Outer Space Historically Claimed on Philosophical Grounds, Not Scientific
Looking back at the 1800s when Science became the new Religion
I'm no historian, but it doesn't take much in the modern age to catch a glimpse of the past. I don't need a historian to filter his or her take on the past either. With access to Open Library (openlibrary.org), I can read the same materials that were published then.
The book Astro-Theology; Or The Religion of Astronomy by Edward Higginson was published in 1855. It is a telling booklet that introduces the newly defined heliocentric world. It claims that some of the lights in the sky are planets and poses the possibility that life, as we know it, exists on these astronomically distant places.
Give this little book Astro-Theology a good read and see for yourself how heliocentrism was ushered in on the white horse of moral philosophy, not on scientific evidence. For a science book wanting to explain space, the question of Christian morality comes into central focus. If Jesus died to redeem humanity, is Jesus also the savior for distant planets as well? Would these beings accept Jesus as their one and only savior?
While people today want to give credence to the scientist of today and their fancy technology, it was actually the bullying nature of scientism in the 1800s foisting itself on the people that gave rise to heliocentrism on a mass scale.
With their telescopes no more powerful than the modern cell phone, scientists of the past proclaimed that life must exist on the lights in the sky and constructed an entire fantasy world along with it. Very little of the process was actually based on the scientific method, but rather moral and philosophical debate.
Don’t believe me? It doesn't take a history degree to dig into the annals of the past. Take a read of Astro-Theology (1855) and see how ridiculous the arguments were to promote heliocentrism.
With Science rising to an authoritative status in the minds of the people in the 1800s, it eventually gave rise to the bloated space agency budgets we now see today in the 21st century. The existence of these agencies and institutions are claimed by Globers (i.e. people who subscribe to a globe model of Earth) to be self-evident of the spinning ball model.
Yet, it wasn't the abundance of scientific evidence that the Earth was a space ball that shifted people towards adopting what we now know is a fraudulent heliocentric belief system. Scientists had no more evidence than what we could capture on our personal devices today.
Instead, science-minded intellectuals had sharp tongues to declare their superiority. They didn’t have to prove the Earth was a spinning ball. All they had to do was make people feel inferior thinking otherwise.
Now that this sense of authority is firmly engrained in the minds of people, anyone in a white coat can tell us anything.
Did you hear? India landed on the moon and Elon Musk wants people to live on Mars. (Eye roll, please.)
Sincerely,
Cedra
I took college level astronomy in 1975. I never bought into the Big Bang theory as it made no sense to me. The class attempted to explain the observations, but never offered any scientific proofs. I passed the class, but maintained a healthy skepticism about what I learned.
I also remember learning about Darwin and the Theory of Evolution. Again, the theory never made sense to me. I don't believe my ancestors were apes. Perhaps globers descended from apes. That might explain their obstinance.
When I was first exposed to the Flat Earth theory, it immediately made sense and resonated with me. I dropped down the FE rabbit hole never to return. Why isn't the geocentric theory also taught to children since the heliocentric model has never been proven? Are inquisitive children not to be trusted to think for or decide for themselves?
Cedra has made a wise decision to home school her children. I wonder if she has read John Taylor Gatto's books.
Thanks Cedra!