Author Topic: Karl Keatings new book critiques The New Geocentrists  (Read 1883 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cassini

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1784
  • Reputation: +1001/-121
  • Gender: Male
Karl Keatings new book critiques The New Geocentrists
« on: February 28, 2015, 11:15:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3692/circling_the_new_geocentrists_an_interview_with_karl_keating.aspx

    Circling the New Geocentrists: An Interview with Karl Keating
    A new book by the founder of Catholic Answers addresses the scientific mistakes, theological errors, and conspiracy-minded promoters of geocentrism
    February 13, 2015 03:22 EST

    Karl Keating is founder and senior fellow at Catholic Answers (www.catholic.com), the country’s largest apologetics and evangelization organization, and the author of several books of apologetics, including Catholicism and Fundamentalism and What Catholics Really Believe. His most recent book is The New Geocentrists (Rasselas House, 2015). He spoke recently with Carl E. Olson, editor of CWR, about the book.

    CWR: Your new book, The New Geocentrists, takes on a topic you’ve followed and addressed for many years. First, what is geocentrism? Second, when and why did you first become interested in it?

    Keating: Just as heliocentrism is the theory that the Sun is the center of our planetary system, so geocentrism is the theory that the Earth is the center. Geocentrism is the ancient understanding, best known in the formulation given by the Greek astronomer Ptolemy. The Ptolemaic theory was modified substantially in the sixteenth century by Tycho Brahe. Most modern geocentrists adhere to a variant of the Tychonian theory.

    My interest in geocentrism goes back to my university days. I took a course in the history of science from Prof. Curtis Wilson, then and until his death in 2012 considered the top American expert on Johannes Kepler, who started out as Tycho’s assistant.

    In Wilson’s course we took the ancient observational data, worked through the calculations, and discovered that, as observations became ever more precise, the Ptolemaic and Tychonian theories failed to account for the movements of the celestial bodies. It was this failure that led Kepler to develop his three laws of planetary motion, and it was this course that sparked my interest in geocentrism.

    CWR: Why the need for a book-length treatment of geocentrism and its main proponents?

    Keating: This movement has been gaining adherents for several decades—since the 1980s among very conservative or Traditionalist Catholics and since the 1960s among Fundamentalist Protestants. Despite being at loggerheads on many theological issues, these groups have joined forces to promote their idea that the Earth is not only at the center of our planetary system but is motionless (that is, it neither moves through space nor spins on its axis) and is at the absolute center of the entire universe. In their thinking, all other bodies—planets, the Sun, the distant stars, galaxies—revolve around the Earth each 24 hours.

    There are two things wrong with these notions. First, the science is wrong. That’s bad enough. Worse, for Christians, is that the new geocentrists insist that the Bible (in the case of the Fundamentalists) or the Bible and the Church (in the case of the Catholics) teach infallibly that these scientific theories are true and must be accepted by faithful Christians. They are laying on Christian shoulders burdens that the Bible and the Church don’t really place there.

    CWR: You note that your book, while addressing many of the arguments, focuses on the persons involved, hence the title. Why this particular approach?

    Keating: In The New Geocentrists I critique many of the scientific arguments proffered for geocentrism but make no attempt to critique them all. I deal chiefly with the ones that most clearly show the failure of the geocentrist position, such as the complete inability of geocentrists to explain how geostationary satellites can remain suspended above an Earth that doesn’t rotate.

    But most of my book is a look at the new geocentrists themselves: their backgrounds, their contradictory arguments, their conspiracy theories, their scholarly sloppiness, their plagiarism, their simple inability to “do” the science. In the book I repeatedly challenge their claim to be reliable explainers of science and religion.

    CWR: Is it correct to say this topic is, in many ways, just as much about biblical exegesis and issues of authority as it is about science and cosmology?

