Copernius, Galileo wrong. Church right. Any apologies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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).
Isn’t the CMB black-body, Gaussian, adiabatic, nearly but not quite scale invariant just as inflation predicts? Doesn’t the CMB anisotropy power spectrum fit the standard six-parameter LCDM model of cosmology to a remarkable degree, including the first peak in the power spectrum at l=220, just where the inflation hypothesis plus baryon acoustic oscillations predicts it to be? And tie in well with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis? Just asking.
 
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.
We shall have to agree to differ. I do not consider the Church competent to determine mathematical, scientific, or historical matters - but then again, neither does She. It is precisely this point that Galileo argued for, and has subsequently been conceded, in effect if not formally. Don’t expect an official Church teaching on the Big Bang or inflation or CMB anisotropies or General Realtivity any time soon.

How many sons does the Church determine that Abraham had, by the way?
 
We shall have to agree to differ. I do not consider the Church competent to determine mathematical, scientific, or historical matters - but then again, neither does She. It is precisely this point that Galileo argued for, and has subsequently been conceded, in effect if not formally. Don’t expect an official Church teaching on the Big Bang or inflation or CMB anisotropies or General Realtivity any time soon.

How many sons does the Church determine that Abraham had, by the way?
As for this granny, I will graciously answer your question about Abraham’s exploits.

On second thought, I will follow inocente’s sage advice (or is that salt and pepper advice–dang my memory). Inocente replied to me in post 74: “… 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. :D
Since I am mathematically challenged, I take the 75th. :extrahappy:
 
We shall have to agree to differ. I do not consider the Church competent to determine mathematical, scientific, or historical matters - but then again, neither does She.
Contemplation on the Relations Between Science and Faith

Prof. Werner Arber (University of Basel, Switzerland – President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences)[1] to the Holy Father, and to the members of the Synod of Bishops on “The New Evangelization for the Transmission of the Christian Faith”.

Introduction
Curiosity is a basic property of the human mind. On the one hand, it is the driving force of scientific investigations seeking to identify natural laws. On the other, curiosity is also at the basis of every human being’s interest in knowing the fundamental laws of nature as an essential contribution to his own search for meaning and truth. Whereas the sciences are far from being able to give appropriate responses to all the questions raised, especially the ones transcending the natural sphere, various beliefs (including the ones that have their source in religion) also play an important role in answering the question about meaning. They are essential parts of the orientational knowledge that serves to guide our human activities. In this context we would like to raise the question of the mutual relations and compatibilities between scientific knowledge and the essential contents of faith.
[snip]

Cultural values of scientific knowledge
Scientific insights into the laws and constants of nature are cultural values from the following two points of view: on the one hand, established scientific knowledge enriches our worldview and thus contributes to our orientational knowledge. On the other, scientific knowledge can also open novel approaches to technological applications and innovations for the benefit of our lives and our environment. Since such innovations will often contribute to shaping the future, ideally we should postulate that any respective decision should depend on careful technological assessment and, on the other hand, that the civil society and the Church are ready to take co-responsibility – with the scientists and with the economy – in reshaping the future with prospective benefits for mankind and for its environment. Such measures can help ensure the sustainability of the process and thus the long-term future development on our planet.

The role of rules of conduct for Humanity
We are aware that our life in society requires some binding rules of conduct that should become an integral part of our orientational knowledge. In modern societies, politically established legislation ensures that recommended rules of conduct are widely followed. Acceptance of such rules can be facilitated if their principles are also anchored in a religious faith. In the Christian society, important rules of conduct were propagated by Jesus Christ throughout his life and have been widely followed by Christians ever since. Nevertheless, it is an important task of today’s societies to update the established set of rules, paying particular attention to our acquired scientific knowledge. In this context, I assume that if Jesus Christ were still alive among us today, he would be in favor of the application of solid scientific knowledge for the long-term benefit of humans and of their natural environment, as long as such applications, which lead to shaping the future, could ensure that the relevant laws of nature were fully respected.
[snip]

