Augustine, Galileo and natural science
#31
(06-26-2011, 10:32 PM)wulfrano Wrote:
(06-26-2011, 10:04 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(06-26-2011, 09:08 PM)wulfrano Wrote: So... Galileo, NASA, the Vatican Observatory, the Russian Academy of Astronomical Sciences, etc.  are all wrong?

You are missing the point here.

Come back after you've studied physics and spacetime.

And Galileo was wrong. Kepler was more right. Galileo stuck to ancient works foolishly and disregarded observation and science.


Wow!  This is neat!  Heliocentrism is out!  Geocentrism is back in!  Marvelous!

(06-26-2011, 10:04 PM)Rosarium Wrote: You are missing the point here.

(06-26-2011, 04:38 PM)Rosarium Wrote: I did not say the sun and planets revolve around the Earth.

And scientists wouldn't put it that way. Just study modern physics and you'll see.

And drop assumptions about what I meant. I am not saying that ancient ideas are true. I am pointing out the big picture based on modern science.


The "centrism" part of both is false. What is the centre?

That is the key.

You do not understand and I am not going to instruct you.
Reply
#32
(06-26-2011, 10:04 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(06-26-2011, 09:08 PM)wulfrano Wrote: So... Galileo, NASA, the Vatican Observatory, the Russian Academy of Astronomical Sciences, etc.  are all wrong?

You are missing the point here.

Come back after you've studied physics and spacetime.

And Galileo was wrong. Kepler was more right. Galileo stuck to ancient works foolishly and disregarded observation and science.

You can't reduce the entire affair to the fact that Galileo wasn't entirely right.

The fact is, some overly fundamentalist clerics heavily influenced by early Protestants condemned heliocentrism and were absolutely wrong in doing so. It should be a lesson to us. The only time in the history of the Catholic Church that such a group condemns a natural theory, they're wrong. We ought to stick to bold claims in matters of faith and morals.
Reply
#33
(06-26-2011, 10:43 PM)Alabama Trad Wrote: You can't reduce the entire affair to the fact that Galileo wasn't entirely right.
No, he was very wrong.

He was unscientific, he provoked lawful authority, and he got in trouble for it.

Quote:The fact is, some overly fundamentalist clerics heavily influenced by early Protestants condemned heliocentrism and were absolutely wrong in doing so. It should be a lesson to us. The only time in the history of the Catholic Church that such a group condemns a natural theory, they're wrong. We ought to stick to bold claims in matters of faith and morals.
The fact is, it has nothing to do with astronomy.

The only time in the history of the Catholic Church that such a group condemns a natural theory, they were right.
Reply
#34
Crazy

Read the timeline of the Church's dealing with Galileo after his death.

1758 - The Index no longer forbids heliocentrism.
1835 - The Index no longer lists Dialogue.
1893 - Leo XIII advances a view of the Bible and science entirely consistent with Galileo.
1942 - Many at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences praise Galileo on the three hundredth anniversary of his death.

Reply
#35
(06-26-2011, 11:31 PM)Alabama Trad Wrote: Crazy

Read the timeline of the Church's dealing with Galileo after his death.

1758 - The Index no longer forbids heliocentrism.
1835 - The Index no longer lists Dialogue.
1893 - Leo XIII advances a view of the Bible and science entirely consistent with Galileo.
1942 - Many at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences praise Galileo on the three hundredth anniversary of his death.

You have not studied science, but we'll forget that now.

Matthew 18:18 Wrote:Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Galileo's work after his imprisonment is what is praised.
Reply
#36
(06-26-2011, 11:44 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(06-26-2011, 11:31 PM)Alabama Trad Wrote: Crazy

Read the timeline of the Church's dealing with Galileo after his death.

1758 - The Index no longer forbids heliocentrism.
1835 - The Index no longer lists Dialogue.
1893 - Leo XIII advances a view of the Bible and science entirely consistent with Galileo.
1942 - Many at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences praise Galileo on the three hundredth anniversary of his death.

You have not studied science, but we'll forget that now.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the timeline I posted. Evidently the Church - yes, even the preconciliar Church - gradually came to believe that you are wrong.
Reply
#37
(06-27-2011, 03:58 PM)Alabama Trad Wrote:
(06-26-2011, 11:44 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(06-26-2011, 11:31 PM)Alabama Trad Wrote: Crazy

Read the timeline of the Church's dealing with Galileo after his death.

1758 - The Index no longer forbids heliocentrism.
1835 - The Index no longer lists Dialogue.
1893 - Leo XIII advances a view of the Bible and science entirely consistent with Galileo.
1942 - Many at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences praise Galileo on the three hundredth anniversary of his death.

You have not studied science, but we'll forget that now.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the timeline I posted. Evidently the Church - yes, even the preconciliar Church - gradually came to believe that you are wrong.

Galileo was not in trouble for any scientific theory!
Reply
#38
Really?

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.


How you can read that and defend the condemnation is beyond me.

The most repulsive part of it is that a Churchman is claiming something to be "theologically" true when it is NOT. He compromised the faith by making something a matter of faith when it wasn't.

Furthermore, there is ample historical evidence that the injunction forbidding Galileo to speak on heliocentrism was a fabrication. It didn't even bear his signature, which would have been nearly unheard of.
Reply
#39
(06-27-2011, 06:52 PM)Alabama Trad Wrote: Really?

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.


How you can read that and defend the condemnation is beyond me.

The most repulsive part of it is that a Churchman is claiming something to be "theologically" true when it is NOT. He compromised the faith by making something a matter of faith when it wasn't.

Furthermore, there is ample historical evidence that the injunction forbidding Galileo to speak on heliocentrism was a fabrication. It didn't even bear his signature, which would have been nearly unheard of.

@  Alabama Trad.

Could you start a thread about what the Catholic Church doctors have stated throughout the christian era about Astrology?  Thank you.
Reply
#40
(06-27-2011, 06:52 PM)Alabama Trad Wrote: Really?

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.


How you can read that and defend the condemnation is beyond me.

The most repulsive part of it is that a Churchman is claiming something to be "theologically" true when it is NOT. He compromised the faith by making something a matter of faith when it wasn't.

Furthermore, there is ample historical evidence that the injunction forbidding Galileo to speak on heliocentrism was a fabrication. It didn't even bear his signature, which would have been nearly unheard of.

Dear Alabama Trad:  This shows that theologians should stick to their trade and leave scientific astronomers alone.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)