Copernican Heresy

[ThazzarBaal]

It just dawned on me the possible reason for the heresy charge by the church. During that time, the church had an obligation to get it right, or correct. New findings that were able to be validated by them became heresies. For some reason I feel stupid for not acknowledging this before.

I'm starting a conversation. The premise seems logical and reasonable.

 

[James R]

New findings that were able to be validated by them became heresies.

Did you mean to write "were not able", there?

A simpler explanation, I think, is that the bible describes the Earth as the centre of the cosmos. Church dogma at the time, following the likes of Aristotle, would have held that any questioning of Earth's central place in God's Creation to be a heresy. It is not for mortal men to start rearranging God's heaven.

 

[C C]

It just dawned on me the possible reason for the heresy charge by the church. During that time, the church had an obligation to get it right, or correct. New findings that were able to be validated by them became heresies. For some reason I feel stupid for not acknowledging this before.

Abrahamic religion is a case of making claims about the universe and positing things that historically occurred in the observable world that can be tested. Rather than keeping affairs of a simulation-generating level (supernatural) restricted to its own hidden domain.

Christian establishments can try to get around that by claiming such was just allegory/metaphor, but there are probably items in Biblical text that indicate certain _X_s should be interpreted literally.

Another option, offered by PDK back in the late '70s or so, is to assert that humankind has been residing in a deceptive, illusory, or false timeline and reality for circa 2,000 years. This arguably looks like an ad hoc deus ex machina, however, that can only be artificially derived from doctrine/manuscript, at best, with great strain.

For instance, one might point to the ousting of man/woman from Eden as a transition point to a parallel reality. But this is far too early -- the majority of the Bible's fantastic marvels and proclamations about the Earth/cosmos still remain to unfold after that.

There's that passage in Revelation 21:2 that speaks of a new heaven and new Earth appearing, which might be construed as a returning to the original situation. But there's no hint of when the [potential] transition happened (like two millennia ago). And it would be a very torturous meaning attributed to it, given that the verse directly refers to the "first heaven and earth having passed away". Not only is it not a "going back" to the first, but it seems to derail any possibility of our residing within a deception for whatever period.
_

 

[ThazzarBaal]

Did you mean to write "were not able", there?

A simpler explanation, I think, is that the bible describes the Earth as the centre of the cosmos. Church dogma at the time, following the likes of Aristotle, would have held that any questioning of Earth's central place in God's Creation to be a heresy. It is not for mortal men to start rearranging God's heaven.

No, I thought I typed "were not" able to verify, hence the reason they became herecies. Truth is an obligation per the religious faith, which is why I feel stupid for not acknowledging this before.

 

[DaveC426913]

This answer is the simplest, most succinct and generally most popular:

...the bible describes the Earth as the centre of the cosmos. Church dogma at the time, following the likes of Aristotle, would have held that any questioning of Earth's central place in God's Creation to be a heresy. It is not for mortal men to start rearranging God's heaven.

To be clear: it didn't matter whether he was right or wrong; he was going against the Bible's teachings, and that alone is heresy.

 

[ThazzarBaal]

This answer is the simplest, most succinct and generally most popular:


To be clear: it didn't matter whether he was right or wrong; he was going against the Bible's teachings, and that alone is heresy.

Are you suggesting that the church isn't interested in truth or that they'll accept one without it being verifiable? If so, maybe you can be specific. They no longer hold the earth as being the center of the universe do they?

 

[exchemist]

This answer is the simplest, most succinct and generally most popular:


To be clear: it didn't matter whether he was right or wrong; he was going against the Bible's teachings, and that alone is heresy.

So far as I am aware, Copernicus was never accused of heresy in his lifetime. In fact, there was a lot of interest in his work from the church cardinals. It was only 60 years or so later that the Dominicans (who invented the Inquisition as a reaction to the spread of the Albigensian heresy, and later used it against Protestantism) who eventually got round to condemning it, especially when it was taken up by Galileo.

The Galileo affair seems to have been the by product of a panicky fear of Protestant "heresy", spreading across Europe.

 

[exchemist]

Are you suggesting that the church isn't interested in truth or that they'll accept one without it being verifiable? If so, maybe you can be specific. They no longer hold the earth as being the center of the universe do they?

Do not confuse the present with attitudes and events in history. Copernicus lived 500 years ago.

 

[ThazzarBaal]

Do not confuse the present with attitudes and events in history. Copernicus lived 500 years ago.

That's the point. They thought the earth was center, as did everyone else to my understanding. When there was verifiable evidence that was truer than what was known, they ( the church) accepted it as truth, which is their duty, given the fundamental premise of their faith.

 

[exchemist]

That's the point. They thought the earth was center, as did everyone else to my understanding. When there was verifiable evidence that was truer than what was known, they ( the church) accepted it as truth, which is their duty, given the fundamental premise of their faith.

