Griffin has led to the formulation of the 'expectation fulfillment theory of dreaming', which suggests that dreaming metaphorically completes patterns of emotional expectation and lowers stress levels.[23][24]
Coutts[25] hypothesizes that dreams modify and test mental schemas during sleep during a process he calls emotional selection, and that only schema modifications that appear emotionally adaptive during dream tests are selected for retention, while those that appear maladaptive are abandoned or further modified and tested.
Dream is a product of "dissociated imagination", which is dissociated from conscious self and draws material from sensory memory for simulation, with sensory feedback resulting in hallucination. By simulating the sensory signals to drive the autonomous nerves, dream can effect mind-body interaction. In the brain and spine, the autonomous "repair nerves", which can expand the blood vessels, connect with pain and compression nerves, and are grouped into many chains called meridians by the Chinese. Dream also exploits the chain-reacting meridians to repair body by sending out very intensive movement-compression signals when the level of growth enzyme goes high. [26]
[edit] Dreams and psychosis
A number of thinkers have commented on the similarities between the phenomenology of dreams and that of psychosis. Features common to the two states include thought disorder, flattened or inappropriate affect (emotion), and hallucination. Among philosophers, Kant, for example, wrote that ‘the lunatic is a wakeful dreamer’.[27] Schopenhauer said: ‘A dream is a short-lasting psychosis, and a psychosis is a long-lasting dream.’[28]In the field of psychoanalysis, Freud wrote: ‘A dream then, is a psychosis’,[29]and Jung: ‘Let the dreamer walk about and act like one awakened and we have the clinical picture of dementia praecox.’[30]
McCreery[31][32] has sought to explain these similarities by reference to the fact, documented by Oswald,[33] that sleep can supervene as a reaction to extreme stress and hyper-arousal. McCreery adduces evidence that psychotics are people with a tendency to hyper-arousal, and suggests that this renders them prone to what Oswald calls ‘microsleeps’ during waking life. He points in particular to the paradoxical finding of Stevens and Darbyshire[34] that patients suffering from catatonia can be roused from their seeming stupor by the administration of sedatives rather than stimulants.
[edit] Cultural history
Jacob's dream of a ladder of angelsDreams have a long history both as a subject of conjecture and as a source of inspiration. Throughout their history, people have sought meaning in dreams or divination through dreams. They have been described physiologically as a response to neural processes during sleep, psychologically as reflections of the subconscious, and spiritually as messages from God or predictions of the future. Many cultures practiced dream incubation, with the intention of cultivating dreams that were prophetic or contained messages from the divine.
Judaism has a traditional ceremony called hatovat chalom – literally meaning making the dream a good one. Through this rite disturbing dreams can be transformed to give a positive interpretation by a rabbi or a rabbinic court. [35]
[edit] Dream content
From the 1940s to 1985, Calvin S. Hall collected more than 50,000 dream reports at Western Reserve University. In 1966 Hall and Van De Castle published The Content Analysis of Dreams in which they outlined a coding system to study 1,000 dream reports from college students.[36] It was found that people all over the world dream of mostly the same things. Hall's complete dream reports became publicly available in the mid-1990s by Hall's protégé William Domhoff, allowing further different analysis.
Personal experiences from the last day or week are frequently incorporated into dreams.[37]
[edit] Emotions
The most common emotion experienced in dreams is anxiety. Negative emotions are more common than positive feelings.[36] The U.S. ranks the highest amongst industrialized nations for aggression in dreams with 50 percent of U.S. males reporting aggression in dreams, compared to 32 percent for Dutch men.[36]
[edit] Sexual content
The Hall data analysis shows that sexual dreams occur no more than 10 percent of the time and are more prevalent in young to mid teens.[36] Another study showed that 8% of men's and women's dreams have sexual content.[38] In some cases, sexual dreams may result in orgasm or nocturnal emission. These are commonly known as wet dreams.[39]
[edit] Recurring dreams
While the content of most dreams is dreamt only once, many people experience recurring dreams—that is, the same dream narrative is experienced over different occasions of sleep. Up to 70% of females and 65% of males report recurrent dreams.[40]
[edit] Common themes
Content-analysis studies have identified common reported themes in dreams. These include: situations relating to school, being chased, running slowly in place, sexual experiences, falling, arriving too late, a person now alive being dead, teeth falling out, flying, embarrassing moments,falling in love with random people, failing an examination, not being able to move, not being able to focus vision and car accidents. Twelve percent of people dream only in black and white.[41]
[edit] Relationship with mental illness
There is evidence that certain medical conditions (normally only neurological conditions) can impact dreams. For instance, people with synesthesia have never reported black-and-white dreaming, and often have a difficult time imagining the idea of dreaming in only black and white.[42]
Therapy for recurring nightmares (often associated with posttraumatic stress disorder) can include imagining alternative scenarios that could begin at each step of the dream.[43]
[edit] Dream interpretation
Main article: Dream interpretation
Dreams were historically used for healing (as in the asclepieions found in the ancient Greek temples of Asclepius) as well as for guidance or divine inspiration. Some Native American tribes used vision quests as a rite of passage, fasting and praying until an anticipated guiding dream was received, to be shared with the rest of the tribe upon their return.[44]
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, both Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung identified dreams as an interaction between the unconscious and the conscious. They also assert together that the unconscious is the dominant force of the dream, and in dreams it conveys its own mental activity to the perceptive faculty. While Freud felt that there was an active censorship against the unconscious even during sleep, Jung argued that the dream's bizarre quality is an efficient language, comparable to poetry and uniquely capable of revealing the underlying meaning.
Fritz Perls presented his theory of dreams as part of the holistic nature of Gestalt therapy. Dreams are seen as projections of parts of the self that have been ignored, rejected, or suppressed.[45] Jung argued that one could consider every person in the dream to represent an aspect of the dreamer, which he called the subjective approach to dreams. Perls expanded this point of view to say that even inanimate objects in the dream may represent aspects of the dreamer. The dreamer may therefore be asked to imagine being an object in the dream and to describe it, in order to bring into awareness the characteristics of the object that correspond with the dreamer's personality.
[edit] Other associated phenomena
[edit] Lucid dreaming
Main article: Lucid dreaming
Lucid dreaming is the conscious perception of one's state while dreaming. In this state a person usually has control over characters and the environment of the dream as well as the dreamer's own actions within the dream.[46] The occurrence of lucid dreaming has been scientifically verified.[47]
"Oneironaut" is a term sometimes used for those who explore the world of dreams. For example, dream researcher Stephen LaBerge uses the term.[48] It is often associated with lucid dreaming in particular.
[edit] Dreams of absent-minded transgression
Dreams of absent-minded transgression (DAMT) are dreams wherein the dreamer absentmindedly performs an action that he or she has been trying to stop (one classic example is of a quitting smoker having dreams of lighting a cigarette). Subjects who have had DAMT have reported waking with intense feelings of guilt. One study found a positive association between having these dreams and successfully stopping the behavior.[49]
[edit] Dreaming and the "real world"
Main article: Dream argument
Dreams can link to actual sensations, such as the incorporation of environmental sounds into dreams such as hearing a phone ringing in a dream while it is ringing in reality, or dreaming of urination while wetting the bed. Except in the case of lucid dreaming, people dream without being aware that they are doing so. Some philosophers have concluded that what we think as the "real world" could be or is an illusion (an idea known as the skeptical hypothesis about ontology). The first recorded mention of the idea was by Zhuangzi, and was also discussed in Hinduism; Buddhism makes extensive use of the argument in its writings.[50] It was formally introduced to western philosophy by Descartes in the 17th century in his Meditations on First Philosophy.
[edit] Recalling dreams
The recall of dreams is extremely unreliable, though it is a skill that can be trained. Dreams can usually be recalled if a person is awakened while dreaming.[43] Women tend to have more frequent dream recall than men. [43] Dreams that are difficult to recall may be characterized by relatively little affect, and factors such as salience, arousal, and interference play a role in dream recall. A dream journal can be used to assist dream recall, for psychotherapy or entertainment purposes. Ingesting large amounts of magnesium can help to make dreams more vivid, and therefore easier to recall.
[edit] Déjà vu
Main article: Déjà vu
One theory of déjà vu attributes the feeling of having previously seen or experienced something to having dreamt about a similar situation or place, and forgetting about it until one seems to be mysteriously reminded of the situation or place while awake.[51]
[edit] Dream pre-programming
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)
Dream pre-programming is a hypnotic practice used among some medical and stage hypnotists. It allows the hypnotist to control (or let the patient control) their own dreams. One way that a hypnotist will use this is by telling the person that when they fall asleep that they see a button. And that if they want to enter "DreamScape" that they should press that button. Then they will enter a world just like Earth, but they will have complete control. They will control things with their mind. Dream pre-programming can also help someone for a test or a big event in life. The hypnotist would make the subject dream that event as occuring perfectly, so the subject will get a level of confidence.
[edit] Dream incorporation
In one use of the term, "dream incorporation" is a phenomenon whereby an external stimulus, usually an auditory one, becomes a part of a dream, eventually then awakening the dreamer. There is a famous painting by Salvador Dalí that depicts this concept, titled "Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bee around a Pomegranate a Second Before Awakening" (1944).
The term "dream incorporation" is also used in research examining the degree to which preceding daytime events become elements of dreams. Recent studies suggest that events in the day immediately preceding, and those about a week before, have the most influence .[37]
[edit] See also
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
DreamLucid dream
Daydream
Dimethyltryptamine
Dissociation
Dream argument
Dream art
Dream pop
Dream dictionary
Dreamwork
Dream world (plot device)
Dream yoga in Tibetan Buddhist Dzogchen tradition
Hypnagogia
List of dream diaries
Oneirology
[edit] References
^ Dement, W.; Kleitman, N. (1957). "The Relation of Eye Movements during Sleep to Dream Activity.'". Journal of Experimental Psychology 53: 89–97. doi:10.1037/h0048189.
^ (2006) How Dream Works. Retrieved on 2006-05-04.
^ "Brain Basics: Understanding Sleep". National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2006). Retrieved on 2007-12-16.
^ Dement, William (1996). The Sleepwatchers. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0964933802.
^ Aserinsky, E; Kleitman, N. (September 1953). "Regularly occurring periods of eye motility, and concomitant phenomena, during sleep". Science 118 (3062): 273–274. doi:10.1126/science.118.3062.273. PMID 13089671.
^ Solms, M. (2000). Dreaming and REM sleep are controlled by different brain mechanisms, 23(6), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 793-1121.
^ Rock dreams are not always true., Andrea (2004). "3", The Mind at Night: The New Science of How and Why we Dream. Basic Books. ISBN 0465070698.
^ Zhang, Jie (2004). Memory process and the function of sleep, 6-6, Journal of Theoretics. Retrieved on 2006-03-13.
^ Zhang, Jie (2005). Continual-activation theory of dreaming, Dynamical Psychology. Retrieved on 2006-03-13.
^ Tarnow, Eugen (2003). How Dreams And Memory May Be Related, 5(2), NEURO-PSYCHOANALYSIS.
^ R. Stickgold, J. A. Hobson, R. Fosse, M. Fosse1 (october 2001). "Sleep, Learning, and Dreams: Off-line Memory Reprocessing". Science 294 (5544): 1052–1057. doi:10.1126 (inactive 2008-06-25).
^ Jessica D. Payne and Lynn Nadel1 (2004). "Sleep, dreams, and memory consolidation: The role of the stress hormone cortisol". Learning & Memory 11: 671–678. doi:10.1101/lm.77104. ISSN 1072-0502. PMID 15576884.
^ a b Cartwright, Rosalind D (1993). "Functions of Dreams". Encyclopedia of Sleep and Dreaming.
^ Antrobus, John (1993). "Characteristics of Dreams". Encyclopedia of Sleep and Dreaming.
^ Vedfelt, Ole (1999). The Dimensions of Dreams. Fromm.
^ Jung, C. (1948) General aspects of dream psychology. In: Dreams. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 23-66.
^ Ferenczi, S. (1913)To whom does one relate one's dreams? In: Further Contributions to the Theory and Technique of Psycho-Analysis. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 349.
^ Evans, C. & Newman, E. (1964) Dreaming: An analogy from computers. New Scientist, 419:577-579.
^ Crick, F. & Mitchison, G. (1983) The function of dream sleep. Nature, 304:111-114.
^ Blechner, M. (2001) The Dream Frontier. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.
^ Kramer, M. (1993)The selective mood regulatory function of dreaming: An update and revision. In: The Function of Dreaming. Ed., A. Moffitt, M. Kramer, & R. Hoffmann. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
^ Hartmann, E. (1995)Making connections in a safe place: Is dreaming psychotherapy? Dreaming, 5:213-228.
^ Griffin, J. (1997) The Origin of Dreams: How and why we evolved to dream. The Therapist, Vol 4 No 3.
^ Griffin, J, Tyrrell, I. (2004) Dreaming Reality: how dreaming keeps us sane or can drive us mad'. Human Givens Publishing.
^ Coutts, R (2008). Dreams as modifiers and tests of mental schemas: an emotional selection hypothesis. Psychological Reports, 102, 561-574.
^ "A Mind-Body Interaction Theory of Dream" (1995).
^ Quoted in La Barre, W. (1975). Anthropological Perspectives on Hallucination and Hallucinogens. In R.K. Siegel and L.J. West (eds.), Hallucinations: Behavior, Experience, and Theory. New York: Wiley.
^ Ibid.
^ Freud, S. (1940). An Outline of Psychoanalysis. London: Hogarth Press.
^ Jung, C.G. (1909). The Psychology of Dementia Praecox, translated by F. Peterson and A.A. Brill. New York: The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company.
^ McCreery, C. (1997). Hallucinations and arousability: pointers to a theory of psychosis. In Claridge, G. (ed.): Schizotypy, Implications for Illness and Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
^ McCreery, C. (2008). Dreams and psychosis: a new look at an old hypothesis. Psychological Paper No. 2008-1. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Online PDF
^ Oswald, I. (1962). Sleeping and Waking: Physiology and Psychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
^ Stevens, J.M. and Darbyshire, A.J. (1958). Shifts along the alert-repose continuum during remission of catatonic ‘stupor’with amobarbitol. Psychosomatic Medicine, 20, 99-107.
^ http://www.rabbiwein.com/Jerusalem-Post/2006/02/102.html Berel Wein "DREAMS"
^ a b c d Hall, C., & Van de Castle, R. (1966). The Content Analysis of Dreams. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Content Analysis Explained
^ a b Alain, M.Ps., Geneviève; Tore A. Nielsen, Ph.D., Russell Powell, Ph.D., Don Kuiken, Ph.D. (July 2003). "Replication of the Day-residue and Dream-lag Effect". 20th Annual International Conference of the Association for the Study of Dreams.
^ Zadra, A., "1093: SEX DREAMS: WHAT DO MEN AND WOMEN DREAM ABOUT?" SLEEP, Volume 30, Abstract Supplement, 2007 A376.
^ http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR157/04Chapter04.pdf Badan Pusat Statistik "Indonesia Young Adult Reproductive Health Survey 2002-2004" p. 27
^ Van de Castle, p. 340.
^ Michael Schredl, Petra Ciric, Simon Götz, Lutz Wittmann (November, 2004). "Typical Dreams: Stability and Gender Differences". The Journal of Psychology 138 (6): 485.
^ Harrison, John E. (2001). Synaesthesia: The Strangest Thing. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0192632450.
^ a b c The Science Behind Dreams and Nightmares
^ Webb, Craig (1995). "Dreams: Practical Meaning & Appications". The DREAMS Foundation.
^ Wegner, D.M., Wenzlaff, R.M. & Kozak M. (2004). "The Return of Suppressed Thoughts in Dreams". Psychological Science 15: 232–236. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00657.x.
^ Lucid dreaming FAQ by 1The Lucidity Institute at Psych Web.
^ Watanabe, T. (2003). "Lucid Dreaming: Its Experimental Proof and Psychological Conditions". J Int Soc Life Inf Sci 21 (1). ISSN 1341-9226.
^ "Dreaming and Awakening 2006 Presenters".
^ Hajek P, Belcher M (1991). "Dream of absent-minded transgression: an empirical study of a cognitive withdrawal symptom". J Abnorm Psychol 100 (4): 487–91. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.100.4.487. PMID 1757662.
^ Kher, Chitrarekha V. (1992). Buddhism As Presented by the Brahmanical Systems. Sri Satguru Publications. ISBN 8170302935.
^ Lohff, David C. (2004). The Dream Directory: The Comprehensive Guide to Analysis and Interpretation. Running Press 0762419628.
[edit] Further reading
Freud, Sigmund (1994). The interpretation of dreams. New York: Modern Library. ISBN 067960121X.
Jung, Carl (1934). The Practice of Psychotherapy. "The Practical Use of Dream-analysis", 139-. ISBN 071001645X.
Jung, Carl. Dreams (Routledge Classics). New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415267404.
Scaruffi, Piero. The Nature of Consciousness. Omniware. ISBN 0-9765531-1-2.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Dream (disambiguation).
"The Knight's Dream" by Antonio de Pereda.Dreams are the images, thoughts and feelings experienced while asleep, particularly strongly associated with rapid eye movement sleep. The contents and biological purposes of dreams are not fully understood, though they have been a topic of speculation and interest throughout recorded history. The scientific study of dreams is known as oneirology.
Contents
[hide]
1 Neurology of sleep and dreams
1.1 Discovery of REM
2 Dream theories
2.1 Activation-synthesis
2.2 Continual-activation
2.3 Dreams and memory
2.3.1 Hippocampus and memory
2.4 Functional hypotheses
2.5 Dreams and psychosis
3 Cultural history
4 Dream content
4.1 Emotions
4.2 Sexual content
4.3 Recurring dreams
4.4 Common themes
5 Relationship with mental illness
6 Dream interpretation
7 Other associated phenomena
7.1 Lucid dreaming
7.2 Dreams of absent-minded transgression
7.3 Dreaming and the "real world"
7.4 Recalling dreams
7.5 Déjà vu
7.6 Dream pre-programming
7.7 Dream incorporation
8 See also
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links
[edit] Neurology of sleep and dreams
Main article: REM sleep
EEG showing brainwaves during REM sleepThere is no universally agreed biological definition of dreaming. General observation shows that dreams are strongly associated with rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, during which an electroencephalogram shows brain activity to be most like wakefulness. Participant-nonremembered dreams during non-REM sleep are normally more mundane in comparison.[1] During a typical lifespan, a human spends a total of about six years dreaming[2] (which is about 2 hours each night[3]). It is unknown where in the brain dreams originate, if there is a single origin for dreams or if multiple portions of the brain are involved, or what the purpose of dreaming is for the body or mind.
During REM sleep, the release of certain neurotransmitters is completely suppressed. As a result, motor neurons are not stimulated, a condition known as REM atonia. This prevents dreams from resulting in dangerous movements of the body.
[edit] Discovery of REM
In 1953 Eugene Aserinsky discovered REM sleep while working in the surgery of his PhD advisor. Aserinsky noticed that the sleepers' eyes fluttered beneath their closed eyelids, later using a polygraph machine to record their brain waves during these periods. In one session he awakened a subject who was wailing and crying out during REM and confirmed his suspicion that dreaming was occurring.[4] In 1953 Aserinsky and his advisor published the ground-breaking study in Science.[5]
[edit] Dream theories
[edit] Activation-synthesis
In 1976, J. Allan Hobson and Robert McCarley proposed a new theory that changed dream research, challenging the previously held Freudian view of dreams as unconscious wishes to be interpreted. The activation synthesis theory asserts that the sensory experiences are fabricated by the cortex as a means of interpreting chaotic signals from the pons. They propose that in REM sleep, the ascending cholinergic PGO (ponto-geniculo-occipital) waves stimulate higher midbrain and forebrain cortical structures, producing rapid eye movements. The activated forebrain then synthesizes the dream out of this internally generated information. They assume that the same structures that induce REM sleep also generate sensory information.
Hobson and McCarly's 1976 research suggested that the signals interpreted as dreams originated in the brain stem during REM sleep. However, research by Mark Solms suggests that dreams are generated in the forebrain, and that REM sleep and dreaming are not directly related.[6] While working in the neurosurgery department at hospitals in Johannesburg and London, Solms had access to patients with various brain injuries. He began to question patients about their dreams and confirmed that patients with damage to the parietal lobe stopped dreaming; this finding was in line with Hobson's 1977 theory. However, Solms did not encounter cases of loss of dreaming with patients having brain stem damage. This observation forced him to question Hobson's prevailing theory which marked the brain stem as the source of the signals interpreted as dreams. Solms viewed the idea of dreaming as a function of many complex brain structures as validating Freudian dream theory, an idea that drew criticism from Hobson.[7] Unhappy about Holmes' attempts at discrediting him, Solms, along with partner Edward Nadar, undertook a series of traumatic-injury impact studies using several different species of primates, particularly howler monkeys, in order to more fully understand the role brain damage plays in dream pathology. Solms' experiments proved inconclusive, however, as the high mortality rate associated with using an hydraulic impact pin to artificially produce brain damage in test subjects meant that his final candidate pool was too small to satisfy the requirements of the scientific method.
[edit] Continual-activation
Combining Hobson's activation synthesis hypothesis with Solms's findings, the continual-activation theory of dreaming presented by Jie Zhang proposes that dreaming is a result of brain activation and synthesis; at the same time, dreaming and REM sleep are controlled by different brain mechanisms. Zhang hypothesizes that the function of sleep is to process, encode, and transfer the data from the temporary memory to the long-term memory, though there is not much evidence backing up this so-called "consolidation." Non-REM sleep processes the conscious-related memory (declarative memory), and REM sleep processes the unconscious related memory (procedural memory).
Zhang assumes that during REM sleep, the unconscious part of a brain is busy processing the procedural memory; meanwhile, the level of activation in the conscious part of the brain will descend to a very low level as the inputs from the sensory are basically disconnected. This will trigger the "continual-activation" mechanism to generate a data stream from the memory stores to flow through the conscious part of the brain. Zhang suggests that this pulse-like brain activation is the inducer of each dream. He proposes that, with the involvement of the brain associative thinking system, dreaming is, thereafter, self-maintained with the dreamer's own thinking until the next pulse of memory insertion. This explains why dreams have both characteristics of continuity (within a dream) and sudden changes (between two or more dreams).[8][9]
[edit] Dreams and memory
Eugen Tarnow suggests that dreams are ever-present excitations of long-term memory, even during waking life. The strangeness of dreams is due to the format of long-term memory, reminiscent of Penfield & Rasmussen’s findings that electrical excitations of the cortex give rise to experiences similar to dreams. During waking life an executive function interprets long term memory consistent with reality checking. Tarnow's theory is a reworking of Freud's theory of dreams in which Freud's unconscious is replaced with the long-term memory system and Freud's “Dream Work” describes the structure of long-term memory.[10]
Location of hippocampus
[edit] Hippocampus and memory
A 2001 study showed evidence that illogical locations, characters, and dream flow may help the brain strengthen the linking and consolidation of semantic memories. These conditions may occur because, during REM sleep, the flow of information between the hippocampus and neocortex is reduced.[11] Increasing levels of the stress hormone cortisol late in sleep (often during REM sleep) cause this decreased communication. One stage of memory consolidation is the linking of distant but related memories. Payne and Nadel hypothesize that these memories are then consolidated into a smooth narrative, similar to a process that happens when memories are created under stress.[12]
[edit] Functional hypotheses
There are many hypotheses about the function of dreams, including:[13]
During the night there may be many external stimuli bombarding the senses, but the mind interprets the stimulus and makes it a part of a dream in order to ensure continued sleep.[14] The mind will, however, awaken an individual if they are in danger or if trained to respond to certain sounds, such as a baby crying.
Dreams allow the repressed parts of the mind to be satisfied through fantasy while keeping the conscious mind from thoughts that would suddenly cause one to awaken from shock.[15]
Freud suggested that bad dreams let the brain learn to gain control over emotions resulting from distressing experiences.[13]
Jung suggested that dreams may compensate for one-sided attitudes held in waking consciousness.[16]
Ferenczi[17] proposed that the dream, when told, may communicate something that is not being said outright.
Dreams are like the cleaning-up operations of computers when they are off-line, removing parasitic nodes and other "junk" from the mind during sleep.[18][19]
Dreams create new ideas through the generation of random thought mutations. Some of these may be rejected by the mind as useless, while others may be seen as valuable and retained. Blechner[20] calls this the theory of "Oneiric Darwinism."
Dreams regulate mood.[21]
Hartmann[22] says dreams may function like psychotherapy, by "making connections in a safe place" and allowing the dreamer to integrate thoughts that may be dissociated during waking life.
More recent research by Griffin has led to the formulation of the 'expectation fulfillment theory of dreaming', which suggests that dreaming metaphorically completes patterns of emotional expectation and lowers stress levels.[23][24]
Coutts[25] hypothesizes that dreams modify and test mental schemas during sleep during a process he calls emotional selection, and that only schema modifications that appear emotionally adaptive during dream tests are selected for retention, while those that appear maladaptive are abandoned or further modified and tested.
Dream is a product of "dissociated imagination", which is dissociated from conscious self and draws material from sensory memory for simulation, with sensory feedback resulting in hallucination. By simulating the sensory signals to drive the autonomous nerves, dream can effect mind-body interaction. In the brain and spine, the autonomous "repair nerves", which can expand the blood vessels, connect with pain and compression nerves, and are grouped into many chains called meridians by the Chinese. Dream also exploits the chain-reacting meridians to repair body by sending out very intensive movement-compression signals when the level of growth enzyme goes high. [26]
[edit] Dreams and psychosis
A number of thinkers have commented on the similarities between the phenomenology of dreams and that of psychosis. Features common to the two states include thought disorder, flattened or inappropriate affect (emotion), and hallucination. Among philosophers, Kant, for example, wrote that ‘the lunatic is a wakeful dreamer’.[27] Schopenhauer said: ‘A dream is a short-lasting psychosis, and a psychosis is a long-lasting dream.’[28]In the field of psychoanalysis, Freud wrote: ‘A dream then, is a psychosis’,[29]and Jung: ‘Let the dreamer walk about and act like one awakened and we have the clinical picture of dementia praecox.’[30]
McCreery[31][32] has sought to explain these similarities by reference to the fact, documented by Oswald,[33] that sleep can supervene as a reaction to extreme stress and hyper-arousal. McCreery adduces evidence that psychotics are people with a tendency to hyper-arousal, and suggests that this renders them prone to what Oswald calls ‘microsleeps’ during waking life. He points in particular to the paradoxical finding of Stevens and Darbyshire[34] that patients suffering from catatonia can be roused from their seeming stupor by the administration of sedatives rather than stimulants.
[edit] Cultural history
Jacob's dream of a ladder of angelsDreams have a long history both as a subject of conjecture and as a source of inspiration. Throughout their history, people have sought meaning in dreams or divination through dreams. They have been described physiologically as a response to neural processes during sleep, psychologically as reflections of the subconscious, and spiritually as messages from God or predictions of the future. Many cultures practiced dream incubation, with the intention of cultivating dreams that were prophetic or contained messages from the divine.
Judaism has a traditional ceremony called hatovat chalom – literally meaning making the dream a good one. Through this rite disturbing dreams can be transformed to give a positive interpretation by a rabbi or a rabbinic court. [35]
[edit] Dream content
From the 1940s to 1985, Calvin S. Hall collected more than 50,000 dream reports at Western Reserve University. In 1966 Hall and Van De Castle published The Content Analysis of Dreams in which they outlined a coding system to study 1,000 dream reports from college students.[36] It was found that people all over the world dream of mostly the same things. Hall's complete dream reports became publicly available in the mid-1990s by Hall's protégé William Domhoff, allowing further different analysis.
Personal experiences from the last day or week are frequently incorporated into dreams.[37]
[edit] Emotions
The most common emotion experienced in dreams is anxiety. Negative emotions are more common than positive feelings.[36] The U.S. ranks the highest amongst industrialized nations for aggression in dreams with 50 percent of U.S. males reporting aggression in dreams, compared to 32 percent for Dutch men.[36]
[edit] Sexual content
The Hall data analysis shows that sexual dreams occur no more than 10 percent of the time and are more prevalent in young to mid teens.[36] Another study showed that 8% of men's and women's dreams have sexual content.[38] In some cases, sexual dreams may result in orgasm or nocturnal emission. These are commonly known as wet dreams.[39]
[edit] Recurring dreams
While the content of most dreams is dreamt only once, many people experience recurring dreams—that is, the same dream narrative is experienced over different occasions of sleep. Up to 70% of females and 65% of males report recurrent dreams.[40]
[edit] Common themes
Content-analysis studies have identified common reported themes in dreams. These include: situations relating to school, being chased, running slowly in place, sexual experiences, falling, arriving too late, a person now alive being dead, teeth falling out, flying, embarrassing moments,falling in love with random people, failing an examination, not being able to move, not being able to focus vision and car accidents. Twelve percent of people dream only in black and white.[41]
[edit] Relationship with mental illness
There is evidence that certain medical conditions (normally only neurological conditions) can impact dreams. For instance, people with synesthesia have never reported black-and-white dreaming, and often have a difficult time imagining the idea of dreaming in only black and white.[42]
Therapy for recurring nightmares (often associated with posttraumatic stress disorder) can include imagining alternative scenarios that could begin at each step of the dream.[43]
[edit] Dream interpretation
Main article: Dream interpretation
Dreams were historically used for healing (as in the asclepieions found in the ancient Greek temples of Asclepius) as well as for guidance or divine inspiration. Some Native American tribes used vision quests as a rite of passage, fasting and praying until an anticipated guiding dream was received, to be shared with the rest of the tribe upon their return.[44]
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, both Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung identified dreams as an interaction between the unconscious and the conscious. They also assert together that the unconscious is the dominant force of the dream, and in dreams it conveys its own mental activity to the perceptive faculty. While Freud felt that there was an active censorship against the unconscious even during sleep, Jung argued that the dream's bizarre quality is an efficient language, comparable to poetry and uniquely capable of revealing the underlying meaning.
Fritz Perls presented his theory of dreams as part of the holistic nature of Gestalt therapy. Dreams are seen as projections of parts of the self that have been ignored, rejected, or suppressed.[45] Jung argued that one could consider every person in the dream to represent an aspect of the dreamer, which he called the subjective approach to dreams. Perls expanded this point of view to say that even inanimate objects in the dream may represent aspects of the dreamer. The dreamer may therefore be asked to imagine being an object in the dream and to describe it, in order to bring into awareness the characteristics of the object that correspond with the dreamer's personality.
[edit] Other associated phenomena
[edit] Lucid dreaming
Main article: Lucid dreaming
Lucid dreaming is the conscious perception of one's state while dreaming. In this state a person usually has control over characters and the environment of the dream as well as the dreamer's own actions within the dream.[46] The occurrence of lucid dreaming has been scientifically verified.[47]
"Oneironaut" is a term sometimes used for those who explore the world of dreams. For example, dream researcher Stephen LaBerge uses the term.[48] It is often associated with lucid dreaming in particular.
[edit] Dreams of absent-minded transgression
Dreams of absent-minded transgression (DAMT) are dreams wherein the dreamer absentmindedly performs an action that he or she has been trying to stop (one classic example is of a quitting smoker having dreams of lighting a cigarette). Subjects who have had DAMT have reported waking with intense feelings of guilt. One study found a positive association between having these dreams and successfully stopping the behavior.[49]
[edit] Dreaming and the "real world"
Main article: Dream argument
Dreams can link to actual sensations, such as the incorporation of environmental sounds into dreams such as hearing a phone ringing in a dream while it is ringing in reality, or dreaming of urination while wetting the bed. Except in the case of lucid dreaming, people dream without being aware that they are doing so. Some philosophers have concluded that what we think as the "real world" could be or is an illusion (an idea known as the skeptical hypothesis about ontology). The first recorded mention of the idea was by Zhuangzi, and was also discussed in Hinduism; Buddhism makes extensive use of the argument in its writings.[50] It was formally introduced to western philosophy by Descartes in the 17th century in his Meditations on First Philosophy.
[edit] Recalling dreams
The recall of dreams is extremely unreliable, though it is a skill that can be trained. Dreams can usually be recalled if a person is awakened while dreaming.[43] Women tend to have more frequent dream recall than men. [43] Dreams that are difficult to recall may be characterized by relatively little affect, and factors such as salience, arousal, and interference play a role in dream recall. A dream journal can be used to assist dream recall, for psychotherapy or entertainment purposes. Ingesting large amounts of magnesium can help to make dreams more vivid, and therefore easier to recall.
[edit] Déjà vu
Main article: Déjà vu
One theory of déjà vu attributes the feeling of having previously seen or experienced something to having dreamt about a similar situation or place, and forgetting about it until one seems to be mysteriously reminded of the situation or place while awake.[51]
[edit] Dream pre-programming
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)
Dream pre-programming is a hypnotic practice used among some medical and stage hypnotists. It allows the hypnotist to control (or let the patient control) their own dreams. One way that a hypnotist will use this is by telling the person that when they fall asleep that they see a button. And that if they want to enter "DreamScape" that they should press that button. Then they will enter a world just like Earth, but they will have complete control. They will control things with their mind. Dream pre-programming can also help someone for a test or a big event in life. The hypnotist would make the subject dream that event as occuring perfectly, so the subject will get a level of confidence.
[edit] Dream incorporation
In one use of the term, "dream incorporation" is a phenomenon whereby an external stimulus, usually an auditory one, becomes a part of a dream, eventually then awakening the dreamer. There is a famous painting by Salvador Dalí that depicts this concept, titled "Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bee around a Pomegranate a Second Before Awakening" (1944).
The term "dream incorporation" is also used in research examining the degree to which preceding daytime events become elements of dreams. Recent studies suggest that events in the day immediately preceding, and those about a week before, have the most influence .[37]
[edit] See also
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
DreamLucid dream
Daydream
Dimethyltryptamine
Dissociation
Dream argument
Dream art
Dream pop
Dream dictionary
Dreamwork
Dream world (plot device)
Dream yoga in Tibetan Buddhist Dzogchen tradition
Hypnagogia
List of dream diaries
Oneirology
[edit] References
^ Dement, W.; Kleitman, N. (1957). "The Relation of Eye Movements during Sleep to Dream Activity.'". Journal of Experimental Psychology 53: 89–97. doi:10.1037/h0048189.
^ (2006) How Dream Works. Retrieved on 2006-05-04.
^ "Brain Basics: Understanding Sleep". National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2006). Retrieved on 2007-12-16.
^ Dement, William (1996). The Sleepwatchers. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0964933802.
^ Aserinsky, E; Kleitman, N. (September 1953). "Regularly occurring periods of eye motility, and concomitant phenomena, during sleep". Science 118 (3062): 273–274. doi:10.1126/science.118.3062.273. PMID 13089671.
^ Solms, M. (2000). Dreaming and REM sleep are controlled by different brain mechanisms, 23(6), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 793-1121.
^ Rock dreams are not always true., Andrea (2004). "3", The Mind at Night: The New Science of How and Why we Dream. Basic Books. ISBN 0465070698.
^ Zhang, Jie (2004). Memory process and the function of sleep, 6-6, Journal of Theoretics. Retrieved on 2006-03-13.
^ Zhang, Jie (2005). Continual-activation theory of dreaming, Dynamical Psychology. Retrieved on 2006-03-13.
^ Tarnow, Eugen (2003). How Dreams And Memory May Be Related, 5(2), NEURO-PSYCHOANALYSIS.
^ R. Stickgold, J. A. Hobson, R. Fosse, M. Fosse1 (october 2001). "Sleep, Learning, and Dreams: Off-line Memory Reprocessing". Science 294 (5544): 1052–1057. doi:10.1126 (inactive 2008-06-25).
^ Jessica D. Payne and Lynn Nadel1 (2004). "Sleep, dreams, and memory consolidation: The role of the stress hormone cortisol". Learning & Memory 11: 671–678. doi:10.1101/lm.77104. ISSN 1072-0502. PMID 15576884.
^ a b Cartwright, Rosalind D (1993). "Functions of Dreams". Encyclopedia of Sleep and Dreaming.
^ Antrobus, John (1993). "Characteristics of Dreams". Encyclopedia of Sleep and Dreaming.
^ Vedfelt, Ole (1999). The Dimensions of Dreams. Fromm.
^ Jung, C. (1948) General aspects of dream psychology. In: Dreams. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 23-66.
^ Ferenczi, S. (1913)To whom does one relate one's dreams? In: Further Contributions to the Theory and Technique of Psycho-Analysis. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 349.
^ Evans, C. & Newman, E. (1964) Dreaming: An analogy from computers. New Scientist, 419:577-579.
^ Crick, F. & Mitchison, G. (1983) The function of dream sleep. Nature, 304:111-114.
^ Blechner, M. (2001) The Dream Frontier. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.
^ Kramer, M. (1993)The selective mood regulatory function of dreaming: An update and revision. In: The Function of Dreaming. Ed., A. Moffitt, M. Kramer, & R. Hoffmann. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
^ Hartmann, E. (1995)Making connections in a safe place: Is dreaming psychotherapy? Dreaming, 5:213-228.
^ Griffin, J. (1997) The Origin of Dreams: How and why we evolved to dream. The Therapist, Vol 4 No 3.
^ Griffin, J, Tyrrell, I. (2004) Dreaming Reality: how dreaming keeps us sane or can drive us mad'. Human Givens Publishing.
^ Coutts, R (2008). Dreams as modifiers and tests of mental schemas: an emotional selection hypothesis. Psychological Reports, 102, 561-574.
^ "A Mind-Body Interaction Theory of Dream" (1995).
^ Quoted in La Barre, W. (1975). Anthropological Perspectives on Hallucination and Hallucinogens. In R.K. Siegel and L.J. West (eds.), Hallucinations: Behavior, Experience, and Theory. New York: Wiley.
^ Ibid.
^ Freud, S. (1940). An Outline of Psychoanalysis. London: Hogarth Press.
^ Jung, C.G. (1909). The Psychology of Dementia Praecox, translated by F. Peterson and A.A. Brill. New York: The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company.
^ McCreery, C. (1997). Hallucinations and arousability: pointers to a theory of psychosis. In Claridge, G. (ed.): Schizotypy, Implications for Illness and Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
^ McCreery, C. (2008). Dreams and psychosis: a new look at an old hypothesis. Psychological Paper No. 2008-1. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Online PDF
^ Oswald, I. (1962). Sleeping and Waking: Physiology and Psychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
^ Stevens, J.M. and Darbyshire, A.J. (1958). Shifts along the alert-repose continuum during remission of catatonic ‘stupor’with amobarbitol. Psychosomatic Medicine, 20, 99-107.
^ http://www.rabbiwein.com/Jerusalem-Post/2006/02/102.html Berel Wein "DREAMS"
^ a b c d Hall, C., & Van de Castle, R. (1966). The Content Analysis of Dreams. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Content Analysis Explained
^ a b Alain, M.Ps., Geneviève; Tore A. Nielsen, Ph.D., Russell Powell, Ph.D., Don Kuiken, Ph.D. (July 2003). "Replication of the Day-residue and Dream-lag Effect". 20th Annual International Conference of the Association for the Study of Dreams.
^ Zadra, A., "1093: SEX DREAMS: WHAT DO MEN AND WOMEN DREAM ABOUT?" SLEEP, Volume 30, Abstract Supplement, 2007 A376.
^ http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR157/04Chapter04.pdf Badan Pusat Statistik "Indonesia Young Adult Reproductive Health Survey 2002-2004" p. 27
^ Van de Castle, p. 340.
^ Michael Schredl, Petra Ciric, Simon Götz, Lutz Wittmann (November, 2004). "Typical Dreams: Stability and Gender Differences". The Journal of Psychology 138 (6): 485.
^ Harrison, John E. (2001). Synaesthesia: The Strangest Thing. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0192632450.
^ a b c The Science Behind Dreams and Nightmares
^ Webb, Craig (1995). "Dreams: Practical Meaning & Appications". The DREAMS Foundation.
^ Wegner, D.M., Wenzlaff, R.M. & Kozak M. (2004). "The Return of Suppressed Thoughts in Dreams". Psychological Science 15: 232–236. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00657.x.
^ Lucid dreaming FAQ by 1The Lucidity Institute at Psych Web.
^ Watanabe, T. (2003). "Lucid Dreaming: Its Experimental Proof and Psychological Conditions". J Int Soc Life Inf Sci 21 (1). ISSN 1341-9226.
^ "Dreaming and Awakening 2006 Presenters".
^ Hajek P, Belcher M (1991). "Dream of absent-minded transgression: an empirical study of a cognitive withdrawal symptom". J Abnorm Psychol 100 (4): 487–91. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.100.4.487. PMID 1757662.
^ Kher, Chitrarekha V. (1992). Buddhism As Presented by the Brahmanical Systems. Sri Satguru Publications. ISBN 8170302935.
^ Lohff, David C. (2004). The Dream Directory: The Comprehensive Guide to Analysis and Interpretation. Running Press 0762419628.
[edit] Further reading
Freud, Sigmund (1994). The interpretation of dreams. New York: Modern Library. ISBN 067960121X.
Jung, Carl (1934). The Practice of Psychotherapy. "The Practical Use of Dream-analysis", 139-. ISBN 071001645X.
Jung, Carl. Dreams (Routledge Classics). New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415267404.
Scaruffi, Piero. The Nature of Consciousness. Omniware. ISBN 0-9765531-1-2.
Oneiroi dreams
Oneiroi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Greek deities
series
Primordial deities
Titans and Olympians
Aquatic deities
Chthonic deities
Other deities
Personified concepts
Muses
Nemesis
Moirae
Cratos
Zelus
Nike
Metis
Charites
Oneiroi
Adrasteia
Horae
Bia
Eros
Apate
Themis
Eris
Thanatos
Hypnos
In Greek mythology, the Oneiroi were the brothers (According to Hesiod) or sons (according to Ovid) of Hypnos, the god of sleep. They were personifications of dreams—black-winged daemons—and were said to live on the shores of the Ocean in the far West, in a cavern near the border of Hades. The gods sent dreams to mortals from one of two gates located there: true dreams emerged from a gate made of horn, whereas false dreams threaded their way from a gate fashioned of ivory. They are described in the Odyssey, Hesiod's Theogony, and Ovid's Metamorphoses, and are briefly mentioned in Vergil's Aeneid when Aeneas is coming back from the Underworld. Hesiod establishes them in his Theogony as sons of Nyx either through parthenogenesis (Hesiod Theogony 212; Sappho Frag 63, Statius Thebaid 10.112) or with Erebus (Hyginus Preface, Cicero De Natura Deorum 3.17). According to Euripides, their mother was Gaea.
The most powerful Oneiros was Morpheus. His brothers Phobetor and Phantasos crafted parts of dreams, while he formed the dream in general. Morpheus shaped human figures, Phobetor animal, while Phantasos shaped inanimate objects.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Greek deities
series
Primordial deities
Titans and Olympians
Aquatic deities
Chthonic deities
Other deities
Personified concepts
Muses
Nemesis
Moirae
Cratos
Zelus
Nike
Metis
Charites
Oneiroi
Adrasteia
Horae
Bia
Eros
Apate
Themis
Eris
Thanatos
Hypnos
In Greek mythology, the Oneiroi were the brothers (According to Hesiod) or sons (according to Ovid) of Hypnos, the god of sleep. They were personifications of dreams—black-winged daemons—and were said to live on the shores of the Ocean in the far West, in a cavern near the border of Hades. The gods sent dreams to mortals from one of two gates located there: true dreams emerged from a gate made of horn, whereas false dreams threaded their way from a gate fashioned of ivory. They are described in the Odyssey, Hesiod's Theogony, and Ovid's Metamorphoses, and are briefly mentioned in Vergil's Aeneid when Aeneas is coming back from the Underworld. Hesiod establishes them in his Theogony as sons of Nyx either through parthenogenesis (Hesiod Theogony 212; Sappho Frag 63, Statius Thebaid 10.112) or with Erebus (Hyginus Preface, Cicero De Natura Deorum 3.17). According to Euripides, their mother was Gaea.
The most powerful Oneiros was Morpheus. His brothers Phobetor and Phantasos crafted parts of dreams, while he formed the dream in general. Morpheus shaped human figures, Phobetor animal, while Phantasos shaped inanimate objects.
Nyx (mythology)
Nyx (mythology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses of "NYX", see NYX (disambiguation).
Greek deities
series
Titans and Olympians
Aquatic deities
Chthonic deities
Personified concepts
Other deities
Primordial deities
Chaos
Aether
Gaia
Uranus
Hemera
Chronos
Eros
Erebus
Nyx
Ophion
Tartarus
In Greek mythology, Nyx (Νύξ, Nox in Roman translation) was the primordial goddess of the night. A shadowy figure, Night stood at or near the beginning of creation, and was the mother of personified gods such as Sleep and Death. Her appearances in mythology are sparse, but reveal her as a figure of exceptional power.
Contents
[hide]
1 Role in myth and literature
1.1 Hesiod
1.2 Homer
1.3 Other Greek texts
2 Role in society
2.1 Cults of Nyx
2.2 Modern homages
3 Children of Nyx
4 References
5 See also
6 External links
[edit] Role in myth and literature
[edit] Hesiod
Nyx, goddess of the night (William-Adolphe Bouguereau - La Nuit (1883))In Hesiod's Theogony, Night is born of Chaos; her offspring are many, and telling. With her brother Erebus, Night gives birth to Aether ("atmosphere") and Hemera ("day"). Later, on her own, Night gives birth to Momus "blame", Ponos "toil", Moros "fate", Thanatos "death", Hypnos "sleep", Charon, the Oneiroi "the tribe of dreams", the Hesperides, the Keres and Fates, Nemesis, Apate "deception", Philotes "friendship", Geras "age", and Eris "strife".
In his description of Tartarus, Hesiod says further that Hemera "day", who is now Night's sister rather than daughter, left Tartarus just as Nyx entered it; when Hemera returned, Nyx left. This mirrors the portrayal of Ratri "night" in the Rig-Veda, where she works in close cooperation but also tension with her sister Ushas "dawn".
[edit] Homer
In Book 14 of Homer's Iliad, there is a quote by Hypnos, the minor god of sleep, in which he reminds Hera of an old favor after she asks him to put Zeus to sleep. He had once before put Zeus to sleep at the bidding of Hera, allowing her to cause Heracles (who was returning by sea from Laomedon's Troy) great misfortune. Zeus was furious and would have smitten Hypnos into the sea if he had not fled to Nyx, his mother, in fear. Hypnos goes on to say that Zeus, fearing to anger Nyx, held his fury at bay, and in this way Hypnos escaped the wrath of Zeus.
[edit] Other Greek texts
Night took on an even more important role in several fragmentary poems attributed to Orpheus. In them, Night, rather than Chaos, is the first principle. Night occupies a cave or adyton, in which she gives oracles. Kronos - who is chained within, asleep and drunk on honey - dreams and prophesies. Outside the cave, Adrastea clashes cymbals and beats upon her tympanon, moving the entire universe in an ecstatic dance to the rhythm of Nyx's chanting. Phanes - the strange, monstrous, hermaphrodite Orphic demiurge - was the child or father of Nyx.
Night is also the first principle in the opening chorus of Aristophanes's Birds, which may be Orphic in inspiration. Here she is also the mother of Eros. In other texts she may be the mother of Charon (with Erebus), and Phthonus "envy" (with Dionysus?).
The theme of Night's cave or house, beyond the ocean (as in Hesiod) or somewhere at the edge of the cosmos (as in later Orphism) may be echoed in the philosophical poem of Parmenides. The classical scholar Walter Burkert has speculated that the house of the goddess to which the philosopher is transported is the palace of Night; this hypothesis, however, must remain tentative.
[edit] Role in society
[edit] Cults of Nyx
Nyx, as represented in the 10th-century Paris Psalter.In Greece, Night is only rarely the focus of cults. According to Pausanias, she had an oracle on the acropolis at Megara (Paus. 1.40.1).
More often, Nyx lurks in the background of other cults. Thus there was a statue called "Night" in the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. The Spartans had a cult of Sleep and Death, conceived of as twins (Paus. 3.18.1). Cult titles composed of compounds of nyx- are attested for several gods, most notably Dionysus Nyktelios "nocturnal" (Paus. 1.40.6) and Aphrodite Philopannyx "who loves the whole night" (Orphic Hymn 55).
[edit] Modern homages
On June 21, 2006, the International Astronomical Union renamed one of Pluto's recently discovered moons (S/2005 P 2) to Nix, in honor of Nyx. The name was spelled with an "i" instead of a "y", to avoid conflict with the asteroid 3908 Nyx.
[edit] Children of Nyx
By Erebus, the primeval Darkness
Aether
Charon
Hemera
Styx (but also said to be a daughter of Oceanus and Tethys).
Epiphron
By Parthenogenesis
Apate Deceit
Ker, Keres Fates of death
Momos Blame, mockery, gaiety
Moros Doom.
Oizys Misery
Oneiroi Dreams
Philotes Pleasure of love, friendship
Thanatos Death
Eris Strife
Geras Old Age
Hypnos Sleep
Nemesis Retribution
Hesperides
By Uranus
Lyssa Madness
By itself again
Phanes
[edit] References
Aristophanes, Birds.
Hesiod, Theogony.
Otto Kern ed., Orphicorum Fragmenta.
Pausanias, Descriptions of Greece.
[edit] See also
Nix (disambiguation)
List of night deities
[edit] External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
NyxNews article about the naming of Pluto's moons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses of "NYX", see NYX (disambiguation).
Greek deities
series
Titans and Olympians
Aquatic deities
Chthonic deities
Personified concepts
Other deities
Primordial deities
Chaos
Aether
Gaia
Uranus
Hemera
Chronos
Eros
Erebus
Nyx
Ophion
Tartarus
In Greek mythology, Nyx (Νύξ, Nox in Roman translation) was the primordial goddess of the night. A shadowy figure, Night stood at or near the beginning of creation, and was the mother of personified gods such as Sleep and Death. Her appearances in mythology are sparse, but reveal her as a figure of exceptional power.
Contents
[hide]
1 Role in myth and literature
1.1 Hesiod
1.2 Homer
1.3 Other Greek texts
2 Role in society
2.1 Cults of Nyx
2.2 Modern homages
3 Children of Nyx
4 References
5 See also
6 External links
[edit] Role in myth and literature
[edit] Hesiod
Nyx, goddess of the night (William-Adolphe Bouguereau - La Nuit (1883))In Hesiod's Theogony, Night is born of Chaos; her offspring are many, and telling. With her brother Erebus, Night gives birth to Aether ("atmosphere") and Hemera ("day"). Later, on her own, Night gives birth to Momus "blame", Ponos "toil", Moros "fate", Thanatos "death", Hypnos "sleep", Charon, the Oneiroi "the tribe of dreams", the Hesperides, the Keres and Fates, Nemesis, Apate "deception", Philotes "friendship", Geras "age", and Eris "strife".
In his description of Tartarus, Hesiod says further that Hemera "day", who is now Night's sister rather than daughter, left Tartarus just as Nyx entered it; when Hemera returned, Nyx left. This mirrors the portrayal of Ratri "night" in the Rig-Veda, where she works in close cooperation but also tension with her sister Ushas "dawn".
[edit] Homer
In Book 14 of Homer's Iliad, there is a quote by Hypnos, the minor god of sleep, in which he reminds Hera of an old favor after she asks him to put Zeus to sleep. He had once before put Zeus to sleep at the bidding of Hera, allowing her to cause Heracles (who was returning by sea from Laomedon's Troy) great misfortune. Zeus was furious and would have smitten Hypnos into the sea if he had not fled to Nyx, his mother, in fear. Hypnos goes on to say that Zeus, fearing to anger Nyx, held his fury at bay, and in this way Hypnos escaped the wrath of Zeus.
[edit] Other Greek texts
Night took on an even more important role in several fragmentary poems attributed to Orpheus. In them, Night, rather than Chaos, is the first principle. Night occupies a cave or adyton, in which she gives oracles. Kronos - who is chained within, asleep and drunk on honey - dreams and prophesies. Outside the cave, Adrastea clashes cymbals and beats upon her tympanon, moving the entire universe in an ecstatic dance to the rhythm of Nyx's chanting. Phanes - the strange, monstrous, hermaphrodite Orphic demiurge - was the child or father of Nyx.
Night is also the first principle in the opening chorus of Aristophanes's Birds, which may be Orphic in inspiration. Here she is also the mother of Eros. In other texts she may be the mother of Charon (with Erebus), and Phthonus "envy" (with Dionysus?).
The theme of Night's cave or house, beyond the ocean (as in Hesiod) or somewhere at the edge of the cosmos (as in later Orphism) may be echoed in the philosophical poem of Parmenides. The classical scholar Walter Burkert has speculated that the house of the goddess to which the philosopher is transported is the palace of Night; this hypothesis, however, must remain tentative.
[edit] Role in society
[edit] Cults of Nyx
Nyx, as represented in the 10th-century Paris Psalter.In Greece, Night is only rarely the focus of cults. According to Pausanias, she had an oracle on the acropolis at Megara (Paus. 1.40.1).
More often, Nyx lurks in the background of other cults. Thus there was a statue called "Night" in the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. The Spartans had a cult of Sleep and Death, conceived of as twins (Paus. 3.18.1). Cult titles composed of compounds of nyx- are attested for several gods, most notably Dionysus Nyktelios "nocturnal" (Paus. 1.40.6) and Aphrodite Philopannyx "who loves the whole night" (Orphic Hymn 55).
[edit] Modern homages
On June 21, 2006, the International Astronomical Union renamed one of Pluto's recently discovered moons (S/2005 P 2) to Nix, in honor of Nyx. The name was spelled with an "i" instead of a "y", to avoid conflict with the asteroid 3908 Nyx.
[edit] Children of Nyx
By Erebus, the primeval Darkness
Aether
Charon
Hemera
Styx (but also said to be a daughter of Oceanus and Tethys).
Epiphron
By Parthenogenesis
Apate Deceit
Ker, Keres Fates of death
Momos Blame, mockery, gaiety
Moros Doom.
Oizys Misery
Oneiroi Dreams
Philotes Pleasure of love, friendship
Thanatos Death
Eris Strife
Geras Old Age
Hypnos Sleep
Nemesis Retribution
Hesperides
By Uranus
Lyssa Madness
By itself again
Phanes
[edit] References
Aristophanes, Birds.
Hesiod, Theogony.
Otto Kern ed., Orphicorum Fragmenta.
Pausanias, Descriptions of Greece.
[edit] See also
Nix (disambiguation)
List of night deities
[edit] External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
NyxNews article about the naming of Pluto's moons
Jötunn giants norse mythos wiki
Jötunn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Jotun" redirects here. For the paint company, see Jotun (company).
The giants Fafner and Fasolt seize Freyja in Arthur Rackham's illustration to Richard Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen.A jǫtunn, sometimed anglicized as jotun (pronounced yōtən[1]), is a giant in Norse mythology, a member of a race of nature spirits with superhuman strength, described as standing in opposition to the races of Æsir and Vanir, although they frequently mingled with or were even married to these. Their otherworldly homeland is Jötunheimr, one of the nine worlds of Norse cosmology, separated from Midgard, the world of humans, by high mountains or dense forests. Other place names are also associated with them, including Niflheimr, Utgarðr and Járnviðr. In some legends and myths they are described as having the same height as humans.
In later Scandinavian folklore, the nature spirits called trolls (deriving from the term for 'magic') take over many of the functions of the more ancient concept of the jǫtunn.
The mountain range of southern Norway is likewise called in Norwegian Jotunheimen or the Jotunheim Mountains.
Contents
[hide]
1 Etymology
2 Norse giants
2.1 Origins
2.2 Character of the giants
2.3 Ragnarök and the fire giants
3 Notes
4 References
[edit] Etymology
In Old Norse, they were called jǫtnar (sing. jǫtunn), or risar (sing. risi), in particular bergrisar, or þursar (sing. þurs), in particular hrímþursar ('rime-giant'). A giantess could also be known as a gýgr.
Jǫtunn (Proto-Germanic *etunaz) might have the same root as "eat" (Proto-Germanic *etan) and accordingly had the original meaning of "glutton" or "man-eater", probably in the sense of personifying chaos, the destructive forces of nature.[2] Following the same logic, þurs[3] might be derivative of "thirst" or "blood-thirst." Risi[4] is probably akin to "rise," and so means "towering person" (akin to German Riese, Dutch reus, archaic Swedish rese, giant). The word "jotun" survives in modern Norwegian as giant (though more commonly called trolls), and has evolved into jätte and jætte in modern Swedish and Danish. In modern Icelandic jötunn has kept its original meaning. In Old English, the cognate to jǫtunn is eoten, whence modern English ettin. Old English also has the cognate þyrs of the same meaning.[1]
A Finnish sea monster and possible god of war was called Tursas which may be related to the word þurs.
The Saami languages, also Finnic, have in their mythology jiettanas, which were man-eating people with several wives. They could be captured and eaten by humans, and their stomachs were filled with gold and silver. Whether or not this word came from Germanic languages is unknown.
The Viking rune ᚦ, called Thurs (from Proto-Germanic *Þurisaz), later evolved into the letter Þ.
In Scandinavian folklore, the Norwegian name Tusse for a kind of troll or nisse, derives from Old Norse Þurs.
[edit] Norse giants
[edit] Origins
The first living being formed in the primeval chaos known as Ginnungagap was a giant of monumental size, called Ymir. When he slept a giant son and a giantess daughter grew from his armpits, and his two feet procreated and gave birth to a monster with six heads. Supposedly, these three beings gave rise to the race of hrímþursar (rime giants or frost giants), who populated Niflheim, the world of mist, chill and ice. The gods instead claim their origin from a certain Búri. When the giant Ymir subsequently was slain by Odin, Vili and Vé (the grandsons of Búri), his blood (i.e. water) deluged Niflheim and killed all of the giants, apart from one known as Bergelmir and his spouse, who then repopulated their kind.
[edit] Character of the giants
Giantesses Fenja and Menja from the Grottasöngr.Some of the giants are attributed with hideous appearances – claws, fangs, and deformed features, apart from a generally hideous size. Some of them may even have many heads, such as Thrivaldi who had nine of them, or an overall non-humanoid shape; so were Jörmungandr and Fenrir, two of the children of Loki, viewed as giants.
Yet when giants are named and more closely described, they are often given the opposite characteristics. Very old, they carry wisdom from bygone times. It is the giants Mímir and Vafþrúðnir Odin seeks out to gain this pro-cosmic knowledge. Many of the gods' spouses are giants. Njord is married to Skaði, Gerðr becomes the consort of Freyr, Odin gains the love of Gunnlod, and even Thor, the great slayer of their kind, produces a child with Járnsaxa; Magni. As such, they appear as minor gods themselves, which can also be said about the sea giant Ægir, far more connected to the gods than to the other giants occupying Jotunheim. None of these fear light, and in comfort their homes do not differ greatly from those of the gods.
[edit] Ragnarök and the fire giants
Main article: Ragnarök
A certain class of giants were the fire giants, said to reside in Muspelheim, the world of heat and fire, ruled by the fire giant Surtr ("the black one") and his queen Sinmore. Logi, the incarnation of fire, was another of their kind. The main role of the fire giants in Norse mythology is to wreak the final destruction of the world by setting fire to the world tree Yggdrasil at the end of Ragnarök, when the giants of Jotunheim and the forces of Hel shall launch an attack on the gods, and kill all but a few of them. During Ragnarök, the fire giants (or Muspeli) ride on great horses and burn Midgard killing all the people, some of the gods, and all the fire giants themselves except a man and a woman set by Odin in a great forest that did not burn down.
[edit] Notes
^ Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
^ Norman Cohn, Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith, 2001, ISBN-10: 0300090889.
^ Refer Thurisaz or thorn.
^ Cognate with Sanskrit rishi?[citation needed]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Jotun" redirects here. For the paint company, see Jotun (company).
The giants Fafner and Fasolt seize Freyja in Arthur Rackham's illustration to Richard Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen.A jǫtunn, sometimed anglicized as jotun (pronounced yōtən[1]), is a giant in Norse mythology, a member of a race of nature spirits with superhuman strength, described as standing in opposition to the races of Æsir and Vanir, although they frequently mingled with or were even married to these. Their otherworldly homeland is Jötunheimr, one of the nine worlds of Norse cosmology, separated from Midgard, the world of humans, by high mountains or dense forests. Other place names are also associated with them, including Niflheimr, Utgarðr and Járnviðr. In some legends and myths they are described as having the same height as humans.
In later Scandinavian folklore, the nature spirits called trolls (deriving from the term for 'magic') take over many of the functions of the more ancient concept of the jǫtunn.
The mountain range of southern Norway is likewise called in Norwegian Jotunheimen or the Jotunheim Mountains.
Contents
[hide]
1 Etymology
2 Norse giants
2.1 Origins
2.2 Character of the giants
2.3 Ragnarök and the fire giants
3 Notes
4 References
[edit] Etymology
In Old Norse, they were called jǫtnar (sing. jǫtunn), or risar (sing. risi), in particular bergrisar, or þursar (sing. þurs), in particular hrímþursar ('rime-giant'). A giantess could also be known as a gýgr.
Jǫtunn (Proto-Germanic *etunaz) might have the same root as "eat" (Proto-Germanic *etan) and accordingly had the original meaning of "glutton" or "man-eater", probably in the sense of personifying chaos, the destructive forces of nature.[2] Following the same logic, þurs[3] might be derivative of "thirst" or "blood-thirst." Risi[4] is probably akin to "rise," and so means "towering person" (akin to German Riese, Dutch reus, archaic Swedish rese, giant). The word "jotun" survives in modern Norwegian as giant (though more commonly called trolls), and has evolved into jätte and jætte in modern Swedish and Danish. In modern Icelandic jötunn has kept its original meaning. In Old English, the cognate to jǫtunn is eoten, whence modern English ettin. Old English also has the cognate þyrs of the same meaning.[1]
A Finnish sea monster and possible god of war was called Tursas which may be related to the word þurs.
The Saami languages, also Finnic, have in their mythology jiettanas, which were man-eating people with several wives. They could be captured and eaten by humans, and their stomachs were filled with gold and silver. Whether or not this word came from Germanic languages is unknown.
The Viking rune ᚦ, called Thurs (from Proto-Germanic *Þurisaz), later evolved into the letter Þ.
In Scandinavian folklore, the Norwegian name Tusse for a kind of troll or nisse, derives from Old Norse Þurs.
[edit] Norse giants
[edit] Origins
The first living being formed in the primeval chaos known as Ginnungagap was a giant of monumental size, called Ymir. When he slept a giant son and a giantess daughter grew from his armpits, and his two feet procreated and gave birth to a monster with six heads. Supposedly, these three beings gave rise to the race of hrímþursar (rime giants or frost giants), who populated Niflheim, the world of mist, chill and ice. The gods instead claim their origin from a certain Búri. When the giant Ymir subsequently was slain by Odin, Vili and Vé (the grandsons of Búri), his blood (i.e. water) deluged Niflheim and killed all of the giants, apart from one known as Bergelmir and his spouse, who then repopulated their kind.
[edit] Character of the giants
Giantesses Fenja and Menja from the Grottasöngr.Some of the giants are attributed with hideous appearances – claws, fangs, and deformed features, apart from a generally hideous size. Some of them may even have many heads, such as Thrivaldi who had nine of them, or an overall non-humanoid shape; so were Jörmungandr and Fenrir, two of the children of Loki, viewed as giants.
Yet when giants are named and more closely described, they are often given the opposite characteristics. Very old, they carry wisdom from bygone times. It is the giants Mímir and Vafþrúðnir Odin seeks out to gain this pro-cosmic knowledge. Many of the gods' spouses are giants. Njord is married to Skaði, Gerðr becomes the consort of Freyr, Odin gains the love of Gunnlod, and even Thor, the great slayer of their kind, produces a child with Járnsaxa; Magni. As such, they appear as minor gods themselves, which can also be said about the sea giant Ægir, far more connected to the gods than to the other giants occupying Jotunheim. None of these fear light, and in comfort their homes do not differ greatly from those of the gods.
[edit] Ragnarök and the fire giants
Main article: Ragnarök
A certain class of giants were the fire giants, said to reside in Muspelheim, the world of heat and fire, ruled by the fire giant Surtr ("the black one") and his queen Sinmore. Logi, the incarnation of fire, was another of their kind. The main role of the fire giants in Norse mythology is to wreak the final destruction of the world by setting fire to the world tree Yggdrasil at the end of Ragnarök, when the giants of Jotunheim and the forces of Hel shall launch an attack on the gods, and kill all but a few of them. During Ragnarök, the fire giants (or Muspeli) ride on great horses and burn Midgard killing all the people, some of the gods, and all the fire giants themselves except a man and a woman set by Odin in a great forest that did not burn down.
[edit] Notes
^ Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
^ Norman Cohn, Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith, 2001, ISBN-10: 0300090889.
^ Refer Thurisaz or thorn.
^ Cognate with Sanskrit rishi?[citation needed]
Mjolnir thors hammer
Mjolnir
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Mjolnir (disambiguation).
Drawing of a 4.6 cm gold-plated silver Mjolnir pendant found at Bredsätra on Öland, Sweden. The original is housed at the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities. Heathenism portal
In Norse mythology, Mjolnir, Mjollnir, or Mjölner (usually pronounced /ˈmjɔlˌnɪɹ/ or /ˈmjɔlnɚ/ in English) is the hammer of Thor, the god of thunder.
Distinctively shaped, Mjolnir is depicted as one of the most fearsome weapons in Norse mythology in late Icelandic sources. There, it is used to slay any challengers. Though generally recognized and depicted as a hammer, Mjolnir is sometimes referred to as an axe or club.[1] Legends surrounding Mjolnir's origins vary: some relate that the Svartálfar Sindri and Brokkr made it at the command of Loki.
In the 13th century Prose Edda, Snorri Sturluson gives a summary of Mjolnir's special qualities in that, with Mjolnir, Thor:
... would be able to strike as firmly as he wanted, whatever his aim, and the hammer would never fail, and if he threw it at something, it would never miss and never fly so far from his hand that it would not find its way back, and when he wanted, it would be so small that it could be carried inside his tunic.[1]
Contents
[hide]
1 Etymology
2 Prose Edda
3 Poetic Edda
4 Emblemic usage
5 Modern usage
6 See also
7 Footnotes
8 References
9 External links
[edit] Etymology
Mjolnir simply means "crusher," referring to its pulverizing effect. It is related to words such as the Icelandic verbs mölva ("to crush") and mala ("to grind"), and Swedish noun mjöl ("flour"), all related to English meal, mill and miller. Similar words, all stemming from the Proto-Indo-European root melə, can be found in almost all European languages, e.g. the Slavic melvo ("grain to be ground") and molotu ("hammer"), the Russian Молоток (molotok - "hammer"), the Greek μύλος (mylos - "mill") and the Latin malleus ("hammer") as well as the Latin mola ("mill"). It has been suggested that although the name reflects Mjolnir's awesome powers it might also allude to Thor's agricultural nature, as he was primarily worshiped by farmers.
An alternative theory suggests that Mjolnir might be related to the Russian word молния (molniya) and the Welsh word mellt (both words being translated as "lightning"). This second theory parallels with the idea that Thor, being a god of thunder, therefore might have used lightning as his weapon.[2]
[edit] Prose Edda
The runestone at Stenkvista in Södermanland, Sweden, shows Thor's hammer instead of a cross.The most popular version of the creation of Mjolnir myth, found in the poem Skáldskaparmál from Snorri's Edda,[3] is as follows. In one story Loki sends up to the dwarves called the sons of Ivaldi (or Ovaldi's sons) that create precious items for the gods: Odin's spear Gungnir, and Frey's foldable boat Skíðblaðnir. Then Loki bets his head that Sindri (or Eitri) and his brother Brokkr would never succeed in making items more beautiful than those of Ivaldi's sons. The bet is accepted and the two brothers begin working. Thus Eitri puts a pig's skin in the forge and tells his brother (Brokkr) never to stop blowing until he comes and takes out what he put in.
A fly, actually Loki in disguise, comes and bites Brokkr on the arm but he continued to blow. Then Eitri takes out Gullinbursti which is Freyr's boar with shining bristles. Then Eitri puts some gold in the furnace and gives Brokkr the same order. Loki in the fly guise comes again and bites Brokkr's neck twice as hard. But as before nothing happened and Eitri took out Draupnir, Odin's ring, having duplicates falling from itself every ninth night.
Eitri then puts Iron in the forge and tells Brokkr to never stop blowing. Loki comes again and bites Brokkr on the eyelid much harder than before and the blood made him stop blowing for a short while. When Eitri came and took out Mjolnir, the handle was a bit short (making it one handed). Yet Eitri and Brokkr won the bet which was Loki's head, but the bet could not be honoured since they needed to cut the neck as well, which was not part of the deal. So Brokkr sewed Loki's mouth to teach him a lesson.
[edit] Poetic Edda
Thor possessed a formidable chariot, which is drawn by two goats. A belt and iron gloves were used to lift Mjolnir. Mjolnir is the focal point of many of Thor's adventures.
This is clearly illustrated in a poem found in the Poetic Edda titled Þrymskviða. The myth relates that the giant, Þrymr, steals Mjolnir from Thor and then demands fair goddess Freyja in exchange. Loki, the god notorious for his duplicity, conspires with the other Æsir to recover Mjolnir by disguising Thor as Freyja and presenting him as the "goddess" to Þrymr.
At a banquet Þrymr holds in honor of the impending union, the dim-witted Þrymr takes the bait. Unable to contain his passion for his new maiden with long, blond locks (and broad shoulders), as Þrymr approaches the bride by placing Mjolnir on "her" lap, Thor rips off his disguise and destroys Þrymr and his giant cohorts.
[edit] Emblemic usage
An illustration of a Mjolnir pendant found in Rømersdal on the island of Bornholm, Denmark, now housed at the National Museum of Denmark.Myths, artifacts, and institutions revolving around Thor indicate his prominent place in the mind of medieval Scandinavians. His following ranged in influence, but the Viking warrior aristocracy were particularly inspired by Thor's ferocity in battle. In the medieval legal arena, according to Joseph Campbell, "(a)t the Icelandic Things (court assemblies) the god invoked in the testimony of oaths, as 'the Almighty God,' was Thor."
Emblematic of their devotion were the appearance of miniature replicas of Mjolnir, widely popular in Scandinavia.
Many of these replicas were also found in graves and tended to be furnished with a loop, allowing them to be worn. Mjolnir amulets were most widely discovered in areas with a strong Christian influence including southern Norway, south-eastern Sweden, and Denmark.[4] Due to the similarity of equal-armed, square crosses featuring figures of Christ on them at around the same time, the wearing of Thor's hammers as pendants may have come into fashion in defiance of the square amulets worn by newly converted Christians in the regions.[5]
The shape taken by these pendants varied by region. The Icelandic variant was cross-shaped, while Swedish and Norwegian variants tended to be arrow or T-shaped. About 50 specimens of such hammers were found widely dispersed throughout Scandinavia, dating from the 9th to 11th centuries. A few such examples were also found in England. An iron Thor's hammer pendant excavated in Yorkshire, dating to ca. AD 1000 bears an unical inscription preceded and followed by a cross, interpreted as indicating a Christian owner syncretizing pagan and Christian symbolism.[6] A 10th century soapstone mold found at Trendgården, Jutland, Denmark is notable for allowing the casting of both crucifix and Thor's hammer pendants.[7] A silver specimen found near Fossi, Iceland (now in the National Museum of Iceland) can be interpreted as either a Christian cross or a Thor's hammer. Unusually, the elongated limb of the cross ends in a beast's (perhaps a wolf's) head.
According to some scholars, the swastika shape may have been a variant popular in Anglo-Saxon England prior to Christianization, especially in East Anglia and Kent.[8] Wilson (1894) points out that while the swastika had been "vulgarly called in Scandinavia the hammer of Thor", the symbol properly so called had a Y or T shape.[9]
Stones found in Denmark and southern Sweden bear an inscription of a hammer. Sometimes accompanying the carved hammer was an inscription calling for Thor to safeguard the stone. For example, the stone of Virring in Denmark had the inscription, "þur uiki þisi kuml" which translates into English as "May Thor Hallow this memorial." There are several examples of a similar inscription, each one asking for Thor to "Hallow" or protect the specific artifact. Such inscriptions may have been in response to the Christians, who would ask for God's protection over their dead.[10]
A precedent of these Viking Age Thor's hammer amulets are recorded for the migration period Alemanni, who took to wearing Roman "Hercules' Clubs" as symbols of Donar.[11] A possible remnant of these Donar amulets Alpine paganism was recorded in 1897, as a custom of Unterinn (South Tyrolian Alps) of incising a T-shape above front doors for protection against evils of all kinds, especially storms. [12]
[edit] Modern usage
The coat of arms of the Torsås Municipality, Sweden features a depiction of Mjolnir.Many practitioners of Germanic Neopagan faiths wear Mjolnir pendants as a symbol of that faith worldwide. Renditions of Mjolnir are designed, crafted and sold by some Germanic Neopagan groups and individuals.[13] Some controversy has occurred concerning the potential recognition of the symbol as a religious symbol by the United States government.[14]
Outside of Germanic Neopaganism, depictions of Mjolnir are used in Scandinavian logos and iconography, such as the Mjolnir logo of the Bornholm Museum in Denmark and the coat of arms for Torsås Municipality, Sweden. Mjolnir pendants are popular in general in Scandinavia and can be seen elsewhere in heavy metal (especially Black metal, Viking metal, Death metal) and "Dark" subcultures, and, to a lesser extent, among Rockers and biker subcultures. They are likewise see use as a "Germanic" symbol in Neo-Nazi and "neo-völkisch" subcultures. The name is also used in the game series; Halo. It is the name of the armor for the main character.
[edit] See also
Battle Axe culture
Bracteate
Donar's oak
Hercules' Club (amulet)
Irminsul
Labrys
Vajra
[edit] Footnotes
^ a b Orchard (2002:255).
^ Turville-Petre, E.O.G. Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964. p81
^ Snorri's Edda, Skaldskaparmal. 41.