    Keating: Very much so. The new geocentrists hold themselves out as experts not only in science but in religion. They attempt to position themselves as authorities, and more and more people are accepting them as such. The result is that people end up subscribing not just to bad science but to bad religion. The danger is that eventually, when these people realize the scientific errors of geocentrism, they will conclude that truth is to be found neither in science nor in religion.

    CWR: What do you hope readers will learn in reading The New Geocentrists?

    Keating: I hope they will find a lively account of how people can become fixated on an idea that, while wrong, can seem right from certain angles and how such a fixation can lead to a cascade of incorrect inferences.

    I have written The New Geocentrists for the lay reader, not for the expert in science, though I have had experts review the manuscript. Of course geocentrism is very much a minority view, but it is gaining adherents, and the average Christian ought to know about it so that it doesn’t become a stumbling block for him. In my book he will see the truth of the maxim that “ideas have consequences”—or, perhaps I should say, that “bad ideas have bad consequences.”

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1784
    • Reputation: +1001/-121
    • Gender: Male
    Karl Keatings new book critiques The New Geocentrists
    « Reply #1 on: February 28, 2015, 11:25:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let us begin with the fact that I was banned from Catholic Answers forum - if that is the Catholic Answers Keating founded - because I put the geocentrist position forward on that forum. Other geocentrists were also banned. They conjured up some excuse for the ban but I know I was banned for putting cojent arguments against their claim that heliocentrism has all the scientific support behind it that is needed.

    I wonder did they know their founder Karl was writing a book and wanted a clear path?


    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1784
    • Reputation: +1001/-121
    • Gender: Male
    Karl Keatings new book critiques The New Geocentrists
    « Reply #2 on: February 28, 2015, 01:32:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The problem with this lot is that they think the G/H subject relies on science to resolve. In the Preface of the Earthmovers, it sorts out that idea:
     
    'Yes, since the beginning of the twentieth century, science has conceded that there is no empirical way of knowing the true order of the universe - and therefore its laws - for the simple reason that man cannot verify for certain that ‘one firm point’ in space from which to determine any absolute movement between the earth, sun and stars. In other words, even with modern scientific technology, man has never been able to resolve whether the sun and stars rotate around a fixed earth or if the earth turns about a fixed sun within a fixed stars cosmos. '

    So, all that is necessary is to show relativity prevails, and thus science cannot prove heliocentrism, so geocentrism is thus as scientifically viable. We can of course go on to show geocentrism has far more evidence for it than arguments against it.

    Which takes us to a different level to establish its truth or not, theology. My favourite 'proof' is because ALL the Fathers believed in biblical geocentrism. Thus the Church of 1616-1633 had to define it as formal heresy.
     
    So, like many things, it is a matter of faith, a matter long rejected with others since Isaac Newton, and once again in our time by Karl Keating and others.

    Offline LaramieHirsch

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2588
    • Reputation: +875/-221
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Karl Keatings new book critiques The New Geocentrists
    « Reply #3 on: February 28, 2015, 04:38:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: cassini
    Let us begin with the fact that I was banned from Catholic Answers forum - if that is the Catholic Answers Keating founded - because I put the geocentrist position forward on that forum. Other geocentrists were also banned. They conjured up some excuse for the ban but I know I was banned for putting cojent arguments against their claim that heliocentrism has all the scientific support behind it that is needed.

    I wonder did they know their founder Karl was writing a book and wanted a clear path?


    You know, I'm a huge astonomy buff.  I love how we are learning more about our own solar system this year (what with our probes going to Ceres and Pluto, and then the huge orbital telescope that goes up in 3 years to out-do Hubble by 100 times).  

    I toy with the idea of geocentricity in my mind.  I take it with a grain of salt, but I do have to admit that I enjoy the thought of the earth being in the middle of the universe.  I won't mind going to see the Principle if it comes to my town.  I have no problems with such thought-provoking documentaries.  

