Augustine, Galileo and natural science
#41
Hi everyone,

I have read a bit on the subject of this thread and I want to make my contribution. First of all, I have a deep respect and admiration for all scientific endeavor. In fact, I encourage it especially since it has brought to mankind many material and human benefits.

Nonetheless, as a Christian, I am bound to evaluate every human activity and endeavor in the light of the Gospel of Christ, and in the light of the Faith. It is a matter a common knowledge among the educated minds of our generation, and even for many well-meaning Catholics, that the Catholic Church erred in her response and treatment of the heliocentric theory. Or rather, for many faithful Catholics, the Galileo affair showed that the Church has no competence whatever in the domain of natural science. The consequence of the Galileo affair, of course, is the continued separation between theology and philosophy, and in the end, between religion and science. Since that time, science has played a more influential role in society, while the Church has been not only receding in her influence in society, but also by making continuous concessions to the advances, discoveries and theories of natural science. Today, it cannot be denied that a very large portion of humanity has accepted natural science as the final authority on knowledge and on life.

And this, as I conceive, is the problem. I am convinced that the eclipse of the Church and her assault with heretical teachings did not begin at the time of the Enlightenment, nor did it begin at the time of the Reformation. Rather, the eclipse of the Church started with the Copernican Revolution and the Galileo affair. Since that time, the Church has lost her revered status as the supreme Teacher of the world, and at the same time, the Sacred Scriptures lost their eminent place as the source of all Truth, whether they be spiritual, moral, historical, and yes, even scientific.

The beginning of the modern heresy in truth, did not begin with the divorce between the State and the Church that was carried out during the French Revolution, which was the violent but unexpected consequence of the Enlightenment. Nor did the modern heresy begin with the Reformation which brought the overthrow of the divine authority of the Church and of its right to authoritatively set down the meaning of Sacred Scripture. No, the Revolution started when science began divesting itself from the accepted account of the origins of Creation. Galileo was not the first to propose the heliocentric theory. However, he is among the first decidedly modern minds. In his interpretation of Scripture, Galileo claimed that the Holy Writ used merely poetic language as pertains to natural phenomena, and that, therefore, it contained no real revelation on the natural world. But Galileo went even further. The heliocentric theory, which, till that time, had been used as a useful tool for astronomical calculation, was claimed by Galileo to constitute a real representation of reality.

St. Robert Bellarmine who was a Cardinal at the time, understood what was at stake, which was the innerrancy of Scripture and the authority of the Greek and Roman Fathers of the Faith. Indeed, the Catholic Faith was at stake. In a subtle manner, Galileo had put into doubt an account of creation - that of the central position and of the immobility of the earth - that had been accepted by both pagans and Christians for centuries. Most of all, Galileo put into question an interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures - that of the centrality of the earth in the cosmos - that had been the consensus of the Fathers for centuries. Galileo's heliocentric proposition were examined by the Congregation of the Index in 1616. The proposition that the sun was the center of the world, and immovable was condemned as "formally heretical", while the proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, is not immovable and with a diurnal motion, was condemned as "erroneous in the faith". Faced with the condemnation, of his theories, Galileo, like a true modernist, publicly recanted them, - while still officiously holding them - instead of like Giordano Bruno, who held fast to his errors and was in the end, burned at the stake.

Judging from history, it is certain that the consequences of the Galileo affair have been very harmful for the Church. Since that time, the Scriptures have lost their place as a source of natural and physical truth. The result of this, of course, is seen in the modern efforts to offer an alternative to the Christian world view, as seen in the theory of evolution. In addition, if the inerrancy of Scripture has been put into question, at the same time, the divine authority of the Church has been attacked. This, of course, is one of the significant consequences of the Enlightenment and of the French Revolution. From that period on, some voices have been raised doubting the supreme infallibity of the Pontiff and of the bishops in union with him. On the other hand, natural science has come to form more and more the intellects and consciences of human individuals. In current times, human science has become atheistic, not recognizing at all any authority above itself. Overall, if Christian culture is to be revived, the whole Catholic world view is to be recovered starting of course, with the restitution of the eminent place of Sacred Scripture as the source of truth in the moral, spiritual, natural and historical spheres.