The compatibility of scientific knowledge and religious faith
For a long time curious human beings have acquired scientific knowledge primarily by observing with their senses and aided by mental reflections including logical reasoning. The chapter of the Genesis in the Old Testament is for me a testimony of an early scientific worldview already existing several thousand years ago. This chapter also reflects a wide consistency between religious faith and available scientific knowledge. It proposes a logical sequence of events in which the creation of our planet Earth may have been followed by the establishment of the conditions for life. Plants were then introduced and subsequently provided food for animals before human beings were finally introduced. Leaving aside the question of Revelation, this is clearly a logical narration of the possible evolutionary origin of things by imaginary events that led to the nature that the ancient populations could observe. From the genealogy outlined in the Old Testament I can also conclude that its authors were aware of phenotypical (i.e. genetic) variants. The people described have their own personal characteristics and are not genetically identical clones of Adam and Eve. In these stories we find a good consistency between early religious faith and scientific knowledge about evolutionary developments. It is our duty today to preserve (and where necessary restore) this consistency on the basis of the improved scientific knowledge now available. I am convinced that scientific knowledge and faith are complementary elements in our orientational knowledge and should remain so.

Conclusions
[snip]
It [Pontifical Academy of Sciences] periodically issues its publications – both in book form and digitally on its website www.pas.va – to inform the scientific world, the Church hierarchy, and all Christians and people of good will of its work, and also makes relevant recommendations in favor of a safe, responsible and sustainable development.
casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/academicians/ordinary/arber/contemplation.html
1.President of the PAS, 10/15/12
Field Microbiology
Title Professor, Nobel laureate in Physiology or Medicine, 1978
casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/academicians/ordinary/arber.html
 
We shall have to agree to differ. I do not consider the Church competent to determine mathematical, scientific, or historical matters - but then again, neither does She. It is precisely this point that Galileo argued for, and has subsequently been conceded, in effect if not formally. Don’t expect an official Church teaching on the Big Bang or inflation or CMB anisotropies or General Realtivity any time soon.

How many sons does the Church determine that Abraham had, by the way?
Hecd, I am equally uncomfortable with the CC’s past errors on dealing with heretics as I am on their dealing with scientific matters. I do give the CC credit for improving even thought it (CC) has made only incomplete attempts at apologizing for their serious errors.

edit: I am aware that other religions and denominations have made similar serious errors and am just as uncomfortable with those errors as I am with those of the CC.
 
Hecd, I am equally uncomfortable with the CC’s past errors on dealing with heretics as I am on their dealing with scientific matters. I do give the CC credit for improving even thought it (CC) has made only incomplete attempts at apologizing for their serious errors.

edit: I am aware that other religions and denominations have made similar serious errors and am just as uncomfortable with those errors as I am with those of the CC.
When we consider the Catholic Deposit of Faith, we find that the Catholic Church has dealt appropriately with basic scientific matters simply because simple basic scientific matters are excluded. The Catholic Church never made the error of declaring geocentrism a doctrine. While there were a lot of hot-heads yelling heresy this and heresy that, the Catholic Church did not declare a doctrine, period.

Yes, just like today, there were plenty of personal interpretations of Scripture. But “interpretations” are only a part of the protocol used when preparing for a possible doctrine. Interpretations of special verses, in themselves, do not automatically become doctrines.

The fact that there is no planet earth doctrine is a definite plus for the Catholic Church.
This positive result kept the door open to every scientific proposal since.😃
 
Hecd, I am equally uncomfortable with the CC’s past errors on dealing with heretics as I am on their dealing with scientific matters. I do give the CC credit for improving even thought it (CC) has made only incomplete attempts at apologizing for their serious errors.
I don’t think anyone wants apologies for these things that took place centuries ago - at least, I don’t. As an institution, the Church made some errors which are entirely understandable given the context of the time. And on the other side of the coin, the Catholic concept of nature’s intelligibility and the metaphysics of causation, reason and logic that She espoused is what made the scientific project possible in the first place. What I am less comfortable with are small but vociferous movements which seek to revert the Church’s authority over its members’ beliefs regarding scientific matters to the situation that pertained in 1633.
 
