Sun centered?

[aloha918]

I have beern thinking a lot about this lately.........

Why did the church, at the start of the scientific revolution, go against the Copernican idea of the sun centered universe?........

you could say that it was because they didn't want another type of reformation or heresy, but what did it even contradict?....the bible?.....tradition?...............

if you could answer this it would be greatly appreciated......

ALoha

[Mary's Knight, La]

i cant remember where i heard/read this but someone pointed out that various scientists had hard times with the church not because of their discoveries but because once they made their discovery they said "now you have to admit that X in the bible really is symbolic or means..." they overstepped their job.

It belonged to the church to decide how to interpret the bible in light of the scientific revelations. it would be much the same as the church saying "the bible says X so you must interpret your scientific data this way..." you would clearly agree the church is overstepping her bounds here.

[toledo_jesus]

tradition had the earth as the center of the universe. also there are accounts in the bible of God making the sun stand still.
naturally, as it makes no difference to our salvation, the Church was able to accept scientific fact.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='Mary's Knight, La' date='Feb 17 2005, 01:49 PM'] i cant remember where i heard/read this but someone pointed out that various scientists had hard times with the church not because of their discoveries but because once they made their discovery they said "now you have to admit that X in the bible really is symbolic or means..." they overstepped their job. [/quote]
Yep, this is what Gallileo did. He essentially wrote a book where he unapollogetically portrayed the pope at that time as a complete moron. That's what got him in big trouble, not his actual discovery.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='aloha918' date='Feb 17 2005, 02:37 PM'] I have beern thinking a lot about this lately.........

Why did the church, at the start of the scientific revolution, go against the Copernican idea of the sun centered universe?........

you could say that it was because they didn't want another type of reformation or heresy, but what did it even contradict?....the bible?.....tradition?...............

if you could answer this it would be greatly appreciated......

ALoha [/quote]
[i]
The medieval European belief in the concept of a fixed Earth and a Sun
orbiting Earth was based upon literal interpretation of a couple of
statements included in Bible verses.


Possibly the most important of these scriptural references to a
geocentric cosmological system was Joshua 10:12-13:

"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up
the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight
of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the
valley of Ajalon.
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had
avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book
of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted
not to go down about a whole day."

By taking these verses literally, medieval theologists regarded them
as clear biblical (and thus established) evidence that indeed the Sun
was moving.

Additional biblical proof for a moving Sun was seen in Ecclesiastes
1:5, where it is said:
"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his
place where he arose."


Other biblical verses were interpreted as scriptural evidence that the
Earth is fixed and immovable:

Psalm 93:1
"(...) the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."

Psalm 104:5
"Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever."

1 Chronicles 16:30
"(...) the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."


Upon these text passages from the Old Testament, theologians based the
doctrine of a fixed Earth with the Sun orbitting it. For example,
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) referred to these passages,
when he became involved in the controversy about Galileo Galilei's
work. On 12 April 1615, he wrote in a letter, refusing Galilei's
scientific concept of the Sun being orbited by the Earth which proved
wrong the doctrine:
"I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding
the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers.
And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the
commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and
Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad
litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the
earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile
in the center of the universe."
[/i]

[Guest Aluigi]

let's not forget the fact that the SCIENTISTS of the day were up in arms against copernicus and galileo as well. in fact, it was pressure from the scientists mostly that made the Church reject them.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Feb 17 2005, 03:44 PM'] let's not forget the fact that the SCIENTISTS of the day were up in arms against copernicus and galileo as well. in fact, it was pressure from the scientists mostly that made the Church reject them. [/quote]
Yeah, blame the scientist - the church did nothing wrong.

[Guest Aluigi]

didn't say it. everyone was in the church, and the people in the church were doin wrong: scientists and bishops and galileo alike. we're all sinners.

[MichaelFilo]

Actually. The biggest problem wasn't in who was doing the blaming. The big problem was that at the time it was a theory. This theory was posed in a book which did present the Pope as a moron. Far from just that, the equipment of that day did not allow for solid proof of the theory. In fact, it was far from being anything more than a theory. The equpiment of the time gave no more clues to it's reality than our equipment gives clues to the big bang.

In light of it being a theory which was going against accepted scientific thought and which was not provable beyond doubt my scientific equipment of that time, it wasn't only the Church who didn't agree with the theory. It became the Church's problem when Galileo decided to make fun of the Pope while proving his theory. Real bad mistake, especially since he and the Holy Father were good friends.

God bless,
Mikey

[jezic]

My only problem is the extremes the church went to to change that.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='aloha918' date='Feb 17 2005, 03:37 PM'] Why did the church, at the start of the scientific revolution, go against the Copernican idea of the sun centered universe?........ [/quote]
I'm glad they did. Today, nobody in the [i]universe[/i] believes that the Sun is at the center.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Feb 17 2005, 03:44 PM'] let's not forget the fact that the SCIENTISTS of the day were up in arms against copernicus and galileo as well. in fact, it was pressure from the scientists mostly that made the Church reject them. [/quote]
He is right, a lot os other scientists didn't like those ideas.

If you look back at the time, most of the "bad" marks on the Church's record, like this, weren't started by the Church, rather someone said something about them and in a way forced the Church into doing something. It would be akin to a democrat coming out and listing this blasphemes that Bush has "committed" thus forcing the Church to look at it. The Church didn't start the investagation.

[hopeful1]

we just studied gallileo in my earth science class, i'm glad someone posted this. actually every class i've been in that mentions him makes it sound like the church had an issue with the theory itself and that's why he was inquisitioned. i need to do more studying into both sides myself. i'm glad someone posted this.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Feb 17 2005, 05:40 PM'] Actually. The biggest problem wasn't in who was doing the blaming. The big problem was that at the time it was a theory. This theory was posed in a book which did present the Pope as a moron. Far from just that, the equipment of that day did not allow for solid proof of the theory. In fact, it was far from being anything more than a theory. The equpiment of the time gave no more clues to it's reality than our equipment gives clues to the big bang.

In light of it being a theory which was going against accepted scientific thought and which was not provable beyond doubt my scientific equipment of that time, it wasn't only the Church who didn't agree with the theory. It became the Church's problem when Galileo decided to make fun of the Pope while proving his theory. Real bad mistake, especially since he and the Holy Father were good friends.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
Lets not whitewash the church for being wrong on this one. I could see why they would be upset at Galileo for insulting them and Im sure it played a big part in what happened. At the same time, in regards to what you say about his tools and his theory not able to be proovable without a doubt. The initial theory of the sun centered universe, didn't have any provable evidence other than the bible or interpeted words of the bible. The greeks and the mayas made alot of advancement and discoveries in astronomy with very basic tools. But when you go against the most powerful authority in the land, and say they are wrong, than you are asking for problems. The church felt strongly that they were right in their interpetation, but as science has proven were wrong.

Even if Galileo pushed the buttons of the church, and even if as you say there was no proof at the time. He was still right.

[aloha918]

What I thought was interesting was the fact (at least I dont believe) that any Protestant churches had a problem with it.....especially if it was challenged due to biblical evidence..........them being sola scriptura

also I read a book called Galileo's DAughter

this book suggested that actually Galileo was a faithful Catholic and wanted to have room for a mix of the 2, science and religion.........

the book was based off of Galileos daughter who had kept many letters that she had written him and visa versa......

his daughter was a Poor Clare...........