To end, I am putting for your reading, two articles from a Catholic author called Solange Strong Hertz concerning Galileo affair and its impact on the world, the Church and its teaching:

The Scientific Illusion
http://www.lewisdt.com/research/Geocentr...lusion.pdf

What's up?
http://www.lewisdt.com/research/Geocentrism/up.pdf
Reply
#42
St. Robert vigorously supported the heliocentric view, but he also was not an absolutist about it--the inerrancy of Scripture was not absolutely at stake in his opinion. He accounted for the possibility that the earth moved around the sun and gave advice on how to proceed if that were proven to be the case. However, he didn't think it had been proven and saw both scientific evidence and testimony of Scripture as demonstrating the opposite. His whole letter on the subject is here:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615b...letter.asp

Reply
#43
(11-22-2011, 10:58 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: St. Robert vigorously supported the heliocentric view, but he also was not an absolutist about it--the inerrancy of Scripture was not absolutely at stake in his opinion. He accounted for the possibility that the earth moved around the sun and gave advice on how to proceed if that were proven to be the case. However, he didn't think it had been proven and saw both scientific evidence and testimony of Scripture as demonstrating the opposite. His whole letter on the subject is here:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615b...letter.asp

Well, you contradict yourself. The link you posted shows that Bellarmine doubted the heliocentric theory. Read this to the end:

"Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me."

In the end, he sides with Solomon and his wisdom:

"I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I add that the words ' the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God."
Reply
#44
I've only just discovered this thread.

This is a copy of an email I sent to a gang of physicists arguing over the validity of "Black Holes", believe it or not.  It may be pertinent to this discussion.
Quote:Dear Gentlemen,

This is very tedious. You seem to be wanting to subject all science to the empirical and yet deny empiricism.

In my original definition of philosophy as the study of reality I simply omitted observation and experiment from the definition as entirely redundant. There is no way that physical reality can be investigated without "seeing" it and trying it out. Observation and experiment are indispensable to a study of physical reality but the science of logic is necessary to understand, interpret or extrapolate the results. Without a scientific method formulated by, and subject to, the laws of logic any conclusion is just a "political convenience", conjecture, supposition, since there is only the "saleability" of the idea to judge its "rightness" or "wrongness". I'm sure you'd both agree that the topic being discussed here (modern "cosmology") is completely degenerate along these lines. I, however, claim that in "modern philosophy" (science) "rightness" or "wrongness" is determined by the suitability or convenience to the prevailing Materialist ideology, which also determines "marketability".

Now I can't resist the urge to stick my metaphysical boot into another "sacred cow" of contemporary, popular ideological prejudice... namely Galileo, since he is already cited as a champion of "science".

I am happy to allow that Galileo is a "father" of MODERN "science" as he is a notable example of one who dispensed with an effective scientific method in favour of a rather didactic assertion of conjecture.

If he had stuck to what he could realistically do, i.e. provide additional observational evidence for the Copernican model of the cosmos, then cosmology could have just evolved in an orderly fashion. The Copernican model was already becoming widely accepted in theological and philosophical circles. Indeed, just as Galileo was making a fool of himself and disgracing science, the Jesuits were proposing the Copernican model to Chinese astronomers who, to their immense credit, pulled out their charts etc. and found that wallah!!! it fits the observations!

So what really happened to Galileo?

He was very well received when he came to the Vatican to present his ideas to the Inquisition. In fact, Cardinal Bellarmine, who was the theologian heading the Inquision, very sensibly observed that "if this (Copernican model) is true we will have to revise our interpretation of (the relevant) Scripture". He was also an excellent philosopher (logician) who well knew the logical principle: if there is an apparent contradiction between two versions of one thing then the understanding of one, or both, is wrong. All good so far.

But with emboldened arrogance Galileo went out of his way to get up the nose of the Inquisition with a series of gratuitous assertions of his own conjecture (many of which were just plain wrong) including his vainglorious claim that "his discoveries" would turn all of philosophy and theology "on its head". Of course, that set off all the alarm bells.

To top it off Galileo set about deriding and ridiculing anyone who didn't fall into his train, including his previously personal friend the pope. All this political chicanery culminated in another disgraceful political revenge attack... the blanket condemnation of Galileo and his "proposals".

Galileo was an impudent twerp who did more to discredit natural science than anyone else of his era that I know of.
Reply
#45
(06-19-2011, 11:36 PM)Alabama Trad Wrote: An important topic.

