# Randi tackles religion vs. science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857 "2003-07-25T13:47:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/81 "2003-07-26T21:27:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*_You_ were the one claiming the church was only content to allow telescopes so long as they were pointed at the Earth. \*\* Oouch. Stop it, **Dewey** , your powers of analysis are giving me a headache. The Church objected when Galileo began publically speaking about what he saw. Pope Urban told him, in all seriousness, that it didn’t matter what he observed since God could make the universe look like whatever he wished. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > **I agree that any source should be scrutinized carefully. However, my citation should not be summarily dismissed just because it contains the word “Catholic” in the name, either.** If we’re seriously considering the question of whether an organization abused its power and authority, citing sources linked to that organization is a questionable tactic at best. It’s not called the “Catholic” Encyclopedia because it’s all-inclusive, buddy. > [@](#): > > **Look, the simple fact is that many legitimate astronomers of the day adopted the Tycho Brahe theory of planetary motion. Were Brahe and his followers all church apologists?** The idea that the Earth is somehow, mysteriously, not subject to the same principles as everything else? Um, that _is_ apologism, **Dewey**. And have you stopped chewing on lead paint chips? 🙂 > [@](#): > > \*\*And, quite frankly, Galileo’s theory had some gaping holes in it (most notably, as **tomndebb** points out, because he relied on perfectly circular orbits). At the time Galileo lived, holding to the Ptolomeic theory was acceptable and, frankly, more grounded in what had actually been observed. Galileo was eventually proved right, but you could have gotten pretty good odds from learned men of the day on a bet that history would prove him wrong. \*\* Those “learned men” weren’t scientists – they learned by rote. Galileo didn’t just pick a position at random. His new position was based on observable evidence and principles of logic that seem to be beyond you. The heliocentric model was objectively better in a scientific sense. (Once Kepler realized that orbits were actually ellipses, Galileo’s ideas were incontrovertible, but that doesn’t mean they were weak before.) > [@](#): > > **If ever there was an era when the Church was likely to declare Copernicusism a heresy, it was at that time.** But Copernicus kept his head down. He was also worried about being perceived as a heretic. I’ll see if I can locate a cite. > [@](#): > > \*\*Galileo could have published his work and made the same points without mocking his former patron. It was a dumb move. \*\* It was a dumb position. > [@](#): > > \*\*That doesn’t mean he wasn’t a prick, and it doesn’t mean that if he had exercised a little tact, he might not have gone to trial. \*\* He wasn’t a prick. His insistence wasn’t based on ego or arrogance, but on CONCEPTUAL PRINCIPLES that can be used to evaluate arguments. I’m sure that if he had been willing to compromise his reason and his principles, the Church wouldn’t have had a problem. Please, continue blaming the victim. The mighty and powerful Galileo obviously was a tremendous threat to the struggling masses of the faithful. Galileo had to sneak out his final work because… because he was sneaky! Yeah, that’s it! ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/82 "2003-07-26T21:30:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Musicat \* > \*\*Probably more respected than _The New Hippies’ Guide To History While Stoned,_ fersure. But I’ll bet you’ll have a hard time finding much serious, hard-hitting criticism of the Church in it, and the issue at hand certainly is one of sensitivity in those areas. \*\* The _CE_ is a valuable resource that has stood the test of time. It’s silly to dismiss it out of hand, any more than you would dismiss the views of a Notre Dame professor. \*\* > [@](#): > > Remember, this is the same organization that published the _Index,_ as **TVAA** mentioned. A list of books that must NOT be read by the faithful is hardly in the spirit of scientific inquiry. \*\* Again, I am not an apologist for Catholic doctrine. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/83 "2003-07-26T21:32:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*By the the evidence and theories available at what time? In Galileo’s era, the heliocentric view was not as robustly supported as it is today. Galileo’s explanation had serious flaws in it. And there were Ptolemaic explanations that were accepted by learned persons as credible. \*\* As I pointed out before, the standards for “learned persons” aren’t the same now as they were then. The geocentric explanation also had serious flaws. > [@](#): > > \*\*You keep wanting to impose four centuries of scientific progress on Galileo’s time. You fail to recognize that at that time, the issue was far from settled, even among serious astronomers. \*\* Your point being? Since when did the Catholic Church become the arbiter of scientific debate? --especially since “science” as we know it was just being born. Even with their limitations, Galileo’s ideas about the shape of the solar system were superior to the Ptolemaic system. Why did people hold to that system? Because they were used to it. Brahe’s proposed compromise was a massive, ad hoc way of acknowledging the superiority of the heliocentric model while keeping the Earth at the center. > [@](#): > > \*\*Read _what_ and weep? How do these documents change my argument one whit? \*\* They contradict statements you’ve made about the reasons the Church prosecuted Galileo. Did you actually _read_ them? