The Catholic Book Club discussion

7) What role does science play in the story: physics (Einstein and Goedel), geography, biology, climatology?

My mistake, I didn't see that there was a question addressing scientific questions and put my critical comment in the question about historical characters. As Fonch started a debate there, I cannot move it here now. You can answer my concerns here or there.

Essentially, what I say there is that using Einstein and Gödel as references for the skeptic-nominalistic-anti-realist epistemology is a mistake, for they were realists and defended exactly the opposite position.

Though many have done so when it suited their purposes.

T.M. wrote: "Though many have done so when it suited their purposes."

True. Those who defend atheistic or materialistic philosophies often show their ignorance about logic or the history of science. It is extremely easy (at least in my experience) to catch them offering logical fallacies in their arguments. Proving that their logic is faulty is usually the only way to stop them.

What is more rare is finding a extreme skeptic like Jones, asserting that "logic itself is a human construct." If this were true, their own position would automatically be undermined, for they are using logic in favor of their ideology.

I am surprised that John didn't point this out in his discussion with Jones.

The problem with the conversation is that readers who don't know in detail what Godel thought will come out with the wrong impression about his ideas: They will think that Jones is correct about what Godel thought, though using his ideas for bad purposes; while the truth is, as Manuel points out, that Godel's ideas were the opposite and Jones has twisted them. Is this impression corrected later in the book? (I am not finished yet)

If it is not, I think a note from the author in the end would be helpful. Many novels with historical characters have such kind of epilogue explaining what was real and what was imagined about them, and I love this kind of explanations.

In any case, we still have the problem that Jones could not have mentioned Gödel in 1930, as he was unknown at that time.

Mariangel wrote: "They will think that Jones is correct about what Godel thought... Is this impression corrected later in the book? (I am not finished yet)"

Gödel is never again mentioned in the book after John mentions him in his second conversation with Alembert in the chapter immediately next to his conversation with Jones.

A quote from Einstein that belies the presentation of his ideas by Jones:

To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ("Science and Religion", Symposium about Science, Philosophy and Religion, 1941, http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/sc...).

It's interesting to read the whole paper, it expresses quite well Einstein's standing for scientific realism, the opposite that Jones intends to show.

Jones has an agenda. Science and philosophy are just means to an end.

T.M. wrote: "Jones has an agenda. Science and philosophy are just means to an end."

Yes, that's agreed and every reader will understand it. But not every reader will realize that his explanation of Godel's ideas is wrong; they may think that the science is correct but misused.

So, in the same way that you made Chesterton explain to John the fallacy in his student's argument, I'd be happier if an explanation were given to the effect that Jones misrepresented Godel's ideas, rather than using correct ideas for a wrong end.

This is unfortunately very common nowadays, and that's why it's important for the author to clarify it. It makes people suspicious about science to see its name used to defend ideologies -in fact, the arguments presented by the ideologues as 'what science says' are often all wrong or twisted, but many people will still think they are what science really says.

I take the chance to promote the science blog of my friend Manuel Alfonseca in spanish, and english http://divulciencia.blogspot.com/

