Thanks for weighing in on the debate.
You are correct to identify the effect that precession of the equinox’s has on the view of the night sky, an effect that causes the entire panorama to shift 1 degree every 72 years in a cycle that takes about 26 000 years to complete. This causes the sun to arise at the commencement of its annual cycle in a different constellation approximately every 2100 years, and has given rise to the so called “ages” of Aries, Pisces, and now Aquarius. This is a phenomenon that is regarded as important by astrologers. I personally, don’t see what that importance might be.
You are, however, incorrect to dismiss the validity of the underlying “data” I rely upon, since the planetarium software includes the necessary algorithms to take into account of this movement over time.
I don’t understand the point of stating what I regard as axiomatic : “astrology is not astronomy”. I haven’t made any such claim, although all authorities on the subject are agreed that astrology has its roots in babylonian astronomy, though they might differ on the question of degree. Let me be clear, I reject the utility of modern astrology; and do not advance what I am sharing as in support of that pseudoscience. But a debate on this question I regard as collateral to the questions I am exploring.
You are also correct to flag the problem of after-the-fact conclusions - which you label fallacies. Perhaps you missed the post I made in response to a reader of Part 1 who was excited by the use of “evidence" to comment on the controversial claims relating to the Star of Bethlehem. I stated:
"Thanks for your comment. I must offer caution about concluding that we can prove the Biblical account. That is because at best it is a second hand account written to promote faith rather than offer a scientific record. The Magi did not tell us, save in general terms and not with language that we would find definitive, what they were looking at and what motivated them to undertake their journey, save, as I said, for their apparent faith.
There are several aspects of the account which have presented difficulties for a critical reader. These include historical dating of the birth event and scientific incredulity at the claim that a star could have guided the travelling Magi. My articles will at best provide rational plausibility; an argument that says that given what was there to be seen, we can advance plausible reason for their behaviour; and that we should be slow to dismiss a story about men from an elite class (astronomers) that left a privileged background in a cosmopolitan centre to come looking for an infant in the relative backwoods of Jerusalem. And to arrive there and declare with confidence that they were seeking a child of royal birth; and once they had found him, to pay homage to him.
These are all extraordinary claims, given the historical context. I hope that my findings might examine that context and find reason to be more reflective when considering the truth claims of the account.”
I know your posts tend to be abrasive - which is fine - It takes all sorts to make a world; but I haven’t read enough of you to decide whether you routinely make ex cathedra statements like “All your evidence are (sic) unfounded” and then fail to engage with the evidence and propositions that support the argument. Perhaps posts with a religious tone simply irritate you and you feel you don’t have time to sift through what you have already decided is trash. That is also understandable, there is a lot in the world - even the surreal world of steemit - competing for our time. But could I invite you to reserve judgment and consider all of what is presented before attacking an argument from the base of a priori assumption.
Intellectual chauvinism, in any of its many forms, is distasteful.