Copernius, Galileo wrong. Church right. Any apologies?

[hildegaard]

1. As we all know, the big bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, but nevertheless naughty scientists have amassed lots of observations confirming the theory. Those observations indicate beyond reasonable doubt that if the Earth is at the center of the universe as yon blogger claims, everything else is moving away from us as fast as it can.

And that is exactly what Hubble saw. He saw all galaxies (nebula in those times) apparently moving away from us. It is only through the assumption of isotropy and heterogeneity that one can claim that everything appears to be moving away from every other point in space, also. And we have never been to another point in space to verify that!

1. There is no center to the universe. …, everywhere has equal claim to be the center. …

This is explicitly an assumption! And that assumption is coming into question due to recent observations indicating the universe is not as isotropic and/or heterogeous as scientists ASSUMED. Once the assumptions can be disproves, then the rest of the theory goes with it.

 

[hecd2]

I was counting the “individuals” in the Holy Office plus a future saint and probably a few popes present and past.

However, from my experience years ago, I know the importance of clarifying that the institution known as the Catholic Church did not declare a planet earth doctrine based on Divine Revelation.

Exactly right as far as I understand it. But that is beyond my competence to judge independently so I have to take the word of those who have done the work.

 

[hecd2]

Abraham had 12 sons. Is the Church competent in mathematics? Did he actually have 11 or 13 or some other number?

Is this some sort of post-modern exegesis? Anyway, it’s too clever for me.

Genesis says Abraham had one son (his only begotten son Isaac), or perhaps two sons if you count Ishmael (but then his mother Hagar was not Abraham’s wife even though Abraham was consorting with her at the insistence of his wife Sarah, so perhaps Ishmael doesn’t count; or perhaps he does), or maybe eight if you count the six sons of Keturah (Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah), and why wouldn’t you? Keturah was a concubine but she was taken as his wife so why can’t her sons be counted? Anyway the answer is one or two or eight, but not 11, 12 or 13 if we are going to stick to Genesis.

Or wait, just had an idea: perhaps you are not working in base 10? So 11 in base 7, or 12 in base 6, or 13 in base 5 would be 8 sons in base 10. Or maybe you just confused the product of Abraham’s loins with that of Jacob? It’s a good thing that professing the number of Abraham’s sons correctly is not a matter of faith and morals and a requirement for salvation otherwise you’d be in trouble right there. Look, I’m just teasing you a bit - anyone can type x when they really mean to type y, and I’m sure you meant to write Jacob - I do it all the time.

Is the Church competent in mathematics? Well this matter of Abraham’s sons isn’t a matter of mathematics but of biblical knowledge, but to answer the question directly, I’d have to say no. The Church has no competence (or desire so far as I can see) to pronounce on mathematical propositions. No opinion from the Church on the proposition: “every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere”. As for the bible, it is practically devoid of maths apart from the approximation of pi to 3

Anyway, it seems to me that all these matters, the numbers of Abraham’s sons, the value of pi, the Poincare Conjecture, the position of earth in the cosmos, are not things that are necessary for salvation, nor are they things in which the Church is competent.

And who ever said the Church is restricted to faith and morals?

In dogma and doctrine? The Church?

 

[PRmerger]

And who ever said the Church is restricted to faith and morals?

Indeed.

All Truth is Catholic Truth.

When science professes: Penicillin kills strep pyogenes, the Catholic Church says, “Hey, that’s our truth, too!”

In fact, our Church calls it, “splendid!”

 

[PRmerger]

But I don’t know of any evidence that Galileo posited the Copernican theory as a religious view.

Originally posted by Galileo Galilei: Now as to the false aspersions which they so unjustly seek to cast upon me, I have thought it necessary to justify myself in the eyes of all men, whose judgment in matters of` religion and of reputation I must hold in great esteem. I shall therefore discourse of the particulars which these men produce to make this opinion detested and to have it condemned not merely as false but as heretical. To this end they make a shield of their hypocritical zeal for religion. They go about invoking the Bible, which they would have minister to their deceitful purposes. Contrary to the sense of the Bible and the intention of the holy Fathers, if I am not mistaken, they would extend such authorities until even m purely physical matters - where faith is not involved - they would have us altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage, though under the surface meaning of its words this passage may contain a different sense.

In the above, he makes a statement that defends his view as not being heretical.

That is, he proposes it as orthodox religious teaching (i.e. NOT heretical).

 

[hildegaard]

…
Is the Church competent in mathematics? Well this matter of Abraham’s sons isn’t a matter of mathematics but of biblical knowledge, but to answer the question directly, I’d have to say no. The Church has no competence (or desire so far as I can see) to pronounce on mathematical propositions. No opinion from the Church on the proposition: “every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere”. As for the bible, it is practically devoid of maths apart from the approximation of pi to 3
…

That is my point. The Church does not need to be an expert in mathematics to claim the number of children Abraham had. But it does not make it any less valid. If God felt he needed to communicate to us regarding the 3-sphere in scripture or otherwise, I am sure He would have, and it would have been valid. No need to blush! God is awesome.

