Does the Earth move?

Daniel,
You know better than that. The Earth is flat !!!

 

The earth moves rather too much, here in California. Perhaps it isn't piles of saved National Geographics we should be trying to hold it steady with, but piles of bibles!

MB

 

The earth can be viewed as stationary without violating any laws of physics, although it makes for an inconvenient frame of reference.

Tom

 

I'll have to wait and hear what Bill and Rush say before I give you my opinion.

Oh, wait, this isn't the "Talk like a Republican" thread...

 

First, your thesis is wrong. I don't know of any ancient theologians who said the Bible indicated belief in an earth-centered universe was essential. The scripture that is usually cited for this is in Psalms 104:5, where the musician/poet says the "earth is fixed" in place. The purpose of the verse is to show God's faithfulness, and whether you take the verse literally or figuratively, the meaning is the same; there is no harm done by a figurative interpretation, and in fact now that we know the earth moves, it must be taken figuratively. That is how Galileo interpreted the verse; he remained a believer even after he couldn't prove his theory superior to an obstinate scientific community (who eventually came around) and to an even more obstinate church hierarchy.

To force a literal reading would make as much sense as claiming I have self-emolated because I sang that I was my wife's "hunka-hunka burnin' love" this morning (it didn't work, BTW ... romance is subverted by gales of laughter).

The rigid, "literal" interpretations of scripture meant to subvert science are a relatively recent thing, and is mostly American in nature. You don't see these arguments put forth by the church in Rome, nor do you see it to any great degree in the UK, Germany or France. St. Augustine argued that a literal interpretation of Genesis was not advisable because the text lent itself to a figurative interpretation, and besides ... the meaning of the verses is not in the mechanical understanding of God's workings.

Creationists are well meaning but, in my view, ignorant not only of science but also of historic Christian theology.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 24 2007, 07:39 PM) [snapback]411675[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure it's fair to say that the 'scientific community' was against him - I think of the Aristotelian groups as something of a religious group. Christians saw that knowledge as 'revealed knowledge' anyway, and Aristotelians (well, the obstinate ones anyway) didn't think there was anything that the ancients didn't know or could be wrong about. Both groups believed that there were pieces of knowledge handed down that were the only things that could be right - and that's not science, no matter how they saw themselves.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 24 2007, 07:39 PM) [snapback]411675[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps the renewed use of literal interpretations in opposition to scientific research is a recent and American oddity, but picking and choosing parts of the bible to take literally has been a tactic used over and over again. You're right, anyone with even a passing knowledge of Christian theology (perhaps having read something from the bookstore other than 'Left Behind') would know this. ** That's because they've learned this particular lesson before.

** Lewis Black has some interesting things to say about interpreting the old testament as well =)


*edit for spelling

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 24 2007, 02:11 PM) [snapback]411554[/snapback]</div>

I'm a Christian, but wouldn't really call myself a 'creationist.' I believe that God created the Universe - whether he did that through the Big Bang and the natural events that followed, or whether it all appeared suddenly in its present form, I won't know until I die (I suspect you are hoping to lure someone who believes the latter, but I'm not one of them.)

I don't think you'll find anyone on this board or elsewhere who believes the world is stationary. The Bible claims no such thing, merely that God created the heavens and the earth:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=31;

 

I am not a creationist, so am I automatically excluded?

Just wondering!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 24 2007, 02:11 PM) [snapback]411554[/snapback]</div>

Ummm, the earth rotates around us californians(coastal that is, central valley don't count). We are the center of the universe. So yes, we stand still, everything and everyone else rotates around us. God told me, and I don't even believe in her.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 25 2007, 01:48 AM) [snapback]411746[/snapback]</div>

Too bad they won't come come out to answer this one...

 

The bible is NEVER wrong, Daniel. How can god be wrong ??

Sometimes god is misunderstood, though. When god says 'up', it may be saying 'up', or 'down', or 'up' and 'down', or all-around, or a 1000 other possibilities that only a select few can get right. Hundreds of sects *think* they have it right, but at most only one does. The others are desecrating god's word, and no punishment is too severe for them. Burning at the stake, followed by eternal damnation is the only just response.

