Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic: Geo v Helio not a theological debate  (Read 2650 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Geo v Helio not a theological debate
« on: August 20, 2022, 01:03:52 PM »
"Much of the Galileo affair has been misinterpreted as religion sticking its nose where it didn’t belong. For instance, it is usually reported that theologians immediately pounced upon Galileo’s heliocentric teachings as being contrary to Scripture. However, heliocentrism initially received welcome from theologians as an interesting topic of discussion. The complaints at first came from other scientists who thought that Galileo was attempting to upend science as then known. That was true. Since these scientists, like Galileo, mostly worked within the confines of church institutions, and with the blessing of church authorities, it was legitimate to raise these concerns within the church. Being early 17th century Italy, these officials were all Roman Catholic. A trial was convened, and a decision was handed down that forbad Galileo to continue teaching the heliocentric theory as truth. In many respects, this was nothing new, because those had been the conditions already in force. Remember that this squabble wasn’t about religion: it was a scientific controversy.

The controversy lay dormant for nearly two decades, upon which Galileo resurrected it by publishing a book on the subject. But it need not have erupted as it did. Galileo had to get permission from the Pope to publish the book, which he received. The only stipulation was that Galileo include discussion of the Pope’s position (geocentrism) in the book. Rather than writing the book in Latin, which was the custom of such treatises at the time, Galileo chose to write it in Italian to gain a much wider audience. His book was a dialogue between three individuals, one a geocentrist, one a heliocentrist, and the third a neutral moderator. But as it turned out, the moderator was hardly neutral. Furthermore, the arguments put forth by the geocentrist made him look foolish. Finally, Galileo named the geocentrist Simplico, which roughly translates into English as simpleton. Since the Pope had insisted that Galileo include the Pope’s position (geocentrism) in his book, this made the Pope look foolish. The Pope was rightly furious, and all support Galileo had enjoyed rapidly evaporated. A second trial was convened, but the fix was already in. The court found Galileo guilty of insubordination and heresy. Occurring in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation, the latter charge could have carried very serious consequences. Fortunately, the church deemed that Galileo had not challenged theological dogma, but Galileo, now advanced in age, was required to recant and spent the rest of his life in house arrest. One consequence of the Galileo affair was that the teaching of heliocentrism was officially banned by the Roman Catholic Church, a ban that was only lifted in the late 20th century. But this was a ban in name only; within a few years even Roman Catholic institutions abandoned geocentrism in favor of heliocentrism. Also, keep in mind that prior to the ban instigated by Galileo’s actions, there had been no ban on teaching heliocentrism since Copernicus had reintroduced it 75 years earlier.

Keep in mind that the Galileo affair was a scientific squabble, not a battle between the Bible and science. Most of the refutation to Galileo came not from Scripture, but from Aristotle and Ptolemy. Biblical references, such as Joshua 10:12–14, played a much smaller role, and they were interpreted in terms of geocentrism. And the affair might have had a very different outcome had Galileo behaved himself. Galileo’s insulting approach alienated those who had been on his side. Unfortunately, these facets of the Galileo affair are hardly discussed.

Geocentrists often respond that the Copernican model had more epicycles than the Ptolemaic model. This is technically true, but hardly significant. While Copernicus was able to eliminate the large epicycles required by the Ptolemaic model to explain retrograde motion, he still was stuck in the Aristotelian concept that motions of heavenly bodies must exhibit perfect, circular motion. Given that planetary orbits are ellipses with non-uniform motion, Copernicus used the available fix of small epicycles to match observations. Also keep in mind that the original Ptolemaic model contained relatively few epicycles. But by the time of Copernicus, the discrepancies were so large as to require many more epicycles, so the comparison between the original Ptolemaic model and the Copernican model is hardly fair. At any rate, Kepler’s refinement to Copernicus’ model eliminated the need of any epicycles.

Since the 17th century, it is doubtful that anyone has believed the Ptolemaic model. A few years prior to the Galileo affair, Tycho Brahe (1546–1601) introduced a compromise cosmology. In the Tychonic model, the other planets orbit the sun, but the sun in turn orbits the earth each year. The other planets are carried along with the sun as it orbits the earth. The Tychonic model amounts to a coordinate transformation from the sun being the center to the earth being the center. The Tychonic model is the preferred model of modern geocentrists."


Logged

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: Geo v Helio not a theological debate
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2022, 02:03:39 PM »
WHY is this anonymous?
Logged

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: Geo v Helio not a theological debate
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2022, 02:12:37 PM »
Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 20, 2022, 02:03:39 PM
WHY is this anonymous?

Because I have witnessed how fanatical some people are regardin this subject, and I have no desire to be abused for simply postin an interesting quotation.
Logged

Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
Re: Geo v Helio not a theological debate
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2022, 06:12:31 PM »
Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 20, 2022, 02:12:37 PM
Because I have witnessed how fanatical some people are regardin this subject, and I have no desire to be abused for simply postin an interesting quotation.
No kidding! 
Logged

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: Geo v Helio not a theological debate
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2022, 06:20:33 PM »
Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 20, 2022, 02:12:37 PM
Because I have witnessed how fanatical some people are regardin this subject, and I have no desire to be abused for simply postin an interesting quotation.
Some people on CathInfo:

30 heliocentrists and one geocentrist were all faithful Catholics. They got into a plane crash on a pilgrimage and died. Only the geocentrist made it to heaven. 30 heliocentrists all went to hell!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
« previous next »