    However, when I see this kind of spiteful behavior from Mark Shea, Keating, and the Catholic Answers Forum--the kind that cassini is talking about here--it only pushes me more into the "I'm a geocentrist, Galileo was wrong" camp.  Such knee-jerk reactions strike me as a visceral opposition to some kind of despised truth.  

    Upon my conversion to Catholicism, one of the things that convinced me to join the Church was the world's immediate rush to trample upon the Church's reputation whenever possible.  Jesus Christ evoked this kind of reaction all of the time, so it was easy for me to see Christ in His Church.  

    But another amusing fact is this:  People will happily blather on about how important it is to question everything and don't be afraid to revisit established norms, because doing so helps to purify truth.  And yet, with the very same people, questioning the heliocentric model is completely off. The.  Table.  

    Such hypocracy also reminds me of some conversations I had about a year ago.  During the unspectacular debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, Ken Ham tried to make the point that there is observable science, and then there is the study of presumed science, which is built upon other scientific assumptions.  I would ask atheists and believers of the Evolution Religion if it would be a good thing to separate the study of observable science from the study of presumed science.  The pro-evolutionists would get into an upheaval, become insulting, and returned my spoken thought with bitter rebukes!  "How dare you try to split up and divide all that falls beneath the grand umbrella of...Science!"

    So, I basically see a similarity between Shea, Keating, and CAF with these atheists and evolutionists.  What strange company for them to have.  

     
    .........................

    Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.  - Aristotle

    Offline Iuvenalis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1332
    • Reputation: +1116/-0
    • Gender: Male


    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5679
    • Reputation: +3098/-145
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
      • Julian Moore
    Karl Keatings new book critiques The New Geocentrists
    « Reply #5 on: February 28, 2015, 06:55:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Slaves of the devil serving the devil.
    I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1784
    • Reputation: +1001/-121
    • Gender: Male
    Karl Keatings new book critiques The New Geocentrists
    « Reply #6 on: March 01, 2015, 09:08:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Iuvenalis
    http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1551-a-new-stage-in-the-neo-catholic-witch-hunt


    Thanks for this website Ivuenalis, very interesting.

    Again, In THE EARTHMOVERS, a full account of the subject privy to this forum only, written long before Keatings ever thought of the subject. In the Introduction we read:

    'As a consequent of the above, new readers will first endeavour to ignore this synthesis, and that failing will dismiss or censor it out of hand according to their needs. The credibility of four hundred years of Copernicanism and its promulgators in Church and State will be defended on every ground. They will do this with an arrogance we can easily predict, for things like the Catholic faith, reasoning, facts, data, demonstrations, logic, records, etc., and, as you will see for yourself, the very ‘scientific method’ they claim to adhere to, will mean nothing to them because their belief in Copernicanism is ideologically and psychologically based, not theologically and empirically founded. Accordingly they will resort to a censorship of kind and the tried and tested ‘ad hominem’ ploy, that is, either an unqualified rejection of the disclosures, or rhetoric designed and directed against the author or subject of this book to avoid actually having to address the evidence contained within. The entrenched Copernicans will also point out in no uncertain manner that the content of this book is outrageous, imbecilic according to science as well as an unwarranted criticism of the post-1741 Church authorities, of Vatican Council II and the opinions of Pope John Paul II. They will then claim the author is this or that, not a trained scientist, cosmologist, mathematician, historian or theologian like they are, so what could he know? It must be answered that if one were a coached professional in any such institution of Church or State around today, one could never have written this exposé in the first place, for, quite simply, one would have been fired for it, as many today are dismissed from their educational institutions because they place doubt on old-age evolutionism. It was of course freedom from such peer-pressure and peer-review that enabled this work to be recorded.'

    Note all, including Ferrara and other 'traditionalists' found in the comments, see no significance in the subject under discussion. To them, and millions of other Catholics, it can all be dismissed by saying 'it was never a de fide dogma of the Church.' They ALL place 'assumptive science' before the beliefs of ALL the Fathers, a rather unCatholic way to truth. Since when did science determine if a teaching was infallible or not?