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/84 "2003-07-26T21:36:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*[This site](http://websupport2.citytech.cuny.edu/hsp/techprep/curriculum/course/church.htm) has a fairly balanced treatment of both Galileo and the Church. Read several of the pages to get a good idea of what it’s saying. > > It’s true that the Church wasn’t opposed to the consideration of the heliocentric model as a purely abstract and mathematical way of computing planetary motion. But if someone claimed that the model might actually be _true_… well, that was a horse of a different color. \*\* Yes, by all means, read that cite. Particularly this paragraph: > [@](#): > > What reaction do you think Galileo would get from Church theologians? Unfortunately for Galileo, the Church condemned the Copernican system as being scientifically unfounded – which, given contemporary criteria for scientific evidence, it was! But the Church prevented anyone from speaking about the new astronomical system as a point of fact. An astronomer could however discuss it as an hypothesis. The Church was not unflexible however. Church scholars did recognize the adequate scientific evidence might one day be found. (Emphasis added) Yeah, that sure sounds like an institution opposed to all scientific inquiry affecting church doctrine. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Reepicheep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@Reepicheep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reepicheep)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/85 "2003-07-26T21:37:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\ ***Reepicheep** , I can only conclude that you’re missing the point(s). \*\* Perhaps I am not making my posts clear. The italicized quotes are from the source material I have cited > [@](#): > > \*\* > First, the Catholic Church (as opposed to Christianity in general) had openly committed itself to a model of the solar system. It cannot be considered a neutral bystander to this “scientific” dispute. \*\* Yes the Catholic Church had committed itself to Ptolemy’s view of the solar system. However, it was **not** saying that Galileo was wrong in his following the Copernican view. They were not questioning that the planets and moons moved as he said they did. They were saying that there **could** be another explanation for this movement and that Galileo had to agree, when writing, that it is possible there was another explanation for the movement he saw. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Secondly, your statements that there wasn’t enough “proof” of either model is nonsensical. \*\* Please cite. PBS and Rutger’s University seem to agree with my view. > [@](#): > > \*\* > There isn’t enough proof to demonstrate this now! If we chose, we could validly consider the Earth to be standing still and everything else moving around it. The heliocentric model is much, _much_ simpler than the geocentric, which is why it’s innately better as far as science is concerned. > > If the two models give the same general results, but one is both simpler and more logical, it is superior, and it can and should be regarded as “true”. \*\* Hindsight is 20/20. In the 1600s there was not enough ‘proof’ for either side to overwhelm the other with evidence. What could be seen could easily support either argument. The Copernican model thought that all planets rotated around the sun in a perfect sphere, which was _not_ what was beening shown by the evidence. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Galileo was convicted of proclaiming a doctrine contrary to religious doctrine. What more do I need to say? This wasn’t about the scientific merits of the theory – even if Copernicus’ model had turned out to be wrong, Galileo would be allowed to present his position according to the principles of scientific debate. It was the Church that tried to silence opposition or contradiction at any cost. \*\* That is the 2nd grade version. If you want to look at the fact as an adult, Galileo was an arrogant man who would not admit there could be another _possible_ explanation for his observations. He would not look at the reality of his situation and see that those with political and spiritual power around him where telling him. Not to keep quiet, but to admit that there were other explanations besides his own. I am not in any way excusing the Catholic Church. Urban made an ass out of himself and a laughing stock out of the church with his decisions. However, it is not in any way as cut and dried as you are saying. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/86 "2003-07-26T21:42:18Z")
> [@](#): > > You can’t seem to distinguish between being an arrogant prick and being right. You seem to have read nothing about Galileo beyond the propaganda you are attempting to purvey. Galileo scorned everyone who did not worship at the altar of adulation for him, even castigating people who actually proved him wrong while erroneously declaring that he was right. When he got into a fight with Fr. Grassi over comets (in which Grassi was clearly right and Galileo clearly wrong) Galileo not only called Grassi and ass, he declared that “it was granted to me alone to discover all the new phenomena in the sky and nothing to anybody else. This is the truth which neither virtue nor envy can suppress.” Among the people he dismissed, rudely, was Marius von Gunzenhausen who discovered the spiral nebula in Andromeda. He claimed to have discovered sunspots, despite the fact that they were already known from the works of Lystat and Scheiner (among others). He ridiculed the notion of comets, calling them “Tycho’s monkey-planets.” He failed to recognize that his own observations were accepted because Kepler supported them. going so far as to simply refuse to acknowledge communications from Kepler. Here is a fairly evenhanded treatment of the whole mess [How NOT to engage the Theology/Science debate](http://www.spc.org.nz/2.pdf) (pdf format) [And the same site in Google cached html](http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:hWfYjQhmHmIJ:www.spc.org.nz/2.pdf+huxley+galileo&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) > [@](#): > > it was still a faith vs. science conflict where faith could not be allowed to challenge science without repercussions. > [@](#): > > Galileo would be allowed to present his position according to the principles of scientific debate. This is simply anti-religious propaganda as a reading of the actual history shows. (For one thing, it ignores two salient points: many of the people studying astronomy at the time disagreed with Galileo; Galileo never provided proof of his assertions–proof that _can_ be found, and was when we finally identified a stellar parallax in 1838–providing errors as defense.) Galileo did not engage in scientific debate, he used a literary satire to present his propositions. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/87 "2003-07-26T21:47:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*“The available evidence” did **not** support his position. He was right, almost by accident. \*\* Um, actually it did. The Ptolemaic model relies completely on a series of ad hoc “corrections” that are necessary to keep its predictions related to the observable universe. The Copernican model wasn’t a great deal better, but it was certainly no worse. He wasn’t right by accident. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/88 "2003-07-26T21:47:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Those “learned men” weren’t scientists – they learned by rote. Galileo didn’t just pick a position at random. His new position was based on observable evidence and principles of logic that seem to be beyond you. The heliocentric model was objectively better in a scientific sense. (Once Kepler realized that orbits were actually ellipses, Galileo’s ideas were incontrovertible, but that doesn’t mean they were weak before.) Your first sentencve indicates that you are simply ignorant of people you are libeling. Few people and no scholars learned by rote. It is interesting that you raise Kepler’s _modification_ to the Copernican system, since Galileo loudly argued against Klepler on that point, making Galileo’s claims erroneous. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/89 "2003-07-26T21:51:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*You seem to have read nothing about Galileo beyond the propaganda you are attempting to purvey. Galileo scorned everyone who did not worship at the altar of adulation for him, even castigating people who actually proved him wrong while erroneously declaring that he was right. When he got into a fight with Fr. Grassi over comets (in which Grassi was clearly right and Galileo clearly wrong) Galileo not only called Grassi and ass, he declared that “it was granted to me alone to discover all the new phenomena in the sky and nothing to anybody else. This is the truth which neither virtue nor envy can suppress.” Among the people he dismissed, rudely, was Marius von Gunzenhausen who discovered the spiral nebula in Andromeda. He claimed to have discovered sunspots, despite the fact that they were already known from the works of Lystat and Scheiner (among others). He ridiculed the notion of comets, calling them “Tycho’s monkey-planets.” He failed to recognize that his own observations were accepted because Kepler supported them. going so far as to simply refuse to acknowledge communications from Kepler. \*\* Galileo was also a pompus, arrogant ass. So was Newton. Your point being? It would be nice if Galileo was a paragon of virtue, but he was as conniving, glory-seeking, and willing to take credit for the discoveries of others as the rest of the “scientists” of the time. He was still justified in this instance. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/90 "2003-07-26T21:51:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Um, actually it did. No. Nothing that Galileo published ever proved the Copernican theory (especially since, without the corrections supplied by Kepler that Galileo rejected, the Copernican calculations were in error), and he published enough easily spotted errors as to make his claims suspect. What do you believe he published the “proved” helocentrism? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/91 "2003-07-26T21:53:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*No. Nothing that Galileo published ever proved the Copernican theory (especially since, without the corrections supplied by Kepler that Galileo rejected, the Copernican calculations were in error), and he published enough easily spotted errors as to make his claims suspect. What do you believe he published the “proved” helocentrism? \*\* When are you claiming heliocentrism was “proved”? Heliocentrism is simply the most convenient way of thinking about things. We can always create other explanations for our observations – they just won’t be as good. