Copernican Heresy

ThazzarBaal said:
Do you know anything if their faith? Its In their proclaimed faith that the evidence is found, written and proclaimed to be the foundation of and likewise expected to be honored.
Click to expand...
Faith and evidence are distinct things.

Dywyddyr is asking for the latter, which is expected to be objective, not faith-based.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh! She doth teach the torches to burn bright!
It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night, like a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear.
Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear.

The most lovely evocation of being thunderstruck by woman's beauty. And with a hint of prophecy........

(I studied that play for O Level and got a Grade 1, in 1969:biggrin:)

But none of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
Its In their proclaimed faith that the evidence is found, written and proclaimed to be the foundation of and likewise expected to be honored.
Click to expand...
Faith isn't evidence. (Despite what the Bible claims[1]).

1 This is an example of religion NOT being a fan of truth.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Faith and evidence are distinct things.

Dywyddyr is asking for the latter, which is expected to be objective, not faith-based.
Click to expand...

That's a relevant point to my point, so are individual subjective truths. They are personal to every individual. A personal relationship with life and how we experience and understand it uniquely is what I'm referring to in terms of subjective truths being relevant.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
That's a relevant point to my point, so are individual subjective truths. They are personal to every individual. A personal relationship with life and how we experience and understand it uniquely is what I'm referring to in terms of subjective truths being relevant.
Click to expand...
You are now using a highly problematic definition of the word 'truth'.

Remember the thread subject: Galileo committing heresy. How does the "personal truth" some dude-in-a tall-pointy-hat determine how the planets go around in the heavens and thus Copernicus' fate?
 
exchemist said:
Oh! She doth teach the torches to burn bright!
It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night, like a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear.
Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear.

The most lovely evocation of being thunderstruck by woman's beauty. And with a hint of prophecy........

(I studied that play for O Level and got a Grade 1, in 1969:biggrin:)

But none of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...

East of the garden reference, cherubim, flaming sword turning every which way, there to keep the way of the tree of life. Allegory maybe, and no less an allegory from Shakespeare. In context directly to the thread is how the church accepted the allegory, how Shakespeare makes use of it, and also morning star referenced twice, Lucifer/Jesus, descending and ascending as they relate to sons and or children of God.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Faith isn't evidence. (Despite what the Bible claims[1]).

1 This is an example of religion NOT being a fan of truth.
Click to expand...

It's an example of Hosea 4 6 and darkness or unknowing coming before illumination. Accrptence comes after understanding, whether subjective or objective.
 
DaveC426913 said:
You are now using a highly problematic definition of the word 'truth'.

Remember the thread subject: Galileo committing heresy. How does the "personal truth" some dude-in-a tall-pointy-hat determine how the planets go around in the heavens and thus Copernicus' fate?
Click to expand...

Copernican heresy is the thread title and it's about walking into truths yet to be accepted.
 
Last edited:
ThazzarBaal said:
Do you accept your personal truth? I accept mine. The church also accepts objective truths. I do too.
Click to expand...
This walks and talks like strawman.

You are using 'truth' as a weasel word - a word that has multiple different meanings, depending on the context it's used in. You are equivocating between the two and obfuscating their meaning, hoping that readers will connect the dots themselves without you connecting them explicitly.

Connect those dots. Make your case regarding the thread topic.
 
DaveC426913 said:
This walks and talks like strawman.

You are using 'truth' as a weasel word - a word that has multiple different meanings, depending on the context it's used in. You are equivocating between the two and obfuscating their meaning, hoping that readers will connect the dots themselves without you connecting them explicitly.

Connect those dots. Make your case regarding the thread topic.
Click to expand...

I thought I had. We don't know until we know, but in-between those points are also beliefs, which we work out. Why? Because there is reason to believe them. Medicine and disease for example. Belief on to efforts on to cures. From unknowing to knowing, hence my reference to Hosea 4:6. We are destroyed because we lack knowledge, so truth and knowledge is the fundamental purpose of the church...increasing our abilities to discern truth from error being required also. That's a 1 John 4 reference.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
I thought I had. We don't know until we know, but in-between those points are also beliefs, which we work out. Why? Because there is reason to believe them. Medicine and disease for example. Belief on to efforts on to cures. From unknowing to knowing, hence my reference to Hosea 4:6. We are destroyed because we lack knowledge, so truth and knowledge is the fundamental purpose of the church...increasing our abilities to discern truth from error being required also. That's a 1 John 4 reference.
Click to expand...
You have not connected those dots to Copernican Heresy, which is what this thread is about.
 
First post was changed but apparently the changes did not stand. I'm unsure why. They were not able to validate Copernicus' views at the onset, but later were able, which is why they were later accepted by the church. After ability to validate became apparent.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
First post was changed but apparently the changes did not stand. I'm unsure why. They were not able to validate Copernicus' views at the onset, but later were able, which is why they were later accepted by the church. After ability to validate became apparent.
Click to expand...
This does not make sense. It was not the business of the church to try to validate scientific observations. Though the Jesuits had the job of absorbing intellectual ideas and trying to fit them to theology where appropriate.

Galileo's promotion of Copernicus's ideas was opposed because, at the time, they were neurotic about the rapid spread of Protestant ideas - it was the time of the Reformation. (Galileo lived about 50 years after Luther and Calvin.) The science community (then consisting of just a handful of individuals) however carried on regardless, especially in Protestant Northern Europe, where there was no central church authority with any power to prohibit anything. It was soon obvious that the heliocentric model was by far the best one to use, especially when Newton came up with a mechanism (gravitation) that explained the whole thing - provided one applied it to a heliocentric model. The church's opposition to heliocentrism faded and was dropped a century or so later.
 
exchemist said:
This does not make sense. It was not the business of the church to try to validate scientific observations. Though the Jesuits had the job of absorbing intellectual ideas and trying to fit them to theology where appropriate.

Galileo's promotion of Copernicus's ideas was opposed because, at the time, they were neurotic about the rapid spread of Protestant ideas - it was the time of the Reformation. (Galileo lived about 50 years after Luther and Calvin.) The science community (then consisting of just a handful of individuals) however carried on regardless, especially in Protestant Northern Europe, where there was no central church authority with any power to prohibit anything. It was soon obvious that the heliocentric model was by far the best one to use, especially when Newton came up with a mechanism (gravitation) that explained the whole thing - provided one applied it to a heliocentric model. The church's opposition to heliocentrism faded and was dropped a century or so later.
Click to expand...


Did they and have they continued to adopt established scientific findings, not long after proven? The church specifically.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
That's a relevant point to my point, so are individual subjective truths. They are personal to every individual.
Click to expand...
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?

ThazzarBaal said:
Were his views accepted by the church at the onset, or did it take the church time to accept them?
Click to expand...
We already told you. The church didn't officially accept the Copernican theory (admitting that Galileo was persecuted unjustly) until 1992.
 
Last edited:
ThazzarBaal said:
Did they and have they continued to adopt established scientific findings, not long after proven? The church specifically.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top