^ Turville-Petre, E.O.G. Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964. p83
^ Ellis Davidson, H.R. Gods And Myths Of Northern Europe, page 81, (1965) ISBN 0140136274
^ Schoyen Collection, MS 1708[1][2]
^ interpreted as the property of a craftsman "hedging his bets" by catering to both a Christian and a pagan clientele[3][4]
^ Henry Mayr-Harting, The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England (1991), p. 3: "Many cremation pots of the early Anglo-Saxons have the swastika sign marked on them, and in some the swastikas seems to be confronted with serpents or dragons in a decorative design. This is a clear reference to the greatest of all Thor's struggles, that with the World Serpent which lay coiled round the earth." Christopher R. Fee , David Adams Leeming, Gods, Heroes, and Kings: The Battle for Mythic Britain (2001), p. 31: "The image of Thor's weapon spinning end-over-end through the heavens is captured in art as a swastika symbol (common in Indo-European art, and indeed beyond); this symbol is—as one might expect—widespread in Scandinavia, but it also is common on Anglo-Saxon grave goods of the pagan period, notably in East Anglia and Kent."
^ Thomas Wilson (1894)[5], citing Waring, "Ceramic Art in Remote Ages,", p. 12.
^ Turville-Petre, E.O.G. Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964. p82-83
^ Werner: Herkuleskeule und Donar-Amulett. in: Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz Nr. 11, Mainz 1966
^ Joh. Adolf Heyl, Volkssagen, Bräuche und Meinungen aus Tirol (Brixen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Kath.-polit. Pressvereins, 1897), p. 804.
^ Examples include "Wodanesdag" in Canada and "Hammers By Weylandsdöttir" in the United States.
^ Hudson Jr., David L.Va. inmate can challenge denial of Thor's Hammer June 6, 2007 at the firstamendmentcenter.org website.
[edit] References
Baker, Alan. The Viking. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
Bulfinch's Mythology. New York: Avenel, 1978.
Campbell, Joseph. The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology. New York: Penguin, 1964.
Davis, Kenneth. Don't Know Much About Mythology. New York: Harper Collins, 2005.
DuBois, Thomas A. Nordic Religions in the Viking Age. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.
Hamilton, Edith. Mythology. Boston: Little Brown & Company, 1942.
Munch, Peter Andreus. Norse Mythology: Legends of Gods and Heroes. trans. Sigurd Bernhard Hustvedt. New York: AMS Press, 1970.
Orchard, Andy (2002). Norse Myth and Legend. London: Cassell.
Turville-Petre, E.O.G. Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964.
Loote Motz, The Germanic Thunderweapon, Viking Society Saga Book Vol 24 part 5 (1997).
Loote Motz, "The Hammer and the Rod: A Discussion of þorr's Weapons", Germanic Studies in Honour of Anatoly Liberman, Odese (1997), 243-252.
Tora Wall, Torshammarhängen - en uppsats om tolkningen av vikingtida hammarhängen (Thor's hammer pendants - a paper about interpretations of Viking Age hammer pendants) Department of Archaeology, University of Gothenburg (1999).
Thorsten Capelle, 'Thorshammer' in: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, vol. 30 (2005), 487-490.
H. Beck, H. Jahnkuhn, 'Axtkult' in: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, vol. 1 (1973), 562-568.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Mjolnir (disambiguation).
Drawing of a 4.6 cm gold-plated silver Mjolnir pendant found at Bredsätra on Öland, Sweden. The original is housed at the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities. Heathenism portal
In Norse mythology, Mjolnir, Mjollnir, or Mjölner (usually pronounced /ˈmjɔlˌnɪɹ/ or /ˈmjɔlnɚ/ in English) is the hammer of Thor, the god of thunder.
Distinctively shaped, Mjolnir is depicted as one of the most fearsome weapons in Norse mythology in late Icelandic sources. There, it is used to slay any challengers. Though generally recognized and depicted as a hammer, Mjolnir is sometimes referred to as an axe or club.[1] Legends surrounding Mjolnir's origins vary: some relate that the Svartálfar Sindri and Brokkr made it at the command of Loki.
In the 13th century Prose Edda, Snorri Sturluson gives a summary of Mjolnir's special qualities in that, with Mjolnir, Thor:
... would be able to strike as firmly as he wanted, whatever his aim, and the hammer would never fail, and if he threw it at something, it would never miss and never fly so far from his hand that it would not find its way back, and when he wanted, it would be so small that it could be carried inside his tunic.[1]
Contents
[hide]
1 Etymology
2 Prose Edda
3 Poetic Edda
4 Emblemic usage
5 Modern usage
6 See also
7 Footnotes
8 References
9 External links
[edit] Etymology
Mjolnir simply means "crusher," referring to its pulverizing effect. It is related to words such as the Icelandic verbs mölva ("to crush") and mala ("to grind"), and Swedish noun mjöl ("flour"), all related to English meal, mill and miller. Similar words, all stemming from the Proto-Indo-European root melə, can be found in almost all European languages, e.g. the Slavic melvo ("grain to be ground") and molotu ("hammer"), the Russian Молоток (molotok - "hammer"), the Greek μύλος (mylos - "mill") and the Latin malleus ("hammer") as well as the Latin mola ("mill"). It has been suggested that although the name reflects Mjolnir's awesome powers it might also allude to Thor's agricultural nature, as he was primarily worshiped by farmers.
An alternative theory suggests that Mjolnir might be related to the Russian word молния (molniya) and the Welsh word mellt (both words being translated as "lightning"). This second theory parallels with the idea that Thor, being a god of thunder, therefore might have used lightning as his weapon.[2]
[edit] Prose Edda
The runestone at Stenkvista in Södermanland, Sweden, shows Thor's hammer instead of a cross.The most popular version of the creation of Mjolnir myth, found in the poem Skáldskaparmál from Snorri's Edda,[3] is as follows. In one story Loki sends up to the dwarves called the sons of Ivaldi (or Ovaldi's sons) that create precious items for the gods: Odin's spear Gungnir, and Frey's foldable boat Skíðblaðnir. Then Loki bets his head that Sindri (or Eitri) and his brother Brokkr would never succeed in making items more beautiful than those of Ivaldi's sons. The bet is accepted and the two brothers begin working. Thus Eitri puts a pig's skin in the forge and tells his brother (Brokkr) never to stop blowing until he comes and takes out what he put in.
A fly, actually Loki in disguise, comes and bites Brokkr on the arm but he continued to blow. Then Eitri takes out Gullinbursti which is Freyr's boar with shining bristles. Then Eitri puts some gold in the furnace and gives Brokkr the same order. Loki in the fly guise comes again and bites Brokkr's neck twice as hard. But as before nothing happened and Eitri took out Draupnir, Odin's ring, having duplicates falling from itself every ninth night.
Eitri then puts Iron in the forge and tells Brokkr to never stop blowing. Loki comes again and bites Brokkr on the eyelid much harder than before and the blood made him stop blowing for a short while. When Eitri came and took out Mjolnir, the handle was a bit short (making it one handed). Yet Eitri and Brokkr won the bet which was Loki's head, but the bet could not be honoured since they needed to cut the neck as well, which was not part of the deal. So Brokkr sewed Loki's mouth to teach him a lesson.
[edit] Poetic Edda
Thor possessed a formidable chariot, which is drawn by two goats. A belt and iron gloves were used to lift Mjolnir. Mjolnir is the focal point of many of Thor's adventures.
This is clearly illustrated in a poem found in the Poetic Edda titled Þrymskviða. The myth relates that the giant, Þrymr, steals Mjolnir from Thor and then demands fair goddess Freyja in exchange. Loki, the god notorious for his duplicity, conspires with the other Æsir to recover Mjolnir by disguising Thor as Freyja and presenting him as the "goddess" to Þrymr.
At a banquet Þrymr holds in honor of the impending union, the dim-witted Þrymr takes the bait. Unable to contain his passion for his new maiden with long, blond locks (and broad shoulders), as Þrymr approaches the bride by placing Mjolnir on "her" lap, Thor rips off his disguise and destroys Þrymr and his giant cohorts.
[edit] Emblemic usage
An illustration of a Mjolnir pendant found in Rømersdal on the island of Bornholm, Denmark, now housed at the National Museum of Denmark.Myths, artifacts, and institutions revolving around Thor indicate his prominent place in the mind of medieval Scandinavians. His following ranged in influence, but the Viking warrior aristocracy were particularly inspired by Thor's ferocity in battle. In the medieval legal arena, according to Joseph Campbell, "(a)t the Icelandic Things (court assemblies) the god invoked in the testimony of oaths, as 'the Almighty God,' was Thor."
Emblematic of their devotion were the appearance of miniature replicas of Mjolnir, widely popular in Scandinavia.
Many of these replicas were also found in graves and tended to be furnished with a loop, allowing them to be worn. Mjolnir amulets were most widely discovered in areas with a strong Christian influence including southern Norway, south-eastern Sweden, and Denmark.[4] Due to the similarity of equal-armed, square crosses featuring figures of Christ on them at around the same time, the wearing of Thor's hammers as pendants may have come into fashion in defiance of the square amulets worn by newly converted Christians in the regions.[5]
The shape taken by these pendants varied by region. The Icelandic variant was cross-shaped, while Swedish and Norwegian variants tended to be arrow or T-shaped. About 50 specimens of such hammers were found widely dispersed throughout Scandinavia, dating from the 9th to 11th centuries. A few such examples were also found in England. An iron Thor's hammer pendant excavated in Yorkshire, dating to ca. AD 1000 bears an unical inscription preceded and followed by a cross, interpreted as indicating a Christian owner syncretizing pagan and Christian symbolism.[6] A 10th century soapstone mold found at Trendgården, Jutland, Denmark is notable for allowing the casting of both crucifix and Thor's hammer pendants.[7] A silver specimen found near Fossi, Iceland (now in the National Museum of Iceland) can be interpreted as either a Christian cross or a Thor's hammer. Unusually, the elongated limb of the cross ends in a beast's (perhaps a wolf's) head.
According to some scholars, the swastika shape may have been a variant popular in Anglo-Saxon England prior to Christianization, especially in East Anglia and Kent.[8] Wilson (1894) points out that while the swastika had been "vulgarly called in Scandinavia the hammer of Thor", the symbol properly so called had a Y or T shape.[9]
Stones found in Denmark and southern Sweden bear an inscription of a hammer. Sometimes accompanying the carved hammer was an inscription calling for Thor to safeguard the stone. For example, the stone of Virring in Denmark had the inscription, "þur uiki þisi kuml" which translates into English as "May Thor Hallow this memorial." There are several examples of a similar inscription, each one asking for Thor to "Hallow" or protect the specific artifact. Such inscriptions may have been in response to the Christians, who would ask for God's protection over their dead.[10]
A precedent of these Viking Age Thor's hammer amulets are recorded for the migration period Alemanni, who took to wearing Roman "Hercules' Clubs" as symbols of Donar.[11] A possible remnant of these Donar amulets Alpine paganism was recorded in 1897, as a custom of Unterinn (South Tyrolian Alps) of incising a T-shape above front doors for protection against evils of all kinds, especially storms. [12]
[edit] Modern usage
The coat of arms of the Torsås Municipality, Sweden features a depiction of Mjolnir.Many practitioners of Germanic Neopagan faiths wear Mjolnir pendants as a symbol of that faith worldwide. Renditions of Mjolnir are designed, crafted and sold by some Germanic Neopagan groups and individuals.[13] Some controversy has occurred concerning the potential recognition of the symbol as a religious symbol by the United States government.[14]
Outside of Germanic Neopaganism, depictions of Mjolnir are used in Scandinavian logos and iconography, such as the Mjolnir logo of the Bornholm Museum in Denmark and the coat of arms for Torsås Municipality, Sweden. Mjolnir pendants are popular in general in Scandinavia and can be seen elsewhere in heavy metal (especially Black metal, Viking metal, Death metal) and "Dark" subcultures, and, to a lesser extent, among Rockers and biker subcultures. They are likewise see use as a "Germanic" symbol in Neo-Nazi and "neo-völkisch" subcultures. The name is also used in the game series; Halo. It is the name of the armor for the main character.
[edit] See also
Battle Axe culture
Bracteate
Donar's oak
Hercules' Club (amulet)
Irminsul
Labrys
Vajra
[edit] Footnotes
^ a b Orchard (2002:255).
^ Turville-Petre, E.O.G. Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964. p81
^ Snorri's Edda, Skaldskaparmal. 41.
^ Turville-Petre, E.O.G. Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964. p83
^ Ellis Davidson, H.R. Gods And Myths Of Northern Europe, page 81, (1965) ISBN 0140136274
^ Schoyen Collection, MS 1708[1][2]
^ interpreted as the property of a craftsman "hedging his bets" by catering to both a Christian and a pagan clientele[3][4]
^ Henry Mayr-Harting, The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England (1991), p. 3: "Many cremation pots of the early Anglo-Saxons have the swastika sign marked on them, and in some the swastikas seems to be confronted with serpents or dragons in a decorative design. This is a clear reference to the greatest of all Thor's struggles, that with the World Serpent which lay coiled round the earth." Christopher R. Fee , David Adams Leeming, Gods, Heroes, and Kings: The Battle for Mythic Britain (2001), p. 31: "The image of Thor's weapon spinning end-over-end through the heavens is captured in art as a swastika symbol (common in Indo-European art, and indeed beyond); this symbol is—as one might expect—widespread in Scandinavia, but it also is common on Anglo-Saxon grave goods of the pagan period, notably in East Anglia and Kent."
^ Thomas Wilson (1894)[5], citing Waring, "Ceramic Art in Remote Ages,", p. 12.
^ Turville-Petre, E.O.G. Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964. p82-83
^ Werner: Herkuleskeule und Donar-Amulett. in: Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz Nr. 11, Mainz 1966
^ Joh. Adolf Heyl, Volkssagen, Bräuche und Meinungen aus Tirol (Brixen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Kath.-polit. Pressvereins, 1897), p. 804.
^ Examples include "Wodanesdag" in Canada and "Hammers By Weylandsdöttir" in the United States.
^ Hudson Jr., David L.Va. inmate can challenge denial of Thor's Hammer June 6, 2007 at the firstamendmentcenter.org website.
[edit] References
Baker, Alan. The Viking. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
Bulfinch's Mythology. New York: Avenel, 1978.
Campbell, Joseph. The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology. New York: Penguin, 1964.
Davis, Kenneth. Don't Know Much About Mythology. New York: Harper Collins, 2005.
DuBois, Thomas A. Nordic Religions in the Viking Age. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.
Hamilton, Edith. Mythology. Boston: Little Brown & Company, 1942.
Munch, Peter Andreus. Norse Mythology: Legends of Gods and Heroes. trans. Sigurd Bernhard Hustvedt. New York: AMS Press, 1970.
Orchard, Andy (2002). Norse Myth and Legend. London: Cassell.
Turville-Petre, E.O.G. Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964.
Loote Motz, The Germanic Thunderweapon, Viking Society Saga Book Vol 24 part 5 (1997).
Loote Motz, "The Hammer and the Rod: A Discussion of þorr's Weapons", Germanic Studies in Honour of Anatoly Liberman, Odese (1997), 243-252.
Tora Wall, Torshammarhängen - en uppsats om tolkningen av vikingtida hammarhängen (Thor's hammer pendants - a paper about interpretations of Viking Age hammer pendants) Department of Archaeology, University of Gothenburg (1999).
Thorsten Capelle, 'Thorshammer' in: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, vol. 30 (2005), 487-490.
H. Beck, H. Jahnkuhn, 'Axtkult' in: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, vol. 1 (1973), 562-568.
Sephirot
Sephirot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes.
Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (July 2007)
“Sefirah” redirects here. For Sefirat Ha-Omer, see Counting of the Omer. For other uses, see Sephiroth (disambiguation).
The Sefirot in Jewish Kabbalah
Category:Sephiroth v • d • e
Sephirot [or "enumerations", Sephiroth, Sefiroth (סְפִירוֹת), singular: Sephirah, also Sefirah (סְפִירָה "enumeration" in Hebrew)], in the Kabbalah of Judaism, are the ten attributes that God (who is referred to as אור אין סוף Aur Ain Soph, "Limitless Light, Light Without End") created through which he can manifest not only in the physical but the metaphysical universe.
Contents
[hide]
1 Ten Sephirot
2 The pillars
3 Numerology
3.1 Rabbinic significance
4 In Hermetic Qabalah
5 Notes
6 References
7 External links
[edit] Ten Sephirot
Through a careful study of the Tanakh, Jewish sages[who?] identified ten Sephirot (ten being the number of divine perfection). At their fundamental level, the ten Sephirot are a step-by-step process illuminating the Divine plan as it unfolds itself in our world. They are known by the following names/characteristics from highest to lowest:[citation needed]
Keter - Crown - Divine Plan/ Creator/ infinite light/ Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh - I AM THAT I AM (Supreme/ Total Consciousness)
Chokmah - Divine Reality/ revelation/ Yesh me-ayin - being from nothingness (Power of Wisdom)
Binah - Understanding/ repentance/ reason (Power of Love)
Chesed - Mercy/ Grace/ Love of (intention to emulate) God (Power of Vision)
Gevurah - Judgment/ strength/ determination (Power of Intention)
Tipheret - Symmetry/ balance/ compassion (Creative Power)
Netzach - Contemplation/ Initiative/ persistence (Power of the Eternal Now)
Hod - Surrender/ sincerity/ steadfastness (Intellectual/ Observational Power)
Yesod - Foundation/ wholly remembering/ coherent knowledge (Power of Manifesting)
Malkuth - Lower Crown - Kingdom/ physical presence/ vision and illusion (Power of Healing/ Accomplishment/ Level of Realization of Divine Plan)
The Sephirot above are listed in order according to the version given to us by rabbi Moses ben Jacob Cordovero. However, Rabbi Isaac Luria listed the Sephirot somewhat differently by taking out Keter and adding in da'at:
Chokmah - Divine Reality/ revelation/ Yesh me-ayin - being from nothingness (Power of Wisdom)
Binah - Understanding/ repentance/ reason (Power of Love)
Da'at - Knowledge, the bridge between the intellect and emotion
Chesed - Mercy/ Grace/ Love of (intention to emulate) God (Power of Vision)
Gevurah - Judgment/ strength/ determination (Power of Intention)
Tipheret - Symmetry/ balance/ compassion (Creative Power)
Netzach - Contemplation/ Initiative/ persistence (Power of the Eternal Now)
Hod - Surrender/ sincerity/ steadfastness (Intellectual/Observational Power)
Yesod - Foundation/ wholly remembering/ coherent knowledge (Power of Manifesting)
Malkuth/ Lower Crown - Kingdom/ physical presence/ vision and illusion (Power of Healing/ Accomplishment/ Level of Realization of Divine Plan)
The Da'at is the mystical state of unity of the 10 Sephiroth, also called the Tree of Life. These ten levels are associated with Kabbalah's (Zohar) four different "worlds" or "planes" which serve as the guide for returning to the Creator.
Atziluth (אֲצִילוּת), or "World of Emanations", on this level of Creator, Reality/ the light of the Ain Sof radiates and is united with its source.
Beri'ah (בְּרִיאָה) or "World of Creation", on this conceptual level of creation ex nihilo without form, only the highest ranking Angels (purity of being) inhabit.
Yetzirah (יְצִירָה) or "World of Formation" on this level, creation (creativity) is related to form.
Asiyah' (עֲשִׂיָּה) or "World of Actions", on this level creation is relegated to the 'physical Asiyah' comprising our physical world with all its creatures.
Each of these worlds are progressively grosser and further removed from the Divine (Plan), however the ten Sephiroth manifest in all of them.
Whereas in the Zohar and elsewhere there are four worlds or universes (planes of existence), in the Lurianic system, Five Worlds, a fifth plane, Adam Kadmon-manifest Godhead level, mediates between the Ein Sof and the four lower worlds which can be understood as descriptive of dimensional levels of intentionality related to the man's natural "desire to receive" and a (secret Science of Kabbalah) method for the soul's progress upward toward unity with or return to the Creator.
[edit] The pillars
Part of a series on
Kabbalah
Subtopics
Sephirot · Qliphoth · Ein Sof · Tzimtzum · Tree of Life · Seder hishtalshelus · Jewish meditation · Kabbalistic astrology · Jewish views of astrology
People
Shimon bar Yochai · Moshe Cordovero · Isaac the Blind · Bahya ben Asher · Nahmanides · Azriel · Isaac Luria · Chaim Vital · Jacob Emden · Jonathan Eybeschutz · Chaim ibn Attar · Nathan Adler · Vilna Gaon · Shalom Sharabi · Chaim Joseph David Azulai · Shlomo Eliyashiv · Baba Sali · Ben Ish Chai
Texts
Zohar · Sefer Yetzirah · Bahir · Heichalot · Sefer Raziel HaMalakh
Categories
Kabbalah · Judaism · Jewish mysticism · Occult
This box: view • talk • edit
The Sephiroth are organised into 3 different columns or gimel kavim ("three lines" in Hebrew):
Central column:
Kether heads the central column of the tree, which is known metaphorically speaking as the "Pillar of Mildness" and is associated with Hebrew letter Aleph, "the breath", and the air element. It is a neutral one, a balance between the two opposing forces of male and female tendencies. Some teachings describe the Sephirot on the centre pillar as gender-neutral, while others say that the Sephirot vary in their sexual attributions.
Right column, in Hebrew kav yamin:
Chokhmah heads the right column of the tree, metaphorically speaking the "Pillar of Mercy", associated with the Hebrew letter Shin, the fire element, and the male aspect;
Left column, in Hebrew kav smol:
The left column is headed by Binah and is called the "Pillar of Severity." It is associated with Hebrew letter Mem, the water element and the female aspect.
While the pillars are each given a sexual attribution, this does not mean that every sephirah on a given pillar has the same sexual attribution as the pillar on which they sit. In Jewish Kabbalah, of all the Sephirot only Binah and Malkuth are considered female, while all the other Sephirot are male. Additionally (and this applies to both Jewish and Hermetic Kabbalah), each sephirah is seen as male in relation to the following sephirah in succession on the tree, and female in relation to the foregoing sephirah.
Alternative traditions consider the grammatical genders of the words involved. Thus, Gevurah is feminine because it has an atonal finial Heh. Thus, Severity or Justice becomes a feminine attribute while Chesed (Mercy or Lovingkindness) becomes a masculine one, despite the modern Western tendency to genderize these terms in reverse manner.
[edit] Numerology
In a numerological sense, the Tree of Sephiroth also has significance. Between the 10 Sephiroth run 22 channels or paths which connect them, a number which can be associated with the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In addition to each of these channels being assigned a letter of this alphabet, each path is also identified with one of the major arcana of the Tarot deck of symbolic cards. When combined with the 10 Sephiroth, these 22 paths make the number 32 which makes reference to the 32 Qabbalistic Paths of Wisdom and also the 32 degrees of Freemasonry.
To envision the tree, consider each of these ten spheres as being concentric circles with Malkuth being the innermost and all others encompassed by the latter. None of these are separate from the other, and all simply help to form a more complete view of the perfected whole. To speak simply, Malkuth is the Kingdom which is the physical world upon which we live and exist, while Kether, also call Kaether and Kaether Elyon is the Crown of this universe, representing the highest attainable understanding of God that men can understand.
Hypothetically there also exists an Eleventh Sephirah called Daath. Its meaning is the Abyss and its universal element is Neptune which makes it an important element of the Tree of Sephiroth. However, the first Qabbalists did not include any such sphere, making Daath a contested point of philosophical discussion. The Jewish Kabbalists that do accept this entity state that it is not a Sephirah, but rather the absence of one. In the Jewish tradition, the idea of an eleventh Sephirah is tantamount to blasphemy, as stated in the Sefer Yetzirah: "Ten Sephirot of Nothingness, ten and not nine, ten and not eleven.”
[edit] Rabbinic significance
As to the actual significance of the numbers 10 and 22 in context of Judaism goes into Kabbalistic interpretation of Genesis. God is said to have created the world through Ten Utterances, marked by the number of times Genesis states, “And God said.” Upon scrutiny, there are only nine, but the Kabbalists count the first verse: “In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.” (Genesis 1:1) This is because something was created, which parallels what happens every time “And God said” is stated. As for the 22 letter-paths, there must first be an explanation of the three different types of letters in Hebrew. See “Bahir Tree” of “Kircher Tree” image for reference.
There are three “Mothers” (Aleph, Mem, and Shin) that represent the horizontal lines.
Their difference from the other letters is a matter for another article.
There are seven “Doubles” (Bet, Gimel, Dalet, Kaf, Peh, Resh, and Tav), which have two pronunciations and represent the vertical lines.
Gimel, Dalet, Resh, and Tav’s second pronunciations are lost or disputed, with different dialects using different sounds. Tav has no second pronunciation in Sephardi, but Ashkenazi use a 's' sound when the dagesh is absent.
The twelve “Elementals” (Heh, Vav, Zayin, Chet, Tet, Yud, Lamed, Nun, Samech, Ayin, Tzaddi, and Qof) have one pronunciation, and represent the diagonal lines. Other sources say that they correspond to the twelve zodiacal constellations.
Each letter grouping has significance in Genesis 1:
The Mothers represent the three times Genesis states “God made."
The Doubles represent the seven times Genesis states “God saw."
The elementals (or singles) represent the rest of the times “God” (Elohim in every instance of Genesis Chapter 1) is mentioned.
[edit] In Hermetic Qabalah
Main article: Hermetic Qabalah
The French hermetic occultist author Eliphas Levi wrote extensively and popularized the relationship between the Tarot and the Tree of Life. According to Levi, the tarot cards originated from Gypsies who brought the tree of life out of Egypt in the form of tarot cards. The French occultist Papus, author of The Tarot of the Bohemians, was also a supporter of this theory.[1] This theory lacks credibility now since it is known that Gypsies actually came from India, not Egypt. The earliest known appearances of tarot cards came from the Dukes of Milan, not Gypsies, namely under the rule of Filippo Maria Visconti and Francesco I Sforza. According to Levi and others, the 22 paths of the tree of life are directly related to the 22 trump cards of the tarot deck. The Four Suits are related to the four elements. The Ten numbers are related to the 10 sephiroth.
The sephirotic tree is a representation of both the macrocosm - God - and the microcosm - Man.[citation needed] When depicting the latter it is shown as a human body, usually superimposed over the sephirotic tree and, as such, symbolizes the archetypal Man: Adam Kadmon. Each Sephirah corresponds with a body part or organ of this archetypal man.
[edit] Notes
^ Papus. The Tarot of the Bohemians
[edit] References
The Sefer Yetzirah the book of creation: In theory and practice, translated and explained by Aryeh Kaplan (1997). Samuel Weiser, Inc. (ISBN 0-87728-855-0)
The Bahir, translated by Aryeh Kaplan (1995). Aronson. (ISBN 1-56821-383-2)
Qabalistic Concepts: Living the Tree, William G Gray (1997). Samuel Weiser, Inc. (ISBN 1-57863-000-2)
The Mystical Qabalah, Dion Fortune (Originally published: London, Williams & Norgate 1935; Revised edition published in 2000 by Red Wheel/Weiser, LLC) (ISBN 1-57863-150-5)
On The Kabbalah and its Symbolism, Gershom Scholem (1996). Schocken. (ISBN 0-8052-1051-2)
The Secret Teaching of All Ages by Manly P. Hall (October 27, 2003). Tarcher. ISBN 1-58542-250-9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes.
Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (July 2007)
“Sefirah” redirects here. For Sefirat Ha-Omer, see Counting of the Omer. For other uses, see Sephiroth (disambiguation).
The Sefirot in Jewish Kabbalah
Category:Sephiroth v • d • e
Sephirot [or "enumerations", Sephiroth, Sefiroth (סְפִירוֹת), singular: Sephirah, also Sefirah (סְפִירָה "enumeration" in Hebrew)], in the Kabbalah of Judaism, are the ten attributes that God (who is referred to as אור אין סוף Aur Ain Soph, "Limitless Light, Light Without End") created through which he can manifest not only in the physical but the metaphysical universe.
Contents
[hide]
1 Ten Sephirot
2 The pillars
3 Numerology
3.1 Rabbinic significance
4 In Hermetic Qabalah
5 Notes
6 References
7 External links
[edit] Ten Sephirot
Through a careful study of the Tanakh, Jewish sages[who?] identified ten Sephirot (ten being the number of divine perfection). At their fundamental level, the ten Sephirot are a step-by-step process illuminating the Divine plan as it unfolds itself in our world. They are known by the following names/characteristics from highest to lowest:[citation needed]
Keter - Crown - Divine Plan/ Creator/ infinite light/ Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh - I AM THAT I AM (Supreme/ Total Consciousness)
Chokmah - Divine Reality/ revelation/ Yesh me-ayin - being from nothingness (Power of Wisdom)
Binah - Understanding/ repentance/ reason (Power of Love)
Chesed - Mercy/ Grace/ Love of (intention to emulate) God (Power of Vision)
Gevurah - Judgment/ strength/ determination (Power of Intention)
Tipheret - Symmetry/ balance/ compassion (Creative Power)
Netzach - Contemplation/ Initiative/ persistence (Power of the Eternal Now)
Hod - Surrender/ sincerity/ steadfastness (Intellectual/ Observational Power)
Yesod - Foundation/ wholly remembering/ coherent knowledge (Power of Manifesting)
Malkuth - Lower Crown - Kingdom/ physical presence/ vision and illusion (Power of Healing/ Accomplishment/ Level of Realization of Divine Plan)
The Sephirot above are listed in order according to the version given to us by rabbi Moses ben Jacob Cordovero. However, Rabbi Isaac Luria listed the Sephirot somewhat differently by taking out Keter and adding in da'at:
Chokmah - Divine Reality/ revelation/ Yesh me-ayin - being from nothingness (Power of Wisdom)
Binah - Understanding/ repentance/ reason (Power of Love)
Da'at - Knowledge, the bridge between the intellect and emotion
Chesed - Mercy/ Grace/ Love of (intention to emulate) God (Power of Vision)
Gevurah - Judgment/ strength/ determination (Power of Intention)
Tipheret - Symmetry/ balance/ compassion (Creative Power)
Netzach - Contemplation/ Initiative/ persistence (Power of the Eternal Now)
Hod - Surrender/ sincerity/ steadfastness (Intellectual/Observational Power)
Yesod - Foundation/ wholly remembering/ coherent knowledge (Power of Manifesting)
Malkuth/ Lower Crown - Kingdom/ physical presence/ vision and illusion (Power of Healing/ Accomplishment/ Level of Realization of Divine Plan)
The Da'at is the mystical state of unity of the 10 Sephiroth, also called the Tree of Life. These ten levels are associated with Kabbalah's (Zohar) four different "worlds" or "planes" which serve as the guide for returning to the Creator.
Atziluth (אֲצִילוּת), or "World of Emanations", on this level of Creator, Reality/ the light of the Ain Sof radiates and is united with its source.
Beri'ah (בְּרִיאָה) or "World of Creation", on this conceptual level of creation ex nihilo without form, only the highest ranking Angels (purity of being) inhabit.
Yetzirah (יְצִירָה) or "World of Formation" on this level, creation (creativity) is related to form.
Asiyah' (עֲשִׂיָּה) or "World of Actions", on this level creation is relegated to the 'physical Asiyah' comprising our physical world with all its creatures.
Each of these worlds are progressively grosser and further removed from the Divine (Plan), however the ten Sephiroth manifest in all of them.
Whereas in the Zohar and elsewhere there are four worlds or universes (planes of existence), in the Lurianic system, Five Worlds, a fifth plane, Adam Kadmon-manifest Godhead level, mediates between the Ein Sof and the four lower worlds which can be understood as descriptive of dimensional levels of intentionality related to the man's natural "desire to receive" and a (secret Science of Kabbalah) method for the soul's progress upward toward unity with or return to the Creator.
[edit] The pillars
Part of a series on
Kabbalah
Subtopics
Sephirot · Qliphoth · Ein Sof · Tzimtzum · Tree of Life · Seder hishtalshelus · Jewish meditation · Kabbalistic astrology · Jewish views of astrology
People
Shimon bar Yochai · Moshe Cordovero · Isaac the Blind · Bahya ben Asher · Nahmanides · Azriel · Isaac Luria · Chaim Vital · Jacob Emden · Jonathan Eybeschutz · Chaim ibn Attar · Nathan Adler · Vilna Gaon · Shalom Sharabi · Chaim Joseph David Azulai · Shlomo Eliyashiv · Baba Sali · Ben Ish Chai
Texts
Zohar · Sefer Yetzirah · Bahir · Heichalot · Sefer Raziel HaMalakh
Categories
Kabbalah · Judaism · Jewish mysticism · Occult
This box: view • talk • edit
The Sephiroth are organised into 3 different columns or gimel kavim ("three lines" in Hebrew):
Central column:
Kether heads the central column of the tree, which is known metaphorically speaking as the "Pillar of Mildness" and is associated with Hebrew letter Aleph, "the breath", and the air element. It is a neutral one, a balance between the two opposing forces of male and female tendencies. Some teachings describe the Sephirot on the centre pillar as gender-neutral, while others say that the Sephirot vary in their sexual attributions.
Right column, in Hebrew kav yamin:
Chokhmah heads the right column of the tree, metaphorically speaking the "Pillar of Mercy", associated with the Hebrew letter Shin, the fire element, and the male aspect;
Left column, in Hebrew kav smol:
The left column is headed by Binah and is called the "Pillar of Severity." It is associated with Hebrew letter Mem, the water element and the female aspect.
While the pillars are each given a sexual attribution, this does not mean that every sephirah on a given pillar has the same sexual attribution as the pillar on which they sit. In Jewish Kabbalah, of all the Sephirot only Binah and Malkuth are considered female, while all the other Sephirot are male. Additionally (and this applies to both Jewish and Hermetic Kabbalah), each sephirah is seen as male in relation to the following sephirah in succession on the tree, and female in relation to the foregoing sephirah.
Alternative traditions consider the grammatical genders of the words involved. Thus, Gevurah is feminine because it has an atonal finial Heh. Thus, Severity or Justice becomes a feminine attribute while Chesed (Mercy or Lovingkindness) becomes a masculine one, despite the modern Western tendency to genderize these terms in reverse manner.
[edit] Numerology
In a numerological sense, the Tree of Sephiroth also has significance. Between the 10 Sephiroth run 22 channels or paths which connect them, a number which can be associated with the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In addition to each of these channels being assigned a letter of this alphabet, each path is also identified with one of the major arcana of the Tarot deck of symbolic cards. When combined with the 10 Sephiroth, these 22 paths make the number 32 which makes reference to the 32 Qabbalistic Paths of Wisdom and also the 32 degrees of Freemasonry.
To envision the tree, consider each of these ten spheres as being concentric circles with Malkuth being the innermost and all others encompassed by the latter. None of these are separate from the other, and all simply help to form a more complete view of the perfected whole. To speak simply, Malkuth is the Kingdom which is the physical world upon which we live and exist, while Kether, also call Kaether and Kaether Elyon is the Crown of this universe, representing the highest attainable understanding of God that men can understand.
Hypothetically there also exists an Eleventh Sephirah called Daath. Its meaning is the Abyss and its universal element is Neptune which makes it an important element of the Tree of Sephiroth. However, the first Qabbalists did not include any such sphere, making Daath a contested point of philosophical discussion. The Jewish Kabbalists that do accept this entity state that it is not a Sephirah, but rather the absence of one. In the Jewish tradition, the idea of an eleventh Sephirah is tantamount to blasphemy, as stated in the Sefer Yetzirah: "Ten Sephirot of Nothingness, ten and not nine, ten and not eleven.”
[edit] Rabbinic significance
As to the actual significance of the numbers 10 and 22 in context of Judaism goes into Kabbalistic interpretation of Genesis. God is said to have created the world through Ten Utterances, marked by the number of times Genesis states, “And God said.” Upon scrutiny, there are only nine, but the Kabbalists count the first verse: “In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.” (Genesis 1:1) This is because something was created, which parallels what happens every time “And God said” is stated. As for the 22 letter-paths, there must first be an explanation of the three different types of letters in Hebrew. See “Bahir Tree” of “Kircher Tree” image for reference.
There are three “Mothers” (Aleph, Mem, and Shin) that represent the horizontal lines.
Their difference from the other letters is a matter for another article.
There are seven “Doubles” (Bet, Gimel, Dalet, Kaf, Peh, Resh, and Tav), which have two pronunciations and represent the vertical lines.
Gimel, Dalet, Resh, and Tav’s second pronunciations are lost or disputed, with different dialects using different sounds. Tav has no second pronunciation in Sephardi, but Ashkenazi use a 's' sound when the dagesh is absent.
The twelve “Elementals” (Heh, Vav, Zayin, Chet, Tet, Yud, Lamed, Nun, Samech, Ayin, Tzaddi, and Qof) have one pronunciation, and represent the diagonal lines. Other sources say that they correspond to the twelve zodiacal constellations.
Each letter grouping has significance in Genesis 1:
The Mothers represent the three times Genesis states “God made."
The Doubles represent the seven times Genesis states “God saw."
The elementals (or singles) represent the rest of the times “God” (Elohim in every instance of Genesis Chapter 1) is mentioned.
[edit] In Hermetic Qabalah
Main article: Hermetic Qabalah
The French hermetic occultist author Eliphas Levi wrote extensively and popularized the relationship between the Tarot and the Tree of Life. According to Levi, the tarot cards originated from Gypsies who brought the tree of life out of Egypt in the form of tarot cards. The French occultist Papus, author of The Tarot of the Bohemians, was also a supporter of this theory.[1] This theory lacks credibility now since it is known that Gypsies actually came from India, not Egypt. The earliest known appearances of tarot cards came from the Dukes of Milan, not Gypsies, namely under the rule of Filippo Maria Visconti and Francesco I Sforza. According to Levi and others, the 22 paths of the tree of life are directly related to the 22 trump cards of the tarot deck. The Four Suits are related to the four elements. The Ten numbers are related to the 10 sephiroth.
The sephirotic tree is a representation of both the macrocosm - God - and the microcosm - Man.[citation needed] When depicting the latter it is shown as a human body, usually superimposed over the sephirotic tree and, as such, symbolizes the archetypal Man: Adam Kadmon. Each Sephirah corresponds with a body part or organ of this archetypal man.
[edit] Notes
^ Papus. The Tarot of the Bohemians
[edit] References
The Sefer Yetzirah the book of creation: In theory and practice, translated and explained by Aryeh Kaplan (1997). Samuel Weiser, Inc. (ISBN 0-87728-855-0)
The Bahir, translated by Aryeh Kaplan (1995). Aronson. (ISBN 1-56821-383-2)
Qabalistic Concepts: Living the Tree, William G Gray (1997). Samuel Weiser, Inc. (ISBN 1-57863-000-2)
The Mystical Qabalah, Dion Fortune (Originally published: London, Williams & Norgate 1935; Revised edition published in 2000 by Red Wheel/Weiser, LLC) (ISBN 1-57863-150-5)
On The Kabbalah and its Symbolism, Gershom Scholem (1996). Schocken. (ISBN 0-8052-1051-2)
The Secret Teaching of All Ages by Manly P. Hall (October 27, 2003). Tarcher. ISBN 1-58542-250-9
Tree of Life (Judeo-Christian)
Tree of Life (Judeo-Christian)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
See also Tree of life for other cultural interpretations of the term, and
Tree of life (disambiguation) for other meanings of the term.
"The Fall of Man" by Lucas Cranach, a 16th century German depiction of Eden, with the Tree of Life (left) and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.The Tree of Life (Heb. עץ החיים Etz haChayim), in the Book of Genesis is a tree planted by God in midst of the Garden of Eden (Paradise), whose fruit gives everlasting life, i.e. immortality. Together with the Tree of Life, God planted the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:9). After eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the biblical account states that Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden of Eden to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life:
“ And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Genesis 3:22) ”
By questioning God's word and authority, the serpent (Satan) initially tempted Eve into eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, an act explicitly forbidden by God. The serpent deceived Eve by suggesting that eating the fruit would cause her to become as wise as God, having knowledge of good and evil. Eve ate the fruit, in rebellion against God's command and later so did her husband, Adam, despite God's warning that "in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:17). As a consequence of their sin (rebellious act), Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden and denied access to the Tree of Life. Separated from the Tree of Life, Adam and Eve became mortal and died, as God had said. The Genesis narrative of the banishment from the Garden of Eden is balanced in the New Testament by the planting of the Tree of Life on mankind's side of the divide.
In the Book of Revelation, a Koine Greek phrase xylon zoës (ξύλον ζωής) is mentioned 3 times. This phrase, which literally means "wood of life" is translated in nearly every English bible version as "tree of life", see Revelation 2:7, 22:2, and 22:19.
The Tree of Life is represented in several examples of sacred geometry, and is central in particular to Kabbalah (the mystic study of the Torah) where it is represented as diagram of ten points . It is also a recurrent theme in many other religions.
Contents
[hide]
1 Analysis
2 Eastern Christianity
3 Western Christianity
4 Latter Day Saints
5 References
6 See also
7 External links
7.1 Jewish and Non-Jewish views
[edit] Analysis
The Tree of Life as represented in Kabbalah, containing the Sephiroth.Serpents, trees and fruit are important symbols in the religion of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. These symbols are also found in the Norse saga of the ash tree Yggdrasil, where the tree provides a magical springwater of knowledge. In opposition to the serpent (immortality), is the eagle and hawk. There is a similar mythology in China, where a carving of a Tree of Life depicts a bird and a dragon - in Chinese mythology, the dragon often represents immortality. James Frazer in his book The Golden Bough (1890) attempts to give a coherent unified account of a number of religious myths and symbols, whilst Ioan P. Couliano provides an analysis of the symbolism in The Tree of Gnosis (1991), and there are a multiplicity of interpretations existing concerning the Kabbalah Tree of Life (Sephiroth).
It should be noted that the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge are not the same (Genesis 2.9), and that prohibition of eating the fruit only concerns the latter (Gen. 2.17). That Adam or Eve could eat of the Tree of Life only becomes a concern to God after they have consumed fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (Gen. 3.22). Although with some variation, orthodox Judaism and Christianity have interpreted the Genesis 3 account, in its most basic form, as follows:
Genesis 2 ends with the creation of Adam and Eve and their blissful state of innocence (they are one flesh, v. 24; and not ashamed of their nakedness, v. 25).
Gen. 3.1 introduces the "crafty" serpent who speaks to Eve and creates doubt by questioning God's interdiction from eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The serpent states that its fruit would impart divine wisdom rather than death, specifically, that she would be like God (Gen. 3.5).
Adam and Eve are both deceived and after eating the fruit their eyes are opened and their first reaction is shame (they proceed to cover their nakedness, v. 7), then fear (they flee God's presence, v. 8).
God converses with Adam and curses him (work), Eve (childbirth-pain) and the serpent (removing it's legs) for their transgressions (Gen. 3.9-21). Only in Gen. 3.22 does God express concern about the Tree of Life and banishes Adam and Eve from Eden.
Many midrashim and other rabbinic commentaries have attempted to explicate and clarify the rather enigmatic creation account. Gnostic thought marks an important departure from this interpretation and often is its complete inversion. It views the serpent in a positive light, attributing to him benevolence toward humanity and portraying the God of creation (Elohim, later referred to as YHWH-Elohim) as evil, deceitful and selfish. YHWH in particular is portrayed as evil and considered a demiurge). In the Modern Era, Gnostic interpretations have made headway largely due to an increased interest in mysticism, esotericism and the gradual rejection of orthodox authority. John Milton offers the most ambiguous Eve, as she embodies both the rebel flair of Satan, whom the historical Milton is identifiable with, and also the loyalty owed to God. For Byron, she was a hero.
[edit] Eastern Christianity
Gilded Royal Doors carved to represent the Tree of Life (Old wooden church in Chotyniec, Poland).The Eastern Orthodox Church has traditionally understood the Tree of Life in Genesis as a prefiguration of the Cross, which humanity could not partake of until after the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus.[1]
One of the hymns chanted during the Forefeast of the Nativity of Christ says:
Make ready, O Bethlehem, for Eden hath been opened for all. Prepare, O Ephratha, for the Tree of Life hath blossomed forth in the cave from the Virgin; for her womb did appear as a spiritual paradise in which is planted the divine Plant, whereof eating we shall live and not die as did Adam. Christ shall be born, raising the image that fell of old.
The cross of Christ is also referred to as the Tree of Life, and in the service books, Jesus is sometimes likened to a "Divine Cluster" of grapes hanging on the "Tree of the Cross" from which all partake in Holy Communion.
This theme is also found in Western Christianity. By way of an archetypal example consider Bonaventure's "biography" of the Second Person of the Trinity entitled, "The Tree of Life." [see Cousins, The Classics of Western Spirituality Series]
[edit] Western Christianity
Until the Enlightenment, the Christian church generally gave biblical narratives of early Genesis the weight of historical narratives. In the City of God (xiii.20-21), Augustine of Hippo offers great allowance for "spiritual" interpretations of the events in the garden, so long as such allegories do not rob the narrative of its historical reality. However, the allegorical meanings of the early and medieval church were of a different kind than those posed by Kant and the Enlightenment. Precritical theologians allegorized the genesis events in the service of pastoral devotion. Enlightenment theologians (culminating perhaps in Brunner and Niebuhr in the twentieth century) sought for figurative interpretations because they had already dismissed the historical possibility of the story.
Others sought very pragmatic understandings of the tree. In the Summa Theologica (Q97), Thomas Aquinas argued that the tree served to maintain Adam's biological processes for an extended earthly animal life. It did not provide immortality as such, for the tree, being finite, could not grant infinite life. Hence after a period of time, the man and woman would need to eat again from the tree or else be "transported to the spiritual life." The common fruit trees of the garden were given to offset the effects of "loss of moisture" (note the doctrine of the humors at work), while the tree of life was intended to offset the inefficiencies of the body. Following Augustine in the City of God (xiv.26), “man was furnished with food against hunger, with drink against thirst, and with the tree of life against the ravages of old age.”
John Calvin (Commentary on Genesis 2:8), following a different thread in Augustine (City of God, xiii.20), understood the tree in sacramental language. Given that humanity cannot exist except within a covenantal relationship with God, and all covenants use symbols to give us "the attestation of his grace", he gives the tree, "not because it could confer on man that life with which he had been previously endued, but in order that it might be a symbol and memorial of the life which he had received from God." God often uses symbols - He doesn’t transfer his power into these outward signs, but "by them He stretches out His hand to us, because, without assistance, we cannot ascend to Him." Thus he intends man, as often as he eats the fruit, to remember the source of his life, and acknowledge that he lives not by his own power, but by God’s kindness. Calvin denies (contra Aquinas and without mentioning his name) that the tree served as a biological defense again physical aging. This is the standing interpretation in modern Reformed theology as well.
[edit] Latter Day Saints
The Tree of Life from the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah).The tree of life appears in the Book of Mormon in a revelation to Lehi (see 1 Nephi 8:10-12). It is symbolic of the love of God (see 1 Nephi 11:21-23) and sometimes understood as salvation and post-mortal existence.
[edit] References
^ Roman, Dr. Alexander, Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden, Ukrainian Orthodoxy,
[edit] See also
Adam and Eve
al-Qurnah
Garden of Eden
Genesis
Tree of life
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
Tree of Life (Kabbalah)
Sephirot
Sidrat al-Muntaha
Trees in mythology
The Fountain
World tree
Tree of Jesse
Yggdrasil
[edit] External links
Entheomedia.org
Chrismons and fleur de lis
Ancient Egypt, the tree of life
[edit] Jewish and Non-Jewish views
Colin Low's Notes on Kabbalah - The Tree of Life
Basic Hermetic Qabalah (byzant.com)
Tree of life symbolism according to Archeosophy
Donmeh West
Kheper's Kabbalah Page
Work of the Chariot
Geocities Page
The Isometric Sephiroth: The Forgotten Correspondences
Etz Hhaim: The Tree of Life: The Original Tree of the Sepher Yetsira
Velázquez - La Kabala y Las Meninas
Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden Eastern Orthodox view
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
See also Tree of life for other cultural interpretations of the term, and
Tree of life (disambiguation) for other meanings of the term.
"The Fall of Man" by Lucas Cranach, a 16th century German depiction of Eden, with the Tree of Life (left) and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.The Tree of Life (Heb. עץ החיים Etz haChayim), in the Book of Genesis is a tree planted by God in midst of the Garden of Eden (Paradise), whose fruit gives everlasting life, i.e. immortality. Together with the Tree of Life, God planted the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:9). After eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the biblical account states that Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden of Eden to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life:
“ And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Genesis 3:22) ”
By questioning God's word and authority, the serpent (Satan) initially tempted Eve into eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, an act explicitly forbidden by God. The serpent deceived Eve by suggesting that eating the fruit would cause her to become as wise as God, having knowledge of good and evil. Eve ate the fruit, in rebellion against God's command and later so did her husband, Adam, despite God's warning that "in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:17). As a consequence of their sin (rebellious act), Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden and denied access to the Tree of Life. Separated from the Tree of Life, Adam and Eve became mortal and died, as God had said. The Genesis narrative of the banishment from the Garden of Eden is balanced in the New Testament by the planting of the Tree of Life on mankind's side of the divide.
In the Book of Revelation, a Koine Greek phrase xylon zoës (ξύλον ζωής) is mentioned 3 times. This phrase, which literally means "wood of life" is translated in nearly every English bible version as "tree of life", see Revelation 2:7, 22:2, and 22:19.
The Tree of Life is represented in several examples of sacred geometry, and is central in particular to Kabbalah (the mystic study of the Torah) where it is represented as diagram of ten points . It is also a recurrent theme in many other religions.
Contents
[hide]
1 Analysis
2 Eastern Christianity
3 Western Christianity
4 Latter Day Saints
5 References
6 See also
7 External links
7.1 Jewish and Non-Jewish views
[edit] Analysis
The Tree of Life as represented in Kabbalah, containing the Sephiroth.Serpents, trees and fruit are important symbols in the religion of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. These symbols are also found in the Norse saga of the ash tree Yggdrasil, where the tree provides a magical springwater of knowledge. In opposition to the serpent (immortality), is the eagle and hawk. There is a similar mythology in China, where a carving of a Tree of Life depicts a bird and a dragon - in Chinese mythology, the dragon often represents immortality. James Frazer in his book The Golden Bough (1890) attempts to give a coherent unified account of a number of religious myths and symbols, whilst Ioan P. Couliano provides an analysis of the symbolism in The Tree of Gnosis (1991), and there are a multiplicity of interpretations existing concerning the Kabbalah Tree of Life (Sephiroth).
It should be noted that the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge are not the same (Genesis 2.9), and that prohibition of eating the fruit only concerns the latter (Gen. 2.17). That Adam or Eve could eat of the Tree of Life only becomes a concern to God after they have consumed fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (Gen. 3.22). Although with some variation, orthodox Judaism and Christianity have interpreted the Genesis 3 account, in its most basic form, as follows:
Genesis 2 ends with the creation of Adam and Eve and their blissful state of innocence (they are one flesh, v. 24; and not ashamed of their nakedness, v. 25).
Gen. 3.1 introduces the "crafty" serpent who speaks to Eve and creates doubt by questioning God's interdiction from eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The serpent states that its fruit would impart divine wisdom rather than death, specifically, that she would be like God (Gen. 3.5).
Adam and Eve are both deceived and after eating the fruit their eyes are opened and their first reaction is shame (they proceed to cover their nakedness, v. 7), then fear (they flee God's presence, v. 8).
God converses with Adam and curses him (work), Eve (childbirth-pain) and the serpent (removing it's legs) for their transgressions (Gen. 3.9-21). Only in Gen. 3.22 does God express concern about the Tree of Life and banishes Adam and Eve from Eden.
Many midrashim and other rabbinic commentaries have attempted to explicate and clarify the rather enigmatic creation account. Gnostic thought marks an important departure from this interpretation and often is its complete inversion. It views the serpent in a positive light, attributing to him benevolence toward humanity and portraying the God of creation (Elohim, later referred to as YHWH-Elohim) as evil, deceitful and selfish. YHWH in particular is portrayed as evil and considered a demiurge). In the Modern Era, Gnostic interpretations have made headway largely due to an increased interest in mysticism, esotericism and the gradual rejection of orthodox authority. John Milton offers the most ambiguous Eve, as she embodies both the rebel flair of Satan, whom the historical Milton is identifiable with, and also the loyalty owed to God. For Byron, she was a hero.
[edit] Eastern Christianity
Gilded Royal Doors carved to represent the Tree of Life (Old wooden church in Chotyniec, Poland).The Eastern Orthodox Church has traditionally understood the Tree of Life in Genesis as a prefiguration of the Cross, which humanity could not partake of until after the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus.[1]
One of the hymns chanted during the Forefeast of the Nativity of Christ says:
Make ready, O Bethlehem, for Eden hath been opened for all. Prepare, O Ephratha, for the Tree of Life hath blossomed forth in the cave from the Virgin; for her womb did appear as a spiritual paradise in which is planted the divine Plant, whereof eating we shall live and not die as did Adam. Christ shall be born, raising the image that fell of old.
The cross of Christ is also referred to as the Tree of Life, and in the service books, Jesus is sometimes likened to a "Divine Cluster" of grapes hanging on the "Tree of the Cross" from which all partake in Holy Communion.
This theme is also found in Western Christianity. By way of an archetypal example consider Bonaventure's "biography" of the Second Person of the Trinity entitled, "The Tree of Life." [see Cousins, The Classics of Western Spirituality Series]
[edit] Western Christianity
Until the Enlightenment, the Christian church generally gave biblical narratives of early Genesis the weight of historical narratives. In the City of God (xiii.20-21), Augustine of Hippo offers great allowance for "spiritual" interpretations of the events in the garden, so long as such allegories do not rob the narrative of its historical reality. However, the allegorical meanings of the early and medieval church were of a different kind than those posed by Kant and the Enlightenment. Precritical theologians allegorized the genesis events in the service of pastoral devotion. Enlightenment theologians (culminating perhaps in Brunner and Niebuhr in the twentieth century) sought for figurative interpretations because they had already dismissed the historical possibility of the story.
Others sought very pragmatic understandings of the tree. In the Summa Theologica (Q97), Thomas Aquinas argued that the tree served to maintain Adam's biological processes for an extended earthly animal life. It did not provide immortality as such, for the tree, being finite, could not grant infinite life. Hence after a period of time, the man and woman would need to eat again from the tree or else be "transported to the spiritual life." The common fruit trees of the garden were given to offset the effects of "loss of moisture" (note the doctrine of the humors at work), while the tree of life was intended to offset the inefficiencies of the body. Following Augustine in the City of God (xiv.26), “man was furnished with food against hunger, with drink against thirst, and with the tree of life against the ravages of old age.”
John Calvin (Commentary on Genesis 2:8), following a different thread in Augustine (City of God, xiii.20), understood the tree in sacramental language. Given that humanity cannot exist except within a covenantal relationship with God, and all covenants use symbols to give us "the attestation of his grace", he gives the tree, "not because it could confer on man that life with which he had been previously endued, but in order that it might be a symbol and memorial of the life which he had received from God." God often uses symbols - He doesn’t transfer his power into these outward signs, but "by them He stretches out His hand to us, because, without assistance, we cannot ascend to Him." Thus he intends man, as often as he eats the fruit, to remember the source of his life, and acknowledge that he lives not by his own power, but by God’s kindness. Calvin denies (contra Aquinas and without mentioning his name) that the tree served as a biological defense again physical aging. This is the standing interpretation in modern Reformed theology as well.
[edit] Latter Day Saints
The Tree of Life from the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah).The tree of life appears in the Book of Mormon in a revelation to Lehi (see 1 Nephi 8:10-12). It is symbolic of the love of God (see 1 Nephi 11:21-23) and sometimes understood as salvation and post-mortal existence.
[edit] References
^ Roman, Dr. Alexander, Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden, Ukrainian Orthodoxy,
[edit] See also
Adam and Eve
al-Qurnah
Garden of Eden
Genesis
Tree of life
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
Tree of Life (Kabbalah)
Sephirot
Sidrat al-Muntaha
Trees in mythology
The Fountain
World tree
Tree of Jesse
Yggdrasil
[edit] External links
Entheomedia.org
Chrismons and fleur de lis
Ancient Egypt, the tree of life
[edit] Jewish and Non-Jewish views
Colin Low's Notes on Kabbalah - The Tree of Life
Basic Hermetic Qabalah (byzant.com)
Tree of life symbolism according to Archeosophy
Donmeh West
Kheper's Kabbalah Page
Work of the Chariot
Geocities Page
The Isometric Sephiroth: The Forgotten Correspondences
Etz Hhaim: The Tree of Life: The Original Tree of the Sepher Yetsira
Velázquez - La Kabala y Las Meninas
Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden Eastern Orthodox view
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Tree of Knowledge, painting by Lucas Cranach the ElderIn the Book of Genesis, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (and occasionally translated as the Tree of Conscience, Hebrew: עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע, Etz haDaat tov V'ra) was a tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:9) from which God directly forbade Adam (Eve having not yet been created) to eat (Genesis 2:17). A serpent later tempted Eve, who was aware of the prohibition, to eat the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (Genesis 3:1-6). Adam also ate, and they became aware of their nakedness (Genesis 3:6-7). After this, in order to deny them access to the Tree of Life (and, hence, immortality), they were banished from the garden and forced to survive through agriculture "by the sweat of [their] brow" (Genesis 3:19-24).
Contents
[hide]
1 Interpretations of the tree itself
1.1 Translation Issues
1.2 In Judaism
1.3 In Christianity
1.4 Trees in other religions
1.5 Freudian (psychological) interpretation
2 Fruit of the tree
3 See also
4 Notes
[edit] Interpretations of the tree itself
[edit] Translation Issues
Gordon and Rendsburg[1] have suggested that the phrase טוֹב וָרָע, translated good and evil, is a merism. This is a figure of speech whereby a pair of opposites are used together to create the meaning all or everything, as in the English phrase, "they came, great and small", meaning just that they all came. So the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they take to mean the Tree of All Knowledge. This meaning can be brought out by the alternative translations Tree of Knowledge of Good and of Evil (the word of not being expressed in the Hebrew) or Tree of Knowledge, both Good and Evil. The phrase occurs twice as applied to the tree, Genesis 2:9, Genesis 2:17. It also occurs twice as describing the knowledge gained Genesis 3:5 and Genesis 3:22 where it may be translated perhaps with knowledge, both good and evil.
God the Father forbids Eve to pick the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
marble bas-relief by Lorenzo Maitani on the Orvieto Cathedral, Italy
[edit] In Judaism
According to the Jewish tradition God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree that was to give free choice and allow them to earn, as opposed to receive, absolute perfection and intimate communion with God at a higher level than the one on which they were created. According to this tradition, Adam and Eve would have attained absolute perfection and retained immortality had they succeeded in withstanding the temptation to eat from the Tree. After failing at this task, they were condemned to a period of toil to rectify the fallen universe. Jewish tradition views the serpent, and sometimes the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil itself, as representatives of evil and man's evil inclination.
Judaism generally recognizes no "evil" other than the evil actions of human beings. Eve's only transgression was that she disobeyed God's order. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden and had to live ordinary, human lives.
Rabbi David Fohrman of the Hoffberger Foundation for Torah Studies, citing Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed, states that "the tree did not give us moral awareness when we had none before. Rather, it transformed this awareness from one kind into another." After eating from the Tree, humanity's innate sense of moral awareness was transformed from concepts of true and false to concepts of good and evil. Genesis describes the tree as desirable (3:6), and our concepts of good and evil, unlike our concepts of true and false, also have an implicit measure of desire. [3]
[edit] In Christianity
In Christian theology, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is connected to the doctrine of original sin. Augustine of Hippo believed that humanity inherited sin itself and the guilt for Adam and Eve's sin.[2] By eating of the fruit of the Tree, Adam and Eve sought to be like God. For a debate about the Western doctrine of original sin and the Eastern doctrine of ancestral sin, see [3] There is a minority of Christians that affirm the doctrine of Pelagianism, which believes every individual faces the same choice between sin and salvation that Adam and Eve faced.
[edit] Trees in other religions
Illustration from the Ockelbo Runestone, Sweden.Similar trees appear in other religions. In the closest, most relevant comparison, the iconic image of the tree guarded by the Serpent appears on Sumerian seals; it is the central feature of the Garden of the Hesperides in Greek mythology, where the guardian serpent receives the name Ladon. In Buddhism, the Buddha became enlightened under the Bodhi tree. While the biblical tree is usually interpreted as representing sensual pleasure, the Bodhi tree gave pure transcendent knowledge.[citation needed] In Vedic Hinduism, the Tree of Jiva and Atman is usually interpreted as a metaphor concerning the soul, mind, and body. In the Norse sagas, the ash tree Yggdrasil draws from the magic springwater of knowledge. To many who believe the Bible is filled with parables, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is actually a library or some other form of educational writings.
[edit] Freudian (psychological) interpretation
A rather Freudian interpretation is that knowledge of good and evil, or simply good and bad, refers to the recollection of a memory with an implied judgment. This is a natural process for neurological systems (humans and animals) to make to avoid pain or gain pleasure. However, human consciousness includes extensive recollection and teaching such as by the use of books, which could be called a fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. It is clearly distinguishable from the simple awareness of other animals. This allows human beings to make deliberate choices that they consider beneficial even if they include an element of pain.[citation needed]
The process of maturation occurring in the incidents around the tree describes, in an abstract way, the splitting of the human consciousness into the limited context of conscious thought and the underlying all-aware subconscious.
[edit] Fruit of the tree
The Book of Enoch 31:4, dating from the last few centuries before Christ and purporting to be by the antediluvian prophet Enoch, describes the Tree of Knowledge: "It was like a species of the Tamarind tree, bearing fruit which resembled grapes extremely fine; and its fragrance extended to a considerable distance. I exclaimed, How beautiful is this tree, and how delightful is its appearance!"
In the Talmud, Rabbi Meir says that the fruit was a grape.[4] Another Talmudic tradition suggests that Eve actually made and drank wine.[5] Rabbi Nechemia says that the fruit was a fig[4]while Rabbi Yehuda, is that the fruit was wheat.[4]
In Western Christian art, the fruit is commonly depicted as an apple, (they originated in central Asia). The source of this apparently lay in a Latin pun: by eating the malum (apple), Eve contracted malum (evil).
Proponents of the theory that the Garden of Eden was located somewhere in what is known now as the Middle East suggest that the fruit was actually a pomegranate. This ties in with the Greek myth of Persephone, where her consumption of seven pomegranate seeds leads to her having to spend time in Hades.
[edit] See also
Adam and Eve
Enlightenment (concept)
Fall of Man
Forbidden fruit
Knowledge
Morality
Original sin
Pelagianism
Tree of life
Dream of the rood
al-Qurnah
[edit] Notes
^ Cyrus H. Gordon and Gary A. Rendsburg, The Bible and the Ancient Near East fourth edition, 1997, Norton & Co.
^ http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120113.htm The City of God (Book XIII), Chapter 14.
^ Ancestral Versus Original Sin: An Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy. Accessed May 11, 2006.
^ a b c Berachos 40a; Sanhedrin 70a. CF [1], accessed September 7, 2006.
^ Bereishis Rabah 15:7; 19:1; Zohar Bereishis 36a and Noach 73a. CF [2], accessed September 7, 2006.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Tree of Knowledge, painting by Lucas Cranach the ElderIn the Book of Genesis, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (and occasionally translated as the Tree of Conscience, Hebrew: עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע, Etz haDaat tov V'ra) was a tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:9) from which God directly forbade Adam (Eve having not yet been created) to eat (Genesis 2:17). A serpent later tempted Eve, who was aware of the prohibition, to eat the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (Genesis 3:1-6). Adam also ate, and they became aware of their nakedness (Genesis 3:6-7). After this, in order to deny them access to the Tree of Life (and, hence, immortality), they were banished from the garden and forced to survive through agriculture "by the sweat of [their] brow" (Genesis 3:19-24).
Contents
[hide]
1 Interpretations of the tree itself
1.1 Translation Issues
1.2 In Judaism
1.3 In Christianity
1.4 Trees in other religions
1.5 Freudian (psychological) interpretation
2 Fruit of the tree
3 See also
4 Notes
[edit] Interpretations of the tree itself
[edit] Translation Issues
Gordon and Rendsburg[1] have suggested that the phrase טוֹב וָרָע, translated good and evil, is a merism. This is a figure of speech whereby a pair of opposites are used together to create the meaning all or everything, as in the English phrase, "they came, great and small", meaning just that they all came. So the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they take to mean the Tree of All Knowledge. This meaning can be brought out by the alternative translations Tree of Knowledge of Good and of Evil (the word of not being expressed in the Hebrew) or Tree of Knowledge, both Good and Evil. The phrase occurs twice as applied to the tree, Genesis 2:9, Genesis 2:17. It also occurs twice as describing the knowledge gained Genesis 3:5 and Genesis 3:22 where it may be translated perhaps with knowledge, both good and evil.
God the Father forbids Eve to pick the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
marble bas-relief by Lorenzo Maitani on the Orvieto Cathedral, Italy
[edit] In Judaism
According to the Jewish tradition God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree that was to give free choice and allow them to earn, as opposed to receive, absolute perfection and intimate communion with God at a higher level than the one on which they were created. According to this tradition, Adam and Eve would have attained absolute perfection and retained immortality had they succeeded in withstanding the temptation to eat from the Tree. After failing at this task, they were condemned to a period of toil to rectify the fallen universe. Jewish tradition views the serpent, and sometimes the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil itself, as representatives of evil and man's evil inclination.
Judaism generally recognizes no "evil" other than the evil actions of human beings. Eve's only transgression was that she disobeyed God's order. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden and had to live ordinary, human lives.
Rabbi David Fohrman of the Hoffberger Foundation for Torah Studies, citing Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed, states that "the tree did not give us moral awareness when we had none before. Rather, it transformed this awareness from one kind into another." After eating from the Tree, humanity's innate sense of moral awareness was transformed from concepts of true and false to concepts of good and evil. Genesis describes the tree as desirable (3:6), and our concepts of good and evil, unlike our concepts of true and false, also have an implicit measure of desire. [3]
[edit] In Christianity
In Christian theology, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is connected to the doctrine of original sin. Augustine of Hippo believed that humanity inherited sin itself and the guilt for Adam and Eve's sin.[2] By eating of the fruit of the Tree, Adam and Eve sought to be like God. For a debate about the Western doctrine of original sin and the Eastern doctrine of ancestral sin, see [3] There is a minority of Christians that affirm the doctrine of Pelagianism, which believes every individual faces the same choice between sin and salvation that Adam and Eve faced.
[edit] Trees in other religions
Illustration from the Ockelbo Runestone, Sweden.Similar trees appear in other religions. In the closest, most relevant comparison, the iconic image of the tree guarded by the Serpent appears on Sumerian seals; it is the central feature of the Garden of the Hesperides in Greek mythology, where the guardian serpent receives the name Ladon. In Buddhism, the Buddha became enlightened under the Bodhi tree. While the biblical tree is usually interpreted as representing sensual pleasure, the Bodhi tree gave pure transcendent knowledge.[citation needed] In Vedic Hinduism, the Tree of Jiva and Atman is usually interpreted as a metaphor concerning the soul, mind, and body. In the Norse sagas, the ash tree Yggdrasil draws from the magic springwater of knowledge. To many who believe the Bible is filled with parables, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is actually a library or some other form of educational writings.
[edit] Freudian (psychological) interpretation
A rather Freudian interpretation is that knowledge of good and evil, or simply good and bad, refers to the recollection of a memory with an implied judgment. This is a natural process for neurological systems (humans and animals) to make to avoid pain or gain pleasure. However, human consciousness includes extensive recollection and teaching such as by the use of books, which could be called a fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. It is clearly distinguishable from the simple awareness of other animals. This allows human beings to make deliberate choices that they consider beneficial even if they include an element of pain.[citation needed]
The process of maturation occurring in the incidents around the tree describes, in an abstract way, the splitting of the human consciousness into the limited context of conscious thought and the underlying all-aware subconscious.
[edit] Fruit of the tree
The Book of Enoch 31:4, dating from the last few centuries before Christ and purporting to be by the antediluvian prophet Enoch, describes the Tree of Knowledge: "It was like a species of the Tamarind tree, bearing fruit which resembled grapes extremely fine; and its fragrance extended to a considerable distance. I exclaimed, How beautiful is this tree, and how delightful is its appearance!"
In the Talmud, Rabbi Meir says that the fruit was a grape.[4] Another Talmudic tradition suggests that Eve actually made and drank wine.[5] Rabbi Nechemia says that the fruit was a fig[4]while Rabbi Yehuda, is that the fruit was wheat.[4]
In Western Christian art, the fruit is commonly depicted as an apple, (they originated in central Asia). The source of this apparently lay in a Latin pun: by eating the malum (apple), Eve contracted malum (evil).
Proponents of the theory that the Garden of Eden was located somewhere in what is known now as the Middle East suggest that the fruit was actually a pomegranate. This ties in with the Greek myth of Persephone, where her consumption of seven pomegranate seeds leads to her having to spend time in Hades.
[edit] See also
Adam and Eve
Enlightenment (concept)
Fall of Man
Forbidden fruit
Knowledge
Morality
Original sin
Pelagianism
Tree of life
Dream of the rood
al-Qurnah
[edit] Notes
^ Cyrus H. Gordon and Gary A. Rendsburg, The Bible and the Ancient Near East fourth edition, 1997, Norton & Co.
^ http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120113.htm The City of God (Book XIII), Chapter 14.
^ Ancestral Versus Original Sin: An Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy. Accessed May 11, 2006.
^ a b c Berachos 40a; Sanhedrin 70a. CF [1], accessed September 7, 2006.
^ Bereishis Rabah 15:7; 19:1; Zohar Bereishis 36a and Noach 73a. CF [2], accessed September 7, 2006.
Pandora's box
Pandora's box
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Pandora's box (disambiguation).
In Greek mythology, ''Pandora's box'' is the large jar (πιθος pithos) carried by Pandora (Πανδώρα) that contained all the evils of mankind—greed, vanity, slander, lying, envy, pining—and hope.
Contents
[hide]
1 Etymology of "box"
2 Opening of the "box"
3 Feminist interpretations of Pandora's "box"
4 Pandora's "box" in popular culture
4.1 Television
4.2 Movies
4.3 Video/online games
4.4 Music
4.5 Other
5 References
[edit] Etymology of "box"
The original Greek word used was pithos which is a large jar.
The mistranslation of pithos as "box" is usually attributed to the 16th century humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam when he translated Hesiod's tale of Pandora into Latin. Hesiod's pithos refers to a storage jar for oil or grain. Erasmus, however, translated pithos into the Latin word pyxis, meaning "box".[1] The phrase "Pandora's box" has endured ever since. This misconception was further backed by Dante Gabriel Rossetti's painting Pandora.[2]
A pithos from Crete, ca. 675 BC. Louvre
An Attic pyxis, 440–430 BC. British Museum
[edit] Opening of the "box"
After Prometheus' theft of the secret of fire, Zeus ordered Hephaestus to create the woman Pandora as part of the punishment for mankind. Pandora was given many seductive gifts from Aphrodite, Hermes, Charites, and Horae (according to Works and Days). For fear of additional reprisals, Prometheus warned his brother Epimetheus not to accept any gifts from Zeus, but Epimetheus did not listen, and married Pandora. Pandora had been given a large jar and instructed by Zeus to keep it closed, but she had also been given the gift of curiosity, and ultimately opened it. When she opened it, all of the evils of mankind escaped from the jar, although Pandora was quick enough to close it again and keep one value inside- Hope.
[edit] Feminist interpretations of Pandora's "box"
Nicolas Régnier, c. 1626, is aware it should be Pandora's jar, not boxFollowing Jane Ellen Harrison,[3] in an earlier set of myths, Pandora was a manifestation of the Great Goddess, provider of the gifts that made life and culture possible, and Hesiod's tale can be seen as part of a propaganda campaign to demote her from her previously revered status. The Hesiodic myth's misogyny is apparent in the transformation from a goddess to a man who gives all good things to mankind into a mortal woman created as a punishment who introduces all evils to mankind. Modern feminist literary criticism has also focused on the gendered symbolism inherent in the myth. Pandora's jar, according to this school of thought, represents the female womb. That the jar releases a myriad evils upon the earth suggests the topocentric culture's unease with friendly female sexuality.[4]
[edit] Pandora's "box" in popular culture
Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided. Please relocate any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles. (June 2008)
[edit] Television
In the popular television series Heroes, the second season is ended by Mrs Petrelli telling an unknown character they had opened Pandora's box by murdering her son.
In the Blood Ties episode "5:55," Vicki dreams over and over of Pandora's box being open and releasing all the evil into the world. It takes her and Henry - her vampire partner - to save the world from this event.
In the fourth episode of Xena: Warrior Princess, entitled 'Cradle of Hope', Xena and Gabrielle help Pandora get the box back from King Gregor and his evil adviser Nemos.
In Charmed episode Little Box of Horrors, the box is guarded by women known as Guardians. The box moves on to the new Guardian after the previous one has been killed. The Guardian is the only one who can unleash, and return, all of the world's evil.
In The Librarian franchise (on TNT), someone almost opens the box, releasing evil into the world for 10,000 years.
In one episode of The L Word Jenny, after being intruded upon by her new housemate putting cameras all over the house, refers to him "opening Pandoras box" by doing so.
In an episode of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy, Pandora appears as a Dora The Explorer-like character with a lunch box that contains evil lunch foods.
In the episode "Nob And Nobility" of the British sitcom Blackadder III, Blackadder compares his dogsbody Baldrick's trousers to Pandora's box, imploring him "never to allow curiosity to lead you to open your trousers."
[edit] Movies
In Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, as he is dying, Lieutenant General Robert Brewster says that he has opened Pandora's Box.
In Lara Croft, Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life, the antagonist is searching for the box in order to create unstoppable biological weapons. The box is also claimed to be the source of anti-life.
In Mulholland Drive, Diane Selwyn is given a key to her personal Pandora's box.
Notting Hill — William (Hugh Grant) on kissing film star Anna Scott (Julia Roberts): "I've opened Pandora's box. And there's trouble inside." Spike nods thoughtfully, "I knew a girl called Pandora once. Never got to see her box, though."
In the Disney movie Hercules, Hades is talking about how everyone has a weakness and says, "For Pandora it was the box thing."
[edit] Video/online games
In Terranigma, a creature called Yomi is released from a box, resulting in the world being filled instantly with evil entities.
In House of the Dead 4, the opening of Pandora's Box releases the final bosses of the game.
In God of War, the protagonist Kratos is trying to get the box, which is hidden deep in the desert to the east, far beyond Athens, in order to defeat Ares.
In City of Heroes and City of Villains, the opening of Pandora's Box in the early 20th Century is responsible for the proliferation of super-powered beings in the world.
In Devil May Cry 4, Pandora's box appears as a suitcase with 666 different weapon configurations. The attack "PF666: Omen" opens the suitcase, dealing large amounts of damage to enemies in front of it.