 

You'd probably have more conversation here if the guy who ran this site drove a Prius:

http://www.fixedearth.com

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Mar 24 2007, 06:12 PM) [snapback]411699[/snapback]</div>

It is hard to separate out who was simply religious and who was being scientific at that point in time, but it would not be correct to say that everyone who was "right" was scientific and everyone who was "wrong" was religious.

I'm basing my statement about disagreement within the scientific community on what I read in Simon Singh's excellent book "Big Bang" (ISBN -13: 978-0-00-716221-5). He cites the statements of several scientists prior to Galileo that published thoughts that the earth revolved around the sun, including those before the Christian era: Philolaus of Croton (5th century BC), Heracleides of Pontus in the next century, and Aristarchus in 310 BC. The Greeks rejected Aristarchus' view because it did not stand up to "scientific scrutiny" ... we don't feel a constant wind in our faces as we always do when we are moving, the ground doesn't feel like it is tugging away, the idea of a sun-centered universe with the earth moving violated their accepted views of gravity (a force they believed to pull everything toward the center of the universe), and the fact that they couldn't detect a shift in the positions of the stars that would be required of an orbiting earth. The one thing they could observe that didn't fit with the earth centered model was the retrograde actions of the five planets they could observe with the naked eye, so Ptolemy's later model around 150 AD accounted for this with epicycles (or something like that ... the idea that those 5 bodies did little loop-de-loops in their orbit around the earth).

Singh presents a very different picture of the emergence from intellectual slumber in the middle ages; he cites the translation of Greek literature back into Spanish and Latin when the west took back Spain from Islam. That reinvigorated research, but it also gave more credence back to Ptolemy's ideas.

Christian critics of Ptolemy's views included the King of Castile and Leon, Alfonso X, in the 1200's, Nicole d'Oresme the chaplin to the king of France Charles V in the 14th century, and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in the 15th century. Copernicus could solve some of the problems with the scientific understanding of the sun-centered solar system. He was spot on with his 7 points that revolutionized astronomy, and Singh thinks he may have been influenced by one of his professors in Italy, Domenico Maria de Novara. Novara was sympathetic to Aristarchus' philosophy, even with its apparent problems. Copernicus' theories were published after much consideration, because he did fear ridicule from other astronomers, and persecution from the Church (but it was published while he was on his deathbed, so we'll never know how the Church would have reacted).

Between Copernicus and Galileo stand Tycho Brahe, and then Johannes Kepler, who solved the problem of Mars' orbit (which did not stand up to scrutiny with Copernicus' perfectly round orbits). Kepler's ellipical orbits made the theory more tenable. Galileo, with the benefit of a telescope he perfected , and his math skills, then published the theory we all know about. With 60X magnification, he could see Jupiter's moons, and the motion of them is evident in just a few hours time. This discovery, the first to show that orbits existed around other heavenly bodies, supported one of Copernicus' theories.

That's a big buildup to the payoff quote in Singh's book:

From "Big Bang", by Simon Singh, page 67

Singh goes through the Church's reaction also, and the fact that the Jesuits confirmed the superior accuracy of the mathematical model. As we know, the Church's criticisms were ideological, not scientific, so Galileo was frustrated and argued that "Holy Writ was intended to teach men how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go." He remained a devout Catholic throughout his life, and thought he had Pope Urban VIII's blessing to publish (Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, who he knew from university in Pisa), but a decade passed between the pope's blessing and the time he published. In that time the political situation changed with the 30 Years War, and the Pope cracked down on any dissent.

In his work, Galileo had scathing criticism of the straw man "Simplico", and one passage criticised the view that God created the earth and the heavens outside of the laws of science (a view the Pope had). Because that was a published view of the Pope, it is tought that Urban may have believed the criticism was directed toward him ... "It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn." Them's fightin' words!

Three of the ten Cardinals who judged his trial would not sign the sentencing papers, and the sympathetic faction may be why he was not tortured and killed, but instead "only" consigned to house arrest.

