Robert Tulip wrote: This thread title with its reference to "Tyranny of the Great Year" is completely crazy and illustrates that the book it promotes is nothing but semi-medieval propaganda in support of the outmoded views and interests of the Roman Church. Do people really want to engage with someone who thinks the Pope should be able to veto scientific knowledge?

Read something educational and accurate, not something that will give you the intellectual equivalent of intestinal worms.

The Great Year is an important scientific fact, with an important role in world mythology. The only tyranny in regard to the Great Year has been the extensive suppression of knowledge and discussion about it by the church.

There's nothing to be afraid of, and shouting it down won't help. I have a kind of interest in stahrwe endorsing Catholicism, anyway. Maybe this is his way of branching out.

Robert Tulip wrote:

ant wrote:"maybe we should just get it over with"

Are you kidding? Reading that book would require an open mind.
Being "smart" requires no such thing.

This thread title with its reference to "Tyranny of the Great Year" is completely crazy and illustrates that the book it promotes is nothing but semi-medieval propaganda in support of the outmoded views and interests of the Roman Church. Do people really want to engage with someone who thinks the Pope should be able to veto scientific knowledge?

Read something educational and accurate, not something that will give you the intellectual equivalent of intestinal worms.

The Great Year is an important scientific fact, with an important role in world mythology. The only tyranny in regard to the Great Year has been the extensive suppression of knowledge and discussion about it by the church.

We should ban all books with a religious slant, huh Robert? Or anything contrary to naturalism, for that matter.

Maybe one day we can even arrange to have them burned.
We need more books that promote atheism, or disbelief.

(talk about an atheist communist- geez)

i just got the book and was reading it on kindle for pc.

Jaki not only argued that Christianity in the Middle Ages contributed to the rise of modern science and that the Church was a patron of science, but he went even further; he argued that there had to come a birth, the birth of the only begotten Son of the Father as a man, to allow science to have its first viable birth. To argue that is not a trivial matter.

Unless Jesus had been born of a virgin literally inseminated by a supernatural entity science would not have been allowed it's first viable birth?!?!

this seems quite an outrageous claim!

well i'm enjoying the book, so i'll go back to reading.

the book is not short on quotable bits.

If science is to progress and to benefit the human race, it must return to the protective mantle that Christian thought provided it when it was born. Why does this matter? It matters because science today is returning to the pantheistic, pagan, or atheistic thought of ancient times— times when science did not thrive as a self-sustaining enterprise that discovered physical laws and systems of laws , but instead viewed the world as unpredictable, unknowable, and magical. This will be explained as it is the essence of the argument. To understand this claim is to understand why the Catholic Church has a legitimate right and authority to veto scientific conclusions which directly contradict divinely revealed dogma.

ooh la la, oy vey

heres a tamer one.

Jaki did not argue that science was invented by Christians or that it originated with Christians. He argued that science, as defined in the previous chapter, was born into a “viable discipline” from a “cultural womb” that properly nurtured it, and that it was nearly born in other cultures too, but died. By “was born” Jaki means a transition– a breakthrough–from independent insights, skills, and practical inventions to a self-sustaining discipline of theoretical generalizations and investigations about the physical world. Science, once born, matured into a universal enterprise of exact physical laws and systems of laws.

heres one

Eternal his mercy, who made the great luminaries; made the sun to rule by day, his mercy is eternal; made the moon and the stars to rule by night, his mercy is eternal. Eternal his mercy, who smote the Egyptians by smiting their first-born; eternal his mercy, who delivered Israel from their midst, with constraining power, with his arm raised on high, his mercy is eternal.

smite on oh Mighty Smiter of Israel, of thy smiting may there be no surcease

The reason for quoting such a long passage is to show the richness and unity of the outlook of the world and humanity that derived from Genesis 1. There are many others that describe the same. God is not just a dispassionate creator, He is eternally merciful and faithful to His people, and that faithfulness is evidenced in the stability of creation.

i love how hard it is to notice that Eternal Mercy and killing egyptian babies could be interpreted as incongruent.

ASP

It was mentioned twice now that the core argument is that science is returning to view the world as unpredictable, unknowable, magical. Is that truly the core argument as you see it?

ant wrote:We should ban all books with a religious slant, huh Robert? Or anything contrary to naturalism, for that matter. Maybe one day we can even arrange to have them burned. We need more books that promote atheism, or disbelief. (talk about an atheist communist- geez)

Ant, you obviously do not read anything that I write, but just invent malicious and stupid distortions based on your obsolete religious views. In my detailed comment on this book, I specifically said "the church should not be silenced or ignored" and "This foreword should be read". That is the opposite of your false claim.

youkrst has given us some entertaining examples to support my initial assessment that the 'Great Year Tyranny' book is junk. Once again, how about engaging on content, ant? Of course you won't because that never serves your duplicitous agenda.

I acknowledged in my comment that the author of the foreword, Dr Paul Haffner, had provided "a wonderful statement of awe and reverence for the natural order" and supported his view on purpose, stating "The idea that the cosmos is good is a key idea that science cannot comprehend because of its anti-teleological bias regarding the existence of natural purpose and meaning in matter."

Unfortunately ant is incapable of dialogue regarding anything more nuanced than stupid slogans, but just resorts to false sneering labels such as calling me an "atheist communist", something that is completely baseless and untrue. It reminds me of The Crucible by Arthur Miller.

DWill wrote:There's nothing to be afraid of, and shouting it down won't help.

I am far from being in any position to shout down a representative of the mighty Church of Rome, and would not wish to do that in any case. I am interested in reasoned dialogue. Stahrwe was the one who introduced the idea that a core scientific theme which I have studied in considerable depth should be dismissed and suppressed as "Tyranny". I find Stahrwe's depiction of the Great Year appallingly offensive and stupid, and am happy to back up my opinion with facts, as I have already done in the linked post. That is not 'shouting it down'.

Interbane wrote:It was mentioned twice now that the core argument is that science is returning to view the world as unpredictable, unknowable, magical. Is that truly the core argument as you see it?

Yes that appears to be true, see quote below.

If science is to progress and benefit the human race, it must return to the protective mantle that Christian thought provided it when it was born. Why does this matter? It matters because science today is returning to the pantheistic, pagan, or atheistic thought of ancient times - times when science did not thrive as a self-sustaining enterprise that discovered physical laws and systems of laws, but instead viewed the world as unpredictable, unknowable, and magical. This will be explained as it is the essence of the argument.
Introduction, Part A

Here's another quote that is troubling.

To say something simple such as "a rock is there" is beyond the purview of exact science.
Introduction, Part B

Robert Tulip wrote:

DWill wrote:There's nothing to be afraid of, and shouting it down won't help.

I am far from being in any position to shout down a representative of the mighty Church of Rome, and would not wish to do that in any case. I am interested in reasoned dialogue. Stahrwe was the one who introduced the idea that a core scientific theme which I have studied in considerable depth should be dismissed and suppressed as "Tyranny". I find Stahrwe's depiction of the Great Year appallingly offensive and stupid, and am happy to back up my opinion with facts, as I have already done in the linked post. That is not 'shouting it down'.

Robert, by "shouting it down" I refer to something of which you might not even be aware, that you often rely on very emotive, attacking language in your posts. Certainly your arguments can stand on their logical legs without that sort of thing.

P.S. Is the rejoinder,"The other guy does it too," sufficient?