In the video game Pandora's Box, when Pandora opens the box it releases people symbolizing mischief so you must solve puzzles to put them back in the box.
In Panzer Dragoon Orta, Pandora's Box is an option in one of the game menu, and opening Pandora's box will take the player to the features that the player unlocked while playing the game.
In Microsoft's PC game Crimson Skies, the name of the zeppelin that is used as your base of operations is "Pandora's Box".
In Final Fantasy VI, Banon tells Terra the story of Pandora's Box to convince her to join the Returners.
In Final Fantasy VII, there is a unique enemy skill called "Pandora's Box" that the player has only one chance to obtain per new game, due to a bug in the game's scripting. The skill is a powerful non-elemental attack that hits all enemies. The attack ends with a large question mark being shown on the screen that is surrounded by the blackness of space.
In AdventureQuest, the box that Hope is in is similar to Pandora's Box, both letting out Omega (evil) and Hope out at once.
In the Sierra adventure game King's Quest IV, Princess Rosella must retrieve Pandora's Box for the evil witch Lolotte.
In Legendary (video game), Pandora's Box is opened which release mythical cretures in New York City.
[edit] Music
On Aerosmith's album Get Your Wings, the final track is called "Pandora's Box". Aerosmith also released a compilation entitled Pandora's Box.
British pop band OMD had a single called "Pandora's Box" in 1991.
In "Storm" by Nox Arcana, the band mentions Pandora's Box, when, for the first time on the CD, they sing as a band. They also have a song titled "Pandora's Music Box" on their album Carnival of Lost Souls.
[edit] Other
In Saint Seiya, Pandora is the one who opens the box and sets the spirit of Hades free.
In Violinist of Hameln, the box is opened by a woman named Pandora, and the Demon King as well as hordes of demons escape only to wreak havoc on humanity. Only a person with holy blood can open Pandora's box, since it is a divine item.
The book Shades of Simon Grey references Pandora's Box by naming a cat Pandora.
Gena Showalter has a series of books that focus on the releasing of demons that were contained in Pandora's box.
In Project Superpowers, a comic book miniseries from Dynamite Entertainment, the box is depicted as an urn and serves as the bedrock for the series' overall storyline.
"Pandora's Boxing" is used as a play on words for the popular boxing website PandorasBoxing.com
[edit] References
^ In his notes to Hesiod's Works and Days (p.168) M.L. West has surmised that Erasmus may have confused the story of Pandora with the story found elsewhere of a box which was opened by Psyche.
^ Pandora by Dante Gabriel Rossetti.
^ Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 1922:280-83, "The Making of a Goddess".
^ See, for example, Reeder 1995, 195-99 and 277-279; Zeitlin 1995 passim, but particularly the chapter on Pandora: "Signifying Difference: The Case of Hesiod's Pandora." For an extensive bibliography on women in ancient Greek myth and society, see the list of references compiled by John Porter: http://homepage.usask.ca/~jrp638/Biblios/Womenindrama.html
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Pandora's box (disambiguation).
In Greek mythology, ''Pandora's box'' is the large jar (πιθος pithos) carried by Pandora (Πανδώρα) that contained all the evils of mankind—greed, vanity, slander, lying, envy, pining—and hope.
Contents
[hide]
1 Etymology of "box"
2 Opening of the "box"
3 Feminist interpretations of Pandora's "box"
4 Pandora's "box" in popular culture
4.1 Television
4.2 Movies
4.3 Video/online games
4.4 Music
4.5 Other
5 References
[edit] Etymology of "box"
The original Greek word used was pithos which is a large jar.
The mistranslation of pithos as "box" is usually attributed to the 16th century humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam when he translated Hesiod's tale of Pandora into Latin. Hesiod's pithos refers to a storage jar for oil or grain. Erasmus, however, translated pithos into the Latin word pyxis, meaning "box".[1] The phrase "Pandora's box" has endured ever since. This misconception was further backed by Dante Gabriel Rossetti's painting Pandora.[2]
A pithos from Crete, ca. 675 BC. Louvre
An Attic pyxis, 440–430 BC. British Museum
[edit] Opening of the "box"
After Prometheus' theft of the secret of fire, Zeus ordered Hephaestus to create the woman Pandora as part of the punishment for mankind. Pandora was given many seductive gifts from Aphrodite, Hermes, Charites, and Horae (according to Works and Days). For fear of additional reprisals, Prometheus warned his brother Epimetheus not to accept any gifts from Zeus, but Epimetheus did not listen, and married Pandora. Pandora had been given a large jar and instructed by Zeus to keep it closed, but she had also been given the gift of curiosity, and ultimately opened it. When she opened it, all of the evils of mankind escaped from the jar, although Pandora was quick enough to close it again and keep one value inside- Hope.
[edit] Feminist interpretations of Pandora's "box"
Nicolas Régnier, c. 1626, is aware it should be Pandora's jar, not boxFollowing Jane Ellen Harrison,[3] in an earlier set of myths, Pandora was a manifestation of the Great Goddess, provider of the gifts that made life and culture possible, and Hesiod's tale can be seen as part of a propaganda campaign to demote her from her previously revered status. The Hesiodic myth's misogyny is apparent in the transformation from a goddess to a man who gives all good things to mankind into a mortal woman created as a punishment who introduces all evils to mankind. Modern feminist literary criticism has also focused on the gendered symbolism inherent in the myth. Pandora's jar, according to this school of thought, represents the female womb. That the jar releases a myriad evils upon the earth suggests the topocentric culture's unease with friendly female sexuality.[4]
[edit] Pandora's "box" in popular culture
Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided. Please relocate any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles. (June 2008)
[edit] Television
In the popular television series Heroes, the second season is ended by Mrs Petrelli telling an unknown character they had opened Pandora's box by murdering her son.
In the Blood Ties episode "5:55," Vicki dreams over and over of Pandora's box being open and releasing all the evil into the world. It takes her and Henry - her vampire partner - to save the world from this event.
In the fourth episode of Xena: Warrior Princess, entitled 'Cradle of Hope', Xena and Gabrielle help Pandora get the box back from King Gregor and his evil adviser Nemos.
In Charmed episode Little Box of Horrors, the box is guarded by women known as Guardians. The box moves on to the new Guardian after the previous one has been killed. The Guardian is the only one who can unleash, and return, all of the world's evil.
In The Librarian franchise (on TNT), someone almost opens the box, releasing evil into the world for 10,000 years.
In one episode of The L Word Jenny, after being intruded upon by her new housemate putting cameras all over the house, refers to him "opening Pandoras box" by doing so.
In an episode of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy, Pandora appears as a Dora The Explorer-like character with a lunch box that contains evil lunch foods.
In the episode "Nob And Nobility" of the British sitcom Blackadder III, Blackadder compares his dogsbody Baldrick's trousers to Pandora's box, imploring him "never to allow curiosity to lead you to open your trousers."
[edit] Movies
In Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, as he is dying, Lieutenant General Robert Brewster says that he has opened Pandora's Box.
In Lara Croft, Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life, the antagonist is searching for the box in order to create unstoppable biological weapons. The box is also claimed to be the source of anti-life.
In Mulholland Drive, Diane Selwyn is given a key to her personal Pandora's box.
Notting Hill — William (Hugh Grant) on kissing film star Anna Scott (Julia Roberts): "I've opened Pandora's box. And there's trouble inside." Spike nods thoughtfully, "I knew a girl called Pandora once. Never got to see her box, though."
In the Disney movie Hercules, Hades is talking about how everyone has a weakness and says, "For Pandora it was the box thing."
[edit] Video/online games
In Terranigma, a creature called Yomi is released from a box, resulting in the world being filled instantly with evil entities.
In House of the Dead 4, the opening of Pandora's Box releases the final bosses of the game.
In God of War, the protagonist Kratos is trying to get the box, which is hidden deep in the desert to the east, far beyond Athens, in order to defeat Ares.
In City of Heroes and City of Villains, the opening of Pandora's Box in the early 20th Century is responsible for the proliferation of super-powered beings in the world.
In Devil May Cry 4, Pandora's box appears as a suitcase with 666 different weapon configurations. The attack "PF666: Omen" opens the suitcase, dealing large amounts of damage to enemies in front of it.
In the video game Pandora's Box, when Pandora opens the box it releases people symbolizing mischief so you must solve puzzles to put them back in the box.
In Panzer Dragoon Orta, Pandora's Box is an option in one of the game menu, and opening Pandora's box will take the player to the features that the player unlocked while playing the game.
In Microsoft's PC game Crimson Skies, the name of the zeppelin that is used as your base of operations is "Pandora's Box".
In Final Fantasy VI, Banon tells Terra the story of Pandora's Box to convince her to join the Returners.
In Final Fantasy VII, there is a unique enemy skill called "Pandora's Box" that the player has only one chance to obtain per new game, due to a bug in the game's scripting. The skill is a powerful non-elemental attack that hits all enemies. The attack ends with a large question mark being shown on the screen that is surrounded by the blackness of space.
In AdventureQuest, the box that Hope is in is similar to Pandora's Box, both letting out Omega (evil) and Hope out at once.
In the Sierra adventure game King's Quest IV, Princess Rosella must retrieve Pandora's Box for the evil witch Lolotte.
In Legendary (video game), Pandora's Box is opened which release mythical cretures in New York City.
[edit] Music
On Aerosmith's album Get Your Wings, the final track is called "Pandora's Box". Aerosmith also released a compilation entitled Pandora's Box.
British pop band OMD had a single called "Pandora's Box" in 1991.
In "Storm" by Nox Arcana, the band mentions Pandora's Box, when, for the first time on the CD, they sing as a band. They also have a song titled "Pandora's Music Box" on their album Carnival of Lost Souls.
[edit] Other
In Saint Seiya, Pandora is the one who opens the box and sets the spirit of Hades free.
In Violinist of Hameln, the box is opened by a woman named Pandora, and the Demon King as well as hordes of demons escape only to wreak havoc on humanity. Only a person with holy blood can open Pandora's box, since it is a divine item.
The book Shades of Simon Grey references Pandora's Box by naming a cat Pandora.
Gena Showalter has a series of books that focus on the releasing of demons that were contained in Pandora's box.
In Project Superpowers, a comic book miniseries from Dynamite Entertainment, the box is depicted as an urn and serves as the bedrock for the series' overall storyline.
"Pandora's Boxing" is used as a play on words for the popular boxing website PandorasBoxing.com
[edit] References
^ In his notes to Hesiod's Works and Days (p.168) M.L. West has surmised that Erasmus may have confused the story of Pandora with the story found elsewhere of a box which was opened by Psyche.
^ Pandora by Dante Gabriel Rossetti.
^ Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 1922:280-83, "The Making of a Goddess".
^ See, for example, Reeder 1995, 195-99 and 277-279; Zeitlin 1995 passim, but particularly the chapter on Pandora: "Signifying Difference: The Case of Hesiod's Pandora." For an extensive bibliography on women in ancient Greek myth and society, see the list of references compiled by John Porter: http://homepage.usask.ca/~jrp638/Biblios/Womenindrama.html
Pandora
Pandora
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Pandora (disambiguation) and Pandora's box (disambiguation).
"The Creation of "[A]NESIDORA" on a white-ground kylix by the Tarquinia Painter, ca 460 BC (British MuseumIn Greek mythology, Pandora (from Greek: Πανδώρα, "giver of all, all-endowed"[1]) was the first woman. Each god helped create her by giving her unique gifts. Zeus ordered Hephaestus to mould her out of Earth (Γαîα -Gaia) as part of the punishment of mankind for Prometheus' theft of the secret of fire, and all the gods joined in offering this "beautiful evil" seductive gifts. Her other name, inscribed against her figure on a white-ground kylix in the British Museum (illustration, right), is Anesidora, "she who sends up gifts" [2] According to the myth, Pandora opened a jar (pithos) in modern accounts referred to as "Pandora's box", releasing all the evils of mankind— greed, vanity, slander, envy, pining— leaving only hope inside once she had closed it again.
The myth of Pandora is very old, appears in several distinct Greek versions, and has been interpreted in many ways. In all literary versions, however, the myth is a kind of theodicy, addressing the question of why there is evil in the world. In the seventh century BC Hesiod, both in his Theogony (briefly, without naming Pandora outright, line 570) and in Works and Days, gives the earliest literary version of the Pandora story. There is an older mention of jars or urns containing blessings and evils bestowed upon Mankind in Homer:
The immortals know no care, yet the lot they spin for man is full of sorrow; on the floor of Zeus' palace there stand two urns, the one filled with evil gifts, and the other with good ones. He for whom Zeus the lord of thunder mixes the gifts he sends, will meet now with good and now with evil fortune; but he to whom Zeus sends none but evil gifts will be pointed at by the finger of scorn, the hand of famine will pursue him to the ends of the world, and he will go up and down the face of the earth, respected neither by gods nor men.[3]
Contents
[hide]
1 The myth according to Hesiod: the Theogony
2 The Hesiodic myth continued: Works and Days
3 Later embellishments
4 The difficulties of interpretation
5 All-giving Pandora: a mythic inversion
6 Feminist interpretations of Pandora
7 Pithos into "box"
8 Notes
9 References
10 External links
[edit] The myth according to Hesiod: the Theogony
The Pandora myth first appears in lines 560-612 of Hesiod's (ca. 8th-7th centuries BC) epic poem, the Theogony, without ever giving the woman a name. After humans have received the gift of fire from Prometheus, an angry Zeus decides to give men a punishing gift to compensate for the boon they had been given. He commands Hephaestus to mould from earth the first woman, a "beautiful evil" whose descendants would torment the race of men. After Hephaestus does so, Athena dressed her in a silvery gown, an embroidered veil, garlands and an ornate crown of gold. This woman goes unnamed in the Theogony, but is presumably Pandora, whose myth Hesiod revisited in Works and Days. When she first appears before gods and mortals, "wonder seized them" as they looked upon her. But she was "sheer guile, not to be withstood by men." Hesiod elaborates (590-93):
From her is the race of women and female kind:
of her is the deadly race and tribe of women who
live amongst mortal men to their great trouble,
no helpmeets in hateful poverty, but only in wealth.
Hesiod goes on to lament that men who try to avoid the evil of women by avoiding marriage will fare no better (604-7):
He reaches deadly old age without anyone to tend his years,
and though he at least has no lack of livelihood while he lives,
yet, when he is dead, his kinsfolk divide his possessions amongst them.
Hesiod concedes that occasionally a man finds a good wife, but still (609) "evil contends with good."
[edit] The Hesiodic myth continued: Works and Days
The more famous version of the Pandora myth comes from another of Hesiod's poems, the Works and Days. In this version of the myth (lines 60-105), Hesiod expands upon her origin, and moreover widens the scope of the misery she inflicts on mankind. As before, she is created by Hephaestus, but now more gods contribute to her completion (63-82): Athena taught her needlework and weaving (63-4); Aphrodite "shed grace upon her head and cruel longing and cares that weary the limbs" (65-6); Hermes gave her "a shameful mind and deceitful nature" (67-8); Hermes also gave her the power of speech, putting in her "lies and crafty words" (77-80) ; Athena then clothed her (72); next she, Persuasion and the Charites adorned her with necklaces and other finery (72-4); the Horae adorned her with a garland crown (75). Finally, Hermes gives this woman a name: Pandora -- "All-gifted" -- "because all the Olympians gave her a gift" (81).[4] In this retelling of her story, Pandora's deceitful feminine nature becomes the least of mankind's worries. For she brings with her a jar[5] containing[6] "burdensome toil and sickness that brings death to men" (91-2), diseases (102) and "a myriad other pains" (100). Prometheus had (fearing further reprisals) warned his brother Epimetheus not to accept any gifts from Zeus. But Epimetheus did not listen; he accepted Pandora, who promptly scattered the contents of her jar. As a result, Hesiod tells us, "the earth and sea are full of evils" (101). One item, however, did not escape the jar (96-9), hope:
Only Hope was left within her unbreakable house,
she remained under the lip of the jar, and did not
fly away. Before [she could], Pandora replaced the
lid of the jar. This was the will of aegis-bearing
Zeus the Cloudgatherer.
Hesiod closes with this moral (105): "Thus it is not possible to escape the mind of Zeus."
[edit] Later embellishments
Archaic and Classic Greek literature seem to make no further mention of Pandora, though Sophocles wrote a satyr play Pandora, or The Hammerers of which virtually nothing is known. Sappho may have made reference to Pandora in a surviving fragment.[7]
Later mythographers filled in minor details or added postscripts to Hesiod's account. For example, Apollodorus and Hyginus each make explicit what might be latent in the Hesiodic text: Epimetheus married Pandora. They each add that they had a daughter, Pyrrha, who married Deucalion and survived the deluge with him. However, the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, fragment #2, had made a "Pandora" one of the daughters of Deucalion, and the mother of Graecus by Zeus. The 15th-century monk Annio da Viterbo credited a manuscript that he asserted that he had found to the Chaldean historian of the 3rd century BC, Berossus, where "Pandora" was also named as a daughter-in-law of Noah; this attempt to conjoin pagan and scriptural narrative is recognized as a forgery.
In a major departure from Hesiod, the 6th-century BC Greek elegiac poet Theognis of Megara tells us:
Hope is the only good god remaining among mankind;
the others have left and gone to Olympus.
Trust, a mighty god has gone, Restraint has gone from men,
and the Graces, my friend, have abandoned the earth.
Men’s judicial oaths are no longer to be trusted, nor does anyone
revere the immortal gods; the race of pious men has perished and
men no longer recognize the rules of conduct or acts of piety.
Theognis seems to be hinting at a myth in which the jar contained blessings rather than evils. In this, he appears to follow a possibly pre-Hesiodic tradition, preserved by the second-century fabulist Babrius,[8] that the gods sent a jar containing blessings to humans. A "foolish man" (not Pandora) opened the jar, and most of the blessings were lost forever. Only hope remained, "to promise each of us the good things that fled."
An independent Pandora tradition that does not square with any of the literary sources is the tradition in the visual repertory of Attic red-figure vase-painters, which sometimes supplements, sometimes ignores, the written testimony; in these reprensentations the upper part of Pandora is visible rising from the earth, "a chthonic goddess like Gaia herself."[9] . Sometimes,[10] but not always, she is labeled Pandora.
[edit] The difficulties of interpretation
Historic interpretations of the Pandora figure are rich enough to have offered Erwin Panofsky scope for monographic treatment.[11] M.L. West writes that the story of Pandora and her jar is from a pre-Hesiodic myth, and that this explains the confusion and problems with Hesiod's version and its inconclusiveness.[12] He writes that in earlier myths, Pandora was married to Prometheus, and cites the ancient Hesiodic Catalogue of Women as preserving this older tradition, and that the jar may have at one point contained only good things for mankind. He also writes that it may have been that Epimetheus and Pandora and their roles were transposed in the pre-Hesiodic myths, a "mythic inversion". He remarks that there is a curious correlation between Pandora being made out of earth in Hesiod's story, to what is in Apollodorus that Prometheus created man from water and earth. (Apollodorus, Library and Epitome, ed. Sir James George Frazer.[1] )[12] Hesiod's myth of Pandora's jar, then, could be an amalgam of many variant early myths.
In Hesiodic scholarship, the interpretive crux has endured:[13] Is Hope's imprisonment inside a jar full of evils for mankind a benefit for mankind, or a further bane? A number of mythology textbooks echo the sentiments of M.L. West: "[Hope's retention in the jar] is comforting, and we are to be thankful for this antidote to our present ills."[14] Some scholars such as Mark Griffith, however, take the opposite view: "[Hope] seems to be a blessing withheld from men so that their life should be the more dreary and depressing."[15] One's interpretation hangs on two related questions: First, how are we to render elpis, the Greek word usually translated as "hope"? Second, does the jar preserve Elpis for men, or keep Elpis away from men?
The first question might confuse the non-specialist. But as with most ancient Greek words, elpis can be translated a number of ways. A number of scholars prefer the neutral translation of "expectation." But expectation of what? Classical authors use the word elpis to mean "expectation of bad," as well as "expectation of good." Statistical analysis demonstrates that the latter sense appears five times more than the former in all of ancient Greek literature.[16] Others hold the minority view that elpis should be rendered, "expectation of evil" (vel sim).[17]
How one answers the first question largely depends on the answer to the second question: should we interpret the jar to function as a prison, or a pantry?[18] The jar certainly serves as a prison for the evils that Pandora released -- they only affect mankind once outside the jar. Some have argued that logic dictates, therefore, that the jar acts as a prison for Elpis as well, withholding it from men.[19] If one takes elpis to mean expectant hope, then the myth's tone is pessimistic: All the evils in the world were scattered from Pandora's jar, while the one potentially mitigating force, Hope, remains locked securely inside.[20]
This interpretation raises yet another question, complicating the debate: are we to take Hope in an absolute sense, or in a narrow sense where we understand Hope to mean hope only as it pertains to the evils released from the jar? If Hope is imprisoned in the jar, does this mean that human existence is utterly hopeless? This is the most pessimistic reading possible for the myth. A less pessimistic interpretation (still pessimistic, to be sure) understands the myth to say: countless evils fled Pandora's jar and plague human existence; the hope that we might be able to master these evils remains imprisoned inside the jar. Life is not hopeless, but each of us is hopelessly human.[21]
An objection to the hope is good/the jar is a prison interpretation counters that, if the jar is full of evils, then what is expectant hope -- a blessing -- doing among them? This objection leads some to render elpis as the expectation of evil, which would make the myth's tone somewhat optimistic: although humankind is troubled by all the evils in the world, at least we are spared the continual expectation of evil, which would make life unbearable.[17]
The optimistic reading of the myth is expressed by M.L. West. Elpis takes the more common meaning of expectant hope. And while the jar served as a prison for the evils that escaped, it thereafter serves as a residence for Hope. West explains, "It would be absurd to represent either the presence of ills by their confinement in a jar or the presence of hope by its escape from one."[22] Hope is thus preserved as a benefit for humans.[23]
[edit] All-giving Pandora: a mythic inversion
The lapetiongtradipsoymology of Pandora's name, "all-gifted" provided in Works and Days is an incorrect folk etymology. Pandora properly means "all-giving" rather than "all-gifted." Certain vase paintings dated to the 5th century BC likewise indicate that the pre-Hesiodic myth of the goddess Pandora endured for centuries after the time of Hesiod. An alternate name for Pandora attested on a white-ground kylix (ca. 460 BC) is Anesidora, which similarly means "she who sends up gifts." This vase painting clearly depicts Hephaestus and Athena putting the finishing touches on the first woman, as in the Theogony. Written above this figure (a convention in Greek vase painting) is the name Anesidora. More commonly, however, the epithet anesidora is applied to Gaea or Demeter.
This connection of Pandora to Gaea and Demeter through the name Anesidora provides a clue as to Pandora's evolution as a mythic figure. In classical scholarship it is generally posited that—for female deities in particular—one or more secondary mythic entities sometimes "splinter off" (so to speak) from a primary entity, assuming aspects of the original in the process. The most famous example of this is the putative division of all the aspects of the so-called Great Goddess into a number of goddesses with more specialized functions—Gaea, Demeter, Persephone, Artemis and Hecate among them. Pandora appears to be just such a product of this process. In a previous incarnation now lost to us, Pandora/Anesidora would have taken on aspects of Gaea and Demeter. She would embody the fertility of the earth and its capacity to bear grain and fruits for the benefit of humankind.[24] Jane Ellen Harrison[25] turned to the repertory of vase-painters to shed light on aspects of myth that were left unaddressed or disguised in literature. The story of Pandora was repeated on Greek ceramics. On a fifth century amphora in the Ashmolean Museum (her fig.71) the half-figure of Pandora emerges from the ground, her arms upraised in the epiphany gesture, to greet Epimetheus.[26] A winged ker with a fillet hovers overhead: "Pandora rises from the earth; she is the Earth, giver of all gifts," Harrison observes.
Over time this "all-giving" goddess somehow devolved into an "all-gifted" mortal woman. T. A. Sinclair, commenting on Works and Days[27] argues that Hesiod shows no awareness of the mythology of such a divine "giver". A.H. Smith[28], however, notes that in Hesiod's account Athena and the Seasons brought wreaths of grass and spring flowers to Pandora, indicating that Hesiod was conscious of Pandora's original "all-giving" function. Jane Ellen Harrison sees in Hesiod's story "evidence of a shift from matriarchy to patriarchy in Greek culture. As the life-bringing goddess Pandora is eclipsed, the death-bringing human Pandora arises."[29] Thus Harrison concludes "in the patriarchal mythology of Hesiod her great figure is strangely changed and diminished. She is no longer Earth-Born, but the creature, the handiwork of Olympian Zeus." (Harrison 1922:284) Robert Graves, quoting Harrison,[30] asserts of the Hesiodic episode that "Pandora is not a genuine myth, but an anti-feminist fable, probably of his own invention."
The Hesiodic myth did not, however, completely obliterate the memory of the all-giving goddess Pandora. A scholium to line 971 of Aristophanes' The Birds mentions a cult "to Pandora, the earth, because she bestows all things necessary for life". [31]
In fifth-century Athens Pandora made a prominent appearance in what, at first, appears an unexpected context, in a marble relief or bronze appliqués as a frize along the base of the Athena Parthenos the culminating experience on the Acropolis; there Jeffrey M. Hurwit has interpreted her presence as an "anti-Athena" reinforcing civic ideologies of patriarchy and the "highly gendered social and political realities of fifth-century Athens."[32] Interpretation has never come easy: Pausanias (i.24.7) merely noted the subject and moved on. Jeffrey Hurwit has argued that Pandora represents an "anti-Athena", similarly a child of no mother, an embodiment of the need for the patriarchal rule that the virginal Athena, rising above her sex, defended.
[edit] Feminist interpretations of Pandora
Jane Ellen Harrison[33] states that in an earlier set of myths, Pandora was a manifestation of the Great Goddess, provider of the gifts that made life and culture possible, and that Hesiod's tale can be seen as part of a propaganda campaign to demote her from her previously revered status. The Hesiodic myth's misogyny is apparent in the transformation of a goddess who gives all good things to men into a mortal woman who is intrinsically evil and who, moreover, introduces every conceivable evil to mankind. Modern feminist literary criticism has also focused on the gendered symbolism inherent in the myth. Pandora's jar, feminist theory suggests, represents the female womb. That the jar releases a myriad of evils upon the earth suggests the phallocentric culture's unease with female sexuality.[34] For further feminist study of the myth, see Charlene Spretnak, Lost Goddesses of Early Greece; A Collection of Pre-Hellenic Mythology, 1977.
[edit] Pithos into "box"
Main article: Pandora's box
Nicolas Régnier, Allegory of Vanity - Pandora, c. 1626. Régnier portrayed Pandora with a jar, not a boxThe mistranslation of pithos, a large storage jar, as "box"[35] who noted that the word universally used in this context by all writers of Greek down to the twelfth century was pithos. is usually attributed to the sixteenth century humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam when he translated Hesiod's tale of Pandora into Latin. Hesiod's pithos refers to a large storage jar, often half-buried in the ground, used for oil or grain. Erasmus, however, translated pithos into the Latin word pyxis, meaning "box".[36] The phrase "Pandora's box" has endured ever since.
A pithos from Crete, ca. 675 BC. Louvre
An Attic pyxis, 440-430 BC. British Museum
[edit] Notes
^ Pandora, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, at Perseus
^ Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion 3rd ed., 1922:281. If Anesidora/Pandora were already "all-gifted", this would be an instance of mythic inversion.
^ Homer, Iliad, 24:527.; on-line Greek and English text Theoi Project: Pandora
^ In Greek, Pandora has an active rather than a passive meaning; hence, Pandora properly means "All-giving." The implications of this mistranslation are explored in "All-giving Pandora: mythic inversion?" below.
^ A pithos is a very large jar, usually made of rough-grained terra cotta, used for storage.
^ Contra M.L. West, Works and Days, p.168. "Hesiod omits to say where the jar came from, and what Pandora had in mind when she opened it, and what exactly it contained". West goes on to say this contributes to the "inconclusive Pandora legend".
^ Sappho, fr. 207 in Lobel and Page.
^ Babrius, Fabulla lviii.
^ Jeffrey M. Hurwit, "Beautiful Evil: Pandora and the Athena Parthenos" American Journal of Archaeology 99.2 (April 1995:171-186) p. 177.
^ E.g. as on a volute krater, ca 450 BC, in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Oxford G 275), Hurwit, p. 276 fig. 7.
^ Panofsky, Pandora's Box: The Changing Aspects of a Mythical Symbol (New York, 1962).
^ a b West, Works and Days, p.164.
^ Dora Panofsky and Erwin Panofsky examined the post-Renaissance mythos (Pandora was not a subject of medieval art) in Pandora's Box. The Changing Aspects of a Mythical Symbol (New York: Pantheon, Bollingen series) 1956.
^ West 1978:96.
^ Griffith 1983:250.
^ Leinieks 1984, 1-4.
^ a b E.g., Verdenius 1985; Blumer 2001.
^ The prison/pantry terminology comes from Verdenius 1985 ad 96.
^ Scholars holding this view (e.g., Walcot 1961, 250) point out that the jar is termed an "unbreakable" (in Greek: arrektos) house. In Greek literature (e.g., Homer, and elsewhere in Hesiod), the word arrektos is applied to structures meant to sequester or otherwise restrain its contents.
^ See Griffith 1984 above.
^ Thus Athanassakis 1983 in his commentary ad Works 96.
^ West 1988, 169-70.
^ Taking the jar to serve as a prison at some times and as a pantry at others will also accommodate another pessimistic interpretation of the myth. In this reading, attention is paid to the phrase moune Elpis -- "only Hope," or "Hope alone." A minority opinion construes the phrase instead to mean "empty Hope" or "baseless Hope": not only are humans plagued by a multitude of evils, but they persist in the fruitless hope that things might get better. Thus Beall 1989 227-28.
^ Hence, possibly, the variant myth that Pandora's jar contained blessings for mankind.
^ Harrison, Prolegomena 1922, pp 280-83.
^ Compare the rising female figure, identified as Aphrodite, on the "Ludovisi Throne".
^ Sinclair, editor, Hesiod: Works and Days (London: Macmillan) 1932:12.
^ Smith, "The Making of Pandora" The Journal of Hellenic Studies 11 (1890, pp. 278-283), p 283.
^ William E. Phipps, "Eve and Pandora contrasted" Theology Today 45 on-line text
^ Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (1903) 1922:283-85 quoted in Graves, The Greek Myths (1955) 1960, sect.39.8 p 148.
^ Jeffrey M. Hurwit, "Beautiful Evil: Pandora and the Athena Parthenos" American Journal of Archaeology 99.2 (April 1995:171-186).
^ Jeffrey M. Hurwit, "Beautiful Evil: Pandora and the Athena Parthenos" American Journal of Archaeology 99.2 (April 1995:171-186)
^ Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 1922:280-83, "The Making of a Goddess".
^ See, for example, Reeder 1995, 195-99 and 277-279; Zeitlin 1995 passim, but particularly the chapter on Pandora: "Signifying Difference: The Case of Hesiod's Pandora." For an extensive bibliography on women in ancient Greek myth and society, see the list of references compiled by John Porter: http://homepage.usask.ca/~jrp638/Biblios/Womenindrama.html
^ The development of this transformation was sketched by Jane Ellen Harrison, "Pandora's Box" The Journal of Hellenic Studies 20 (1900:99-114); she traced the mistranslation as far as Lilius Giraldus of Ferrara, in his Historiarum Deorum Syntagma (1580), in which pithos was rendered pyxide, and she linked the pithos with the Pithoigia aspect of the Athenian festival of Anthestria.
^ In his notes to Hesiod's Works and Days (p.168) M.L. West has surmised that Erasmus may have confused the story of Pandora with the story found elsewhere of a box which was opened by Psyche; the Panofskys (1956) follow him in this surmise.
[edit] References
Athanassakis, A. Hesiod: Theogony, Works and Days, Shield (New York 1983).
Beall, E. "The Contents of Hesiod's Pandora Jar: Erga 94-98," Hermes 117 (1989) 227-30.
Jane Ellen Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (1903) 1922, pp 280-85.
Griffith, Mark. Aeschylus Prometheus Bound Text and Commentary (Cambridge 1983).
Hesiod, Works and Days On-line text.
Leinieks, V. "Elpis in Hesiod, Works and Days 96," Philologus 128 (1984) 1-8.
Moore, Clifford H. The Religious Thought of the Greeks, 1916.
Nilsson, Martin P. History of Greek Religion, 1949.
Pucci, Pietro. Hesiod and the Language of Poetry, 1977.
Smith, William, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, 1870, sub "Pandora" On-line text
William Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) vol I:177, sub "Anesidora" "Spender" is a misprint of "sender", often repeated.
Verdenius, Willem Jacob, A Commentary on Hesiod Works and Days vv 1-382 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985). ISBN 9004074651
West, M.L. Hesiod, Theogony, ed. with prolegomena and commentary (Oxford 1966).
-- Hesiod, Works and Days, ed. with prolegomena and commentary (Oxford 1978).
-- Hesiod, Theogony, and Works and Days (Oxford 1988).
Zeitlin, Froma. Playing the Other: Gender and Society in Classical Greek Literature (Princeton 1995).
Immanuel Musaeus, Der Pandoramythos bei Hesiod und seine Rezeption bis Erasmus von Rotterdam (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), Pp. 234 (Hypomnemata, 151).
Vered Lev Kenaan, Pandora's Senses: The Feminine Character of the Ancient Text (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2008), Pp. xii, 253 (Wisconsin Studies in Classics).
G.S. Kirk, Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures (Berkeley 1970) 226-32.
P. Pucci, Hesiod and the Language of Poetry (Baltimore 1977) 82-115.
M. Warner, Monuments and Maidens: The Allegory of the Female Form (New York 1985) 213-40
J.P. Vernant, Myth and Society in Ancient Greece (New York 1990) 183-201.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Pandora (disambiguation) and Pandora's box (disambiguation).
"The Creation of "[A]NESIDORA" on a white-ground kylix by the Tarquinia Painter, ca 460 BC (British MuseumIn Greek mythology, Pandora (from Greek: Πανδώρα, "giver of all, all-endowed"[1]) was the first woman. Each god helped create her by giving her unique gifts. Zeus ordered Hephaestus to mould her out of Earth (Γαîα -Gaia) as part of the punishment of mankind for Prometheus' theft of the secret of fire, and all the gods joined in offering this "beautiful evil" seductive gifts. Her other name, inscribed against her figure on a white-ground kylix in the British Museum (illustration, right), is Anesidora, "she who sends up gifts" [2] According to the myth, Pandora opened a jar (pithos) in modern accounts referred to as "Pandora's box", releasing all the evils of mankind— greed, vanity, slander, envy, pining— leaving only hope inside once she had closed it again.
The myth of Pandora is very old, appears in several distinct Greek versions, and has been interpreted in many ways. In all literary versions, however, the myth is a kind of theodicy, addressing the question of why there is evil in the world. In the seventh century BC Hesiod, both in his Theogony (briefly, without naming Pandora outright, line 570) and in Works and Days, gives the earliest literary version of the Pandora story. There is an older mention of jars or urns containing blessings and evils bestowed upon Mankind in Homer:
The immortals know no care, yet the lot they spin for man is full of sorrow; on the floor of Zeus' palace there stand two urns, the one filled with evil gifts, and the other with good ones. He for whom Zeus the lord of thunder mixes the gifts he sends, will meet now with good and now with evil fortune; but he to whom Zeus sends none but evil gifts will be pointed at by the finger of scorn, the hand of famine will pursue him to the ends of the world, and he will go up and down the face of the earth, respected neither by gods nor men.[3]
Contents
[hide]
1 The myth according to Hesiod: the Theogony
2 The Hesiodic myth continued: Works and Days
3 Later embellishments
4 The difficulties of interpretation
5 All-giving Pandora: a mythic inversion
6 Feminist interpretations of Pandora
7 Pithos into "box"
8 Notes
9 References
10 External links
[edit] The myth according to Hesiod: the Theogony
The Pandora myth first appears in lines 560-612 of Hesiod's (ca. 8th-7th centuries BC) epic poem, the Theogony, without ever giving the woman a name. After humans have received the gift of fire from Prometheus, an angry Zeus decides to give men a punishing gift to compensate for the boon they had been given. He commands Hephaestus to mould from earth the first woman, a "beautiful evil" whose descendants would torment the race of men. After Hephaestus does so, Athena dressed her in a silvery gown, an embroidered veil, garlands and an ornate crown of gold. This woman goes unnamed in the Theogony, but is presumably Pandora, whose myth Hesiod revisited in Works and Days. When she first appears before gods and mortals, "wonder seized them" as they looked upon her. But she was "sheer guile, not to be withstood by men." Hesiod elaborates (590-93):
From her is the race of women and female kind:
of her is the deadly race and tribe of women who
live amongst mortal men to their great trouble,
no helpmeets in hateful poverty, but only in wealth.
Hesiod goes on to lament that men who try to avoid the evil of women by avoiding marriage will fare no better (604-7):
He reaches deadly old age without anyone to tend his years,
and though he at least has no lack of livelihood while he lives,
yet, when he is dead, his kinsfolk divide his possessions amongst them.
Hesiod concedes that occasionally a man finds a good wife, but still (609) "evil contends with good."
[edit] The Hesiodic myth continued: Works and Days
The more famous version of the Pandora myth comes from another of Hesiod's poems, the Works and Days. In this version of the myth (lines 60-105), Hesiod expands upon her origin, and moreover widens the scope of the misery she inflicts on mankind. As before, she is created by Hephaestus, but now more gods contribute to her completion (63-82): Athena taught her needlework and weaving (63-4); Aphrodite "shed grace upon her head and cruel longing and cares that weary the limbs" (65-6); Hermes gave her "a shameful mind and deceitful nature" (67-8); Hermes also gave her the power of speech, putting in her "lies and crafty words" (77-80) ; Athena then clothed her (72); next she, Persuasion and the Charites adorned her with necklaces and other finery (72-4); the Horae adorned her with a garland crown (75). Finally, Hermes gives this woman a name: Pandora -- "All-gifted" -- "because all the Olympians gave her a gift" (81).[4] In this retelling of her story, Pandora's deceitful feminine nature becomes the least of mankind's worries. For she brings with her a jar[5] containing[6] "burdensome toil and sickness that brings death to men" (91-2), diseases (102) and "a myriad other pains" (100). Prometheus had (fearing further reprisals) warned his brother Epimetheus not to accept any gifts from Zeus. But Epimetheus did not listen; he accepted Pandora, who promptly scattered the contents of her jar. As a result, Hesiod tells us, "the earth and sea are full of evils" (101). One item, however, did not escape the jar (96-9), hope:
Only Hope was left within her unbreakable house,
she remained under the lip of the jar, and did not
fly away. Before [she could], Pandora replaced the
lid of the jar. This was the will of aegis-bearing
Zeus the Cloudgatherer.
Hesiod closes with this moral (105): "Thus it is not possible to escape the mind of Zeus."
[edit] Later embellishments
Archaic and Classic Greek literature seem to make no further mention of Pandora, though Sophocles wrote a satyr play Pandora, or The Hammerers of which virtually nothing is known. Sappho may have made reference to Pandora in a surviving fragment.[7]
Later mythographers filled in minor details or added postscripts to Hesiod's account. For example, Apollodorus and Hyginus each make explicit what might be latent in the Hesiodic text: Epimetheus married Pandora. They each add that they had a daughter, Pyrrha, who married Deucalion and survived the deluge with him. However, the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, fragment #2, had made a "Pandora" one of the daughters of Deucalion, and the mother of Graecus by Zeus. The 15th-century monk Annio da Viterbo credited a manuscript that he asserted that he had found to the Chaldean historian of the 3rd century BC, Berossus, where "Pandora" was also named as a daughter-in-law of Noah; this attempt to conjoin pagan and scriptural narrative is recognized as a forgery.
In a major departure from Hesiod, the 6th-century BC Greek elegiac poet Theognis of Megara tells us:
Hope is the only good god remaining among mankind;
the others have left and gone to Olympus.
Trust, a mighty god has gone, Restraint has gone from men,
and the Graces, my friend, have abandoned the earth.
Men’s judicial oaths are no longer to be trusted, nor does anyone
revere the immortal gods; the race of pious men has perished and
men no longer recognize the rules of conduct or acts of piety.
Theognis seems to be hinting at a myth in which the jar contained blessings rather than evils. In this, he appears to follow a possibly pre-Hesiodic tradition, preserved by the second-century fabulist Babrius,[8] that the gods sent a jar containing blessings to humans. A "foolish man" (not Pandora) opened the jar, and most of the blessings were lost forever. Only hope remained, "to promise each of us the good things that fled."
An independent Pandora tradition that does not square with any of the literary sources is the tradition in the visual repertory of Attic red-figure vase-painters, which sometimes supplements, sometimes ignores, the written testimony; in these reprensentations the upper part of Pandora is visible rising from the earth, "a chthonic goddess like Gaia herself."[9] . Sometimes,[10] but not always, she is labeled Pandora.
[edit] The difficulties of interpretation
Historic interpretations of the Pandora figure are rich enough to have offered Erwin Panofsky scope for monographic treatment.[11] M.L. West writes that the story of Pandora and her jar is from a pre-Hesiodic myth, and that this explains the confusion and problems with Hesiod's version and its inconclusiveness.[12] He writes that in earlier myths, Pandora was married to Prometheus, and cites the ancient Hesiodic Catalogue of Women as preserving this older tradition, and that the jar may have at one point contained only good things for mankind. He also writes that it may have been that Epimetheus and Pandora and their roles were transposed in the pre-Hesiodic myths, a "mythic inversion". He remarks that there is a curious correlation between Pandora being made out of earth in Hesiod's story, to what is in Apollodorus that Prometheus created man from water and earth. (Apollodorus, Library and Epitome, ed. Sir James George Frazer.[1] )[12] Hesiod's myth of Pandora's jar, then, could be an amalgam of many variant early myths.
In Hesiodic scholarship, the interpretive crux has endured:[13] Is Hope's imprisonment inside a jar full of evils for mankind a benefit for mankind, or a further bane? A number of mythology textbooks echo the sentiments of M.L. West: "[Hope's retention in the jar] is comforting, and we are to be thankful for this antidote to our present ills."[14] Some scholars such as Mark Griffith, however, take the opposite view: "[Hope] seems to be a blessing withheld from men so that their life should be the more dreary and depressing."[15] One's interpretation hangs on two related questions: First, how are we to render elpis, the Greek word usually translated as "hope"? Second, does the jar preserve Elpis for men, or keep Elpis away from men?
The first question might confuse the non-specialist. But as with most ancient Greek words, elpis can be translated a number of ways. A number of scholars prefer the neutral translation of "expectation." But expectation of what? Classical authors use the word elpis to mean "expectation of bad," as well as "expectation of good." Statistical analysis demonstrates that the latter sense appears five times more than the former in all of ancient Greek literature.[16] Others hold the minority view that elpis should be rendered, "expectation of evil" (vel sim).[17]
How one answers the first question largely depends on the answer to the second question: should we interpret the jar to function as a prison, or a pantry?[18] The jar certainly serves as a prison for the evils that Pandora released -- they only affect mankind once outside the jar. Some have argued that logic dictates, therefore, that the jar acts as a prison for Elpis as well, withholding it from men.[19] If one takes elpis to mean expectant hope, then the myth's tone is pessimistic: All the evils in the world were scattered from Pandora's jar, while the one potentially mitigating force, Hope, remains locked securely inside.[20]
This interpretation raises yet another question, complicating the debate: are we to take Hope in an absolute sense, or in a narrow sense where we understand Hope to mean hope only as it pertains to the evils released from the jar? If Hope is imprisoned in the jar, does this mean that human existence is utterly hopeless? This is the most pessimistic reading possible for the myth. A less pessimistic interpretation (still pessimistic, to be sure) understands the myth to say: countless evils fled Pandora's jar and plague human existence; the hope that we might be able to master these evils remains imprisoned inside the jar. Life is not hopeless, but each of us is hopelessly human.[21]
An objection to the hope is good/the jar is a prison interpretation counters that, if the jar is full of evils, then what is expectant hope -- a blessing -- doing among them? This objection leads some to render elpis as the expectation of evil, which would make the myth's tone somewhat optimistic: although humankind is troubled by all the evils in the world, at least we are spared the continual expectation of evil, which would make life unbearable.[17]
The optimistic reading of the myth is expressed by M.L. West. Elpis takes the more common meaning of expectant hope. And while the jar served as a prison for the evils that escaped, it thereafter serves as a residence for Hope. West explains, "It would be absurd to represent either the presence of ills by their confinement in a jar or the presence of hope by its escape from one."[22] Hope is thus preserved as a benefit for humans.[23]
[edit] All-giving Pandora: a mythic inversion
The lapetiongtradipsoymology of Pandora's name, "all-gifted" provided in Works and Days is an incorrect folk etymology. Pandora properly means "all-giving" rather than "all-gifted." Certain vase paintings dated to the 5th century BC likewise indicate that the pre-Hesiodic myth of the goddess Pandora endured for centuries after the time of Hesiod. An alternate name for Pandora attested on a white-ground kylix (ca. 460 BC) is Anesidora, which similarly means "she who sends up gifts." This vase painting clearly depicts Hephaestus and Athena putting the finishing touches on the first woman, as in the Theogony. Written above this figure (a convention in Greek vase painting) is the name Anesidora. More commonly, however, the epithet anesidora is applied to Gaea or Demeter.
This connection of Pandora to Gaea and Demeter through the name Anesidora provides a clue as to Pandora's evolution as a mythic figure. In classical scholarship it is generally posited that—for female deities in particular—one or more secondary mythic entities sometimes "splinter off" (so to speak) from a primary entity, assuming aspects of the original in the process. The most famous example of this is the putative division of all the aspects of the so-called Great Goddess into a number of goddesses with more specialized functions—Gaea, Demeter, Persephone, Artemis and Hecate among them. Pandora appears to be just such a product of this process. In a previous incarnation now lost to us, Pandora/Anesidora would have taken on aspects of Gaea and Demeter. She would embody the fertility of the earth and its capacity to bear grain and fruits for the benefit of humankind.[24] Jane Ellen Harrison[25] turned to the repertory of vase-painters to shed light on aspects of myth that were left unaddressed or disguised in literature. The story of Pandora was repeated on Greek ceramics. On a fifth century amphora in the Ashmolean Museum (her fig.71) the half-figure of Pandora emerges from the ground, her arms upraised in the epiphany gesture, to greet Epimetheus.[26] A winged ker with a fillet hovers overhead: "Pandora rises from the earth; she is the Earth, giver of all gifts," Harrison observes.
Over time this "all-giving" goddess somehow devolved into an "all-gifted" mortal woman. T. A. Sinclair, commenting on Works and Days[27] argues that Hesiod shows no awareness of the mythology of such a divine "giver". A.H. Smith[28], however, notes that in Hesiod's account Athena and the Seasons brought wreaths of grass and spring flowers to Pandora, indicating that Hesiod was conscious of Pandora's original "all-giving" function. Jane Ellen Harrison sees in Hesiod's story "evidence of a shift from matriarchy to patriarchy in Greek culture. As the life-bringing goddess Pandora is eclipsed, the death-bringing human Pandora arises."[29] Thus Harrison concludes "in the patriarchal mythology of Hesiod her great figure is strangely changed and diminished. She is no longer Earth-Born, but the creature, the handiwork of Olympian Zeus." (Harrison 1922:284) Robert Graves, quoting Harrison,[30] asserts of the Hesiodic episode that "Pandora is not a genuine myth, but an anti-feminist fable, probably of his own invention."
The Hesiodic myth did not, however, completely obliterate the memory of the all-giving goddess Pandora. A scholium to line 971 of Aristophanes' The Birds mentions a cult "to Pandora, the earth, because she bestows all things necessary for life". [31]
In fifth-century Athens Pandora made a prominent appearance in what, at first, appears an unexpected context, in a marble relief or bronze appliqués as a frize along the base of the Athena Parthenos the culminating experience on the Acropolis; there Jeffrey M. Hurwit has interpreted her presence as an "anti-Athena" reinforcing civic ideologies of patriarchy and the "highly gendered social and political realities of fifth-century Athens."[32] Interpretation has never come easy: Pausanias (i.24.7) merely noted the subject and moved on. Jeffrey Hurwit has argued that Pandora represents an "anti-Athena", similarly a child of no mother, an embodiment of the need for the patriarchal rule that the virginal Athena, rising above her sex, defended.
[edit] Feminist interpretations of Pandora
Jane Ellen Harrison[33] states that in an earlier set of myths, Pandora was a manifestation of the Great Goddess, provider of the gifts that made life and culture possible, and that Hesiod's tale can be seen as part of a propaganda campaign to demote her from her previously revered status. The Hesiodic myth's misogyny is apparent in the transformation of a goddess who gives all good things to men into a mortal woman who is intrinsically evil and who, moreover, introduces every conceivable evil to mankind. Modern feminist literary criticism has also focused on the gendered symbolism inherent in the myth. Pandora's jar, feminist theory suggests, represents the female womb. That the jar releases a myriad of evils upon the earth suggests the phallocentric culture's unease with female sexuality.[34] For further feminist study of the myth, see Charlene Spretnak, Lost Goddesses of Early Greece; A Collection of Pre-Hellenic Mythology, 1977.
[edit] Pithos into "box"
Main article: Pandora's box
Nicolas Régnier, Allegory of Vanity - Pandora, c. 1626. Régnier portrayed Pandora with a jar, not a boxThe mistranslation of pithos, a large storage jar, as "box"[35] who noted that the word universally used in this context by all writers of Greek down to the twelfth century was pithos. is usually attributed to the sixteenth century humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam when he translated Hesiod's tale of Pandora into Latin. Hesiod's pithos refers to a large storage jar, often half-buried in the ground, used for oil or grain. Erasmus, however, translated pithos into the Latin word pyxis, meaning "box".[36] The phrase "Pandora's box" has endured ever since.
A pithos from Crete, ca. 675 BC. Louvre
An Attic pyxis, 440-430 BC. British Museum
[edit] Notes
^ Pandora, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, at Perseus
^ Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion 3rd ed., 1922:281. If Anesidora/Pandora were already "all-gifted", this would be an instance of mythic inversion.
^ Homer, Iliad, 24:527.; on-line Greek and English text Theoi Project: Pandora
^ In Greek, Pandora has an active rather than a passive meaning; hence, Pandora properly means "All-giving." The implications of this mistranslation are explored in "All-giving Pandora: mythic inversion?" below.
^ A pithos is a very large jar, usually made of rough-grained terra cotta, used for storage.
^ Contra M.L. West, Works and Days, p.168. "Hesiod omits to say where the jar came from, and what Pandora had in mind when she opened it, and what exactly it contained". West goes on to say this contributes to the "inconclusive Pandora legend".
^ Sappho, fr. 207 in Lobel and Page.
^ Babrius, Fabulla lviii.
^ Jeffrey M. Hurwit, "Beautiful Evil: Pandora and the Athena Parthenos" American Journal of Archaeology 99.2 (April 1995:171-186) p. 177.
^ E.g. as on a volute krater, ca 450 BC, in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Oxford G 275), Hurwit, p. 276 fig. 7.
^ Panofsky, Pandora's Box: The Changing Aspects of a Mythical Symbol (New York, 1962).
^ a b West, Works and Days, p.164.
^ Dora Panofsky and Erwin Panofsky examined the post-Renaissance mythos (Pandora was not a subject of medieval art) in Pandora's Box. The Changing Aspects of a Mythical Symbol (New York: Pantheon, Bollingen series) 1956.
^ West 1978:96.
^ Griffith 1983:250.
^ Leinieks 1984, 1-4.
^ a b E.g., Verdenius 1985; Blumer 2001.
^ The prison/pantry terminology comes from Verdenius 1985 ad 96.
^ Scholars holding this view (e.g., Walcot 1961, 250) point out that the jar is termed an "unbreakable" (in Greek: arrektos) house. In Greek literature (e.g., Homer, and elsewhere in Hesiod), the word arrektos is applied to structures meant to sequester or otherwise restrain its contents.
^ See Griffith 1984 above.
^ Thus Athanassakis 1983 in his commentary ad Works 96.
^ West 1988, 169-70.
^ Taking the jar to serve as a prison at some times and as a pantry at others will also accommodate another pessimistic interpretation of the myth. In this reading, attention is paid to the phrase moune Elpis -- "only Hope," or "Hope alone." A minority opinion construes the phrase instead to mean "empty Hope" or "baseless Hope": not only are humans plagued by a multitude of evils, but they persist in the fruitless hope that things might get better. Thus Beall 1989 227-28.
^ Hence, possibly, the variant myth that Pandora's jar contained blessings for mankind.
^ Harrison, Prolegomena 1922, pp 280-83.
^ Compare the rising female figure, identified as Aphrodite, on the "Ludovisi Throne".
^ Sinclair, editor, Hesiod: Works and Days (London: Macmillan) 1932:12.
^ Smith, "The Making of Pandora" The Journal of Hellenic Studies 11 (1890, pp. 278-283), p 283.
^ William E. Phipps, "Eve and Pandora contrasted" Theology Today 45 on-line text
^ Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (1903) 1922:283-85 quoted in Graves, The Greek Myths (1955) 1960, sect.39.8 p 148.
^ Jeffrey M. Hurwit, "Beautiful Evil: Pandora and the Athena Parthenos" American Journal of Archaeology 99.2 (April 1995:171-186).
^ Jeffrey M. Hurwit, "Beautiful Evil: Pandora and the Athena Parthenos" American Journal of Archaeology 99.2 (April 1995:171-186)
^ Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 1922:280-83, "The Making of a Goddess".
^ See, for example, Reeder 1995, 195-99 and 277-279; Zeitlin 1995 passim, but particularly the chapter on Pandora: "Signifying Difference: The Case of Hesiod's Pandora." For an extensive bibliography on women in ancient Greek myth and society, see the list of references compiled by John Porter: http://homepage.usask.ca/~jrp638/Biblios/Womenindrama.html
^ The development of this transformation was sketched by Jane Ellen Harrison, "Pandora's Box" The Journal of Hellenic Studies 20 (1900:99-114); she traced the mistranslation as far as Lilius Giraldus of Ferrara, in his Historiarum Deorum Syntagma (1580), in which pithos was rendered pyxide, and she linked the pithos with the Pithoigia aspect of the Athenian festival of Anthestria.
^ In his notes to Hesiod's Works and Days (p.168) M.L. West has surmised that Erasmus may have confused the story of Pandora with the story found elsewhere of a box which was opened by Psyche; the Panofskys (1956) follow him in this surmise.
[edit] References
Athanassakis, A. Hesiod: Theogony, Works and Days, Shield (New York 1983).
Beall, E. "The Contents of Hesiod's Pandora Jar: Erga 94-98," Hermes 117 (1989) 227-30.
Jane Ellen Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (1903) 1922, pp 280-85.
Griffith, Mark. Aeschylus Prometheus Bound Text and Commentary (Cambridge 1983).
Hesiod, Works and Days On-line text.
Leinieks, V. "Elpis in Hesiod, Works and Days 96," Philologus 128 (1984) 1-8.
Moore, Clifford H. The Religious Thought of the Greeks, 1916.
Nilsson, Martin P. History of Greek Religion, 1949.
Pucci, Pietro. Hesiod and the Language of Poetry, 1977.
Smith, William, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, 1870, sub "Pandora" On-line text
William Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) vol I:177, sub "Anesidora" "Spender" is a misprint of "sender", often repeated.
Verdenius, Willem Jacob, A Commentary on Hesiod Works and Days vv 1-382 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985). ISBN 9004074651
West, M.L. Hesiod, Theogony, ed. with prolegomena and commentary (Oxford 1966).
-- Hesiod, Works and Days, ed. with prolegomena and commentary (Oxford 1978).
-- Hesiod, Theogony, and Works and Days (Oxford 1988).
Zeitlin, Froma. Playing the Other: Gender and Society in Classical Greek Literature (Princeton 1995).
Immanuel Musaeus, Der Pandoramythos bei Hesiod und seine Rezeption bis Erasmus von Rotterdam (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), Pp. 234 (Hypomnemata, 151).
Vered Lev Kenaan, Pandora's Senses: The Feminine Character of the Ancient Text (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2008), Pp. xii, 253 (Wisconsin Studies in Classics).
G.S. Kirk, Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures (Berkeley 1970) 226-32.
P. Pucci, Hesiod and the Language of Poetry (Baltimore 1977) 82-115.
M. Warner, Monuments and Maidens: The Allegory of the Female Form (New York 1985) 213-40
J.P. Vernant, Myth and Society in Ancient Greece (New York 1990) 183-201.
Fall of Man
Fall of Man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can. (July 2006)
For the video game, see Resistance: Fall of Man.
Adam, Eve, and a female serpent (possibly Lilith) at the entrance to Notre Dame de ParisIn Christian doctrine, the Fall of Man, or simply the Fall, refers to the transition of the first humans from a state of innocent obedience to God, to a state of guilty disobedience to God. In the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve live at first with God in a paradise, but are then deceived or tempted by another creature to eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which had been forbidden them by God. After doing so they become ashamed of their nakedness, and God consequently expelled them from paradise. The Fall is not mentioned by name in the Bible, but the story of disobedience and expulsion is recounted in both Testaments in different ways.
The Fall can refer to the wider theological inferences for all humankind as a consequence of Eve and Adam's original sin. Examples include the teachings of Paul, Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22.
Some Christians believe the Fall corrupted the entire natural world, including human nature, causing people to be born into original sin, a state from which they cannot attain eternal life without the gracious intervention of God. Protestants hold that Jesus' death was a "ransom" by which man was made forever free from the sin acquired at the Fall, and other denominations believe that this act made it possible for man to be free without necessarily ensuring it.
In other religions, such as Judaism, Islam, and Gnosticism interpretations of the Fall vary.
The term "prelapsarian" refers to the sin-free state of humanity prior to the Fall. It is sometimes used in reference to sentimental recollections of a past time when conditions stood in sharp contrast to the present; this situation is called nostalgia.
Contents
[hide]
1 Accounts of the Fall
1.1 From the Book of Genesis
1.2 From the Quran
1.3 Other traditions
2 Interpretations
2.1 Judaism and Islam
2.2 Christianity
2.2.1 Catholicism
2.2.2 Protestantism
2.2.3 Eastern Orthodoxy
2.2.4 Pelagianism
2.2.5 Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
2.2.6 Unification Church
2.2.7 Felix culpa (the happy fault)
2.3 Other interpretations
2.3.1 Entheogen theory
2.3.2 Kundalini Yoga
2.4 The Fall in fiction
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
[edit] Accounts of the Fall
[edit] From the Book of Genesis
In Genesis, the first book of the Jewish and Christian Bibles, God creates Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, in his own image. God places them in the Garden of Eden and forbids them to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (often symbolized in European art and literature as an apple tree). A serpent persuades Eve to eat fruit from the forbidden tree. Eve shares the fruit with Adam and they immediately become ashamed of their nakedness.
Tradition labels the penalties assessed by God on Adam and Eve for their sin as "curses"; however, the passages from Genesis explicitly curse only the serpent and the ground, not the man and the woman.
To the Serpent God said:
Because you have done this,
cursed are you among all animals and among all wild creatures;
upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.
– Genesis 3:14-15
Although God does not use the word "curse" when he addresses the couple, he does, at a minimum, prophetically warn them of the consequences awaiting them as a result of the sin they have committed.
To the woman God said,
I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.
– Genesis 3:16
And to the man God said,
Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, You shall not eat of it",
cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken; you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.
– Genesis 3:17-19
The question thus remains as to whether God's statements to the woman and man are prescriptive, and therefore a curse, or are instead descriptive; that is, prophecies of the natural consequences of their actions. Calvinist theologian Roger Nicole understands the passage this way:[1]
This passage is not a commandment, but a prophecy that has been fulfilled extensively over the centuries in all the earth. Whatever we may do to alleviate God’s curse is legitimate in the matter of subordination, no less than in providing some relief from the pains of the delivery of children (3:16) and the sweat in cultivating the ground and earning a living (3:17–19).
– Roger Nicole
[edit] From the Quran
God announced to the angels that he would create a vicegerent (man) on the earth. The angels questioned this, wondering why God would create something with the capacity to disobey him:
002.030 Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not." 002.031 And He taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: "Tell me the names of these if ye are right." 002.032 They said: "Glory to Thee, of knowledge We have none, save what Thou Hast taught us: In truth it is Thou Who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom." 002.033 He said: "O Adam! Tell them their names." When he had told them, Allah said: "Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of heaven and earth, and I know what ye reveal and what ye conceal?"
– Al-Qur'an, 002.030 (Al-Baqara [The Cow])
God then commanded the angels to prostrate (bow down) to Adam. The angels prostrated but Iblis (Satan), out of haughtiness, refused to bow. God cursed him because of his disobedience. Iblis sought respite and vowed to mislead Adam and his progeny. He misled Adam and his wife Eve to eat from a tree that was forbidden for them by God.
Due to their disobedience, God ordered the removal of Adam and Eve out of paradise and down to earth. God promised that the earth will be a dwelling place for them and their children a limited time (Until the Day of Judgment).
God warns men and women that they should not allow themselves to be deceived by Satan and fall into disobedience (disbelief, polytheism and sins) which will eventually lead them to Hell. If men and women obey God, they will lead a successful life on earth and be admitted into paradise as a reward.
The Qur'an Al-A'raf (The Elevated Places) verses 7:11-27 detail the story of the Fall. [1]
[edit] Other traditions
In Gnosticism, the snake is thanked for bringing knowledge to Adam and Eve, and thereby freeing them from the Demiurge's control. The Demiurge banished Adam and Eve, because man was now a threat.
Ancient Greek mythology held that humanity was immortal during the Golden Age, until Prometheus brought them fire to help them live through cold. The gods punished humans allowing Pandora to release the evil (death, sorrow, plague) into the world due to her curiosity.
In classic Zoroastrianism, mankind is created to withstand the forces of decay and destruction through good thoughts, words and deeds. Failure to do so actively leads to misery for the individual and for his family. This is also the moral of many of the stories of the Shahnameh, the key text of Persian mythology.
See also Tree of Knowledge for other traditions.
[edit] Interpretations
[edit] Judaism and Islam
Judaism and Islam interpret the account of the fall as being simply historical, Adam and Eve's disobedience would have already been known to God even before he created them, thus draw no particular theological implications for human nature.[citation needed] Quite simply, because of Adam's actions, he and his wife were removed from the garden, forced to work, suffer pain in childbirth, and die. However, even after expelling them from the garden, God provided that people who honor God and follow God's laws would be rewarded, while those who acted wrongly would be punished. Some Muslims believe that Adam and Eve were clothed in the Garden and stripped when they were expelled. However, these stories hold no significant weight in any Judaic-Christian type of doctrine.[2])
[edit] Christianity
Adam and Eve by Peter Paul RubensChristianity interprets the fall in a number of ways.
Traditional Christian theology accepts the teaching of St Paul in his letter to the Romans[3] "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and of St John's Gospel that "God so loved the world that he sent his only son (Jesus Christ) that whoever believes on him should not perish, but have everlasting life".[4]
The doctrine of original sin, as articulated by Saint Augustine's interpretation of Saint Paul, provides that the fall caused a fundamental change in human nature, so that all descendants of Adam are born in sin, and can only be redeemed by divine grace. Sacrifice was the only means by which humanity could be redeemed after the Fall. Jesus, who was without sin, died on the cross as the ultimate redemption for the sin of humankind.
One tradition within Christianity is that the serpent of Genesis was Satan.
[edit] Catholicism
Catholicism teaches that "the account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man."[5]
Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.[6]
This first sin was "transmitted" by Adam and Eve to all of their descendants as original sin, causing humans to be "subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin." Baptism is considered to erase original sin, though the effects on human nature remain, and for this reason the Catholic Church baptizes even infants who have not committed any personal sin.[7]
[edit] Protestantism
Among the teachings of Protestants John Calvin and Martin Luther were, in a variation and adaptation of the Pauline-Augustinian teaching, that God foresaw and predestined those who were to be redeemed by grace and those who were to be eternally condemned, thus giving humanity, in its sinful state, no real choice in spiritual matters, except to act at God's direction. (See Calvinism.) Calvinists (and others) holding this view are named Infralapsarians. Those who hold predestination to be superior to the Fall, and the creation, fall, and redemption to be part of God's eternal purpose are named Supralapsarians. (See supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism.)
Some Protestants (including some of the above mentioned Lutheran and Calvinist groups) understand the account of "the fall" in Genesis 2 and 3 not as a historical-factual account of the origins of human sin, but rather as the narrative myth that the Israelite people used to express their recognition that man's relationship with God was broken, (a "myth" in the sense that the truth contained in the narrative does not depend upon its historical factuality). This view has the advantage of not conflicting with the evolutionary description of human origins, while preserving the traditional biblical idea of man's moral failure and need for redemption.
Some more liberal Protestants [8] see the person and work of Jesus Christ as God's act to restore relationship, but tend not to view this restoration in terms of a sacrifice necessary for an unpaid debt.
[edit] Eastern Orthodoxy
Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the idea that the guilt of original sin is passed down through generations. It bases its teaching in part on a passage in Exodus saying a son is not guilty of the sins of his father. The church teaches that in addition to their conscience and tendency to do good, men and women are born with a tendency to sin due to the fallen condition of the world. It follows Maximus the Confessor and others in characterizing the change in human nature as the introduction of a "deliberative will" (θέλημα γνωμικόν) in opposition to the "natural will" (θέλημα φυσικόν) created by God which tends toward the good. Thus according to St Paul in his epistle to the Romans, non-Christians can still act according to their conscience. Nonetheless, as a consequence of Adam's sin, seen merely as the prototype (since human nature has been degraded) of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins, humans became mortal. Adam's sin isn't comprehended only as disobedience to God's commandment, but as a change in man's hierarchy of values from theocentricism to anthropocentrism, driven by the object of his lust, outside of God, in this case the tree which was seen to be "good for food", and something "to be desired" (see also theosis, seeking union with God).[9][10]
[edit] Pelagianism
Pelagianism rejects the doctrine of original sin entirely, holding that the fall did not permanently taint human nature, and that humans are therefore capable of choosing good even without divine aid.
[edit] Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
Mormonism believes that the Fall was necessary as part of God's plan to redeem and exalt His children.
When God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, he gave them two seemingly contradictory commandments: First, to "multiply and replenish the earth"; and second, not to partake of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Mormonism emphasizes that Adam and Eve's subsequent partaking of the fruit was a "transgression," not a sin. Eve, understanding that without partaking of the fruit they could have no posterity, and hence could not fulfill the command to multiply and replenish the earth, partook of the fruit; Adam, seeing that his wife would be driven out of the Garden and he would be alone and unable to fulfill God’s command, partook as well.
The Book of Mormon, sacred scripture to Latter-day Saints , states:
And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given (2 Nephi 2:22-26) [2].
According to Mormonism, through partaking of the fruit, Adam and Eve brought death into the world in two forms, namely physical and spiritual death. Physical death is a separation of the body and spirit; spiritual death is a separation between God and man. Through their own power, humanity is not able to overcome either. Yet, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all of humanity will be resurrected and overcome physical death; and by individual obedience to the Gospel, the grace of Christ provides forgiveness for individual sins, thus overcoming spiritual death and returning the faithful disciple to God’s presence.
This Plan of Salvation rejects the concept of Original sin. Three of their thirteen Articles of Faith state:
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. [3]
[edit] Unification Church
The Unification Church agrees with those who believe the forbidden fruit was sex, but teaches that Adam and Eve were meant to be blessed in marriage by God after they had grown to spiritual maturity. They fell when they engaged in a sexual act prematurely after Eve was tempted sexually by the serpent in the world of spirit. Thus they learned about the sexual relationship from Satan, not from God.
Contrary to many Christians' belief, Unificationists do not believe that The Fall was predestined by God, but was a choice made by Adam and Eve. According to Divine Principle (the Unification holy book),
"God created human beings in His image, with the character and powers of the Creator, intending that they govern over all things as He governs over humankind. However, for human beings to inherit the creative nature of God, they must grow to perfection by fulfilling their portion of responsibility. . . the period of their growth is the realm of God's indirect dominion or the realm of dominion based on accomplishments through the Principle. While people are still in this realm, God does not directly govern them because He wishes to allow them to fulfill their own portion of responsibility. God will govern them directly only after they have reached full maturity. If God were to interfere with human actions during their growing period, it would be tantamount to ignoring the human portion of responsibility. In that case, God would be disregarding His own Principle of Creation, according to which He intends to give human beings His creative nature and raise them to become the lords of creation. In summary, in order to preserve the absoluteness and perfection of the Principle of Creation, God did not intervene in the acts that led the human beings to fall." [11]
As a result of "the fall", humans lost God's lineage, and have been dominated by their ties to Satan. Unificationists believe that the fall is reversed through the Blessing Ceremony, which is understood to change a couple's lineage back to that of God, cutting off the bloodline to Satan. The entire purpose of history is restoration of man back to the originally intended divine lineage of God.
[edit] Felix culpa (the happy fault)
One interpretation of the doctrine of the fall is that it is necessary so that humans might benefit from God's grace. It includes the notion that, had humankind not been given the capacity for evil, our choice through free will to either serve God or not would not have been as meaningful. For example:
A fall it might seem, just as a vicious man sometimes seems degraded below the beasts, but in promise and potency, a rise it really was.
– Sir Oliver Lodge, "Life and Matter", p. 79
[edit] Other interpretations
[edit] Entheogen theory
Writer/philosopher Terrence McKenna in the Entheogen theory proposed that the fruit of knowledge was a reference to psychotropic plants and fungus, which played a central role, he theorized, in human intellectual evolution.
[edit] Kundalini Yoga
In the theory of Kundalini Yoga, some agnostics, Yogic practitioners, and anthropoligists, including author William Irwin Thompson, attribute the story of the fall to the time when human beings first understood that sex led to pregnancy, and understood what menstruation is. Before this time, people did not have a concept of paternity. As with many primates, the male caretaker was the brother of the mother. There was no way to determine paternity, except that women at some point understood their own menstrual cycles and could determine who had fathered their children. Eventually, this knowledge was shared with men, or with man.
At that point, men wanted to control paternity, pass on inheritances of land and status, etc. From this circumstance arose many social conflicts, and sense of "good and evil". For example, the only way to control paternity is to marry a virgin and make sure she is watched by the community; thus virginity and monogamy become law, and innumerable social taboos, requirements and rituals come into being.
William Irwin Thompson equates the serpent with the awakening of kundalini ("serpentine") energy, the sexual energy held in the pelvis that, when channeled upwards, becomes divine knowledge. In "The time falling bodies take to light", Thompson theorizes that Eve's kundalini awakened, leading her to understand sexuality and human power and intelligence. In Sanskrit, "kundalini" means "serpent"
[edit] The Fall in fiction
In both Daniel Quinn's Ishmael and The Story of B novels, it is proposed that the story of the fall of man was first thought up by another culture watching the development of the now-dominant totalitarian agriculturalist culture.
Philip Pullman presents an interesting twist on The Fall in his His Dark Materials series. In this, The Fall is presented in a positive light, as it is the moment at which human beings achieve self-awareness, knowledge, and freedom. Pullman believes that it is not worth being innocent if the price is ignorance.
In the novel Perelandra by C. S. Lewis, the theme of the Fall is explored in the context of a new Garden of Eden with a new Adam and Eve on the planet Venus.
In the series Neon Genesis Evangelion, the theme of the Fall is often explored, in the end of the plot, an attempt to clean the original sin is performed and a new genesis is started.
In the novel The Fall by Albert Camus, the theme of the Fall is enunciated through the first-person account given in post-war Amsterdam, in a bar called "Mexico City." Confessing to an acquaintance, the protagonist, Jean-Baptiste Clamence, describes the haunting consequence of his refusal to rescue a woman who had jumped from a bridge to her death. The dilemmas of modern Western conscience and the sacramental themes of baptism and grace are explored.
[edit] See also
Paradise Lost by John Milton
Deal with the devil
Original sin
Tree of Life (Judeo-Christian)
[edit] References
^ Nicole, Roger. "Biblical Egalitarianism and the Inerrancy of Scripture." Priscilla Papers, Vol. 20, No. 2. Spring 2006
^ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5204664 Drawing the Line Between Public and Private. Commentator Professor Farzaneh Milani mentions that this was the popular belief in Iran.
^ Paul's Epistle to the Romans, chapter 3 verse 23
^ Gospel of John, chapter 3 verse 16
^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 390
^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 397
^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 404-405
^ John Shelby Spong, Bishop of Newark, Retired
^ OCA - Q & A - Original Sin
^ Eastern Orthodox Catechism, published by the Russian Orthodox Church. Accessed February 16, 2008.
^ Unification Home Page. Exposition of the Divine Principle, Retrieved September 12, 2007.
McKenna, Terrence, True Hallucinations & the Archaic Revival: Tales and Speculations About the Mysteries of the Psychedelic Experience (Fine Communications/MJF Books) (Hardbound) ISBN 1-56731-289-6; The Evolutionary Mind : Trialogues at the Edge of the Unthinkable (with Rupert Sheldrake and Ralph H. Abraham) (Trialogue Press; 1st Ed) ISBN 0-942344-13-8; Food of the Gods: A Radical History of Plants, Drugs, and Human Evolution (Rider & Co; New edition) ISBN 0-7126-7038-6
Thompson, William Irwin, The Time Falling Bodies Take to Light: Mythology, Sexuality and the Origins of Culture, 1981, 2001 ISBN 0-312-80512-8.
[edit] External links
The Creation and Fall of Man
The sting of death - What is sin?
Alternative theory about the story of the Fall of Man, by Daniel Quinn
Fall of Adam and Eve as explained in Mormonism
The Genesis Pursuit: The Lost History of Jesus Christ Stephen John Spencer, Xulon Press 2006, A Textual and scriptural examination of the Fall of Man and its relationship to the gospels and the coming of Jesus Christ and why Christ had to die.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can. (July 2006)
For the video game, see Resistance: Fall of Man.
Adam, Eve, and a female serpent (possibly Lilith) at the entrance to Notre Dame de ParisIn Christian doctrine, the Fall of Man, or simply the Fall, refers to the transition of the first humans from a state of innocent obedience to God, to a state of guilty disobedience to God. In the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve live at first with God in a paradise, but are then deceived or tempted by another creature to eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which had been forbidden them by God. After doing so they become ashamed of their nakedness, and God consequently expelled them from paradise. The Fall is not mentioned by name in the Bible, but the story of disobedience and expulsion is recounted in both Testaments in different ways.
