This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← A few Catholics still insist Galileo was wrong

A few Catholics still insist Galileo was wrong - Comments

phaedrus19's Avatar Comment 1 by phaedrus19

We are doomed! Seriously, WTF?!

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:38:34 UTC | #865978

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 2 by Dhamma

These views are commonplace... in mental institutions.

These people will never win any ground, but it does say quite a bit about the human psyche and why we need to keep fighting delusions.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:44:34 UTC | #865980

gordon's Avatar Comment 3 by gordon

Oh my giddy aunt!!! Still, it could explain why we don't feel like we're moving. Eh?

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:44:38 UTC | #865981

some asshole's Avatar Comment 4 by some asshole

Indeed, WTF? Some crap written by prescientific goat herders in an ancient book versus hundreds of years of scientific observation... Hmmm... You think these same idiots shuck science (specifically, medical science) when they have broken bones or severe bleeding? You think they eschew antibiotics? I know some true nutballs do, but I think most of these idiots are hypocrites.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:34 UTC | #865983

gordon's Avatar Comment 5 by gordon

We are fucked, they brought in 'expert' Ken Ham!

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:55 UTC | #865984

keith's Avatar Comment 6 by keith

This is just too good to be true. I'm sure it must be a ploy by some atheists to discredit the 'scientific rigour' of the Catholic Church. It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:48:36 UTC | #865986

achromat666's Avatar Comment 7 by achromat666

Some stupid just refuses to be fixed.

Not sure if there is much to add...

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:53:14 UTC | #865988

mmsood99's Avatar Comment 8 by mmsood99

Don't get carried away - this is a lunatic fringe and even most theists will run away from them. We won't do ourselves any favors by mocking them. Remember, the theists already accuse us of ad hominem attacks.

It's one area where reason has won (mostly).

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:53:49 UTC | #865989

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 9 by Dhamma

We are fucked, they brought in 'expert' Ken Ham!

I don't know about you, but I'm dying to hear what Jenny McCarthy has to say about it. Until then I will hold judgement.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:57:34 UTC | #865991

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 10 by strangebrew

Not surprised....the post Vatican II council will not correct them.

And seeing as this reformist updating of church doctrine was only performed in the early 60's of the last century...then obviously they all take serious note of science and its advances over the last 150 years....NOT! They only grudgingly payed lip service to Galileo in the 80's...never actually apologist though...just mumbled about it being Galileo's fault really...but they were a little harsh but that was then anyway...blah blah blah...total bunkum took them damn near 20 odd years in inquiry into the affair to cook up that vat of stinking codswollop.

As for evolution...well the RCC tend to go the populist route when the odds are overwhelming ...but in a very understated way...and with grumpy resentment and many caveats! They have not quite got there yet contrary to most folks naivety that claim a modern church.

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....

—Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992

But Ratty is having none of it and seems to subscribe to the view by Paul Karl Feyerabend ...

The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:58:23 UTC | #865993

kidchicago's Avatar Comment 11 by kidchicago

Gosh, what a waste of time that public junior high school science project depicting the solar system was!!!!!!!!!!! I should have been home-schooled and become a right wing, wing nut!!!!!!!! Has anyone bothered to ask Governor Perry his thoughts on the subject.??? Maybe he has an appropriate bible verse or verses that constitute his understanding of it all!!!!!! Maybe he's not quite sure yet--- similar to his "well studied" position on global warming!!!

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:05:33 UTC | #865996

wtfbits's Avatar Comment 12 by wtfbits

Well, they are technically right if the frame of reference is a fixed earth, since all motion is relative.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:05:44 UTC | #865997

AsylumWarden's Avatar Comment 13 by AsylumWarden

This is pretty much why, even before I became a full on atheist, as a kid I still knew that if there was a God(s), he/she/they/it certainly didn't exist as laid out in the Bible. When Christians can't even agree on what the Bible means, how can you possibly build a credible religion around it?

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:08:17 UTC | #865999

mirandaceleste's Avatar Comment 14 by mirandaceleste

I seriously thought that this was from The Onion until I glanced up at the source. Holy crap. :/

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:11:06 UTC | #866001

phaedrus19's Avatar Comment 15 by phaedrus19

Comment 12 by wtfbits

Well, they are technically right if the frame of reference is a fixed earth, since all motion is relative.