The Galileo affair is probably the biggest black eye that the Church has suffered over the centuries, not because she was proven to be fallible, but because the incident has served to discredit the Catholic Church in the eyes of many moderns.

What's the lesson of the Galileo affair?

Our attitude towards science should not be one of hostility. It should be one of dialogue between the "book of nature" and the "book of faith".

Galileo was not perfect and he even had shoddy reasons for positing what he did. He backed into a correct position, so to speak. However, he did brilliantly reference the ever-more-brilliant Augustine in his private letters explaining his position.

When the literalistic (i.e. most simplistic) reading of a Scriptural text SEEMS to contradict widely held scientific or natural knowledge in any field of study, our duty is not to superimpose the literalistic text on the widely held belief in an attempt to stifle debate. This necessarily does two things,
a. It closes our minds to possible natural truths, of which God is the author, just as he's the author of supernatural truths,
b. It scandalizes nonbelievers, who have good reasons for certain natural beliefs, and throw the baby out with the bathwater, refusing to accept anything Christians say, even on faith.

Rather, we ought to accept the most likely natural theory and seek ways of understanding the Scriptural text in light of it. Augustine was wonderful here. He notes that ten people can have ten different insights into a Scriptural text (say, the formlessness of matter in the beginning) and all ten people may have something valuable to offer.

Like Oldavid above, I too have just seen this thread. As some of you know, Oldavid has been Catholic Forums' chief defender of heliocentrism for years now.  In other words he sides with the above anti-Catholic diatribe used to begin this post back in 2011.

Before I asddress the above insult to the popes and theologians of the Catholic Church, I must ask how many reading this thread know of the Mitchelson & Morley experiment of 1887 and the emergence of a man called Albert Einstein? How many know the position science HAD TO TAKE after this test? Well in 1905 the whole scientific world had to admit that NO HUMAN SCIENCE WAS ABLE TO PROVE WHETHER THE UNIVERSE IS HELIOCENTRIS OR GEOCENTRIC. In other words, science admitted it/they were not able to falsify the 1616 decree of Pope Paul V defining that the Scriptures DO REVEAL A GEOCENTRIC COSMOS.

For 300 years then, 400 if you include the century since, the insults written above have ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY AT ALL. Let us remind ourselves what was said:

'The Galileo affair is probably the biggest black eye that the Church has suffered over the centuries, not because she was proven to be fallible, but because the incident has served to discredit the Catholic Church in the eyes of many moderns.'

Now anybody who professes to be a Catholic should know that the Triune God promised His Church would never 'get a black eye' when its teaching is defined by a pope as irreversible. As it turned out, their LIE that the Church's definition was  proven wrong was itself proven false. So all who professed and supported the lie, are the real enemies of the Catholic Church.

'Our attitude towards science should not be one of hostility. It should be one of dialogue between the "book of nature" and the "book of faith".'

Today's cosmology is all based on heliocentrism as a proven fact. It is no such thing and to say so and base all theories on it is PSEUDO_SCIENCE. These lies have totally undermined Genesis as true history, destroyed the faith of millions, and our attitude to their lies should be total rejection.

Galileo was not perfect and he even had shoddy reasons for positing what he did. He backed into a correct position, so to speak. However, he did brilliantly reference the ever-more-brilliant Augustine in his private letters explaining his position.

Wasn't it St Augustine, the biblical Geocentrist, who said ‘If there were no pride, there would be no heresy.’
Ever read the writings of Galileo? He said God granted to HIM ALONE knowledge of the movements of the universe. He said the LAST PLACE one finds physical truth is in the Scriptures.Galileo quoted Augustine who said if 'CERTAIN PROOFS' contradicted an interpretation of Scripture then that interpretation was wrong.  Of course it would, and onev didn't have to quote Augustine to know that. Galileo put his one tide a day theory as one of those 'certain proofs.'

To say Galileo backed the 'correct position' is to promote a lie that accuses the Church of being 'incorrect.' Science has long admitted the TRUTH is a METAPHYSICAL CHOICE, and as Catholics  the Bible cannot be wrong in any way. Given the 1616 decree has never been abrogated it still stands in HEAVEN.

Reply
#46
Still at it, cassini?

You might not be aware that Muhammad, Koresh, Manson, Joe Smith, Galileo... and heaps of others too numerous to mention, have all claimed to be "specially chosen" vehicles of "the truth".