The Fall can refer to the wider theological inferences for all humankind as a consequence of Eve and Adam's original sin. Examples include the teachings of Paul, Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22.
Some Christians believe the Fall corrupted the entire natural world, including human nature, causing people to be born into original sin, a state from which they cannot attain eternal life without the gracious intervention of God. Protestants hold that Jesus' death was a "ransom" by which man was made forever free from the sin acquired at the Fall, and other denominations believe that this act made it possible for man to be free without necessarily ensuring it.
In other religions, such as Judaism, Islam, and Gnosticism interpretations of the Fall vary.
The term "prelapsarian" refers to the sin-free state of humanity prior to the Fall. It is sometimes used in reference to sentimental recollections of a past time when conditions stood in sharp contrast to the present; this situation is called nostalgia.
Contents
[hide]
1 Accounts of the Fall
1.1 From the Book of Genesis
1.2 From the Quran
1.3 Other traditions
2 Interpretations
2.1 Judaism and Islam
2.2 Christianity
2.2.1 Catholicism
2.2.2 Protestantism
2.2.3 Eastern Orthodoxy
2.2.4 Pelagianism
2.2.5 Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
2.2.6 Unification Church
2.2.7 Felix culpa (the happy fault)
2.3 Other interpretations
2.3.1 Entheogen theory
2.3.2 Kundalini Yoga
2.4 The Fall in fiction
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
[edit] Accounts of the Fall
[edit] From the Book of Genesis
In Genesis, the first book of the Jewish and Christian Bibles, God creates Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, in his own image. God places them in the Garden of Eden and forbids them to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (often symbolized in European art and literature as an apple tree). A serpent persuades Eve to eat fruit from the forbidden tree. Eve shares the fruit with Adam and they immediately become ashamed of their nakedness.
Tradition labels the penalties assessed by God on Adam and Eve for their sin as "curses"; however, the passages from Genesis explicitly curse only the serpent and the ground, not the man and the woman.
To the Serpent God said:
Because you have done this,
cursed are you among all animals and among all wild creatures;
upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.
– Genesis 3:14-15
Although God does not use the word "curse" when he addresses the couple, he does, at a minimum, prophetically warn them of the consequences awaiting them as a result of the sin they have committed.
To the woman God said,
I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.
– Genesis 3:16
And to the man God said,
Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, You shall not eat of it",
cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken; you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.
– Genesis 3:17-19
The question thus remains as to whether God's statements to the woman and man are prescriptive, and therefore a curse, or are instead descriptive; that is, prophecies of the natural consequences of their actions. Calvinist theologian Roger Nicole understands the passage this way:[1]
This passage is not a commandment, but a prophecy that has been fulfilled extensively over the centuries in all the earth. Whatever we may do to alleviate God’s curse is legitimate in the matter of subordination, no less than in providing some relief from the pains of the delivery of children (3:16) and the sweat in cultivating the ground and earning a living (3:17–19).
– Roger Nicole
[edit] From the Quran
God announced to the angels that he would create a vicegerent (man) on the earth. The angels questioned this, wondering why God would create something with the capacity to disobey him:
002.030 Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not." 002.031 And He taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: "Tell me the names of these if ye are right." 002.032 They said: "Glory to Thee, of knowledge We have none, save what Thou Hast taught us: In truth it is Thou Who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom." 002.033 He said: "O Adam! Tell them their names." When he had told them, Allah said: "Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of heaven and earth, and I know what ye reveal and what ye conceal?"
– Al-Qur'an, 002.030 (Al-Baqara [The Cow])
God then commanded the angels to prostrate (bow down) to Adam. The angels prostrated but Iblis (Satan), out of haughtiness, refused to bow. God cursed him because of his disobedience. Iblis sought respite and vowed to mislead Adam and his progeny. He misled Adam and his wife Eve to eat from a tree that was forbidden for them by God.
Due to their disobedience, God ordered the removal of Adam and Eve out of paradise and down to earth. God promised that the earth will be a dwelling place for them and their children a limited time (Until the Day of Judgment).
God warns men and women that they should not allow themselves to be deceived by Satan and fall into disobedience (disbelief, polytheism and sins) which will eventually lead them to Hell. If men and women obey God, they will lead a successful life on earth and be admitted into paradise as a reward.
The Qur'an Al-A'raf (The Elevated Places) verses 7:11-27 detail the story of the Fall. [1]
[edit] Other traditions
In Gnosticism, the snake is thanked for bringing knowledge to Adam and Eve, and thereby freeing them from the Demiurge's control. The Demiurge banished Adam and Eve, because man was now a threat.
Ancient Greek mythology held that humanity was immortal during the Golden Age, until Prometheus brought them fire to help them live through cold. The gods punished humans allowing Pandora to release the evil (death, sorrow, plague) into the world due to her curiosity.
In classic Zoroastrianism, mankind is created to withstand the forces of decay and destruction through good thoughts, words and deeds. Failure to do so actively leads to misery for the individual and for his family. This is also the moral of many of the stories of the Shahnameh, the key text of Persian mythology.
See also Tree of Knowledge for other traditions.
[edit] Interpretations
[edit] Judaism and Islam
Judaism and Islam interpret the account of the fall as being simply historical, Adam and Eve's disobedience would have already been known to God even before he created them, thus draw no particular theological implications for human nature.[citation needed] Quite simply, because of Adam's actions, he and his wife were removed from the garden, forced to work, suffer pain in childbirth, and die. However, even after expelling them from the garden, God provided that people who honor God and follow God's laws would be rewarded, while those who acted wrongly would be punished. Some Muslims believe that Adam and Eve were clothed in the Garden and stripped when they were expelled. However, these stories hold no significant weight in any Judaic-Christian type of doctrine.[2])
[edit] Christianity
Adam and Eve by Peter Paul RubensChristianity interprets the fall in a number of ways.
Traditional Christian theology accepts the teaching of St Paul in his letter to the Romans[3] "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and of St John's Gospel that "God so loved the world that he sent his only son (Jesus Christ) that whoever believes on him should not perish, but have everlasting life".[4]
The doctrine of original sin, as articulated by Saint Augustine's interpretation of Saint Paul, provides that the fall caused a fundamental change in human nature, so that all descendants of Adam are born in sin, and can only be redeemed by divine grace. Sacrifice was the only means by which humanity could be redeemed after the Fall. Jesus, who was without sin, died on the cross as the ultimate redemption for the sin of humankind.
One tradition within Christianity is that the serpent of Genesis was Satan.
[edit] Catholicism
Catholicism teaches that "the account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man."[5]
Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.[6]
This first sin was "transmitted" by Adam and Eve to all of their descendants as original sin, causing humans to be "subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin." Baptism is considered to erase original sin, though the effects on human nature remain, and for this reason the Catholic Church baptizes even infants who have not committed any personal sin.[7]
[edit] Protestantism
Among the teachings of Protestants John Calvin and Martin Luther were, in a variation and adaptation of the Pauline-Augustinian teaching, that God foresaw and predestined those who were to be redeemed by grace and those who were to be eternally condemned, thus giving humanity, in its sinful state, no real choice in spiritual matters, except to act at God's direction. (See Calvinism.) Calvinists (and others) holding this view are named Infralapsarians. Those who hold predestination to be superior to the Fall, and the creation, fall, and redemption to be part of God's eternal purpose are named Supralapsarians. (See supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism.)
Some Protestants (including some of the above mentioned Lutheran and Calvinist groups) understand the account of "the fall" in Genesis 2 and 3 not as a historical-factual account of the origins of human sin, but rather as the narrative myth that the Israelite people used to express their recognition that man's relationship with God was broken, (a "myth" in the sense that the truth contained in the narrative does not depend upon its historical factuality). This view has the advantage of not conflicting with the evolutionary description of human origins, while preserving the traditional biblical idea of man's moral failure and need for redemption.
Some more liberal Protestants [8] see the person and work of Jesus Christ as God's act to restore relationship, but tend not to view this restoration in terms of a sacrifice necessary for an unpaid debt.
[edit] Eastern Orthodoxy
Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the idea that the guilt of original sin is passed down through generations. It bases its teaching in part on a passage in Exodus saying a son is not guilty of the sins of his father. The church teaches that in addition to their conscience and tendency to do good, men and women are born with a tendency to sin due to the fallen condition of the world. It follows Maximus the Confessor and others in characterizing the change in human nature as the introduction of a "deliberative will" (θέλημα γνωμικόν) in opposition to the "natural will" (θέλημα φυσικόν) created by God which tends toward the good. Thus according to St Paul in his epistle to the Romans, non-Christians can still act according to their conscience. Nonetheless, as a consequence of Adam's sin, seen merely as the prototype (since human nature has been degraded) of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins, humans became mortal. Adam's sin isn't comprehended only as disobedience to God's commandment, but as a change in man's hierarchy of values from theocentricism to anthropocentrism, driven by the object of his lust, outside of God, in this case the tree which was seen to be "good for food", and something "to be desired" (see also theosis, seeking union with God).[9][10]
[edit] Pelagianism
Pelagianism rejects the doctrine of original sin entirely, holding that the fall did not permanently taint human nature, and that humans are therefore capable of choosing good even without divine aid.
[edit] Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
Mormonism believes that the Fall was necessary as part of God's plan to redeem and exalt His children.
When God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, he gave them two seemingly contradictory commandments: First, to "multiply and replenish the earth"; and second, not to partake of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Mormonism emphasizes that Adam and Eve's subsequent partaking of the fruit was a "transgression," not a sin. Eve, understanding that without partaking of the fruit they could have no posterity, and hence could not fulfill the command to multiply and replenish the earth, partook of the fruit; Adam, seeing that his wife would be driven out of the Garden and he would be alone and unable to fulfill God’s command, partook as well.
The Book of Mormon, sacred scripture to Latter-day Saints , states:
And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given (2 Nephi 2:22-26) [2].
According to Mormonism, through partaking of the fruit, Adam and Eve brought death into the world in two forms, namely physical and spiritual death. Physical death is a separation of the body and spirit; spiritual death is a separation between God and man. Through their own power, humanity is not able to overcome either. Yet, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all of humanity will be resurrected and overcome physical death; and by individual obedience to the Gospel, the grace of Christ provides forgiveness for individual sins, thus overcoming spiritual death and returning the faithful disciple to God’s presence.
This Plan of Salvation rejects the concept of Original sin. Three of their thirteen Articles of Faith state:
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. [3]
[edit] Unification Church
The Unification Church agrees with those who believe the forbidden fruit was sex, but teaches that Adam and Eve were meant to be blessed in marriage by God after they had grown to spiritual maturity. They fell when they engaged in a sexual act prematurely after Eve was tempted sexually by the serpent in the world of spirit. Thus they learned about the sexual relationship from Satan, not from God.
Contrary to many Christians' belief, Unificationists do not believe that The Fall was predestined by God, but was a choice made by Adam and Eve. According to Divine Principle (the Unification holy book),
"God created human beings in His image, with the character and powers of the Creator, intending that they govern over all things as He governs over humankind. However, for human beings to inherit the creative nature of God, they must grow to perfection by fulfilling their portion of responsibility. . . the period of their growth is the realm of God's indirect dominion or the realm of dominion based on accomplishments through the Principle. While people are still in this realm, God does not directly govern them because He wishes to allow them to fulfill their own portion of responsibility. God will govern them directly only after they have reached full maturity. If God were to interfere with human actions during their growing period, it would be tantamount to ignoring the human portion of responsibility. In that case, God would be disregarding His own Principle of Creation, according to which He intends to give human beings His creative nature and raise them to become the lords of creation. In summary, in order to preserve the absoluteness and perfection of the Principle of Creation, God did not intervene in the acts that led the human beings to fall." [11]
As a result of "the fall", humans lost God's lineage, and have been dominated by their ties to Satan. Unificationists believe that the fall is reversed through the Blessing Ceremony, which is understood to change a couple's lineage back to that of God, cutting off the bloodline to Satan. The entire purpose of history is restoration of man back to the originally intended divine lineage of God.
[edit] Felix culpa (the happy fault)
One interpretation of the doctrine of the fall is that it is necessary so that humans might benefit from God's grace. It includes the notion that, had humankind not been given the capacity for evil, our choice through free will to either serve God or not would not have been as meaningful. For example:
A fall it might seem, just as a vicious man sometimes seems degraded below the beasts, but in promise and potency, a rise it really was.
– Sir Oliver Lodge, "Life and Matter", p. 79
[edit] Other interpretations
[edit] Entheogen theory
Writer/philosopher Terrence McKenna in the Entheogen theory proposed that the fruit of knowledge was a reference to psychotropic plants and fungus, which played a central role, he theorized, in human intellectual evolution.
[edit] Kundalini Yoga
In the theory of Kundalini Yoga, some agnostics, Yogic practitioners, and anthropoligists, including author William Irwin Thompson, attribute the story of the fall to the time when human beings first understood that sex led to pregnancy, and understood what menstruation is. Before this time, people did not have a concept of paternity. As with many primates, the male caretaker was the brother of the mother. There was no way to determine paternity, except that women at some point understood their own menstrual cycles and could determine who had fathered their children. Eventually, this knowledge was shared with men, or with man.
At that point, men wanted to control paternity, pass on inheritances of land and status, etc. From this circumstance arose many social conflicts, and sense of "good and evil". For example, the only way to control paternity is to marry a virgin and make sure she is watched by the community; thus virginity and monogamy become law, and innumerable social taboos, requirements and rituals come into being.
William Irwin Thompson equates the serpent with the awakening of kundalini ("serpentine") energy, the sexual energy held in the pelvis that, when channeled upwards, becomes divine knowledge. In "The time falling bodies take to light", Thompson theorizes that Eve's kundalini awakened, leading her to understand sexuality and human power and intelligence. In Sanskrit, "kundalini" means "serpent"
[edit] The Fall in fiction
In both Daniel Quinn's Ishmael and The Story of B novels, it is proposed that the story of the fall of man was first thought up by another culture watching the development of the now-dominant totalitarian agriculturalist culture.
Philip Pullman presents an interesting twist on The Fall in his His Dark Materials series. In this, The Fall is presented in a positive light, as it is the moment at which human beings achieve self-awareness, knowledge, and freedom. Pullman believes that it is not worth being innocent if the price is ignorance.
In the novel Perelandra by C. S. Lewis, the theme of the Fall is explored in the context of a new Garden of Eden with a new Adam and Eve on the planet Venus.
In the series Neon Genesis Evangelion, the theme of the Fall is often explored, in the end of the plot, an attempt to clean the original sin is performed and a new genesis is started.
In the novel The Fall by Albert Camus, the theme of the Fall is enunciated through the first-person account given in post-war Amsterdam, in a bar called "Mexico City." Confessing to an acquaintance, the protagonist, Jean-Baptiste Clamence, describes the haunting consequence of his refusal to rescue a woman who had jumped from a bridge to her death. The dilemmas of modern Western conscience and the sacramental themes of baptism and grace are explored.
[edit] See also
Paradise Lost by John Milton
Deal with the devil
Original sin
Tree of Life (Judeo-Christian)
[edit] References
^ Nicole, Roger. "Biblical Egalitarianism and the Inerrancy of Scripture." Priscilla Papers, Vol. 20, No. 2. Spring 2006
^ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5204664 Drawing the Line Between Public and Private. Commentator Professor Farzaneh Milani mentions that this was the popular belief in Iran.
^ Paul's Epistle to the Romans, chapter 3 verse 23
^ Gospel of John, chapter 3 verse 16
^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 390
^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 397
^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 404-405
^ John Shelby Spong, Bishop of Newark, Retired
^ OCA - Q & A - Original Sin
^ Eastern Orthodox Catechism, published by the Russian Orthodox Church. Accessed February 16, 2008.
^ Unification Home Page. Exposition of the Divine Principle, Retrieved September 12, 2007.
McKenna, Terrence, True Hallucinations & the Archaic Revival: Tales and Speculations About the Mysteries of the Psychedelic Experience (Fine Communications/MJF Books) (Hardbound) ISBN 1-56731-289-6; The Evolutionary Mind : Trialogues at the Edge of the Unthinkable (with Rupert Sheldrake and Ralph H. Abraham) (Trialogue Press; 1st Ed) ISBN 0-942344-13-8; Food of the Gods: A Radical History of Plants, Drugs, and Human Evolution (Rider & Co; New edition) ISBN 0-7126-7038-6
Thompson, William Irwin, The Time Falling Bodies Take to Light: Mythology, Sexuality and the Origins of Culture, 1981, 2001 ISBN 0-312-80512-8.
[edit] External links
The Creation and Fall of Man
The sting of death - What is sin?
Alternative theory about the story of the Fall of Man, by Daniel Quinn
Fall of Adam and Eve as explained in Mormonism
The Genesis Pursuit: The Lost History of Jesus Christ Stephen John Spencer, Xulon Press 2006, A Textual and scriptural examination of the Fall of Man and its relationship to the gospels and the coming of Jesus Christ and why Christ had to die.
Creationism
Creationism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Creationism" can also refer to creation myths in general, or to a concept about the origin of the soul. For the movement in Spanish literature, see creacionismo.
Part of a series on
Creationism
History of creationism
Neo-creationism
Types of creationism
Young Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism
Day-Age creationism
Progressive creationism
Gap creationism
Theistic evolution
Intelligent design
Other religious views
Hindu · Islamic · Jewish
Deist · Pandeist
Creation theology
Creation in Genesis
Genesis as an allegory
Framework interpretation
Omphalos hypothesis
Creation science
Baraminology
Flood geology
Intelligent design
Controversy
Politics of creationism
Public education
History
Teach the Controversy
Associated articles
Creationism Portal · v • d • e
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.[2]
Such beliefs include young Earth creationism, proponents of which believe that the days in Genesis Chapter 1 are 24 hours in length, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings and other methods of dating the earth and believes that these findings do not contradict the Genesis account, but reject evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth. Alternately, there are other religious people who support creation, but in terms of allegorical interpretations of Genesis.
Creationism in the West is usually based on creation according to Genesis, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19th century the term most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth.[2] Several U.S. states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in American public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgements.[3] The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology.[2]
When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,[4] its underlying scientific theories,[5] and/or its methodology.[6] For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[7] The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.[8][9][10][11]
Contents
[hide]
1 Overview
2 Political context
3 History
3.1 Creation in early and medieval Christianity
3.2 Natural theology
3.3 Evolution
3.4 Creation science and intelligent design
4 Types of Christian creationism
4.1 Young Earth creationism
4.1.1 Modern geocentrism
4.1.2 Omphalos hypothesis
4.1.3 Creation science
4.2 Old Earth creationism
4.2.1 Gap creationism
4.2.2 Day-age creationism
4.2.3 Progressive creationism
4.3 Neo-Creationism
4.3.1 Intelligent design
4.4 Theistic evolution
5 Non-Christian creationist movements
5.1 Hinduism and creationism
5.2 Islamic creationism
5.3 Jewish creationism
6 Prevalence
6.1 United States
6.2 The western world outside the United States
7 Christian critique
8 Scientific critique
9 See also
10 References
11 Additional references
12 Further reading
13 External links
13.1 Organizations
[edit] Overview
The term creationism is generally used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the Book of Genesis (for both Jews and Christians) or the Qur'an (for Muslims)[12] The terms creationism and creationist have become particularly associated with beliefs about the time frame of creation, conflicting with scientific understanding of natural history, particularly evolution. This conflict is most prevalent in the United States, where there has been sustained controversy in the public arena, centering over the issue of the science curriculum in public schools.
In a Christian context, many creationists adopt a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation narratives. This literal interpretation requires the harmonisation of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, which require interpretation to be consistent.[13][14] They sometimes seek to ensure that their belief is taught in science classes, mainly in American schools (see Young Earth Creationism, for example). Opponents reject the claim that the literalistic Biblical view meets the criteria required to be considered scientific.
Many religious sects teach that God created the cosmos. From the days of the early Christian Church Fathers there were allegorical interpretations of Genesis as well as literal aspects.[15] Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches, such as Anglicans and Lutherans, reject reading the Bible as though it could shed light on the physics of creation instead of the spiritual meaning of creation. According to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, "[for] most of the history of Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time."[16]
Leaders of the Anglican[17] and Roman Catholic [18][19] churches have made statements in favour of evolutionary theory, as have scholars such as John Polkinghorne, who argue that evolution is one of the principles through which God created living beings. Earlier supporters of evolutionary theory include Frederick Temple, Asa Gray and Charles Kingsley who were enthusiastic supporters of Darwin's theories upon their publication,[20] and the French Jesuit priest and geologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin saw evolution as confirmation of his Christian beliefs, despite condemnation from Church authorities for his more speculative theories. Another example is that of Liberal theology, which assumes that Genesis is a poetic work, and that just as human understanding of God increases gradually over time, so does the understanding of God's creation. In fact, both Jews and Christians had been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of an historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. Two notable examples are Saint Augustine (4th century) who argued on theological grounds that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant (and not in seven days as a plain account of Genesis would require);[21] and the 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time.[22]
[edit] Political context
The Truth fish, one of the many creationist responses to the Darwin fish.Main article: Creation-evolution controversy
In the United States, more than in the rest of the world, creationism has become centered in the political controversy over creation and evolution in public education, and whether teaching creationism in science classes conflicts with the separation of church and state. Currently, the controversy comes in the form of whether advocates of the Intelligent Design movement who wish to "Teach the Controversy" in science classes have conflated science with religion.[23]
In such political contexts, creationists argue that their particular religiously-based origin belief is superior to those of other belief systems, in particular those made through secular or scientific rationale. Political creationists are opposed by many individuals and organizations who have made detailed critiques and given testimony in various court cases that the alternatives to scientific reasoning offered by creationists are opposed by the consensus of the scientific community.[24][25]
[edit] History
Main article: History of creationism
The history of creationism is part of the history of religions, though the term itself is modern. In the 1920s the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist movements that insisted on a literalist interpretation of Creation according to Genesis and likewise opposed the idea of human evolution. These groups succeeded in getting teaching of evolution banned in United States public schools, then from the mid-1960s the young Earth creationists promoted the teaching of "scientific creationism" using "Flood geology" in public school science classes as support for a purely literal reading of Genesis.[26] After the legal judgement of the case Daniel versus Waters (1975) ruled that teaching creationism in public schools contravened constitutional separation of Church and State, the content was stripped of overt biblical references and renamed creation science. When the court case Edwards versus Aguillard (1987) ruled that creation science similarly contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to intelligent design, which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory. The Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science and contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes.[3]
[edit] Creation in early and medieval Christianity
To a large extent the early Christian Church Fathers read creation history as an allegory with the spiritual meaning seen as more important than the literal, without denying the literal meaning.[27] In the first century Saint Paul described Genesis 2:24 as an allegory meaning Christ and the Church, and Philo described creation as happening simultaneously, with the six days of creation meeting a need for order and according with a perfect number. Jewish writers such as Abraham ibn Ezra could be described as creationists, while consistently rejecting overly literal understandings of Genesis. Maimonides explicitly states that parts of Genesis 1-3 cannot be taken literally.[15]
In response to the second century Gnostic belief that Genesis was purely allegorical, Christian orthodoxy rejected this interpretation without taking a purely literal view of the texts. Thus Origen believes that the physical world is ‘literally’ a creation of God, but does not take the chronology or the days as ‘literal’. Similarly, Saint Basil in the fourth century while literal in many ways, describes creation as instantaneous and timeless, being immeasurable and indivisible. Augustine of Hippo in The Literal Meaning of Genesis is insistent that Genesis describes the creation of physical things, but also has creation occurring simultaneously, with the days of creation being categories for didactic reasons and light being the illumination of angels rather than visible light. In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas, like Augustine, asserted the need to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering while cautioning "that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."[15]
[edit] Natural theology
Main article: Natural theology
From 1517 the Protestant Reformation brought a new emphasis on lay literacy, with Martin Luther advocating the idea that creation took six literal days about 6000 years ago, and claiming that "Moses wrote that uneducated men might have clear accounts of creation", though a German peasant listening to a translation would have different perceptions from a Jew familiar with early Jewish language and culture, and Luther still had to refer to allegorical understandings such as the meaning of the serpent. John Calvin also rejected instantaneous creation, but criticised those who, contradicting the contemporary understanding of nature, asserted that there are "waters above the heavens".[15]
Discoveries of new lands brought knowledge of a huge diversity of life, and a new belief developed that each of these biological species had been individually created by God. In 1605 Francis Bacon emphasised that the works of God in nature teach us how to interpret the word of God in the Bible, and his Baconian method introduced the empirical approach which became central to modern science.[28] Natural theology developed the study of nature with the expectation of finding evidence supporting Christianity, and numerous attempts were made to reconcile new knowledge with Noah's Flood.[29]
In 1650 the Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, published the Ussher chronology based on Bible history giving a date for Creation of 4004 BC. This was generally accepted, but the development of modern geology in the 18th and 19th centuries found geological strata and fossil sequences indicating an ancient Earth. Catastrophism was favoured in England as supporting the Biblical flood, but this was found to be untenable[29] and by 1850 all geologists and most Evangelical Christians had adopted various forms of old Earth creationism, while continuing to firmly reject evolution.[15]
[edit] Evolution
Main article: History of evolutionary thought
From around the start of the nineteenth century ideas like Lamarck's concept of transmutation of species had gained a small number of supporters in Paris and Edinburgh, mostly amongst anatomists.[15] England at that time was enmeshed in the Napoleonic Wars, and fears of republican revolutions such as the American Revolution and French Revolution led to a harsh repression of such evolutionary ideas which challenged the divine hierarchy justifying the monarchy. Charles Darwin's development of his theory of natural selection at this time was kept closely secret. Repression eased, and the anonymous publication of Vestiges of Creation in 1844 aroused wide public interest with support from Quakers and Unitarians, but was strongly criticised by the scientific community, which emphasised the need for solidly backed science. In 1859 Darwin's On the Origin of Species provided that evidence from an authoritative and respected source, and gradually convinced scientists that evolution occurs. This was resisted by conservative evangelicals in the Church of England, but their attention quickly turned to the much greater uproar about Essays and Reviews by liberal Anglican theologians, which introduced into the controversy "the higher criticism" begun by Erasmus centuries earlier. This book re-examined the Bible and cast doubt on a literal interpretation.[30] By 1875 most American naturalists supported ideas of theistic evolution, often involving special creation of human beings.[26]
By the start of the twentieth century, evolution was widely accepted and was beginning to be taught in U.S. public schools. After World War I, stories that German aggression resulted from Darwinismus promoting "survival of the fittest" inspired William Jennings Bryan to campaign against the teaching of Darwinian ideas of human evolution.[26] In the 1920s, the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy led to an upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor in which schools were prevented from teaching evolution through state laws such as Tennessee’s 1925 Butler Act,[31][32] and by getting evolution removed from biology textbooks nationwide. Creationism became associated in common usage with opposition to evolution.[33]
[edit] Creation science and intelligent design
See also: Intelligent Design
See also: Creation science
The effective ban lasted until 1957 when Sputnik raised fears that the U.S. had fallen behind in science, and the 1959 National Defense Education Act promoted science. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study textbooks teaching evolution were used in almost half of U.S. high schools, though the prohibitions were still in place and a 1961 attempt to repeal the Butler Act failed.[3] In 1961 The Genesis Flood by the Baptist engineer Henry M. Morris brought the Seventh-day Adventist biblically literal flood geology of George McCready Price to a wider audience, popularizing a novel idea of Young Earth creationism,[15] and by 1965 the term "scientific creationism" had gained currency.[34] The 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas judgement ruled that state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion.[35] and when in 1975 Daniel v. Waters ruled that a state law requiring biology textbooks discussing "origins or creation of man and his world" to give equal treatment to creation as per Book of Genesis was unconstitutional, this new group identifying themselves as creationists promoted a "Creation science" which omitted explicit biblical references.[3]
In 1981 the state of Arkansas passed a law, Act 590, mandating that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution, and defining creation science as positing the “creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing,” as well as explaining the earth’s geology “by occurrence of a worldwide flood.”[34] This was ruled unconstitutional at McLean v. Arkansas in January 1982 as the creationists' methods were not scientific but took the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempted to find scientific support for it.[34] Undaunted, Louisiana introduced similar legislation that year. A series of judgements and appeals led to the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that it too violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[32]
"Creation science" could no longer be taught in public schools, and in drafts of the creation science school textbook Of Pandas and People all references to creation or creationism were changed to refer to intelligent design.[32] Proponents of the intelligent design movement organised widespread campaigning to considerable effect. They officially denied any links to creation or to religion, and indeed claimed that "creationism" only referred to young Earth creationism with flood geology,[36] but in Kitzmiller v. Dover the court found intelligent design to be essentially religious, and unable to dissociate itself from its creationist roots, as part of the ruling that teaching intelligent design in public school science classes was unconstitutional.[32]
[edit] Types of Christian creationism
Several attempts have been made to categorize the different types of creationism, and create a "taxonomy" of creationists.[37][38][39] Creationism covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorized into the broad types listed below. As a matter of popular belief and characterizations by the media, most people labeled "creationists" are those who object to specific parts of science for religious reasons; however many (if not most) people who believe in a divine act of creation do not categorically reject those parts of science.
Comparison of major creationist views Humanity Biological species Earth Universe
Young Earth creationism Directly created by God. Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. Less than 10,000 years old. Reshaped by global flood. Less than 10,000 years old.
Gap creationism Directly created by God. Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. Scientifically accepted age. Reshaped by global flood. Scientifically accepted age.
Progressive creationism Directly created by God (based on primate anatomy). Direct creation + evolution. No single common ancestor. Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. Scientifically accepted age.
Intelligent design N/A Divine intervention at some point in the past, as evidenced by what they call "irreducible complexity" Some adherents claim the existence of Earth is the result of divine intervention Some adherents believe in the teleological argument, that the existence of Universe is the result of divine intervention
Theistic evolution Evolution from primates. Evolution from single common ancestor. Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. Scientifically accepted age.
[edit] Young Earth creationism
Main article: Young Earth creationism
This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth was created by God within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in Genesis, within the approximate time frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology). Young Earth creationists often believe that the Universe has a similar age as the Earth. Creationist cosmologies are attempts by some creationist thinkers to give the universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other Young-Earth time frames.
This view is held by many Protestant Christians in the USA. It is also estimated that 47% of Americans hold this view, and almost 10% of Christian colleges teach it.[40] The Christian organizations Institute for Creation Research (ICR), El Cajon, California, USA, and the Creation Research Society (CRS), Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA both promote Young Earth Creationism. Another organization with similar views, Answers in Genesis (AIG) Ministries based in the Greater Cincinnati area, has opened a Creation Museum to promote Young Earth Creationism. Among Catholics, the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation promotes similar ideas.[41]
[edit] Modern geocentrism
Main article: Modern geocentrism
Modern geocentrism holds that God recently created a spherical world, and placed it in the center of the universe. The Sun, planets and everything else in the universe revolve around it.
[edit] Omphalos hypothesis
Main article: Omphalos hypothesis
The Omphalos hypothesis argues that in order for the world to be functional, God must have created a mature Earth with mountains and canyons, rock strata, trees with growth rings, and so on; therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable.[42] The idea has seen some revival in the twentieth century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to light that appears to originate in far-off stars and galaxies.
[edit] Creation science
Main article: Creation science
Creation science is the attempt to present scientific evidence interpreted with Genesis axioms that supports the claims of creationism. Various claims of creation scientists include such ideas as creationist cosmologies which accommodate a universe on the order of thousands of years old, attacks on the science of radiometric dating through a technical argument about radiohalos, explanations for the fossil record as a record of the destruction of the global flood recorded in Book of Genesis (see flood geology), and explanations for the present diversity as a result of pre-designed genetic variability and partially due to the rapid degradation of the perfect genomes God placed in "created kinds" or "Baramin" (see creation biology) due to mutations.
[edit] Old Earth creationism
Main article: Old Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event of Genesis is not to be taken strictly literally. This group generally believes that the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth are as described by astronomers and geologists, but that details of the evolutionary theory are questionable.
Old-Earth creationism itself comes in at least four types:
[edit] Gap creationism
Main article: Gap creationism
Gap creationism, also called "Restitution creationism", holds that life was recently created on a pre-existing old Earth. This theory relies on a particular interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2. It is considered that the words formless and void in fact denote waste and ruin, taking into account the original Hebrew and other places these words are used in the Old Testament. Genesis 1:1-2 is consequently translated:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Original act of creation.)
"Now the earth became waste and ruin, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
Thus, the six days of creation (verse 3 onwards) start sometime after the Earth became "waste and ruin". This allows an indefinite "gap" of time to be inserted after the original creation of the universe, but prior to creation week (when present biological species and humanity were created). Gap theorists can therefore agree with the scientific consensus regarding the age of the Earth and universe, while maintaining a literal interpretation of the biblical text.
Some gap theorists expand the basic theory by proposing a "primordial creation" of biological life within the "gap" of time. This is thought to be "the world that then was" mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3-7.[43] Discoveries of fossils and archaeological ruins older than 10,000 years are generally ascribed to this "world that then was", which may also be associated with Lucifer's rebellion. These views became popular with publications of Hebrew Lexicons such as the Strong's Concordance, and Bible commentaries such as the Scofield Reference Bible and the Companion Bible.
[edit] Day-age creationism
Main article: Day-Age Creationism
Day-age creationism states that the "six days" of Book of Genesis are not ordinary twenty-four-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each "day" could be the equivalent of millions, or billions of years of human time). This theory often states that the Hebrew word "yôm", in the context of Genesis 1, can be properly interpreted as "age." Some adherents claim we are still living in the seventh age ("seventh day").
Strictly speaking, day-age creationism is not so much a creationist theory as a hermeneutic option which may be combined with theories such as progressive creationism.
[edit] Progressive creationism
Main article: Progressive creationism
Progressive creationism holds that species have changed or evolved in a process continuously guided by God, with various ideas as to how the process operated—though it is generally taken that God directly intervened in the natural order at key moments in Earth/life's history. This view accepts most of modern physical science including the age of the earth, but rejects much of modern evolutionary biology or looks to it for evidence that evolution by natural selection alone is incorrect. Organizations such as Reasons to Believe, founded by Hugh Ross, promote this theory.
Progressive creationism can be held in conjunction with hermeneutic approaches to Genesis chapter 1 such as the day-age theory or framework/metaphoric/poetic views.
This view of natural history runs counter to current scientific understanding, is unsupported by peer-reviewed articles in respected scientific journals, and is considered pseudoscience.
[edit] Neo-Creationism
Main article: Neo-Creationism
Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, education policy makers and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the debate before the public.
One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion. Its proponents argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements. They argue that this effectively excludes any possible religious insight from contributing to a scientific understanding of the universe. Neo-Creationists also argue that science, as an "atheistic enterprise," is at the root of many of contemporary society's ills including social unrest and family breakdown.
The most recognized form of Neo-Creationism in the United States is the Intelligent Design movement. Unlike their philosophical forebears, Neo-Creationists largely do not believe in many of the traditional cornerstones of creationism such a young Earth, or in a dogmatically literal interpretation of the Bible. Common to all forms of Neo-Creationism is a rejection of naturalism, usually made together with a tacit admission of supernaturalism, and an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "Darwinism", which generally is meant to refer to evolution.
[edit] Intelligent design
Main article: Intelligent design
Intelligent design (ID) is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[44]. All of its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute,[45] a think tank whose Wedge strategy aims to replace the scientific method with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" which accepts supernatural explanations.[46][32] It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,[47][38][39][48] and some have even begun referring to it as "intelligent design creationism".[49][50][51]
ID originated as a re-branding of creation science in an attempt to get round a series of court decisions ruling out the teaching of creationism in U.S. public schools, and the Discovery Institute has run a series of campaigns to change school curricula.[3] In Australia, where curricula are under the control of State governments rather than local school boards, there was a public outcry when the notion of ID being taught in science classes was raised by the Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson; the minister quickly conceded that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.[52]
In the United States, teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools has been decisively ruled by a Federal District court to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the court found that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.", and hence cannot be taught as an alternative to Evolution in public school science classrooms under the jurisdiction of that court. This sets a persuasive precedent, based on previous Supreme Court decisions in Edwards v. Aguillard and Epperson v. Arkansas, and by the application of the Lemon test, that creates a legal hurdle to teaching Intelligent Design in public school districts in other Federal court jurisdictions.[23][32]
[edit] Theistic evolution
Main article: Theistic evolution
Theistic evolution, also known as "evolutionary creationism", is the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of modern scientific theory, including specifically evolution. It generally views evolution as a tool used by God, who is both the first cause and immanent sustainer/upholder of the universe; it is therefore well accepted by people of strong theistic (as opposed to deistic) convictions. Theistic evolution can synthesize with the day-age interpretation of the Genesis creation account; however most adherents consider that the first chapters of Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description, but rather as a literary framework or allegory.
In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries[53] For Catholics, human evolution is not a matter of religious teaching, and must stand or fall on its own scientific merits. Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are not in conflict. The Catechism of the Catholic Church comments positively on the theory of evolution, which is neither precluded nor required by the sources of faith, stating that scientific studies "have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man."[54] Roman Catholic schools teach evolution without controversy on the basis that scientific knowledge does not extend beyond the physical, and scientific truth and religious truth cannot be in conflict.[55] Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, though many creationists (in the strict sense) would deny that the position is creationism at all. In the creation-evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. This sentiment was expressed by Fr. George Coyne, (Vatican's chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006):
...in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.[56]
While supporting the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken by some atheists that this gives credence to ontological materialism. In fact, many modern philosophers of science,[57] including atheists,[58] refer to the long standing convention in the scientific method that observable events in nature should be explained by natural causes, with the distinction that it does not assume the actual existence or non-existence of the supernatural.
[edit] Non-Christian creationist movements
There are creationist movements based in religious traditions other than Christianity.
[edit] Hinduism and creationism
Main article: Hinduism and creationism
A variety of theories exist regarding the universe, but in general the Hindu view of the cosmos is as eternal and cyclic. Vedic texts teach that humans have lived in unchanged form on the earth for many millions of years[citation needed]. An account is recorded in the scriptures according to which the universe, the Earth, along with humans and other creatures undergo repeated cycles of creation and destruction (pralaya).
In general, many Hindus believe in biological evolution in some form, [59] while others believe in puranic story of god Brahma being the creator. Some Hindu religious and political organizations have been charged with promoting creationism (or other pseudo-scientific ideas) based on interpretations of Hindu scriptures.[citation needed]
[edit] Islamic creationism
Main article: Islamic creationism
There is a growing movement of Islamic creationism. Similar to Christian creationism, there is concern regarding the perceived conflicts between the Qur'an and the main points of evolutionary theory.
[edit] Jewish creationism
Main article: Judaism and evolution
Judaism has a continuum of views about creation, the origin of life and the role of evolution in the formation of species. The major Jewish denominations, including many Orthodox Jewish groups, accept evolutionary creationism or theistic evolution. Many Conservative Rabbis follow theistic evolution, although Conservative Judaism does not have an official view on the subject. Conservative Judaism however, does generally embrace science and therefore finds it a "challenge to traditional Jewish theology."[60] Reform Judaism does not take the Torah as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic or open-ended work. For Orthodox Jews who seek to reconcile discrepancies between science and the Bible, the notion that science and the Bible should even be reconciled through traditional scientific means is questioned. To these groups, science is as true as the Torah and if there seems to be a problem, our own epistemological limits are to blame for any apparent irreconcilable point. They point to various discrepancies between what is expected and what actually is to demonstrate that things are not always as they appear. They point out the fact that the even root word for "world" in the Hebrew language — עולם (oh•luhm) — means hidden. Just as they believe God created man and trees and the light on its way from the stars in their adult state, so too can they believe that the world was created in its "adult" state, with the understanding that there are, and can be, no physical ways to verify this. This belief has been advanced by Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb, former philosophy professor at Johns Hopkins University. Also, relatively old Kabbalistic sources from well before the scientifically apparent age of the universe was first determined are in close concord with modern scientific estimates of the age of the universe, according to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. Other interesting parallels are brought down from, among other sources, Nachmanides, who expounds that there was a Neanderthal-like species with which Adam mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).[61][62][63][64]
[edit] Prevalence
Main article: Level of support for evolution
[edit] United States
Anti-evolution car in Athens, GeorgiaAccording to a 2001 Gallup poll,[65] about 45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 37% believe that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process."[66] Only 14% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."[65]
Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, 74% believe in evolution.[67][68] A poll in the year 2000 done for People for the American Way found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.[69].
In 1987, Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'"[70][71]
In 2000, a poll by People For the American Way[69] estimated that:
20% of Americans believe public schools should teach evolution only;
17% of Americans believe that only evolution should be taught in science classes—religious explanations should be taught in another class;
29% of Americans believe that Creationism should be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory;
13% of Americans believe that Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class;
16% of Americans believe that only Creationism should be taught;
According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult Americans who accept evolution declined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the United States the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%).[72] (See the chart)
Less-direct anecdotal evidence of the popularity of creationism is reflected in the response of IMAX theaters to the availability of Volcanoes of the Deep Sea, an IMAX film which makes a connection between human DNA and microbes inside undersea volcanoes. The film's distributor reported that the only U.S. states with theaters which chose not to show the film were Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina:
"We've got to pick a film that's going to sell in our area. If it's not going to sell, we're not going to take it," said the director of an IMAX theater in Charleston that is not showing the movie. "Many people here believe in creationism, not evolution."[73]
[edit] The western world outside the United States
Most vocal strict creationists are from the United States, and strict creationist views are much less common elsewhere in the western world.
According to a PBS documentary on evolution, Australian Young Earth Creationists claimed that “five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old.” The documentary further states that “Australia is a particular stronghold of the creationist movement.”[74] Taking these claims at face value, Young Earth Creationism is very much a minority position in Western countries.
In Europe, strict creationism is a less well-defined phenomenon, and regular polls are not available. However, evolution is taught as scientific fact in most schools. In countries with a Roman Catholic majority, papal acceptance of evolution as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people. In the United Kingdom the Emmanuel Schools Foundation (previously the Vardy Foundation), which runs three government-funded 13 to 19 schools in the north of England (out of several thousand in the country) and plans to open several more, teaches that creationism and evolution are equally valid “faith positions”. One exam board (OCR) also specifically mentions and deals with creationism in its biology syllabus.[75] However, this deals with it as a historical belief and addresses hostility towards evolution rather than promoting it as an alternative to naturalistic evolution. Mainstream scientific accounts are expressed as fact. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion.[76]
According to a study published in Science, a survey over the United States, Turkey, Japan and Europe showed that public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.[72] (See the chart)
Of particular note for Eastern Europe, Serbia suspended the teaching of evolution for one week in 2004, under education minister Ljiljana Čolić, only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism.[77] "After a deluge of protest from scientists, teachers and opposition parties" says the BBC report, Čolić's deputy made the statement, "I have come here to confirm Charles Darwin is still alive" and announced that the decision was reversed.[78] Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."[79] Poland saw a major controversy over creationism in 2006 when the deputy education minister, Mirosław Orzechowski, denounced evolution as "one of many lies" taught in Polish schools. His superior, Minister of Education Roman Giertych, has stated that the theory of evolution would continue to be taught in Polish schools, "as long as most scientists in our country say that it is the right theory." Giertych's father, Member of the European Parliament Maciej Giertych, has however opposed the teaching of evolution and has claimed that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.[80]
In the United Kingdom, it is notable that the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, Rowan Williams views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as a mistake.[81]. A 2006 poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different perspectives on the origin of life: 22% chose creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolution theory and the rest did not know.[82][83]
There continues to be scattered and possibly mounting efforts on the part of religious fundamentalists throughout Europe to introduce creationism into public education.[84] In response, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has released a draft report entitled The dangers of creationism in education on June 8, 2007, [85] reinforced by a further proposal of banning it in schools dated October 4th, 2007. [86]
[edit] Christian critique
In "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem", George Murphy argues against the view that life on Earth in all its forms is direct evidence of God's act of creation (Murphy quotes Phillip Johnson's claim that he is speaking "of a God who acted openly and left his fingerprints on all the evidence."). Murphy argues that this view of God is incompatible with the Christian understanding of God as "the one revealed in the cross and resurrection of Jesus." The basis of this theology is Isaiah 45:15, "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior." This verse inspired Blaise Pascal to write, "What meets our eyes denotes neither a total absence nor a manifest presence of the divine, but the presence of a God who conceals himself." In the Heidelberg Disputation, Martin Luther referred to the same Biblical verse to propose his "theology of the cross": "That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened ... He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross."
Luther opposes his theology of the cross to what he called the "theology of glory":
A theologian of glory does not recognize, along with the Apostle, the crucified and hidden God alone [I Cor. 2:2]. He sees and speaks of God's glorious manifestation among the heathen, how his invisible nature can be known from the things which are visible [Cf. Rom. 1:20] and how he is present and powerful in all things everywhere.
For Murphy, Creationists are modern-day theologians of glory. Following Luther, Murphy argues that a true Christian cannot discover God from clues in creation, but only from the crucified Christ.
Murphy observes that the execution of a Jewish carpenter by Roman authorities is in and of itself an ordinary event and did not require Divine action. On the contrary, for the crucifixion to occur, God had to limit or "empty" Himself. It was for this reason that Paul wrote, in Philippians 2:5-8,
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
Murphy concludes that,
Just as the son of God limited himself by taking human form and dying on the cross, God limits divine action in the world to be in accord with rational laws God has chosen. This enables us to understand the world on its own terms, but it also means that natural processes hide God from scientific observation.
For Murphy, a theology of the cross requires that Christians accept a methodological naturalism, meaning that one cannot invoke God to explain natural phenomena, while recognizing that such acceptance does not require one to accept a metaphysical naturalism, which proposes that nature is all that there is.[87]
Other Christians have expressed qualms about teaching creationism. In March 2006, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the leader of the world's Anglicans, stated his discomfort about teaching creationism, saying that creationism was "a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories." He also said: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." The views of the Episcopal Church, the American branch of the Anglican Communion, on teaching creationism are also the same as Williams.[88]
[edit] Scientific critique
Many scientists criticize Creationism because science does not attempt to address issues of supernatural intervention in natural phenomena. For this reason, they claim that Creationism cannot be evaluated by science. Stephan Jay Gould considers science and religion to be two compatible, complementary fields, whose authority does not overlap. [89] The scientific consensus rejects any attempt to teach creationism as science.[90][91][92]
[edit] See also
Abrahamic religions
Adnan Oktar
Agent Detection
Allegorical interpretations of Genesis
Biblical inerrancy
Biblical literalism
Cosmogony
Cosmological argument
Creation myth
Creation science
Creator deity
Dating Creation
Devolution
Divine simplicity
Flying Spaghetti Monster
List of creationist museums
Origin of life
Natural theology
Pseudoscience
Scopes Trial
Teleological argument
Watchmaker analogy
Intelligent design
[edit] References
^ Hayward 1998, p. 11
^ a b c Ronald L. Numbers. "Antievolutionists and Creationists". Creationism History. Counterbalance Meta-Library. Retrieved on 2007-08-15.
^ a b c d e Creationism/ID, A Short Legal History By Lenny Flank, Talk Reason
^ Flaws in dating the earth as ancient
^ http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/v17n1_proteins.pdf
^ ‘It’s not science’
^ "Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved on 04-01-2008.
^ Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design
^ National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution
^ IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
^ From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of EvolutionPDF (44.8 KiB), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
^ (Qur'an Chapters 2:109-111, 7:52-57, 16:1-17, 40:66-70, 41:9-12, 42:28, 65:12)
^ Wayne Jackson. "Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?". Retrieved on 2007-05-23.
^ "The Creation Myths: Internal Difficulties". Retrieved on 2007-05-23.
^ a b c d e f g Forster, Roger & Marston, Dr Paul (2001), "Chapter 7 - Genesis Through History", Reason Science and Faith, Chester, England: Monarch Books, ISBN 1854244418,. Retrieved on 2007-06-30 .
^ Archbishop of Canterbury, Transcript of interview with the Guardian
^ Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution: Well, he is a Primate, Chris Williams, The Register, Tuesday 21 March 2006
^ What Catholics Think of Evolution? They don't not believe in it, Keelin McDonell, Explainer, Slate Magazine, July 12, 2005.
^ See also the article Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church.
^ see eg John Polkinghorne's Science and Theology pp6-7
^ http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html Davis A. Young, "The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation" (From: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40.1:42-45 (3/1988)), The American Scientific Affiliation
^ http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html The Works of Philo Judaeus, Chapter 2, translated by Charles Duke Yonge
^ a b Full text of Judge Jones' ruling, dated December 20, 2005
^ "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution". American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006). Retrieved on 2007-03-20.
^ "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" Finding the Evolution in Medicine National Institutes of Health
^ a b c Creationism," Contributed By: Ronald L. Numbers, William Coleman: Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2007 http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
^ Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
Early Christian Writings
^ Moore, James. "Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin". Speaking of Faith (Radio Program). American Public Media. Retrieved on 2007-06-27.
^ a b History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth, adapted from The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence (Eerdmans, 1995) by Davis A. Young, Retrieved 2007-06-30.
^ Desmond, Adrian & Moore, James (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group, ISBN 0-7181-3430-3
^ s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 19 of 139
^ a b c d e f Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals.PDF (413 KiB) A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
^ TalkOrigins Archive: Post of the Month: March 2006, The History of Creationism by Lenny Flank.
^ a b c McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Decision January 5, 1982.
^ Edwards v. Aguillard
^ Evolution News & Views: Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design, Discovery Institute, Posted by Jonathan Witt on December 20, 2005 4:43 PM, retrieved 2007-07-01
^ The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.
^ a b Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30-35.
^ a b Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism, Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323
^ Creation crisis in Christian colleges
^ ,
^ Gosse, Henry Philip, 1857. Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. J. Van Voorst, London
^ "The Holy Bible, King James Version". Retrieved on 2006-12-31.
^ "Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?". Discovery Institute. Retrieved on 2007-05-13..
^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Testimony, Barbara Forrest, 2005.
^ Wedge Strategy, Discovery Institute, 1999.
^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design, David Mu, Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
• "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." Professional Ethics Report, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001.
• Conclusion of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Ruling
^ The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 30, 2006, ISBN 0674023390.
^ Forrest, Barbara (May,2007), Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy, Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc.,. Retrieved on 22 August 2007 ; Forrest, B.C. and Gross, P.R., 2003, Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 224 p., ISBN 0195157427
^ "Dembski chides me for never using the term "intelligent design" without conjoining it to "creationism." He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to "rally the troops". (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability...", from Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski, Roger T. Pennock, p. 645-667 of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, Roger T. Pennock (editor), Cambridge, MIT Press, 2001, 825 p., ISBN 0262661241; Pennock, R.T., 1999, Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism, Cambridge, MIT Press, 440 p.
^ The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.; Scott, E.C., 2004, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Westport, Greenwood Press, 296p, ISBN 0520246500
^ Intelligent design not science: experts, Deborah Smith Science Editor, Sydney Morning Herald, October 21, 2005.
^ Science, Religion, and Evolution by Eugenie Scott (accessed at 2007-07-09).
^ Akin, Jimmy (January 2004), "Evolution and the Magisterium", This Rock,. Retrieved on 15 August 2007
^ Jeff Severns Guntzel. "National Catholic Reporter: Catholic schools steer clear of anti-evolution bias". Retrieved on 2007-08-15.
^ Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on ‘Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution’ - Catholic Online
^ The Tower of Babel by Robert T. Pennock, Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry by Steven D. Schafersman, The Leiter Reports, Report on "Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise" conference, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, 11: GOD, SCIENCE, AND NATURALISM by Paul R. Draper, Philosophy Now: The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory, Statement on Intelligent Design, Science and fundamentalism by Massimo Pigliucci, Justifying Methodological Naturalism by Michael Martin (philosopher)
^ Butterflies and wheels article by Raymond D. Bradley, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy in New Zealand.
^ Hinduism and evolution, V. Jayaram, Hinduwebsite.com
^ Judaism and Evolution, Jewish Visrtual Library
^ Aviezer, Nathan. In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science. Ktav, 1990. Hardcover. ISBN 0-88125-328-6
^ Carmell, Aryeh and Domb, Cyril, eds. Challenge: Torah Views on Science New York: Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists/Feldheim Publishers, 1976. ISBN 0-87306-174-8
^ Schroeder, Gerald L. The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom Broadway Books, 1998, ISBN 0-7679-0303-X
^ Jeffrey H. Tigay, Genesis, Science, and "Scientific Creationism", Conservative Judaism, Vol. 40(2), Winter 1987/1988, p.20-27, The Rabbinical Assembly
^ a b Majority of Americans Doubt Theory of Evolution
^ Substantial Numbers of Americans Continue to Doubt Evolution as Explanation for Origin of Humans
^ Frank Newport, "Evolution Beliefs." Gallup Organization, June 11, 2007.
^ "Public beliefs about evolution and creation." From: religioustolerance.org. Retrieved on November 11, 2007.
^ a b Evolution and Creationism In Public Education: An In-depth Reading Of Public OpinionPDF (481 KiB)
^ "Keeping God Out of the Classroom", Newsweek (June 29, 1987), pp. 23.
^ http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm US poll results - "Public beliefs about evolution and creation", religioustolerance.org
^ a b Miller, J. D. (11 August 2006). "Public Acceptance of Evolution". Science 313 (5788): 765–766. doi:10.1126/science.1126746.
^ Evolution Reference Hurts Volcano Film
^ Evolution Revolution, Evolution, Public Broadcasting System
^ Exam board brings creationism into science class
^ We put the clock back a 1000 years (German language)
^ Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools
^ Serbia reverses Darwin suspension
^ 'Anti-Darwin' Serb minister quits
^ "And finally...", Warsaw Business Journal, 18 December 2006.
^ Archbishop: stop teaching creationism-Williams backs science over Bible, Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent, The Guardian, Tuesday March 21, 2006.
^ Britons unconvinced on evolution
^ BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life
^ In the beginning: The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global, ISTANBUL, MOSCOW AND ROME, Evolution and religion, The Economist, Apr 19th 2007.
^ The dangers of creationism in education, Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group, Doc. 11297, Parliamentary Assemble Council of Europe, June 8, 2007.
^ The dangers of creationism in education - Resolution 1580, Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group, Doc. 11297, Parliamentary Assemble Council of Europe, October 4, 2007.
^ Murphy, George L., 2002, "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem," in Covalence: the Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science, and Technology
^ The Guardian, Archbishop: Stop teaching creationism, Williams backs science over Bible See transcript of Guardian interview for primary source
^ Gould, Stephen Jay (1997). "Nonoverlapping Magisteria". Natural History 106: 16–22.
^ "Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design" (in English), The Royal Society (2006-04-11). Retrieved on 2007-04-23.
^ Matsumura, Molleen; Mead, Louise (2005-02-15). "10 Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution/Creationism" (in English), National Center for Science Education. Retrieved on 2007-09-12.
^ Myers, PZ (2006-02-15). "Ann Coulter: No Evidence for Evolution?" (in English). Pharyngula. ScienceBlogs. Retrieved on 2007-09-12.
[edit] Additional references
Hayward, James L. (1998), The Creation/Evolution Controversy : an Annotated Bibliography, Scarecrow Press/Salem Press, 253, ISBN 0-8108-3386-7
Numbers, Ronald (2006-11-30). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press, 624 pages. ISBN 0674023390.
Anderson, Bernhard W. (editor) Creation in the Old Testament (ISBN 0-8006-1768-1)
Anderson, Bernhard W. Creation Versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible (ISBN 1-59752-042-X)
Ian Barbour When Science Meets Religion, 2000, Harper SanFrancisco
Ian Barbour Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, 1997, Harper SanFrancisco.
Stephen Jay Gould Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the fullness of life, Ballantine Books, 1999
[edit] Further reading
Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams In a Beginning...: Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah, Tikkun, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 66-73
Aryeh Kaplan, Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View, Ktav, NJ, in association with the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, NY, 1993
Adams Leeming, David (1996). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. OUP. ISBN 978-0195102758.
Numbers, Ronald (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674023390.
[edit] External links
The Edinburgh Creation Group This site features many interesting videos bringing a Creationist perspective.
CreationOnTheWeb A creation website for Creation Ministries International, an apologetics ministry that supports a 6-day biblical creation worldview
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Creationism
How creationism works
Muslim viewpoint
Darwinism Refuted
Can Creation and Evolution Both Be True? | epologetics Examines whether Biblical creation and neo-darwinistic evolution can be reconciled.
Evolution, Creationism & ID Timeline Focuses on major historical and recent events in the scientific and political debate
Evolution and CreationismPDF (204 KiB). A Guide for Museum Docents
What is creationism? from talk.origins
The Creation/Evolution Continuum by Eugenie Scott.
Armies of the Night by Isaac Asimov.
Workers have stake in defending science a materialist statement on creationism by The Militant, 2005.
Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham Leading scientists still reject God in Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691 (1998), p. 313. Online at Freethought-web.org
Creationism: The Hindu View
Northwest Creation Network's extensive list of International Creation Science links
Teaching Hearts Creation Science
Creationism & The Early Church A study of the Early Church's teaching on Genesis chapters 1-11.
[edit] Organizations
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
CreationismTalk.origins maintains an extensive list of general links relevant to creationism and a full list of creationist websites. The following are links to the main organizations espousing a variety of viewpoints:
Young Earth Creationism
The Emperor Has No Clothes A site promoting Intelligent Design and "Young-life" Creationism
In the Beginning - Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood By Walt Brown
Answers in Genesis A group promoting Young-Earth Creationism.
Creation Ministries International formerly Answers in Genesis. Headquarters in Australia
Center for Natural Studies
The Biblical Calendar of History
Institute for Creation Research "A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry"
The Creation Research Society
The True.Origin Archive
CreationWiki
Old Earth Creationism
Johnson, Gaines R. 1997. Christian Geology — A comprehensive study of Creationism for Bible Believers: Rightly-Dividing Genesis and Geology
Reasons to Believe led by Hugh Ross
Answers In Creation led by Greg Neyman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Creationism" can also refer to creation myths in general, or to a concept about the origin of the soul. For the movement in Spanish literature, see creacionismo.
Part of a series on
Creationism
History of creationism
Neo-creationism
Types of creationism
Young Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism
Day-Age creationism
Progressive creationism
Gap creationism
Theistic evolution
Intelligent design
Other religious views
Hindu · Islamic · Jewish
Deist · Pandeist
Creation theology
Creation in Genesis
Genesis as an allegory
Framework interpretation
Omphalos hypothesis
Creation science
Baraminology
Flood geology
Intelligent design
Controversy
Politics of creationism
Public education
History
Teach the Controversy
Associated articles
Creationism Portal · v • d • e
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.[2]
Such beliefs include young Earth creationism, proponents of which believe that the days in Genesis Chapter 1 are 24 hours in length, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings and other methods of dating the earth and believes that these findings do not contradict the Genesis account, but reject evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth. Alternately, there are other religious people who support creation, but in terms of allegorical interpretations of Genesis.
Creationism in the West is usually based on creation according to Genesis, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19th century the term most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth.[2] Several U.S. states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in American public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgements.[3] The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology.[2]
When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,[4] its underlying scientific theories,[5] and/or its methodology.[6] For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[7] The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.[8][9][10][11]
Contents
[hide]
1 Overview
2 Political context
3 History
3.1 Creation in early and medieval Christianity
3.2 Natural theology
3.3 Evolution
3.4 Creation science and intelligent design
4 Types of Christian creationism
4.1 Young Earth creationism
4.1.1 Modern geocentrism
4.1.2 Omphalos hypothesis
4.1.3 Creation science
4.2 Old Earth creationism
4.2.1 Gap creationism
4.2.2 Day-age creationism
4.2.3 Progressive creationism
4.3 Neo-Creationism
4.3.1 Intelligent design
4.4 Theistic evolution
5 Non-Christian creationist movements
5.1 Hinduism and creationism
5.2 Islamic creationism
5.3 Jewish creationism
6 Prevalence
6.1 United States
6.2 The western world outside the United States
7 Christian critique
8 Scientific critique
9 See also
10 References
11 Additional references
12 Further reading
13 External links
13.1 Organizations
[edit] Overview
The term creationism is generally used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the Book of Genesis (for both Jews and Christians) or the Qur'an (for Muslims)[12] The terms creationism and creationist have become particularly associated with beliefs about the time frame of creation, conflicting with scientific understanding of natural history, particularly evolution. This conflict is most prevalent in the United States, where there has been sustained controversy in the public arena, centering over the issue of the science curriculum in public schools.
In a Christian context, many creationists adopt a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation narratives. This literal interpretation requires the harmonisation of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, which require interpretation to be consistent.[13][14] They sometimes seek to ensure that their belief is taught in science classes, mainly in American schools (see Young Earth Creationism, for example). Opponents reject the claim that the literalistic Biblical view meets the criteria required to be considered scientific.
Many religious sects teach that God created the cosmos. From the days of the early Christian Church Fathers there were allegorical interpretations of Genesis as well as literal aspects.[15] Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches, such as Anglicans and Lutherans, reject reading the Bible as though it could shed light on the physics of creation instead of the spiritual meaning of creation. According to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, "[for] most of the history of Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time."[16]
Leaders of the Anglican[17] and Roman Catholic [18][19] churches have made statements in favour of evolutionary theory, as have scholars such as John Polkinghorne, who argue that evolution is one of the principles through which God created living beings. Earlier supporters of evolutionary theory include Frederick Temple, Asa Gray and Charles Kingsley who were enthusiastic supporters of Darwin's theories upon their publication,[20] and the French Jesuit priest and geologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin saw evolution as confirmation of his Christian beliefs, despite condemnation from Church authorities for his more speculative theories. Another example is that of Liberal theology, which assumes that Genesis is a poetic work, and that just as human understanding of God increases gradually over time, so does the understanding of God's creation. In fact, both Jews and Christians had been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of an historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. Two notable examples are Saint Augustine (4th century) who argued on theological grounds that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant (and not in seven days as a plain account of Genesis would require);[21] and the 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time.[22]
[edit] Political context
The Truth fish, one of the many creationist responses to the Darwin fish.Main article: Creation-evolution controversy
In the United States, more than in the rest of the world, creationism has become centered in the political controversy over creation and evolution in public education, and whether teaching creationism in science classes conflicts with the separation of church and state. Currently, the controversy comes in the form of whether advocates of the Intelligent Design movement who wish to "Teach the Controversy" in science classes have conflated science with religion.[23]
In such political contexts, creationists argue that their particular religiously-based origin belief is superior to those of other belief systems, in particular those made through secular or scientific rationale. Political creationists are opposed by many individuals and organizations who have made detailed critiques and given testimony in various court cases that the alternatives to scientific reasoning offered by creationists are opposed by the consensus of the scientific community.[24][25]
[edit] History
Main article: History of creationism
The history of creationism is part of the history of religions, though the term itself is modern. In the 1920s the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist movements that insisted on a literalist interpretation of Creation according to Genesis and likewise opposed the idea of human evolution. These groups succeeded in getting teaching of evolution banned in United States public schools, then from the mid-1960s the young Earth creationists promoted the teaching of "scientific creationism" using "Flood geology" in public school science classes as support for a purely literal reading of Genesis.[26] After the legal judgement of the case Daniel versus Waters (1975) ruled that teaching creationism in public schools contravened constitutional separation of Church and State, the content was stripped of overt biblical references and renamed creation science. When the court case Edwards versus Aguillard (1987) ruled that creation science similarly contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to intelligent design, which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory. The Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science and contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes.[3]
[edit] Creation in early and medieval Christianity
To a large extent the early Christian Church Fathers read creation history as an allegory with the spiritual meaning seen as more important than the literal, without denying the literal meaning.[27] In the first century Saint Paul described Genesis 2:24 as an allegory meaning Christ and the Church, and Philo described creation as happening simultaneously, with the six days of creation meeting a need for order and according with a perfect number. Jewish writers such as Abraham ibn Ezra could be described as creationists, while consistently rejecting overly literal understandings of Genesis. Maimonides explicitly states that parts of Genesis 1-3 cannot be taken literally.[15]
In response to the second century Gnostic belief that Genesis was purely allegorical, Christian orthodoxy rejected this interpretation without taking a purely literal view of the texts. Thus Origen believes that the physical world is ‘literally’ a creation of God, but does not take the chronology or the days as ‘literal’. Similarly, Saint Basil in the fourth century while literal in many ways, describes creation as instantaneous and timeless, being immeasurable and indivisible. Augustine of Hippo in The Literal Meaning of Genesis is insistent that Genesis describes the creation of physical things, but also has creation occurring simultaneously, with the days of creation being categories for didactic reasons and light being the illumination of angels rather than visible light. In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas, like Augustine, asserted the need to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering while cautioning "that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."[15]
[edit] Natural theology
Main article: Natural theology
From 1517 the Protestant Reformation brought a new emphasis on lay literacy, with Martin Luther advocating the idea that creation took six literal days about 6000 years ago, and claiming that "Moses wrote that uneducated men might have clear accounts of creation", though a German peasant listening to a translation would have different perceptions from a Jew familiar with early Jewish language and culture, and Luther still had to refer to allegorical understandings such as the meaning of the serpent. John Calvin also rejected instantaneous creation, but criticised those who, contradicting the contemporary understanding of nature, asserted that there are "waters above the heavens".[15]
Discoveries of new lands brought knowledge of a huge diversity of life, and a new belief developed that each of these biological species had been individually created by God. In 1605 Francis Bacon emphasised that the works of God in nature teach us how to interpret the word of God in the Bible, and his Baconian method introduced the empirical approach which became central to modern science.[28] Natural theology developed the study of nature with the expectation of finding evidence supporting Christianity, and numerous attempts were made to reconcile new knowledge with Noah's Flood.[29]
In 1650 the Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, published the Ussher chronology based on Bible history giving a date for Creation of 4004 BC. This was generally accepted, but the development of modern geology in the 18th and 19th centuries found geological strata and fossil sequences indicating an ancient Earth. Catastrophism was favoured in England as supporting the Biblical flood, but this was found to be untenable[29] and by 1850 all geologists and most Evangelical Christians had adopted various forms of old Earth creationism, while continuing to firmly reject evolution.[15]
[edit] Evolution
Main article: History of evolutionary thought
From around the start of the nineteenth century ideas like Lamarck's concept of transmutation of species had gained a small number of supporters in Paris and Edinburgh, mostly amongst anatomists.[15] England at that time was enmeshed in the Napoleonic Wars, and fears of republican revolutions such as the American Revolution and French Revolution led to a harsh repression of such evolutionary ideas which challenged the divine hierarchy justifying the monarchy. Charles Darwin's development of his theory of natural selection at this time was kept closely secret. Repression eased, and the anonymous publication of Vestiges of Creation in 1844 aroused wide public interest with support from Quakers and Unitarians, but was strongly criticised by the scientific community, which emphasised the need for solidly backed science. In 1859 Darwin's On the Origin of Species provided that evidence from an authoritative and respected source, and gradually convinced scientists that evolution occurs. This was resisted by conservative evangelicals in the Church of England, but their attention quickly turned to the much greater uproar about Essays and Reviews by liberal Anglican theologians, which introduced into the controversy "the higher criticism" begun by Erasmus centuries earlier. This book re-examined the Bible and cast doubt on a literal interpretation.[30] By 1875 most American naturalists supported ideas of theistic evolution, often involving special creation of human beings.[26]
By the start of the twentieth century, evolution was widely accepted and was beginning to be taught in U.S. public schools. After World War I, stories that German aggression resulted from Darwinismus promoting "survival of the fittest" inspired William Jennings Bryan to campaign against the teaching of Darwinian ideas of human evolution.[26] In the 1920s, the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy led to an upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor in which schools were prevented from teaching evolution through state laws such as Tennessee’s 1925 Butler Act,[31][32] and by getting evolution removed from biology textbooks nationwide. Creationism became associated in common usage with opposition to evolution.[33]
[edit] Creation science and intelligent design
See also: Intelligent Design
See also: Creation science
The effective ban lasted until 1957 when Sputnik raised fears that the U.S. had fallen behind in science, and the 1959 National Defense Education Act promoted science. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study textbooks teaching evolution were used in almost half of U.S. high schools, though the prohibitions were still in place and a 1961 attempt to repeal the Butler Act failed.[3] In 1961 The Genesis Flood by the Baptist engineer Henry M. Morris brought the Seventh-day Adventist biblically literal flood geology of George McCready Price to a wider audience, popularizing a novel idea of Young Earth creationism,[15] and by 1965 the term "scientific creationism" had gained currency.[34] The 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas judgement ruled that state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion.[35] and when in 1975 Daniel v. Waters ruled that a state law requiring biology textbooks discussing "origins or creation of man and his world" to give equal treatment to creation as per Book of Genesis was unconstitutional, this new group identifying themselves as creationists promoted a "Creation science" which omitted explicit biblical references.[3]
In 1981 the state of Arkansas passed a law, Act 590, mandating that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution, and defining creation science as positing the “creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing,” as well as explaining the earth’s geology “by occurrence of a worldwide flood.”[34] This was ruled unconstitutional at McLean v. Arkansas in January 1982 as the creationists' methods were not scientific but took the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempted to find scientific support for it.[34] Undaunted, Louisiana introduced similar legislation that year. A series of judgements and appeals led to the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that it too violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[32]
"Creation science" could no longer be taught in public schools, and in drafts of the creation science school textbook Of Pandas and People all references to creation or creationism were changed to refer to intelligent design.[32] Proponents of the intelligent design movement organised widespread campaigning to considerable effect. They officially denied any links to creation or to religion, and indeed claimed that "creationism" only referred to young Earth creationism with flood geology,[36] but in Kitzmiller v. Dover the court found intelligent design to be essentially religious, and unable to dissociate itself from its creationist roots, as part of the ruling that teaching intelligent design in public school science classes was unconstitutional.[32]
[edit] Types of Christian creationism
Several attempts have been made to categorize the different types of creationism, and create a "taxonomy" of creationists.[37][38][39] Creationism covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorized into the broad types listed below. As a matter of popular belief and characterizations by the media, most people labeled "creationists" are those who object to specific parts of science for religious reasons; however many (if not most) people who believe in a divine act of creation do not categorically reject those parts of science.
Comparison of major creationist views Humanity Biological species Earth Universe
Young Earth creationism Directly created by God. Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. Less than 10,000 years old. Reshaped by global flood. Less than 10,000 years old.
Gap creationism Directly created by God. Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. Scientifically accepted age. Reshaped by global flood. Scientifically accepted age.
Progressive creationism Directly created by God (based on primate anatomy). Direct creation + evolution. No single common ancestor. Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. Scientifically accepted age.
Intelligent design N/A Divine intervention at some point in the past, as evidenced by what they call "irreducible complexity" Some adherents claim the existence of Earth is the result of divine intervention Some adherents believe in the teleological argument, that the existence of Universe is the result of divine intervention
Theistic evolution Evolution from primates. Evolution from single common ancestor. Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. Scientifically accepted age.
[edit] Young Earth creationism
Main article: Young Earth creationism
This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth was created by God within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in Genesis, within the approximate time frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology). Young Earth creationists often believe that the Universe has a similar age as the Earth. Creationist cosmologies are attempts by some creationist thinkers to give the universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other Young-Earth time frames.
This view is held by many Protestant Christians in the USA. It is also estimated that 47% of Americans hold this view, and almost 10% of Christian colleges teach it.[40] The Christian organizations Institute for Creation Research (ICR), El Cajon, California, USA, and the Creation Research Society (CRS), Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA both promote Young Earth Creationism. Another organization with similar views, Answers in Genesis (AIG) Ministries based in the Greater Cincinnati area, has opened a Creation Museum to promote Young Earth Creationism. Among Catholics, the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation promotes similar ideas.[41]
[edit] Modern geocentrism
Main article: Modern geocentrism
Modern geocentrism holds that God recently created a spherical world, and placed it in the center of the universe. The Sun, planets and everything else in the universe revolve around it.
[edit] Omphalos hypothesis
Main article: Omphalos hypothesis
The Omphalos hypothesis argues that in order for the world to be functional, God must have created a mature Earth with mountains and canyons, rock strata, trees with growth rings, and so on; therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable.[42] The idea has seen some revival in the twentieth century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to light that appears to originate in far-off stars and galaxies.
[edit] Creation science
Main article: Creation science
Creation science is the attempt to present scientific evidence interpreted with Genesis axioms that supports the claims of creationism. Various claims of creation scientists include such ideas as creationist cosmologies which accommodate a universe on the order of thousands of years old, attacks on the science of radiometric dating through a technical argument about radiohalos, explanations for the fossil record as a record of the destruction of the global flood recorded in Book of Genesis (see flood geology), and explanations for the present diversity as a result of pre-designed genetic variability and partially due to the rapid degradation of the perfect genomes God placed in "created kinds" or "Baramin" (see creation biology) due to mutations.
[edit] Old Earth creationism
Main article: Old Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event of Genesis is not to be taken strictly literally. This group generally believes that the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth are as described by astronomers and geologists, but that details of the evolutionary theory are questionable.
Old-Earth creationism itself comes in at least four types:
[edit] Gap creationism
Main article: Gap creationism
Gap creationism, also called "Restitution creationism", holds that life was recently created on a pre-existing old Earth. This theory relies on a particular interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2. It is considered that the words formless and void in fact denote waste and ruin, taking into account the original Hebrew and other places these words are used in the Old Testament. Genesis 1:1-2 is consequently translated:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Original act of creation.)
"Now the earth became waste and ruin, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
Thus, the six days of creation (verse 3 onwards) start sometime after the Earth became "waste and ruin". This allows an indefinite "gap" of time to be inserted after the original creation of the universe, but prior to creation week (when present biological species and humanity were created). Gap theorists can therefore agree with the scientific consensus regarding the age of the Earth and universe, while maintaining a literal interpretation of the biblical text.
Some gap theorists expand the basic theory by proposing a "primordial creation" of biological life within the "gap" of time. This is thought to be "the world that then was" mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3-7.[43] Discoveries of fossils and archaeological ruins older than 10,000 years are generally ascribed to this "world that then was", which may also be associated with Lucifer's rebellion. These views became popular with publications of Hebrew Lexicons such as the Strong's Concordance, and Bible commentaries such as the Scofield Reference Bible and the Companion Bible.
[edit] Day-age creationism
Main article: Day-Age Creationism
Day-age creationism states that the "six days" of Book of Genesis are not ordinary twenty-four-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each "day" could be the equivalent of millions, or billions of years of human time). This theory often states that the Hebrew word "yôm", in the context of Genesis 1, can be properly interpreted as "age." Some adherents claim we are still living in the seventh age ("seventh day").
