Faith and Science

[The_Barbarian]

So, their idea of science comes from preferring Newton’s heliocentric view of the universe to Aristotle’s geocentric ‘view’, not from the deductive method to the inductive or empiric experience as one could expect.

Copernicus did not invent heliocentrism. Anastarchus of Samos:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

And he did it, based on observational evidence, not “paradigms.”

 

[cassini]

It’s tough being a Catholic. But if you are truly Catholic, you should not be afraid of the truth. God is truth.

Truth. The truth matters. It should matter to you.

Since I’m on an answering roll, I come back to this truism. That is the whole point of my entering this debate as a defender of the Church’s 1616 decree. The thanks I get is all abuse and ridicule, but didn’t Christ also say ‘just as you will reject earthly things I say, so too will you reject heavenly things’.

 

[cassini]

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” Pope John Paul II

Peace,
ED

And that from a pope that did more to cement the false absolutes of science that any other pope in the last 150 years. God help us all.

 

[cassini]

I said:
Let me give you an example Geocentricism is a God revealed fact of nature.
Barbarian replied:
Nope. In fact, it doesn’t say anything at all about it.

So the 1616 decree is a myth?

 

[buffalo]

I***nteresting read:

The Real Truth Behind the Imprimatur given to Canon Settele for Heliocentrism***

…In 1992, Pope John Paul II gave a speech to the
Pontifical Academy of Science on the subject of Galileo.
To the dismay of many, the speech really said nothing
definitive about the Galileo affair. There were a few
instances, however, in which the pope made reference to
certain events that seemingly led people to believe that
heliocentrism was now accepted by the Catholic Church.
One of them was a reference to the imprimatur given to
Canon Guiseppe Settele in 1822 under the reign of Pius VII
for his book that treated heliocentrism as a thesis rather
than a hypothesis. Unfortunately, the real truth of this event
and its implications has been hid from the public for close
to 200 years. What we will find is that the Commissary
General who was responsible for getting Settele the
imprimatur, Maurizio Benedetto Olivieri, did nothing short
of lie. He knew that there was little chance of getting the
imprimatur for Settele unless he twisted the truth of what
really occurred in 1616 when Paul V and Cardinal Robert
Bellarmine had condemned heliocentrism.
*

 

[cassini]

I said:
If you want to discuss Newton’s maths and what it was worth in finding truth I can do that. But Newton’s maths were used to try to support GODLESS science, that is, cosmic movement that did NOT include divine causality.
Barbarian said:
True, Newton used no religious ideas in his theory of gravity. But it works very well to a high degree of precision for most things.

I say again:
By far the most surprising disclosure to be found tucked away in mathematical literature is the fact that in spite of all the publicity given to Isaac Newton and his formula for the gravitational field of earth, it is Domenico Cassini’s formula for gravity, called the international formula, which is more often used. Confirming this in another Encyclopaedia we read:

‘(Cassini)
This formula …is the basis of the international gravity formula.’ —
Sneddon’s Encyclopaedia Dictionary of Mathematics for Engineers and Applied Scientists, Pergamon Press Ltd., 1976, p.113.

 

[cassini]

I***nteresting read:

The Real Truth Behind the Imprimatur given to Canon Settele for Heliocentrism***

…In 1992, Pope John Paul II gave a speech to the
Pontifical Academy of Science on the subject of Galileo.
To the dismay of many, the speech really said nothing
definitive about the Galileo affair. There were a few
instances, however, in which the pope made reference to
certain events that seemingly led people to believe that
heliocentrism was now accepted by the Catholic Church.
One of them was a reference to the imprimatur given to
Canon Guiseppe Settele in 1822 under the reign of Pius VII
for his book that treated heliocentrism as a thesis rather
than a hypothesis. Unfortunately, the real truth of this event
and its implications has been hid from the public for close
to 200 years. What we will find is that the Commissary
General who was responsible for getting Settele the
imprimatur, Maurizio Benedetto Olivieri, did nothing short
of lie. He knew that there was little chance of getting the
imprimatur for Settele unless he twisted the truth of what
really occurred in 1616 when Paul V and Cardinal Robert
Bellarmine had condemned heliocentrism.*

Buffalo, it is worse than that, as anyone can read in Finochhio’s book Retrying Galileo. It was a sham and farce involving THREE popes accepting nonsense and drivel in opposition to a Church decree. But one truism did emerge. Even Pope Paul II’s crowd accepted FULLY that it was a PAPAL decree that was IMMUTABLE. This was the only redeeming factor in the whole affair. But guess what? This is the only factor that WAS protected by the Holy Gjhost, no matter how many now deny it. Well pointed out Buffalo.

 

[cassini]

I’ve said enough for the present. I know this has nothing to do with this thread but I’m going out for a walk with the dog now.

 

[The_Barbarian]

If you don’t accept the teaching of the Church, why would you cite a teaching of the Church (which BTW, is not support for your position)?

This is what Cardinal Bellarmine himself wrote:
"If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me."

So the teaching that we should literally accept scripture unless there is sufficient reason to read it as not literal, held in this case. When it became clear through evidence and mathematical analysis that Galileo was right after all, the Church followed Bellarmine’s postion; in 1757, the prohibition was lifted by Pope Benedict XIV.

 

[cassini]

If you don’t accept the teaching of the Church, why would you cite a teaching of the Church (which BTW, is not support for your position)?

This is what Cardinal Bellarmine himself wrote:
"If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me."

So the teaching that we should literally accept scripture unless there is sufficient reason to read it as not literal, held in this case. When it became clear through evidence and mathematical analysis that Galileo was right after all, the Church followed Bellarmine’s postion; in 1757, the prohibition was lifted by Pope Benedict XIV.