Can you imagine what the equations of motion would look like using earth as a fixed point in space? UGLY!

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:16:59 UTC | #866003

Caudimordax's Avatar Comment 16 by Caudimordax

"False information leads to false ideas, and false ideas lead to illicit and immoral actions...

Sproiiinngg!

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:17:09 UTC | #866004

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 17 by alaskansee

@ wtfbits

If all motion is relative, and you've plotted the suns path around us then moved onto the planets path around us you would still get to a heliocentric model. Or a very strange geocentric model which would be hard to explain without just saying "look we're going round the fucking sun like everything else"

So I think I agree with you if we are only allowed to observe the earth and sun but it all falls apart when you bring the relative positions of the other planets into the equation.

I particularly enjoyed the "Prior to Galileo, the church was in full command of the world, and governments and academia were subservient to her." quote. No hiding their colours there, just balls to the wall we're in charge, shut the fuck up! Charming.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:18:27 UTC | #866005

Caudimordax's Avatar Comment 18 by Caudimordax

[removed duplicate]

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:20:19 UTC | #866007

Caudimordax's Avatar Comment 19 by Caudimordax

test

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:21:32 UTC | #866008

wtfbits's Avatar Comment 20 by wtfbits

Phaedrus19

Yes, of course, but the point remains. If the frame of reference is a fixed earth, then it is correct to say that the universe revolves round the sun.

@Alaskansee

It would be very strange or rather extremely complex to model but not technically incorrect even if you were to bring other planets into the picture.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:25:50 UTC | #866010

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 21 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 8 by mmsood99

Don't get carried away - this is a lunatic fringe and even most theists will run away from them. We won't do ourselves any favors by mocking them. Remember, the theists already accuse us of ad hominem attacks.

Seriously?

Well then if I am already being accused of ad hominem attacks I might as well be shot as a sheep than a lamb, no?

There are apologists on other threads at the moment arguing that the religious are not insane or delusional in believing in talking snakes, donkeys and bushes, virgin births, zombie outings, big boats full of every species, global floods, etc., etc., so here in this article we have another example of the very same madness. It is no different to the rest of the barking mad religious woo woo, flying horses, trillion year old universes, secret temple underwear, it's all bollocks and I for one will mock anyone who seriously believes it is not. For far too long we have been doing ourselves no favours by saying nothing, keeping schtum, being "civil" about how batshit crazy belief in these things really is, and it's only religion that get's such respect....so keep her lit ya religious morons, it makes the ridicule all that much easier when ya'll do the donkey work for me.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:27:30 UTC | #866013

Mrkimbo's Avatar Comment 22 by Mrkimbo

No, mmsood99 is right - we must not fall into the trap of using a few loonies as a strawman but concentrate our attack on the evil empire which is the MAINSTREAM Catholic church.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:41:42 UTC | #866017

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 23 by strangebrew

Comment 20 by wtfbits

If the frame of reference is a fixed earth, then it is correct to say that the universe revolves round the sun.

Well not really ... The sun just becomes another star in the fixed heavens that orbits the Earth at its loci along with the universe!

I notice they do not explain planetary procession in their certainty.

And Kepler along with Newtonian mechanics become meaningless....of course most of these idiots think the moon landing was a fake anyway...but even so some weapon grade dumbness going down there. How do they get through a day without tripping over their IQ?

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:43:41 UTC | #866019

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 24 by God fearing Atheist

Comment 15 by phaedrus19 :

Can you imagine what the equations of motion would look like using earth as a fixed point in space? UGLY!

Well actually its all quite beautiful. The origin of the co-ordinate system is the pope's arsehole. 'North' is his mouth, and 'right' his right pinkie. Occasionally the co-ordinate system is undefined; it would be beneath me to mention the circumstances; but most of the time we have an excellent frame of reference. The physicists who think this is a bit complicated are just a bunch of wimps.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:48:15 UTC | #866024

wtfbits's Avatar Comment 25 by wtfbits

Here's an excerpt from an article which explains why the heliocentric view is not any more valid than the geocentric one.