Strictly speaking, day-age creationism is not so much a creationist theory as a hermeneutic option which may be combined with theories such as progressive creationism.
[edit] Progressive creationism
Main article: Progressive creationism
Progressive creationism holds that species have changed or evolved in a process continuously guided by God, with various ideas as to how the process operated—though it is generally taken that God directly intervened in the natural order at key moments in Earth/life's history. This view accepts most of modern physical science including the age of the earth, but rejects much of modern evolutionary biology or looks to it for evidence that evolution by natural selection alone is incorrect. Organizations such as Reasons to Believe, founded by Hugh Ross, promote this theory.
Progressive creationism can be held in conjunction with hermeneutic approaches to Genesis chapter 1 such as the day-age theory or framework/metaphoric/poetic views.
This view of natural history runs counter to current scientific understanding, is unsupported by peer-reviewed articles in respected scientific journals, and is considered pseudoscience.
[edit] Neo-Creationism
Main article: Neo-Creationism
Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, education policy makers and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the debate before the public.
One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion. Its proponents argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements. They argue that this effectively excludes any possible religious insight from contributing to a scientific understanding of the universe. Neo-Creationists also argue that science, as an "atheistic enterprise," is at the root of many of contemporary society's ills including social unrest and family breakdown.
The most recognized form of Neo-Creationism in the United States is the Intelligent Design movement. Unlike their philosophical forebears, Neo-Creationists largely do not believe in many of the traditional cornerstones of creationism such a young Earth, or in a dogmatically literal interpretation of the Bible. Common to all forms of Neo-Creationism is a rejection of naturalism, usually made together with a tacit admission of supernaturalism, and an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "Darwinism", which generally is meant to refer to evolution.
[edit] Intelligent design
Main article: Intelligent design
Intelligent design (ID) is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[44]. All of its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute,[45] a think tank whose Wedge strategy aims to replace the scientific method with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" which accepts supernatural explanations.[46][32] It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,[47][38][39][48] and some have even begun referring to it as "intelligent design creationism".[49][50][51]
ID originated as a re-branding of creation science in an attempt to get round a series of court decisions ruling out the teaching of creationism in U.S. public schools, and the Discovery Institute has run a series of campaigns to change school curricula.[3] In Australia, where curricula are under the control of State governments rather than local school boards, there was a public outcry when the notion of ID being taught in science classes was raised by the Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson; the minister quickly conceded that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.[52]
In the United States, teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools has been decisively ruled by a Federal District court to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the court found that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.", and hence cannot be taught as an alternative to Evolution in public school science classrooms under the jurisdiction of that court. This sets a persuasive precedent, based on previous Supreme Court decisions in Edwards v. Aguillard and Epperson v. Arkansas, and by the application of the Lemon test, that creates a legal hurdle to teaching Intelligent Design in public school districts in other Federal court jurisdictions.[23][32]
[edit] Theistic evolution
Main article: Theistic evolution
Theistic evolution, also known as "evolutionary creationism", is the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of modern scientific theory, including specifically evolution. It generally views evolution as a tool used by God, who is both the first cause and immanent sustainer/upholder of the universe; it is therefore well accepted by people of strong theistic (as opposed to deistic) convictions. Theistic evolution can synthesize with the day-age interpretation of the Genesis creation account; however most adherents consider that the first chapters of Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description, but rather as a literary framework or allegory.
In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries[53] For Catholics, human evolution is not a matter of religious teaching, and must stand or fall on its own scientific merits. Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are not in conflict. The Catechism of the Catholic Church comments positively on the theory of evolution, which is neither precluded nor required by the sources of faith, stating that scientific studies "have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man."[54] Roman Catholic schools teach evolution without controversy on the basis that scientific knowledge does not extend beyond the physical, and scientific truth and religious truth cannot be in conflict.[55] Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, though many creationists (in the strict sense) would deny that the position is creationism at all. In the creation-evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. This sentiment was expressed by Fr. George Coyne, (Vatican's chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006):
...in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.[56]
While supporting the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken by some atheists that this gives credence to ontological materialism. In fact, many modern philosophers of science,[57] including atheists,[58] refer to the long standing convention in the scientific method that observable events in nature should be explained by natural causes, with the distinction that it does not assume the actual existence or non-existence of the supernatural.
[edit] Non-Christian creationist movements
There are creationist movements based in religious traditions other than Christianity.
[edit] Hinduism and creationism
Main article: Hinduism and creationism
A variety of theories exist regarding the universe, but in general the Hindu view of the cosmos is as eternal and cyclic. Vedic texts teach that humans have lived in unchanged form on the earth for many millions of years[citation needed]. An account is recorded in the scriptures according to which the universe, the Earth, along with humans and other creatures undergo repeated cycles of creation and destruction (pralaya).
In general, many Hindus believe in biological evolution in some form, [59] while others believe in puranic story of god Brahma being the creator. Some Hindu religious and political organizations have been charged with promoting creationism (or other pseudo-scientific ideas) based on interpretations of Hindu scriptures.[citation needed]
[edit] Islamic creationism
Main article: Islamic creationism
There is a growing movement of Islamic creationism. Similar to Christian creationism, there is concern regarding the perceived conflicts between the Qur'an and the main points of evolutionary theory.
[edit] Jewish creationism
Main article: Judaism and evolution
Judaism has a continuum of views about creation, the origin of life and the role of evolution in the formation of species. The major Jewish denominations, including many Orthodox Jewish groups, accept evolutionary creationism or theistic evolution. Many Conservative Rabbis follow theistic evolution, although Conservative Judaism does not have an official view on the subject. Conservative Judaism however, does generally embrace science and therefore finds it a "challenge to traditional Jewish theology."[60] Reform Judaism does not take the Torah as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic or open-ended work. For Orthodox Jews who seek to reconcile discrepancies between science and the Bible, the notion that science and the Bible should even be reconciled through traditional scientific means is questioned. To these groups, science is as true as the Torah and if there seems to be a problem, our own epistemological limits are to blame for any apparent irreconcilable point. They point to various discrepancies between what is expected and what actually is to demonstrate that things are not always as they appear. They point out the fact that the even root word for "world" in the Hebrew language — עולם (oh•luhm) — means hidden. Just as they believe God created man and trees and the light on its way from the stars in their adult state, so too can they believe that the world was created in its "adult" state, with the understanding that there are, and can be, no physical ways to verify this. This belief has been advanced by Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb, former philosophy professor at Johns Hopkins University. Also, relatively old Kabbalistic sources from well before the scientifically apparent age of the universe was first determined are in close concord with modern scientific estimates of the age of the universe, according to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. Other interesting parallels are brought down from, among other sources, Nachmanides, who expounds that there was a Neanderthal-like species with which Adam mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).[61][62][63][64]
[edit] Prevalence
Main article: Level of support for evolution
[edit] United States
Anti-evolution car in Athens, GeorgiaAccording to a 2001 Gallup poll,[65] about 45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 37% believe that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process."[66] Only 14% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."[65]
Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, 74% believe in evolution.[67][68] A poll in the year 2000 done for People for the American Way found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.[69].
In 1987, Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'"[70][71]
In 2000, a poll by People For the American Way[69] estimated that:
20% of Americans believe public schools should teach evolution only;
17% of Americans believe that only evolution should be taught in science classes—religious explanations should be taught in another class;
29% of Americans believe that Creationism should be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory;
13% of Americans believe that Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class;
16% of Americans believe that only Creationism should be taught;
According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult Americans who accept evolution declined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the United States the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%).[72] (See the chart)
Less-direct anecdotal evidence of the popularity of creationism is reflected in the response of IMAX theaters to the availability of Volcanoes of the Deep Sea, an IMAX film which makes a connection between human DNA and microbes inside undersea volcanoes. The film's distributor reported that the only U.S. states with theaters which chose not to show the film were Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina:
"We've got to pick a film that's going to sell in our area. If it's not going to sell, we're not going to take it," said the director of an IMAX theater in Charleston that is not showing the movie. "Many people here believe in creationism, not evolution."[73]
[edit] The western world outside the United States
Most vocal strict creationists are from the United States, and strict creationist views are much less common elsewhere in the western world.
According to a PBS documentary on evolution, Australian Young Earth Creationists claimed that “five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old.” The documentary further states that “Australia is a particular stronghold of the creationist movement.”[74] Taking these claims at face value, Young Earth Creationism is very much a minority position in Western countries.
In Europe, strict creationism is a less well-defined phenomenon, and regular polls are not available. However, evolution is taught as scientific fact in most schools. In countries with a Roman Catholic majority, papal acceptance of evolution as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people. In the United Kingdom the Emmanuel Schools Foundation (previously the Vardy Foundation), which runs three government-funded 13 to 19 schools in the north of England (out of several thousand in the country) and plans to open several more, teaches that creationism and evolution are equally valid “faith positions”. One exam board (OCR) also specifically mentions and deals with creationism in its biology syllabus.[75] However, this deals with it as a historical belief and addresses hostility towards evolution rather than promoting it as an alternative to naturalistic evolution. Mainstream scientific accounts are expressed as fact. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion.[76]
According to a study published in Science, a survey over the United States, Turkey, Japan and Europe showed that public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.[72] (See the chart)
Of particular note for Eastern Europe, Serbia suspended the teaching of evolution for one week in 2004, under education minister Ljiljana Čolić, only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism.[77] "After a deluge of protest from scientists, teachers and opposition parties" says the BBC report, Čolić's deputy made the statement, "I have come here to confirm Charles Darwin is still alive" and announced that the decision was reversed.[78] Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."[79] Poland saw a major controversy over creationism in 2006 when the deputy education minister, Mirosław Orzechowski, denounced evolution as "one of many lies" taught in Polish schools. His superior, Minister of Education Roman Giertych, has stated that the theory of evolution would continue to be taught in Polish schools, "as long as most scientists in our country say that it is the right theory." Giertych's father, Member of the European Parliament Maciej Giertych, has however opposed the teaching of evolution and has claimed that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.[80]
In the United Kingdom, it is notable that the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, Rowan Williams views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as a mistake.[81]. A 2006 poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different perspectives on the origin of life: 22% chose creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolution theory and the rest did not know.[82][83]
There continues to be scattered and possibly mounting efforts on the part of religious fundamentalists throughout Europe to introduce creationism into public education.[84] In response, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has released a draft report entitled The dangers of creationism in education on June 8, 2007, [85] reinforced by a further proposal of banning it in schools dated October 4th, 2007. [86]
[edit] Christian critique
In "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem", George Murphy argues against the view that life on Earth in all its forms is direct evidence of God's act of creation (Murphy quotes Phillip Johnson's claim that he is speaking "of a God who acted openly and left his fingerprints on all the evidence."). Murphy argues that this view of God is incompatible with the Christian understanding of God as "the one revealed in the cross and resurrection of Jesus." The basis of this theology is Isaiah 45:15, "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior." This verse inspired Blaise Pascal to write, "What meets our eyes denotes neither a total absence nor a manifest presence of the divine, but the presence of a God who conceals himself." In the Heidelberg Disputation, Martin Luther referred to the same Biblical verse to propose his "theology of the cross": "That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened ... He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross."
Luther opposes his theology of the cross to what he called the "theology of glory":
A theologian of glory does not recognize, along with the Apostle, the crucified and hidden God alone [I Cor. 2:2]. He sees and speaks of God's glorious manifestation among the heathen, how his invisible nature can be known from the things which are visible [Cf. Rom. 1:20] and how he is present and powerful in all things everywhere.
For Murphy, Creationists are modern-day theologians of glory. Following Luther, Murphy argues that a true Christian cannot discover God from clues in creation, but only from the crucified Christ.
Murphy observes that the execution of a Jewish carpenter by Roman authorities is in and of itself an ordinary event and did not require Divine action. On the contrary, for the crucifixion to occur, God had to limit or "empty" Himself. It was for this reason that Paul wrote, in Philippians 2:5-8,
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
Murphy concludes that,
Just as the son of God limited himself by taking human form and dying on the cross, God limits divine action in the world to be in accord with rational laws God has chosen. This enables us to understand the world on its own terms, but it also means that natural processes hide God from scientific observation.
For Murphy, a theology of the cross requires that Christians accept a methodological naturalism, meaning that one cannot invoke God to explain natural phenomena, while recognizing that such acceptance does not require one to accept a metaphysical naturalism, which proposes that nature is all that there is.[87]
Other Christians have expressed qualms about teaching creationism. In March 2006, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the leader of the world's Anglicans, stated his discomfort about teaching creationism, saying that creationism was "a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories." He also said: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." The views of the Episcopal Church, the American branch of the Anglican Communion, on teaching creationism are also the same as Williams.[88]
[edit] Scientific critique
Many scientists criticize Creationism because science does not attempt to address issues of supernatural intervention in natural phenomena. For this reason, they claim that Creationism cannot be evaluated by science. Stephan Jay Gould considers science and religion to be two compatible, complementary fields, whose authority does not overlap. [89] The scientific consensus rejects any attempt to teach creationism as science.[90][91][92]
[edit] See also
Abrahamic religions
Adnan Oktar
Agent Detection
Allegorical interpretations of Genesis
Biblical inerrancy
Biblical literalism
Cosmogony
Cosmological argument
Creation myth
Creation science
Creator deity
Dating Creation
Devolution
Divine simplicity
Flying Spaghetti Monster
List of creationist museums
Origin of life
Natural theology
Pseudoscience
Scopes Trial
Teleological argument
Watchmaker analogy
Intelligent design
[edit] References
^ Hayward 1998, p. 11
^ a b c Ronald L. Numbers. "Antievolutionists and Creationists". Creationism History. Counterbalance Meta-Library. Retrieved on 2007-08-15.
^ a b c d e Creationism/ID, A Short Legal History By Lenny Flank, Talk Reason
^ Flaws in dating the earth as ancient
^ http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/v17n1_proteins.pdf
^ ‘It’s not science’
^ "Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved on 04-01-2008.
^ Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design
^ National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution
^ IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
^ From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of EvolutionPDF (44.8 KiB), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
^ (Qur'an Chapters 2:109-111, 7:52-57, 16:1-17, 40:66-70, 41:9-12, 42:28, 65:12)
^ Wayne Jackson. "Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?". Retrieved on 2007-05-23.
^ "The Creation Myths: Internal Difficulties". Retrieved on 2007-05-23.
^ a b c d e f g Forster, Roger & Marston, Dr Paul (2001), "Chapter 7 - Genesis Through History", Reason Science and Faith, Chester, England: Monarch Books, ISBN 1854244418,
^ Archbishop of Canterbury, Transcript of interview with the Guardian
^ Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution: Well, he is a Primate, Chris Williams, The Register, Tuesday 21 March 2006
^ What Catholics Think of Evolution? They don't not believe in it, Keelin McDonell, Explainer, Slate Magazine, July 12, 2005.
^ See also the article Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church.
^ see eg John Polkinghorne's Science and Theology pp6-7
^ http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html Davis A. Young, "The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation" (From: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40.1:42-45 (3/1988)), The American Scientific Affiliation
^ http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html The Works of Philo Judaeus, Chapter 2, translated by Charles Duke Yonge
^ a b Full text of Judge Jones' ruling, dated December 20, 2005
^ "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution". American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006). Retrieved on 2007-03-20.
^ "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" Finding the Evolution in Medicine National Institutes of Health
^ a b c Creationism," Contributed By: Ronald L. Numbers, William Coleman: Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2007 http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
^ Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
Early Christian Writings
^ Moore, James. "Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin". Speaking of Faith (Radio Program). American Public Media. Retrieved on 2007-06-27.
^ a b History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth, adapted from The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence (Eerdmans, 1995) by Davis A. Young, Retrieved 2007-06-30.
^ Desmond, Adrian & Moore, James (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group, ISBN 0-7181-3430-3
^ s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 19 of 139
^ a b c d e f Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals.PDF (413 KiB) A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
^ TalkOrigins Archive: Post of the Month: March 2006, The History of Creationism by Lenny Flank.
^ a b c McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Decision January 5, 1982.
^ Edwards v. Aguillard
^ Evolution News & Views: Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design, Discovery Institute, Posted by Jonathan Witt on December 20, 2005 4:43 PM, retrieved 2007-07-01
^ The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.
^ a b Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30-35.
^ a b Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism, Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323
^ Creation crisis in Christian colleges
^ ,
^ Gosse, Henry Philip, 1857. Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. J. Van Voorst, London
^ "The Holy Bible, King James Version". Retrieved on 2006-12-31.
^ "Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?". Discovery Institute. Retrieved on 2007-05-13..
^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Testimony, Barbara Forrest, 2005.
^ Wedge Strategy, Discovery Institute, 1999.
^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design, David Mu, Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
• "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." Professional Ethics Report, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001.
• Conclusion of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Ruling
^ The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 30, 2006, ISBN 0674023390.
^ Forrest, Barbara (May,2007), Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy, Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc.,
^ "Dembski chides me for never using the term "intelligent design" without conjoining it to "creationism." He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to "rally the troops". (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability...", from Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski, Roger T. Pennock, p. 645-667 of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, Roger T. Pennock (editor), Cambridge, MIT Press, 2001, 825 p., ISBN 0262661241; Pennock, R.T., 1999, Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism, Cambridge, MIT Press, 440 p.
^ The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.; Scott, E.C., 2004, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Westport, Greenwood Press, 296p, ISBN 0520246500
^ Intelligent design not science: experts, Deborah Smith Science Editor, Sydney Morning Herald, October 21, 2005.
^ Science, Religion, and Evolution by Eugenie Scott (accessed at 2007-07-09).
^ Akin, Jimmy (January 2004), "Evolution and the Magisterium", This Rock,
^ Jeff Severns Guntzel. "National Catholic Reporter: Catholic schools steer clear of anti-evolution bias". Retrieved on 2007-08-15.
^ Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on ‘Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution’ - Catholic Online
^ The Tower of Babel by Robert T. Pennock, Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry by Steven D. Schafersman, The Leiter Reports, Report on "Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise" conference, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, 11: GOD, SCIENCE, AND NATURALISM by Paul R. Draper, Philosophy Now: The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory, Statement on Intelligent Design, Science and fundamentalism by Massimo Pigliucci, Justifying Methodological Naturalism by Michael Martin (philosopher)
^ Butterflies and wheels article by Raymond D. Bradley, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy in New Zealand.
^ Hinduism and evolution, V. Jayaram, Hinduwebsite.com
^ Judaism and Evolution, Jewish Visrtual Library
^ Aviezer, Nathan. In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science. Ktav, 1990. Hardcover. ISBN 0-88125-328-6
^ Carmell, Aryeh and Domb, Cyril, eds. Challenge: Torah Views on Science New York: Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists/Feldheim Publishers, 1976. ISBN 0-87306-174-8
^ Schroeder, Gerald L. The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom Broadway Books, 1998, ISBN 0-7679-0303-X
^ Jeffrey H. Tigay, Genesis, Science, and "Scientific Creationism", Conservative Judaism, Vol. 40(2), Winter 1987/1988, p.20-27, The Rabbinical Assembly
^ a b Majority of Americans Doubt Theory of Evolution
^ Substantial Numbers of Americans Continue to Doubt Evolution as Explanation for Origin of Humans
^ Frank Newport, "Evolution Beliefs." Gallup Organization, June 11, 2007.
^ "Public beliefs about evolution and creation." From: religioustolerance.org. Retrieved on November 11, 2007.
^ a b Evolution and Creationism In Public Education: An In-depth Reading Of Public OpinionPDF (481 KiB)
^ "Keeping God Out of the Classroom", Newsweek (June 29, 1987), pp. 23.
^ http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm US poll results - "Public beliefs about evolution and creation", religioustolerance.org
^ a b Miller, J. D. (11 August 2006). "Public Acceptance of Evolution". Science 313 (5788): 765–766. doi:10.1126/science.1126746.
^ Evolution Reference Hurts Volcano Film
^ Evolution Revolution, Evolution, Public Broadcasting System
^ Exam board brings creationism into science class
^ We put the clock back a 1000 years (German language)
^ Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools
^ Serbia reverses Darwin suspension
^ 'Anti-Darwin' Serb minister quits
^ "And finally...", Warsaw Business Journal, 18 December 2006.
^ Archbishop: stop teaching creationism-Williams backs science over Bible, Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent, The Guardian, Tuesday March 21, 2006.
^ Britons unconvinced on evolution
^ BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life
^ In the beginning: The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global, ISTANBUL, MOSCOW AND ROME, Evolution and religion, The Economist, Apr 19th 2007.
^ The dangers of creationism in education, Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group, Doc. 11297, Parliamentary Assemble Council of Europe, June 8, 2007.
^ The dangers of creationism in education - Resolution 1580, Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group, Doc. 11297, Parliamentary Assemble Council of Europe, October 4, 2007.
^ Murphy, George L., 2002, "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem," in Covalence: the Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science, and Technology
^ The Guardian, Archbishop: Stop teaching creationism, Williams backs science over Bible See transcript of Guardian interview for primary source
^ Gould, Stephen Jay (1997). "Nonoverlapping Magisteria". Natural History 106: 16–22.
^ "Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design" (in English), The Royal Society (2006-04-11). Retrieved on 2007-04-23.
^ Matsumura, Molleen; Mead, Louise (2005-02-15). "10 Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution/Creationism" (in English), National Center for Science Education. Retrieved on 2007-09-12.
^ Myers, PZ (2006-02-15). "Ann Coulter: No Evidence for Evolution?" (in English). Pharyngula. ScienceBlogs. Retrieved on 2007-09-12.
[edit] Additional references
Hayward, James L. (1998), The Creation/Evolution Controversy : an Annotated Bibliography, Scarecrow Press/Salem Press, 253, ISBN 0-8108-3386-7
Numbers, Ronald (2006-11-30). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press, 624 pages. ISBN 0674023390.
Anderson, Bernhard W. (editor) Creation in the Old Testament (ISBN 0-8006-1768-1)
Anderson, Bernhard W. Creation Versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible (ISBN 1-59752-042-X)
Ian Barbour When Science Meets Religion, 2000, Harper SanFrancisco
Ian Barbour Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, 1997, Harper SanFrancisco.
Stephen Jay Gould Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the fullness of life, Ballantine Books, 1999
[edit] Further reading
Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams In a Beginning...: Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah, Tikkun, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 66-73
Aryeh Kaplan, Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View, Ktav, NJ, in association with the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, NY, 1993
Adams Leeming, David (1996). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. OUP. ISBN 978-0195102758.
Numbers, Ronald (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674023390.
[edit] External links
The Edinburgh Creation Group This site features many interesting videos bringing a Creationist perspective.
CreationOnTheWeb A creation website for Creation Ministries International, an apologetics ministry that supports a 6-day biblical creation worldview
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Creationism
How creationism works
Muslim viewpoint
Darwinism Refuted
Can Creation and Evolution Both Be True? | epologetics Examines whether Biblical creation and neo-darwinistic evolution can be reconciled.
Evolution, Creationism & ID Timeline Focuses on major historical and recent events in the scientific and political debate
Evolution and CreationismPDF (204 KiB). A Guide for Museum Docents
What is creationism? from talk.origins
The Creation/Evolution Continuum by Eugenie Scott.
Armies of the Night by Isaac Asimov.
Workers have stake in defending science a materialist statement on creationism by The Militant, 2005.
Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham Leading scientists still reject God in Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691 (1998), p. 313. Online at Freethought-web.org
Creationism: The Hindu View
Northwest Creation Network's extensive list of International Creation Science links
Teaching Hearts Creation Science
Creationism & The Early Church A study of the Early Church's teaching on Genesis chapters 1-11.
[edit] Organizations
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
CreationismTalk.origins maintains an extensive list of general links relevant to creationism and a full list of creationist websites. The following are links to the main organizations espousing a variety of viewpoints:
Young Earth Creationism
The Emperor Has No Clothes A site promoting Intelligent Design and "Young-life" Creationism
In the Beginning - Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood By Walt Brown
Answers in Genesis A group promoting Young-Earth Creationism.
Creation Ministries International formerly Answers in Genesis. Headquarters in Australia
Center for Natural Studies
The Biblical Calendar of History
Institute for Creation Research "A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry"
The Creation Research Society
The True.Origin Archive
CreationWiki
Old Earth Creationism
Johnson, Gaines R. 1997. Christian Geology — A comprehensive study of Creationism for Bible Believers: Rightly-Dividing Genesis and Geology
Reasons to Believe led by Hugh Ross
Answers In Creation led by Greg Neyman
Creator deity
Creator deity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A creator deity is a deity in a creation myth responsible for the creation of the world (or universe).
In monotheism, the single God is necessarily also the creator deity, while polytheistic traditions may or may not have creator deities. Number of monolatristic traditions would separate a secondary creator, from primary transcendent being, identified as a primary creator.[1]
Contents
[hide]
1 Polytheism
2 Platonic demiurge
3 Monolatrism
4 Monism
5 Monotheism
5.1 Judaism
5.2 Christianity
5.2.1 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
5.2.2 Creationism
5.3 Islam
5.4 Sikhism
6 Chinese Mythology
7 References
8 See also
[edit] Polytheism
In polytheistic creation myths, the world often comes into being organically, e.g. sprouting from a primal seed, sexually, by hierosgamos, violently, by the slaying of a primeval monster, or artificially, by a divine demiurge or "craftsman". Sometimes, a god is involved, wittingly or unwittingly, in bringing about creation. Examples include
Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
Egyptian mythology
Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe
alternatively, Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Creation according to Genesis)
the sons of Borr slaying the primeval giant Ymir in Norse mythology;
Kamui in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology
Brahma in Hindu mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while Vishnu and Shiva are responsible for its maintenance and destruction, respectively).
Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Māori mythology
the goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology
Viracocha in Inca mythology
a trickster deity in the form of a Raven in Inuit mythology
[edit] Platonic demiurge
Main article: demiurge
Further information: Neoplatonism and Gnosticism and Great Architect of the Universe
Plato, in his dialogue Timaeus, describes a creation myth involving a being called the demiurge (δημιουργός "craftsman"). This concept was continued in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. In Neoplatonism, the demiurge represents the second cause or dyad, after the monad. In Gnostic dualism, the demiurge is an imperfect spirit, transcended by divine Fullness (Pleroma).
[edit] Monolatrism
See also: Brahma
Monolatristic traditions would separate a secondary creator, from primary transcendent being, identified as a primary creator.[2] According to Gaudiya Vaishnavas the four-faced Brahma is the secondary creator and not the supreme.[3] Vishnu is the primary creator. According to the Vaishnava belief he creates the basic universal shell and provides all the raw materials and also places the living entities within the material world, fulfilling their own independent will. Brahma is the secondary creator. He works with the materials provided by Visnu to actually create what is believed to be planets in Puranic terminolog and he supervises the population of them.[4]
[edit] Monism
Further information: Hindu Creationism
Further information: Jainism and non-creationism
In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the abstract notion of "the Absolute" from which the universe takes its origin, and at an ultimate level, all assertions of a distinction between Brahman, other gods and creation are meaningless (monism).
Some gods in Buddhism have the view that they are creators of the world. For example, Baka Brahma. However, Buddha pointed out to them that they do not know the whole extent of the universe (he said they have no knowledge of some of the highest heavens), and further, the spiritual power of the Buddha was greater than the spiritual power of these gods who thought they created the world. One of the Suttas dealing with this subject is the Kevaddha Sutta.
Also, Buddha said (in DN1 - the Brahmajala Sutta or The Net of Views) that their view of being the creator of the world is a misconception, and that these Brahma-gods actually have a cause which lead their origination (taking birth as a Brahma-god). Buddha even tells how the views concerning 'creator gods' originate in the world - through junior Brahma-gods (with a more limited life-span) who, on their passing away, get reborn as a human, and through practicing meditation are able to remember their previous life as a junior god to a Brahma god. Then, he starts to preach this view of a 'creator god' to others (see DN1 - the Brahmajala Sutta). Jainism similarly believes in "craftsman" deities responsible for the physical world, which are however transcended by a static and uncreated universe.
[edit] Monotheism
Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism and Islam teach that creation is believed to be the origin of the universe by the action of God.
Among monotheists it has historically been most commonly believed that living things are God's creations, and are not the result of a process inherent in originally non-living things, unless this process is designed, initiated, or directed by God; likewise, sentient and intelligent beings are believed to be God's creation, and did not arise through the development of living but non-sentient beings, except by the intervention of God.[5]
[edit] Judaism
Further information: Creation according to Genesis
Orthodox Judaism historically affirms that one incorporeal God is the creator of all things, and that this same one created Adam and Eve personally (directly). They affirm that this Being is an indivisible one (consists of no parts - neither visible or invisible), incomparable to any created thing, and immutable.
[edit] Christianity
It is a tenet of Christian faith (Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) that God is the creator of all things from nothing, and has made man in the image of God, who by direct inference is also the source of the human soul. Within this broad understanding, however, there are a number of views regarding exactly how this doctrine ought to be interpreted.
Some Christians, particularly Young Earth creationists and Old Earth creationists, interpret Genesis as an historical, accurate, and literal account of creation.
Others, in contrast to both of these views of acts of the Creator, may not understand any of these to be statements of historic fact, but rather, spiritual insights more vaguely defined.
While the synoptic gospels do not address the question of creation, the Gospel of John famously begins:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being ... And the Word [Jesus Christ] became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth".
Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews contains another reference to creation:
"For by faith we understand the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible".[6]
Thus, in Chalcedonian Christology, Jesus is the Word of God, which was in the beginning and, thus, is uncreated, and hence is God, and consequently identical with the Creator of the world ex nihilo.
The Roman Catholic Church allows for both a literal and allegorical interpretation of Genesis, so as to allow for the possibility of Creation by means of an evolutionary process over great spans of time, otherwise known as theistic evolution.
It believes that the creation of the world is a work of God through the Logos, the Word (idea, intelligence, reason and logic):
In the beginning was the Word...and the Word was God...all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." The New Testament claims that God created everything by the eternal Word, Jesus Christ his beloved Son. In him "all things were created, in heaven and on earth.. . all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.[7]
Surrounded by a pervasive culture of rationalism, relativism and secularism, the Catholic Church is questioning the validity of reason basing itself on an evolutionary origin of mere chance. In a 1999 lecture at the University of Paris, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said:
The question is ... whether reason, being a chance by-product of irrationality and floating in an ocean of irrationality, is ultimately just as meaningless; or whether the principle that represents the fundamental conviction of Christian faith and of its philosophy remains true: "In principio erat Verbum" — at the beginning of all things stands the creative power of reason. Now as then, Christian faith represents the choice in favor of the priority of reason and of rationality. [...] there is no ultimate demonstration that the basic choice involved in Christianity is correct. Yet, can reason really renounce its claim to the priority of what is rational over the irrational, the claim that the Logos is at the ultimate origin of things, without abolishing itself?
Even today, by reason of its choosing to assert the primacy of reason, Christianity remains "enlightened," and I think that any enlightenment that cancels this choice must, contrary to all appearances, mean, not an evolution, but an involution, a shrinking, of enlightenment.
[edit] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and others within Mormonism, believe that physical reality (space, matter and/or energy) is eternal, and therefore does not have an absolute origin. The Creator is an architect and organizer of pre-existent matter and energy, who constructed the present cosmos out of the raw material and that God was created by the god before him.
[edit] Creationism
Main article: Creationism
Christian fundamentalism in the USA since the 1930s has pursued Biblical literalist doctrines of "Creationism" as a counter-hypothesis opposing the scientific community, with concepts such as flood geology, creation science and intelligent design proposed as syntheses of Christian creation beliefs and scientific method.
[edit] Islam
The fundamental concept in Islam is the oneness of God. Muslims believe that God (Arabic:Allah) is the creator of all living and non-living things in the universe, has no gender, source or offspring. This monotheism is absolute, not relative or pluralistic in any sense of the word.
[edit] Sikhism
One of the biggest responsibilities in Sikhism is to worship God as "The Creator". The religion only takes after the belief in "One God for All".
[edit] Chinese Mythology
Pangu can be interpreted as another creator deity. In the beginning there was nothing in the universe except a formless chaos. However this chaos began to coalesce into a cosmic egg for eighteen thousand years. Within it, the perfectly opposed principles of yin and yang became balanced and Pangu emerged (or woke up) from the egg. Pangu is usually depicted as a primitive, hairy giant with horns on his head (like the Greek Pan) and clad in furs. Pangu set about the task of creating the world: he separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang). To keep them separated, Pangu stood between them and pushed up the Sky. This task took eighteen thousand years, with each day the sky grew ten feet higher, the Earth ten feet wider, and Pangu ten feet taller. In some versions of the story, Pangu is aided in this task by the four most prominent beasts, namely the Turtle, the Qilin, the Phoenix, and the Dragon.
After the eighteen thousand years had elapsed, Pangu was laid to rest. His breath became the wind; his voice the thunder; left eye the sun and right eye the moon; his body became the mountains and extremes of the world; his blood formed rivers; his muscles the fertile lands; his facial hair the stars and milky way; his fur the bushes and forests; his bones the valuable minerals; his bone marrows sacred diamonds; his sweat fell as rain; and the fleas on his fur carried by the wind became human beings all over the world. The distance from Earth and Sky at the end of the 18,000 years would have been 65,700,000 feet, or over 12,443 miles.
The first writer to record the myth of Pangu was Xu Zheng (徐整) during the Three Kingdoms (三國) period.
[edit] References
^ (2004) Sacred Books of the Hindus Volume 22 Part 2: Pt.2, p. 67, R.B. Vidyarnava, Rai Bahadur Srisa Chandra Vidyarnava
^ (2004) Sacred Books of the Hindus Volume 22 Part 2: Pt.2, p. 67, R.B. Vidyarnava, Rai Bahadur Srisa Chandra Vidyarnava
^ Nandalal Sinha {1934} The Vedânta-sûtras of Bâdarâyaṇa, with the Commentary of Baladeva. p. 413
^ "The Universe and Time". science.krishna.org. Retrieved on 2008-07-24.
^ Rouvière, Jean-Marc, Brèves méditations sur la création du monde L'Harmattan, Paris (2006), ISBN 2-7475-9922-1.
^ New American Standard Version, ISBN 0-7369-0018-7
^ CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 291
[edit] See also
Biblical cosmology
Brahma
Brahman
Cosmogony
Cosmological argument
Cosmology
Creationism
Dating Creation
Day-Age Creationism
Deism
Existence
Free will
Gap Creationism
Great Spirit
Hinduism
Intelligent designer
Jainism and non-creationism
Native American mythology
Old Earth Creationism
Spiritism
Theism
Tzimtzum
Ultimate fate of the Universe
Young Earth Creationism
Creation according to Genesis
Garden of Eden
Rationalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A creator deity is a deity in a creation myth responsible for the creation of the world (or universe).
In monotheism, the single God is necessarily also the creator deity, while polytheistic traditions may or may not have creator deities. Number of monolatristic traditions would separate a secondary creator, from primary transcendent being, identified as a primary creator.[1]
Contents
[hide]
1 Polytheism
2 Platonic demiurge
3 Monolatrism
4 Monism
5 Monotheism
5.1 Judaism
5.2 Christianity
5.2.1 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
5.2.2 Creationism
5.3 Islam
5.4 Sikhism
6 Chinese Mythology
7 References
8 See also
[edit] Polytheism
In polytheistic creation myths, the world often comes into being organically, e.g. sprouting from a primal seed, sexually, by hierosgamos, violently, by the slaying of a primeval monster, or artificially, by a divine demiurge or "craftsman". Sometimes, a god is involved, wittingly or unwittingly, in bringing about creation. Examples include
Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
Egyptian mythology
Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe
alternatively, Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Creation according to Genesis)
the sons of Borr slaying the primeval giant Ymir in Norse mythology;
Kamui in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology
Brahma in Hindu mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while Vishnu and Shiva are responsible for its maintenance and destruction, respectively).
Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Māori mythology
the goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology
Viracocha in Inca mythology
a trickster deity in the form of a Raven in Inuit mythology
[edit] Platonic demiurge
Main article: demiurge
Further information: Neoplatonism and Gnosticism and Great Architect of the Universe
Plato, in his dialogue Timaeus, describes a creation myth involving a being called the demiurge (δημιουργός "craftsman"). This concept was continued in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. In Neoplatonism, the demiurge represents the second cause or dyad, after the monad. In Gnostic dualism, the demiurge is an imperfect spirit, transcended by divine Fullness (Pleroma).
[edit] Monolatrism
See also: Brahma
Monolatristic traditions would separate a secondary creator, from primary transcendent being, identified as a primary creator.[2] According to Gaudiya Vaishnavas the four-faced Brahma is the secondary creator and not the supreme.[3] Vishnu is the primary creator. According to the Vaishnava belief he creates the basic universal shell and provides all the raw materials and also places the living entities within the material world, fulfilling their own independent will. Brahma is the secondary creator. He works with the materials provided by Visnu to actually create what is believed to be planets in Puranic terminolog and he supervises the population of them.[4]
[edit] Monism
Further information: Hindu Creationism
Further information: Jainism and non-creationism
In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the abstract notion of "the Absolute" from which the universe takes its origin, and at an ultimate level, all assertions of a distinction between Brahman, other gods and creation are meaningless (monism).
Some gods in Buddhism have the view that they are creators of the world. For example, Baka Brahma. However, Buddha pointed out to them that they do not know the whole extent of the universe (he said they have no knowledge of some of the highest heavens), and further, the spiritual power of the Buddha was greater than the spiritual power of these gods who thought they created the world. One of the Suttas dealing with this subject is the Kevaddha Sutta.
Also, Buddha said (in DN1 - the Brahmajala Sutta or The Net of Views) that their view of being the creator of the world is a misconception, and that these Brahma-gods actually have a cause which lead their origination (taking birth as a Brahma-god). Buddha even tells how the views concerning 'creator gods' originate in the world - through junior Brahma-gods (with a more limited life-span) who, on their passing away, get reborn as a human, and through practicing meditation are able to remember their previous life as a junior god to a Brahma god. Then, he starts to preach this view of a 'creator god' to others (see DN1 - the Brahmajala Sutta). Jainism similarly believes in "craftsman" deities responsible for the physical world, which are however transcended by a static and uncreated universe.
[edit] Monotheism
Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism and Islam teach that creation is believed to be the origin of the universe by the action of God.
Among monotheists it has historically been most commonly believed that living things are God's creations, and are not the result of a process inherent in originally non-living things, unless this process is designed, initiated, or directed by God; likewise, sentient and intelligent beings are believed to be God's creation, and did not arise through the development of living but non-sentient beings, except by the intervention of God.[5]
[edit] Judaism
Further information: Creation according to Genesis
Orthodox Judaism historically affirms that one incorporeal God is the creator of all things, and that this same one created Adam and Eve personally (directly). They affirm that this Being is an indivisible one (consists of no parts - neither visible or invisible), incomparable to any created thing, and immutable.
[edit] Christianity
It is a tenet of Christian faith (Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) that God is the creator of all things from nothing, and has made man in the image of God, who by direct inference is also the source of the human soul. Within this broad understanding, however, there are a number of views regarding exactly how this doctrine ought to be interpreted.
Some Christians, particularly Young Earth creationists and Old Earth creationists, interpret Genesis as an historical, accurate, and literal account of creation.
Others, in contrast to both of these views of acts of the Creator, may not understand any of these to be statements of historic fact, but rather, spiritual insights more vaguely defined.
While the synoptic gospels do not address the question of creation, the Gospel of John famously begins:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being ... And the Word [Jesus Christ] became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth"
Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews contains another reference to creation:
"For by faith we understand the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible"
Thus, in Chalcedonian Christology, Jesus is the Word of God, which was in the beginning and, thus, is uncreated, and hence is God, and consequently identical with the Creator of the world ex nihilo.
The Roman Catholic Church allows for both a literal and allegorical interpretation of Genesis, so as to allow for the possibility of Creation by means of an evolutionary process over great spans of time, otherwise known as theistic evolution.
It believes that the creation of the world is a work of God through the Logos, the Word (idea, intelligence, reason and logic):
In the beginning was the Word...and the Word was God...all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." The New Testament claims that God created everything by the eternal Word, Jesus Christ his beloved Son. In him "all things were created, in heaven and on earth.. . all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.[7]
Surrounded by a pervasive culture of rationalism, relativism and secularism, the Catholic Church is questioning the validity of reason basing itself on an evolutionary origin of mere chance. In a 1999 lecture at the University of Paris, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said:
The question is ... whether reason, being a chance by-product of irrationality and floating in an ocean of irrationality, is ultimately just as meaningless; or whether the principle that represents the fundamental conviction of Christian faith and of its philosophy remains true: "In principio erat Verbum" — at the beginning of all things stands the creative power of reason. Now as then, Christian faith represents the choice in favor of the priority of reason and of rationality. [...] there is no ultimate demonstration that the basic choice involved in Christianity is correct. Yet, can reason really renounce its claim to the priority of what is rational over the irrational, the claim that the Logos is at the ultimate origin of things, without abolishing itself?
Even today, by reason of its choosing to assert the primacy of reason, Christianity remains "enlightened," and I think that any enlightenment that cancels this choice must, contrary to all appearances, mean, not an evolution, but an involution, a shrinking, of enlightenment.
[edit] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and others within Mormonism, believe that physical reality (space, matter and/or energy) is eternal, and therefore does not have an absolute origin. The Creator is an architect and organizer of pre-existent matter and energy, who constructed the present cosmos out of the raw material and that God was created by the god before him.
[edit] Creationism
Main article: Creationism
Christian fundamentalism in the USA since the 1930s has pursued Biblical literalist doctrines of "Creationism" as a counter-hypothesis opposing the scientific community, with concepts such as flood geology, creation science and intelligent design proposed as syntheses of Christian creation beliefs and scientific method.
[edit] Islam
The fundamental concept in Islam is the oneness of God. Muslims believe that God (Arabic:Allah) is the creator of all living and non-living things in the universe, has no gender, source or offspring. This monotheism is absolute, not relative or pluralistic in any sense of the word.
[edit] Sikhism
One of the biggest responsibilities in Sikhism is to worship God as "The Creator". The religion only takes after the belief in "One God for All".
[edit] Chinese Mythology
Pangu can be interpreted as another creator deity. In the beginning there was nothing in the universe except a formless chaos. However this chaos began to coalesce into a cosmic egg for eighteen thousand years. Within it, the perfectly opposed principles of yin and yang became balanced and Pangu emerged (or woke up) from the egg. Pangu is usually depicted as a primitive, hairy giant with horns on his head (like the Greek Pan) and clad in furs. Pangu set about the task of creating the world: he separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang). To keep them separated, Pangu stood between them and pushed up the Sky. This task took eighteen thousand years, with each day the sky grew ten feet higher, the Earth ten feet wider, and Pangu ten feet taller. In some versions of the story, Pangu is aided in this task by the four most prominent beasts, namely the Turtle, the Qilin, the Phoenix, and the Dragon.
After the eighteen thousand years had elapsed, Pangu was laid to rest. His breath became the wind; his voice the thunder; left eye the sun and right eye the moon; his body became the mountains and extremes of the world; his blood formed rivers; his muscles the fertile lands; his facial hair the stars and milky way; his fur the bushes and forests; his bones the valuable minerals; his bone marrows sacred diamonds; his sweat fell as rain; and the fleas on his fur carried by the wind became human beings all over the world. The distance from Earth and Sky at the end of the 18,000 years would have been 65,700,000 feet, or over 12,443 miles.
The first writer to record the myth of Pangu was Xu Zheng (徐整) during the Three Kingdoms (三國) period.
[edit] References
^ (2004) Sacred Books of the Hindus Volume 22 Part 2: Pt.2, p. 67, R.B. Vidyarnava, Rai Bahadur Srisa Chandra Vidyarnava
^ (2004) Sacred Books of the Hindus Volume 22 Part 2: Pt.2, p. 67, R.B. Vidyarnava, Rai Bahadur Srisa Chandra Vidyarnava
^ Nandalal Sinha {1934} The Vedânta-sûtras of Bâdarâyaṇa, with the Commentary of Baladeva. p. 413
^ "The Universe and Time". science.krishna.org. Retrieved on 2008-07-24.
^ Rouvière, Jean-Marc, Brèves méditations sur la création du monde L'Harmattan, Paris (2006), ISBN 2-7475-9922-1.
^ New American Standard Version, ISBN 0-7369-0018-7
^ CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 291
[edit] See also
Biblical cosmology
Brahma
Brahman
Cosmogony
Cosmological argument
Cosmology
Creationism
Dating Creation
Day-Age Creationism
Deism
Existence
Free will
Gap Creationism
Great Spirit
Hinduism
Intelligent designer
Jainism and non-creationism
Native American mythology
Old Earth Creationism
Spiritism
Theism
Tzimtzum
Ultimate fate of the Universe
Young Earth Creationism
Creation according to Genesis
Garden of Eden
Rationalism
Jainism and non-creationism
Jainism and non-creationism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series on
Jainism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Jain prayer
Navakar Mantra
Timeline
Jain great vows
Ahimsa · Asteya
Brahmacharya · Satya
Nirvana · Aparigraha
Anekantavada
Key concepts
Kevala Jñāna · Cosmology
Samsara · Karma
Dharma · Mokṣa · Reincarnation
Swadhyay
Major figures
The 24 Tirthankaras
Lord Rishabh to Mahavira
Acharyas · Ganadhars
Siddhasen Divakar · Haribhadra
Practices and attainment
Four Stages of Enlightenment
Paramis · Meditation
Jainism by region
India · Western
Sects of Jainism
Svetambara · Digambara
Terapanthi · Early schools
Sthanakvasi · Bisapantha
Deravasi
Texts
Kalpasutra
Agama (text) · Tattvartha Sutra
Sanmatti Prakaran
List of topics
Portal: Jainism
This box: view • talk • edit
Jainism does not support belief in a creator deity. According to Jain doctrine, the universe and its constituents - soul, matter, space, time, and principles of motion have always existed (a static universe similar to that of Epicureanism). All the constituents and actions are governed by universal natural laws. It is not possible to create matter out of nothing and hence the sum total of matter in the universe remains the same. Similarly, the soul of each living being is unique and uncreated and has existed since beginningless time.[a][1]
The Jain theory of causation holds that a cause and its effect are always identical in nature and hence a conscious and immaterial entity like God cannot create a material entity like the universe. Furthermore, according to the Jain concept of divinity, any soul who destroys its karmas and desires, achieves liberation. A soul who destroys all its passions and desires has no desire to interfere in the working of the universe. Moral rewards and sufferings are not the work of a divine being, but a result of an innate moral order in the cosmos; a self-regulating mechanism whereby the individual reaps the fruits of his own actions through the workings of the karmas.
Through the ages, Jain philosophers have adamantly rejected and opposed the concept of creator and omnipotent God and this has resulted in Jainism being labeled as nastika darsana or atheist philosophy by the rival religious philosophies. The theme of non-creationism and absence of omnipotent God and divine grace runs strongly in all the philosophical dimensions of Jainism, including its cosmology, karma, moksa and its moral code of conduct. Jainism shows how a religious and virtuous life is possible without the idea of a creator god. [2]
Contents
[hide]
1 Jaina Conception of the Universe
1.1 Concept of Reality
1.2 Material Cause and Effect
1.3 The soul
2 Jaina Conception of Divinity
2.1 Arhats
2.2 Tīrthankaras
2.3 Siddhas
2.4 Heavenly Beings – Demi-Gods and Demi-Goddesses
3 Nature of Karmas
4 Jain opposition to Creationism
5 Criticisms of Jaina non-creationist theory
6 See also
7 Notes
8 Citations
9 References
[edit] Jaina Conception of the Universe
See also: Jain cosmology
Structure of Universe as per the Jain Scriptures.According to Jains, this loka or universe is an entity, always existing in varying forms with no beginning or end. Jain texts describe the shape of the universe as similar to a man standing with legs apart and arms resting on his waist. Thus, the universe is narrow at top, widens above the middle, narrows towards the middle, and once again becomes broad at the bottom. [3] [b]
[edit] Concept of Reality
This universe is made up of what Jainas call the six dravyas or substances classified as follows –
Jīva - The living substances
Jains believe that souls (Jīva) exist as a reality, with a separate existence from the body that houses it. It is characterised by cetana (consciousness) and upayoga (knowledge and perception).[4] Though the soul experiences both birth and death, it is neither destroyed nor created. Decay and origin refer respectively to the disappearance of one state of soul and appearance of another, both merely various modes of the soul.[5]
Ajīva - Non-Living Substances
Pudgala or Matter - Matter is solid, liquid, gas, energy, fine karmic materials and extra-fine matter or ultimate particles. Paramānu or ultimate particles are the basic building block of matter. One quality of paramānu and pudgala is permanence and indestructibility. It combines and changes its modes but its qualities remain the same. According to Jainism, it cannot be created nor destroyed.
Dharma-tattva or Medium of Motion and Adharma-tattva or Medium of Rest - Also known as Dharmāstikāya and Adharmāstikāya, they are distinct to Jain thought depicting motion and rest. They pervade the entire universe. Dharma-tattva and Adharma-tattva are by itself not motion or rest but mediate motion and rest in other bodies. Without dharmāstikāya motion is impossible and without adharmāstikāya rest is impossible in the Universe.
Ākāśa or Space - Space is a substance that accommodates living souls, matter, the principles of motion and rest, and time. It is all-pervading, infinite and made of infinite space-points.
Kāla or Time - Time is a real entity according to Jainism and all activities, changes or modifications are achieved only in time. Time is like a wheel with twelve spokes divided into descending and ascending: half with six stages of immense durations, each estimated at billions of sagaropama or ocean years. [6] In each descending stage, sorrow increases and at each ascending stage, happiness and bliss increase.
These are uncreated existing constituents of the universe impart the necessary dynamics to the universe by interacting with each other. These constituents behave according to natural laws and their nature without interference from external entities. Dharma or true religion according to Jainism is vatthu sahāvo dhammo translated as "the intrinsic nature of a substance is its true dharma." [c]
[edit] Material Cause and Effect
According to Jainism, causes are of two types – Upādanā kārana (substantial or material cause) and Nimitta kārana (instrumental cause). Upādanā kārana is always identical with its effect. [7] For example out of clay, you can only produce a clay pot; hence the clay is the upādanā kārana or material cause and clay pot its effect. Wherever the effect is present, the cause is present and vice versa. The effect is always present in latent form in the material cause. For transforming the clay to pot, the potter, the wheel, the stick and other operating agents are required that are merely nimitta or instrumental cause or catalysts in transformation. The material cause always remains the clay. Hence the cause and effect are always entirely identical in nature. [g] Potter cannot be the material cause of pot. If this were the case, then Potter might as well prepare the pot without any clay. But this is not so. Thus a clay pot can only be made from clay; gold ornaments can be made only from gold. Similarly the different modes of existence of a soul are a result of activities of soul itself. There cannot be any contradiction or exceptions.
In such a scenario, Jains argue that the material cause of a living soul with cetana (conscious entity) is always the soul itself and cause of dead inert matter (non-cetana i.e. without any consciousness) is always the matter itself. [8] If God is indeed the creator, then this is an impossible predication as the same cause will be responsible for two contradictory effects of cetana (life) and acetana (matter). [9] This logically precludes an immaterial God (a conscious entity) from creating this Universe, which is made up of material substances.
[edit] The soul
According to Jainism, Soul is the master of its own destiny. One of the qualities of the soul is complete lordship of its own destiny.[10] The soul alone chooses its actions and soul alone reaps its consequences. No God or prophet or angel can interfere in the actions or the destiny of the soul. Furthermore, it is the soul alone who makes the necessary efforts to achieve liberation without any divine grace. [11] [12]
Jains frequently assert that “we are alone” in this world. [h]Amongst the twelve contemplations (anupreksas) of Jains, one of them is the loneliness of ones soul and nature of the universe and transmigration. Hence only by cleansing our soul by our own actions can we help ourselves.[13]
Jainism thus lays a strong emphasis on the efforts and the freewill of the soul to achieve the desired goal of liberation.
[edit] Jaina Conception of Divinity
According to Jainism, gods can be categorized into Tīrthankaras, Arihantas or ordinary Kevalin and Siddhas. Jainism considers the Devīs and Devas to be demi-goddesses and demi-gods who dwell in heavens owing to meritorious deeds in their past lives.
[edit] Arhats
Idol of Lord Mahavira at Shri Mahavirji, Rajasthan. The Padmasana pose of the statue with eyes closed in deep meditation indicates a complete state of detachment.Arhatas, also known as Arihantas or Kevalins, are gods in embodied states who ultimately become Siddhas, or liberated souls, at the time of their nirvana. An Arhata is a soul who has destroyed all passions, is totally unattached and without any desire and hence is able to destroy the four ghātiyā karmas and attain kevala Jñāna, or omniscience. Such a soul still has a body and four aghātiyā karmas. An Arhata, at the end of his lifespan, destroys his remaining aghātiyā karma and becomes a Siddha.
[edit] Tīrthankaras
Tīrthankaras (also known as Jinas) are Arhatas who are teachers and revivers of the Jain philosophy. There are 24 Tīrthankaras in each time cycle; Mahāvīra was the 24th and last Tīrthankara of the current time cycle. Tīrthankaras are literally the ford makers who have who have shown the way across the ocean of re-birth and transmigration and hence have become a focus of reverence and worship amongst Jains. However it would be a mistake to regard the Tīrthankaras as gods analogous to the gods of Hindu pantheon despite the superficial resemblances in Jain and Hindu way of worship.[14] Tīrthankaras like Arhatas ultimately become Siddhas on liberation. Tīrthankaras, being liberated, are beyond any kind of transactions with the rest of the universe. They are not the beings who exercise any sort of creative activity or who have the capacity or ability to intervene in answers to prayers.
[edit] Siddhas
Ultimately all Arhatas and Tīrthankaras become Siddhas. A Siddha is a soul who is permanently liberated from the transmigratory cycle of birth and death. Such a soul, having realized its true self, is free from all the Karmas and embodiment. They are formless and dwell in Siddhashila (the realm of the liberated beings) at the apex of the universe in infinite bliss, infinite perception, infinite knowledge and infinite energy.
The Acāranga sūtra 1.197 describes Siddhas in this way –
“ The liberated soul is not long nor small nor round nor triangular nor quadrangular nor circular; it is not black nor blue nor red nor green nor white; neither of good nor bad smell; not bitter nor pungent nor astringent nor sweet; neither rough nor soft; neither heavy nor light; neither cold nor hot; neither harsh nor smooth; it is without body, without resurrection, without contact (of matter), it is not feminine nor masculine nor neuter. The siddha perceives and knows all, yet is beyond comparison. Its essence is without form; there is no condition of the unconditioned. It is not sound, not colour, not smell, not taste, not touch or anything of that kind. Thus I say.” [15] ”
Siddhahood is the ultimate goal of all souls. There are infinite souls who have become Siddhas and infinite more who will attain this state of liberation. [d] According to Jainism, the Godhood is not a monopoly of some omnipotent and powerful being(s). All souls, with right perception, knowledge and conduct can achieve self realisation and attain this state.[e] Once achieving this state of infinite bliss and having destroyed all desires, the soul is not concerned with the worldly matters and does not interfere in the working of universe, as any activity or desire to interfere will once again result in influx of karmas and thus loss of liberation.
Jains pray to these passionless Gods not for any favors or rewards but rather pray to the qualities of the God with the objective of destroying the karmas and achieving the Godhood. This is best understood by the term – vandetadgunalabhdhaye i.e. we pray to the attributes of such Gods to acquire such attributes” [f] [16]
[edit] Heavenly Beings – Demi-Gods and Demi-Goddesses
Idol of Padmāvatī devī, śāsanadevī of Lord Parshva 23rd Tirthankara at Walkeshwar Temple. Padmāvatī devī is one of the most popular demi-goddess amongst the Jains for people seeking material favours from the Gods.Jainism describes existence of śāsanadevatās and śāsanadevīs, the attendant Gods and Goddesses of Tīrthankaras, who create the samavasarana or the divine preaching assembly of a Tīrthankara. Such heavenly beings are classified as:-
Bhavanpatis - Gods dwelling in abodes
Vyantaras - Intermediary gods
Jyotiskas - Luminaries
Vaimānikas - Astral gods
The souls on account of accumulation of meritorious karmas reincarnate in heavens as demi-gods. Although their life span is quite long, after their merit karmas are exhausted, they once again have to reincarnate back into the realms of humans, animals or hells depending on their karmas. As these Gods themselves are not liberated, they have attachments and passions and hence not worthy of worship. Ācārya Hemacandra decries the worship of such Gods –
“ These Gods tainted with attachment and passion;
having women and weapons by their side, favour some and disfavour some;
such Gods should not be worshipped by those who desire emancipation” [17]
”
Worship of such gods is considered as mithyātva or wrong belief leading to bondage of karmas. However, many Jains are known to worship to such gods for material gains.
[edit] Nature of Karmas
Main article: Karma in Jainism
According to Robert Zydendos, karma in Jainism can be considered a kind of system of laws, but natural rather than moral laws. In Jainism, actions that carry moral significance are considered to cause certain consequences in just the same way as, for instance, physical actions that do not carry any special moral significance. When one holds an apple in one's hand and then let go of the apple, the apple will fall: this is only natural. There is no judge, and no moral judgment involved, since this is a mechanical consequence of the physical action. [18]
Hence in accordance with the natural karmic laws, consequences occur when one utters a lie, steals something, commits acts of senseless violence or leads the life of a debauchee. Rather than assume that moral rewards and retribution are the work of a divine judge, the Jains believe that there is an innate moral order to the cosmos, self-regulating through the workings of karma. Morality and ethics are important not because of the personal whim of a fictional god, but because a life that is led in agreement with moral and ethical principles is beneficial: it leads to a decrease and finally to the total loss of karma, which means: to ever increasing happiness. [18]
Karmas are often wrongly interpreted as a method for reward and punishment of a soul for its good and bad deeds. In Jainism, there is no question of there being any reward or punishment, as each soul is the master of its own destiny. The karmas can be said to represent a sum total of all unfulfilled desires of a soul. They enable the soul to experience the various themes of the lives that it desires to experience.[19] They ultimately mature when the necessary supportive conditions required for maturity are fulfilled.[20] Hence a soul may transmigrate from one life form to another for countless of years, taking with it the karmas that it has earned, until it finds conditions that bring about the fruits.
Hence whatever suffering or pleasure that a soul may be experiencing now is on account of choices that it has made in past. That is why Jainism stresses pure thinking and moral behavior. Apart from Buddhism, perhaps Jainism is the only religion that does not invoke the fear of God as a reason for moral behavior.
The karmic theory in Jainism operates endogenously. Tirthankaras are not attributed "absolute godhood" under Jainism. Thus, even the Tirthankaras themselves have to go through the stages of emanicipation, for attaining that state. While Buddhism does give a similar and to some extent a matching account for Shri Gautama Buddha, Hinduism maintains a totally different theory where "divine grace" is needed for emanicipation.
The following quote in Bhagavatī Ārādhanā (1616) sums up the predominance of karmas in Jain doctrine:-
“ There is nothing mightier in the world than karma;
karma tramples down all powers, as an elephant a clump of lotuses.
”
Thus it is not the so called all embracing omnipotent God, but the law of karma that is the all governing force responsible for the manifest differences in the status, attainments and happiness of all life forms. It operates as a self-sustaining mechanism as natural universal law, without any need of an external entity to manage them.
[edit] Jain opposition to Creationism
Jain scriptures reject God as the creator of universe. 12th century Ācārya Hemacandra puts forth the Jain view of universe in Yogaśāstra as thus [i] –
“ This universe is not created nor sustained by anyone;
It is self sustaining, without any base or support
”
Besides scriptural authority, Jains also resorted to syllogism and deductive reasoning to refute the creationist theories. Various views on divinity and universe held by the vedics, sāmkhyas, mimimsas, Buddhists and other school of thoughts were analysed, debated and repudiated by the various Jain Ācāryas. However the most eloquent refutation of this view is provided by Ācārya Jinasena in Mahāpurāna as thus [j] –
“ Some foolish men declare that creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill advised and should be rejected.
If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now?
How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.
If you declare that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, For the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have arisen quite naturally.
If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw material, then it is just his will and nothing else — and who will believe this silly nonsense?
If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could.
If he is form-less, action-less and all-embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul, devoid of all morality, would have no desire to create anything.
If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of man, so what advantage would he gain by creating the universe?
If you say that he created to no purpose because it was his nature to do so, then God is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble.
If he created because of the karma of embodied beings [acquired in a previous creation] He is not the Almighty Lord, but subordinate to something else
If out of love for living beings and need of them he made the world, why did he not take creation wholly blissful free from misfortune?
If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free: Nor if involved in transmigration, for then he would not be almighty. Thus the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all,
And God commits great sin in slaying the children whom he himself created. If you say that he slays only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such beings in the first place?
Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine. Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end, and is based on the principles, life and rest. Uncreated and indestructible, it endures under the compulsion of its own nature.
”
[edit] Criticisms of Jaina non-creationist theory
Jainism along with Buddhism has been categorized as atheist philosophy i.e. Nāstika darśana by the followers of Vedic religion. However, the word Nāstika corresponds more to heterodox rather than atheism. Accordingly, those who did not believe in Vedas and rejected Brahma as the creator of Universe were labeled as Nāstika.
Mrs. Sinclair Stevenson, an Irish missionary, declared that “the heart of Jainism is empty” since it does not depend on beseeching an omnipotent God for salvation. While fervently appealing to accept Christianity, she says Jains believe strongly in forgiving others, and yet have no hope of forgiveness by a higher power. Jains believe that liberation is by personal effort not an appeal for divine intervention.[21] “The Heart of Jainism” was written from her missionary point of view without respecting Jain sensibilities.
If atheism is defined as disbelief in existence of a God, then Jainism cannot be labeled as atheistic, as it not only believes in existence of gods but also of the soul which can attain godhood. As Paul Dundas puts it – “while Jainism is, as we have seen, atheist in a limited sense of rejection of both the existence of a creator God and the possibility of intervention of such a being in human affairs, it nonetheless must be regarded as a theist religion in the more profound sense that it accepts the existence of divine principle, the paramātmā i.e. God, existing in potential state within all beings”. [22]
The Jaina position on God and religion from a perspective of a non-jain can be summed up in the words of Anne Vallely.
“ Jainism is the most difficult religion. In fact it is impossible. We get no help from any gods, or from anyone. We just have to cleanse our souls. In fact other religions are easy, but they are not very ambitious. In all other religions when you are in difficulty, you can pray to God for help and maybe, God comes down to help. But Jainism is not a religion of coming down. In Jainism it is we who must go up. We only have to help ourselves. In Jainism we have to become God. That is the only thing. [13] ”
[edit] See also
Creationism
Hinduism and creationism
History of creationism
Creation myth
Jainism
Jain cosmology
Karma in Jainism
[edit] Notes
a. ^ Self is not an effect as it is not produced by anything nor it is a cause as it does not produce anything. Samayasāra Gāthā 10.310 See Nayanara (2005b)
b. ^ See Vācaka Umāsvāti's decription of the Universe in his Tattvārthasutra and Ācārya Hemacandras description of the universe in Yogaśāstra “…Picture a man standing with his arms akimbo - This is how Jainas believe the Loka looks like. 4.103-6
c. ^ See Kārtikeyānupreksā, 478 - Dharma is nothing but the real nature of an object. Just as the nature of fire is to burn and the nature of water is to produce a cooling effect, in the same manner, the essential nature of the soul is to seek self-realization and spiritual elevation .
d. ^ Vamdittu savvasiddhe .... [Samaysara 1.1] See Samaysara of Ācārya Kundakunda, Tr. By Prof A. Chakaravarti, page 1 of main text – "Jainism recognizes plurality of selves not only in world of samsara but also in the liberated state or siddhahood which is a sort of a divine republic of perfect souls where each soul retains its individual personality and does not empty its contents into the cauldron of the absolute as is maintained by other systems of philosophy"
e. ^ See Tattvārthasūtra 1.1 "samyagdarśanajñānacāritrānimoksamārgah" - Translated as "Rational Perception, Rational Knowledge and Rational Conduct constitutes the path to liberation."
f. ^ See Sarvārthasiddhi "Moksa mārgasya netāram bhettāram karmabhubrutām jnātāram vishva tatvānām vande tadguna labhdhaye." Translated as "We pray to those who have led the path to salvation,who have destroyed the mountains of karma, and who know the reality of the universe. We pray to them to acquire their attributes."
g. ^ See Samayasāra 3.99-100] "If soul were indeed the producer of alien substances, then he must be of that nature; as it is not so, he cannot be their creator"
h. ^ See Hemcandrācārya, Yogaśāstra. "eik utpadyate janturek eiv vipadyate" Translated as "each one is born alone and dies alone."
i. ^ "Nishpaadito Na Kenaapi Na Dhritah Kenachichch Sah Swayamsiddho Niradhaaro Gagane Kimtvavasthitah". see Ācārya Hemacandra, (1989). In: S. Bothara (ed.),Dr. A. S. Gopani (Tr.),Yogaśāstra(Sanskrit). Jaipur: Prakrit Bharti Academy. Sutra 4.106
j. ^ This quote from Mahapurana finds a mention in “Salters Horners Advanced Physics” by Jonathan Allda, which contains various scientific theories on Universe. The author quotes this extract from Mahapurana to show that Cosmology (the study of Universe) is an ancient science, which today is still probing some of the deepest questions about the origins and future of the Universe. (P 268)
[edit] Citations
^ Nayanar (2005b), p.190, Gāthā 10.310
^ *Soni, Jayandra; E. Craig (Ed.) (1998). "Jain Philosophy". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved on 2008-06-27.
^ Gopani (1989), Gāthā 4.103-6
^ Nayanar (2005a), Gāthā 16
^ Nayanar(2005a), Gāthā 18
^ James (1969) p. 45
^ Nayanar (2005b), p.107
^ Nayanar (2005b), p. 189, Gāthā 10.308-9
^ Nayanar (2005b), p. 73, Gāthā 2.85
^ Nayanar (2005a), Gatha 27
^ Nayanar (2005a), Gāthā 29
^ Ācārya Amrtacandra Sūri, Laghutattvasphota, Sūtra 156
^ a b Vallely (1980), p.182
^ Thrower (1980), p.93
^ Jacobi (1884)Retrieved on : 25th May 2007
^ Nayanar (2005b), p.35 Gāthā 1.29
^ Gopani (1989) , emended
^ a b Zydenbos (2006)
^ Kuhn (2001)
^ Acharya Umasvati, Tattvartha Sutra, Ch VIII, Sutra 21
^ Stevenson (1999) (Original 1915) p. 289
^ Dundas (2002 p.111
[edit] References
Dundas, Paul; John Hinnels ed. (2002). The Jains. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-26606-8.
Gopani, A. S.; Surendra Bothara ed. (1989). Yogaśāstra (Sanskrit) of Ācārya Hemacandra. Jaipur: Prakrit Bharti Academy.
Jacobi, Hermann (1884). Ācāranga Sūtra, Jain Sutras Part I, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 22..
James, Edwin Oliver (1969). Creation and Cosmology: A Historical and Comparative Inquiry. Netherland: BRILL. ISBN 9004016171.
Kuhn, Hermann (2001). Karma, The Mechanism : Create Your Own Fate. Wunstorf, Germany: Crosswind Publishing. ISBN 3-9806211-4-6.
Nayanar, Prof. A. Chakravarti (2005). Pañcāstikāyasāra of Ācārya Kundakunda. New Delhi: Today & Tomorrows Printer and Publisher. ISBN 81-7019-436-9.
Nayanar, Prof. A. Chakravarti (2005). Samayasāra of Ācārya Kundakunda. New Delhi: Today & Tomorrows Printer and Publisher. ISBN 81-7019-364-8.
Stevenson, M.Sinclair (1999). Heart of Jainism. Munshiram Manoharial Publishers Private, Limited. ISBN 8121501229.
Thrower, James (1980). Alternative Tradition: religion and the rejection of religion in the Ancient World. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 9027979979.
Vallely, Anne (2002). Guardians of the Transcendent: An Ethnography of a Jain Ascetic Community.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 080208415X.
Zydenbos, Rober J. (2006). Jainism Today and Its Future. Manya Verlag: Muenchen.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series on
Jainism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Jain prayer
Navakar Mantra
Timeline
Jain great vows
Ahimsa · Asteya
Brahmacharya · Satya
Nirvana · Aparigraha
Anekantavada
Key concepts
Kevala Jñāna · Cosmology
Samsara · Karma
Dharma · Mokṣa · Reincarnation
Swadhyay
Major figures
The 24 Tirthankaras
Lord Rishabh to Mahavira
Acharyas · Ganadhars
Siddhasen Divakar · Haribhadra
Practices and attainment
Four Stages of Enlightenment
Paramis · Meditation
Jainism by region
India · Western
Sects of Jainism
Svetambara · Digambara
Terapanthi · Early schools
Sthanakvasi · Bisapantha
Deravasi
Texts
Kalpasutra
Agama (text) · Tattvartha Sutra
Sanmatti Prakaran
List of topics
Portal: Jainism
This box: view • talk • edit
Jainism does not support belief in a creator deity. According to Jain doctrine, the universe and its constituents - soul, matter, space, time, and principles of motion have always existed (a static universe similar to that of Epicureanism). All the constituents and actions are governed by universal natural laws. It is not possible to create matter out of nothing and hence the sum total of matter in the universe remains the same. Similarly, the soul of each living being is unique and uncreated and has existed since beginningless time.[a][1]
The Jain theory of causation holds that a cause and its effect are always identical in nature and hence a conscious and immaterial entity like God cannot create a material entity like the universe. Furthermore, according to the Jain concept of divinity, any soul who destroys its karmas and desires, achieves liberation. A soul who destroys all its passions and desires has no desire to interfere in the working of the universe. Moral rewards and sufferings are not the work of a divine being, but a result of an innate moral order in the cosmos; a self-regulating mechanism whereby the individual reaps the fruits of his own actions through the workings of the karmas.
Through the ages, Jain philosophers have adamantly rejected and opposed the concept of creator and omnipotent God and this has resulted in Jainism being labeled as nastika darsana or atheist philosophy by the rival religious philosophies. The theme of non-creationism and absence of omnipotent God and divine grace runs strongly in all the philosophical dimensions of Jainism, including its cosmology, karma, moksa and its moral code of conduct. Jainism shows how a religious and virtuous life is possible without the idea of a creator god. [2]
Contents
[hide]
1 Jaina Conception of the Universe
1.1 Concept of Reality
1.2 Material Cause and Effect
1.3 The soul
2 Jaina Conception of Divinity
2.1 Arhats
2.2 Tīrthankaras
2.3 Siddhas
2.4 Heavenly Beings – Demi-Gods and Demi-Goddesses
3 Nature of Karmas
4 Jain opposition to Creationism
5 Criticisms of Jaina non-creationist theory
6 See also
7 Notes
8 Citations
9 References
[edit] Jaina Conception of the Universe
See also: Jain cosmology
Structure of Universe as per the Jain Scriptures.According to Jains, this loka or universe is an entity, always existing in varying forms with no beginning or end. Jain texts describe the shape of the universe as similar to a man standing with legs apart and arms resting on his waist. Thus, the universe is narrow at top, widens above the middle, narrows towards the middle, and once again becomes broad at the bottom. [3] [b]
[edit] Concept of Reality
This universe is made up of what Jainas call the six dravyas or substances classified as follows –
Jīva - The living substances
Jains believe that souls (Jīva) exist as a reality, with a separate existence from the body that houses it. It is characterised by cetana (consciousness) and upayoga (knowledge and perception).[4] Though the soul experiences both birth and death, it is neither destroyed nor created. Decay and origin refer respectively to the disappearance of one state of soul and appearance of another, both merely various modes of the soul.[5]
Ajīva - Non-Living Substances
Pudgala or Matter - Matter is solid, liquid, gas, energy, fine karmic materials and extra-fine matter or ultimate particles. Paramānu or ultimate particles are the basic building block of matter. One quality of paramānu and pudgala is permanence and indestructibility. It combines and changes its modes but its qualities remain the same. According to Jainism, it cannot be created nor destroyed.
Dharma-tattva or Medium of Motion and Adharma-tattva or Medium of Rest - Also known as Dharmāstikāya and Adharmāstikāya, they are distinct to Jain thought depicting motion and rest. They pervade the entire universe. Dharma-tattva and Adharma-tattva are by itself not motion or rest but mediate motion and rest in other bodies. Without dharmāstikāya motion is impossible and without adharmāstikāya rest is impossible in the Universe.
Ākāśa or Space - Space is a substance that accommodates living souls, matter, the principles of motion and rest, and time. It is all-pervading, infinite and made of infinite space-points.
Kāla or Time - Time is a real entity according to Jainism and all activities, changes or modifications are achieved only in time. Time is like a wheel with twelve spokes divided into descending and ascending: half with six stages of immense durations, each estimated at billions of sagaropama or ocean years. [6] In each descending stage, sorrow increases and at each ascending stage, happiness and bliss increase.
These are uncreated existing constituents of the universe impart the necessary dynamics to the universe by interacting with each other. These constituents behave according to natural laws and their nature without interference from external entities. Dharma or true religion according to Jainism is vatthu sahāvo dhammo translated as "the intrinsic nature of a substance is its true dharma." [c]
[edit] Material Cause and Effect
According to Jainism, causes are of two types – Upādanā kārana (substantial or material cause) and Nimitta kārana (instrumental cause). Upādanā kārana is always identical with its effect. [7] For example out of clay, you can only produce a clay pot; hence the clay is the upādanā kārana or material cause and clay pot its effect. Wherever the effect is present, the cause is present and vice versa. The effect is always present in latent form in the material cause. For transforming the clay to pot, the potter, the wheel, the stick and other operating agents are required that are merely nimitta or instrumental cause or catalysts in transformation. The material cause always remains the clay. Hence the cause and effect are always entirely identical in nature. [g] Potter cannot be the material cause of pot. If this were the case, then Potter might as well prepare the pot without any clay. But this is not so. Thus a clay pot can only be made from clay; gold ornaments can be made only from gold. Similarly the different modes of existence of a soul are a result of activities of soul itself. There cannot be any contradiction or exceptions.
In such a scenario, Jains argue that the material cause of a living soul with cetana (conscious entity) is always the soul itself and cause of dead inert matter (non-cetana i.e. without any consciousness) is always the matter itself. [8] If God is indeed the creator, then this is an impossible predication as the same cause will be responsible for two contradictory effects of cetana (life) and acetana (matter). [9] This logically precludes an immaterial God (a conscious entity) from creating this Universe, which is made up of material substances.
