Copernican Heresy

James R said:
If my subjective truth is that pigs can fly, does that make it true?

What does "subjective truth" even mean? If subjective truth differs from objective truth, what then?


We already told you. The church didn't officially accept the Copernican theory (admitting that Galileo was persecuted unjustly) until 1992.
Click to expand...


That would not qualify as a subjective truth at all. Maybe a hallucination or delusion or belief (if/ believed). I like peach milkshakes. My favorite colors are pink and blue. Those are subjective truth's.

My point is it was accepted. Truth is important like that. Im not sure when the church officially adopted Copernican views.. If something is true it's true. There are quite a few old paradigms that have changed over time.. The church might call the change of mind repentance. That's how I view it anyway. We repent or change once we understand something to be true or truer than our older mindsets. Natural progression is the premise.
 
exchemist said:
The church, as a rule, neither adopts, nor fails to adopt, scientific findings. Science is not its job.

Since the Galileo affair, the Catholic church has avoided being trapped into taking a position on scientific matters. Its stance has been one of understanding new science and fitting the new understanding into the way it teaches religion, in those few cases were there may be perceived to be a potential conflict. A good example is the series of lectures Cardinal Wiseman gave in Rome in the 1840s, to show how the new findings of geology about the age of the Earth could be accommodated in how the Old Testament was to be interpreted. As for Darwin and evolution, the Catholic church (unlike certain Anglican bishops) stayed out of the initial debate in the c.19th and then in the c.20th took a formal position that the theory was not in conflict with church teaching.

And in fact, when it was a Catholic priest, Mgr. Lemaître, who was the first to put forward the expanding universe model that became known as the Big Bang, the church went out of its way to avoid dramatically claiming that this was evidence for the act of creation of the universe by God, even though many clergymen were very excited by the idea.
Click to expand...

Being in a position like the church, who are there as record keepeers, teach according to what has been found to be true. Honoring God in spirit and truth is what's expected from them. That's fundamental to the faith. Truth isn't limited to the subjective but also carries over into the objective broadly. Narrow subjective truths are applied per person, and the broader scope of objective reality/truth are no less vital to the task. That's what I gather from the faith.

I'm sure they refrain from making declarations of truth based on little evidence, which is likely why it can take them so long to do so. The position they have on earth requires it.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
Being in a position like the church, who are there as record keepeers, teach according to what has been found to be true. Honoring God in spirit and truth is what's expected from them. That's fundamental to the faith. Truth isn't limited to the subjective but also carries over into the objective broadly. Narrow subjective truths are applied per person, and the broader scope of objective reality/truth are no less vital to the task. That's what I gather from the faith.

I'm sure they refrain from making declarations of truth based on little evidence, which is likely why it can take them so long to do so. The position they have on earth requires it.
Click to expand...
Well no one could accuse them of being quick, that's for sure.;)
 
ThazzarBaal said:
It's an example of Hosea 4 6 and darkness or unknowing coming before illumination. Accrptence comes after understanding, whether subjective or objective.
Click to expand...
Yeah, except it's nothing to do with "truth".

Being in a position like the church, who are there as record keepeers, teach according to what has been found to be true. ...and the broader scope of objective reality/truth are no less vital to the task.
Click to expand...
And yet the basic premise of the church is the promotion of something that is NOT (by any means) objectively true.

I'm sure they refrain from making declarations of truth based on little evidence
Click to expand...
Given that that's what they're founded on then your "sureness" is fundamentally flawed.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Yeah, except it's nothing to do with "truth".


And yet the basic premise of the church is the promotion of something that is NOT (by any means) objectively true.


Given that that's what they're founded on then your "sureness" is fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...

Are we taking an opposite position then? I know people who ... Umm, play the role. In any case, the premise of the church isn't to spread or adhere to lies or deciet.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Yup. I'm interested in "truth" (supportable facts) and you're vested in your belief.
Click to expand...

A few of them yes. Beliefs like evolutionary progress, human adaptation, and black hole bound ... Sun and all. Beyond that, I anticipate more life and evolutionary processes. Beliefs I know, but mostly validated.
 
Should I be worried, for some scientific bias, that religion is to be an advocate for dumbness?

There are many documentaries and I've indulged in more than a few.
However, I thought this 2 hr was fitting enough for the...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top