Singh says the Sun-centered universe gained credence among scientists over the next century, and not as quickly as we like to believe now. We tend to look down on those who have come before us, with criticism that they were simply stupid. But besides the idealogues, there were serious, intelligent people who simply disagreed. The Church also softened its stance against "revealed knowledge", and the pace of scientific discovery accelerated.

(Singh recounts a similar story about the 19th and 20th century acceptance of the Big Bang, which scientists rejected for years, including Albert Einstein calling one of the proponents a moron.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Mar 24 2007, 06:12 PM) [snapback]411699[/snapback]</div>

It is an American oddity today. We have tried to export it, and have been successful in some small measure to get groups in Canada and the UK, but Creationists and the ID crowd really only thrive in our anything goes free speech, freedom of religion environment. It is much less successful in countries with a state sponsored church or a "higher church" tradition. We still have people who dance with snakes to prove their religiosity, too.

I like Lewis Black and crack up when I see one of his routines (and that wild finger), but I suspect his comedy about the OT wouldn't be funny to me. I'll have to find it. Most of what I hear is more on the level of your average agnostic/atheist ramblings, rather than an informed, and therefore REALLY funny commentary. If he studied the OT, and understood both Jewish and Christian theology a bit, I'll bet he could really produce some funny bits; if he is just calling theological scholars morons, like most comics do out of their own ignorance, then I won't find it funny it all. I'll see if I can find it and let you know what I think.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ari @ Mar 24 2007, 08:00 PM) [snapback]411729[/snapback]</div>

I think Daniel's challenge is a good one. While you wouldn't find many Christians today who would support the idea that the earth is the center of the universe and fixed in space, it was a position taken by the Church and even Martin Luther as taught by "Holy Writ" and inflexible. Luther was a pretty smart guy, yet he was wrong on this point.

I cited the Psalm that is the most spot on in saying that the "earth is fixed" in its place. There are other verses, including the "four corners of the earth" language, etc.

God is truth, and all observed truth comes from Him, so there is no problem with accepting valid external evidence to help us interpret his Word. It is up to us to determine what the synthesized truth of scripture is when we examine and study all the clues, including context, internal evidence and external evidence.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 25 2007, 04:33 PM) [snapback]411999[/snapback]</div>

I certainly didn't mean to imply that all the 'religious' followers were wrong - as you mentioned, many devouts were sympathetic to Galileo. I'm just not sure it's fair to call what existed before and during Galileo's lifetime a truly scientific community. To that point, what was seen as the scientific community was still starting with what were supposed to be universal truths, and studying their causes. I realize it's a matter of semantics, but the 'real' scientific community was only in its infancy in the early 1600s. Galileo and contemporaries put together many of the logical underpinnings of modern scientific process. As for trying to guess who was religiously motivated, I think that telescope litmus test sure helped seperate the scientists from the religious. I've read that many disbelievers (religious and 'scientific' types alike) preferred to avoid looking into one - claiming they already knew they wouldn't see anything orbiting Jupiter anyway. I feel a little pinch hearing a mindset like that called 'science.'

And the Lewis Black bit would probably not offend you at all - it's a short bit suggesting that it's unsurprising that Christians have so much trouble interpereting Genesis, as it's not their futzing book, and promising that you could likely find any number of Jews happy to help out - for a decent price, of course. He actually drives me nuts when I'm watching him, but I've found I think he's hillarious when someone is watching him in the next room.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Mar 25 2007, 07:25 PM) [snapback]412110[/snapback]</div>

Well, I have a hard time not calling the early astronomers "scientists". I guess the scientific method was still in development then, so I do see your point. But the scientific method was in full bloom during the late 1800s and early 1900s, when this same dynamic was evident among the entrenched "steady state" scientists who ridiculed those proposing the Big Bang (the reason Singh puts the heliocentric debate in his book in the first place is to show how little human nature and science has changed). Guys like Einstein did it, so Singh's book is pretty fascinating in a "inside baseball" sort of way.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Mar 25 2007, 07:25 PM) [snapback]412110[/snapback]</div>

That is funny! And it is true ... except that knowledge is one thing you can get free. I have found Jews to be very open to discussion with non-Jews on the interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures, and they have a lot to offer Christians.