Most of the time the Earth is flat

[gzt]

http://www.orthodoxartsjournal.org/most-of-the-time-the-earth-is-flat/

I very much agree with the general thrust of his views, right to the Homeric allusion at the end.

Modern cosmology is indeed useful for sending up satellites and flying space ships, for sending a few people to colonize Mars. And even during the Middle Ages scholars believed the Earth to be a sphere. Multiple cosmologies should be able to coexist and play different functions, some more philosophical and human and others more technical and mathematical. But in our lives most of the time, the Earth is flat. Most of the time, the sky is up and the Earth is down, most of the time means in those instances when I am interacting with my family, my society and my enemies. And most of all, if we wish to understand religion and its symbolism, if we wish to understand the Bible or icons or church architecture we must anchor ourselves to the world of human experience, for that is where we can love our neighbour. We must force ourselves to believe that the sun rises every morning, or that the moon waxes and wanes and honestly it should not be so difficult, because despite Galileo and Newton and Einstein I’m pretty sure I will find some joy in tomorrow’s rosy fingered dawn.

 

[rusmeister]

Yeah. This is something I can agree with.

 

[Kristos]

An interesting philosophical contemplation - why should/shouldn't we expect the sun to rise tomorrow?

 

[rusmeister]

An interesting philosophical contemplation - why should/shouldn't we expect the sun to rise tomorrow?

If anyone ever read the fat jolly man that it seems a lot of people sneer at just because I think he's important - say, the essay "A Defence of Baby Worship", or the chapter in "Orthodoxy" "The Ethics of Elfland", it might be obvious. The ability to see all of Creation as a miracle is intuitively Orthodox, and the taking of things in it for granted, like the sunrise, as obviously un-Orthodox. The former makes gratitude possible, the latter, selfishness and even pride.


The Defendant by Gilbert Keith Chesterton: Ch. 14: A Defence of Baby Worship

The Ethics of Elfland>

 

[ArmyMatt]

intresting article, but I must say the picture of the quality family time was pretty sad.

 

[MilesVitae]

If anyone ever read the fat jolly man that it seems a lot of people sneer at just because I think he's important

Santa Claus....?

Totally off topic, but since you're mentioning Chesterton I figured I'd ask, have you ever read The Ballad of the White Horse?
(I'm not nearly as much of a Chestertonian as you, but I certainly appreciate his spirit - in any case, I'm re-reading the poem after probably ten years since last reading the whole thing, and I'm loving it).

 

[rusmeister]

Santa Claus....?

Totally off topic, but since you're mentioning Chesterton I figured I'd ask, have you ever read The Ballad of the White Horse?
(I'm not nearly as much of a Chestertonian as you, but I certainly appreciate his spirit - in any case, I'm re-reading the poem after probably ten years since last reading the whole thing, and I'm loving it).

Of course.
TBOTWH is one of the great works of English literature, and, AFAIK, the last epic ballad written in English.

That it begins with Alfred's vision of the Theotokos is a prime reason why no one here has ever heard of it. Our largely public "education" has made sure of that.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Far be it from me to be an apologist for public education, but I seriously doubt the Ballad of the White Horse ever would've been a major hit in American education to begin with? It isn't read in the private schools either to my knowledge, and it's not really well-known in Christian circles either. I think Chesterton is a well-kept secret. Everyone and his dog has heard of C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien, but nobody I've ever spoken to, apart from hardcore Catholics who are into EWTN, know who Chesterton is! This includes many of my EXTREMELY well-read friends at church who've read EVERYTHING Lewis has to offer practically plus just about any and ever Orthodox piece of writing worth its salt. I think you overestimate Chesterton's influence. Genius or not, I just don't think he's well-known. Public education is hostile to religion, of course, by and large, yes.

Of course.
TBOTWH is one of the great works of English literature, and, AFAIK, the last epic ballad written in English.

That it begins with Alfred's vision of the Theotokos is a prime reason why no one here has ever heard of it. Our largely public "education" has made sure of that.

 

[MilesVitae]

Of course.
TBOTWH is one of the great works of English literature, and, AFAIK, the last epic ballad written in English.

