0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
'Heliocentrism is a fact...'
The point of this post IS to defend the Cath Church against allegations of impropriety in the Galileo case.
No one can deny that most of the GDP is under the false impression that the Cath Church persecuted someone who alleged the Earth rev around the Sun.
Additionally, lets move to the Earth is flat scenario. The Church has never taught the Earth was flat and most people think we did. This is another misconception. Columbus never had any fear of falling off the flat Earth.
And has no-one here even read Copernicus? This is not surprising and is a consequence of Luther, Calvin, Bacon, Wieshaupt etc.
The point of the post however is directed against the GDP and others who do not understand the Galileo case.
How were the actions against Galileo unjustified by facts?-- heliocentrism is a false doctrine.
It is of course correct that the Church never taught the Earth was flat, but again-- the GDP does believe this.
EX-- Freemason Andrew Dickson White( founder of Cornell U) had the entire faculty and student body of Cornell convinced that the Church taught the Earth was flat. You can bet that DE Rev was not on the reading list at Cornell or any other Ivy league college. Again-- the book can be considered the foundation of modern science and is nowhere present in this
Again-- the book can be considered the foundation of modern science and is nowhere present in this in this alleged western civilisation.
GDP= generally dumb public. With a couple exceptions,
Buddhist forum and suggest that "The Buddha's tooth is not really in the Temple of the Tooth?"
... suggest that "The Buddha's tooth is not really in the Temple of the Tooth?"
Quote from: roscoe on 26/04/2009 01:45:12The point of the post however is directed against the GDP and others who do not understand the Galileo case. Then, if I may use an appropriate metaphor, you are singing to the choir. There are few if any GDPs here. (Although as I point out below I don't believe you properly understand the Galileo case.)Quote from: roscoe on 26/04/2009 01:45:12How were the actions against Galileo unjustified by facts?-- heliocentrism is a false doctrine. No it isn't. The complex series of epicycles that astronomers had evolved to explain planetary motion could be discarded by considering that all the planets moved around the sun rather than the other planets and the sun moving around the Earth. Heliocentrism was an expression of that alternative.As an adjunct of that it was suggested that the sun was the centre of the Universe, but this was not the central point (pun intended) of heliocentrism. The RC church was not objecting to the sun being placed at the centre of the Universe, but at the Earth being removed from that role. Those are two different things - a key point you seem oblivious to.Quote from: roscoe on 26/04/2009 01:45:12It is of course correct that the Church never taught the Earth was flat, but again-- the GDP does believe this. So what? Quote from: roscoe on 26/04/2009 01:45:12EX-- Freemason Andrew Dickson White( founder of Cornell U) had the entire faculty and student body of Cornell convinced that the Church taught the Earth was flat. You can bet that DE Rev was not on the reading list at Cornell or any other Ivy league college. Again-- the book can be considered the foundation of modern science and is nowhere present in this I don't see what this anecdotal interjection about a single individual has to do with anything. The consensus view amongst the educated for two millenia or more,starting I think with Aristotle, is that the Earth is round. The RC church has agreed with this consenus throughout that period, as far as I am aware. I stand ready to be corrected on this, but not by anecdotes about Freemasons.Quote from: roscoe on 26/04/2009 01:45:12Again-- the book can be considered the foundation of modern science and is nowhere present in this in this alleged western civilisation. Now you have completely lost me. Which book? Ah, wait. "De Rev" is not some obscure theological degree held by Andrew Dickson White, but your disrespectful and obscure abbreviation of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, a copy of which I have beside me as I type. 1. Are you seriously claiming it is not on the reading list for History of Science courses at Ivy League universities?2. Whether it is , or isn't what does that have to do with anything?
Don-- I knew the hostitlity was here and the above post shows it. I will do my best to refute the above in due time.