[edit] The soul
According to Jainism, Soul is the master of its own destiny. One of the qualities of the soul is complete lordship of its own destiny.[10] The soul alone chooses its actions and soul alone reaps its consequences. No God or prophet or angel can interfere in the actions or the destiny of the soul. Furthermore, it is the soul alone who makes the necessary efforts to achieve liberation without any divine grace. [11] [12]
Jains frequently assert that “we are alone” in this world. [h]Amongst the twelve contemplations (anupreksas) of Jains, one of them is the loneliness of ones soul and nature of the universe and transmigration. Hence only by cleansing our soul by our own actions can we help ourselves.[13]
Jainism thus lays a strong emphasis on the efforts and the freewill of the soul to achieve the desired goal of liberation.
[edit] Jaina Conception of Divinity
According to Jainism, gods can be categorized into Tīrthankaras, Arihantas or ordinary Kevalin and Siddhas. Jainism considers the Devīs and Devas to be demi-goddesses and demi-gods who dwell in heavens owing to meritorious deeds in their past lives.
[edit] Arhats
Idol of Lord Mahavira at Shri Mahavirji, Rajasthan. The Padmasana pose of the statue with eyes closed in deep meditation indicates a complete state of detachment.Arhatas, also known as Arihantas or Kevalins, are gods in embodied states who ultimately become Siddhas, or liberated souls, at the time of their nirvana. An Arhata is a soul who has destroyed all passions, is totally unattached and without any desire and hence is able to destroy the four ghātiyā karmas and attain kevala Jñāna, or omniscience. Such a soul still has a body and four aghātiyā karmas. An Arhata, at the end of his lifespan, destroys his remaining aghātiyā karma and becomes a Siddha.
[edit] Tīrthankaras
Tīrthankaras (also known as Jinas) are Arhatas who are teachers and revivers of the Jain philosophy. There are 24 Tīrthankaras in each time cycle; Mahāvīra was the 24th and last Tīrthankara of the current time cycle. Tīrthankaras are literally the ford makers who have who have shown the way across the ocean of re-birth and transmigration and hence have become a focus of reverence and worship amongst Jains. However it would be a mistake to regard the Tīrthankaras as gods analogous to the gods of Hindu pantheon despite the superficial resemblances in Jain and Hindu way of worship.[14] Tīrthankaras like Arhatas ultimately become Siddhas on liberation. Tīrthankaras, being liberated, are beyond any kind of transactions with the rest of the universe. They are not the beings who exercise any sort of creative activity or who have the capacity or ability to intervene in answers to prayers.
[edit] Siddhas
Ultimately all Arhatas and Tīrthankaras become Siddhas. A Siddha is a soul who is permanently liberated from the transmigratory cycle of birth and death. Such a soul, having realized its true self, is free from all the Karmas and embodiment. They are formless and dwell in Siddhashila (the realm of the liberated beings) at the apex of the universe in infinite bliss, infinite perception, infinite knowledge and infinite energy.
The Acāranga sūtra 1.197 describes Siddhas in this way –
“ The liberated soul is not long nor small nor round nor triangular nor quadrangular nor circular; it is not black nor blue nor red nor green nor white; neither of good nor bad smell; not bitter nor pungent nor astringent nor sweet; neither rough nor soft; neither heavy nor light; neither cold nor hot; neither harsh nor smooth; it is without body, without resurrection, without contact (of matter), it is not feminine nor masculine nor neuter. The siddha perceives and knows all, yet is beyond comparison. Its essence is without form; there is no condition of the unconditioned. It is not sound, not colour, not smell, not taste, not touch or anything of that kind. Thus I say.” [15] ”
Siddhahood is the ultimate goal of all souls. There are infinite souls who have become Siddhas and infinite more who will attain this state of liberation. [d] According to Jainism, the Godhood is not a monopoly of some omnipotent and powerful being(s). All souls, with right perception, knowledge and conduct can achieve self realisation and attain this state.[e] Once achieving this state of infinite bliss and having destroyed all desires, the soul is not concerned with the worldly matters and does not interfere in the working of universe, as any activity or desire to interfere will once again result in influx of karmas and thus loss of liberation.
Jains pray to these passionless Gods not for any favors or rewards but rather pray to the qualities of the God with the objective of destroying the karmas and achieving the Godhood. This is best understood by the term – vandetadgunalabhdhaye i.e. we pray to the attributes of such Gods to acquire such attributes” [f] [16]
[edit] Heavenly Beings – Demi-Gods and Demi-Goddesses
Idol of Padmāvatī devī, śāsanadevī of Lord Parshva 23rd Tirthankara at Walkeshwar Temple. Padmāvatī devī is one of the most popular demi-goddess amongst the Jains for people seeking material favours from the Gods.Jainism describes existence of śāsanadevatās and śāsanadevīs, the attendant Gods and Goddesses of Tīrthankaras, who create the samavasarana or the divine preaching assembly of a Tīrthankara. Such heavenly beings are classified as:-
Bhavanpatis - Gods dwelling in abodes
Vyantaras - Intermediary gods
Jyotiskas - Luminaries
Vaimānikas - Astral gods
The souls on account of accumulation of meritorious karmas reincarnate in heavens as demi-gods. Although their life span is quite long, after their merit karmas are exhausted, they once again have to reincarnate back into the realms of humans, animals or hells depending on their karmas. As these Gods themselves are not liberated, they have attachments and passions and hence not worthy of worship. Ācārya Hemacandra decries the worship of such Gods –
“ These Gods tainted with attachment and passion;
having women and weapons by their side, favour some and disfavour some;
such Gods should not be worshipped by those who desire emancipation” [17]
”
Worship of such gods is considered as mithyātva or wrong belief leading to bondage of karmas. However, many Jains are known to worship to such gods for material gains.
[edit] Nature of Karmas
Main article: Karma in Jainism
According to Robert Zydendos, karma in Jainism can be considered a kind of system of laws, but natural rather than moral laws. In Jainism, actions that carry moral significance are considered to cause certain consequences in just the same way as, for instance, physical actions that do not carry any special moral significance. When one holds an apple in one's hand and then let go of the apple, the apple will fall: this is only natural. There is no judge, and no moral judgment involved, since this is a mechanical consequence of the physical action. [18]
Hence in accordance with the natural karmic laws, consequences occur when one utters a lie, steals something, commits acts of senseless violence or leads the life of a debauchee. Rather than assume that moral rewards and retribution are the work of a divine judge, the Jains believe that there is an innate moral order to the cosmos, self-regulating through the workings of karma. Morality and ethics are important not because of the personal whim of a fictional god, but because a life that is led in agreement with moral and ethical principles is beneficial: it leads to a decrease and finally to the total loss of karma, which means: to ever increasing happiness. [18]
Karmas are often wrongly interpreted as a method for reward and punishment of a soul for its good and bad deeds. In Jainism, there is no question of there being any reward or punishment, as each soul is the master of its own destiny. The karmas can be said to represent a sum total of all unfulfilled desires of a soul. They enable the soul to experience the various themes of the lives that it desires to experience.[19] They ultimately mature when the necessary supportive conditions required for maturity are fulfilled.[20] Hence a soul may transmigrate from one life form to another for countless of years, taking with it the karmas that it has earned, until it finds conditions that bring about the fruits.
Hence whatever suffering or pleasure that a soul may be experiencing now is on account of choices that it has made in past. That is why Jainism stresses pure thinking and moral behavior. Apart from Buddhism, perhaps Jainism is the only religion that does not invoke the fear of God as a reason for moral behavior.
The karmic theory in Jainism operates endogenously. Tirthankaras are not attributed "absolute godhood" under Jainism. Thus, even the Tirthankaras themselves have to go through the stages of emanicipation, for attaining that state. While Buddhism does give a similar and to some extent a matching account for Shri Gautama Buddha, Hinduism maintains a totally different theory where "divine grace" is needed for emanicipation.
The following quote in Bhagavatī Ārādhanā (1616) sums up the predominance of karmas in Jain doctrine:-
“ There is nothing mightier in the world than karma;
karma tramples down all powers, as an elephant a clump of lotuses.
”
Thus it is not the so called all embracing omnipotent God, but the law of karma that is the all governing force responsible for the manifest differences in the status, attainments and happiness of all life forms. It operates as a self-sustaining mechanism as natural universal law, without any need of an external entity to manage them.
[edit] Jain opposition to Creationism
Jain scriptures reject God as the creator of universe. 12th century Ācārya Hemacandra puts forth the Jain view of universe in Yogaśāstra as thus [i] –
“ This universe is not created nor sustained by anyone;
It is self sustaining, without any base or support
”
Besides scriptural authority, Jains also resorted to syllogism and deductive reasoning to refute the creationist theories. Various views on divinity and universe held by the vedics, sāmkhyas, mimimsas, Buddhists and other school of thoughts were analysed, debated and repudiated by the various Jain Ācāryas. However the most eloquent refutation of this view is provided by Ācārya Jinasena in Mahāpurāna as thus [j] –
“ Some foolish men declare that creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill advised and should be rejected.
If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now?
How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.
If you declare that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, For the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have arisen quite naturally.
If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw material, then it is just his will and nothing else — and who will believe this silly nonsense?
If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could.
If he is form-less, action-less and all-embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul, devoid of all morality, would have no desire to create anything.
If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of man, so what advantage would he gain by creating the universe?
If you say that he created to no purpose because it was his nature to do so, then God is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble.
If he created because of the karma of embodied beings [acquired in a previous creation] He is not the Almighty Lord, but subordinate to something else
If out of love for living beings and need of them he made the world, why did he not take creation wholly blissful free from misfortune?
If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free: Nor if involved in transmigration, for then he would not be almighty. Thus the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all,
And God commits great sin in slaying the children whom he himself created. If you say that he slays only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such beings in the first place?
Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine. Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end, and is based on the principles, life and rest. Uncreated and indestructible, it endures under the compulsion of its own nature.
”
[edit] Criticisms of Jaina non-creationist theory
Jainism along with Buddhism has been categorized as atheist philosophy i.e. Nāstika darśana by the followers of Vedic religion. However, the word Nāstika corresponds more to heterodox rather than atheism. Accordingly, those who did not believe in Vedas and rejected Brahma as the creator of Universe were labeled as Nāstika.
Mrs. Sinclair Stevenson, an Irish missionary, declared that “the heart of Jainism is empty” since it does not depend on beseeching an omnipotent God for salvation. While fervently appealing to accept Christianity, she says Jains believe strongly in forgiving others, and yet have no hope of forgiveness by a higher power. Jains believe that liberation is by personal effort not an appeal for divine intervention.[21] “The Heart of Jainism” was written from her missionary point of view without respecting Jain sensibilities.
If atheism is defined as disbelief in existence of a God, then Jainism cannot be labeled as atheistic, as it not only believes in existence of gods but also of the soul which can attain godhood. As Paul Dundas puts it – “while Jainism is, as we have seen, atheist in a limited sense of rejection of both the existence of a creator God and the possibility of intervention of such a being in human affairs, it nonetheless must be regarded as a theist religion in the more profound sense that it accepts the existence of divine principle, the paramātmā i.e. God, existing in potential state within all beings”. [22]
The Jaina position on God and religion from a perspective of a non-jain can be summed up in the words of Anne Vallely.
“ Jainism is the most difficult religion. In fact it is impossible. We get no help from any gods, or from anyone. We just have to cleanse our souls. In fact other religions are easy, but they are not very ambitious. In all other religions when you are in difficulty, you can pray to God for help and maybe, God comes down to help. But Jainism is not a religion of coming down. In Jainism it is we who must go up. We only have to help ourselves. In Jainism we have to become God. That is the only thing. [13] ”
[edit] See also
Creationism
Hinduism and creationism
History of creationism
Creation myth
Jainism
Jain cosmology
Karma in Jainism
[edit] Notes
a. ^ Self is not an effect as it is not produced by anything nor it is a cause as it does not produce anything. Samayasāra Gāthā 10.310 See Nayanara (2005b)
b. ^ See Vācaka Umāsvāti's decription of the Universe in his Tattvārthasutra and Ācārya Hemacandras description of the universe in Yogaśāstra “…Picture a man standing with his arms akimbo - This is how Jainas believe the Loka looks like. 4.103-6
c. ^ See Kārtikeyānupreksā, 478 - Dharma is nothing but the real nature of an object. Just as the nature of fire is to burn and the nature of water is to produce a cooling effect, in the same manner, the essential nature of the soul is to seek self-realization and spiritual elevation .
d. ^ Vamdittu savvasiddhe .... [Samaysara 1.1] See Samaysara of Ācārya Kundakunda, Tr. By Prof A. Chakaravarti, page 1 of main text – "Jainism recognizes plurality of selves not only in world of samsara but also in the liberated state or siddhahood which is a sort of a divine republic of perfect souls where each soul retains its individual personality and does not empty its contents into the cauldron of the absolute as is maintained by other systems of philosophy"
e. ^ See Tattvārthasūtra 1.1 "samyagdarśanajñānacāritrānimoksamārgah" - Translated as "Rational Perception, Rational Knowledge and Rational Conduct constitutes the path to liberation."
f. ^ See Sarvārthasiddhi "Moksa mārgasya netāram bhettāram karmabhubrutām jnātāram vishva tatvānām vande tadguna labhdhaye." Translated as "We pray to those who have led the path to salvation,who have destroyed the mountains of karma, and who know the reality of the universe. We pray to them to acquire their attributes."
g. ^ See Samayasāra 3.99-100] "If soul were indeed the producer of alien substances, then he must be of that nature; as it is not so, he cannot be their creator"
h. ^ See Hemcandrācārya, Yogaśāstra. "eik utpadyate janturek eiv vipadyate" Translated as "each one is born alone and dies alone."
i. ^ "Nishpaadito Na Kenaapi Na Dhritah Kenachichch Sah Swayamsiddho Niradhaaro Gagane Kimtvavasthitah". see Ācārya Hemacandra, (1989). In: S. Bothara (ed.),Dr. A. S. Gopani (Tr.),Yogaśāstra(Sanskrit). Jaipur: Prakrit Bharti Academy. Sutra 4.106
j. ^ This quote from Mahapurana finds a mention in “Salters Horners Advanced Physics” by Jonathan Allda, which contains various scientific theories on Universe. The author quotes this extract from Mahapurana to show that Cosmology (the study of Universe) is an ancient science, which today is still probing some of the deepest questions about the origins and future of the Universe. (P 268)
[edit] Citations
^ Nayanar (2005b), p.190, Gāthā 10.310
^ *Soni, Jayandra; E. Craig (Ed.) (1998). "Jain Philosophy". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved on 2008-06-27.
^ Gopani (1989), Gāthā 4.103-6
^ Nayanar (2005a), Gāthā 16
^ Nayanar(2005a), Gāthā 18
^ James (1969) p. 45
^ Nayanar (2005b), p.107
^ Nayanar (2005b), p. 189, Gāthā 10.308-9
^ Nayanar (2005b), p. 73, Gāthā 2.85
^ Nayanar (2005a), Gatha 27
^ Nayanar (2005a), Gāthā 29
^ Ācārya Amrtacandra Sūri, Laghutattvasphota, Sūtra 156
^ a b Vallely (1980), p.182
^ Thrower (1980), p.93
^ Jacobi (1884)Retrieved on : 25th May 2007
^ Nayanar (2005b), p.35 Gāthā 1.29
^ Gopani (1989) , emended
^ a b Zydenbos (2006)
^ Kuhn (2001)
^ Acharya Umasvati, Tattvartha Sutra, Ch VIII, Sutra 21
^ Stevenson (1999) (Original 1915) p. 289
^ Dundas (2002 p.111
[edit] References
Dundas, Paul; John Hinnels ed. (2002). The Jains. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-26606-8.
Gopani, A. S.; Surendra Bothara ed. (1989). Yogaśāstra (Sanskrit) of Ācārya Hemacandra. Jaipur: Prakrit Bharti Academy.
Jacobi, Hermann (1884). Ācāranga Sūtra, Jain Sutras Part I, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 22..
James, Edwin Oliver (1969). Creation and Cosmology: A Historical and Comparative Inquiry. Netherland: BRILL. ISBN 9004016171.
Kuhn, Hermann (2001). Karma, The Mechanism : Create Your Own Fate. Wunstorf, Germany: Crosswind Publishing. ISBN 3-9806211-4-6.
Nayanar, Prof. A. Chakravarti (2005). Pañcāstikāyasāra of Ācārya Kundakunda. New Delhi: Today & Tomorrows Printer and Publisher. ISBN 81-7019-436-9.
Nayanar, Prof. A. Chakravarti (2005). Samayasāra of Ācārya Kundakunda. New Delhi: Today & Tomorrows Printer and Publisher. ISBN 81-7019-364-8.
Stevenson, M.Sinclair (1999). Heart of Jainism. Munshiram Manoharial Publishers Private, Limited. ISBN 8121501229.
Thrower, James (1980). Alternative Tradition: religion and the rejection of religion in the Ancient World. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 9027979979.
Vallely, Anne (2002). Guardians of the Transcendent: An Ethnography of a Jain Ascetic Community.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 080208415X.
Zydenbos, Rober J. (2006). Jainism Today and Its Future. Manya Verlag: Muenchen.
Ahimsa in Jainism (non-violence)
Ahimsa in Jainism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series on
Jainism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Jain prayer
Navakar Mantra
Timeline
Jain great vows
Ahimsa · Asteya
Brahmacharya · Satya
Nirvana · Aparigraha
Anekantavada
Key concepts
Kevala Jñāna · Cosmology
Samsara · Karma
Dharma · Mokṣa · Reincarnation
Swadhyay
Major figures
The 24 Tirthankaras
Lord Rishabh to Mahavira
Acharyas · Ganadhars
Siddhasen Divakar · Haribhadra
Practices and attainment
Four Stages of Enlightenment
Paramis · Meditation
Jainism by region
India · Western
Sects of Jainism
Svetambara · Digambara
Terapanthi · Early schools
Sthanakvasi · Bisapantha
Deravasi
Texts
Kalpasutra
Agama (text) · Tattvartha Sutra
Sanmatti Prakaran
List of topics
Portal: Jainism
This box: view • talk • edit
Ahiṃsā (Sanskrit : अहिंसा, Prakrit : अहिंसा) means “non-violence”, “non-injury” or absence of desire to harm any life forms. Ahiṃsā is the fundamental principle of Jainism forming cornerstone of its ethics and doctrine. Vegetarianism and other non-violent practices and rituals of Jains flow from the principle of Ahiṃsā. According to Adian Rankin, the concept of Ahiṃsā is so much intertwined with Jainism that it conjures up images of ascetics who cover their mouths and sweep the ground before them with small brushes to avoid injuring the most minuscule forms of life and Jain-owned animal sanctuaries where even the sickest, most deformed birds and beasts are protected and cherished. These overt manifestations of an ancient faith challenge the comfortable - and near-universal - assumption of human precedence over other creatures.[1]
The Jain concept of Ahiṃsā is quite different from the concept of non-violence found in other philosophies. In other religious traditions, violence is usually associated with causing harm to others. On the other hand, in Jainism, violence refers primarily to injuring one's own self – behaviour which inhibits the souls own ability to attain mokṣa or liberation.[2] At the same time it also means violence to others because it is this tendency to harm others that ultimately harms ones own soul. Furthermore, the Jains have extended the concept of Ahiṃsā not only to humans but to all animals, plants, micro-organisms and all beings having life or life potential. All life is sacred and everyone has a right to live fearlessly to its maximum potential. The living beings do not have any fear from those who have taken the vow of Ahiṃsā. According to Jainism, protection of life, also known as abhayadānam, is the supreme charity that a person can make[3].
Ahiṃsā does not merely indicate absence of physical violence, but also indicates absence of desire to indulge in any sort of violence.[4] This Jain ideal of Ahiṃsā profoundly influenced Mahatma Gandhi, through his friendship with the Jain scholar Shrimad Rajchandra that it formed a basis of his satyagraha (truth struggle) against colonial rule and caused him to rethink many aspects of contemporary Hindu practices.[1] While Jainism is not a proselytizing religion and as such has no organised system of advocating its doctrine, Jains have been forefront in strongly advocating vegetarianism and non-violence through ages.[5] Ahiṃsā being central to the Jain philosophy, Jain Ācāryas have produced, through ages, quite elaborate and detailed doctrinal materials concerning its various aspects.
Contents
[hide]
1 The vow of non-violence
1.1 The Vow of Ascetics
1.2 The Vow of the Laity
2 Jain Concept of Ahiṃsā
2.1 Hierarchy of Living Beings on basis of Senses
2.2 Carefulness
2.3 Mental States and intention
2.4 Significance of true Knowledge
2.5 Anekantavada - The non-violence of mind
3 Various aspects and consequences of violence
3.1 Dravya hiṃsā and bhāva hiṃsā
3.2 Jaina Conception of hiṃsā
3.3 Ways of committing Violence
4 The Rationale of Non violence
5 Fruits of non-violence and violence
6 Misconceptions on Non-violence
6.1 Animal sacrifices
6.2 Worshipping violent gods
6.3 Oblations to forefathers
6.4 Glory of death on the battlefield
6.5 Other wrong beliefs
7 Non-violence and vegetarianism
8 Origins and evolution of Ahimsa
9 Citations and Notes
10 Biblography
[edit] The vow of non-violence
The hand with a wheel on the palm symbolizes the Jain Vow of Ahimsa. The word in the middle is "ahimsa". The wheel represents the dharmacakra which stands for the resolve to halt the cycle of reincarnation through relentless pursuit of truth and non-violence.Ahiṃsā is formalized into Jain doctrine as the first major vow of the ascetics and first minor vow of the laity.
[edit] The Vow of Ascetics
The Jain monks and the nuns undertake five major vows known as Mahāvratas at the time of their ordination to monkhood, out of which Ahiṃsā is the first and foremost. Jain monks and nuns must rank among the most “non-violent” people in the world. A Jain ascetic is expected to uphold the vow of Ahiṃsā to the highest standard, even at the cost of his own life. The other four major vows – truthfulness, non-stealing, non-possession and celibacy – are in fact extension of the first vow of complete non-violence[6]. According to Amṛtacandra Sūri:
“All sins like falsehood, theft, attachment and immorality are forms of violence which destroy the purity of the soul. They have been separately enumerated only to facilitate their understanding”
- Puruṣārthasiddhyupāya 4.42.
Ascetic Practices for adherence of Ahiṃsā
The ascetic practices of total renunciation of worldly affairs and possessions, refusal to stay in a single place for a long time, continuous practice of austerities like fasting etc. are geared towards observance of ahiṃsā. The Jain mendicants abide by a rigorous set of rules of conduct, where they must eat, sleep and even walk with full diligence and with an awareness that even walking kills several hundreds of minute beings. They generally brush the ground clear of insects before they tread; some wear a small mask to avoid taking in tiny insects; some monks do not wear even clothes and eat food only when it is not prepared for themselves. The observation of three guptis or the controls of mind, speech and body and five samiti or regulation of walking, speaking, begging of food, keeping items and disposal of items are designed to help the monks in observing the vow of ahiṃsā faultlessly. In fact entire day of a Jain monk is spent in ensuring that he observes his vow of ahiṃsā through mind, body and speech faultlessly. This seemingly extreme behaviour of the monks comes from a sense that every action, no matter however subtle, has a karmic effect which can bind soul and inhibit liberation, especially those that result in hiṃsā.[7]
[edit] The Vow of the Laity
A Jain layman, on account of his household and occupational compulsions, is unable to adhere to the five major vows of ascetic. Hence he observes aṇuvrata or minor vows which although are similar to the major vows of the ascetics are observed with a lesser severity. It is difficult to avoid some violence by a lay person to single-sensed immobile beings in the process of occupation, cooking, self defense etc. That is why he vows not to kill without a necessary purpose and determined intention, a moving sentient being, when it is innocent. Tying up, injuring, mutilating, burdening with heavy load and depriving from food and drinks any animal or human being with a mind polluted by anger and other passions are the five aticāra or transgressions of the vow of Ahiṃsā.[8] However, it is to be understood that ultimately, there is limited spiritual progress and no emancipation unless the major vows are adhered to.
Laity Practices for adherence of Ahiṃsā
Jainism is perhaps the only religion in the world that requires all its adherents to follow a strict vegetarian diet.[9] Vegetarian food that also involves more harm to the living beings such as roots, bulbs, multi seeded vegetables etc are avoided by strict Jains. The importance of Ahiṃsā manifests in many other ways in the daily life of Jains. For a layperson it means participating in business that results in least amount of violence to living beings. No furs, plumes or silk are worn. Use of leather is kept to a minimum and must in any event be from naturally dead animals. Food is usually eaten during the day unless unavoidable, since there is too much danger of injuring insects in cooking at night. The Jain will not use an open light nor leave a container of liquid uncovered lest a stray insect be destroyed; even with this precaution, liquids are always strained before use.[9] Through the ages Jains have sought to avoid occupations that unavoidably entail injury, and this accounts for the disproportionate number who have entered banking, commerce and other mercantile trades..[9]
[edit] Jain Concept of Ahiṃsā
While Jainism enjoins observance of total non-violence by the ascetics, it is often argued that the man is constantly obliged to engage in destructive activities of eating, drinking, breathing and surviving in order to support his body. According to Jainism, life is omnipresent with infinite beings including microorganisms pervading each and every part of universe. Hence it may still be possible to avoid killing of gross animals, but it is impossible to avoid killing of subtle microorganisms in air and water, plant life and various types of insects that may be crushed by walking. It would thus appear that the continual likelihood of destroying living organisms would create an inexcusable burden on the ascetics trying to follow the Jain path of total renunciation and non-violence.
However, the Jain conception of Ahiṃsā is quite different than what is commonly understood by violence. The violence is defined more by the motives and the consequences to the self rather than by the act itself. Furthermore, according to Jain Scriptures, destruction of less developed organism brings about lesser karmas than destruction of developed animals and karmas generated in observance of religious duties faultlessly disappears almost immediately. Hence, it is possible to observe complete non-violence with right knowledge, even when some outward violence occurs to living beings in the course of performing religious duties by observing carefulness and pure mental disposition without any attachment.
[edit] Hierarchy of Living Beings on basis of Senses
Jainism divides living beings on the basis of sensory organs (indriya) and vitalities or life force (praṇa) existing in such beings. Accordingly, higher the number of senses and vitalities a being has, the more is its capacity to suffer and feel pain. Hence according to Jainism, violence to higher sensed beings like man, cow, tiger and like who have five senses and capacity to think and feel pain attracts more karma than any violence to lesser sensed beings like insects, or single sensed beings like microbes and plants.[10] [11] Hence Jainism enjoins its adherents to completely avoid violence to higher sensed beings and as far as possible minimize violence to single sensed beings.
[edit] Carefulness
According to Jainism, a monk who is careless in his activities is guilty of violence irrespective of whether a living being remains alive or dies; on the other hand, the person who is ever vigilant and careful in observing the samitis experiences no karmic bondage simply because some violence may have taken place in connection with his activities.[12] Carefulness came to be seen as a defense for the monks against violence in Jainism. One of the most famous passages in the Uttradhayana Sūtra describes Mahāvīra continually exhorting his chief disciple Gautama “to be careful all the while” [13]lest the opportunity to destroy all the karmas and achieve perfection in this lifetime may be lost forever on account of carelessness. Tattvārthasūtra defines hiṃsā or violence simply as “removal of life by careless activity of mind, body and speech.” Thus action in Jainism came to be regarded as truly violent only when accompanied by carlessness.
[edit] Mental States and intention
Paul Dundas quotes Ācārya Jinabhadra (seventh century), who shows that the omnipresence of life-forms in the universe need not totally inhibit normal behaviour of the ascetics[14] :-
“It is the intention that ultimately matters. From the real point of view, a man does not become a killer only because he has killed or because the world is crowded with souls, or remain innocent only because he has not killed physically. Even if a person does not actually kill, he becomes a killer if he has the intention to kill; while a doctor has to cause pain but is still non-violent and innocent because his intention is pure, for it is the intention which is the deciding factor, not the external act which is inconclusive.”
Thus pure intention along with carefulness was considered necessary to practice Ahiṃsā as Jains admitted that even if intention may be pure, careless activities often resulted in violence unknowingly.
[edit] Significance of true Knowledge
The Jains also considered right knowledge as a prerequisite for practicing Ahiṃsā. It is necessary to know what is living and what is non-living to practice Ahiṃsā faultlessly. A person who is confused between Living and non-living can never observe non-violence. Daśavaikālika Sūtra declared:
“First knowledge, then compassion. Thus does one remain in full control. How can an ignorant person be compassionate, when he cannot distinguish between the good and the evil?” – DS iv
It further declares –
“ Knowledge of living and non-living alone will enable one to become compassionate towards all living creatures. Knowing this all aspirants, proceed from knowledge to eternal virtues. What can an ignorant do ? How does he know what is noble and what is evil?" [15]
The knowledge is also considered necessary to destroy Karmas. Samaṇ Suttaṁ declared -
“The ignorant cannot destroy their Karmas by their actions while the wise can do it by their inaction i.e. by controlling their activities because they are free from greed and lustful passions and do not commit any sin as they remain contented.” (165)
[edit] Anekantavada - The non-violence of mind
Main articles: Anekantavada and Syadvada
Anekantavada is the principle of relativity of truth or the doctrine of multiple aspects.[16] Jains hold that truth is multifaceted and has multiple sides that cannot be completely comprehended by anyone. Anekantavada describes the world as a multifaceted, ever-changing reality with an infinity of viewpoints relative to the time, place, nature and state of one who is the viewer and that which is viewed. What is true from one point of view is open to question from another. Absolute truth cannot be grasped from any particular viewpoint alone, because absolute truth is the sum total of all different viewpoints that make up the universe. Because it is rooted in these doctrines, Jainism cannot exclusively uphold the views of any individual, community, nation, or species.[17] It recognises inherently that other views are valid for other peoples, and for other life-forms. This perception leads to the doctrine of syadvada or sevenfold predication stating the truth from different viewpoints. Anekantvada is the doctrine and Syadvada is its expression. According to Jaina philosophers all important philosophical statements should be expressed in this sevenfold way in order to remove the danger of dogmatism (ekanta) in philosophy.[18]
The concept of syadvada allows the Jains to accept the truth in other philosophies from their perspective and thus inculcating a tolerance for other viewpoints. Anekantvada is non-absolutist and stands firmly against all dogmatisms, even including any assertion that only Jainism is the right religious path. [9] It is thus an intellectual Ahimsa or Ahimsa of mind. [19] In Anekantvada, there is no "battle of ideas", because this is considered to be a form of intellectual himsa or damage, leading quite logically to physical violence and war. In today's world, the limitations of the adversarial, “either with us or against us “ form of argument are increasingly apparent leading to political, religious and social conflicts. Even the mounting ecological crisis is linked to adversarialism, because it arises from a false division between humanity and "the rest" of nature.
[edit] Various aspects and consequences of violence
Ācārya Amṛtacandra has described as to how the consequences of violence (karmas attracted) differ from person to persons for similar and different types of acts:
A small violence may bring serious consequences to one person, while to another person grievous violence may bring about lesser consequences. For instance, a person hunting and killing only one small animal suffers severe consequences while a person who is building a temple or hospital, suffers milder the karmic consequences even though such a building results in killing of many animals.[20]
Even when violence is jointly committed by two persons, the same act may result in severe consequence for one person and mild consequence for another person. This may happen in case where one person is the leader and planner of violence who binds severe karmas, while another who is simply a follower binds much lesser karmas.[20]
One who actually does not commit violence may be responsible for hiṃsā while one who actually commits violence is not responsible for hiṃsā. For instance, a burglar who fails in his robbery is still a felon but a diligent surgeon who is trying to save a patient is not responsible for violence even if a patient dies during the surgery.[20]
Persons who have not committed violence may become responsible for violence committed by others. This may happen when a violence which is carried out by someone is approved and instigated by someone else.[20]
Ahiṃsā often gives result of hiṃsā to one and hiṃsā may sometimes give result of Ahiṃsā to another. For instance, one person saves another from oppression by use of violence and hence enjoys consequences of Ahiṃsā although resorting to violence, while another does not act to save someone wishing that the other person is not saved and thus suffers the consequences of violence although he may have not actually done anything.[20]
[edit] Dravya hiṃsā and bhāva hiṃsā
[edit] Jaina Conception of hiṃsā
While the Jain ascetics observe absolute non-violence, so far as a Jain householder is concerned, the violence is divided as follows :-
Sankalpinī hiṃsā or intentional violence – Intentional violence knowingly done is the worst form of violence and is a transgression of the laypersons vow of violence. Examples of sankalpinī hiṃsā are killing for hunting, amusement or decoration, or butchering for food or sacrifice or killing or hurting out of enimity, malice or mischief. sankalpinī hiṃsā has to be totally renounced by a householder.[21]
Virodhinī hiṃsā or Self defence - Virodhini hiṃsā is committed for self-defence of self, property, family or country against violent attackers, robbers, or dacoits. A householder tries to avoid hiṃsā at all cost, but in such cases it may be unavoidable and hence should be non-vindictive and kept to barest minimum.[21]
Āṛambhinī (Graharambhi) hiṃsā or domestic or household violence – This violence is unavoidable committed in the course of preparing food, household cleanliness, washing, construction of houses, wells etc.[21]
Udyoginī hiṃsā or Occupational Violence – This violence is connected to occupational undertakings like agriculture, building and operating industries etc.[21]
While sankalpinī hiṃsā has to be avoided at all costs, the other three types of hiṃsā although unavoidable in some cases, should not exceed the strict requirements of fulfilling the duties of a householder. Furthermore, they should not be influenced by passions like anger, greed, pride and deceit or they take the character of sanpalkinī hiṃsā.[21]
[edit] Ways of committing Violence
It would be wrong, however, to conclude that ahimsa only prohibited physical violence. An early Jain text says: "With the three means of punishment – thoughts, words, deeds – ye shall not injure living beings." [9] In fact, violence can be committed by combination of the following four factors[22] :
1. The instrumentality of our actions. We can commit violence by either through
a. body i.e. physical action,
b. speech i.e. verbal action, or
c. mind i.e. mental actions
2. The process of committing violence. This includes whether we
a. only decide or plan to act,
b. make preparations for the act e.g. like collecting necessary materials or weapons, or
c. actually begin the action
3. The modality of our action, including if we
a. we ourselves commit violence,
b. we instigate others to carry out the violence, or
c. we give our silent approval for the violence
4. The motivation for action. This includes which of the following negative emotions that the violence is motivated by.
a. Anger
b. Greed
c. Pride
d. Manipulation or deceit
Thus violence is committed by a combination of any one element of the above four factors. Due to this, there are 108 ways with which the violence can be committed.
[edit] The Rationale of Non violence
According to Jainism, the purpose of non-violence is not simply because it is a commandment of a God or any other supreme being. Its purpose is also not simply because its observance is conductive to general welfare of the state or the community.[21] While it is true that in Jainism, the moral and religious injunctions were laid down as law by Arhats who have achieved perfection through their supreme moral efforts, their adherence is just not to please a God, but the life of the Arhats has demonstrated that such commandments were conductive to Arhat’s own welfare, helping him to reach spiritual victory. Just as Arhats achieved spiritual victory by observing non-violence, so can anyone who follows this path.[21]
Another aspect that provides a rationale to the avoidance of hiṃsā is that, any acts of hiṃsā results in hiṃsā to self. Any act of violence though outwardly is seen to harm others, harms the soul of the person indulging in the act. Thus by an act of violence, a soul may or may not injure the material vitalities known as dravya praṇa of someone else, but always causes injury to its own bhāva praṇa or the psychic vitalities by binding the soul with karmas. It would be entirely wrong to see Ahiṃsā in Jainism in any sentimental light.[23] The Jain doctrine of non-injury is based on rational consciousness, not emotional compassion; on responsibility to self, not on a social fellow feeling. The motive of Ahiṃsā is totally self-centered and for the benefit of the individual. And yet, though the emphasis is on personal liberation, the Jain ethics makes that goal attainable only through consideration for others.
Furthermore, according to the Jain karmic theory, each and every soul, including self, has reincarnated as an animal, plant or microorganism innumerable number of times besides re-incarnated as humans. The concept of Ahiṃsā is more meaningful when understood in conjunction with the concept of karmas. As the doctrine of transmigration of souls includes rebirth in animal as well as human form, it creates a humanitarian sentiment of kinship amongst all life forms.[24] The motto of Jainism - Parasparopagraho jīvānām, translated as: “all life is inter-related and it is the duty of souls to assist each other”- also provides a rational approach of Jains towards Ahiṃsā.
In conclusion, the insistence of Ahiṃsā is not so much about non-injury to others as it is about non-injury and spiritual welfare of the self. The ultimate rationale of Ahiṃsā is fundamentally is about karmic results of the hiṃsā on self rather than the concern about the well being of other beings for its own sake.[25]
[edit] Fruits of non-violence and violence
Main article: Karma in Jainism
According to the Jain scriptures, the result of the observance of Ahiṃsā is good health, a strong body, and a strong constitution in the future life. There would be happiness, comforts, long life, a good name, handsome features, and an enjoyable youth.
The results of killing would be the opposite of these things, such as lameness, incurable disease, separation from friends and relatives, sorrow, short life, and after that, an incarnation in a low state (animal or hell). According to Hemacandra, diseases like leprosy and loss of limbs are the consequences of inflicting violence.
[edit] Misconceptions on Non-violence
illustration of the Asvamedha Sacrifice in Ramayana by Sahib Din, 1652. Kausalya is depicted slaying the horse (left) and lying beside it (right)The Jain Scriptures discuss the misconceptions that are harboured in case of Ahiṃsā. They often opposed the Vedic beliefs in sacrifices and other practices that justified violence in various ways. Ācārya Amṛtacandra’s Puruṣārthasiddhyupāya and Ācārya Hemacandra’s Yogaśāstra discusses these wrong beliefs at length to alert the Jain laity on such wrong beliefs. Following are such misconceptions that a Jain layman was advised to avoid.
[edit] Animal sacrifices
Vedics believed that animals were created for yajna (sacrifice) and hence it was not considered a slaughter, as it elevated not only the person making the sacrifice, but also the animals. This belief was denounced by Hemacandra that those who mercilessly kill the animals under the pretext of offering the oblations to gods or for the sake of sacrifices are condemned to most terrifying existence in hells. Amṛtacandra also condemned this practice by stating that it is a misconception to hold that Gods are pleased at sacrifices of living beings and there is no wrong in committing hiṃsā for the sake of religion.
[edit] Worshipping violent gods
Jain Ācāryas like Hemacandra, Somadeva, Jinasena also decried the worship of violent vedic Gods who demanded sacrifices of animals and glorified the killing of enemies. Ācārya Hemacandra says –
“It is a matter of great grief that the gods who wield weapons such as bow and arrows, mace, disc, trident etc. are worshipped as true gods.”
[edit] Oblations to forefathers
Hemacandra discusses the Vedic beliefs of offering oblations to dead ancestors to please and satisfy their souls by sacrificing various animals. This was decried by hemacandra as thus –
The vedic practice of offering sacrifices of animals to dead ancestors was also condemned by Jain Ācāryas.
[edit] Glory of death on the battlefield
The Hindu belief that the death in battlefield resulted in rebirth in heavens has been recorded in Mahabharata where Krsna tells Arjuna :
"Slain you will attain heavens, conquering you will enjoy earth;
Therefore rise, O Arjuna, resolved to do battle"
-Bhagavad Gita ii 37
However according to Jainas death accompanied by hatred and violence can never lead to heavens. According to a story in Bhagavati Sūtra, all the 840,000 soldiers who perished in a war between Konika, the Magadhan emperor and other kings, were either reborn in hell or as animals. Only one person who maintained equanimity in the midst of death in battlefield was reborn in heaven.
[edit] Other wrong beliefs
Additionally Amṛtacandra discusses the following wrong beliefs:
Animals should not be killed for guests or persons deserving respect as often advocated in certain scriptures.
It is also a wrong belief that wild animals that kill many other animals should be killed. This is often justified in the name of hunting of ferocious animals like tigers for sport.
Another wrong belief forwarded to justify killing of ferocious animals is that, these kill many lives and accumulate grave sins and hence killing them is an act of mercy. According to Jainism, killing can never be an act of mercy.
It is also a misconception to believe that it is advisable to kill those who are suffering so that they may get relief from agony. #These sorts of arguments are forwarded to justify killing of those animals that may have become old or injured and hence have become commercially useless.
Other wrong beliefs are killing those who are in state of happiness or those who are in meditation under wrong belief that the mental state at the time of death will be perpetuated in future lives.
It is also a wrong belief that killing of self and others is justified as the soul that is imprisoned in the body will be permanent released and achieve salvation.
[edit] Non-violence and vegetarianism
Main article: Jain vegetarianism
[edit] Origins and evolution of Ahimsa
Ahiṃsā, an important tenet of all the religions originating in India, is now considered as an article of faith by the adherents of the Indian religions. However, not much is known about the historical origins of ahiṃsā and as to how it became widespread and got deeply entrenched in the Indian philosophy. Scholars speculate that the doctrine of ahiṃsā was probably first developed amongst the native non-Aryan people in around third millennium BCE and was adopted by the brahamanas during the later Upanishadic period under the influence of sramanas. The Vedas, the manusmriti, the Dharmasutra and Mahabharata contain many references on killing and slaughter of animals for sacrifices, oblations to dead ancestors, and as well as for various other occasions. However, as the doctrine of karma gained acceptance in the Hindu belief, the tenet of ahiṃsā also gained prominence. Later Hindu scriptures condemn the slaughter of animals, upholding ahimsa as one of the highest ideal. Bal Gangadhar Tilak has credited Jainism with cessation of slaughter of animals in the brahamanical religion. Not surprisingly, some scholars have traced the origin of ahiṃsā to Jainas and their precursor, the sramanas. According to Thomas McEvilley, a noted Indologist, certain seals of Indus Valley civilization depict a meditative figure surrounded by a multitude of wild animals, providing evidence of proto yoga tradition in India akin to Jainism. This particular image might suggest that all the animals depicted are sacred to this particular practioner. Consequently, these animals would be protected from harm. This might be the first historical evidence of the practice of ahiṃsā.
[edit] Citations and Notes
^ a b Rankin, Adian. (2006).
^ Jaini, Padmanabh (1998), p.167
^ Varni, Jinendra (1993), “Know that giving protection always to living beings who are in fear of death is known as abhayadana, supreme amongst all charities.” ….Samaṇ Suttaṁ (335)
^ Varni, Jinendra, (1993) "Even an intention of killing is the cause of the bondage of Karma, whether you actually kill or not; from the real point of view, this is the nature of the bondage of Karma. (154)
^ Dundas (2002)
^ Varni, Jinendra (1993) “Ahiṁsā is the heart of all stages of life, the core of all sacred texts, and the sum (pinda) and substance (sara) of all vows and virtues.” Samaṇ Suttaṁ (368)
^ Harry Oldmeadow (2007)p.157
^ Varni, Jinendra (1993)(Verse-310)
^ a b c d e Huntington, Ronald. "Jainism and Ethics". Retrieved on 2007-07-18.
^ Dundas (2002) p.161
^ Jaini (1998) p.168
^ Varni, Jinendra (1993) (388)
^ Jacobi, Hermann (1895). "X Lecture : The Leaf of the Tree". The Jaina Sutras, Part II - The Uttarâdhyayana Sûtra, Translated from Prakrit. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Retrieved on 2007-09-27.
^ Dundas (2002), p. 162
^ Harry Oldmeadow (2007) pp.156-7
^ Varni, Jinendra (1993) "One and the same person assumes the relationship of father, son, grandson, nephew and brother, but he is the father of one whose he is and not of the rest (so is the case with all the things)." (670)
^ Hunter, Alan (May 2003). "Forgiveness in Jainism". Retrieved on 2007-10-04.
^ Koller, John M. (July, 2000). "Syadvada as the epistemological key to the Jaina middle way metaphysics of Anekantavada". Philosophy East and West. vol. 50 (3): Pp. 400–8. ISSN 00318221. Retrieved on 2007-10-01.
^ Rankin, Adian. (2006)
^ a b c d e Jain, J. P. (2007)
^ a b c d e f g Dr. Bhattacharya, H. S. (1976)
^ Kuhn (2001)
^ Huntington, Ronald. "Jainism and Ethics". Retrieved on 2007-07-18.
^ Patil, Bal (2006)
^ Jan E. M. Houben et all,(1999)
[edit] Biblography
Rankin, Adian (2006). The Jain path: ancient wisdom for the West. Winchester, UK: O Books. ISBN 1905047215.
Bothara, Surendra (2004). Ahiṃsā - The Science of Peace. Jaipur: Prakrit Bhartati Academy.
Dr. Bhattacharya, H. S. (1976). Jain Moral Doctrine. Mumbai: Jain Sahitya Vikas Mandal.
Dundas, Paul; John Hinnels ed. (2002). The Jains. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-26606-8.
Gopani, A. S.; Surendra Bothara ed. (1989). Yogaśāstra (Sanskrit) of Ācārya Hemacandra. Jaipur: Prakrit Bharti Academy.
Huntington, Ronald. "Jainism and Ethics". Retrieved on 2007-07-18.
Jacobi, Hermann (1895). "The Uttarâdhyayana Sûtra". The Jaina Sutras, Part II, Translated from Prakrit. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Retrieved on 2007-09-27.
Jaini, Padmanabh (1998). The Jaina Path of Purification. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 81-208-1578-5.
Jain, J. P. (2007). The Art and Science of Self-Realisation : Puruṣārthasiddhyupāya of Amṛtacandra Sūri . New Delhi: Radiant Publisher. ISBN 81-7027-251-2.
Jan E. M. Houben and Karel R. Van kooiji (1999). Violence Denied: Violence, non-violence and rationalisation of violence in South Asian cultural history. Lieden: Brill. ISBN 9004113444.
Kuhn, Hermann (2001). Karma, The Mechanism : Create Your Own Fate. Wunstorf, Germany: Crosswind Publishing. ISBN 3-9806211-4-6.
Oldmeadow, Harry (2007). Light from the East: Eastern Wisdom for the Modern West. Indiana: World Wisdom Inc. ISBN 1933316225.
Patil, Bal (2006). Jaya Gommatesa. Mumbai: Hindi Granth Karyalaya. ISBN 81-88769-10-X.
Varni, Jinendra; Ed. Prof. Sagarmal Jain, Translated Justice T.K. Tukol and Dr. K.K. Dixit (1993). Samaṇ Suttaṁ. New Delhi: Bhagwan Mahavir memorial Samiti.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series on
Jainism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Jain prayer
Navakar Mantra
Timeline
Jain great vows
Ahimsa · Asteya
Brahmacharya · Satya
Nirvana · Aparigraha
Anekantavada
Key concepts
Kevala Jñāna · Cosmology
Samsara · Karma
Dharma · Mokṣa · Reincarnation
Swadhyay
Major figures
The 24 Tirthankaras
Lord Rishabh to Mahavira
Acharyas · Ganadhars
Siddhasen Divakar · Haribhadra
Practices and attainment
Four Stages of Enlightenment
Paramis · Meditation
Jainism by region
India · Western
Sects of Jainism
Svetambara · Digambara
Terapanthi · Early schools
Sthanakvasi · Bisapantha
Deravasi
Texts
Kalpasutra
Agama (text) · Tattvartha Sutra
Sanmatti Prakaran
List of topics
Portal: Jainism
This box: view • talk • edit
Ahiṃsā (Sanskrit : अहिंसा, Prakrit : अहिंसा) means “non-violence”, “non-injury” or absence of desire to harm any life forms. Ahiṃsā is the fundamental principle of Jainism forming cornerstone of its ethics and doctrine. Vegetarianism and other non-violent practices and rituals of Jains flow from the principle of Ahiṃsā. According to Adian Rankin, the concept of Ahiṃsā is so much intertwined with Jainism that it conjures up images of ascetics who cover their mouths and sweep the ground before them with small brushes to avoid injuring the most minuscule forms of life and Jain-owned animal sanctuaries where even the sickest, most deformed birds and beasts are protected and cherished. These overt manifestations of an ancient faith challenge the comfortable - and near-universal - assumption of human precedence over other creatures.[1]
The Jain concept of Ahiṃsā is quite different from the concept of non-violence found in other philosophies. In other religious traditions, violence is usually associated with causing harm to others. On the other hand, in Jainism, violence refers primarily to injuring one's own self – behaviour which inhibits the souls own ability to attain mokṣa or liberation.[2] At the same time it also means violence to others because it is this tendency to harm others that ultimately harms ones own soul. Furthermore, the Jains have extended the concept of Ahiṃsā not only to humans but to all animals, plants, micro-organisms and all beings having life or life potential. All life is sacred and everyone has a right to live fearlessly to its maximum potential. The living beings do not have any fear from those who have taken the vow of Ahiṃsā. According to Jainism, protection of life, also known as abhayadānam, is the supreme charity that a person can make[3].
Ahiṃsā does not merely indicate absence of physical violence, but also indicates absence of desire to indulge in any sort of violence.[4] This Jain ideal of Ahiṃsā profoundly influenced Mahatma Gandhi, through his friendship with the Jain scholar Shrimad Rajchandra that it formed a basis of his satyagraha (truth struggle) against colonial rule and caused him to rethink many aspects of contemporary Hindu practices.[1] While Jainism is not a proselytizing religion and as such has no organised system of advocating its doctrine, Jains have been forefront in strongly advocating vegetarianism and non-violence through ages.[5] Ahiṃsā being central to the Jain philosophy, Jain Ācāryas have produced, through ages, quite elaborate and detailed doctrinal materials concerning its various aspects.
Contents
[hide]
1 The vow of non-violence
1.1 The Vow of Ascetics
1.2 The Vow of the Laity
2 Jain Concept of Ahiṃsā
2.1 Hierarchy of Living Beings on basis of Senses
2.2 Carefulness
2.3 Mental States and intention
2.4 Significance of true Knowledge
2.5 Anekantavada - The non-violence of mind
3 Various aspects and consequences of violence
3.1 Dravya hiṃsā and bhāva hiṃsā
3.2 Jaina Conception of hiṃsā
3.3 Ways of committing Violence
4 The Rationale of Non violence
5 Fruits of non-violence and violence
6 Misconceptions on Non-violence
6.1 Animal sacrifices
6.2 Worshipping violent gods
6.3 Oblations to forefathers
6.4 Glory of death on the battlefield
6.5 Other wrong beliefs
7 Non-violence and vegetarianism
8 Origins and evolution of Ahimsa
9 Citations and Notes
10 Biblography
[edit] The vow of non-violence
The hand with a wheel on the palm symbolizes the Jain Vow of Ahimsa. The word in the middle is "ahimsa". The wheel represents the dharmacakra which stands for the resolve to halt the cycle of reincarnation through relentless pursuit of truth and non-violence.Ahiṃsā is formalized into Jain doctrine as the first major vow of the ascetics and first minor vow of the laity.
[edit] The Vow of Ascetics
The Jain monks and the nuns undertake five major vows known as Mahāvratas at the time of their ordination to monkhood, out of which Ahiṃsā is the first and foremost. Jain monks and nuns must rank among the most “non-violent” people in the world. A Jain ascetic is expected to uphold the vow of Ahiṃsā to the highest standard, even at the cost of his own life. The other four major vows – truthfulness, non-stealing, non-possession and celibacy – are in fact extension of the first vow of complete non-violence[6]. According to Amṛtacandra Sūri:
“All sins like falsehood, theft, attachment and immorality are forms of violence which destroy the purity of the soul. They have been separately enumerated only to facilitate their understanding”
- Puruṣārthasiddhyupāya 4.42.
Ascetic Practices for adherence of Ahiṃsā
The ascetic practices of total renunciation of worldly affairs and possessions, refusal to stay in a single place for a long time, continuous practice of austerities like fasting etc. are geared towards observance of ahiṃsā. The Jain mendicants abide by a rigorous set of rules of conduct, where they must eat, sleep and even walk with full diligence and with an awareness that even walking kills several hundreds of minute beings. They generally brush the ground clear of insects before they tread; some wear a small mask to avoid taking in tiny insects; some monks do not wear even clothes and eat food only when it is not prepared for themselves. The observation of three guptis or the controls of mind, speech and body and five samiti or regulation of walking, speaking, begging of food, keeping items and disposal of items are designed to help the monks in observing the vow of ahiṃsā faultlessly. In fact entire day of a Jain monk is spent in ensuring that he observes his vow of ahiṃsā through mind, body and speech faultlessly. This seemingly extreme behaviour of the monks comes from a sense that every action, no matter however subtle, has a karmic effect which can bind soul and inhibit liberation, especially those that result in hiṃsā.[7]
[edit] The Vow of the Laity
A Jain layman, on account of his household and occupational compulsions, is unable to adhere to the five major vows of ascetic. Hence he observes aṇuvrata or minor vows which although are similar to the major vows of the ascetics are observed with a lesser severity. It is difficult to avoid some violence by a lay person to single-sensed immobile beings in the process of occupation, cooking, self defense etc. That is why he vows not to kill without a necessary purpose and determined intention, a moving sentient being, when it is innocent. Tying up, injuring, mutilating, burdening with heavy load and depriving from food and drinks any animal or human being with a mind polluted by anger and other passions are the five aticāra or transgressions of the vow of Ahiṃsā.[8] However, it is to be understood that ultimately, there is limited spiritual progress and no emancipation unless the major vows are adhered to.
Laity Practices for adherence of Ahiṃsā
Jainism is perhaps the only religion in the world that requires all its adherents to follow a strict vegetarian diet.[9] Vegetarian food that also involves more harm to the living beings such as roots, bulbs, multi seeded vegetables etc are avoided by strict Jains. The importance of Ahiṃsā manifests in many other ways in the daily life of Jains. For a layperson it means participating in business that results in least amount of violence to living beings. No furs, plumes or silk are worn. Use of leather is kept to a minimum and must in any event be from naturally dead animals. Food is usually eaten during the day unless unavoidable, since there is too much danger of injuring insects in cooking at night. The Jain will not use an open light nor leave a container of liquid uncovered lest a stray insect be destroyed; even with this precaution, liquids are always strained before use.[9] Through the ages Jains have sought to avoid occupations that unavoidably entail injury, and this accounts for the disproportionate number who have entered banking, commerce and other mercantile trades..[9]
[edit] Jain Concept of Ahiṃsā
While Jainism enjoins observance of total non-violence by the ascetics, it is often argued that the man is constantly obliged to engage in destructive activities of eating, drinking, breathing and surviving in order to support his body. According to Jainism, life is omnipresent with infinite beings including microorganisms pervading each and every part of universe. Hence it may still be possible to avoid killing of gross animals, but it is impossible to avoid killing of subtle microorganisms in air and water, plant life and various types of insects that may be crushed by walking. It would thus appear that the continual likelihood of destroying living organisms would create an inexcusable burden on the ascetics trying to follow the Jain path of total renunciation and non-violence.
However, the Jain conception of Ahiṃsā is quite different than what is commonly understood by violence. The violence is defined more by the motives and the consequences to the self rather than by the act itself. Furthermore, according to Jain Scriptures, destruction of less developed organism brings about lesser karmas than destruction of developed animals and karmas generated in observance of religious duties faultlessly disappears almost immediately. Hence, it is possible to observe complete non-violence with right knowledge, even when some outward violence occurs to living beings in the course of performing religious duties by observing carefulness and pure mental disposition without any attachment.
[edit] Hierarchy of Living Beings on basis of Senses
Jainism divides living beings on the basis of sensory organs (indriya) and vitalities or life force (praṇa) existing in such beings. Accordingly, higher the number of senses and vitalities a being has, the more is its capacity to suffer and feel pain. Hence according to Jainism, violence to higher sensed beings like man, cow, tiger and like who have five senses and capacity to think and feel pain attracts more karma than any violence to lesser sensed beings like insects, or single sensed beings like microbes and plants.[10] [11] Hence Jainism enjoins its adherents to completely avoid violence to higher sensed beings and as far as possible minimize violence to single sensed beings.
[edit] Carefulness
According to Jainism, a monk who is careless in his activities is guilty of violence irrespective of whether a living being remains alive or dies; on the other hand, the person who is ever vigilant and careful in observing the samitis experiences no karmic bondage simply because some violence may have taken place in connection with his activities.[12] Carefulness came to be seen as a defense for the monks against violence in Jainism. One of the most famous passages in the Uttradhayana Sūtra describes Mahāvīra continually exhorting his chief disciple Gautama “to be careful all the while” [13]lest the opportunity to destroy all the karmas and achieve perfection in this lifetime may be lost forever on account of carelessness. Tattvārthasūtra defines hiṃsā or violence simply as “removal of life by careless activity of mind, body and speech.” Thus action in Jainism came to be regarded as truly violent only when accompanied by carlessness.
[edit] Mental States and intention
Paul Dundas quotes Ācārya Jinabhadra (seventh century), who shows that the omnipresence of life-forms in the universe need not totally inhibit normal behaviour of the ascetics[14] :-
“It is the intention that ultimately matters. From the real point of view, a man does not become a killer only because he has killed or because the world is crowded with souls, or remain innocent only because he has not killed physically. Even if a person does not actually kill, he becomes a killer if he has the intention to kill; while a doctor has to cause pain but is still non-violent and innocent because his intention is pure, for it is the intention which is the deciding factor, not the external act which is inconclusive.”
Thus pure intention along with carefulness was considered necessary to practice Ahiṃsā as Jains admitted that even if intention may be pure, careless activities often resulted in violence unknowingly.
[edit] Significance of true Knowledge
The Jains also considered right knowledge as a prerequisite for practicing Ahiṃsā. It is necessary to know what is living and what is non-living to practice Ahiṃsā faultlessly. A person who is confused between Living and non-living can never observe non-violence. Daśavaikālika Sūtra declared:
“First knowledge, then compassion. Thus does one remain in full control. How can an ignorant person be compassionate, when he cannot distinguish between the good and the evil?” – DS iv
It further declares –
“ Knowledge of living and non-living alone will enable one to become compassionate towards all living creatures. Knowing this all aspirants, proceed from knowledge to eternal virtues. What can an ignorant do ? How does he know what is noble and what is evil?" [15]
The knowledge is also considered necessary to destroy Karmas. Samaṇ Suttaṁ declared -
“The ignorant cannot destroy their Karmas by their actions while the wise can do it by their inaction i.e. by controlling their activities because they are free from greed and lustful passions and do not commit any sin as they remain contented.” (165)
[edit] Anekantavada - The non-violence of mind
Main articles: Anekantavada and Syadvada
Anekantavada is the principle of relativity of truth or the doctrine of multiple aspects.[16] Jains hold that truth is multifaceted and has multiple sides that cannot be completely comprehended by anyone. Anekantavada describes the world as a multifaceted, ever-changing reality with an infinity of viewpoints relative to the time, place, nature and state of one who is the viewer and that which is viewed. What is true from one point of view is open to question from another. Absolute truth cannot be grasped from any particular viewpoint alone, because absolute truth is the sum total of all different viewpoints that make up the universe. Because it is rooted in these doctrines, Jainism cannot exclusively uphold the views of any individual, community, nation, or species.[17] It recognises inherently that other views are valid for other peoples, and for other life-forms. This perception leads to the doctrine of syadvada or sevenfold predication stating the truth from different viewpoints. Anekantvada is the doctrine and Syadvada is its expression. According to Jaina philosophers all important philosophical statements should be expressed in this sevenfold way in order to remove the danger of dogmatism (ekanta) in philosophy.[18]
The concept of syadvada allows the Jains to accept the truth in other philosophies from their perspective and thus inculcating a tolerance for other viewpoints. Anekantvada is non-absolutist and stands firmly against all dogmatisms, even including any assertion that only Jainism is the right religious path. [9] It is thus an intellectual Ahimsa or Ahimsa of mind. [19] In Anekantvada, there is no "battle of ideas", because this is considered to be a form of intellectual himsa or damage, leading quite logically to physical violence and war. In today's world, the limitations of the adversarial, “either with us or against us “ form of argument are increasingly apparent leading to political, religious and social conflicts. Even the mounting ecological crisis is linked to adversarialism, because it arises from a false division between humanity and "the rest" of nature.
[edit] Various aspects and consequences of violence
Ācārya Amṛtacandra has described as to how the consequences of violence (karmas attracted) differ from person to persons for similar and different types of acts:
A small violence may bring serious consequences to one person, while to another person grievous violence may bring about lesser consequences. For instance, a person hunting and killing only one small animal suffers severe consequences while a person who is building a temple or hospital, suffers milder the karmic consequences even though such a building results in killing of many animals.[20]
Even when violence is jointly committed by two persons, the same act may result in severe consequence for one person and mild consequence for another person. This may happen in case where one person is the leader and planner of violence who binds severe karmas, while another who is simply a follower binds much lesser karmas.[20]
One who actually does not commit violence may be responsible for hiṃsā while one who actually commits violence is not responsible for hiṃsā. For instance, a burglar who fails in his robbery is still a felon but a diligent surgeon who is trying to save a patient is not responsible for violence even if a patient dies during the surgery.[20]
Persons who have not committed violence may become responsible for violence committed by others. This may happen when a violence which is carried out by someone is approved and instigated by someone else.[20]
Ahiṃsā often gives result of hiṃsā to one and hiṃsā may sometimes give result of Ahiṃsā to another. For instance, one person saves another from oppression by use of violence and hence enjoys consequences of Ahiṃsā although resorting to violence, while another does not act to save someone wishing that the other person is not saved and thus suffers the consequences of violence although he may have not actually done anything.[20]
[edit] Dravya hiṃsā and bhāva hiṃsā
[edit] Jaina Conception of hiṃsā
While the Jain ascetics observe absolute non-violence, so far as a Jain householder is concerned, the violence is divided as follows :-
Sankalpinī hiṃsā or intentional violence – Intentional violence knowingly done is the worst form of violence and is a transgression of the laypersons vow of violence. Examples of sankalpinī hiṃsā are killing for hunting, amusement or decoration, or butchering for food or sacrifice or killing or hurting out of enimity, malice or mischief. sankalpinī hiṃsā has to be totally renounced by a householder.[21]
Virodhinī hiṃsā or Self defence - Virodhini hiṃsā is committed for self-defence of self, property, family or country against violent attackers, robbers, or dacoits. A householder tries to avoid hiṃsā at all cost, but in such cases it may be unavoidable and hence should be non-vindictive and kept to barest minimum.[21]
Āṛambhinī (Graharambhi) hiṃsā or domestic or household violence – This violence is unavoidable committed in the course of preparing food, household cleanliness, washing, construction of houses, wells etc.[21]
Udyoginī hiṃsā or Occupational Violence – This violence is connected to occupational undertakings like agriculture, building and operating industries etc.[21]
While sankalpinī hiṃsā has to be avoided at all costs, the other three types of hiṃsā although unavoidable in some cases, should not exceed the strict requirements of fulfilling the duties of a householder. Furthermore, they should not be influenced by passions like anger, greed, pride and deceit or they take the character of sanpalkinī hiṃsā.[21]
[edit] Ways of committing Violence
It would be wrong, however, to conclude that ahimsa only prohibited physical violence. An early Jain text says: "With the three means of punishment – thoughts, words, deeds – ye shall not injure living beings." [9] In fact, violence can be committed by combination of the following four factors[22] :
1. The instrumentality of our actions. We can commit violence by either through
a. body i.e. physical action,
b. speech i.e. verbal action, or
c. mind i.e. mental actions
2. The process of committing violence. This includes whether we
a. only decide or plan to act,
b. make preparations for the act e.g. like collecting necessary materials or weapons, or
c. actually begin the action
3. The modality of our action, including if we
a. we ourselves commit violence,
b. we instigate others to carry out the violence, or
c. we give our silent approval for the violence
4. The motivation for action. This includes which of the following negative emotions that the violence is motivated by.
a. Anger
b. Greed
c. Pride
d. Manipulation or deceit
Thus violence is committed by a combination of any one element of the above four factors. Due to this, there are 108 ways with which the violence can be committed.
[edit] The Rationale of Non violence
According to Jainism, the purpose of non-violence is not simply because it is a commandment of a God or any other supreme being. Its purpose is also not simply because its observance is conductive to general welfare of the state or the community.[21] While it is true that in Jainism, the moral and religious injunctions were laid down as law by Arhats who have achieved perfection through their supreme moral efforts, their adherence is just not to please a God, but the life of the Arhats has demonstrated that such commandments were conductive to Arhat’s own welfare, helping him to reach spiritual victory. Just as Arhats achieved spiritual victory by observing non-violence, so can anyone who follows this path.[21]
Another aspect that provides a rationale to the avoidance of hiṃsā is that, any acts of hiṃsā results in hiṃsā to self. Any act of violence though outwardly is seen to harm others, harms the soul of the person indulging in the act. Thus by an act of violence, a soul may or may not injure the material vitalities known as dravya praṇa of someone else, but always causes injury to its own bhāva praṇa or the psychic vitalities by binding the soul with karmas. It would be entirely wrong to see Ahiṃsā in Jainism in any sentimental light.[23] The Jain doctrine of non-injury is based on rational consciousness, not emotional compassion; on responsibility to self, not on a social fellow feeling. The motive of Ahiṃsā is totally self-centered and for the benefit of the individual. And yet, though the emphasis is on personal liberation, the Jain ethics makes that goal attainable only through consideration for others.
Furthermore, according to the Jain karmic theory, each and every soul, including self, has reincarnated as an animal, plant or microorganism innumerable number of times besides re-incarnated as humans. The concept of Ahiṃsā is more meaningful when understood in conjunction with the concept of karmas. As the doctrine of transmigration of souls includes rebirth in animal as well as human form, it creates a humanitarian sentiment of kinship amongst all life forms.[24] The motto of Jainism - Parasparopagraho jīvānām, translated as: “all life is inter-related and it is the duty of souls to assist each other”- also provides a rational approach of Jains towards Ahiṃsā.
In conclusion, the insistence of Ahiṃsā is not so much about non-injury to others as it is about non-injury and spiritual welfare of the self. The ultimate rationale of Ahiṃsā is fundamentally is about karmic results of the hiṃsā on self rather than the concern about the well being of other beings for its own sake.[25]
[edit] Fruits of non-violence and violence
Main article: Karma in Jainism
According to the Jain scriptures, the result of the observance of Ahiṃsā is good health, a strong body, and a strong constitution in the future life. There would be happiness, comforts, long life, a good name, handsome features, and an enjoyable youth.
The results of killing would be the opposite of these things, such as lameness, incurable disease, separation from friends and relatives, sorrow, short life, and after that, an incarnation in a low state (animal or hell). According to Hemacandra, diseases like leprosy and loss of limbs are the consequences of inflicting violence.
[edit] Misconceptions on Non-violence
illustration of the Asvamedha Sacrifice in Ramayana by Sahib Din, 1652. Kausalya is depicted slaying the horse (left) and lying beside it (right)The Jain Scriptures discuss the misconceptions that are harboured in case of Ahiṃsā. They often opposed the Vedic beliefs in sacrifices and other practices that justified violence in various ways. Ācārya Amṛtacandra’s Puruṣārthasiddhyupāya and Ācārya Hemacandra’s Yogaśāstra discusses these wrong beliefs at length to alert the Jain laity on such wrong beliefs. Following are such misconceptions that a Jain layman was advised to avoid.
[edit] Animal sacrifices
Vedics believed that animals were created for yajna (sacrifice) and hence it was not considered a slaughter, as it elevated not only the person making the sacrifice, but also the animals. This belief was denounced by Hemacandra that those who mercilessly kill the animals under the pretext of offering the oblations to gods or for the sake of sacrifices are condemned to most terrifying existence in hells. Amṛtacandra also condemned this practice by stating that it is a misconception to hold that Gods are pleased at sacrifices of living beings and there is no wrong in committing hiṃsā for the sake of religion.
[edit] Worshipping violent gods
Jain Ācāryas like Hemacandra, Somadeva, Jinasena also decried the worship of violent vedic Gods who demanded sacrifices of animals and glorified the killing of enemies. Ācārya Hemacandra says –
“It is a matter of great grief that the gods who wield weapons such as bow and arrows, mace, disc, trident etc. are worshipped as true gods.”
[edit] Oblations to forefathers
Hemacandra discusses the Vedic beliefs of offering oblations to dead ancestors to please and satisfy their souls by sacrificing various animals. This was decried by hemacandra as thus –
The vedic practice of offering sacrifices of animals to dead ancestors was also condemned by Jain Ācāryas.
[edit] Glory of death on the battlefield
The Hindu belief that the death in battlefield resulted in rebirth in heavens has been recorded in Mahabharata where Krsna tells Arjuna :
"Slain you will attain heavens, conquering you will enjoy earth;
Therefore rise, O Arjuna, resolved to do battle"
-Bhagavad Gita ii 37
However according to Jainas death accompanied by hatred and violence can never lead to heavens. According to a story in Bhagavati Sūtra, all the 840,000 soldiers who perished in a war between Konika, the Magadhan emperor and other kings, were either reborn in hell or as animals. Only one person who maintained equanimity in the midst of death in battlefield was reborn in heaven.
[edit] Other wrong beliefs
Additionally Amṛtacandra discusses the following wrong beliefs:
Animals should not be killed for guests or persons deserving respect as often advocated in certain scriptures.
It is also a wrong belief that wild animals that kill many other animals should be killed. This is often justified in the name of hunting of ferocious animals like tigers for sport.
Another wrong belief forwarded to justify killing of ferocious animals is that, these kill many lives and accumulate grave sins and hence killing them is an act of mercy. According to Jainism, killing can never be an act of mercy.
It is also a misconception to believe that it is advisable to kill those who are suffering so that they may get relief from agony. #These sorts of arguments are forwarded to justify killing of those animals that may have become old or injured and hence have become commercially useless.
Other wrong beliefs are killing those who are in state of happiness or those who are in meditation under wrong belief that the mental state at the time of death will be perpetuated in future lives.
It is also a wrong belief that killing of self and others is justified as the soul that is imprisoned in the body will be permanent released and achieve salvation.
[edit] Non-violence and vegetarianism
Main article: Jain vegetarianism
[edit] Origins and evolution of Ahimsa
Ahiṃsā, an important tenet of all the religions originating in India, is now considered as an article of faith by the adherents of the Indian religions. However, not much is known about the historical origins of ahiṃsā and as to how it became widespread and got deeply entrenched in the Indian philosophy. Scholars speculate that the doctrine of ahiṃsā was probably first developed amongst the native non-Aryan people in around third millennium BCE and was adopted by the brahamanas during the later Upanishadic period under the influence of sramanas. The Vedas, the manusmriti, the Dharmasutra and Mahabharata contain many references on killing and slaughter of animals for sacrifices, oblations to dead ancestors, and as well as for various other occasions. However, as the doctrine of karma gained acceptance in the Hindu belief, the tenet of ahiṃsā also gained prominence. Later Hindu scriptures condemn the slaughter of animals, upholding ahimsa as one of the highest ideal. Bal Gangadhar Tilak has credited Jainism with cessation of slaughter of animals in the brahamanical religion. Not surprisingly, some scholars have traced the origin of ahiṃsā to Jainas and their precursor, the sramanas. According to Thomas McEvilley, a noted Indologist, certain seals of Indus Valley civilization depict a meditative figure surrounded by a multitude of wild animals, providing evidence of proto yoga tradition in India akin to Jainism. This particular image might suggest that all the animals depicted are sacred to this particular practioner. Consequently, these animals would be protected from harm. This might be the first historical evidence of the practice of ahiṃsā.
[edit] Citations and Notes
^ a b Rankin, Adian. (2006).
^ Jaini, Padmanabh (1998), p.167
^ Varni, Jinendra (1993), “Know that giving protection always to living beings who are in fear of death is known as abhayadana, supreme amongst all charities.” ….Samaṇ Suttaṁ (335)
^ Varni, Jinendra, (1993) "Even an intention of killing is the cause of the bondage of Karma, whether you actually kill or not; from the real point of view, this is the nature of the bondage of Karma. (154)
^ Dundas (2002)
^ Varni, Jinendra (1993) “Ahiṁsā is the heart of all stages of life, the core of all sacred texts, and the sum (pinda) and substance (sara) of all vows and virtues.” Samaṇ Suttaṁ (368)
^ Harry Oldmeadow (2007)p.157
^ Varni, Jinendra (1993)(Verse-310)
^ a b c d e Huntington, Ronald. "Jainism and Ethics". Retrieved on 2007-07-18.
^ Dundas (2002) p.161
^ Jaini (1998) p.168
^ Varni, Jinendra (1993) (388)
^ Jacobi, Hermann (1895). "X Lecture : The Leaf of the Tree". The Jaina Sutras, Part II - The Uttarâdhyayana Sûtra, Translated from Prakrit. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Retrieved on 2007-09-27.
^ Dundas (2002), p. 162
^ Harry Oldmeadow (2007) pp.156-7
^ Varni, Jinendra (1993) "One and the same person assumes the relationship of father, son, grandson, nephew and brother, but he is the father of one whose he is and not of the rest (so is the case with all the things)." (670)
^ Hunter, Alan (May 2003). "Forgiveness in Jainism". Retrieved on 2007-10-04.
^ Koller, John M. (July, 2000). "Syadvada as the epistemological key to the Jaina middle way metaphysics of Anekantavada". Philosophy East and West. vol. 50 (3): Pp. 400–8. ISSN 00318221. Retrieved on 2007-10-01.
^ Rankin, Adian. (2006)
^ a b c d e Jain, J. P. (2007)
^ a b c d e f g Dr. Bhattacharya, H. S. (1976)
^ Kuhn (2001)
^ Huntington, Ronald. "Jainism and Ethics". Retrieved on 2007-07-18.
^ Patil, Bal (2006)
^ Jan E. M. Houben et all,(1999)
[edit] Biblography
Rankin, Adian (2006). The Jain path: ancient wisdom for the West. Winchester, UK: O Books. ISBN 1905047215.
Bothara, Surendra (2004). Ahiṃsā - The Science of Peace. Jaipur: Prakrit Bhartati Academy.
Dr. Bhattacharya, H. S. (1976). Jain Moral Doctrine. Mumbai: Jain Sahitya Vikas Mandal.
Dundas, Paul; John Hinnels ed. (2002). The Jains. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-26606-8.
Gopani, A. S.; Surendra Bothara ed. (1989). Yogaśāstra (Sanskrit) of Ācārya Hemacandra. Jaipur: Prakrit Bharti Academy.
Huntington, Ronald. "Jainism and Ethics". Retrieved on 2007-07-18.
Jacobi, Hermann (1895). "The Uttarâdhyayana Sûtra". The Jaina Sutras, Part II, Translated from Prakrit. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Retrieved on 2007-09-27.