I think you may be correct on the latter point, and I certainly won't beg to differ on the former.

 

[rusmeister]

Far be it from me to be an apologist for public education, but I seriously doubt the Ballad of the White Horse ever would've been a major hit in American education to begin with? It isn't read in the private schools either to my knowledge, and it's not really well-known in Christian circles either. I think Chesterton is a well-kept secret. Everyone and his dog has heard of C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien, but nobody I've ever spoken to, apart from hardcore Catholics who are into EWTN, know who Chesterton is! This includes many of my EXTREMELY well-read friends at church who've read EVERYTHING Lewis has to offer practically plus just about any and ever Orthodox piece of writing worth its salt. I think you overestimate Chesterton's influence. Genius or not, I just don't think he's well-known. Public education is hostile to religion, of course, by and large, yes.

Well, when you say "To begin with", what do you mean? Begin from what?

I didn't speak of his influence, let alone try to estimate it. Though his influence is broader than most of us know (I could drag in a prodigious list of twentieth-century writers and thinkers that credit him with influencing them), his defence of the common man, Christian faith, and the Catholic Church all go down poorly with various groups. Protestants are motivated to put him down for his Catholic apologetics, non-Christians are similarly motivated because he shows up unbelief, paganism, and other non-Christian faiths in their true proportions. And intellectuals and professors hate his support of the common man, for it discounts their own inflated worth. The experts want us to believe they know better than we do, and he shows that common sense lies with what men have always held in common, not in whatever "experts" have recently discovered, and their latest discoveries are always overturning prior "latest" discoveries. Tht's why intellectuals even here at TAW will speak of "his pretty words" rather than actually read them - because his words dethrone them and restore traditional Christian understandings to their rightful place. So they hate him, rather mindlessly, and are more than happy to see him suppressed or discredited.

That's why he became unknown after having been internationally famous for decades. But being unknown does not make his genius any the less. It is OUR ignorance that is the fault, not his failing to have made himself popular with those who make themselves his enemies (when in his lifetime, his enemies generally became his friends).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Perhaps I'm misreading your post, Rus, but it sounds emotional and as if you're trying to convince me, play GKC apologist here. Apologies if I'm wrong, but it feels like you're getting defensive. As I said, internet "tone" is a killer to try to read. In any case, I'm not trying to say WHY GKC isn't popular. I'm merely saying he is. And I never said it was his fault that he is either? All I know is where we are NOW. C.S. Lewis is huge, GKC is not. I know you're a big fan and you live and breathe the man's thinking and works with more zeal than I've ever seen. I'm not if that's healthy or not. That's all up to you and I'm glad you have a profound influence in him. I'm merely saying that I think because you find him influential, profound, absolutely dead-on in almost all areas of Christianity and morality and social commentary, that doesn't mean everyone else does. We can speculate as to why, but he's not that well-known now. Perhaps you're right, but I think generally speaking I was just making the point that he just isn't a factor nowdays to be kept out of schools. He's off people's radars. Why? You probably know better than I in that department. I would speculate that if you go back to 1940 or so and go to all the school districts across America and ask the typical high school history or English teacher, superintendent, principal who is GK Chesterton, they'd probably have zero clue. Did most superintendents and principals follow the George Bernard Shaw vs. Chesterton debate in 1928 or whenever it was? Doubtful. I think the inteligensia of the times followed it, most likely public education at a college level, etc. but I doubt the commoner in the States had a familiarity with him.

Well, when you say "To begin with", what do you mean? Begin from what?

I didn't speak of his influence, let alone try to estimate it. Though his influence is broader than most of us know (I could drag in a prodigious list of twentieth-century writers and thinkers that credit him with influencing them), his defence of the common man, Christian faith, and the Catholic Church all go down poorly with various groups. Protestants are motivated to put him down for his Catholic apologetics, non-Christians are similarly motivated because he shows up unbelief, paganism, and other non-Christian faiths in their true proportions. And intellectuals and professors hate his support of the common man, for it discounts their own inflated worth. The experts want us to believe they know better than we do, and he shows that common sense lies with what men have always held in common, not in whatever "experts" have recently discovered, and their latest discoveries are always overturning prior "latest" discoveries. Tht's why intellectuals even here at TAW will speak of "his pretty words" rather than actually read them - because his words dethrone them and restore traditional Christian understandings to their rightful place. So they hate him, rather mindlessly, and are more than happy to see him suppressed or discredited.