    They have to say this because it is probably the only time in the history of the Church that a defined and condemned heresy was 'U-turned.' Vatican II was not the moment Modernism entered the Church, it happened in the years 1741 to 1835. This is unacceptable to traditionalists. U-turns are not Catholic but this one even traditionalists see to have no problem with. The main reason of course is because not one Catholic in history has the facts of that U-turn, until today that is.

    For example, Ferrara'a piece quotes Pope Pius XII. Now while such popes can be said to be teaching traditional teaching, at the same time he was saying the Church does not forbid belief that the human body could have come from monkeys. Oh I know he never put it that way but when you interpret those pious words of Humani Generis that is what they mean.
    Another example is Pope Leo XIII. He said many wonderful Catholic things while at the same time gave 'science' the right to overturn previous Catholic beliefs.

    And that is why the Keatings do not want a Catholic on earth accepting a biblical or material geocentrism. But the cat is now out of the bag and when the finished version of THE EARTHMOVERS is published that will give Keating a further run for his Modernism.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Karl Keatings new book critiques The New Geocentrists
    « Reply #7 on: March 01, 2015, 06:51:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hi Cassini,

    I deeply appreciate all your information as I am a firm believer in geocentrism myself. Not sure what is he talking about here?  :thinking:

    Quote

    I deal chiefly with the ones that most clearly show the failure of the geocentrist position, such as the complete inability of geocentrists to explain how geostationary satellites can remain suspended above an Earth that doesn’t rotate.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7115
    • Reputation: +443/-209
    • Gender: Male
    Karl Keatings new book critiques The New Geocentrists
    « Reply #8 on: March 02, 2015, 12:12:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :smoke-pot:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1784
    • Reputation: +1001/-121
    • Gender: Male
    Karl Keatings new book critiques The New Geocentrists
    « Reply #9 on: March 02, 2015, 08:01:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    Hi Cassini,

    I deeply appreciate all your information as I am a firm believer in geocentrism myself. Not sure what is he talking about here?  :thinking:

    Quote

    I deal chiefly with the ones that most clearly show the failure of the geocentrist position, such as the complete inability of geocentrists to explain how geostationary satellites can remain suspended above an Earth that doesn’t rotate.


    I read that with interest myself Cantarella, and that Sungenis had suggested magnetism and something else. When your man pointed out that there is no iron in these satellites Sungenis withdrew the magnetism part from his book.

    My own reply to this is contained in the words:

    Yes, since the beginning of the twentieth century, science has conceded that there is no empirical way of knowing the true order of the universe - and therefore its laws - for the simple reason that man cannot verify for certain that ‘one firm point’ in space from which to determine any absolute movement between the earth, sun and stars    

    In other words, nobody knows the laws by which satellites can be kept stationary over a certain point of earth. They have found a way to do it, and thus they think they know why it happens, what holds it up. But they cannot prove it as it is all part of the 'gravity' mystery.

    The trap that most Copernicans set for their readers is to PRETEND they know the laws of gravity. They take Newton's theory as a Law, a theory that was shown by Einstein to be flawed whereby Einstein invented his own theory. 99% of their arguments are based on Newton's THEORY. There are other theories for gravity but none can be confirmed as certain.

    The geocentrist position is that the universe rotates around the earth and by so doing causes the exact same effects on earth, like the coriolis effect, the winds, ocean drifts etc., and even allows satellites to hover at a height. Like Sungenis, we can all speculate how it happens - and maybe it is by way of a gravitational magnetic force - (which I can support), and the lack of iron has nothing to do with it. The difference is that we geocentrists do not to pretend to know the exact scientific explanation why these things happen.
     
    The truth of it all is beyond the ability of science to answer when will the Copernicans learn that.

    Personally I prefer to believe in the Bible's 'sunset and sunrise' and the Fathers and Church's confirmation of this dogma.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16