Well, since modern science denies any absolute frame of astronomical reference, the geocentric position is as equally correct as the heliocentric position. Given the weight that the whole Observation principle has today, you could say the Geocentric model, though more difficult to simulate, is more “true” simply because that is how the situation is observed by us. We observe the sun revolving around us as a direct knowledge, but we only can see ourselves revolving around the sun through either abstract theory, or adding in other points of reference (such as the other stars we see, though they too are subject to observational bias). Since the movement of any two bodies can only be defined as they relate to one another, it is as true, according to modern science, to say the Sun moves about the earth as it is to say the Earth moves about the Sun. It is simply a matter of which model is easier to use in making your astronomical observations, which means it comes down to a choice on your individual perspective.
Congratulations, you have shown that the Church upheld General Relativity ages before Einstein came around to define it for us.
As Pop-QM will have it, the Observer is the only real frame of reference to such things, then the Geocentric Model is more true than the simpler Heliocentric Model, as
we are the defining reference matrix from which to observe (and therefore define) these motions. Thus, the Church was not “wrong”, just using an observational model that is (o so suprisingly
) not used by modern astronomers. And given the fact that the Sun does not stand still, but also moves through a likewise moving Galaxy, we don’t really need to do much to disprove a true “heliocentric” model of the universe (if you accept the same interpretation of observations used to “prove” the HC model).
In the end, we are at the center of our own universe, as we cannot be at the fringe of our own understanding or experiential existence, even if the mass distribution patterns we observe tell us we are not
geographically the center of the universe’s mass allotment.
As the role of the Church concerns the Human experience with the Divine, and only approaches Science from this perspective of its area of concern, then the Earth is a very real center of the experienced universe; it is the most logical thing in the world for the Church to have (and even continue to hold when discussing human issues) the poisiton that the Earth is the center of the universe. This is fundamentally no different that when Astronomers change their point of center when they discuss different scales of cosmic experience (ie. Sol is not the central point of reference when discussing the relationship between the Orion with the Perseus galactic arms)
The nice thing is, this POV is not a rejection of the more usual Scientific model, and is actually produced from it.
If the Church can recognize room for growth of understanding within itself, shouldn’t a member of its body be likewise capable of such recognition?
Also, while Rhetoric may win live debates, it really shouldn’t be used to build a factual basis for argumentation, no matter the source. The repugnance of an idea is necessarily rhetorical and personal, regardless of the authority used to impress it onto others. While too complicated for use in astronomocal practice, the Geocentric model has its uses in Human practice, and is necessary when properly understood and correctly applied. Is it any wonder then, when those who knew this were so strongly opposed to those who did not appear to understand this, and themselves failed to see that the conversation was ultimately about a different feild of inquiry?
Is it so suprising that people talked past each other then as often as they do now; arguing vehemently about non-issues? Is it so suprizing that it was as deadly then as it is now when Powers are involved?
Personally, I like becoming part of the
Pilgrim Church, rather than the absurd church its opponents want to perceive it to be.
From Aaron I:
This is not because they were incompatible with the faith, but simply because they challenged our current understanding of the faith.
Exactly!