That's why he became unknown after having been internationally famous for decades. But being unknown does not make his genius any the less. It is OUR ignorance that is the fault, not his failing to have made himself popular with those who make themselves his enemies (when in his lifetime, his enemies generally became his friends).

 

[rusmeister]

Perhaps I'm misreading your post, Rus, but it sounds emotional and as if you're trying to convince me, play GKC apologist here. Apologies if I'm wrong, but it feels like you're getting defensive. As I said, internet "tone" is a killer to try to read. In any case, I'm not trying to say WHY GKC isn't popular. I'm merely saying he is. And I never said it was his fault that he is either? All I know is where we are NOW. C.S. Lewis is huge, GKC is not. I know you're a big fan and you live and breathe the man's thinking and works with more zeal than I've ever seen. I'm not if that's healthy or not. That's all up to you and I'm glad you have a profound influence in him. I'm merely saying that I think because you find him influential, profound, absolutely dead-on in almost all areas of Christianity and morality and social commentary, that doesn't mean everyone else does. We can speculate as to why, but he's not that well-known now. Perhaps you're right, but I think generally speaking I was just making the point that he just isn't a factor nowdays to be kept out of schools. He's off people's radars. Why? You probably know better than I in that department. I would speculate that if you go back to 1940 or so and go to all the school districts across America and ask the typical high school history or English teacher, superintendent, principal who is GK Chesterton, they'd probably have zero clue. Did most superintendents and principals follow the George Bernard Shaw vs. Chesterton debate in 1928 or whenever it was? Doubtful. I think the inteligensia of the times followed it, most likely public education at a college level, etc. but I doubt the commoner in the States had a familiarity with him.

Hi, Gurney.
No, it's not defensiveness. It's patiently trying to explain some big things to people who have never understood how they could be different, in the exact same way that we try to explain Orthodoxy to (hopefully interested) Protestants.

You can't explain anything to someone who doesn't want it explained - whether reason is on your side or not.

When you say "All I know is where we are now", you might as well be echoing 98% of our active membership, in regards to this, at any rate. I know that. To me, it's given.

I think you and I both know that if a thing is true, it's not dependent on how many people know about it. I do NOT say that there is an active conspiracy (see what could be read into the words of others?), but I do say that any such person, upon encountering those ideas, if they are aligned against them, they're going to tend to go into shut-down mode and refuse to give ear, let alone teach or pass along, something that rubs against what they take for granted.

People may WANT to be in ignorance and not know a thing, and that's another matter. But my operating assumption, that I try to hold even when it seems doubtful, is that people are basically intelligent and do want to learn new things, among which is the amazing discovery that, generally speaking, our ancestors were right, they had common sense, and were not doofy bigoted ignoramuses that needed Emmeline Pankhurst, Richard Dawkins, or whoever reveal their version of "truth".

In 1940, you would be wrong, sorry. No adult had a memory that didn't stretch even 5 years back then, even if now that is the case. In 1950 you might be able to seriously say such a thing. But in '40? I don't think so. The name of a man who had been published for decades and whose obituary was on the front page of the NY Times would certainly be recognizable to most educated people a mere 4 years after his death. You might as well say that no one would recognize the name of George Will (and Will is a LOT less relatively famous, and does not actually have journalists meeting him at the airport in Heathrow to interview him, or thousands of people traveling and paying to see him lecture or debate other public figures, unlike GKC).

I think the common educated man was a lot more common and a lot more educated in 1928. It is true that common people today don't have a clue. But to infer from that that they didn't 80 years ago, when all evidence (the kind we actually look at) points to the contrary, is just imposition of our understandings of what people could have known onto the past. No one similarly suggests that FDR's fireside chats were only heard by an intellectual elite, yet that is what you might as well be suggesting here (I realize you are not asserting certainty; I'm just trying to show what certainly must have been the case.