A famous example of different pictures of reality is the model introduced around A.D. 150 by Ptolemy (ca. 85–ca. 165) to describe the motion of the celestial bodies. Ptolemy published his work in a treatise explaining reasons for thinking that the earth is spherical, motionless, positioned at the center of the universe, and negligibly small in comparison to the distance of the heavens.

This model seemed natural because we don't feel the earth under our feet moving (except in earthquakes or moments of passion). Ptolemy's model of the cosmos was adopted by the Catholic Church and held as official doctrine for fourteen hundred years. It was not until 1543 that an alternative model was put forward by Copernicus. So which is real? Although it is not uncommon for people to say Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe. The real advantage of the Copernican system is that the mathematics is much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

Link to full article

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:55:38 UTC | #866029

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 26 by alaskansee

@ wtfbits

I'm not convinced that it would be possible to look at all the stuff revolving round the sun and still hypothesis that we're not too. My point is that you have to have a predetermined conclusion to even go there.

Anyway, it's the space ship from Futurama that is constant, it's engines make the entire universe move while it stands still. Hard to prove them wrong using the same Catholic logic.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:22:30 UTC | #866045

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 27 by Stevehill

Kudos to the Vatican, for once, in admitting these people are a complete embarrassment.

Why not just excommunicate them, rather than suffer the bad PR they create?

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:26:44 UTC | #866047

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 28 by Red Dog

Comment 25 by wtfbits :

Here's an excerpt from an article which explains why the heliocentric view is not any more valid than the geocentric one.

A famous example of different pictures of reality is the model introduced around A.D. 150 by Ptolemy (ca. 85–ca. 165) to describe the motion of the celestial bodies. Ptolemy published his work in a treatise explaining reasons for thinking that the earth is spherical, motionless, positioned at the center of the universe, and negligibly small in comparison to the distance of the heavens.

This model seemed natural because we don't feel the earth under our feet moving (except in earthquakes or moments of passion). Ptolemy's model of the cosmos was adopted by the Catholic Church and held as official doctrine for fourteen hundred years. It was not until 1543 that an alternative model was put forward by Copernicus. So which is real? Although it is not uncommon for people to say Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe. The real advantage of the Copernican system is that the mathematics is much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

Link to full article

This article seems to make a different argument then what you seemed to be saying in your initial post. I took your first post to mean that from a relativistic perspective taking the earth as a fixed frame of reference it made sense to say the Sun revolves around the earth.

This article seems to say that the Ptolemeic view of the universe (a completely different model than the relativistic view which starts with the concept of gravity as defined by Newton) is really as good a model for the solar system as Einstein/Newton although not quite as elegant. I think that is clearly false.

For one thing the Ptolemeic view had errors in it. It worked up to a point because the instruments of the time were mostly incapable of detecting the errors but now it would be seen to be highly innacurate compared to the relativistic view. For another thing the Ptolemeic view really has no definition for the underlying force (gravity) that keeps the planets in their orbits. The relativistic view not only has that but the same model of gravity works amazingly well for all sorts of terrestrial behavior such as how bridges stay up and artillery shells come down. The theory of gravity as defined by Newton and then enhanced by Einstein also describes all sorts of atstronomical phenomenon: galexies, black holes, quasars,... that Ptolemy couldn't even begin to describe.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:28:40 UTC | #866048

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 29 by Mark Jones

This actually seems a little more reasonable than the bs about Adam and Eve, so, hey, fill your boots, Catholics. What's one more stupid thing?

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:36:47 UTC | #866052

blitz442's Avatar Comment 30 by blitz442

Comment 28 by Red Dog

Right off the bat, I am also wondering how a model that posits that a massive object like the sun can be held in orbit around a much less massive object like the earth could be reconciled with everything that we know to be true about gravitational forces.

Also, if memory serves, the Ptolemic model would require that the moon be twice as close to earth during certain times in its orbit, which would mean that it would appear twice as big.

The real advantage of the Copernican model is not just that "the math is simpler". It's advantage is that it does not have to discard everything we know about physics in order to be true.

Wtfbits, you wouldn't perhaps be an advocate of postmodernism or critical theory?

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:46:21 UTC | #866057