The classics came up:"Galileo exposed the Catholic Church that held to geocentrism dogmatically, but was forced to recant by the pope under threat of torture.
To be accurate, it was Copernicus who first proposed the heliocentric model. Galileo merely found more evidence to support it.
And in reality, and if I’m remembering correctly, the heliocentric vs. geocentric debate has been going on since the ancient Greeks.
And I don’t see it ending anytime soon, unfortunately.
“The Big Bang leaves no room for God. Science does not need God.”
I don’t see how the Big Bang makes God superfluous.
I do, however, agree that science doesn’t need God. By this, I mean that science doesn’t need to indulge in faith questions when studying the universe. Science is restricted to the physical universe. God is supernatural, and therefore by definition, He is not constrained to the physical world. Science, therefore, really can’t delve into faith questions when scientists can’t empirically study theological topics.
Among the other statements were things about Evolution and that it is thoroughly proven,
Well, I would have to agree with them. The forbidden “E” word is one of the most well-established, well-tested, and well-supported theories in all of science. To me, to assert otherwise to is advocate intellectual dishonesty and ignorance of how science actually works.
- Did any council or pope define or teach geocentrism?
Some of the members of the Church may have believed geocentrism, but I don’t recall any instance where she taught geocentrism as doctrine or dogma. Other members can correct me if I’m wrong, though.
Personally, I don’t think the Church can ever proclaim geocentrism as doctrine or dogma. This is because the actual answer to the question lies within scientific inquiry; the Church cannot infallibly proclaim or define scientific matters.
Further, as far as I know, the Church allows her members to accept either geocentrism or heliocentrism. This presents a problem, though, if the Church did indeed teach geocentrism as dogma or doctrine at one time because it would mean she retracted something that was infallible.
- Is geocentrism really not an option anymore, or are there reasons to believe it may in fact be true? (Just to make sure)
In truth, geocentrism is a
valid point of reference. For example, most people say “At sunset, I went outside and watched the sun set in the west, while the moon began to rise in the east.” Very rarely do you see people say something along the lines of “the rotation of the Earth, relative to the rest of the Universe, carried me around to a geometric vantage point where the horizon as seen from my location dropped below the Sun’s apparent position in space.”
The problem with geocentrism is not that it’s a valid point of reference; it’s that Fundamentalists claim that is it the
only valid point of reference. Thinking geocentrically, however, becomes quite cumbersome once you want to send space probes to other planets. The math works out a whole lot better if we use the sun as the center, and use the Earth as just another planet that revolves and rotates.
But even thinking heliocentrically presents some problems. Some astronomers study other galaxies, and they use the Milky Way galaxy as their point of reference. Call this “galactocentrism” if you so wish.
You merely use what coordinate system will best fit your needs.
To summarize, geocentrism is correct in a sense. All the other coordinate systems, however, are equally correct. That’s one of the ideas mentioned in Einstein’s theory of relativity: there is no “One True Frame of Reference.”
More evidence that does not support the Fundamentalist believe that geocentrism is the only true frame of reference includes the Doppler effect, stellar aberration, stellar parallax, the retrograde motion of the other planets, the phases of Venus.
- Where can I find more information on the Church’s view on science, the Church’s contribution to science (I believe the Big Bang theory was proposed by a priest?) and reasons why science and Christianity work well together?
Right. The Big Bang Theory, as well as the idea that the universe is expanding, was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, who was a Belgian priest, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvian. I don’t remember the Church ever going against his findings and proposals.
And I think the
Catechism has a section that explains the Church’s position on science. i wouldn’t swear to that, though.
Which brings up an interesting point: is the Church against science? Nope, she isn’t. She fully recognizing that her protection from error is restricted on matters of faith and morals. Therefore, scientific laws and theories, be they the forbidden “E” word, the Big Bang, or the laws of thermodynamics are questions the Church cannot infallibly answer, proclaim, or define.
Science is concerned with the physical universe and how it operates. The Catholic Church is concerned with God’s revelation and what it means for our salvation (i.e. faith and morals).
Basically, all well-supported, well-tested, and well-established scientific laws and theories are compatible with Christianity. The only way these laws or theories are not going to be compatible is when Christians adhere to Fundamentalism, which is a viewpoint that even Scripture does not support. At least, I don’t feel Scripture supports a Fundamentalist mindset.
And, as science continues making more advances, Fundamentalists are going to come up with more and more ludicrous assertions and unsubstantiated hypotheses.