Merely resurrecting the dozens of articles I have personally seen and read published in local American papers about the visiting GKC would be enough to force admittance that the man's name was a household word across the general majority of the reading public. Sure, you can exclude coal miners and farmers here and there, but everything I have seen suggests that such people were more literate and intelligent than we give them credit for in our time, and that by and large, his name was as recognizable in his time as that of Obama or J-Lo in ours, and that it is the person who had never heard the name who would be looked at as odd and unusual.

I wonder how much I would have to say to clear myself of the charge of mindless hero-worship? (Not that you are so charging me, but it is a fact that some do, and they do so out of ignorance.)

 

[gzt]

...

I think people object not so much to Chesterton, but the hijacking of every thread into a defense and discussion of Chesterton's works, especially when it turns myopic. Outside of this context, I would say that I'm a fan of Chesterton, having read, among other works, Orthodoxy, The Everlasting Man, his books on St Francis and St Thomas Acquinas, the complete Father Brown mysteries, The Man Who Was Thursday, The Outline of Sanity, and a couple collections of essays, having enjoyed and appreciated them all. I should probably read his essays about eugenics because of the unfortunate history of some statisticians.

As for this: Tht's why intellectuals even here at TAW will speak of "his pretty words" rather than actually read them

In that context, they were indeed just pretty words that could be ignored, as they were not on the mark for the discussion for reasons later elaborated on by the one who uttered them.

 

[rusmeister]

If Gurney hadn't said anything, I wouldn't have said anything.

This diversion happened because Miles asked an OT question and then Gurney honestly wanted to know more.

I suggest that to tie up loose ends, and eliminate offensive comments about "pretty words", that we all read the links I posted above and see how they ARE on the mark for the topic you have posted about. Then we could talk about that relevancy. Happy ending for all.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I just find this extremely hard to believe, Rus. And if you look back at the 1940's, how many "educated" Americans were there really? Take my family. My great grandparents, grandparents, parents, none of them went to college. You didn't need to! My grandpa worked from the bottom of Long Beach Oil Development as an oil "roustabout" field worker all the way up to the head maintenance foreman and retired with an awesome pension, WWII veteran, never stepped foot in college. It's incredible how many "uneducated" people lived back in those days. In 1940, only 5% of the population had college degrees, nowdays around 28% as of 2010. Chesterton was probably a huge name on Fleet Street, but I wonder how the average American middle class schmuck in my income bracket would have really known him. If memory serves, his arguments with Clarence Darrow were the late 1920's, his responses to H.G. Wells were the mid 1920's. I can't imagine him being a household name by the era of World War II.

But I do often wonder why Chesterton's name only lived on in Catholic circles so fervently and his name pretty much died out elsewhere when C.S. Lewis is immortalized!? Lewis appealed to everyone be he Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, heck, Mormon! Even seculars liked his thinking to some degree. Lewis seems like a man for all ages and continues to have a broad appeal. And it wasn't because he was a simpleton! The man could appeal to a layman, but his stuff was indeed deep. I have had to re-read his works on many occasions just to understand his points. He's not an easy read if you ask me. Chesterton used humor and analogy, fiction, and sarcasm in a very layman-friendly manner really, yet he didn't seem to impact as many people long term as Lewis. And here Lewis reverted to Christ thanks to Chesterton!

I'm convinced that Lewis's death would've been huge news had it not coincided with JFK's.....

Where FDR's Fireside Chats are concerned, I think, respectfully (and I mean that!!!!!), it's apples and oranges to a high degree. FDR was not only the President of the United States having a bully pulpit already that was awesome, but radio was a huge innovation at the time. People were completely unaccustomed to hearing their presidents at a global level. It was so cutting edge what he did, like the Kennedy-Nixon debates on TV were groundbreaking paradigm shifts for elections, FDR was addressing the nation during the Great Depression in a time of utter financial ruin for the U.S. People had such great reverence for the office of the presidency in those days and conditions and the future seemed so dark and dreary that those chats were akin to sermons of hope. Then the chats continued into WWII, when a fascist psychopath was trying to take over the entire globe. They were just utterly different from GK Chesterton popping up in some newspapers and having some high-profile debates with intellectual authors and political animals back then. Not to mention the fact that he died four years before the 40's even started. Have you read actual numbers that support his massive popularity? I would think that we'd hear a lot more about it. The only way I ever even heard the name of Chesterton was when I was in my late 20's watching Catholic television and listening to Catholic radio.