Jaini, Padmanabh (1998). The Jaina Path of Purification. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 81-208-1578-5.
Jain, J. P. (2007). The Art and Science of Self-Realisation : Puruṣārthasiddhyupāya of Amṛtacandra Sūri . New Delhi: Radiant Publisher. ISBN 81-7027-251-2.
Jan E. M. Houben and Karel R. Van kooiji (1999). Violence Denied: Violence, non-violence and rationalisation of violence in South Asian cultural history. Lieden: Brill. ISBN 9004113444.
Kuhn, Hermann (2001). Karma, The Mechanism : Create Your Own Fate. Wunstorf, Germany: Crosswind Publishing. ISBN 3-9806211-4-6.
Oldmeadow, Harry (2007). Light from the East: Eastern Wisdom for the Modern West. Indiana: World Wisdom Inc. ISBN 1933316225.
Patil, Bal (2006). Jaya Gommatesa. Mumbai: Hindi Granth Karyalaya. ISBN 81-88769-10-X.
Varni, Jinendra; Ed. Prof. Sagarmal Jain, Translated Justice T.K. Tukol and Dr. K.K. Dixit (1993). Samaṇ Suttaṁ. New Delhi: Bhagwan Mahavir memorial Samiti.
Nuclear warfare
Nuclear warfare
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2007)
The Titan II Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) carried a 9 Mt W53 warhead, making it one of the most powerful nuclear weapons fielded by the United States during the Cold War.Nuclear, or atomic warfare, is battle in which nuclear weapons are used. This has only happened once - the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States of America against the Empire of Japan very shortly before the end of the Pacific War in World War II. Today the term usually refers to confrontations in which opposing sides are both armed with nuclear weapons. Compared to conventional warfare, nuclear warfare is much more destructive in both range coverage and extent of damage, and has long-term, severe, damaging effects that can last decades, centuries, or even millennia after the initial attack.[1][2]
Contents
[hide]
1 Types of nuclear war
2 History
2.1 Hiroshima to Semipalatinsk
2.2 The 1950s
2.3 The 1960s
2.4 The 1970s
2.5 The 1980s
2.6 Post-Cold War
2.7 Potential consequences of a regional nuclear war
2.8 Sub-strategic use
3 Nuclear terrorism
4 References
5 See also
6 External links
[edit] Types of nuclear war
War
Military history
Eras[show]
Prehistoric
Ancient
Medieval
Gunpowder
Industrial
Modern
Battlespace[show]
Air
Information
Land
Sea
Space
Weapons[show]
Armor
Artillery
Biological
Cavalry
Chemical
Electronic
Infantry
Nuclear
Psychological
Tactics[show]
Attrition
Guerilla
Maneuver
Siege
Total war
Trench
Strategy[show]
Economic
Grand
Operational
Organization[show]
Formations
Ranks
Units
Logistics[show]
Equipment
Materiel
Supply line
Lists[show]
Battles
Commanders
Operations
Sieges
Theorists
Wars
War crimes
Weapons
Writers
War Portal v • d • e
The possibility of using nuclear weapons in war is usually divided into two subgroups, each with different effects and potentially fought with different types of nuclear armaments.
The first, a limited nuclear war (sometimes attack or exchange), refers to a small scale use of nuclear weapons by one or more parties. A "limited nuclear war" would most likely consist of a limited exchange between two nuclear superpowers targeting each other's military facilities, either as an attempt to pre-emptively cripple the enemy's ability to attack as a defensive measure or as a prelude to an invasion by conventional forces as an offensive measure. It will also refer to a nuclear war between minor nuclear powers, who lack the ability to deliver a decisive strike. This term would apply to any limited use of nuclear weapons, which may involve either military or civilian targets.
The second, a full-scale nuclear war, consists of large numbers of weapons used in an attack aimed at an entire country, including both military and civilian targets. Such an attack would seek to destroy the entire economic, social, and military infrastructure of a nation by means of an overwhelming nuclear attack.
Some Cold War strategists argued that a limited nuclear war could be possible between two heavily armed superpowers (such as the United States and the Soviet Union) and if so several predicted that a limited war could "escalate" into an all-out war. Others have called limited nuclear war "global nuclear holocaust in slow motion" arguing that once such a war took place others would be sure to follow over a period of decades, effectively rendering the planet uninhabitable in the same way that a "full-scale nuclear war" between superpowers would, only taking a much longer and more agonizing path to achieve the same result.
Even the most optimistic predictions of the effects of a major nuclear exchange foresee the death of millions of civilians within a very short amount of time; more pessimistic predictions argue that a full-scale nuclear war could bring about the extinction of the human race or its near extinction with a handful of survivors (mainly in remote areas) reduced to a pre-medieval quality of life and life expectancy for centuries after and cause permanent damage to most complex life on the planet, Earth's ecosystems, and the global climate, particularly if predictions of nuclear winter are accurate. It is in this latter mode that nuclear warfare is usually alluded to as a doomsday scenario. Such hypothesized civilization-ending nuclear wars have been a staple of the science fiction literature and film genre for decades.
A third category, not usually included with the above two, is accidental nuclear war, in which a nuclear war is triggered unintentionally. Possible scenarios for this have included malfunctioning early warning devices and targeting computers, deliberate malfeasance by rogue military commanders, accidental straying of planes into enemy airspace, reactions to unannounced missile tests during tense diplomatic periods, reactions to military exercises, mistranslated or miscommunicated messages, and so forth. A number of these scenarios did actually occur during the Cold War, though none resulted in a nuclear exchange.[3] Many such scenarios have been depicted in popular culture, such as in the 1962 novel Fail-Safe (released as a film in 1964) and the film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, also released in 1964.
[edit] History
Main article: History of nuclear weapons
[edit] Hiroshima to Semipalatinsk
The explosion at Nagasaki, Japan.The United States is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons during war, using two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. For more information, see Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After the bombings of Japan, it was unclear exactly what status the atomic bomb would have for international relations or military actions. It was believed that atomic weapons could offset the superior forces that the Soviet Union had in Eastern Europe, and possibly be used to pressure Soviet leader Joseph Stalin into concessions. Despite Stalin's palpable fear of the bomb, he too was pursuing his own atomic capabilities at full speed. The Soviets believed that the Americans were unlikely to begin another world war with their limited nuclear arsenal and the Americans were not confident that they could prevent the Soviet Union from taking over Europe even if they did use nuclear weapons. As such, they were not as strong a bargaining chip as was hoped by the Americans.
Within the United States the authority to produce and develop nuclear weapons was removed from the military control of the Manhattan Project and put instead under the civilian control of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, a unique move which attempted to recognize that nuclear weapons represented a special category of weapons separate from other military technology.
For several years after World War II, the US developed and maintained a strategic force based on the Convair B-36 bomber that would be able to attack any potential enemy from bomber bases in the US. It deployed atomic bombs around the world for potential use in conflicts. Over a period of a few years, many in the US defense community became increasingly convinced of the invincibility of the United States to a nuclear attack. Indeed, it became generally believed that the threat of nuclear war would deter any strike against the United States.
Many proposals were suggested to put all US nuclear weapons under international control—for example, by the newly formed United Nations—as an effort to deter both their usage and an arms race. However no terms could be arrived at that made either the United States or the USSR feel secure—the US was not willing to give up its atomic monopoly, and the USSR did not trust UN inspections on its soil.
US and USSR nuclear stockpiles.On August 29, 1949 the USSR tested its first nuclear weapon at Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan (see also Soviet atomic bomb project). Scientists in the United States from the Manhattan Project had warned that, in time, the Soviet Union would certainly develop nuclear capabilities of its own. Nevertheless, the effect upon military thinking and planning in the US was dramatic, primarily due to the fact that American military strategists had not anticipated the Soviets would "catch up" so soon. However, at this time, they had not discovered that the Russians had conducted significant espionage of the project from spies at Los Alamos, the most significant of which was done by the theoretical physicist Klaus Fuchs. The first Soviet bomb was more or less a deliberate copy of the Fat Man device.
With the monopoly over nuclear technology broken, world-wide nuclear proliferation accelerated. The United Kingdom tested its first independent atomic bomb in 1952, followed by France in 1960 and then the People's Republic of China in 1964. While much smaller than the arsenals of the USA and the USSR, Western Europe's nuclear reserves were nevertheless a significant factor in strategic planning during the Cold War. A top-secret white paper produced for the British Government in 1959, compiled by the Royal Air Force, estimated that British atomic bombers were capable of destroying key cities and military targets in the Soviet Union, with an estimated 16 million deaths in the USSR (half of whom were estimated to be killed on impact and the rest fatally injured) before bomber aircraft from the United States' Strategic Air Command reached their targets.
[edit] The 1950s
Though the USSR had nuclear weapon capabilities in the beginning of the Cold War, the US still had an advantage in terms of bombers and weapons. In any exchange of hostilities, the US would have been capable of bombing the USSR, while the USSR would have more difficulties arranging the reverse.
The widespread introduction of jet-powered interceptor aircraft upset this balance somewhat by reducing the effectiveness of the US bomber fleet. In 1949 Curtis LeMay was placed in command of the Strategic Air Command and instituted a program to update the bomber fleet to one that was all-jet. During the early 1950s the B-47 and B-52 were introduced, providing the ability to bomb the USSR more easily.
Before the development of a capable strategic missile force in the Soviet Union, much of the war-fighting doctrine held by western nations revolved around using a large number of smaller nuclear weapons used in a tactical role. It is arguable if such use could be considered "limited" however, because it was believed that the US would use their own strategic weapons (mainly bombers at the time) should the USSR deploy any kind of nuclear weapon against civilian targets. Douglas MacArthur, an American general, was fired by President Harry Truman, partially because he persistently requested permission to use his own discretion in deciding whether to use atomic weapons on the People's Republic of China in 1951 (as the Korean War was raging).[4]
Several scares about the increasing ability of the USSR's strategic bomber forces surfaced during the 1950s. The defensive response by the US was to deploy a fairly strong layered defense consisting of interceptor aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles, like the Nike, and guns, like the Skysweeper, near larger cities. However this was a small response compared to the construction of a huge fleet of nuclear bombers. The principal nuclear strategy was to massively penetrate the USSR. Because such a large area could not be defended against this overwhelming attack in any credible way, the USSR would lose any exchange.
This logic became ingrained in US nuclear doctrine and persisted for the duration of the Cold War. As long as the strategic US nuclear forces could overwhelm their USSR counterparts, a Soviet preemptive strike could be averted. Moreover, the USSR could not afford to build any reasonable counterforce as the economic output of the United States was far larger than that of the Soviets, and they would be unable to achieve nuclear parity.
Soviet nuclear doctrine, however, did not match US nuclear doctrine. Soviet planning expected a large-scale nuclear exchange followed by a conventional war which itself would involve heavy use of tactical nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, US doctrine rather assumed that Soviet doctrine was similar—the mutual in Mutually Assured Destruction necessarily requiring that the other side see things in much the same way, rather than believing, as the Soviets did, that they could and would fight a large-scale, combined nuclear and conventional war.
A revolution in nuclear strategic thought occurred with the introduction of the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which the USSR first successfully tested in May 1957. In order to deliver a warhead to a target, a missile was more cost-effective than a bomber, and enjoyed a higher survivability due to the enormous difficulty of interception of the ICBMs due to their high altitude and speed. The USSR could now afford to achieve nuclear parity with the US in terms of raw numbers, although for a time they appeared to have chosen not to.
Photos of Soviet missile sites set off a wave of panic in the US military, something the launch of Sputnik would do for the public a few months later. Politicians, notably then-US Senator John Kennedy suggested a "missile gap" between the Soviets and the US. The US military gave missile development programs the highest national priority, and several spy aircraft and reconnaissance satellites were designed and deployed to observe Soviet progress.
[edit] The 1960s
RF-101 Voodoo reconnaissance photograph of the MRBM launch site in San Cristobal, Cuba (1962).Issues came to a head during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. The Soviet Union placed medium range missiles ninety miles from the US—a move considered by many as a direct response to American Jupiter missiles placed in Turkey; however, these Jupiter missiles were already somewhat obsolete. After intense negotiation, the Soviets ended up removing the missiles from Cuba and decided to institute a massive building program of their own. In exchange, the US dismantled its launch sites in Turkey although this was done secretly and not publicly revealed for over two decades. Khrushchev did not even reveal this part of the agreement when he came under fire by political opponents for mishandling the crisis. By the late 1960s the number of ICBMs and warheads was so high on both sides that either the USA or USSR was capable of completely destroying the other country's infrastructure. Thus a balance of power system known as mutually assured destruction (MAD) came into being. It was thought that any full-scale exchange between the powers could not produce a victorious side and thus neither would risk initiating one.
One drawback of this doctrine was the possibility of a nuclear war occurring without either side intentionally striking first. Early warning systems are notoriously error-prone. On 78 occasions in 1979, for example, a "missile display conference" was called to evaluate detections potentially threatening to the North American continent. Some of these were trivial errors, spotted quickly. But several went to more serious levels. It is claimed that on 26 September 1983, Stanislav Petrov received convincing indications of a US first strike launch against the USSR but positively identified the warning as a false alarm. Though it is unclear what role Petrov's actions played in preventing a nuclear war, he has been honored by the United Nations for his actions.
Similar incidents happened many times in the US, due to failed computer chips, flights of geese, test programs, bureaucratic failures to notify early warning military personnel of legitimate launches of test or weather missiles. And for many years, US strategic bombers were kept airborne on a rotating basis round the clock until the sheer number and gravity of accidents persuaded policymakers it was not worth it.
[edit] The 1970s
By the late 1970s, citizens in the US and USSR (and indeed the entire world) had been living with MAD for about a decade. It became deeply ingrained into the popular culture. Such an exchange would have killed many millions of individuals directly and possibly induced a nuclear winter which could have led to the death of a large portion of humanity and certainly the collapse of global civilization.
In May 18, 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test in the Pokhran test range. The name of the operation was Operation Smiling Buddha and India termed the test as a "peaceful nuclear explosion".
According to the 1980 United Nations report General and Complete Disarmament: Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons: Report of the Secretary-General, it was estimated that in total there were approximately 40,000 nuclear warheads in existence at that time with a total yield of approximately 13,000 megatons of TNT. By comparison, when the volcano Mount Tambora erupted in 1815 (turning 1816 into the Year Without A Summer due to the levels of ash expelled), it exploded with a force of roughly 1000 megatons of TNT. Many people believed that a full-scale nuclear war could result in the extinction of the human species, though not all analysts agreed on the assumptions required for these models.
The idea that any nuclear conflict would eventually escalate was a challenge for military strategists. This challenge was particularly severe for the United States and its NATO allies because it was believed until the 1970s that a Soviet tank invasion of Western Europe would quickly overwhelm NATO conventional forces, leading to the necessity of escalating to tactical nuclear weapons.
A number of interesting concepts were developed. Early ICBMs were inaccurate, which led to the concept of countervalue strikes—attacks directly on the enemy population leading to a collapse of the enemy's will to fight. However, it appears that this was the American interpretation of the Soviet stance while the Soviet strategy was never clearly anti-population.[citation needed] During the Cold War the USSR invested in extensive protected civilian infrastructure such as large nuclear proof bunkers and non-perishable food stores. In the US, by comparison, smaller scale Civil Defense programs were instituted starting in the 1950s where school, and other public buildings had basements stocked with nonperishable food supplies, canned water, first aid, Dosimeter and Geiger Counter radiation measuring devices. Many of the locations were given "Fallout Shelter" designation signs. Also, CONELRAD Radio information systems were adopted, whereby the commercial radio sector would broadcast on two AM frequencies in the event of a CD emergency. These two frequencies can be seen on 50's vintage radios on online auction sites and museums, with many of these radios still in use on tabletops across America. Also, the occasional backyard fallout shelter was built by private individuals.
The US also made a point during this period of targeting their missiles on Russian population centers rather than military targets. If the Soviets attacked first, then there would be no point in destroying empty missile silos that had already launched; the only thing left to hit would be cities. By contrast, if America had gone to great lengths to protect their citizens and targeted the enemy's silos, that might have led the Russians to believe the US was planning a first strike, where they would eliminate Soviet missiles while still in their silos and be able to survive a weakened counter attack in their reinforced bunkers. In this way, both sides were (theoretically) assured that the other would not strike first, and a war without a first strike will not occur.
This strategy had one major and possibly critical flaw, soon realised by military analysts but highly underplayed by the US military: Conventional NATO forces in the European theatre of war were considered to be outnumbered by similar Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces, and while the western countries invested heavily in high-tech conventional weapons to counter this (partly perceived) imbalance, it was assumed that in case of a major Soviet attack (commonly perceived as the "red tanks rolling towards the North Sea" scenario) that NATO, in the face of conventional defeat, would soon have no other choice but to resort to tactical nuclear strikes. Most analysts agreed that once the first nuclear exchange had occurred, escalation to global nuclear war would become almost inevitable.
So, while official US policy was that nuclear weapons were "weapons of last resort", the reality was that the lack of strength of conventional NATO forces would force the US to either abandon Western Europe or use nuclear weapons in its defense. Official NATO doctrine had been critically flawed from the outset and nuclear war would have been a very real possibility had actual conflict occurred.
This major flaw, although largely ignored by the military community, quickly gathered public interest and many movies and books were based upon this and several other weaknesses in the policy of mutually assured destruction.
As missile technology improved, the emphasis moved to counter-force strikes: ones that directly attacked the enemy's means of waging war. This was the predominant doctrine from the late 1960s onwards. Additionally the development of warheads (at least in the US) moved towards delivering a small explosive force more accurately and with a "cleaner" blast (with fewer long-lasting radioactive isotopes). In any conflict therefore, damage would have been initially limited to military targets, there may well have been "withholds" for targets near civilian areas. The argument was that the destruction of a city would be a military advantage to the attacked. The enemy had used up weapons and a threat in the destruction while the attacked was relieved of the need to defend the city and still had their entire military potential untouched.
Only if a nuclear conflict were extended into a number of "spasm" strikes would direct strikes against civilians occur, as the more accurate weapons would be expended early; if one side were "losing", the potential for using less accurate submarine-launched missiles would occur.
[edit] The 1980s
There was a growing shift to the USSR which was slowly gaining an advantage in terms of weapons. The presidency of Ronald Reagan saw a vast military expansion unprecedented in history.
Another major shift in nuclear doctrine was the development of the submarine-launched ballistic (nuclear) missile, the SLBM. It was hailed by some military theorists as a weapon that would make nuclear war less likely. SLBMs, which can move with stealth virtually anywhere in the world, give a nation a "second strike" capability. Before the advent of SLBMs, thinkers feared that a nation might be tempted to initiate a first strike if it felt confident that such a strike would incapacitate the nuclear arsenal of its enemy, making retaliation impossible. With the advent of SLBMs, no nation could be certain that a first strike would incapacitate its enemy's entire nuclear arsenal. To the contrary, it would have to fear a retaliatory second strike from SLBMs. Thus a first strike was much less of a feasible option, and nuclear war was held to be less likely.
However, it was soon realized that submarines could "sneak up" close to enemy coastlines and decrease the warning time—the time between detection of the launch and impact of the missile—from as much as half an hour to under three minutes. This effect was especially significant to the United States, Britain, and China, with their capitals all within 100 miles (160 km) of their coasts. Moscow was more secure from this type of threat. This greatly increased the credibility of a "surprise first strike" by one of the factions and theoretically made it possible to knock out or disrupt the chain of command before a counterstrike could be ordered. It strengthened the notion that a nuclear war could be "won", resulting not only in greatly increased tension, and increasing calls for fail-deadly control systems, but also in a dramatic increase in military spending. The submarines and their missile systems were very expensive (one fully equipped nuclear powered nuclear missile submarine could easily cost more than the entire GNP of a third world nation),[5] but the greatest cost came in the development of both sea- and land-based anti-submarine defenses and in improving and strengthening the chain of command. As a result, military spending skyrocketed.
[edit] Post-Cold War
Although the dissolution of the Soviet Union ended the Cold War and greatly reduced tensions between the United States and Russia (the Soviet Union's formal successor state), both nations remained in a "nuclear stand-off" due to the continuing presence of a significant number of warheads in both nations. Additionally, the end of the Cold War led the United States to become increasingly concerned with the development of nuclear technology by other nations outside of the former Soviet Union. In 1995, a branch of the U.S. Strategic Command produced an outline of forward-thinking strategies in the document "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence".
The former chair of the United Nations disarmament committee states there are more than 16,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons ready for deployment and another 14,000 in storage. The U.S. has nearly 7,000 ready for action and 3,000 in storage and Russia has about 8,500 on hand and 11,000 in storage, he said. China has 400 nuclear weapons, Britain 400, France 350, India 95, and Pakistan 50. North Korea is confirmed as having nuclear weapons, though it is not known how many (a common estimate is between 1 and 10). Also, despite denials, Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear weapons. NATO has stationed 480 U.S. nuclear weapons in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and Turkey, with several other countries in pursuit of an arsenal of their own.[6]
A key development in nuclear warfare in the 2000s has been the proliferation of nuclear weapons to the developing world, with India and Pakistan both publicly testing nuclear devices and North Korea conducting an underground nuclear test on October 9, 2006. The U.S. Geological Survey measured a 4.2 magnitude earthquake in the area where the test occurred. Iran, meanwhile, has embarked on a nuclear program which, while officially for civilian purposes, has come under scrutiny by the United Nations and individual states.
Recent studies undertaken by the CIA cite the enduring India-Pakistan conflict as the most likely to escalate into nuclear war. During the Kargil War in 1999, Pakistan came close to using their nuclear weapons in case of further deterioration.[7] In fact, Pakistan's foreign minister had even warned that they would "use any weapon in our arsenal", hinting at a nuclear strike against India; the statement was condemned by the international community with Pakistan denying it later on. It remains the only war between two declared nuclear powers.
The 2001-2002 India-Pakistan standoff again stoked fears of nuclear war between the two countries.
Despite these very serious threats, relations between India and Pakistan have been improving somewhat over the last few years. A bus line directly linking Indian and Pakistani administered Kashmir has recently been established.
Another flashpoint which has analysts worried is a possible conflict between the United States and the People's Republic of China over Taiwan. Although economic forces have decreased the possibility of military conflict, there remains the worry that increasing military buildup and a move toward Taiwan independence could spin out of control.
A third potential flashpoint lies in the Middle East, where Israel is thought to possess between one and four hundred nuclear warheads (this has never been officially confirmed by Israel; however, Mordechai Vanunu, the former nuclear technician on whose 1986 revelations much of the above is based, was kidnapped by Mossad agents from Italy, spent 18 years in detention on charges of "grave espionage", and is still forbidden to leave Israel and is subject to severe restrictions—which tends to lend credence to what he told the British Sunday Times). Further, persistent rumors in the international press[citation needed] (likewise never confirmed by Israel) assert that the submarines which Israel received from Germany have been adapted to carry missiles with nuclear warheads, so as to give Israel a Second strike capacity.[8] Israel has been involved in wars with its neighbours on numerous occasions, and its small geographic size would mean that in the event of future wars the Israeli military might have very little time to react to a future invasion or other major threat; the situation could escalate to nuclear warfare very quickly in some scenarios. In addition, the fact that Iran appears to many observers to be in the process of developing a nuclear weapon has heightened fears of a nuclear conflict in the Middle East, either with Israel or with Iran's Sunni neighbours.
[edit] Potential consequences of a regional nuclear war
A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 asserted that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (ca. 15 kiloton each) on major populated centers, the researchers estimated fatalities from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. Also, as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers.[9]
[edit] Sub-strategic use
The above examples envisage nuclear warfare at a strategic level, i.e. total war. However, many nuclear powers are believed to have the ability to launch more limited engagements.
The United Kingdom has reserved the possibility of launching a sub-strategic nuclear strike against an enemy, described by its Parliamentary Defence Select Committee as "the launch of one or a limited number of missiles against an adversary as a means of conveying a political message, warning or demonstration of resolve". This would see the deployment of strategic nuclear weapons in a very limited role rather than the battlefield exchanges of tactical nuclear weapons.
British Trident SSBN submarines are believed to carry some missiles for this purpose, potentially allowing a strike as low as one kiloton against a single target. Former Defence Secretary Malcolm Rifkind argued that this capacity offset the reduced credibility of fullscale strategic nuclear attack following the end of the Cold War.
Commodore Tim Hare, former Director of Nuclear Policy at the UK's Ministry of Defence, has described it as offering the Government "an extra option in the escalatory process before it goes for an all-out strategic strike which would deliver unacceptable damage".[10]
However, this sub-strategic capacity has been criticized as potentially increasing the acceptability of using nuclear weapons. The related consideration of new generations of limited yield battlefield nuclear weapons by the United States has also alarmed anti-nuclear groups, who believe it will make the use of nuclear weapons more acceptable.
[edit] Nuclear terrorism
Main article: Nuclear terrorism
Nuclear terrorism by non-state organizations is an unknown factor in nuclear deterrence thinking, as states possessing nuclear weapons are susceptible to retaliation in kind, but sub- or trans-state actors are not. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the possibility that former Soviet nuclear weapons might become available on the black market (so-called 'loose nukes'), while no warheads are known to be have been mislaid, it has been alleged that suitcase-size bombs might be unaccounted for. A similar threat may exist via so-called dirty bombs.
[edit] References
^ National Academy of Sciences
^ Encyclopedia Britannica.
^ Alan F. Philips, 20 Mishaps That Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War.
^ Nuclear Chronology 1945-1959
^ "The Cost of Submarines", Fast Attacks and Boomers. Retrieved on 2008-07-13.
^ London Free Press - Disarmament expert warns of nuclear threat
^ BBC News | South Asia | Pakistan 'prepared nuclear strike'
^ Israel buys 2 nuclear-capable submarines from Germany - The Boston Globe
^ ScienceDaily - Regional Nuclear War Could Devastate Global Climate
^ House of Commons - Defense - Eighth Report - THE 1998 STRATEGIC DEFENCE REVIEW
[edit] See also
Wikinews has related news:
Bush and Putin suggest potential for World War IIIAtomic Age
Deterrence theory
Doomsday clock
Doomsday event
Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence
Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
No first use policy
Nuclear holocaust
Nuclear War (card game)
Nuclear weapons in popular culture
Square Leg
Strategic Defense Initiative
Survivalism
Weapon of mass destruction
World War III
Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
Risks of hypothetical future disasters
[edit] External links
The Effects of Nuclear War (1979) — handbook produced by the United States Office of Technology Assessment (hosted by the Federation of American Scientists)
Nuclear Attack Planning Base - 1990[dead link](1987) — assessment of the effects of a major Soviet attack on the United States produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (hosted by the Federation of American Scientists)
Nuclear War Survival Skills (1979/1987) — handbook produced by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (use menu at left to navigate)
Nuclear News at HavenWorks.com
Ground Zero: A Javascript simulation of the effects of a nuclear explosion in a city
British RAF manual on the effects of nuclear explosions dated 1955
20 Mishaps That Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War by Alan F. Philips, M.D.
US Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations
Nuclear Files.org Interactive Timeline of the Nuclear Age
Annotated bibliography on nuclear warfare from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues
DeVolpi, Alexander, Vladimir E. Minkov, Vadim A. Simonenko, and George S. Stanford. 2004. Nuclear Shadowboxing: Contemporary Threats from Cold War Weaponry, Vols. 1 and 2. Fidlar Doubleday.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2007)
The Titan II Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) carried a 9 Mt W53 warhead, making it one of the most powerful nuclear weapons fielded by the United States during the Cold War.Nuclear, or atomic warfare, is battle in which nuclear weapons are used. This has only happened once - the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States of America against the Empire of Japan very shortly before the end of the Pacific War in World War II. Today the term usually refers to confrontations in which opposing sides are both armed with nuclear weapons. Compared to conventional warfare, nuclear warfare is much more destructive in both range coverage and extent of damage, and has long-term, severe, damaging effects that can last decades, centuries, or even millennia after the initial attack.[1][2]
Contents
[hide]
1 Types of nuclear war
2 History
2.1 Hiroshima to Semipalatinsk
2.2 The 1950s
2.3 The 1960s
2.4 The 1970s
2.5 The 1980s
2.6 Post-Cold War
2.7 Potential consequences of a regional nuclear war
2.8 Sub-strategic use
3 Nuclear terrorism
4 References
5 See also
6 External links
[edit] Types of nuclear war
War
Military history
Eras[show]
Prehistoric
Ancient
Medieval
Gunpowder
Industrial
Modern
Battlespace[show]
Air
Information
Land
Sea
Space
Weapons[show]
Armor
Artillery
Biological
Cavalry
Chemical
Electronic
Infantry
Nuclear
Psychological
Tactics[show]
Attrition
Guerilla
Maneuver
Siege
Total war
Trench
Strategy[show]
Economic
Grand
Operational
Organization[show]
Formations
Ranks
Units
Logistics[show]
Equipment
Materiel
Supply line
Lists[show]
Battles
Commanders
Operations
Sieges
Theorists
Wars
War crimes
Weapons
Writers
War Portal v • d • e
The possibility of using nuclear weapons in war is usually divided into two subgroups, each with different effects and potentially fought with different types of nuclear armaments.
The first, a limited nuclear war (sometimes attack or exchange), refers to a small scale use of nuclear weapons by one or more parties. A "limited nuclear war" would most likely consist of a limited exchange between two nuclear superpowers targeting each other's military facilities, either as an attempt to pre-emptively cripple the enemy's ability to attack as a defensive measure or as a prelude to an invasion by conventional forces as an offensive measure. It will also refer to a nuclear war between minor nuclear powers, who lack the ability to deliver a decisive strike. This term would apply to any limited use of nuclear weapons, which may involve either military or civilian targets.
The second, a full-scale nuclear war, consists of large numbers of weapons used in an attack aimed at an entire country, including both military and civilian targets. Such an attack would seek to destroy the entire economic, social, and military infrastructure of a nation by means of an overwhelming nuclear attack.
Some Cold War strategists argued that a limited nuclear war could be possible between two heavily armed superpowers (such as the United States and the Soviet Union) and if so several predicted that a limited war could "escalate" into an all-out war. Others have called limited nuclear war "global nuclear holocaust in slow motion" arguing that once such a war took place others would be sure to follow over a period of decades, effectively rendering the planet uninhabitable in the same way that a "full-scale nuclear war" between superpowers would, only taking a much longer and more agonizing path to achieve the same result.
Even the most optimistic predictions of the effects of a major nuclear exchange foresee the death of millions of civilians within a very short amount of time; more pessimistic predictions argue that a full-scale nuclear war could bring about the extinction of the human race or its near extinction with a handful of survivors (mainly in remote areas) reduced to a pre-medieval quality of life and life expectancy for centuries after and cause permanent damage to most complex life on the planet, Earth's ecosystems, and the global climate, particularly if predictions of nuclear winter are accurate. It is in this latter mode that nuclear warfare is usually alluded to as a doomsday scenario. Such hypothesized civilization-ending nuclear wars have been a staple of the science fiction literature and film genre for decades.
A third category, not usually included with the above two, is accidental nuclear war, in which a nuclear war is triggered unintentionally. Possible scenarios for this have included malfunctioning early warning devices and targeting computers, deliberate malfeasance by rogue military commanders, accidental straying of planes into enemy airspace, reactions to unannounced missile tests during tense diplomatic periods, reactions to military exercises, mistranslated or miscommunicated messages, and so forth. A number of these scenarios did actually occur during the Cold War, though none resulted in a nuclear exchange.[3] Many such scenarios have been depicted in popular culture, such as in the 1962 novel Fail-Safe (released as a film in 1964) and the film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, also released in 1964.
[edit] History
Main article: History of nuclear weapons
[edit] Hiroshima to Semipalatinsk
The explosion at Nagasaki, Japan.The United States is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons during war, using two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. For more information, see Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After the bombings of Japan, it was unclear exactly what status the atomic bomb would have for international relations or military actions. It was believed that atomic weapons could offset the superior forces that the Soviet Union had in Eastern Europe, and possibly be used to pressure Soviet leader Joseph Stalin into concessions. Despite Stalin's palpable fear of the bomb, he too was pursuing his own atomic capabilities at full speed. The Soviets believed that the Americans were unlikely to begin another world war with their limited nuclear arsenal and the Americans were not confident that they could prevent the Soviet Union from taking over Europe even if they did use nuclear weapons. As such, they were not as strong a bargaining chip as was hoped by the Americans.
Within the United States the authority to produce and develop nuclear weapons was removed from the military control of the Manhattan Project and put instead under the civilian control of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, a unique move which attempted to recognize that nuclear weapons represented a special category of weapons separate from other military technology.
For several years after World War II, the US developed and maintained a strategic force based on the Convair B-36 bomber that would be able to attack any potential enemy from bomber bases in the US. It deployed atomic bombs around the world for potential use in conflicts. Over a period of a few years, many in the US defense community became increasingly convinced of the invincibility of the United States to a nuclear attack. Indeed, it became generally believed that the threat of nuclear war would deter any strike against the United States.
Many proposals were suggested to put all US nuclear weapons under international control—for example, by the newly formed United Nations—as an effort to deter both their usage and an arms race. However no terms could be arrived at that made either the United States or the USSR feel secure—the US was not willing to give up its atomic monopoly, and the USSR did not trust UN inspections on its soil.
US and USSR nuclear stockpiles.On August 29, 1949 the USSR tested its first nuclear weapon at Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan (see also Soviet atomic bomb project). Scientists in the United States from the Manhattan Project had warned that, in time, the Soviet Union would certainly develop nuclear capabilities of its own. Nevertheless, the effect upon military thinking and planning in the US was dramatic, primarily due to the fact that American military strategists had not anticipated the Soviets would "catch up" so soon. However, at this time, they had not discovered that the Russians had conducted significant espionage of the project from spies at Los Alamos, the most significant of which was done by the theoretical physicist Klaus Fuchs. The first Soviet bomb was more or less a deliberate copy of the Fat Man device.
With the monopoly over nuclear technology broken, world-wide nuclear proliferation accelerated. The United Kingdom tested its first independent atomic bomb in 1952, followed by France in 1960 and then the People's Republic of China in 1964. While much smaller than the arsenals of the USA and the USSR, Western Europe's nuclear reserves were nevertheless a significant factor in strategic planning during the Cold War. A top-secret white paper produced for the British Government in 1959, compiled by the Royal Air Force, estimated that British atomic bombers were capable of destroying key cities and military targets in the Soviet Union, with an estimated 16 million deaths in the USSR (half of whom were estimated to be killed on impact and the rest fatally injured) before bomber aircraft from the United States' Strategic Air Command reached their targets.
[edit] The 1950s
Though the USSR had nuclear weapon capabilities in the beginning of the Cold War, the US still had an advantage in terms of bombers and weapons. In any exchange of hostilities, the US would have been capable of bombing the USSR, while the USSR would have more difficulties arranging the reverse.
The widespread introduction of jet-powered interceptor aircraft upset this balance somewhat by reducing the effectiveness of the US bomber fleet. In 1949 Curtis LeMay was placed in command of the Strategic Air Command and instituted a program to update the bomber fleet to one that was all-jet. During the early 1950s the B-47 and B-52 were introduced, providing the ability to bomb the USSR more easily.
Before the development of a capable strategic missile force in the Soviet Union, much of the war-fighting doctrine held by western nations revolved around using a large number of smaller nuclear weapons used in a tactical role. It is arguable if such use could be considered "limited" however, because it was believed that the US would use their own strategic weapons (mainly bombers at the time) should the USSR deploy any kind of nuclear weapon against civilian targets. Douglas MacArthur, an American general, was fired by President Harry Truman, partially because he persistently requested permission to use his own discretion in deciding whether to use atomic weapons on the People's Republic of China in 1951 (as the Korean War was raging).[4]
Several scares about the increasing ability of the USSR's strategic bomber forces surfaced during the 1950s. The defensive response by the US was to deploy a fairly strong layered defense consisting of interceptor aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles, like the Nike, and guns, like the Skysweeper, near larger cities. However this was a small response compared to the construction of a huge fleet of nuclear bombers. The principal nuclear strategy was to massively penetrate the USSR. Because such a large area could not be defended against this overwhelming attack in any credible way, the USSR would lose any exchange.
This logic became ingrained in US nuclear doctrine and persisted for the duration of the Cold War. As long as the strategic US nuclear forces could overwhelm their USSR counterparts, a Soviet preemptive strike could be averted. Moreover, the USSR could not afford to build any reasonable counterforce as the economic output of the United States was far larger than that of the Soviets, and they would be unable to achieve nuclear parity.
Soviet nuclear doctrine, however, did not match US nuclear doctrine. Soviet planning expected a large-scale nuclear exchange followed by a conventional war which itself would involve heavy use of tactical nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, US doctrine rather assumed that Soviet doctrine was similar—the mutual in Mutually Assured Destruction necessarily requiring that the other side see things in much the same way, rather than believing, as the Soviets did, that they could and would fight a large-scale, combined nuclear and conventional war.
A revolution in nuclear strategic thought occurred with the introduction of the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which the USSR first successfully tested in May 1957. In order to deliver a warhead to a target, a missile was more cost-effective than a bomber, and enjoyed a higher survivability due to the enormous difficulty of interception of the ICBMs due to their high altitude and speed. The USSR could now afford to achieve nuclear parity with the US in terms of raw numbers, although for a time they appeared to have chosen not to.
Photos of Soviet missile sites set off a wave of panic in the US military, something the launch of Sputnik would do for the public a few months later. Politicians, notably then-US Senator John Kennedy suggested a "missile gap" between the Soviets and the US. The US military gave missile development programs the highest national priority, and several spy aircraft and reconnaissance satellites were designed and deployed to observe Soviet progress.
[edit] The 1960s
RF-101 Voodoo reconnaissance photograph of the MRBM launch site in San Cristobal, Cuba (1962).Issues came to a head during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. The Soviet Union placed medium range missiles ninety miles from the US—a move considered by many as a direct response to American Jupiter missiles placed in Turkey; however, these Jupiter missiles were already somewhat obsolete. After intense negotiation, the Soviets ended up removing the missiles from Cuba and decided to institute a massive building program of their own. In exchange, the US dismantled its launch sites in Turkey although this was done secretly and not publicly revealed for over two decades. Khrushchev did not even reveal this part of the agreement when he came under fire by political opponents for mishandling the crisis. By the late 1960s the number of ICBMs and warheads was so high on both sides that either the USA or USSR was capable of completely destroying the other country's infrastructure. Thus a balance of power system known as mutually assured destruction (MAD) came into being. It was thought that any full-scale exchange between the powers could not produce a victorious side and thus neither would risk initiating one.
One drawback of this doctrine was the possibility of a nuclear war occurring without either side intentionally striking first. Early warning systems are notoriously error-prone. On 78 occasions in 1979, for example, a "missile display conference" was called to evaluate detections potentially threatening to the North American continent. Some of these were trivial errors, spotted quickly. But several went to more serious levels. It is claimed that on 26 September 1983, Stanislav Petrov received convincing indications of a US first strike launch against the USSR but positively identified the warning as a false alarm. Though it is unclear what role Petrov's actions played in preventing a nuclear war, he has been honored by the United Nations for his actions.
Similar incidents happened many times in the US, due to failed computer chips, flights of geese, test programs, bureaucratic failures to notify early warning military personnel of legitimate launches of test or weather missiles. And for many years, US strategic bombers were kept airborne on a rotating basis round the clock until the sheer number and gravity of accidents persuaded policymakers it was not worth it.
[edit] The 1970s
By the late 1970s, citizens in the US and USSR (and indeed the entire world) had been living with MAD for about a decade. It became deeply ingrained into the popular culture. Such an exchange would have killed many millions of individuals directly and possibly induced a nuclear winter which could have led to the death of a large portion of humanity and certainly the collapse of global civilization.
In May 18, 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test in the Pokhran test range. The name of the operation was Operation Smiling Buddha and India termed the test as a "peaceful nuclear explosion".
According to the 1980 United Nations report General and Complete Disarmament: Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons: Report of the Secretary-General, it was estimated that in total there were approximately 40,000 nuclear warheads in existence at that time with a total yield of approximately 13,000 megatons of TNT. By comparison, when the volcano Mount Tambora erupted in 1815 (turning 1816 into the Year Without A Summer due to the levels of ash expelled), it exploded with a force of roughly 1000 megatons of TNT. Many people believed that a full-scale nuclear war could result in the extinction of the human species, though not all analysts agreed on the assumptions required for these models.
The idea that any nuclear conflict would eventually escalate was a challenge for military strategists. This challenge was particularly severe for the United States and its NATO allies because it was believed until the 1970s that a Soviet tank invasion of Western Europe would quickly overwhelm NATO conventional forces, leading to the necessity of escalating to tactical nuclear weapons.
A number of interesting concepts were developed. Early ICBMs were inaccurate, which led to the concept of countervalue strikes—attacks directly on the enemy population leading to a collapse of the enemy's will to fight. However, it appears that this was the American interpretation of the Soviet stance while the Soviet strategy was never clearly anti-population.[citation needed] During the Cold War the USSR invested in extensive protected civilian infrastructure such as large nuclear proof bunkers and non-perishable food stores. In the US, by comparison, smaller scale Civil Defense programs were instituted starting in the 1950s where school, and other public buildings had basements stocked with nonperishable food supplies, canned water, first aid, Dosimeter and Geiger Counter radiation measuring devices. Many of the locations were given "Fallout Shelter" designation signs. Also, CONELRAD Radio information systems were adopted, whereby the commercial radio sector would broadcast on two AM frequencies in the event of a CD emergency. These two frequencies can be seen on 50's vintage radios on online auction sites and museums, with many of these radios still in use on tabletops across America. Also, the occasional backyard fallout shelter was built by private individuals.
The US also made a point during this period of targeting their missiles on Russian population centers rather than military targets. If the Soviets attacked first, then there would be no point in destroying empty missile silos that had already launched; the only thing left to hit would be cities. By contrast, if America had gone to great lengths to protect their citizens and targeted the enemy's silos, that might have led the Russians to believe the US was planning a first strike, where they would eliminate Soviet missiles while still in their silos and be able to survive a weakened counter attack in their reinforced bunkers. In this way, both sides were (theoretically) assured that the other would not strike first, and a war without a first strike will not occur.
This strategy had one major and possibly critical flaw, soon realised by military analysts but highly underplayed by the US military: Conventional NATO forces in the European theatre of war were considered to be outnumbered by similar Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces, and while the western countries invested heavily in high-tech conventional weapons to counter this (partly perceived) imbalance, it was assumed that in case of a major Soviet attack (commonly perceived as the "red tanks rolling towards the North Sea" scenario) that NATO, in the face of conventional defeat, would soon have no other choice but to resort to tactical nuclear strikes. Most analysts agreed that once the first nuclear exchange had occurred, escalation to global nuclear war would become almost inevitable.
So, while official US policy was that nuclear weapons were "weapons of last resort", the reality was that the lack of strength of conventional NATO forces would force the US to either abandon Western Europe or use nuclear weapons in its defense. Official NATO doctrine had been critically flawed from the outset and nuclear war would have been a very real possibility had actual conflict occurred.
This major flaw, although largely ignored by the military community, quickly gathered public interest and many movies and books were based upon this and several other weaknesses in the policy of mutually assured destruction.
As missile technology improved, the emphasis moved to counter-force strikes: ones that directly attacked the enemy's means of waging war. This was the predominant doctrine from the late 1960s onwards. Additionally the development of warheads (at least in the US) moved towards delivering a small explosive force more accurately and with a "cleaner" blast (with fewer long-lasting radioactive isotopes). In any conflict therefore, damage would have been initially limited to military targets, there may well have been "withholds" for targets near civilian areas. The argument was that the destruction of a city would be a military advantage to the attacked. The enemy had used up weapons and a threat in the destruction while the attacked was relieved of the need to defend the city and still had their entire military potential untouched.
Only if a nuclear conflict were extended into a number of "spasm" strikes would direct strikes against civilians occur, as the more accurate weapons would be expended early; if one side were "losing", the potential for using less accurate submarine-launched missiles would occur.
[edit] The 1980s
There was a growing shift to the USSR which was slowly gaining an advantage in terms of weapons. The presidency of Ronald Reagan saw a vast military expansion unprecedented in history.
Another major shift in nuclear doctrine was the development of the submarine-launched ballistic (nuclear) missile, the SLBM. It was hailed by some military theorists as a weapon that would make nuclear war less likely. SLBMs, which can move with stealth virtually anywhere in the world, give a nation a "second strike" capability. Before the advent of SLBMs, thinkers feared that a nation might be tempted to initiate a first strike if it felt confident that such a strike would incapacitate the nuclear arsenal of its enemy, making retaliation impossible. With the advent of SLBMs, no nation could be certain that a first strike would incapacitate its enemy's entire nuclear arsenal. To the contrary, it would have to fear a retaliatory second strike from SLBMs. Thus a first strike was much less of a feasible option, and nuclear war was held to be less likely.
However, it was soon realized that submarines could "sneak up" close to enemy coastlines and decrease the warning time—the time between detection of the launch and impact of the missile—from as much as half an hour to under three minutes. This effect was especially significant to the United States, Britain, and China, with their capitals all within 100 miles (160 km) of their coasts. Moscow was more secure from this type of threat. This greatly increased the credibility of a "surprise first strike" by one of the factions and theoretically made it possible to knock out or disrupt the chain of command before a counterstrike could be ordered. It strengthened the notion that a nuclear war could be "won", resulting not only in greatly increased tension, and increasing calls for fail-deadly control systems, but also in a dramatic increase in military spending. The submarines and their missile systems were very expensive (one fully equipped nuclear powered nuclear missile submarine could easily cost more than the entire GNP of a third world nation),[5] but the greatest cost came in the development of both sea- and land-based anti-submarine defenses and in improving and strengthening the chain of command. As a result, military spending skyrocketed.
[edit] Post-Cold War
Although the dissolution of the Soviet Union ended the Cold War and greatly reduced tensions between the United States and Russia (the Soviet Union's formal successor state), both nations remained in a "nuclear stand-off" due to the continuing presence of a significant number of warheads in both nations. Additionally, the end of the Cold War led the United States to become increasingly concerned with the development of nuclear technology by other nations outside of the former Soviet Union. In 1995, a branch of the U.S. Strategic Command produced an outline of forward-thinking strategies in the document "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence".
The former chair of the United Nations disarmament committee states there are more than 16,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons ready for deployment and another 14,000 in storage. The U.S. has nearly 7,000 ready for action and 3,000 in storage and Russia has about 8,500 on hand and 11,000 in storage, he said. China has 400 nuclear weapons, Britain 400, France 350, India 95, and Pakistan 50. North Korea is confirmed as having nuclear weapons, though it is not known how many (a common estimate is between 1 and 10). Also, despite denials, Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear weapons. NATO has stationed 480 U.S. nuclear weapons in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and Turkey, with several other countries in pursuit of an arsenal of their own.[6]
A key development in nuclear warfare in the 2000s has been the proliferation of nuclear weapons to the developing world, with India and Pakistan both publicly testing nuclear devices and North Korea conducting an underground nuclear test on October 9, 2006. The U.S. Geological Survey measured a 4.2 magnitude earthquake in the area where the test occurred. Iran, meanwhile, has embarked on a nuclear program which, while officially for civilian purposes, has come under scrutiny by the United Nations and individual states.
Recent studies undertaken by the CIA cite the enduring India-Pakistan conflict as the most likely to escalate into nuclear war. During the Kargil War in 1999, Pakistan came close to using their nuclear weapons in case of further deterioration.[7] In fact, Pakistan's foreign minister had even warned that they would "use any weapon in our arsenal", hinting at a nuclear strike against India; the statement was condemned by the international community with Pakistan denying it later on. It remains the only war between two declared nuclear powers.
The 2001-2002 India-Pakistan standoff again stoked fears of nuclear war between the two countries.
Despite these very serious threats, relations between India and Pakistan have been improving somewhat over the last few years. A bus line directly linking Indian and Pakistani administered Kashmir has recently been established.
Another flashpoint which has analysts worried is a possible conflict between the United States and the People's Republic of China over Taiwan. Although economic forces have decreased the possibility of military conflict, there remains the worry that increasing military buildup and a move toward Taiwan independence could spin out of control.
A third potential flashpoint lies in the Middle East, where Israel is thought to possess between one and four hundred nuclear warheads (this has never been officially confirmed by Israel; however, Mordechai Vanunu, the former nuclear technician on whose 1986 revelations much of the above is based, was kidnapped by Mossad agents from Italy, spent 18 years in detention on charges of "grave espionage", and is still forbidden to leave Israel and is subject to severe restrictions—which tends to lend credence to what he told the British Sunday Times). Further, persistent rumors in the international press[citation needed] (likewise never confirmed by Israel) assert that the submarines which Israel received from Germany have been adapted to carry missiles with nuclear warheads, so as to give Israel a Second strike capacity.[8] Israel has been involved in wars with its neighbours on numerous occasions, and its small geographic size would mean that in the event of future wars the Israeli military might have very little time to react to a future invasion or other major threat; the situation could escalate to nuclear warfare very quickly in some scenarios. In addition, the fact that Iran appears to many observers to be in the process of developing a nuclear weapon has heightened fears of a nuclear conflict in the Middle East, either with Israel or with Iran's Sunni neighbours.
[edit] Potential consequences of a regional nuclear war
A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 asserted that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (ca. 15 kiloton each) on major populated centers, the researchers estimated fatalities from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. Also, as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers.[9]
[edit] Sub-strategic use
The above examples envisage nuclear warfare at a strategic level, i.e. total war. However, many nuclear powers are believed to have the ability to launch more limited engagements.
The United Kingdom has reserved the possibility of launching a sub-strategic nuclear strike against an enemy, described by its Parliamentary Defence Select Committee as "the launch of one or a limited number of missiles against an adversary as a means of conveying a political message, warning or demonstration of resolve". This would see the deployment of strategic nuclear weapons in a very limited role rather than the battlefield exchanges of tactical nuclear weapons.
British Trident SSBN submarines are believed to carry some missiles for this purpose, potentially allowing a strike as low as one kiloton against a single target. Former Defence Secretary Malcolm Rifkind argued that this capacity offset the reduced credibility of fullscale strategic nuclear attack following the end of the Cold War.
Commodore Tim Hare, former Director of Nuclear Policy at the UK's Ministry of Defence, has described it as offering the Government "an extra option in the escalatory process before it goes for an all-out strategic strike which would deliver unacceptable damage".[10]
However, this sub-strategic capacity has been criticized as potentially increasing the acceptability of using nuclear weapons. The related consideration of new generations of limited yield battlefield nuclear weapons by the United States has also alarmed anti-nuclear groups, who believe it will make the use of nuclear weapons more acceptable.
[edit] Nuclear terrorism
Main article: Nuclear terrorism
Nuclear terrorism by non-state organizations is an unknown factor in nuclear deterrence thinking, as states possessing nuclear weapons are susceptible to retaliation in kind, but sub- or trans-state actors are not. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the possibility that former Soviet nuclear weapons might become available on the black market (so-called 'loose nukes'), while no warheads are known to be have been mislaid, it has been alleged that suitcase-size bombs might be unaccounted for. A similar threat may exist via so-called dirty bombs.
[edit] References
^ National Academy of Sciences
^ Encyclopedia Britannica.
^ Alan F. Philips, 20 Mishaps That Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War.
^ Nuclear Chronology 1945-1959
^ "The Cost of Submarines", Fast Attacks and Boomers. Retrieved on 2008-07-13.
^ London Free Press - Disarmament expert warns of nuclear threat
^ BBC News | South Asia | Pakistan 'prepared nuclear strike'
^ Israel buys 2 nuclear-capable submarines from Germany - The Boston Globe
^ ScienceDaily - Regional Nuclear War Could Devastate Global Climate
^ House of Commons - Defense - Eighth Report - THE 1998 STRATEGIC DEFENCE REVIEW
[edit] See also
Wikinews has related news:
Bush and Putin suggest potential for World War IIIAtomic Age
Deterrence theory
Doomsday clock
Doomsday event
Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence
Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
No first use policy
Nuclear holocaust
Nuclear War (card game)
Nuclear weapons in popular culture
Square Leg
Strategic Defense Initiative
Survivalism
Weapon of mass destruction
World War III
Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
Risks of hypothetical future disasters
[edit] External links
The Effects of Nuclear War (1979) — handbook produced by the United States Office of Technology Assessment (hosted by the Federation of American Scientists)
Nuclear Attack Planning Base - 1990[dead link](1987) — assessment of the effects of a major Soviet attack on the United States produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (hosted by the Federation of American Scientists)
Nuclear War Survival Skills (1979/1987) — handbook produced by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (use menu at left to navigate)
Nuclear News at HavenWorks.com
Ground Zero: A Javascript simulation of the effects of a nuclear explosion in a city
British RAF manual on the effects of nuclear explosions dated 1955
20 Mishaps That Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War by Alan F. Philips, M.D.
US Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations
Nuclear Files.org Interactive Timeline of the Nuclear Age
Annotated bibliography on nuclear warfare from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues
DeVolpi, Alexander, Vladimir E. Minkov, Vadim A. Simonenko, and George S. Stanford. 2004. Nuclear Shadowboxing: Contemporary Threats from Cold War Weaponry, Vols. 1 and 2. Fidlar Doubleday.
Human extinction
Human extinction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008)
Human Extinction is the assured end of the human species. Various scenarios have been discussed in science, popular culture, and religion (see End time). The breadth of this article is on existential risks.
Contents
[hide]
1 Possible scenarios
2 Attitudes to human extinction
3 Perception of human extinction risk
4 Observations about human extinction
4.1 Omnicide
5 Scenarios of the world without humans
6 See also
7 Further reading
8 Notes
[edit] Possible scenarios
See also Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
Severe forms of known or recorded disasters
Warfare, whether nuclear or biological; see World War III.
Universal pandemic involving a genetic disease, virus, prion, or antibiotic-resistant bacterium.
Famine resulting from overpopulation (see Malthusian catastrophe)
Environmental collapses
Catastrophic climate change as a result of global warming or the effects of extensive deforestation and pollution. (E.g. the warnings of James Lovelock)
Loss of a breathable atmosphere, for example due to an anoxic event.
Occurrence of a supervolcano.
Extreme ice age leading to Snowball Earth
The destruction of the ozone layer causing higher ultraviolet radiation.
Long term habitat threats
In 1.4 million years Gliese 710 will be only 1.1 Light years from Earth, and might catastrophically perturb the Oort cloud.
In about 3 billion years, our Milky Way galaxy is expected to collide with the Andromeda galaxy. Collisions of individual bodies will likely be scarce; however, the consequences for orbits of stars and planets are unclear, and impossible to predict for individual stellar systems.
In 5 billion years hence the Sun's stellar evolution will reach the red giant stage, in which it will expand and engulf Earth. But before this happens it will already have changed Earth's climate and its radiated spectrum may alter in ways Earth-bound humans could not survive.[1]
In the far future the main risks to human survival could be heat death and cooling with the expansion of the universe.
Evolution of humanity into a posthuman life-form or existence by means of technology, leaving no trace of original humans
Commentators such as Hans Moravec argue that humanity will eventually be supplanted and replaced by artificial intelligence or other forms of artificial life; others such as Kevin Warwick point to the possibility of humans evolving by linking with technology[1]; while others have argued that humanity will inevitably experience a technological singularity, and furthermore that this outcome is desirable (see singularitarianism).
Transhumanist genetic engineering could lead to a species unable to inter-procreate, accidentally resulting in actual (rather than pseudo) extinction.
Isaac Asimov's 'The Last Question' provides a diversion on this theme.
Evolution of humanity into another hominid species. Humans will continue to evolve via traditional natural selection over a period of millions of years, and homo sapiens will gradually transition into one or more new species.
Extinction in a whimper
Preference for fewer children; if developed world demographics are extrapolated they mathematically lead to 'soft' extinction before 3000 AD. (John Leslie estimates that if the reproduction rate drops to the German level the extinction date will be 2400[2]).
Political intervention in reproduction has failed to raise the birth rate above the replacement level in the rich world, but has dramatically succeeded in lowering it below the replacement level in China[citation needed] (see One child policy). A World government with a eugenic or small population policy could send humanity into 'voluntary' extinction.
Infertility: Caused by hormonal disruption from the chemical/pharmaceutical industries, or biological changes, such as the (controversial) findings of falling sperm cell count in human males. (in fiction: see movie or novel Children of Men)
A disruption, chemical, biological, or otherwise, in humans' ability to reproduce properly or at all
Disease: The 'weak-gened' and birth-defected are kept alive by medicines. This is the opposite of nature, where the weak are less likely to survive and successfully reproduce, leaving the species genetically 'strong'. Eventually everyone has weak/flawed genes, and these defects become increasingly severe, until the human body is unable to fight diseases, even with the help of advanced medicine. In the end, disease ends the human species. Arguably however if this point was reached natural selection would again become a factor, potentially reversing this 'decline'.
Voluntary extinction
Scientific accidents
In his book Our Final Hour, Sir Martin Rees claims that without the appropriate regulation, scientific advancement increases the risk of human extinction as a result of the effects or use of new technology. Some examples are provided below.
Uncontrolled nanotechnology (grey goo) incidents resulting in the destruction of the Earth's ecosystem (ecophagy).
Creation of a naked singularity (such as a "micro black hole") on Earth during the course of a scientific experiment, or other foreseeable scientific accidents in high-energy physics research, such as vacuum phase transition or strangelet incidents. There were worries concerning the Large Hadron Collider at CERN as it is feared that collision of protons at a speed near the speed of light will result in the creation of a black hole, but it has been pointed out that much more energetic collisions take place currently in Earth's atmosphere.
Accidental contact of a alien civilization by Earth's radio and TV signals, radar, Internet tech dependent on radio, TV signals, other signals.
Biotech disaster (E.g. the warnings of Jeremy Rifkin)
Scenarios of extraterrestrial origin
Major impact events.
Gamma-ray burst in our part of the Milky Way (Bursts observable in other galaxies are calculated to act as a "sterilizer", and have been used by some astronomers to explain the Fermi paradox). The lack of fossil record interruptions, and relative distance of the nearest Hypernova candidate make this a long term (rather than imminent) threat.
Invasion by militarily superior aliens (see alien invasion) — often considered to be a scenario purely from the realms of science fiction, professional SETI researchers have given serious consideration to this possibility, but conclude that it is unlikely. [3]
Gerard O'Neill has cautioned that first contact with alien intelligence may follow the precedent set by historical examples of contact between human civilizations, where the less technologically-advanced civilization has inevitably succumbed to the other civilization, regardless of its intentions.
Solar flares may suddenly heat the earth, or the light from the sun may be blocked by dust, slowly freezing it (eg. the dust and vapour may come from a Kuiper belt disturbance).
It is possible that the space of our universe, the Big Bang, and all its consequences are events taking place within a computer or other device on another cosmological plane, if this process were to end then everything within the universe would summarily vanish (see Simulated Reality).
Philosophical scenarios
See End of the world (philosophy)
[edit] Attitudes to human extinction
Attitudes to human extinction vary widely depending on beliefs concerning spiritual survival (souls, heaven, reincarnation, and so forth), the value of the human race, whether the human race evolves individually or collectively, and many other factors. Many religions prophesy an "end times" to the universe. Human extinction is therefore a part of the faith of many humans to the extent that the end time means the absolute end of their physical humanity but perhaps not an internal soul.
However not all faiths connect human extinction to the end times, since some believe in cyclical regeneration, or that end times actually means the beginning of a new kind of existence (see eschatology and utopianism).
[edit] Perception of human extinction risk
The general level of fear about human extinction, in the near term, is very low, despite the pronouncements of some fringe groups. It is not an outcome considered by many as a credible risk. Suggested reasons for human extinction's low public visibility:
There have been countless prophesies of extinction throughout history; in all cases the predicted date of doom has passed without much notice, making future warnings less frightening. However, a survivor bias would undercut the credibility of accurate extinction warnings. John von Neumann was probably wrong in having “a certainty”[4] that nuclear war would occur; but our survival is not proof that the chance of a fatal nuclear exchange was low (or indeed that such an event could not occur in the future).
Extinction scenarios (see below) are speculative, and hard to quantify. A frequentist approach to probability cannot be used to assess the danger of an event that has never been observed by humans.
Nick Bostrom, head of the James Martin 21st Century School Future of Humanity Institute, has suggested that extinction risk-analysis may be an overlooked field because it is both too psychologically troublesome a subject area to be attractive to potential researchers and because the lack of previous human species extinction events leads a depressed view of the likelihood of it happening under changing future circumstances (an 'inverse survivorship bias').
There are thousands of public safety jobs dedicated to analyzing and reducing the risks of individual death. There are no full-time existential safety commissioners partly because there is no way to tell if they are doing a good job, and no way to punish them for failure. The inability to judge performance might also explain the comparative governmental apathy on preventing human extinction (as compared to panda extinction, say).
Some anthropologists believe that risk perception is biased by social structure; in the "Cultural Theory of risk" typography "individualist" societies predispose members to the belief that nature operates as a self-correcting system, which will return to its stable state after a disturbance. People in such cultures feel comfortable with a "trial-and-error" approach to risk, even to unsuitably rare dangers (such as extinction events).
It is possible to do something about dietary or motor-vehicle health threats. Since it is much harder to know how existential threats should be minimized[5], they tend to be ignored. High technology societies tend to become "hierarchist" or "fatalist" in their attitudes to the ever-multiplying risks threatening them. In either case, the average member of society adopts a passive attitude to risk minimization, culturally, and psychologically.
The bias in popular culture is to relate extinction scenario stories with non-extinction outcomes. (None of the 16 'most notable' WW3 scenarios in film are resolved by human extinction, for example.[6])
The threat of nuclear annihilation actually was a daily concern in the lives of many people in the 1960s and 1970s. Since then the principal fear has been of localized terrorist attack, rather than a global war of extinction; contemplating human extinction may be out of fashion.
Some people have philosophical reasons for doubting the possibility of human extinction, for instance the final anthropic principle, plenitude principle or intrinsic finality.
Tversky and Kahneman have produced evidence that humans suffer cognitive biases which would tend to minimize the perception of this unprecedented event:
Denial is a negative "availability heuristic" shown to occur when an outcome is so upsetting that the very act of thinking about it leads to an increased refusal to believe it might occur. In this case, imagining human extinction probably makes it seem less likely.
In cultures where human extinction is not expected the proposition must overcome the "disconfirmation bias" against heterodox theories.
Another reliable psychological effect relevant here is the "positive outcome bias".
Behavioural finance has strong evidence that recent evidence is given undue significance in risk analysis. Roughly speaking, "100 year storms" tend to occur every twenty years in the stock market as traders become convinced that the current good times will last forever. Doomsayers who hypothesize rare crisis-scenarios are dismissed even when they have statistical evidence behind them. An extreme form of this bias can diminish the subjective probability of the unprecedented[7].
In general, humanity's sense of self preservation, and intelligence are considered to offer safe-guards against extinction. It is felt that people will find creative ways to overcome potential threats, and will take care of the precautionary principle in attempting dangerous innovations. The arguments against this are; firstly, that the management of destructive technology is becoming difficult, and secondly, that the precautionary principle is often abandoned whenever the reward appears to outweigh the risk. At least one instance where the principle may have been overruled was when prior to the Trinity nuclear test, one of the project's scientists (Teller) speculated that the fission explosion might destroy New Mexico and possibly the world, by causing a reaction in the nitrogen of the atmosphere. A calculation by Hans Bethe proved such a possibility theoretically impossible, but the fear of the possibility remained among some until the test took place. (See Ignition of the atmosphere with nuclear bombs, LA-602, online and Manhattan Project).
[edit] Observations about human extinction
The fact the majority of species that have existed on Earth have become extinct, has led to the suggestion that all species have a finite lifespan and thus human extinction would be inevitable. Dave Raup and Jack Sepkoski found for example a twenty six million year periodicity in elevated extinction rates, caused by factors unknown (See David M. Raup. "Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck" (1992, Norton). Based upon evidence of past extinction rates Raup and others have suggested that the average longevity of an invertebrate species is between 4-6 million years, while that of vertebrates seems to be 2-4 million years. The shorter period of survival for mammals lies in their position further up the food chain than many invertebrates, and therefore an increased liability to suffer the effects of environmental change. A counter-argument to this is that humans are unique in their adaptive and technological capabilities, so it is not possible to draw reliable inferences about the probability of human extinction based on the past extinctions of other species. Certainly, the evidence collected by Raup and others suggested that generalist, geographically dispersed species, like humans, generally have a lower rate of extinction than those species that require a particular habitat. In addition, the human species is probably the only species with a conscious prior knowledge of their own demise, and therefore would be likely to take steps to avoid it.
Another characteristic of the human that may be unique is its religious belief, which in most situations encourages respect for life. On the other hand, it may also create conditions for warfare and genocide. As a result, thinkers as Albert Einstein believed that "We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."[2]
Humans are very similar to other primates in their propensity towards intra-species violence; Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee (ISBN 0-09-980180-9) estimates that 64% of hunter-gather societies engage in warfare every two years. Although it has been argued (e.g. in the UNESCO Seville Statement) that warfare is a cultural artifact, many anthropologists[citation needed] dispute this, noting that small human tribes exhibit similar patterns of violence to chimpanzee groups, the most murderous of the primates, and our nearest living genetic relatives. The 'higher' functions of reason and speech are more developed in the brain of Homo sapiens than other primates, but the relative size of the limbic system is a constant in apes, monkeys and humans; as human rational faculties have expanded, so has the wetware of emotion. The combination of inventiveness and urge to violence in humans has been cited as evidence against its long term survival[8].[opinion needs balancing]
[edit] Omnicide
Omnicide is human extinction as a result of human action. Most commonly it refers to extinction through nuclear warfare,[3][4][5] but it can also apply to extinction through means such as global anthropogenic ecological catastrophe.[6]
Omnicide can be considered a subcategory of genocide.[7] Using the concept in this way, one can argue that, for example
the arms race is genocidal in intent given the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union are knowingly preparing to destroy each other as viable national and political groups.[8]
As this claim illustrates, the concept of omnicide raises issues of human agency and, hence, of moral responsibility in discussions about large-scale social processes like the nuclear arms race or ecologically destructive industrial production. That is, part of the point of describing a human extinction scenario as 'omnicidal' is to note that, if it were to happen, it would result not just from natural, uncontrollable evolutionary forces, or from some random catastrophe like an asteroid impact, but from deliberate choices made by human beings. This implies that such scenarios are preventable, and that the people whose choices make them more likely to happen should be held morally accountable for such choices. In this context, the label 'omnicide' also works to de-normalize the course of action it is applied to.
[edit] Scenarios of the world without humans
The book The World Without Us by Alan Weisman deals with a thought experiment on what would happen to the planet and especially man-made infrastructures if humans suddenly disappeared. Alan said that apes, with the highest IQ amongst animals other than humans, may be the species that succeeds humanity. The Discovery Channel film The Future is Wild shows the possible future of evolution on Earth without humans. The History Channel 2-hour special Life After People examines the possible future of life on Earth without humans. The book Trojan Whores ~The Road to Armageddon~ deals with 14 thermonuclear truck bombs in the US which trigger global armageddon the effects of which mankind fails to survive.
[edit] See also
Disaster
Doomsday event
Extinction
Extinction event
Law of Limited Competition (If violated, Daniel Quinn predicts coextinction for humanity, in the book Ishmael.)
Novelty Theory (Mathematically(numerologically?) derived eschatology, with arbitrary extinction mechanism.)
Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
Mutual Assured Destruction
[edit] Further reading
Cawthorne, N. (2004). Doomsday. Arcturus Publishing Limited. ISBN 1-84193-238-8
Leslie, J. (1999). Risking Human Extinction
Leslie, J. (1996). The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-18447-9
Russell, J.D. (2008). Trojan Whores ~The Road to Armageddon~ a Prophetic Retrospective, by Jahred Kammen, the Last Liberal by (c)2008 Freedom Press International, 12115 Whitefish Avenue, Manhattan Beach, MN 56442; ISBN 978-0-615-19676-3.
[edit] Notes
^ Warwick, K: “I,Cyborg”, University of Illinois Press, 2004
^ The Nobel Peace Prize 1985 - Presentation Speech
^ Somerville, John. 1981. Soviet Marxism and nuclear war : an international debate : from the proceedings of the special colloquium of the XVth World Congress of Philosophy. Greenwood Press. Pg.151
^ Goodman, Lisl Marburg and Lee Ann Hoff. 1990. Omnicide: The Nuclear Dilemma. New York: Praeger.
^ Landes, Daniel (ed.). 1991. Confronting Omnicide: Jewish Reflections on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Jason Aronson Publishers.
^ Wilcox, Richard Brian. 2004. The Ecology of Hope: Environmental Grassroots Activism in Japan. Ph.D. Dissertation, Union Institute & University, College of Graduate Studies. Page 55.
^ Jones, Adam. 2006. "A Seminal Work on Genocide", in Security Dialogue, vol. 37(1), pp. 143-144.
^ Santoni, Ronald E., 1987. "Genocide, Nuclear Omnicide, and Individual Responsibility" in Social Science Record, vol. 24(2), pp.38-41.
^ Von Neumann said it was "absolutely certain (1) that there would be a nuclear war; and (2) that everyone would die in it" (underline added to quote from: The Nature of the Physical Universe – 1979, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0-471-03190-9, in H. Putnam’s essay The place of facts in a world of values - page 113). This example illustrates why respectable scientists are very reluctant to go on record with extinction predictions: they can never be proven right. (The quotation is repeated by Leslie (1996) on page 26, on the subject of nuclear war annihilation, which he still considered a significant risk – in the mid 1990s.)
^ Although existential risks are less manageable by individuals than health risks, according to Ken Olum, Joshua Knobe, and Alexander Vilenkin the possibility of human extinction does have practical implications. For instance, if the “universal” Doomsday argument is accepted it changes the most likely source of disasters, and hence the most efficient means of preventing them. They write: "...you should be more concerned that a large number of asteroids have not yet been detected than about the particular orbit of each one. You should not worry especially about the chance that some specific nearby star will become a supernova, but more about the chance that supernovas are more deadly to nearby life then we believe." Source: “Practical application” page 39 of the Princeton University paper: Philosophical Implications of Inflationary Cosmology
^ The 2000 review Armageddon at the Millennial Dawn from The Journal of Religion and Film finds that "While end of the world threats perhaps are not avoidable, the cinematic formulation of millennial doom promotes the notion that the end can be averted through employing human ingenuity, scientific advance, and heroism." Since this review was conducted, there had been a Hollywood production which postulates a (far future) outcome where humans are extinct (at least in the wild): A.I..
^ For research on this, see Psychological science volume 15 (2004): Decisions From Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice. The under-perception of rare events mentioned above is actually the opposite of the phenomenon originally described by Kahneman in "prospect theory" (in their original experiments the likelihood of rare events is over-estimated). However, further analysis of the bias has shown that both forms occur: When judging from description people tend to over-estimate the described probability, so this effect taken alone would indicate that reading the extinction scenarios described here should make the reader over-estimate the likelihood of any probabilities given. However, the effect that is more relevant to common consideration of human extinction is the bias that occurs with estimates from experience, and these are in the opposite direction: When judging from personal experience people who have never heard of or experienced their species become extinct would be expected to dramatically under-estimate its likelihood. Sociobiologist E. O. Wilson argued that: "The reason for this myopic fog, evolutionary biologists contend, is that it was actually advantageous during all but the last few millennia of the two million years of existence of the genus Homo... A premium was placed on close attention to the near future and early reproduction, and little else. Disasters of a magnitude that occur only once every few centuries were forgotten or transmuted into myth." (Is Humanity Suicidal? New York Times Magazine May 30, 1993).
^ Abrupt.org 1996 editorial lists (and condemns) the arguments for human’s tendency to self-destruction. In this view, the history of humanity suggests that humans will be the cause of their own extinction. However, others have reached the opposite conclusion with the same data on violence and hypothesize that as societies develop armies and weapons with greater destructive power, they tend to be used less often. It is claimed that this implies a more secure future, despite the development of WMD technology. As such this argument may constitute a form of deterrence theory. Counter-arguments against such views include the following: (1) All weapons ever designed have ultimately been used. States with strong military forces tend to engage in military aggression, (2) Although modern states have so far generally shown restraint in unleashing their most potent weapons, whatever rational control was guaranteed by government monopoly over such weapons becomes increasingly irrelevant in a world where individuals have access to the technology of mass destruction (as proposed in Our Final Hour, for example).
^ ReligiousTolerance.org says that Aum Supreme Truth is the only religion known to have planned Armageddon for non-believers. Their intention to unleash deadly viruses is covered in Our Final Hour, and by Aum watcher, Akihiko Misawa. The Gaia Liberation Front advocates (but is not known to have active plans for) total human genocide, see: GLF, A Modest Proposal. Leslie, 1996 says that Aum’s collection of nuclear physicists presented a doomsday threat from nuclear destruction as well, especially as the cult included a rocket scientist.
^ Leslie (1996) discusses the survivorship bias (which he calls an "observational selection" effect on page 139) he says that the a priori certainty of observing an "undisasterous past" could make it difficult to argue that we must be safe because nothing terrible has yet occurred. He quotes Holger Bech Nielsen’s formulation: “We do not even know if there should exist some extremely dangerous decay of say the proton which caused eradication of the earth, because if it happens we would no longer be there to observe it and if it does not happen there is nothing to observe.” (From: Random dynamics and relations between the number of fermion generations and the fine structure constants, Acta Pysica Polonica B, May 1989).
^ For example, in the essay Why the future doesn't need us, computer scientist Bill Joy argued that human beings are likely to guarantee their own extinction through transhumanism. See: Wired archive, Why the future doesn't need us.
^ For the “West Germany” extrapolation see: Leslie, 1996 (The End of the World) in the “War, Pollution, and disease” chapter (page 74). In this section the author also mentions the success (in lowering the birth rate) of programs such as the sterilization-for-rupees programs in India, and surveys other infertility or falling birth-rate extinciton scenarios. He says that the voluntary small family behaviour may be counter-evolutionary, but that the meme for small, rich families appears to be spreading rapidly throughout the world. In 2150 the world population is expected to start falling.
^ See estimate of contact’s probability at galactic-guide. Former NASA consultant David Brin's lengthy rebuttal to SETI enthusiast's optimism about alien intentions concludes: "The worst mistake of first contact, made throughout history by individuals on both sides of every new encounter, has been the unfortunate habit of making assumptions. It often proved fatal." (See full text at SETIleague.org.)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008)
Human Extinction is the assured end of the human species. Various scenarios have been discussed in science, popular culture, and religion (see End time). The breadth of this article is on existential risks.
