Explaining Why a Positive Review of My Book Has Never Appeared on Amazon.com
In his comment on the 11/20/07 blog, Theodore Rausenberg asked ‘One other thi
ng, George. I noticed that even 18 months after your book was published there still isn't one single positive review of it on your amazon page. How come?" I answered his question but will tell a more detailed story here.
My book began to develop in 1979 when new translations of the 15th century work of Nicholas of Cusa appeared in the USA from Dr.. Jasper Hopkins (Univ. of Minnesota). I became one of the first US citizens to master Nicholas’ negative theology (On Learned Ignorance). Why didn’t the Roman Church propagate this great 15th century work of Bishop, Nicholas of Cusa?. One can only speculate. The first review by the Aristotelian logician John Wenck was negative and caused a nasty debate with Nicholas. However, some of Nicholas’ work does challenge Vatican teachings. Nicholas says, for instance, that the universe has no center and that the Christian Trinity is generated eternally. At Padua University, Galileo must have become familiar with Nicholas’ writings because he was imprisoned for saying that the earth is not the center of the universe. Although the Roman Church apologized for this imprisonment in the late 1980s, isn’t it time for religious leaders to consider the thoughts of their members and admit that leaders can also make errors?
I say that Nicholas was the first modern scientist. I also say that Nicholas’ work caused the split between Science and Religion and Science and Theology. This split still exists today. But if one reads the works of other big thinkers in Europe, one will conclude that the ideas of Nicholas were used quietly by these thinkers. I show this aftermath in my book.
The above split impedes my attempt to bring Nicholas’s work to the people of the USA and to unify Nicholas’ negative theology with modern science. When I began to study Nicholas’ work in 1979, the US Supreme Court was already removing God from the USA with its decision in favor of the atheism of Madelyn Murray O’Hair. With this 1967 decision, many scientists and intellectuals followed the developing 1960 drug culture, O’Hair and atheists such as the US logicians.
By the time I was retiring in 1994, I continued my research because I was convinced that Science and Theology form a single field of thought. With the opening of Science&Theology News, I concluded that it was just a matter of time until the fields off science and theology would be unified. But this newspaper was closed in 2006, shortly after my book was published. With the closure of this newspaper, I felt that I was the only US citizen who was interested in unifying Science and Theology. I concluded that even Christians are not interested in unifying Science and Theology. But, The Christian Courier recognized the value of my effort immediately.
It seems clear that my book is not of interest to Americans, especially those who believe that the universe will end soon and are no longer concerned about their future or the future of their children and grandchildren. This in only one reason why positive reviews have not appeared on Amazon.com. A more important reason is that my book is very different compared to what is taught in colleges and universities today. The higher institutions of education still distinguish God from science and do not teach the theory of God. My book unifies the theories of God and the theories of science.
.
Unless US citizens turn toward God seriously, end atheism, correct our logicians, and stop listening to religious leaders who teach the end of this world, I believe the USA will fall apart scientifically and theologically and will split into many third world nations.
ng, George. I noticed that even 18 months after your book was published there still isn't one single positive review of it on your amazon page. How come?" I answered his question but will tell a more detailed story here.My book began to develop in 1979 when new translations of the 15th century work of Nicholas of Cusa appeared in the USA from Dr.. Jasper Hopkins (Univ. of Minnesota). I became one of the first US citizens to master Nicholas’ negative theology (On Learned Ignorance). Why didn’t the Roman Church propagate this great 15th century work of Bishop, Nicholas of Cusa?. One can only speculate. The first review by the Aristotelian logician John Wenck was negative and caused a nasty debate with Nicholas. However, some of Nicholas’ work does challenge Vatican teachings. Nicholas says, for instance, that the universe has no center and that the Christian Trinity is generated eternally. At Padua University, Galileo must have become familiar with Nicholas’ writings because he was imprisoned for saying that the earth is not the center of the universe. Although the Roman Church apologized for this imprisonment in the late 1980s, isn’t it time for religious leaders to consider the thoughts of their members and admit that leaders can also make errors?
I say that Nicholas was the first modern scientist. I also say that Nicholas’ work caused the split between Science and Religion and Science and Theology. This split still exists today. But if one reads the works of other big thinkers in Europe, one will conclude that the ideas of Nicholas were used quietly by these thinkers. I show this aftermath in my book.
The above split impedes my attempt to bring Nicholas’s work to the people of the USA and to unify Nicholas’ negative theology with modern science. When I began to study Nicholas’ work in 1979, the US Supreme Court was already removing God from the USA with its decision in favor of the atheism of Madelyn Murray O’Hair. With this 1967 decision, many scientists and intellectuals followed the developing 1960 drug culture, O’Hair and atheists such as the US logicians.
By the time I was retiring in 1994, I continued my research because I was convinced that Science and Theology form a single field of thought. With the opening of Science&Theology News, I concluded that it was just a matter of time until the fields off science and theology would be unified. But this newspaper was closed in 2006, shortly after my book was published. With the closure of this newspaper, I felt that I was the only US citizen who was interested in unifying Science and Theology. I concluded that even Christians are not interested in unifying Science and Theology. But, The Christian Courier recognized the value of my effort immediately.
It seems clear that my book is not of interest to Americans, especially those who believe that the universe will end soon and are no longer concerned about their future or the future of their children and grandchildren. This in only one reason why positive reviews have not appeared on Amazon.com. A more important reason is that my book is very different compared to what is taught in colleges and universities today. The higher institutions of education still distinguish God from science and do not teach the theory of God. My book unifies the theories of God and the theories of science.
.
Unless US citizens turn toward God seriously, end atheism, correct our logicians, and stop listening to religious leaders who teach the end of this world, I believe the USA will fall apart scientifically and theologically and will split into many third world nations.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 10:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home