 

[hildegaard]

Indeed.

When science professes: Penicillin kills strep pyogenes, the Catholic Church says, “Hey, that’s our truth, too!”

When scriptures and the Church state the earth does not move, and the sun moves around it, and science cannot demonstrate otherwise, one wonders why most Catholics follow opinions based on assumptions leading to the conclusion the earth does move, or at least are not open to hear the other side.

 

[oldcelt]

We know that the Earth moves from the relatively recent moon launches. Each time the mathematics had to account for two moving objects in space. Since we returned all of our astronauts safely, I’d have to guess that the mathematicians knew how to adjust for that movement.

I actually find it hard to believe that there is still any question about this.

 

[inocente]

And that is exactly what Hubble saw. He saw all galaxies (nebula in those times) apparently moving away from us. It is only through the assumption of isotropy and heterogeneity that one can claim that everything appears to be moving away from every other point in space, also. And we have never been to another point in space to verify that!

I don’t suppose anyone would mind a bit if the Church wanted to claim that red shift observations mean God contrived to arrange the big bang so that its center would be exactly where Earth came into existence 9.25 billion years later.

That claim would of course need a much larger set of rather less plausible assumptions.

And to have a center, the big bang would need to be reinterpreted as an explosion in space rather than of space, meaning space must have preexisted the big bang, thus somewhat ruining the entire doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

Do you think the Church would want to make that claim?

(Please say yes, this is fun ).

 

[oldcelt]

I don’t suppose anyone would mind a bit if the Church wanted to claim that red shift observations mean God contrived to arrange the big bang so that its center would be exactly where Earth came into existence 9.25 billion years later.

That claim would of course need a much larger set of rather less plausible assumptions.

And to have a center, the big bang would need to be reinterpreted as an explosion in space rather than of space, meaning space must have preexisted the big bang, thus somewhat ruining the entire doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

Do you think the Church would want to make that claim?

(Please say yes, this is fun ).

They might want to say it, but I doubt that they will. But that would have been some shootin’.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t suppose anyone would mind a bit if the Church wanted to claim that red shift observations mean God contrived to arrange the big bang so that its center would be exactly where Earth came into existence 9.25 billion years later.

That claim would of course need a much larger set of rather less plausible assumptions.

And to have a center, the big bang would need to be reinterpreted as an explosion in space rather than of space, meaning space must have preexisted the big bang, thus somewhat ruining the entire doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

Do you think the Church would want to make that claim?

(Please say yes, this is fun ).

Regarding claims about red shifts and blue Mondays

Are you talking about the Catholic Church institution and its doctrines of Faith?

Or are you talking about scientists who are Catholic?

 

[pnewton]

And that is exactly what Hubble saw. He saw all galaxies (nebula in those times) apparently moving away from us. It is only through the assumption of isotropy and heterogeneity that one can claim that everything appears to be moving away from every other point in space, also. And we have never been to another point in space to verify that!

LOL I’ve never been to Spain, yet I kinda like the music.

 

[hildegaard]

I don’t suppose anyone would mind a bit if the Church wanted to claim that red shift observations mean God contrived to arrange the big bang so that its center would be exactly where Earth came into existence 9.25 billion years later.

That claim would of course need a much larger set of rather less plausible assumptions.

And to have a center, the big bang would need to be reinterpreted as an explosion in space rather than of space, meaning space must have preexisted the big bang, thus somewhat ruining the entire doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

Do you think the Church would want to make that claim?

(Please say yes, this is fun ).

Well first you would have to get past the assumption that there was a big bang. Scientists take the observations of redshift, and assume that the redshift is expansion. Since they are assuming expansion, if they extrapolate to zero time, everything comes together at a point. This is because we see everything is redshifted radially away from us. Of course this implies we are art the center of the bang, so scientists assume isotropy and homogeneity, which means that we can interpret this to mean space appears to be expanding away from any point in space.

Temple and Smoller have created such a theory, where they claim we are near the center of an expanding wave. The beauty of this theory is it dispenses with the need for the metaphysical “dark energy”, yet is consistent with our observations, and keeps the universe expanding (math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/!!!PubsForWeb/cv83.pdf). Of course it challenges the Copernican Principle, so would only be accepted out of desperation. Also Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi type models (earth at the center of a low density void) are also becoming popular. This also challenges the Copernican Principle, and thus would only be accepted out of desperation.

 

[inocente]

Regarding claims about red shifts and blue Mondays

Are you talking about the Catholic Church institution and its doctrines of Faith?

Or are you talking about scientists who are Catholic?

It is of course for the geocentrists to decide who they will petition but I’ve got the Pope’s address if that helps them.

On your second question, as it would seem that all scientists are naughty, unruly, brutish and ignorant fellows, I’d advise those who are Catholic to take the 5th.