I just have trouble believing Chesterton was notable in a time where World War II, Rosie the Riveter, the Israeli-Arab war, Chairman Mao, India and Pakistan were separating, 1984 was published, Ayn Rand was on the rise, Hemingway was in full swing, Arthur Miller was churning out things like Death of a Salesman, Benny Goodman and Frank Sinatra were crooning away, and Chesterton, an English satirist and philosopher, was already 4 years dead. It's just a stretch for me.

I was thinking about what you said about George Will, and I often wonder if the average American even knows who he is either!?! I often think even the average newspaper reader doesn't know much about newsmen or commentators or the "experts." They read some pieces, react, turn the page, forget. I think the average American has always reacted more to pop culture than to the intelligentsia of its time. I know that sounds cynical. Americans have always reacted well to propaganda and gossip in politics more than hard analysis and insightful debate. What got more traction--allegations that President Jackson cheated on his wife or the "Coffin Handbill" was legit OR actual speeches by President Jackson? How many people read much less cared about his debates or speeches. They read posters, heard rhetoric, got partisan, like they do now. "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" jingles or "loose lips sink ships" in WWII are the usual extent of American grappling with issues. Those things endure in people's minds, not philosophers or much depth if you ask me.

I think the only reason that people in modernity react to political issues like torturing of terrorists or government overreach with spying (i.e. NSA, drones, etc.) is because they hear those issues talked about on American television shows like "24" or "Person of Interest," "Homeland," or other thriller films of that genre. People also hear blurbs on conservative or liberal radio.

I think people nowdays aren't that different from 80 years ago, sadly. Quick soundbytes, propaganda, small amount of the country educated, etc.

Yeah, I know. I sound super cynical here....

In 1940, you would be wrong, sorry. No adult had a memory that didn't stretch even 5 years back then, even if now that is the case. In 1950 you might be able to seriously say such a thing. But in '40? I don't think so. The name of a man who had been published for decades and whose obituary was on the front page of the NY Times would certainly be recognizable to most educated people a mere 4 years after his death. You might as well say that no one would recognize the name of George Will (and Will is a LOT less relatively famous, and does not actually have journalists meeting him at the airport in Heathrow to interview him, or thousands of people traveling and paying to see him lecture or debate other public figures, unlike GKC).

I think the common educated man was a lot more common and a lot more educated in 1928. It is true that common people today don't have a clue. But to infer from that that they didn't 80 years ago, when all evidence (the kind we actually look at) points to the contrary, is just imposition of our understandings of what people could have known onto the past. No one similarly suggests that FDR's fireside chats were only heard by an intellectual elite, yet that is what you might as well be suggesting here (I realize you are not asserting certainty; I'm just trying to show what certainly must have been the case.

Merely resurrecting the dozens of articles I have personally seen and read published in local American papers about the visiting GKC would be enough to force admittance that the man's name was a household word across the general majority of the reading public. Sure, you can exclude coal miners and farmers here and there, but everything I have seen suggests that such people were more literate and intelligent than we give them credit for in our time, and that by and large, his name was as recognizable in his time as that of Obama or J-Lo in ours, and that it is the person who had never heard the name who would be looked at as odd and unusual.

I wonder how much I would have to say to clear myself of the charge of mindless hero-worship? (Not that you are so charging me, but it is a fact that some do, and they do so out of ignorance.)

 

[rusmeister]

Hey, Gurney,
I could respond. But in case you ain't noticed, not everyone is appreciating our side-track. I recommend here that you comment on GK's comments on wonder, babies and elfland and their relation to the OP.

People might even begin to see that GK did write, and write well, about nearly every subject under the sun!

