Author Topic: Progressive Yahwism  (Read 1188 times)


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Re: Progressive Yahwism
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2022, 10:50:45 pm »
I've never heard of this before. Here is what historians call the "march of progress" when applied in contexts writing histories of political, scientific, etc. topics.
Whig history (or Whig historiography), often appearing as whig history, is an approach to historiography that presents history as a journey from a dark and terrible past to a "glorious present".[1] The present described is generally one with modern forms of liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy: the term was coined to criticise grand narratives praising Britain's adoption of constitutional monarchy and the historical development of the Westminster system.[2] The term has also been applied widely in historical disciplines outside of British history (e.g. in the history of science) to describe "any subjection of history to what is essentially a teleological view of the historical process".[3] When the term is used in contexts other than British history, "whig history" (lowercase) is preferred.[3]

In the British context, whig historians emphasize the rise of constitutional government, personal freedoms and scientific progress.[4][5] The term is often applied generally (and pejoratively) to histories that present the past as the inexorable march of progress towards enlightenment. The term is also used extensively in the history of science to refer to historiography that focuses on the successful chains of theories and experiments that led to present-day theories, while ignoring failed theories and dead ends.[6]
In science

It has been argued that the historiography of science is "riddled with Whiggish history".[53][verification needed] Like other whig histories, whig history of science tends to divide historical actors into "good guys" who are on the side of truth (as is now known), and "bad guys" who opposed the emergence of these truths because of ignorance or bias.[54] Science is seen as emerging from 'a series of victories over pre-scientific thinking'.[25]
More recently, some scholars have argued that Whig history is essential to the history of science. At one level, "the very term 'the history of science' has itself profoundly Whiggish implications. One may be reasonably clear what 'science' means in the 19th century and most of the 18th century. In the 17th century 'science' has very different meaning. Chemistry, for example, was then inextricably mixed up with alchemy. Before the 17th century dissecting out such a thing as 'science' in anything like the modern sense of the term involves profound distortions".[58] The science historians' rejection of whiggishness has been criticised by some scientists for failing to appreciate "the temporal depth of scientific research".[59]
In philosophy

One very common example of Whig history is the work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, to whom is often ascribed a teleological view of history with an inexorable trajectory in the direction of progress.[63]
In the emergence of intelligent life

In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986), John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler identify whiggishness with a teleological principle of convergence in history to liberal democracy.
This is in line with what Barrow and Tipler call the "anthropic principle".[65]