Contents
[hide]
1 Possible scenarios
2 Attitudes to human extinction
3 Perception of human extinction risk
4 Observations about human extinction
4.1 Omnicide
5 Scenarios of the world without humans
6 See also
7 Further reading
8 Notes
[edit] Possible scenarios
See also Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
Severe forms of known or recorded disasters
Warfare, whether nuclear or biological; see World War III.
Universal pandemic involving a genetic disease, virus, prion, or antibiotic-resistant bacterium.
Famine resulting from overpopulation (see Malthusian catastrophe)
Environmental collapses
Catastrophic climate change as a result of global warming or the effects of extensive deforestation and pollution. (E.g. the warnings of James Lovelock)
Loss of a breathable atmosphere, for example due to an anoxic event.
Occurrence of a supervolcano.
Extreme ice age leading to Snowball Earth
The destruction of the ozone layer causing higher ultraviolet radiation.
Long term habitat threats
In 1.4 million years Gliese 710 will be only 1.1 Light years from Earth, and might catastrophically perturb the Oort cloud.
In about 3 billion years, our Milky Way galaxy is expected to collide with the Andromeda galaxy. Collisions of individual bodies will likely be scarce; however, the consequences for orbits of stars and planets are unclear, and impossible to predict for individual stellar systems.
In 5 billion years hence the Sun's stellar evolution will reach the red giant stage, in which it will expand and engulf Earth. But before this happens it will already have changed Earth's climate and its radiated spectrum may alter in ways Earth-bound humans could not survive.[1]
In the far future the main risks to human survival could be heat death and cooling with the expansion of the universe.
Evolution of humanity into a posthuman life-form or existence by means of technology, leaving no trace of original humans
Commentators such as Hans Moravec argue that humanity will eventually be supplanted and replaced by artificial intelligence or other forms of artificial life; others such as Kevin Warwick point to the possibility of humans evolving by linking with technology[1]; while others have argued that humanity will inevitably experience a technological singularity, and furthermore that this outcome is desirable (see singularitarianism).
Transhumanist genetic engineering could lead to a species unable to inter-procreate, accidentally resulting in actual (rather than pseudo) extinction.
Isaac Asimov's 'The Last Question' provides a diversion on this theme.
Evolution of humanity into another hominid species. Humans will continue to evolve via traditional natural selection over a period of millions of years, and homo sapiens will gradually transition into one or more new species.
Extinction in a whimper
Preference for fewer children; if developed world demographics are extrapolated they mathematically lead to 'soft' extinction before 3000 AD. (John Leslie estimates that if the reproduction rate drops to the German level the extinction date will be 2400[2]).
Political intervention in reproduction has failed to raise the birth rate above the replacement level in the rich world, but has dramatically succeeded in lowering it below the replacement level in China[citation needed] (see One child policy). A World government with a eugenic or small population policy could send humanity into 'voluntary' extinction.
Infertility: Caused by hormonal disruption from the chemical/pharmaceutical industries, or biological changes, such as the (controversial) findings of falling sperm cell count in human males. (in fiction: see movie or novel Children of Men)
A disruption, chemical, biological, or otherwise, in humans' ability to reproduce properly or at all
Disease: The 'weak-gened' and birth-defected are kept alive by medicines. This is the opposite of nature, where the weak are less likely to survive and successfully reproduce, leaving the species genetically 'strong'. Eventually everyone has weak/flawed genes, and these defects become increasingly severe, until the human body is unable to fight diseases, even with the help of advanced medicine. In the end, disease ends the human species. Arguably however if this point was reached natural selection would again become a factor, potentially reversing this 'decline'.
Voluntary extinction
Scientific accidents
In his book Our Final Hour, Sir Martin Rees claims that without the appropriate regulation, scientific advancement increases the risk of human extinction as a result of the effects or use of new technology. Some examples are provided below.
Uncontrolled nanotechnology (grey goo) incidents resulting in the destruction of the Earth's ecosystem (ecophagy).
Creation of a naked singularity (such as a "micro black hole") on Earth during the course of a scientific experiment, or other foreseeable scientific accidents in high-energy physics research, such as vacuum phase transition or strangelet incidents. There were worries concerning the Large Hadron Collider at CERN as it is feared that collision of protons at a speed near the speed of light will result in the creation of a black hole, but it has been pointed out that much more energetic collisions take place currently in Earth's atmosphere.
Accidental contact of a alien civilization by Earth's radio and TV signals, radar, Internet tech dependent on radio, TV signals, other signals.
Biotech disaster (E.g. the warnings of Jeremy Rifkin)
Scenarios of extraterrestrial origin
Major impact events.
Gamma-ray burst in our part of the Milky Way (Bursts observable in other galaxies are calculated to act as a "sterilizer", and have been used by some astronomers to explain the Fermi paradox). The lack of fossil record interruptions, and relative distance of the nearest Hypernova candidate make this a long term (rather than imminent) threat.
Invasion by militarily superior aliens (see alien invasion) — often considered to be a scenario purely from the realms of science fiction, professional SETI researchers have given serious consideration to this possibility, but conclude that it is unlikely. [3]
Gerard O'Neill has cautioned that first contact with alien intelligence may follow the precedent set by historical examples of contact between human civilizations, where the less technologically-advanced civilization has inevitably succumbed to the other civilization, regardless of its intentions.
Solar flares may suddenly heat the earth, or the light from the sun may be blocked by dust, slowly freezing it (eg. the dust and vapour may come from a Kuiper belt disturbance).
It is possible that the space of our universe, the Big Bang, and all its consequences are events taking place within a computer or other device on another cosmological plane, if this process were to end then everything within the universe would summarily vanish (see Simulated Reality).
Philosophical scenarios
See End of the world (philosophy)
[edit] Attitudes to human extinction
Attitudes to human extinction vary widely depending on beliefs concerning spiritual survival (souls, heaven, reincarnation, and so forth), the value of the human race, whether the human race evolves individually or collectively, and many other factors. Many religions prophesy an "end times" to the universe. Human extinction is therefore a part of the faith of many humans to the extent that the end time means the absolute end of their physical humanity but perhaps not an internal soul.
However not all faiths connect human extinction to the end times, since some believe in cyclical regeneration, or that end times actually means the beginning of a new kind of existence (see eschatology and utopianism).
[edit] Perception of human extinction risk
The general level of fear about human extinction, in the near term, is very low, despite the pronouncements of some fringe groups. It is not an outcome considered by many as a credible risk. Suggested reasons for human extinction's low public visibility:
There have been countless prophesies of extinction throughout history; in all cases the predicted date of doom has passed without much notice, making future warnings less frightening. However, a survivor bias would undercut the credibility of accurate extinction warnings. John von Neumann was probably wrong in having “a certainty”[4] that nuclear war would occur; but our survival is not proof that the chance of a fatal nuclear exchange was low (or indeed that such an event could not occur in the future).
Extinction scenarios (see below) are speculative, and hard to quantify. A frequentist approach to probability cannot be used to assess the danger of an event that has never been observed by humans.
Nick Bostrom, head of the James Martin 21st Century School Future of Humanity Institute, has suggested that extinction risk-analysis may be an overlooked field because it is both too psychologically troublesome a subject area to be attractive to potential researchers and because the lack of previous human species extinction events leads a depressed view of the likelihood of it happening under changing future circumstances (an 'inverse survivorship bias').
There are thousands of public safety jobs dedicated to analyzing and reducing the risks of individual death. There are no full-time existential safety commissioners partly because there is no way to tell if they are doing a good job, and no way to punish them for failure. The inability to judge performance might also explain the comparative governmental apathy on preventing human extinction (as compared to panda extinction, say).
Some anthropologists believe that risk perception is biased by social structure; in the "Cultural Theory of risk" typography "individualist" societies predispose members to the belief that nature operates as a self-correcting system, which will return to its stable state after a disturbance. People in such cultures feel comfortable with a "trial-and-error" approach to risk, even to unsuitably rare dangers (such as extinction events).
It is possible to do something about dietary or motor-vehicle health threats. Since it is much harder to know how existential threats should be minimized[5], they tend to be ignored. High technology societies tend to become "hierarchist" or "fatalist" in their attitudes to the ever-multiplying risks threatening them. In either case, the average member of society adopts a passive attitude to risk minimization, culturally, and psychologically.
The bias in popular culture is to relate extinction scenario stories with non-extinction outcomes. (None of the 16 'most notable' WW3 scenarios in film are resolved by human extinction, for example.[6])
The threat of nuclear annihilation actually was a daily concern in the lives of many people in the 1960s and 1970s. Since then the principal fear has been of localized terrorist attack, rather than a global war of extinction; contemplating human extinction may be out of fashion.
Some people have philosophical reasons for doubting the possibility of human extinction, for instance the final anthropic principle, plenitude principle or intrinsic finality.
Tversky and Kahneman have produced evidence that humans suffer cognitive biases which would tend to minimize the perception of this unprecedented event:
Denial is a negative "availability heuristic" shown to occur when an outcome is so upsetting that the very act of thinking about it leads to an increased refusal to believe it might occur. In this case, imagining human extinction probably makes it seem less likely.
In cultures where human extinction is not expected the proposition must overcome the "disconfirmation bias" against heterodox theories.
Another reliable psychological effect relevant here is the "positive outcome bias".
Behavioural finance has strong evidence that recent evidence is given undue significance in risk analysis. Roughly speaking, "100 year storms" tend to occur every twenty years in the stock market as traders become convinced that the current good times will last forever. Doomsayers who hypothesize rare crisis-scenarios are dismissed even when they have statistical evidence behind them. An extreme form of this bias can diminish the subjective probability of the unprecedented[7].
In general, humanity's sense of self preservation, and intelligence are considered to offer safe-guards against extinction. It is felt that people will find creative ways to overcome potential threats, and will take care of the precautionary principle in attempting dangerous innovations. The arguments against this are; firstly, that the management of destructive technology is becoming difficult, and secondly, that the precautionary principle is often abandoned whenever the reward appears to outweigh the risk. At least one instance where the principle may have been overruled was when prior to the Trinity nuclear test, one of the project's scientists (Teller) speculated that the fission explosion might destroy New Mexico and possibly the world, by causing a reaction in the nitrogen of the atmosphere. A calculation by Hans Bethe proved such a possibility theoretically impossible, but the fear of the possibility remained among some until the test took place. (See Ignition of the atmosphere with nuclear bombs, LA-602, online and Manhattan Project).
[edit] Observations about human extinction
The fact the majority of species that have existed on Earth have become extinct, has led to the suggestion that all species have a finite lifespan and thus human extinction would be inevitable. Dave Raup and Jack Sepkoski found for example a twenty six million year periodicity in elevated extinction rates, caused by factors unknown (See David M. Raup. "Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck" (1992, Norton). Based upon evidence of past extinction rates Raup and others have suggested that the average longevity of an invertebrate species is between 4-6 million years, while that of vertebrates seems to be 2-4 million years. The shorter period of survival for mammals lies in their position further up the food chain than many invertebrates, and therefore an increased liability to suffer the effects of environmental change. A counter-argument to this is that humans are unique in their adaptive and technological capabilities, so it is not possible to draw reliable inferences about the probability of human extinction based on the past extinctions of other species. Certainly, the evidence collected by Raup and others suggested that generalist, geographically dispersed species, like humans, generally have a lower rate of extinction than those species that require a particular habitat. In addition, the human species is probably the only species with a conscious prior knowledge of their own demise, and therefore would be likely to take steps to avoid it.
Another characteristic of the human that may be unique is its religious belief, which in most situations encourages respect for life. On the other hand, it may also create conditions for warfare and genocide. As a result, thinkers as Albert Einstein believed that "We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."[2]
Humans are very similar to other primates in their propensity towards intra-species violence; Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee (ISBN 0-09-980180-9) estimates that 64% of hunter-gather societies engage in warfare every two years. Although it has been argued (e.g. in the UNESCO Seville Statement) that warfare is a cultural artifact, many anthropologists[citation needed] dispute this, noting that small human tribes exhibit similar patterns of violence to chimpanzee groups, the most murderous of the primates, and our nearest living genetic relatives. The 'higher' functions of reason and speech are more developed in the brain of Homo sapiens than other primates, but the relative size of the limbic system is a constant in apes, monkeys and humans; as human rational faculties have expanded, so has the wetware of emotion. The combination of inventiveness and urge to violence in humans has been cited as evidence against its long term survival[8].[opinion needs balancing]
[edit] Omnicide
Omnicide is human extinction as a result of human action. Most commonly it refers to extinction through nuclear warfare,[3][4][5] but it can also apply to extinction through means such as global anthropogenic ecological catastrophe.[6]
Omnicide can be considered a subcategory of genocide.[7] Using the concept in this way, one can argue that, for example
the arms race is genocidal in intent given the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union are knowingly preparing to destroy each other as viable national and political groups.[8]
As this claim illustrates, the concept of omnicide raises issues of human agency and, hence, of moral responsibility in discussions about large-scale social processes like the nuclear arms race or ecologically destructive industrial production. That is, part of the point of describing a human extinction scenario as 'omnicidal' is to note that, if it were to happen, it would result not just from natural, uncontrollable evolutionary forces, or from some random catastrophe like an asteroid impact, but from deliberate choices made by human beings. This implies that such scenarios are preventable, and that the people whose choices make them more likely to happen should be held morally accountable for such choices. In this context, the label 'omnicide' also works to de-normalize the course of action it is applied to.
[edit] Scenarios of the world without humans
The book The World Without Us by Alan Weisman deals with a thought experiment on what would happen to the planet and especially man-made infrastructures if humans suddenly disappeared. Alan said that apes, with the highest IQ amongst animals other than humans, may be the species that succeeds humanity. The Discovery Channel film The Future is Wild shows the possible future of evolution on Earth without humans. The History Channel 2-hour special Life After People examines the possible future of life on Earth without humans. The book Trojan Whores ~The Road to Armageddon~ deals with 14 thermonuclear truck bombs in the US which trigger global armageddon the effects of which mankind fails to survive.
[edit] See also
Disaster
Doomsday event
Extinction
Extinction event
Law of Limited Competition (If violated, Daniel Quinn predicts coextinction for humanity, in the book Ishmael.)
Novelty Theory (Mathematically(numerologically?) derived eschatology, with arbitrary extinction mechanism.)
Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
Mutual Assured Destruction
[edit] Further reading
Cawthorne, N. (2004). Doomsday. Arcturus Publishing Limited. ISBN 1-84193-238-8
Leslie, J. (1999). Risking Human Extinction
Leslie, J. (1996). The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-18447-9
Russell, J.D. (2008). Trojan Whores ~The Road to Armageddon~ a Prophetic Retrospective, by Jahred Kammen, the Last Liberal by (c)2008 Freedom Press International, 12115 Whitefish Avenue, Manhattan Beach, MN 56442; ISBN 978-0-615-19676-3.
[edit] Notes
^ Warwick, K: “I,Cyborg”, University of Illinois Press, 2004
^ The Nobel Peace Prize 1985 - Presentation Speech
^ Somerville, John. 1981. Soviet Marxism and nuclear war : an international debate : from the proceedings of the special colloquium of the XVth World Congress of Philosophy. Greenwood Press. Pg.151
^ Goodman, Lisl Marburg and Lee Ann Hoff. 1990. Omnicide: The Nuclear Dilemma. New York: Praeger.
^ Landes, Daniel (ed.). 1991. Confronting Omnicide: Jewish Reflections on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Jason Aronson Publishers.
^ Wilcox, Richard Brian. 2004. The Ecology of Hope: Environmental Grassroots Activism in Japan. Ph.D. Dissertation, Union Institute & University, College of Graduate Studies. Page 55.
^ Jones, Adam. 2006. "A Seminal Work on Genocide", in Security Dialogue, vol. 37(1), pp. 143-144.
^ Santoni, Ronald E., 1987. "Genocide, Nuclear Omnicide, and Individual Responsibility" in Social Science Record, vol. 24(2), pp.38-41.
^ Von Neumann said it was "absolutely certain (1) that there would be a nuclear war; and (2) that everyone would die in it" (underline added to quote from: The Nature of the Physical Universe – 1979, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0-471-03190-9, in H. Putnam’s essay The place of facts in a world of values - page 113). This example illustrates why respectable scientists are very reluctant to go on record with extinction predictions: they can never be proven right. (The quotation is repeated by Leslie (1996) on page 26, on the subject of nuclear war annihilation, which he still considered a significant risk – in the mid 1990s.)
^ Although existential risks are less manageable by individuals than health risks, according to Ken Olum, Joshua Knobe, and Alexander Vilenkin the possibility of human extinction does have practical implications. For instance, if the “universal” Doomsday argument is accepted it changes the most likely source of disasters, and hence the most efficient means of preventing them. They write: "...you should be more concerned that a large number of asteroids have not yet been detected than about the particular orbit of each one. You should not worry especially about the chance that some specific nearby star will become a supernova, but more about the chance that supernovas are more deadly to nearby life then we believe." Source: “Practical application” page 39 of the Princeton University paper: Philosophical Implications of Inflationary Cosmology
^ The 2000 review Armageddon at the Millennial Dawn from The Journal of Religion and Film finds that "While end of the world threats perhaps are not avoidable, the cinematic formulation of millennial doom promotes the notion that the end can be averted through employing human ingenuity, scientific advance, and heroism." Since this review was conducted, there had been a Hollywood production which postulates a (far future) outcome where humans are extinct (at least in the wild): A.I..
^ For research on this, see Psychological science volume 15 (2004): Decisions From Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice. The under-perception of rare events mentioned above is actually the opposite of the phenomenon originally described by Kahneman in "prospect theory" (in their original experiments the likelihood of rare events is over-estimated). However, further analysis of the bias has shown that both forms occur: When judging from description people tend to over-estimate the described probability, so this effect taken alone would indicate that reading the extinction scenarios described here should make the reader over-estimate the likelihood of any probabilities given. However, the effect that is more relevant to common consideration of human extinction is the bias that occurs with estimates from experience, and these are in the opposite direction: When judging from personal experience people who have never heard of or experienced their species become extinct would be expected to dramatically under-estimate its likelihood. Sociobiologist E. O. Wilson argued that: "The reason for this myopic fog, evolutionary biologists contend, is that it was actually advantageous during all but the last few millennia of the two million years of existence of the genus Homo... A premium was placed on close attention to the near future and early reproduction, and little else. Disasters of a magnitude that occur only once every few centuries were forgotten or transmuted into myth." (Is Humanity Suicidal? New York Times Magazine May 30, 1993).
^ Abrupt.org 1996 editorial lists (and condemns) the arguments for human’s tendency to self-destruction. In this view, the history of humanity suggests that humans will be the cause of their own extinction. However, others have reached the opposite conclusion with the same data on violence and hypothesize that as societies develop armies and weapons with greater destructive power, they tend to be used less often. It is claimed that this implies a more secure future, despite the development of WMD technology. As such this argument may constitute a form of deterrence theory. Counter-arguments against such views include the following: (1) All weapons ever designed have ultimately been used. States with strong military forces tend to engage in military aggression, (2) Although modern states have so far generally shown restraint in unleashing their most potent weapons, whatever rational control was guaranteed by government monopoly over such weapons becomes increasingly irrelevant in a world where individuals have access to the technology of mass destruction (as proposed in Our Final Hour, for example).
^ ReligiousTolerance.org says that Aum Supreme Truth is the only religion known to have planned Armageddon for non-believers. Their intention to unleash deadly viruses is covered in Our Final Hour, and by Aum watcher, Akihiko Misawa. The Gaia Liberation Front advocates (but is not known to have active plans for) total human genocide, see: GLF, A Modest Proposal. Leslie, 1996 says that Aum’s collection of nuclear physicists presented a doomsday threat from nuclear destruction as well, especially as the cult included a rocket scientist.
^ Leslie (1996) discusses the survivorship bias (which he calls an "observational selection" effect on page 139) he says that the a priori certainty of observing an "undisasterous past" could make it difficult to argue that we must be safe because nothing terrible has yet occurred. He quotes Holger Bech Nielsen’s formulation: “We do not even know if there should exist some extremely dangerous decay of say the proton which caused eradication of the earth, because if it happens we would no longer be there to observe it and if it does not happen there is nothing to observe.” (From: Random dynamics and relations between the number of fermion generations and the fine structure constants, Acta Pysica Polonica B, May 1989).
^ For example, in the essay Why the future doesn't need us, computer scientist Bill Joy argued that human beings are likely to guarantee their own extinction through transhumanism. See: Wired archive, Why the future doesn't need us.
^ For the “West Germany” extrapolation see: Leslie, 1996 (The End of the World) in the “War, Pollution, and disease” chapter (page 74). In this section the author also mentions the success (in lowering the birth rate) of programs such as the sterilization-for-rupees programs in India, and surveys other infertility or falling birth-rate extinciton scenarios. He says that the voluntary small family behaviour may be counter-evolutionary, but that the meme for small, rich families appears to be spreading rapidly throughout the world. In 2150 the world population is expected to start falling.
^ See estimate of contact’s probability at galactic-guide. Former NASA consultant David Brin's lengthy rebuttal to SETI enthusiast's optimism about alien intentions concludes: "The worst mistake of first contact, made throughout history by individuals on both sides of every new encounter, has been the unfortunate habit of making assumptions. It often proved fatal." (See full text at SETIleague.org.)
Extinction wiki entry
Extinction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Extinction (disambiguation).
The Dodo, shown here in a 1651 illustration by Jan Savery, is an often-cited example of modern extinction.[1]In biology and ecology, extinction is the cessation of existence of a species or group of taxa. The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of that species (although the capacity to breed and recover may have been lost before this point). Because a species' potential range may be very large, determining this moment is difficult, and is usually done retrospectively. This difficulty leads to phenomena such as Lazarus taxa, where a species presumed extinct abruptly "re-appears" (typically in the fossil record) after a period of apparent absence.
Through evolution, new species arise through the process of speciation — where new varieties of organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche — and species become extinct when they are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. A typical species becomes extinct within 10 million years of its first appearance,[2] although some species, called living fossils, survive virtually unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Extinction, though, is usually a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct.[2][3]
Prior to the dispersion of humans across the earth, extinction generally occurred at a continuous low rate, mass extinctions being relatively rare events. Starting approximately 100,000 years ago, and coinciding with an increase in the numbers and range of humans, species extinctions have increased to a rate unprecedented since the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event.[4] This is known as the Holocene extinction event and is at least the sixth such extinction event. Some experts have estimated that up to half of presently existing species may become extinct by 2100.[5]
Contents
[hide]
1 Definition
1.1 Pseudoextinction
2 Causes
2.1 Genetics and demographic phenomena
2.2 Genetic pollution
2.3 Habitat degradation
2.4 Predation, competition, and disease
2.5 Coextinction
3 Mass extinctions
3.1 Modern mass extinction
4 History of scientific understanding
5 Human attitudes and interests
5.1 Planned extinction
5.2 Cloning
6 See also
7 Notes and references
8 External links
[edit] Definition
Look up extinction in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.A species becomes extinct when the last existing member of that species dies. Extinction therefore becomes a certainty when there are no surviving individuals that are able to reproduce and create a new generation. A species may become functionally extinct when only a handful of individuals survive, which are unable to reproduce due to poor health, age, sparse distribution over a large range, a lack of individuals of both sexes (in sexually reproducing species), or other reasons.
Bark from the extinct Lepidodendron, which died out after the Carboniferous, likely due to competition from newer plant life.[6]Pinpointing the extinction (or pseudoextinction) of a species requires a clear definition of that species. If it is to be declared extinct, the species in question must be uniquely identifiable from any ancestor or daughter species, or from other closely related species. Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.[7]
In ecology, extinction is often used informally to refer to local extinction, in which a species ceases to exist in the chosen area of study, but still exists elsewhere. This phenomenon is also known as extirpation. Local extinctions may be followed by a replacement of the species taken from other locations; wolf reintroduction is an example of this. Species which are not extinct are termed extant. Those that are extant but threatened by extinction are referred to as threatened or endangered species.
An important aspect of extinction at the present time are human attempts to preserve critically endangered species, which is reflected by the creation of the conservation status "Extinct in the Wild" (EW). Species listed under this status by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) are not known to have any living specimens in the wild, and are maintained only in zoos or other artificial environments. Some of these species are functionally extinct, as they are no longer part of their natural habitat and it is unlikely the species will ever be restored to the wild.[8] When possible, modern zoological institutions attempt to maintain a viable population for species preservation and possible future reintroduction to the wild through use of carefully planned breeding programs.
The extinction of one species' wild population can have knock-on effects, causing further extinctions. These are also called "chains of extinction".[9]
[edit] Pseudoextinction
Main article: Pseudoextinction
Descendants may or may not exist for extinct species. Daughter species that evolve from a parent species carry on most of the parent species' genetic information, and even though the parent species may become extinct, the daughter species lives on. In other cases, species have produced no new variants, or none that are able to survive the parent species' extinction. Extinction of a parent species where daughter species or subspecies are still alive is also called pseudoextinction.
Pseudoextinction is difficult to demonstrate unless one has a strong chain of evidence linking a living species to members of a pre-existing species. For example, it is sometimes claimed that the extinct Hyracotherium, which was an ancient animal similar to the horse, is pseudoextinct, rather than extinct, because there are several extant species of equus, including zebra and donkeys. However, as fossil species typically leave no genetic material behind, it is not possible to say whether Hyracotherium actually evolved into more modern horse species or simply evolved from a common ancestor with modern horses. Pseudoextinction is much easier to demonstrate for larger taxonomic groups. It is said that dinosaurs are pseudoextinct, because some of their descendants, the birds, survive today.
[edit] Causes
The passenger pigeon, one of several species of extinct birds, was hunted to extinction over the course of a few decades.
The Bali Tiger was declared extinct in 1937 due to hunting and habitat loss.There are a variety of causes that can contribute directly or indirectly to the extinction of a species or group of species. "Just as each species is unique," write Beverly and Stephen Stearns, "so is each extinction... the causes for each are varied — some subtle and complex, others obvious and simple".[10] Most simply, any species that is unable to survive or reproduce in its environment, and unable to move to a new environment where it can do so, dies out and becomes extinct. Extinction of a species may come suddenly when an otherwise healthy species is wiped out completely, as when toxic pollution renders its entire habitat unlivable; or may occur gradually over thousands or millions of years, such as when a species gradually loses out in competition for food to better adapted competitors.
Assessing the relative importance of genetic factors compared to environmental ones as the causes of extinction has been compared to the nature-nurture debate.[3] The question of whether more extinctions in the fossil record have been caused by evolution or by catastrophe is a subject of discussion; Mark Newman, the author of Modeling Extinction argues for a mathematical model that falls between the two positions.[2] By contrast, conservation biology uses the extinction vortex model to classify extinctions by cause. When concerns about human extinction have been raised, for example in Sir Martin Rees' 2003 book Our Final Hour, those concerns lie with the effects of climate change or technological disaster.
Currently, environmental groups and some governments are concerned with the extinction of species caused by humanity, and are attempting to combat further extinctions through a variety of conservation programs.[4] Humans can cause extinction of a species through overharvesting, pollution, habitat destruction, introduction of new predators and food competitors, overhunting, and other influences. According to the World Conservation Union (WCU, also known as IUCN), 784 extinctions have been recorded since the year 1500, the arbitrary date selected to define "modern" extinctions, with many more likely to have gone unnoticed.[11]
[edit] Genetics and demographic phenomena
Population genetics and demographic phenomena affect the evolution, and therefore the risk of extinction, of species. Species with small populations are much more vulnerable to these types of effects.[citation needed] Limited geographic range is the most important determinant of genus extinction at background rates but becomes increasingly irrelevant as mass extinction arises.[12]
Natural selection acts to propagate beneficial genetic traits and eliminate weaknesses. It is nevertheless possible for a deleterious mutation to be spread throughout a population through the effect of genetic drift.
A diverse or "deep" gene pool gives a population a higher chance of surviving an adverse change in conditions. Effects that cause or reward a loss in genetic diversity can increase the chances of extinction of a species. Population bottlenecks can dramatically reduce genetic diversity by severely limiting the number of reproducing individuals and make inbreeding more frequent. The founder effect can cause rapid, individual-based speciation and is the most dramatic example of a population bottleneck.
See also: Extinction Vortex
See also: Genetic erosion
[edit] Genetic pollution
Main article: Genetic pollution
Purebred naturally evolved region specific wild species can be threatened with extinction in a big way[13] through the process of Genetic Pollution i.e. uncontrolled hybridization, introgression and Genetic swaping which leads to homogenization or replacement of local genotypes as a result of either a numerical and/or fitness advantage of introduced plant or animal.[14] Nonnative species can bring about a form of extinction of native plants and animals by hybridization and introgression either through purposeful introduction by humans or through habitat modification, bringing previously isolated species into contact. These phenomena can be especially detrimental for rare species coming into contact with more abundant ones where the abundant ones can interbreed with them swamping the entire rarer gene pool creating hybrids thus driving the entire original purebred native stock to complete extinction. Such extinctions are not always apparent from morphological (outward appearance) observations alone. Some degree of gene flow may be a normal, evolutionarily constructive process, and all constellations of genes and genotypes cannot be preserved however, hybridization with or without introgression may, nevertheless, threaten a rare species' existence.[15][16]
Widespread genetic pollution also leads to weakening of the naturally evolved (wild) region specific gene pool leading to weaker hybrid animals and plants which are not able to cope with natural environs over the long run and fast tracks them towards final extinction.
The gene pool of a species or a population is the complete set of unique alleles that would be found by inspecting the genetic material of every living member of that species or population. A large gene pool indicates extensive genetic diversity, which is associated with robust populations that can survive bouts of intense selection. Meanwhile, low genetic diversity (see inbreeding and population bottlenecks) can cause reduced biological fitness and an increased chance of extinction amongst the reducing population of purebred individuals from a species.
[edit] Habitat degradation
Main article: Habitat destruction
The degradation of a species' habitat may alter the fitness landscape to such an extent that the species is no longer able to survive and becomes extinct. This may occur by direct effects, such as the environment becoming toxic, or indirectly, by limiting a species' ability to compete effectively for diminished resources or against new competitor species.
Habitat degradation through toxicity can kill off a species very rapidly, by killing all living members through contamination or sterilizing them. It can also occur over longer periods at lower toxicity levels by affecting life span, reproductive capacity, or competitiveness.
Habitat degradation can also take the form of a physical destruction of niche habitats. The widespread destruction of tropical rainforests and replacement with open pastureland is widely cited as an example of this;[5] elimination of the dense forest eliminated the infrastructure needed by many species to survive. For example, a fern that depends on dense shade for protection from direct sunlight can no longer survive without forest to shelter it. Another example is the destruction of ocean floors by bottom trawling.[17]
Diminished resources or introduction of new competitor species also often accompany habitat degradation. Global warming has allowed some species to expand their range, bringing unwelcome competition to other species that previously occupied that area. Sometimes these new competitors are predators and directly affect prey species, while at other times they may merely outcompete vulnerable species for limited resources. Vital resources including water and food can also be limited during habitat degradation, leading to extinction.
The Golden Toad was last seen on May 15, 1989. Decline in amphibian populations is ongoing worldwide.
[edit] Predation, competition, and disease
Humans have been transporting animals and plants from one part of the world to another for thousands of years, sometimes deliberately (e.g., livestock released by sailors onto islands as a source of food) and sometimes accidentally (e.g., rats escaping from boats). In most cases, such introductions are unsuccessful, but when they do become established as an invasive alien species, the consequences can be catastrophic. Invasive alien species can affect native species directly by eating them, competing with them, and introducing pathogens or parasites that sicken or kill them or, indirectly, by destroying or degrading their habitat. Human populations may themselves act as invasive predators. According to the "overkill hypothesis", the swift extinction of the megafauna in areas such as New Zealand, Australia, Madagascar and Hawaii resulted from the sudden introduction of human beings to environments full of animals that had never seen them before, and were therefore completely unadapted to their predation techniques.[18]
[edit] Coextinction
Main article: Coextinction
Coextinction refers to the loss of a species due to the extinction of another; for example, the extinction of parasitic insects following the loss of their hosts. Coextinction can also occur when a species loses its pollinator, or to predators in a food chain who lose their prey. "Species coextinction is a manifestation of the interconnectedness of organisms in complex ecosystems ... While coextinction may not be the most important cause of species extinctions, it is certainly an insidious one".[19]
[edit] Mass extinctions
Apparent fraction of genera going extinct at any given time, as reconstructed from the fossil record. Does not attempt to include recent Holocene extinction event.Main article: Extinction event
There have been at least five mass extinctions in the history of life, and four in the last 3.5 billion years in which many species have disappeared in a relatively short period of geological time. The most recent of these, the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period, is best known for having wiped out the non-avian dinosaurs, among many other species.
[edit] Modern mass extinction
Main article: Holocene extinction event
According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70 percent believed that they were currently in the early stages of a human-caused mass extinction,[20] known as the Holocene extinction event. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20 percent of all living populations could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028). Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated [5] in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years.[21] More significantly the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times "background" or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth.[22]
[edit] History of scientific understanding
Dilophosaurus, one of the many extinct dinosaur genera. The cause of the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event is a subject of much debate amongst researchers.In the 1800s when extinction was first described, the idea of extinction was threatening to those who held a belief in the Great Chain of Being, a theological position that did not allow for "missing links".[23]
The possibility of extinction was not widely accepted before the 1800s.[23][24] The devoted naturalist Carl Linnaeus, could "hardly entertain" the idea that humans could cause the extinction of a species.[25] When parts of the world had not been thoroughly examined and charted, scientists could not rule out that animals found only in the fossil record were not simply "hiding" in unexplored regions of the Earth.[26] Georges Cuvier is credited with establishing extinction as a fact in a 1796 lecture to the French Institute.[24] Cuvier's observations of fossil bones convinced him that they did not originate in extant animals. This discovery was critical for the spread of uniformitarianism,[27] and lead to the first book publicizing the idea of evolution [28] though Cuvier himself strongly opposed the theories of evolution advanced by Lamarck and others.
[edit] Human attitudes and interests
Extinction is an important research topic in the field of zoology, and biology in general, and has also become an area of concern outside the scientific community. A number of organizations, such as the Worldwide Fund for Nature, have been created with the goal of preserving species from extinction. Governments have attempted, through enacting laws, to avoid habitat destruction, agricultural over-harvesting, and pollution. While many human-caused extinctions have been accidental, humans have also engaged in the deliberate destruction of some species, such as dangerous viruses, and the extirpation of other problematic species has been suggested.
Biologist Bruce Walsh of the University of Arizona states three reasons for scientific interest in the preservation of species; genetic resources, ecosystem stability, and ethics;[29] and today the scientific community "stress[es] the importance" of maintaining biodiversity.[30][29]
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
ExtinctionIn modern times, commercial and industrial interests often have to contend with the effects of production on plant and animal life. However, some technologies with minimal, or no, proven harmful effects on Homo sapiens can be devastating to wildlife (for example, DDT).[31] Biogeographer Jared Diamond notes that while big business may label environmental concerns as "exaggerated", and often cause "devastating damage", some corporations find it in their interest to adopt good conservation practices, and even engage in preservation efforts that surpass those taken by national parks.[32]
Governments sometimes see the loss of native species as a loss to ecotourism,[33] and can enact laws with severe punishment against the trade in native species in an effort to prevent extinction in the wild. Nature preserves are created by governments as a means to provide continuing habitats to species crowded by human expansion. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity has resulted in international Biodiversity Action Plan programmes, which attempt to provide comprehensive guidelines for government biodiversity conservation. Advocacy groups, such as The Wildlands Project[34] and the Alliance for Zero Extinctions,[35] work to educate the public and pressure governments into action.
People who live close to nature can be dependent on the survival of all the species in their environment, leaving them highly exposed to extinction risks. However, people prioritize day-to-day survival over species conservation; with human overpopulation in tropical developing countries, there has been enormous pressure on forests due to subsistence agriculture, including slash-and-burn agricultural techniques that can reduce endangered species's habitats.[36]
[edit] Planned extinction
Humans have aggressively worked toward the extinction of many species of virus and bacterium in the cause of disease eradication. For example, the smallpox virus is now essentially extinct in the wild[37] — although samples are retained in laboratory settings, and the polio virus is now confined to small parts of the world as a result of human efforts to cure the disease it causes.[38]
Olivia Judson is one of six modern scientists to have advocated the deliberate extinction of specific species. Her September 25, 2003 New York Times article, "A Bug's Death", advocates "specicide" of thirty mosquito species through the introduction of a genetic element, capable of inserting itself into another crucial gene, to create a recessive "knockout genes". Her arguments for doing so are that the Anopheles mosquitoes (which spread malaria) and Aedes mosquitoes (which spread dengue fever, yellow fever, elephantiasis, and other diseases) represent only 30 species; eradicating these would save at least one million human lives per annum at a cost of reducing the genetic diversity of the family Culicidae by only 1%. She further argues that since species go extinct "all the time" the disappearance of a few more will not destroy the ecosystem: "We're not left with a wasteland every time a species vanishes. Removing one species sometimes causes shifts in the populations of other species - but different need not mean worse." In addition, anti-malarial and mosquito control programs offer little realistic hope to the 300 million people in developing nations who will be infected with acute illnesses this year; although trials are ongoing she writes that if they fail: "We should consider the ultimate swatting."[39]
[edit] Cloning
While no extinct species has currently ever been recreated, recent technological advances have encouraged the hypothesis that using DNA from the remains of an extinct species, through the process of cloning, this species may be "brought back to life".[40] Proposed targets for cloning include the mammoth[40], thylacine, and the dodo. As of now, scientists claim to have stopped pursuing the cloning of the thylacine. [41] In order for such a program to succeed, a sufficient number of individuals would have to be cloned, from the DNA of different individuals (in the case of sexually reproducing organisms) to create a viable population. The cloning of an extinct species has not yet been attempted, primarily due to technological limitations, though bioethical and philosophical objections have also been raised. The concept of cloning extinct species was popularized in the successful novel and movie Jurassic Park.
[edit] See also
Conservation status
Risk of extinction
Extinction
Extinct
Extinct in the Wild
Threatened
Critically Endangered
Endangered
Vulnerable
Threatened
Lower risk
Conservation Dependent
Near Threatened
Least Concern
See also
World Conservation Union
IUCN Red List
Extinction portal
Gene pool
Genetic erosion
Genetic pollution
Habitat fragmentation
IUCN Red List
List of extinct animals
List of extinct plants
Living Planet Index
Red List Index
Refugium (population biology)
Timeline of extinctions
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
[edit] Notes and references
^ Diamond, Jared (1999). "Up to the Starting Line", Guns, Germs, and Steel. W. W. Norton, 43-44. ISBN 0-393-31755-2.
^ a b c Newman, Mark. "A Mathematical Model for Mass Extinction". Cornell University. May 20, 1994. URL accessed July 30, 2006.
^ a b Raup, David M. Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? W.W. Norton and Company. New York. 1991. pp.3-6 ISBN 978-0393309270
^ a b Species disappearing at an alarming rate, report says. MSNBC URL accessed July 26, 2006
^ a b c Wilson, E.O., The Future of Life (2002) (ISBN 0-679-76811-4). See also: Leakey, Richard, The Sixth Extinction : Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind, ISBN 0-385-46809-1
^ Davis, Paul and Kenrick, Paul. Fossil Plants. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. (2004). Morran, Robin, C.; A Natural History of Ferns. Timber Press (2004). ISBN 0-88192-667-1
^ See: Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, 1986, Heinemann ISBN 0-434-22610-6
^ Maas, Peter. "[http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/wilduk.htm Extinct in the Wild" The Extinction Website. URL accessed January 26, 2007.
^ Quince, C. et al.. "Deleting species from model food webs" (pdf). Retrieved on 2007-02-15.
^ Stearns, Beverly Peterson and Stephen C. (2000). "Preface", Watching, from the Edge of Extinction. Yale University Press, x. ISBN 0300084692.
^ World Conservation Union. "2004 Red List". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. URL accessed September 20, 2006.
^ Payne, J.L. & S. Finnegan (2007). "The effect of geographical range on extinction risk during background and mass extinction.". Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 104 (25): 10506–11. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701257104. PMID 17563357.
^ Hybridization and Introgression; Extinctions; from "The evolutionary impact of invasive species; by H. A. Mooney and E. E. Cleland" Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 May 8; 98(10): 5446–5451. doi: 10.1073/pnas.091093398. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, v.98(10); May 8, 2001, The National Academy of Sciences
^ Glossary: definitions from the following publication: Aubry, C., R. Shoal and V. Erickson. 2005. Grass cultivars: their origins, development, and use on national forests and grasslands in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service. 44 pages, plus appendices.; Native Seed Network (NSN), Institute for Applied Ecology, 563 SW Jefferson Ave, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA
^ Extinction by Hybridization and Introgression; by Judith M. Rhymer , Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469, USA; and Daniel Simberloff, Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA; Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, November 1996, Vol. 27, Pages 83-109 (doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.83), [1]
^ Genetic Pollution from Farm Forestry using eucalypt species and hybrids; A report for the RIRDC/L&WA/FWPRDC; Joint Venture Agroforestry Program; by Brad M. Potts, Robert C. Barbour, Andrew B. Hingston; September 2001; RIRDC Publication No 01/114; RIRDC Project No CPF - 3A; ISBN 0 642 58336 6; ISSN 1440-6845; Australian Government, Rural Industrial Research and Development Corporation
^ Clover, Charles. 2004. The End of the Line: How overfishing is changing the world and what we eat. Ebury Press, London. ISBN 0-09-189780-7
^ Lee, Anita. "The Pleistocene Overkill Hypothesis." University of California at Berkeley Geography Program. URL accessed January 11, 2007.
^ Koh, Lian Pih. Science, Vol 305, Issue 5690, 1632-1634, 10 September 2004.
^ American Museum of Natural History. "National Survey Reveals Biodiversity Crisis - Scientific Experts Believe We are in the Midst of the Fastest Mass Extinction in Earth's History". URL accessed September 20, 2006.
^ Ulansey, David, "The current mass extinction" repeats this statement with links to dozens of news reports on the phenomenon. URL accessed January 26, 2007.
^ J.H.Lawton and R.M.May, Extinction rates, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
^ a b Viney, Mike. "Extinction Part 2 of 5". Colorado State University. URL accessed September 12, 2006.
^ a b Academy of Natural Sciences, "Fossils and Extinction" (http://www.ansp.org/museum/jefferson/otherPages/extinction.php) and U.C. Berkeley "History of Evolutionary Thought - Extinction" http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/extinction.shtml.
^ Koerner, Lisbet (1999). "God's Endless Larder", Linnaeus: Nature and Nation. Harvard University Press, 85. ISBN 0-674-00565-1.
^ Ideas: A History from Fire to Freud (Peter Watson Weidenfeld & Nicolson ISBN 0-297-60726-X)
^ Watson, p.16
^ Robert Chambers, 1844, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, 1994 reprint: University of Chicago Press ISBN 0-226-10073-1
^ a b Walsh, Bruce. Extinction. Bioscience at University of Arizona. URL accessed July 26, 2006.
^ Committee on Recently Extinct Organisms. "Why Care About Species That Have Gone Extinct?". URL accessed July 30, 2006.
^ International Programme on Chemical Safety (1989). "DDT and its Derivatives -- Environmental Aspects". Environmental Health Criteria 83. URL accessed September 20, 2006.
^ Diamond, Jared (2005). "A Tale of Two Farms", Collapse. Penguin, 15-17. ISBN 0-670-03337-5.
^ Drewry, Rachel. "Ecotourism: Can it save the orangutans?" Inside Indonesia. URL accessed January 26, 2007.
^ The Wildlands Project. URL accessed January 26, 2007.
^ Alliance for Zero Extinctions. URL accessed January 26, 2007.
^ (1981) Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. Random House, New York. ISBN 0-394-51312-6.
^ WHO Factsheet WHO meeting agenda Scientists certified it eradicated in December 1979, WHO formally ratified this on 8 May 1980 in resolution WHA33.3
^ Global Polio Eradication Initiative. "The History". URL accessed January 24, 2007.
^ Judson, Olivia (September 25, 2003). ""A Bug's Death"", New York Times. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
^ a b Discover Channel staff. Will mammoths walk again?. Discovery Channel. March 9, 2001. URL accessed July 30, 2006.
^ ""Museum ditches thylacine cloning project"" (February 15, 2005). Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
[edit] External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Extinct animalsCommittee on recently extinct organisms
Recently Extinct Animals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Extinction (disambiguation).
The Dodo, shown here in a 1651 illustration by Jan Savery, is an often-cited example of modern extinction.[1]In biology and ecology, extinction is the cessation of existence of a species or group of taxa. The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of that species (although the capacity to breed and recover may have been lost before this point). Because a species' potential range may be very large, determining this moment is difficult, and is usually done retrospectively. This difficulty leads to phenomena such as Lazarus taxa, where a species presumed extinct abruptly "re-appears" (typically in the fossil record) after a period of apparent absence.
Through evolution, new species arise through the process of speciation — where new varieties of organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche — and species become extinct when they are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. A typical species becomes extinct within 10 million years of its first appearance,[2] although some species, called living fossils, survive virtually unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Extinction, though, is usually a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct.[2][3]
Prior to the dispersion of humans across the earth, extinction generally occurred at a continuous low rate, mass extinctions being relatively rare events. Starting approximately 100,000 years ago, and coinciding with an increase in the numbers and range of humans, species extinctions have increased to a rate unprecedented since the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event.[4] This is known as the Holocene extinction event and is at least the sixth such extinction event. Some experts have estimated that up to half of presently existing species may become extinct by 2100.[5]
Contents
[hide]
1 Definition
1.1 Pseudoextinction
2 Causes
2.1 Genetics and demographic phenomena
2.2 Genetic pollution
2.3 Habitat degradation
2.4 Predation, competition, and disease
2.5 Coextinction
3 Mass extinctions
3.1 Modern mass extinction
4 History of scientific understanding
5 Human attitudes and interests
5.1 Planned extinction
5.2 Cloning
6 See also
7 Notes and references
8 External links
[edit] Definition
Look up extinction in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.A species becomes extinct when the last existing member of that species dies. Extinction therefore becomes a certainty when there are no surviving individuals that are able to reproduce and create a new generation. A species may become functionally extinct when only a handful of individuals survive, which are unable to reproduce due to poor health, age, sparse distribution over a large range, a lack of individuals of both sexes (in sexually reproducing species), or other reasons.
Bark from the extinct Lepidodendron, which died out after the Carboniferous, likely due to competition from newer plant life.[6]Pinpointing the extinction (or pseudoextinction) of a species requires a clear definition of that species. If it is to be declared extinct, the species in question must be uniquely identifiable from any ancestor or daughter species, or from other closely related species. Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.[7]
In ecology, extinction is often used informally to refer to local extinction, in which a species ceases to exist in the chosen area of study, but still exists elsewhere. This phenomenon is also known as extirpation. Local extinctions may be followed by a replacement of the species taken from other locations; wolf reintroduction is an example of this. Species which are not extinct are termed extant. Those that are extant but threatened by extinction are referred to as threatened or endangered species.
An important aspect of extinction at the present time are human attempts to preserve critically endangered species, which is reflected by the creation of the conservation status "Extinct in the Wild" (EW). Species listed under this status by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) are not known to have any living specimens in the wild, and are maintained only in zoos or other artificial environments. Some of these species are functionally extinct, as they are no longer part of their natural habitat and it is unlikely the species will ever be restored to the wild.[8] When possible, modern zoological institutions attempt to maintain a viable population for species preservation and possible future reintroduction to the wild through use of carefully planned breeding programs.
The extinction of one species' wild population can have knock-on effects, causing further extinctions. These are also called "chains of extinction".[9]
[edit] Pseudoextinction
Main article: Pseudoextinction
Descendants may or may not exist for extinct species. Daughter species that evolve from a parent species carry on most of the parent species' genetic information, and even though the parent species may become extinct, the daughter species lives on. In other cases, species have produced no new variants, or none that are able to survive the parent species' extinction. Extinction of a parent species where daughter species or subspecies are still alive is also called pseudoextinction.
Pseudoextinction is difficult to demonstrate unless one has a strong chain of evidence linking a living species to members of a pre-existing species. For example, it is sometimes claimed that the extinct Hyracotherium, which was an ancient animal similar to the horse, is pseudoextinct, rather than extinct, because there are several extant species of equus, including zebra and donkeys. However, as fossil species typically leave no genetic material behind, it is not possible to say whether Hyracotherium actually evolved into more modern horse species or simply evolved from a common ancestor with modern horses. Pseudoextinction is much easier to demonstrate for larger taxonomic groups. It is said that dinosaurs are pseudoextinct, because some of their descendants, the birds, survive today.
[edit] Causes
The passenger pigeon, one of several species of extinct birds, was hunted to extinction over the course of a few decades.
The Bali Tiger was declared extinct in 1937 due to hunting and habitat loss.There are a variety of causes that can contribute directly or indirectly to the extinction of a species or group of species. "Just as each species is unique," write Beverly and Stephen Stearns, "so is each extinction... the causes for each are varied — some subtle and complex, others obvious and simple".[10] Most simply, any species that is unable to survive or reproduce in its environment, and unable to move to a new environment where it can do so, dies out and becomes extinct. Extinction of a species may come suddenly when an otherwise healthy species is wiped out completely, as when toxic pollution renders its entire habitat unlivable; or may occur gradually over thousands or millions of years, such as when a species gradually loses out in competition for food to better adapted competitors.
Assessing the relative importance of genetic factors compared to environmental ones as the causes of extinction has been compared to the nature-nurture debate.[3] The question of whether more extinctions in the fossil record have been caused by evolution or by catastrophe is a subject of discussion; Mark Newman, the author of Modeling Extinction argues for a mathematical model that falls between the two positions.[2] By contrast, conservation biology uses the extinction vortex model to classify extinctions by cause. When concerns about human extinction have been raised, for example in Sir Martin Rees' 2003 book Our Final Hour, those concerns lie with the effects of climate change or technological disaster.
Currently, environmental groups and some governments are concerned with the extinction of species caused by humanity, and are attempting to combat further extinctions through a variety of conservation programs.[4] Humans can cause extinction of a species through overharvesting, pollution, habitat destruction, introduction of new predators and food competitors, overhunting, and other influences. According to the World Conservation Union (WCU, also known as IUCN), 784 extinctions have been recorded since the year 1500, the arbitrary date selected to define "modern" extinctions, with many more likely to have gone unnoticed.[11]
[edit] Genetics and demographic phenomena
Population genetics and demographic phenomena affect the evolution, and therefore the risk of extinction, of species. Species with small populations are much more vulnerable to these types of effects.[citation needed] Limited geographic range is the most important determinant of genus extinction at background rates but becomes increasingly irrelevant as mass extinction arises.[12]
Natural selection acts to propagate beneficial genetic traits and eliminate weaknesses. It is nevertheless possible for a deleterious mutation to be spread throughout a population through the effect of genetic drift.
A diverse or "deep" gene pool gives a population a higher chance of surviving an adverse change in conditions. Effects that cause or reward a loss in genetic diversity can increase the chances of extinction of a species. Population bottlenecks can dramatically reduce genetic diversity by severely limiting the number of reproducing individuals and make inbreeding more frequent. The founder effect can cause rapid, individual-based speciation and is the most dramatic example of a population bottleneck.
See also: Extinction Vortex
See also: Genetic erosion
[edit] Genetic pollution
Main article: Genetic pollution
Purebred naturally evolved region specific wild species can be threatened with extinction in a big way[13] through the process of Genetic Pollution i.e. uncontrolled hybridization, introgression and Genetic swaping which leads to homogenization or replacement of local genotypes as a result of either a numerical and/or fitness advantage of introduced plant or animal.[14] Nonnative species can bring about a form of extinction of native plants and animals by hybridization and introgression either through purposeful introduction by humans or through habitat modification, bringing previously isolated species into contact. These phenomena can be especially detrimental for rare species coming into contact with more abundant ones where the abundant ones can interbreed with them swamping the entire rarer gene pool creating hybrids thus driving the entire original purebred native stock to complete extinction. Such extinctions are not always apparent from morphological (outward appearance) observations alone. Some degree of gene flow may be a normal, evolutionarily constructive process, and all constellations of genes and genotypes cannot be preserved however, hybridization with or without introgression may, nevertheless, threaten a rare species' existence.[15][16]
Widespread genetic pollution also leads to weakening of the naturally evolved (wild) region specific gene pool leading to weaker hybrid animals and plants which are not able to cope with natural environs over the long run and fast tracks them towards final extinction.
The gene pool of a species or a population is the complete set of unique alleles that would be found by inspecting the genetic material of every living member of that species or population. A large gene pool indicates extensive genetic diversity, which is associated with robust populations that can survive bouts of intense selection. Meanwhile, low genetic diversity (see inbreeding and population bottlenecks) can cause reduced biological fitness and an increased chance of extinction amongst the reducing population of purebred individuals from a species.
[edit] Habitat degradation
Main article: Habitat destruction
The degradation of a species' habitat may alter the fitness landscape to such an extent that the species is no longer able to survive and becomes extinct. This may occur by direct effects, such as the environment becoming toxic, or indirectly, by limiting a species' ability to compete effectively for diminished resources or against new competitor species.
Habitat degradation through toxicity can kill off a species very rapidly, by killing all living members through contamination or sterilizing them. It can also occur over longer periods at lower toxicity levels by affecting life span, reproductive capacity, or competitiveness.
Habitat degradation can also take the form of a physical destruction of niche habitats. The widespread destruction of tropical rainforests and replacement with open pastureland is widely cited as an example of this;[5] elimination of the dense forest eliminated the infrastructure needed by many species to survive. For example, a fern that depends on dense shade for protection from direct sunlight can no longer survive without forest to shelter it. Another example is the destruction of ocean floors by bottom trawling.[17]
Diminished resources or introduction of new competitor species also often accompany habitat degradation. Global warming has allowed some species to expand their range, bringing unwelcome competition to other species that previously occupied that area. Sometimes these new competitors are predators and directly affect prey species, while at other times they may merely outcompete vulnerable species for limited resources. Vital resources including water and food can also be limited during habitat degradation, leading to extinction.
The Golden Toad was last seen on May 15, 1989. Decline in amphibian populations is ongoing worldwide.
[edit] Predation, competition, and disease
Humans have been transporting animals and plants from one part of the world to another for thousands of years, sometimes deliberately (e.g., livestock released by sailors onto islands as a source of food) and sometimes accidentally (e.g., rats escaping from boats). In most cases, such introductions are unsuccessful, but when they do become established as an invasive alien species, the consequences can be catastrophic. Invasive alien species can affect native species directly by eating them, competing with them, and introducing pathogens or parasites that sicken or kill them or, indirectly, by destroying or degrading their habitat. Human populations may themselves act as invasive predators. According to the "overkill hypothesis", the swift extinction of the megafauna in areas such as New Zealand, Australia, Madagascar and Hawaii resulted from the sudden introduction of human beings to environments full of animals that had never seen them before, and were therefore completely unadapted to their predation techniques.[18]
[edit] Coextinction
Main article: Coextinction
Coextinction refers to the loss of a species due to the extinction of another; for example, the extinction of parasitic insects following the loss of their hosts. Coextinction can also occur when a species loses its pollinator, or to predators in a food chain who lose their prey. "Species coextinction is a manifestation of the interconnectedness of organisms in complex ecosystems ... While coextinction may not be the most important cause of species extinctions, it is certainly an insidious one".[19]
[edit] Mass extinctions
Apparent fraction of genera going extinct at any given time, as reconstructed from the fossil record. Does not attempt to include recent Holocene extinction event.Main article: Extinction event
There have been at least five mass extinctions in the history of life, and four in the last 3.5 billion years in which many species have disappeared in a relatively short period of geological time. The most recent of these, the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period, is best known for having wiped out the non-avian dinosaurs, among many other species.
[edit] Modern mass extinction
Main article: Holocene extinction event
According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70 percent believed that they were currently in the early stages of a human-caused mass extinction,[20] known as the Holocene extinction event. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20 percent of all living populations could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028). Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated [5] in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years.[21] More significantly the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times "background" or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth.[22]
[edit] History of scientific understanding
Dilophosaurus, one of the many extinct dinosaur genera. The cause of the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event is a subject of much debate amongst researchers.In the 1800s when extinction was first described, the idea of extinction was threatening to those who held a belief in the Great Chain of Being, a theological position that did not allow for "missing links".[23]
The possibility of extinction was not widely accepted before the 1800s.[23][24] The devoted naturalist Carl Linnaeus, could "hardly entertain" the idea that humans could cause the extinction of a species.[25] When parts of the world had not been thoroughly examined and charted, scientists could not rule out that animals found only in the fossil record were not simply "hiding" in unexplored regions of the Earth.[26] Georges Cuvier is credited with establishing extinction as a fact in a 1796 lecture to the French Institute.[24] Cuvier's observations of fossil bones convinced him that they did not originate in extant animals. This discovery was critical for the spread of uniformitarianism,[27] and lead to the first book publicizing the idea of evolution [28] though Cuvier himself strongly opposed the theories of evolution advanced by Lamarck and others.
[edit] Human attitudes and interests
Extinction is an important research topic in the field of zoology, and biology in general, and has also become an area of concern outside the scientific community. A number of organizations, such as the Worldwide Fund for Nature, have been created with the goal of preserving species from extinction. Governments have attempted, through enacting laws, to avoid habitat destruction, agricultural over-harvesting, and pollution. While many human-caused extinctions have been accidental, humans have also engaged in the deliberate destruction of some species, such as dangerous viruses, and the extirpation of other problematic species has been suggested.
Biologist Bruce Walsh of the University of Arizona states three reasons for scientific interest in the preservation of species; genetic resources, ecosystem stability, and ethics;[29] and today the scientific community "stress[es] the importance" of maintaining biodiversity.[30][29]
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
ExtinctionIn modern times, commercial and industrial interests often have to contend with the effects of production on plant and animal life. However, some technologies with minimal, or no, proven harmful effects on Homo sapiens can be devastating to wildlife (for example, DDT).[31] Biogeographer Jared Diamond notes that while big business may label environmental concerns as "exaggerated", and often cause "devastating damage", some corporations find it in their interest to adopt good conservation practices, and even engage in preservation efforts that surpass those taken by national parks.[32]
Governments sometimes see the loss of native species as a loss to ecotourism,[33] and can enact laws with severe punishment against the trade in native species in an effort to prevent extinction in the wild. Nature preserves are created by governments as a means to provide continuing habitats to species crowded by human expansion. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity has resulted in international Biodiversity Action Plan programmes, which attempt to provide comprehensive guidelines for government biodiversity conservation. Advocacy groups, such as The Wildlands Project[34] and the Alliance for Zero Extinctions,[35] work to educate the public and pressure governments into action.
People who live close to nature can be dependent on the survival of all the species in their environment, leaving them highly exposed to extinction risks. However, people prioritize day-to-day survival over species conservation; with human overpopulation in tropical developing countries, there has been enormous pressure on forests due to subsistence agriculture, including slash-and-burn agricultural techniques that can reduce endangered species's habitats.[36]
[edit] Planned extinction
Humans have aggressively worked toward the extinction of many species of virus and bacterium in the cause of disease eradication. For example, the smallpox virus is now essentially extinct in the wild[37] — although samples are retained in laboratory settings, and the polio virus is now confined to small parts of the world as a result of human efforts to cure the disease it causes.[38]
Olivia Judson is one of six modern scientists to have advocated the deliberate extinction of specific species. Her September 25, 2003 New York Times article, "A Bug's Death", advocates "specicide" of thirty mosquito species through the introduction of a genetic element, capable of inserting itself into another crucial gene, to create a recessive "knockout genes". Her arguments for doing so are that the Anopheles mosquitoes (which spread malaria) and Aedes mosquitoes (which spread dengue fever, yellow fever, elephantiasis, and other diseases) represent only 30 species; eradicating these would save at least one million human lives per annum at a cost of reducing the genetic diversity of the family Culicidae by only 1%. She further argues that since species go extinct "all the time" the disappearance of a few more will not destroy the ecosystem: "We're not left with a wasteland every time a species vanishes. Removing one species sometimes causes shifts in the populations of other species - but different need not mean worse." In addition, anti-malarial and mosquito control programs offer little realistic hope to the 300 million people in developing nations who will be infected with acute illnesses this year; although trials are ongoing she writes that if they fail: "We should consider the ultimate swatting."[39]
[edit] Cloning
While no extinct species has currently ever been recreated, recent technological advances have encouraged the hypothesis that using DNA from the remains of an extinct species, through the process of cloning, this species may be "brought back to life".[40] Proposed targets for cloning include the mammoth[40], thylacine, and the dodo. As of now, scientists claim to have stopped pursuing the cloning of the thylacine. [41] In order for such a program to succeed, a sufficient number of individuals would have to be cloned, from the DNA of different individuals (in the case of sexually reproducing organisms) to create a viable population. The cloning of an extinct species has not yet been attempted, primarily due to technological limitations, though bioethical and philosophical objections have also been raised. The concept of cloning extinct species was popularized in the successful novel and movie Jurassic Park.
[edit] See also
Conservation status
Risk of extinction
Extinction
Extinct
Extinct in the Wild
Threatened
Critically Endangered
Endangered
Vulnerable
Threatened
Lower risk
Conservation Dependent
Near Threatened
Least Concern
See also
World Conservation Union
IUCN Red List
Extinction portal
Gene pool
Genetic erosion
Genetic pollution
Habitat fragmentation
IUCN Red List
List of extinct animals
List of extinct plants
Living Planet Index
Red List Index
Refugium (population biology)
Timeline of extinctions
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
[edit] Notes and references
^ Diamond, Jared (1999). "Up to the Starting Line", Guns, Germs, and Steel. W. W. Norton, 43-44. ISBN 0-393-31755-2.
^ a b c Newman, Mark. "A Mathematical Model for Mass Extinction". Cornell University. May 20, 1994. URL accessed July 30, 2006.
^ a b Raup, David M. Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? W.W. Norton and Company. New York. 1991. pp.3-6 ISBN 978-0393309270
^ a b Species disappearing at an alarming rate, report says. MSNBC URL accessed July 26, 2006
^ a b c Wilson, E.O., The Future of Life (2002) (ISBN 0-679-76811-4). See also: Leakey, Richard, The Sixth Extinction : Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind, ISBN 0-385-46809-1
^ Davis, Paul and Kenrick, Paul. Fossil Plants. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. (2004). Morran, Robin, C.; A Natural History of Ferns. Timber Press (2004). ISBN 0-88192-667-1
^ See: Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, 1986, Heinemann ISBN 0-434-22610-6
^ Maas, Peter. "[http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/wilduk.htm Extinct in the Wild" The Extinction Website. URL accessed January 26, 2007.
^ Quince, C. et al.. "Deleting species from model food webs" (pdf). Retrieved on 2007-02-15.
^ Stearns, Beverly Peterson and Stephen C. (2000). "Preface", Watching, from the Edge of Extinction. Yale University Press, x. ISBN 0300084692.
^ World Conservation Union. "2004 Red List". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. URL accessed September 20, 2006.
^ Payne, J.L. & S. Finnegan (2007). "The effect of geographical range on extinction risk during background and mass extinction.". Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 104 (25): 10506–11. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701257104. PMID 17563357.
^ Hybridization and Introgression; Extinctions; from "The evolutionary impact of invasive species; by H. A. Mooney and E. E. Cleland" Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 May 8; 98(10): 5446–5451. doi: 10.1073/pnas.091093398. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, v.98(10); May 8, 2001, The National Academy of Sciences
^ Glossary: definitions from the following publication: Aubry, C., R. Shoal and V. Erickson. 2005. Grass cultivars: their origins, development, and use on national forests and grasslands in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service. 44 pages, plus appendices.; Native Seed Network (NSN), Institute for Applied Ecology, 563 SW Jefferson Ave, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA
^ Extinction by Hybridization and Introgression; by Judith M. Rhymer , Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469, USA; and Daniel Simberloff, Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA; Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, November 1996, Vol. 27, Pages 83-109 (doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.83), [1]
^ Genetic Pollution from Farm Forestry using eucalypt species and hybrids; A report for the RIRDC/L&WA/FWPRDC; Joint Venture Agroforestry Program; by Brad M. Potts, Robert C. Barbour, Andrew B. Hingston; September 2001; RIRDC Publication No 01/114; RIRDC Project No CPF - 3A; ISBN 0 642 58336 6; ISSN 1440-6845; Australian Government, Rural Industrial Research and Development Corporation
^ Clover, Charles. 2004. The End of the Line: How overfishing is changing the world and what we eat. Ebury Press, London. ISBN 0-09-189780-7
^ Lee, Anita. "The Pleistocene Overkill Hypothesis." University of California at Berkeley Geography Program. URL accessed January 11, 2007.
^ Koh, Lian Pih. Science, Vol 305, Issue 5690, 1632-1634, 10 September 2004.
^ American Museum of Natural History. "National Survey Reveals Biodiversity Crisis - Scientific Experts Believe We are in the Midst of the Fastest Mass Extinction in Earth's History". URL accessed September 20, 2006.
^ Ulansey, David, "The current mass extinction" repeats this statement with links to dozens of news reports on the phenomenon. URL accessed January 26, 2007.
^ J.H.Lawton and R.M.May, Extinction rates, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
^ a b Viney, Mike. "Extinction Part 2 of 5". Colorado State University. URL accessed September 12, 2006.
^ a b Academy of Natural Sciences, "Fossils and Extinction" (http://www.ansp.org/museum/jefferson/otherPages/extinction.php) and U.C. Berkeley "History of Evolutionary Thought - Extinction" http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/extinction.shtml.
^ Koerner, Lisbet (1999). "God's Endless Larder", Linnaeus: Nature and Nation. Harvard University Press, 85. ISBN 0-674-00565-1.
^ Ideas: A History from Fire to Freud (Peter Watson Weidenfeld & Nicolson ISBN 0-297-60726-X)
^ Watson, p.16
^ Robert Chambers, 1844, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, 1994 reprint: University of Chicago Press ISBN 0-226-10073-1
^ a b Walsh, Bruce. Extinction. Bioscience at University of Arizona. URL accessed July 26, 2006.
^ Committee on Recently Extinct Organisms. "Why Care About Species That Have Gone Extinct?". URL accessed July 30, 2006.
^ International Programme on Chemical Safety (1989). "DDT and its Derivatives -- Environmental Aspects". Environmental Health Criteria 83. URL accessed September 20, 2006.
^ Diamond, Jared (2005). "A Tale of Two Farms", Collapse. Penguin, 15-17. ISBN 0-670-03337-5.
^ Drewry, Rachel. "Ecotourism: Can it save the orangutans?" Inside Indonesia. URL accessed January 26, 2007.
^ The Wildlands Project. URL accessed January 26, 2007.
^ Alliance for Zero Extinctions. URL accessed January 26, 2007.
^ (1981) Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. Random House, New York. ISBN 0-394-51312-6.
^ WHO Factsheet WHO meeting agenda Scientists certified it eradicated in December 1979, WHO formally ratified this on 8 May 1980 in resolution WHA33.3
^ Global Polio Eradication Initiative. "The History". URL accessed January 24, 2007.
^ Judson, Olivia (September 25, 2003). ""A Bug's Death"", New York Times. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
^ a b Discover Channel staff. Will mammoths walk again?. Discovery Channel. March 9, 2001. URL accessed July 30, 2006.
^ ""Museum ditches thylacine cloning project"" (February 15, 2005). Retrieved on 2006-07-30.
[edit] External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Extinct animalsCommittee on recently extinct organisms
Recently Extinct Animals
Libertarianism
Libertarianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
For alternative meanings of libertarianism, see: Libertarianism (disambiguation).
Part of the series on
Libertarianism
Schools of thought
Agorism
Anarcho-capitalism
Autarchism
Christian libertarianism
Free-market anarchism
Geolibertarianism
Green libertarianism
Individualist anarchism
Left-libertarianism
Minarchism
Mutualism
Neolibertarianism
Paleolibertarianism
Progressive libertarianism
Propertarianism
Right-libertarianism
Voluntaryism
Origins
Objectivism
Austrian School
Chicago School
Classical liberalism
Individualist anarchism
Ideas
Civil liberties
Consequentalism
Counter-economics
Decriminalization
Deontology
Economic freedom
Free market environmentalism
Free markets
Free trade
Free will
Freedom of contract
Homestead principle
Humanism
Individualist feminism
Individualism
Laissez-faire
Liberty
Natural rights
Night watchman state
Non-aggression
Non-interventionism
Private property
Self-government
Self-ownership
Subjectivism
Tax resistance
Topics
History
Movement
Controversies
Parties
Theories of law
Views of rights
Criticisms
Related Subjects
Civil libertarianism
Constitutionalism
Libertarian Democrat
Libertarian Republican
Libertarian socialism
Libertarian transhumanism
Objectivism
Philosophy Portal
Politics Portal
v • d • e
Libertarianism is a label used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty[2] and seek either to minimize or eliminate the state.[3] What it means to be a libertarian in a political sense is a contentious issue, especially among libertarians themselves. There is no single theory that can be safely identified as the libertarian theory, and probably no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians can agree.[4] Libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian.[5]
Contents
[hide]
1 History
1.1 Modern development
2 Libertarian Principles
2.1 Natural rights and consequentialism
3 Libertarian policy
3.1 Minarchism and anarcho-capitalism
3.2 Libertarian philosophy in the academy
3.3 Left-libertarianism
3.4 Libertarian socialism
3.5 Libertarian conservatism
3.6 Objectivism
4 The libertarian movement
5 Libertarianism in the United States
6 Libertarian politics
7 See also
8 References
9 Bibliography
10 External links
[edit] History
The first known use in a political sense of the term translated into English as libertarian was by the French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque[6] who in 1857 employed the coinage libertaire in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[7] The English term is thus derived from a word which in French is synonymous with anarchist.[8]
Proudhon himself outlined a libertarian social philosophy consisting of "an analysis of the power relations underlying existing forms of political authority" and, further, "a vision of an alternative libertarian society based on cooperation as opposed to competition and coercion, and functioning without the need for government authority."[9]
The term libertarian was first popularized in France in the 1890s in order to counter and evade the anti-anarchist laws known as the les lois scélérates. According to the anarchist historian Max Nettlau, first use of the term libertarian communism had been in November 1880, when a French anarchist congress employed it to more clearly identify its doctrines.[10] The French anarchist journalist Sébastien Faure, later founder and editor of the four-volume Anarchist Encyclopedia, started the weekly paper Le Libertaire (The Libertarian) in 1895.[11]
In the United States libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism had meantime begun to take hold. The anarchist communist geographer and social theorist Peter Kropotkin wrote in his seminal 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article Anarchism that:
"It would be impossible to represent here, in a short sketch, the penetration, on the one hand, of anarchist ideas into modern literature, and the influence, on the other hand, which the libertarian ideas of the best contemporary writers have exercised upon the development of anarchism."[12]
Kropotkin goes on to list some of the writers whose 'libertarian' arguments had helped shape what he himself regarded as the extremely powerful case against authoritarian and exploit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
For alternative meanings of libertarianism, see: Libertarianism (disambiguation).
Part of the series on
Libertarianism
Schools of thought
Agorism
Anarcho-capitalism
Autarchism
Christian libertarianism
Free-market anarchism
Geolibertarianism
Green libertarianism
Individualist anarchism
Left-libertarianism
Minarchism
Mutualism
Neolibertarianism
Paleolibertarianism
Progressive libertarianism
Propertarianism
Right-libertarianism
Voluntaryism
Origins
Objectivism
Austrian School
Chicago School
Classical liberalism
Individualist anarchism
Ideas
Civil liberties
Consequentalism
Counter-economics
Decriminalization
Deontology
Economic freedom
Free market environmentalism
Free markets
Free trade
Free will
Freedom of contract
Homestead principle
Humanism
Individualist feminism
Individualism
Laissez-faire
Liberty
Natural rights
Night watchman state
Non-aggression
Non-interventionism
Private property
Self-government
Self-ownership
Subjectivism
Tax resistance
Topics
History
Movement
Controversies
Parties
Theories of law
Views of rights
Criticisms
Related Subjects
Civil libertarianism
Constitutionalism
Libertarian Democrat
Libertarian Republican
Libertarian socialism
Libertarian transhumanism
Objectivism
Philosophy Portal
Politics Portal
v • d • e
Libertarianism is a label used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty[2] and seek either to minimize or eliminate the state.[3] What it means to be a libertarian in a political sense is a contentious issue, especially among libertarians themselves. There is no single theory that can be safely identified as the libertarian theory, and probably no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians can agree.[4] Libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian.[5]
Contents
[hide]
1 History
1.1 Modern development
2 Libertarian Principles
2.1 Natural rights and consequentialism
3 Libertarian policy
3.1 Minarchism and anarcho-capitalism
3.2 Libertarian philosophy in the academy
3.3 Left-libertarianism
3.4 Libertarian socialism
3.5 Libertarian conservatism
3.6 Objectivism
4 The libertarian movement
5 Libertarianism in the United States
6 Libertarian politics
7 See also
8 References
9 Bibliography
10 External links
[edit] History
The first known use in a political sense of the term translated into English as libertarian was by the French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque[6] who in 1857 employed the coinage libertaire in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[7] The English term is thus derived from a word which in French is synonymous with anarchist.[8]
Proudhon himself outlined a libertarian social philosophy consisting of "an analysis of the power relations underlying existing forms of political authority" and, further, "a vision of an alternative libertarian society based on cooperation as opposed to competition and coercion, and functioning without the need for government authority."[9]
The term libertarian was first popularized in France in the 1890s in order to counter and evade the anti-anarchist laws known as the les lois scélérates. According to the anarchist historian Max Nettlau, first use of the term libertarian communism had been in November 1880, when a French anarchist congress employed it to more clearly identify its doctrines.[10] The French anarchist journalist Sébastien Faure, later founder and editor of the four-volume Anarchist Encyclopedia, started the weekly paper Le Libertaire (The Libertarian) in 1895.[11]
In the United States libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism had meantime begun to take hold. The anarchist communist geographer and social theorist Peter Kropotkin wrote in his seminal 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article Anarchism that:
"It would be impossible to represent here, in a short sketch, the penetration, on the one hand, of anarchist ideas into modern literature, and the influence, on the other hand, which the libertarian ideas of the best contemporary writers have exercised upon the development of anarchism."[12]
Kropotkin goes on to list some of the writers whose 'libertarian' arguments had helped shape what he himself regarded as the extremely powerful case against authoritarian and exploit