I'd be happy to try to begin to show you just how well he was known on another thread. Right now you seem to be approaching it from a "what-you-know-now" kind of tack. Thing is, what we know now can be transformed by discovering new things we didn't know before. 6 years ago, I knew little of this; ten years ago, nothing at all.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

http://www.orthodoxartsjournal.org/most-of-the-time-the-earth-is-flat/

I very much agree with the general thrust of his views, right to the Homeric allusion at the end.

Modern cosmology is indeed useful for sending up satellites and flying space ships, for sending a few people to colonize Mars. And even during the Middle Ages scholars believed the Earth to be a sphere. Multiple cosmologies should be able to coexist and play different functions, some more philosophical and human and others more technical and mathematical. But in our lives most of the time, the Earth is flat. Most of the time, the sky is up and the Earth is down, most of the time means in those instances when I am interacting with my family, my society and my enemies. And most of all, if we wish to understand religion and its symbolism, if we wish to understand the Bible or icons or church architecture we must anchor ourselves to the world of human experience, for that is where we can love our neighbour. We must force ourselves to believe that the sun rises every morning, or that the moon waxes and wanes and honestly it should not be so difficult, because despite Galileo and Newton and Einstein I’m pretty sure I will find some joy in tomorrow’s rosy fingered dawn

Reading the article, I got the impression that his general thrust was on retreating from scientific discovery when it seems that it leads to a devaluing of understanding/appreciating the simple things in life that the medieval and Early Church world valued. Not everything that we see in the world of science today as being "inaccurate" (i.e. the world being round rather than flat as a quick example) led to a negative since quality was seen as the focus more so than accuracy for its own sake (as Fr. Michael P. Plekon of the Orthodox Church of America noted best). As discussed in the Evolution thread ( in #469 and #481 , #478 ) Thinking the Earth was flat because the Sun rose horizontally (from their perspective) did not change the fact that they appreciated the value of the Sun and who Made it (God) - whereas later generations used valid beliefs on accuracy done by believers (Galileo in example) during the Enlightenment Age to say "If this view was true that Christians and others had, then EVERYTHING supernatural is false."

Their viewing the Earth as flat didn't change the fact that they had a much greater sense of AWE and AMAZEMENT thinking the Sun was going to come up every day and there was something mysterious with not knowing where the sun went after it went down. Families were connected together even when it seemed their knowledge was not as complete as we have it today - whereas modernity and the Age of Reason assumed that Human Reason alone is what could give life meaning.......and thus, there was no longer simplicity.


Considering these “fathers” of the Scientific Revolution:

Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564) “Father of modern anatomy”

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) “Father of modern astronomy”

William Harvey (1578-1630) “Father of modern medicine”

Robert Boyle (1627-1691) “Father of modern chemistry”

Antony van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) “Father of microbiology”

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) “Father of modern mechanistic physics” (and, with Leibnitz, of calculus).
​

Within the realm of the science of music, the same has been seen. For example, in 1616, astronomer Johannes Kepler pursued a longstanding interest in music in an unusual direction. He developed a system of musical notation to represent the variations in the speed of each planet when nearest to and furthest from the sun. The harmonies produced by the planets’ notes, he felt, proclaimed the glory of God. He used just two notes to represent the relatively small change in the earth’s speed, lamenting, “The Earth sings Mi-Fa-Mi, so we can gather even from this that Misery and Famine reign on our habitat.” He published this research as Harmonies of the World (1618). Seemingly a quirky diversion, these musical investigations led Kepler to the discovery of the principles of planetary motion, which, 40 years later, would spur Isaac Newton to develop his theory of universal gravitation.

Science was never meant to be concieved as the enemy of religion - or as the enemy of simplicity and enjoyment or automatically ruling out the supernatural - as even within church history, other believers stated outright how science should be welcomed when it comes to showing the artistic/delicate design that the universe has been given to keep going.

And even as they sought to understand the world, they did not lose their sense of awe for the Lord or value of family/relationships - and they also did not assume they were ever able to know everything. Even they still looked UP to the Heavens knowing they couldn't see or know everything there was to know in existence.