Actually it was not until John Paul II that the Catholic church officially acknowledged that Galileo and Copernicus were right!

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460-600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right/

Of course, this does not mean that the church had in reality held onto geocentrism until then. This was more in the nature of an official and very belated apology to them.

The Galileo affair seems to have been almost the only time in history that the church has opposed a scientific finding on grounds of theology. The objection did not last, of course, and the Galileo affair was fairly quickly set aside, especially once Newton had shown that gravitation could account for the motion of the planets, provided one used a heliocentric model.

 

[ThazzarBaal]

Actually it was not until John Paul II that the Catholic church officially acknowledged that Galileo and Copernicus were right!

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460-600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right/

Of course, this does not mean that the church had in reality held onto geocentrism until then. This was more in the nature of an official and very belated apology to them.

The Galileo affair seems to have been almost the only time in history that the church has opposed a scientific finding on grounds of theology. The objection did not last, of course, and the Galileo affair was fairly quickly set aside, especially once Newton had shown that gravitation could account for the motion of the planets, provided one used a heliocentric model.

Sun reference? After knowing something to be true for long long periods of time, I wonder how quick people are to accept new findings or consider them. Evolution for example. Won't we humans keep evolving, instead of being insintigrsted into ashes, or is that an impossibility?

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you suggesting that the church isn't interested in truth..

No. Consider this analogy:

It is a crime to flee the law. This is true whether or not you are innocent or guilty.

Innocence or guilt is a separate issue from the crime of fleeing the law.

 

[DaveC426913]

Copernicus
Galileo

I always get them mixed up.

They're like the Pacino/Deniro of yore.

 

[exchemist]

Sun reference? After knowing something to be true for long long periods of time, I wonder how quick people are to accept new findings or consider them. Evolution for example. Won't we humans keep evolving, instead of being insintigrsted into ashes, or is that an impossibility?

What?

 

[James R]

Are you suggesting that the church isn't interested in truth or that they'll accept one without it being verifiable? If so, maybe you can be specific.

I assume you're asking about the Roman Catholic church.

The extent to which that church is interested in the truth depends on the topic and the particular member of the church. I'm confident that the "official" line is that the church as an institution cares about truth.

On the other hand, there are a lot of problematic things in the bible that are accepted by the church (as an institution) as true, despite a lack of confirming evidence or, in some cases, the presence of disconfirming evidence.

On questions relating to science, for the most part, these days, the official line from the catholic church seems to be that those parts of the bible that demonstrably conflict with modern science can safely be read as allegories or parables, or whatever, rather than as declarations of truths.

A lot of positions officially held by the Catholic church and considered important to doctrine concern moral issues rather than issues of fact. The church does not necessarily require good reasons to dictate that certain things are right or wrong. I think they would say that the bible itself provides sufficient justification for such claims.

They no longer hold the earth as being the center of the universe do they?

Only officially since 1992, if I recall correctly.

 

[ThazzarBaal]

What?

What?

Heliosphere was brought up. I'm an evolutionist also. Science suggests life started from what would be inhospitable to life as we know it today, yet we evolved from that, so it makes sense to hold the same expectations for the future.

 

[ThazzarBaal]

I assume you're asking about the Roman Catholic church.

The extent to which that church is interested in the truth depends on the topic and the particular member of the church. I'm confident that the "official" line is that the church as an institution cares about truth.

On the other hand, there are a lot of problematic things in the bible that are accepted by the church (as an institution) as true, despite a lack of confirming evidence or, in some cases, the presence of disconfirming evidence.

On questions relating to science, for the most part, these days, the official line from the catholic church seems to be that those parts of the bible that demonstrably conflict with modern science can safely be read as allegories or parables, or whatever, rather than as declarations of truths.

A lot of positions officially held by the Catholic church and considered important to doctrine concern moral issues rather than issues of fact. The church does not necessarily require good reasons to dictate that certain things are right or wrong. I think they would say that the bible itself provides sufficient justification for such claims.

Only officially since 1992, if I recall correctly.

Subjective truths and objective truths are still truth's. I guess the difference are in temporal realities and spiritual realities, the contrast between the heavens and earth. Phycology and physics, I would think the two sciences between them.

 

[exchemist]

Heliosphere was brought up. I'm an evolutionist also. Science suggests life started from what would be inhospitable to life as we know it today, yet we evolved from that, so it makes sense to hold the same expectations for the future.

What has this - whatever it is - got to do with the subject of this thread?

 

[ThazzarBaal]

What has this - whatever it is - got to do with the subject of this thread?

How we walk into understanding over time, and that the church has always been obligated to truth.

Allegories are common in biblical text, but are not limited to. For example:

But, soft! What light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.
Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,
Who is already sick and pale with grief,
That thou, her maid, art far more fair than she.

Shakespeare "Romeo and Juliet"

The reference to me obvious.

 

[Dywyddyr]

and that the church has always been obligated to truth.

Evidence? Because it's far from apparent.