Before There Was An Evolutionary Theory There Was An Evolutionary Diet:
Plenty Of Food For Thought (Then & Now)
There is literary evidence to suggest that something analogous to an evolutionary theory is implicit in early Greek poetry, perhaps beginning with Sappho. Such literary evidence by itself is only at best suggestive of such a theory, but some of the relevant literary evidence does not just suggest but effectively proves that some early Greeks adopted a type of vegetarian diet. What has been traditionally termed a Pythagorean Diet seems to have been based not merely on a good faith belief in the relationship of one form of life to another, but also on the belief that such a relationship was ultimately evolutionary in nature. It can thus fairly be called an ‘Evolutionary Diet.’
The Surprising Relevance Of An Early Christian Woman
The primary source of evidence for an Evolutionary Diet is Empedocles, yet it is not obvious how it relates to what else can be learned from his poetry about his understanding of evolution. Already in antiquity it seems that the basis for his Evolutionary Diet was misunderstood. Dietary restrictions associated with Empedocles were regularly ridiculed on the assumption that one aspect of his philosophy could in principle justify the prohibition of practically any type of food (plant or animal). This is because in places in his poetry he emphasizes the cyclicality of life, implying that at any given time any one life form is directly related to another.
By contrast, while evolutionary theory recognizes the interrelationship of life forms, depending on how the developmental trajectory of evolution is interpreted it allows for qualitative distinctions to be made between different types of life. Today this explains why some people have no problem eating seafood, but do not eat any form of meat from land animals. Those who identify themselves as ‘vegan’ do not eat any form of meat whatsoever. They thus draw a distinction between plants and animals but precisely this distinction betrays a belief in some sort of evolutionary theory that precludes closely identifying humans with plants.
Regardless of what actually may have been the case with Empedocles, there is solid evidence that Christians adopted aspects of his philosophy consistent with what they understood to be an evolutionary theory implicit in the Bible that also implied an endorsement of an Evolutionary Diet. This evidence comes from a lesson on both life and death that Macrina, a female Christian saint, gave her younger brother — as she herself was dying. I have other posts on Macrina and this lesson here and here (as in those prior posts I refer to the work that records the lesson she gave her younger brother by the abbreviation of its title: ‘OSR’) . For now, I want to focus on excerpts from OSR where Macrina offers a quite creative interpretation of Genesis that shows that for her evolutionary theory was entirely consistent with the Bible. The excerpts are from the bottom of page 55 and the top of page 56 of this translation by Catherine Roth:
Before delving into the many implications of this reading of Genesis, it is necessary to make two points. First, most Christian scholars do not think this language reflects what Macrina said, but rather what her younger brother portrays her as having said. This is an indefensible assumption and to a great extent can be shown to betray a disturbing and even tragic disregard that many Christian scholars have towards the roots of Christianity in female spirituality. Second, Christian scholars (most notably Rowan Williams, the former archbishop of Canterbury) have dismissed the relevance this passage might have to evolutionary theory. Such a dismissive attitude cannot be justified once the evidence of the substantial influence of Empedocles on early Christianity is assessed. That influence supports the conclusion that the evolutionary theory implicit in how Macrina reads Genesis derives directly from the ancient Greek female spiritual tradition with which Empedocles can be shown to have been associated.
Subjective And Objective Dimensions Of Evolutionary Theory
As is apparent from other portions of OSR, Macrina believed in what has traditionally been called apokatastasis or universal salvation. This is a complex topic involving many thinkers and texts extending back before Christianity and forward to today (evidence of its complexity is that there is a 900 page book focused on the topic by the Italian scholar Ilaria Ramelli: The Christian Doctrine Of Apocatastasis). Explaining the relevance of it to the Evolutionary Diet takes time.
I intend to do that in more detail in future posts, but suffice it for now to suggest that universal salvation has both a subjective and objective dimension. The subjective dimension relates to psychology (and hence epistemology): human consciousness as Macrina analyzes it primarily in the first half of OSR. As one of many ascetic disciplines that affect human consciousness (such as celibacy) the Evolutionary Diet relates to this subjective dimension. As I have discussed in earlier posts, there is substantial evidence (from Empedocles, Seneca and others) that in antiquity a vegetarian diet was appreciated for the effect it had on how one thought and behaved (this is consistent with what many believe today but scientific research is surprisingly (disturbingly) lacking on the issue).
The objective dimension of universal salvation corresponds to a great extent to how evolutionary theory is otherwise defined. This dimension relates to theology (as it was originally understood, which effectively included the study of natural history). In the modern era natural history began to be distinguished from theology largely as the result of advances in science that were widely deemed to refute, partly if not entirely, theology. Arguably the single most prominent advance in science in this regard was Darwin’s theory of evolution. For many (especially in the United States) to accept (and not simply ‘believe in’) the theory of evolution has become a litmus test for whether one can or should even claim to be spiritual or religious, not to mention specifically Christian.
The Epistemological Priority Of The Subjective Dimension
Largely because publicity about the theory of evolution rarely is accompanied by anything like a discussion of philosophical principles, few people, including scientists who purport to understand the theory of evolution, are sensitive to the fact that it relates solely to one dimension of what was once theology. In particular there is little awareness that one basis for distinguishing the subjective dimension of theology from the objective dimension relates to epistemology. Notwithstanding the pejorative connotation that the term ‘subjective’ has in English, it is precisely the subjective dimension of theology that has epistemological priority over the objective dimension. Put bluntly, personal beliefs, perceptions and experiences are, in principle, on far more solid epistemological grounds than anything a scientist says. That is because only the subjective dimension can rely directly on empirical ‘data’ (personal experience) while the objective dimension, by the very fact that it purports to be objective, must marginalize or even ignore entirely the relevance of the direct reliance on empirical data that only is accessible from the perspective of the subjective dimension.
It is easy to identify how problematic is the lack of awareness of this distinction. The theory of evolution explains a lot, but it does not explain the evolution of language. This would seem to be because the theory of evolution has been defined solely in terms of its objective dimension, i.e., as a ‘scientific’ theory.
Yet, if language is analyzed, as it seems it should be, from the perspective of the subjective dimension, then the basis for its evolution is naturally understandable. That is because it is something you personally experience. It is only natural, it would seem, to correlate human development as a microcosm with evolution of the cosmos.
To call such a correlation ‘anthropomorphism’ is pompously to rebrand what is an epistemological reality. Humans cannot think other than anthropomorphically. Acknowledging this reality leads to recognizing not only that epistemology (subjective dimension) evolves in a manner that is analogous to how cosmology is understood today, but that cosmology derives from epistemology.
The ‘big bang’ in microcosmic terms is the first movement of the fetus in the womb. Only after — usually immediately after — being born a baby makes its first sound — crying. Typically, infants do not speak (infant derives from the Latin for “not speaking”) until they begin to walk. An ‘echo’ of this progression can be identified in the very structure of grammar (at least in Indo-European languages). Regardless of its position in a sentence, the verb (especially the purely existential verb ‘to be’) is the starting point (something ‘is’), and then there is a consideration of the thing or things to which it relates (nouns and names).
[MORE TO COME]