Well i can not participate in this debate. I think the most probable is that Mariángeles and Manuel Alfonseca are right, however this thing it is not something against novel. I have not arrived to the discussion between Hill, and Jones, but when i have concluded a novel that the Catholic writer Karina Fabian have passed to me about her dragon Vern, i Will continue with this Reading. Only i can say one thing until now. The book is exciting, wonderful and i am loving it. Something similar must be thinking the rest of persons who are Reading this book for the comments that they are posting about this book.
I think that the fail that Manuel Alfonseca have found it is a chance. Now T.M. Doran has a useful a loyal friend, who might assist him in scientific questions in future novels, that T.M. Doran can write, however i ask to Manuel Alfonseca if i had not been much better in place to discuss with the all group if it had not been much better to write a private message to the autor saying it. In my opinión is really complicate that T.M. Doran can change the mistake thtat you say that he has commited, because i do not know if he Will print a second edition. The publishing Ignatius Press despite the fact the quality of his books said to me that except in the case of Michael D. O`Brien none of this books had been a best seller. For this reason i saw very complicate that T.M. Doran can do the change that you demand to him. Although if i were Doran that i said previously i would make friend of Manuel Alfonseca, and i would ask for asistance and help in future books. Besides i have the impression that Doran and Alfonseca need together. My friend Alfonseca had expressed his wish that some publishing of United States published his novels, and perhaps Doran could help to Alfonseca in this question and as my friend of Catholic Book Club they would not need a translator, because the own Manuel Alfonseca has translated his books to English.
In my opinion Doran and people as him are more necessary than ever. Yesterday i was speaking with my friend Alfonseca that in Spain only 22% of people consider the religion important. Unfortunatelly in my country people as D Alembert has won the liberalism the left wings, a right wing atheist materialistic have provoked that Spain in the religion was as the Waste Land of T.S. Eliot. Juan Manuel de Prada would have said that the power of money, and of the effects are the books who are selling in Spain. The catholic writer Juan Manuel de Prada complained the previous days, meanwhile he announced his new novel "Lucy in the night" that they are the bad books that the population sold. Unfortunatelly is right. I am fed up of Larssons, Browns, Pullmans, Dawkins,, E.L. James, Hitchens, Karen Armstrongs, Follets, Nixeys and more trash that we bought. The last thing the awarded Mary Beard that she said that the men killed more women thancancer. I hate living in this atmosphere. For this reason i have thought a plan, that i am sure that it Will be a failure but i think that we must try it. On december i wrote a review of the last novel of the spanish writer Eduardo Mendoza "El rey recibe" "The King receives" i wrote for a jornalist but when i spoke about the salary she blocked my twitter account. The thing that i was going to ask for to this jornalist (she worked in the newspaper La Razón, and in the religious magazine or Weekly Alfa y Omega) is that in the place to promote the rubbish of the systempromoted to the english and american catholic and Christian writers that i have collected, not only there were writers, also interesting sites if the spanish publishings followed my instructions they might publish books during years. Of course i am the only responsable if the thing failed i would accept my responsability. You have the site in case that you are interested https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
The list i have spread because i knew more catholic writers afterwriting this review. By chance i got it that these writers were translated to spanish i would like an engagement that some europeans writers between them my Friends Manuel Alfonseca and Juan Manuel de Prada Will be published in United States. I must admit that the posibilities of success are really low, but as G.K. Chesterton You have never been closer to the Heaven when you win a battle that you thought lost.
We créate a coucil most powerful than the spells.

I have been working on scientific/engineering projects for over 30 years, have published many scientific articles and have taught engineering courses, but when I write novels I'm a storyteller who brings a Catholic perspective to his work, not a science or religion teacher. Some unresolved issues intentionally remain in all my stories. I am less concerned with resolving every detail than I am with the story as a whole. Hopefully, a story where non-Catholics and even non-believers may find something that stirs them.

About "Heidelberg, May 26 1931":

Tom, I suppose you are aware that mountain ranges scarcely change in 50.000 years, they need millions of years to change perceptibly. Did you make Hermann say the opposite as a literary license, so that you could put the Grey Mountains of LOTR in the middle of Europe?

Manuel, I recognized from the onset the imperfect correspondence between historical Europe and the ancient world in Toward the Gleam, as there is also imperfect correspondence between the historical figures and characters in the story. From a scientific standpoint, the thing I labored over most is discussed by John and Greta--the prehistoric flying beasts. In The Lucifer Ego, Lyle Stuart identifies some geographic discrepancies and explores possible explanations.

I didn't think the geographic position of the north/south mountain range was all that wrong. ...My 6th grade geography lessons kicking in :)
In Germany you have the middle range mountains of the Black Forest/Voges (west of the Rhine), the Eifel, and a little more to the northeast the Harz. And these are only the most prominent ones. It is only north of the Harz that you encounter the flatlands of the coastal plains toward the North Sea, go south and much of the terrain is hilly all the way to the Alps except for some river valleys.

Kerstin wrote: "I didn't think the geographic position of the north/south mountain range was all that wrong. ...My 6th grade geography lessons kicking in :)
In Germany you have the middle range mountains of the B..."

Kerstin, I wasn't asking so much about differences between LOTR and the European Alpine mountains as about what Hermann says: “Were the mountain ranges in that period similar to those of modern Europe?” “There were differences. We don’t have time to discuss them in detail... The mountains extended further north prior to the last ice age.”

T.M. wrote: "From a scientific standpoint, the thing I labored over most is discussed by John and Greta--the prehistoric flying beasts."

I haven't come there yet.