To those who say the church has authority to proclaim infallibly what does not pertain to the truths of the faith or to the right conduct of men: you are wrong; that is all.🙂

(Whatever is rightly said among men is the property of us Christians, because all truths reveal the truth (which is Christ) in some way, but that doesn’t mean we can treat them with the same authority and import with which we treat divinely revealed truth.)
 
Here is a great website about Galileo! Aniversary time!😃
Explore and have some fun:museogalileo.it/en/index.html
What I shared above was on the previous page. This will be my third comment to this topic, “Copernius, Galileo wrong. Church right. Any apologies?”

Yes, I noted several apologies to Galileo, according to the website I previously provided: brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/itineraries/itinerary/ChronologyGalileo.html

This is what it states:
Pope John Paul II, in a speech at the Papal Science Academy celebrating the centennial of the birth of Albert Einstein, states that Galileo «suffered greatly - we cannot hide the fact - at the hands of men and institutions of the Church».
Pope John Paul II, in a speech given at the Papal Science Academy, states that the painful misunderstanding over the presumed conflict between science and faith is now a thing of the past. «Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research they entail, obliged theologians to reassess the criteria of their interpretation of Holy Scripture. Most of them failed utterly to do so. Paradoxically, Galileo, sincere believer that he was, proved himself more insightful on this point than the theologians who were his opponents».
I try my best to stay on topic.😃 I hope everyone has the best life has to offer. Thank you.🙂
 
Isn’t the CMB black-body, Gaussian, adiabatic, nearly but not quite scale invariant just as inflation predicts? Doesn’t the CMB anisotropy power spectrum fit the standard six-parameter LCDM model of cosmology to a remarkable degree, including the first peak in the power spectrum at l=220, just where the inflation hypothesis plus baryon acoustic oscillations predicts it to be? And tie in well with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis? Just asking.
It is quite a nice fit- except those low multipoles (i.e., largest scales of the universe). Those tend to blow the standard model out of the water.
 
Some of its members do with the speculative theory mknown by the common term “big bang theory”.

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).
I can only say, better research than revelation.
 
Some of its members do with the speculative theory mknown by the common term “big bang theory”.
Speculative = “based on conjecture rather than knowledge”. We have knowledge in the form of lots of evidence for the big bang. Whereas:

*Li’l Moses was found in a stream,
Li’l Moses was found in a stream.
He floated on water
Till Ol’ Pharaoh’s daughter,
She fished him, she said ;), from dat stream.
  • It Ain’t Necessarily So, George Gershwin.*
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.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230_1.html
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).
It’s a bit misleading imho to say dark energy is fictional - it’s the very real but yet-to-be-explained observation of accelerating cosmic expansion. The leading edge of discovery is always messy. But just as the BICEP2 excitement about inflation earlier this year was critiqued a few weeks later, science is self-correcting, crisis is business as usual.

Some say that the philosophical divide between the scientific and religious mindsets is that one delights in doubt while the other craves certainty. In science, people get proven wrong every day and no one worries, but even after several centuries some religious folk still crave the pre-Galilean certainties.

(Only just twigged that Galilean means both pertaining to Galileo and inhabitant of Galilee :)).
 
I can only say, better research than revelation.
Why not both?

2 errors: to exclude research. And to include only research.

Or the corollary…

2 errors: to exclude revelation. And to include only revelation.
 
Why not both?

2 errors: to exclude research. And to include only research.

Or the corollary…

2 errors: to exclude revelation. And to include only revelation.
The real error is not to recognize when the authority of natural science intersects with the authority of Divine Revelation.
 
Some say that the philosophical divide between the scientific and religious mindsets is that one delights in doubt while the other craves certainty. In science, people get proven wrong every day and no one worries, but even after several centuries some religious folk still crave the pre-Galilean certainties.
While I like your comic, I would like to point out that one side is idealized and the other lampooned. Neither are very accurate. Scientist too often fall into the other side of trying to prove their hypothesis to the point of losing objectivity. On the other side, that too fails to realize that the deeper root is that what constitutes evidence is different, not so much that evidence is ignored. After all, empiricism itself is nothing but a philosophic viewpoint unproven and unprovable. Everyone must have some basic and unprovable viewpoint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top