As an aside, the background behind how things went when they viewed the sun is fascinating - the sun’s visual journey throughout the course of the year signified a universal journey, which has been understood and undertaken by people throughout the world, and throughout time—the journey to enlightenment. And the frescos have been really excellent in making that point - as it concerns examples showing Jesus in the centre of a zodiac as done by certain monasteries.

The heavens do declare the glory of God and There's no reason to assume that the early world was "primitive" or "off" simply because of the fact that they held to views supporting a lot with astrology (seen as a science..from studying dreams to constellations, etc.) - including others such as Daniel (Daniel 2:27-28) and the Wisemen (more in MYSTAGOGY: The Magi and the Star: An Orthodox Understanding ...even though the Lord did note that people were not to look to the stars rather than Him, per Jeremiah 10:2-3 and Deuteronomy 4:19 and Acts 7:42-43) - and likewise, there's no reason to do the same with the Early Church or world before the era where Science sought to disprove God alongside all other forms of spiritual/supernatural thought.


As C.S Lewis said, "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." Galileo (1564-1642), Kelper (1571-1630), Pascal (1623-1662), Boyle (1627-1691), Newton (1642-1727), Faraday (1791-1867), Babbage (1792-1871), Mendel (1822-1884), Pasteur (1822-1895), Kelvin (1824-1907), and Clerk-Maxwell (1831-1879) were all theists, most of them Christians. Their belief in God, far from being a hindrance to their science, was often the main inspiration for it....for as Johannes Kepler wrote, "The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics. " ( Astronomia Nova De Motibus ). The Scientific Revolution was based in Christ - most of the great minds behind it (i.e. Newton, for example) were Christians/believers in God who looked for Divine Laws in nature since they believed in a Divine Law Maker/a Messiah who held it all together. But once the Enlightenment begun, man began to try recognizing the works of God without God (i.e. Methodological Naturalism )and trusted in themselves...with ALOT of advancements being used wrongly.

And that's what led to a lot of problems - not the accuracy of view but the hearts behind it. Some people actually feel that one can believe in what came after the Medieval and Early Church times with simple views in science - and yet not believe the same dynamics they did. It'd not take believing the Earth is Flat in order to believe that what we experience with one another horizontally is truly impactful - that we still look up at the stars and the sun when it rises and when it sets.....and it still keeps us grounded in how much we have to be thankful for.

As an aside, I saw the pictures in the article you sent with the Zodiac and Christ. I am glad for the enumeration on the creatures of the zodiac that St. John of Damascus was not fearful of in his text, “On the Orthodox Faith.” (here and here) - as he noted in The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chap. Vii:

"Now the Greeks (the pagans) declare that all our affairs are controlled by the rising and setting and collision of the stars, the sun and moon (and the signs of the zodiac); for it is with these matters that astrology has to do. But we hold that we get from them signs of rain and drought, cold and heat, moisture and dryness, and of various winds, and so forth, but no sign whatsoever as to our actions. For we have been created with free will by our Creator and we are masters over our own actions. Indeed, if all our actions depend on the course of the stars, all we do is done out of necessity (fate, in other words); and necessity precludes either virtue or vice. But if we possess neither virtue nor vice, we deserve neither praise nor punishment, and God too, will turn out to be unjust, since He gives good things to some land afflicts others. In fact, He will no longer guide or provide for His own creatures, if all things are carried and swept along in the grip of necessity. And the faculty of reason will be superfluous for us, for if we are not masters of any of our actions, deliberation is quite superfluous. Reason, indeed, is granted to us solely that we might take counsel, and therefore all reason implies freedom of will."

 

[Gxg (G²)]

An interesting philosophical contemplation - why should/shouldn't we expect the sun to rise tomorrow?

So true...

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Gotcha

Hey, Gurney,
I could respond. But in case you ain't noticed, not everyone is appreciating our side-track. I recommend here that you comment on GK's comments on wonder, babies and elfland and their relation to the OP.

People might even begin to see that GK did write, and write well, about nearly every subject under the sun!

I'd be happy to try to begin to show you just how well he was known on another thread. Right now you seem to be approaching it from a "what-you-know-now" kind of tack. Thing is, what we know now can be transformed by discovering new things we didn't know before. 6 years ago, I knew little of this; ten years ago, nothing at all.