Barbarian, it took me ten minutes to figure out BTW was not someone’s name but 'by the way. You have to admit some of the names chosen by contributers are hard to get round.

Do not know which citing you are refering to.

Anyway, back to Bellarmine’s letter. Yes, a letter that Copernicans have been using as a kind of futuristic dogma that supercedes a papal decree. Isn’t it weird, the Copernicans give more AUTHORITY to an opinion in a letter than they do to a papal decree from the SUPREME Holy Office. Talk about grasping at straws. But this is the contradiction that has become the standard in Catholic apologetics.

First of all Bellarmine is writing in the PRESENT (1615) tense. He was refering to Galileo’s supposed proofs presented at the time. We know this because of the circumstances of the letter and because the NEXT sentence Begins thus: ‘But I do not believe there IS any such proof.’
In any case, even if this letter could be used in such a perverted way, it was rendered null and void one year later when the Church decreed otherwise. This was further endorsed by Pope Urban XII in 1633 when he ordered the Congregation to give the following judgement:

 “Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by documentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.'

So here we have the Church in 1633 stating quite clearly that one cannot use Bellarmine’s letter in the way it has been used by Churchmen and their apologists (like Barbarian) since 1741.

Two other things, NO proof was ever shown. Just like Galileo they put them forward as proofs but there are no proofs. Second, the 1616 decree was not abrogated in 1757. Indeed there remaind a prohibition even on the index at that time. Don’t believe all the things Poupard and JP2 told you in 1992.

 

[cassini]

Correction to post 27:
‘Even Pope Paul II’s crowd’, should have been Pope Pius VII.

 

[edwest2]

Some people in science are driven to atheism because the religion they have encountered is juvenile anti-intellectualism. As one who has published on the relationship between religion and science, I have been asked to consult after Christmas with RCIA candidates who are trepidatious of throwing in their lot with Catholicism, because they fear they will be required to surrender their reason to a Church that is anti-science. One candidate is a philosopher, another a scientist.

The specific questions I have been asked to address in January with our parish RCIA group include: (1) “Is the Church against biological evolution?” (the answer is “of course not”): and (2) "When I become Catholic must I leave my brains on the doormat and start believing that the sun revolves around the earth? I look forward to dialoguing with these candidates who are preparing for baptism at Easter.

StAnastasia

“dialoguing”? The Church is against atheistic evolution. It is mentioned at the Library on this site. And that is what the biology textbook teaches.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

“dialoguing”? The Church is against atheistic evolution. It is mentioned at the Library on this site. And that is what the biology textbook teaches.

Hmmm… I don’t remember you finding a textbook that said there is no God. What was the title, and specifically what did it say?

 

[StAnastasia]

“dialoguing”? The Church is against atheistic evolution. It is mentioned at the Library on this site. And that is what the biology textbook teaches.Peace,
Ed

Ed, “dialogue” means “conversation.” Why are you opposed to conversation? Lots of Catholics do it.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Faith enfolds
Reason upholds
Understanding beholds

 

[grannymh]

Hmmm… I don’t remember you finding a textbook that said there is no God. What was the title, and specifically what did it say?

Did Richard Dawkins ever write a textbook? Or publish his findings?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Did Richard Dawkins ever write a textbook? Or publish his findings?

He’s written a lot of findings, at least. But he admits that science can’t prove there is no God. None of his papers in science that I’ve read say anything like that.

 

[hecd2]

Now I have a choice of SCIENCES, one directed by theology or one directed by GODLESS thought. As a Catholic I chose the one protected by theology. Alas it seem I find myself in opposition to popes, Churchmen and lay folk for centuries now.

I suppose your patron saint is St Jude.

Which side are you on?

Let me see now. When I get in an aeroplane, I tend to choose one built on the principles determined by Galilean and Newtonian mechanics.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

By far the most surprising disclosure to be found tucked away in mathematical literature is the fact that in spite of all the publicity given to Isaac Newton and his formula for the gravitational field of earth, it is Domenico Cassini’s formula for gravity, called the international formula, which is more often used. Confirming this in another Encyclopaedia we read:

‘(Cassini)
This formula …is the basis of the international gravity formula.’ —
Sneddon’s Encyclopaedia Dictionary of Mathematics for Engineers and Applied Scientists, Pergamon Press Ltd., 1976, p.113.

I think you are going to have to do better than this, my lad. I don’t have Sneddon’s dictionary, but I’d be interested to know what lies in the ellipsis and in the rest of the entry.

The fact of the matter is that the International Gravity Formula accounts for the deviation from uniformity of the acceleration due to gravity at the earth’s surface caused by the deviation from perfect sphericity of the earth, and by the centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the earth. It can be derived from a knowledge of the shape of the earth, its rate of rotation, its mass and the application of Newton’s Universal law of Gravitation.

Ironically, Cassini, not accepting the Newtonian formulation and preferring a Cartesian one, predicted that the earth would be elongated across the poles. He and his son carried out a survey that seemed to show this, but it turned out that the survey was inaccurate, and we now know that the Newtonian prediction proved correct.

In another irony, the deviation from uniform acceleration due to gravity at the earth’s surface as described in the International Gravity Formula and other corrections is measured in milligals where the term “gals” derives from the great man’s name. Now that’ll make you gnash your teeth.

If you mean to show that Cassini’s understanding of gravity effects forms a better basis than Newton’s or Einstein’s, I think you are going to have a very difficult time.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[grannymh]

He’s written a lot of findings, at least. But he admits that science can’t prove there is no God. None of his papers in science that I’ve read say anything like that.

Seems to me, Dawkins can be deduced by reading the book
“Answering the New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God” by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker.

This may be easier to read than trying to find his findings or a textbook. Besides this paperback is a lot cheaper.