Just one of the things that you have in common with them is that you all claim that the "truth" is that
Quote: "Science has long admitted the TRUTH is a METAPHYSICAL CHOICE,"
i.e. that something "becomes" "true" if one "chooses" to believe it. (Unmistakeable allegiance to the fantastic (and diabolical) daydreams of Guenon, Blavatsky, Hubbard, Coomaraswamy, Crowley and all (again too numerous to mention)).

On the other hand, however, is the Christian notion that truth is reality created by the Creator. Our challenge is to get to know and understand what it is and how it works; as part of the Instruction to "fill the Earth and subdue it".

Again you try to convince the unwary that the alternative to a Geocentric Universe is a Heliocentric Universe. A cunning deception. An Heliocentric Solar System does not, in any way, imply an Heliocentric Universe.

Don't be blithe in your assumptions. I know quite a bit about MMX (the Michelson- Morley Experiment) along with others in the same vein. I am also fairly conversant with the speculations of Einsteinean Relativity and its extrapolations.

I also confirm my previous assessment that you are a con-man trying to exploit a naïve and credulous version of Papal Infallibility to entice the unwary into your cult.
Reply
#47
(11-28-2016, 11:56 PM)Oldavid Wrote: Still at it, cassini?

You might not be aware that Muhammad, Koresh, Manson, Joe Smith, Galileo... and heaps of others too numerous to mention, have all claimed to be "specially chosen" vehicles of "the truth".

Just one of the things that you have in common with them is that you all claim that the "truth" is that
Quote: "Science has long admitted the TRUTH is a METAPHYSICAL CHOICE,"
i.e. that something "becomes" "true" if one "chooses" to believe it. (Unmistakeable allegiance to the fantastic (and diabolical) daydreams of Guenon, Blavatsky, Hubbard, Coomaraswamy, Crowley and all (again too numerous to mention)).

On the other hand, however, is the Christian notion that truth is reality created by the Creator. Our challenge is to get to know and understand what it is and how it works; as part of the Instruction to "fill the Earth and subdue it".

Again you try to convince the unwary that the alternative to a Geocentric Universe is a Heliocentric Universe. A cunning deception. An Heliocentric Solar System does not, in any way, imply an Heliocentric Universe.

Don't be blithe in your assumptions. I know quite a bit about MMX (the Michelson- Morley Experiment) along with others in the same vein. I am also fairly conversant with the speculations of Einsteinean Relativity and its extrapolations.

I also confirm my previous assessment that you are a con-man trying to exploit a naïve and credulous version of Papal Infallibility to entice the unwary into your cult.

With last-lines like above, I pondered whether to reply. Given my 'cult' was shared by all the Fathers, popes, bishops, priests and lay Catholics until the Oldavids of the eighteenth century convinced them the Fathers were wrong, I shall include them in your ‘ad hominem’ ploy,

I will continue only if someone else has any questions they want answered by the pseudoscientific heliocentrist Oldavid and by the biblical geocentrist Cassini.



Reply
#48
Yair, orrite, cassini,

I would be flattered if you'd denounce me to your mates in "The Resistance"... a completely weird mob who assume that a pope is automatically infallible if he says what you want to hear and is automatically deposed if he says what you don't want to hear.

Fact is, cobber, the Vatican I definition of Papal infallibility says more about when a popey thing is not infallible than when he is. The conditions for papal infallibility are very stringent and limiting.

Your "infallible" papal endorsement of Geocentrism doesn't come within a bull's roar of being a defined article, or dogma, of the Faith. If that's an article of Faith then so is the "climate science" proposed by Poop Frank T'Googlio Monster.

I guess that you're not expecting a life subscription to your cult from me.
Reply
#49
I don't mean to derail the thread, but I don't think your argument is helped by these cheap shots at the Pope, Oldavid. Regardless of what Pope Francis says or does, his office is divinely instituted and should be respected.
Reply
#50
(12-08-2016, 03:13 PM)In His Love Wrote: I don't mean to derail the thread, but I don't think your argument is helped by these cheap shots at the Pope, Oldavid. Regardless of what Pope Francis says or does, his office is divinely instituted and should be respected.

Point taken, and I admire your loyalty to the institution.

However, I contend that loyalty to the institution precludes fawning on treacherous incumbents.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)