 

[frobert]

It is beginning to look like Copernius and Galileo were wrong and the Church was righgt. It now appears that the earth may indeed be the center of the universe. So the question is, will the world apologize for the abuse that has been heaped upon it for the last 500 years? Will the professors in our universities across the land stop upbrating the Church? At the very least they should admit that actually determining the center of the universe is far from being as easy as Copernicus and Galileo thought.

medium.com/@john_qpublic/planck-satellite-confirms-wmap-findings-universe-is-not-copernican-26f88f17a732 Linus2nd

In re-reading the original post I find that the poster makes several unfounded assumptions:

Assumption 1: “It is beginning to look like Copernius and Galileo were wrong and the Church was right.” – To whom is it beginning to look like…

Assumption 2: “It now appears that the earth may indeed be the center of the universe.” To whom does it appears…

Assumption 3: “the abuse…the world… has been heaped upon it for the last 500 years” Please define abuse and the world that have heaped…

Assumption 4: “they (scientist) should admit that actually determining the center of the universe is far from being as easy as Copernicus and Galileo thought.” Because of your assumptions and a “John Q, Public’s?”

 

[inocente]

Well first you would have to get past the assumption that there was a big bang. Scientists take the observations of redshift, and assume that the redshift is expansion. Since they are assuming expansion, if they extrapolate to zero time, everything comes together at a point. This is because we see everything is redshifted radially away from us. Of course this implies we are art the center of the bang, so scientists assume isotropy and homogeneity, which means that we can interpret this to mean space appears to be expanding away from any point in space.

Temple and Smoller have created such a theory, where they claim we are near the center of an expanding wave. The beauty of this theory is it dispenses with the need for the metaphysical “dark energy”, yet is consistent with our observations, and keeps the universe expanding (math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/!!!PubsForWeb/cv83.pdf). Of course it challenges the Copernican Principle, so would only be accepted out of desperation. Also Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi type models (earth at the center of a low density void) are also becoming popular. This also challenges the Copernican Principle, and thus would only be accepted out of desperation.

Nice try. Only one problem - does the Church really want to blow in the wind to every speculative idea? To what end?

Anyhow, I suggest the doctrine is called Sumusne Illic Adhuc (google unreliably says that’s the Latin for Are we there yet? )

Google also tells me that Temple and Smoller have a group of young earth creationist fans called the Institute For Creation Research. Oh dear.

 

[hecd2]

That is my point. The Church does not need to be an expert in mathematics to claim the number of children Abraham had. But it does not make it any less valid. If God felt he needed to communicate to us regarding the 3-sphere in scripture or otherwise, I am sure He would have, and it would have been valid. No need to blush! God is awesome.

Whoosh!

So how many sons does the Church claim Abraham had? One, two, eight, 11, 12 or 13? Does the Church need competence in maths to get the right number? And there was me thinking it is a matter of history, archaeology and biblical historical criticism. Is there a right number? Do you know what it is? Does it matter for a Catholic’s salvation?

As in the number of Abraham’s sons so it is in cosmology and astrophysics. The Church is no more competent to determine scientific matters than She is to determine mathematical ones. In 2014, the Church knows this, which is rather a good thing.

 

[hildegaard]

Nice try. Only one problem - does the Church really want to blow in the wind to every speculative idea? To what end?

Some of its members do with the speculative theory mknown by the common term “big bang theory”.

Google also tells me that Temple and Smoller have a group of young earth creationist fans called the Institute For Creation Research. Oh dear.

So? Scientific research is put out there, and anyone who finds it interesting can pick up on it for any reason. It surely does not impact the validity or invalidity of the theory.

My point is the standard model, and especially the accepted big bang theory is in crisis right now. The biggest challenge is to inflation theories, which are challenged by some of the CMB analysis results, and are leading to the necessity to either accept the multiverse (an unscientific philosophical construct), or to look for ways out of the need for dark energy (an entirely fictional concept used as a place holder for missing physics).

 

[hecd2]

In the above, he makes a statement that defends his view as not being heretical.

That is, he proposes it as orthodox religious teaching (i.e. NOT heretical).

Thanks for this. I can see where you are coming from but I don’t read it the way you do. In the bolded part of the quote “this opinion” that is being made “detested” and “false and heretical” is the Copernican theory. As I see it, Galileo is arguing that his scientific view is not heretical and explaining why he believes that to be the case (in an angry and confrontational tone to be sure); he is not suggesting that his scientific view should or must be adopted as an article of faith which is what “turning a scientific view into a religious view” means to me. He is merely arguing that in matters outside faith and morals, the faithful should be free to judge the truth based on observation and reason - which is, moreover, the position that the Church herself now takes.

 

[hildegaard]

…The Church is no more competent to determine scientific matters than She is to determine mathematical ones. In 2014, the Church knows this, which is rather a good thing.

The Church is competent to determine any matter revealed in scriptures, regardless of what field of inquiry needs to be drawn upon, or may be implied. Neither God, nor the Church is limited to today’s methodologies for rational inquiry or categorization. The Church, being structured in human society, does have some limitations, but through guidance of the Holy Spirit, can in a sense tap into God’s lack of limitations on specific questions, if She so chooses to make inquiries.