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/92 "2003-07-26T21:55:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*The Church objected when Galileo began publically speaking about what he saw. \*\* Again, not true. No one contested Galileo’s publication of his observations of Jupiter. They took issue with his _interpretation_ of those observations, but not with the observations themselves. \*\* > [@](#): > > If we’re seriously considering the question of whether an organization abused its power and authority, citing sources linked to that organization is a questionable tactic at best. It’s not called the “Catholic” Encyclopedia because it’s all-inclusive, buddy.\*\* This is getting old. If you have a serious challenge to any of the facts contained in the _CE_, please pony up citations now. Enough of this mudslinging nonsense. (It’s a “Catholic” Encyclopedia, BTW, because it is an encyclopedia of people, places and events involving the church. The Galileo affair is one such event. Its coverage of that event is as inclusive as an encyclopedia entry can be). \*\* > [@](#): > > The idea that the Earth is somehow, mysteriously, not subject to the same principles as everything else? Um, that _is_ apologism, **Dewey**. \*\* Your contention that Tycho Brahe – one of the giants of astronomy – was a church apologist is noted. It doesn’t help your credibility. \*\* > [@](#): > > Those “learned men” weren’t scientists – they learned by rote. \*\* By “learned men,” I meant Galileo’s contemporaries in the study of astronomy. You’re being deliberately obtuse. \*\* > [@](#): > > Galileo didn’t just pick a position at random. His new position was based on observable evidence and principles of logic that seem to be beyond you. The heliocentric model was objectively better in a scientific sense. \*\* Actually, _at the time_, it wasn’t “objectively better.” Indeed, there were gaping holes in Galileo’s theory, just as there were problems with the Brahe theory. You can’t expect Galileo’s contemporaries to have just overlooked those problems. \*\* > [@](#): > > (Once Kepler realized that orbits were actually ellipses, Galileo’s ideas were incontrovertible, but that doesn’t mean they were weak before.)\*\* Actually, Kepler was Brahe’s assistant, and it was Brahe who put forth the notion of elliptical orbits. Kepler of course went on to make his own contributions to science, including disproving Galileo’s objectively wrong theory on the tides. \*\* > [@](#): > > But Copernicus kept his head down. He was also worried about > being perceived as a heretic. I’ll see if I can locate a cite.\*\* I call bullshit on this. Copernicus died long before the church started taking Copernican motion seriously (he did meet some resistance from _Protestants_, though – and was protected by a Catholic bishop). Copernicus died in 1543, long before the Galileo affair. \*\* > [@](#): > > He wasn’t a prick. His insistence wasn’t based on ego or arrogance, but on CONCEPTUAL PRINCIPLES that can be used to evaluate arguments. \*\* You _are_ aware that it is possible to both be right and be an arrogant prick, aren’t you? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/93 "2003-07-26T21:56:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Galileo was also a pompus, arrogant ass. So was Newton. Your point being? The point is theat the false claim was made that Galileo’s nasty way of writing was simply a reaction to being ignored by people that he had proven wrong. The reality is that he was nasty to everyone, including people who had proven him wrong and people who tried to help him. He also made enough errors that his own claims were not “proof” of his claims. He was basically persecuted for being a nasty SOB and prosecuted by attempting to dictate doctrine, and the claims that he was persecuted or prosecuted for holding science up against faith are bogus. ---
**Author:** ![bbart4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/51bf81/32.png) [@bbart4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bbart4)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/94 "2003-07-26T21:57:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > Religion can be used for good and bad, so? :rolleyes: Pls. read my post again: I never said religion is bad, nor did I ever say your “spiritual love” (I still don’t know what it is, btw) is bad. I merely pointed out that you were being disingenious by listing only the negative side of science. Also, none of the three things you mentioned are mutually excusive. > [@](#): > > “Love”, I like to use the term “spiritual love” to separate the real thing from those who think of their private parts, is a state of mind. It is a deep respect for life, all life, and the worthiness of that life. While it is most generally taught in a theistic setting, that is not entirely necessary. While I am a non-believer, I have no probem with the above statement. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/95 "2003-07-26T21:58:29Z")
He didn’t dictate doctrine. He had no authority or power to do so. It’s not as if he were part of the religious hierarchy. He was prosecuted for spreading false teachings that contradicted Catholic doctrine (which is how it was known they were false). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/96 "2003-07-26T22:28:36Z")
> [@](#): > > He didn’t dictate doctrine. He had no authority or power to do so. > > It’s not as if he were part of the religious hierarchy. He was prosecuted for spreading false teachings that contradicted Catholic doctrine (which is how it was known they were false). Not really. There was no doctrine regarding the heliocentric or terracentric theories. At the first trial, the judges made a declaration of heresy based on their own interpretations. They were not relying on any church teaching that preceded them. They were motivated by personal issues with his behavior. Once they had ordered him to no teach the Copernican theory, the second trial resulted from his apparent violation of that order. In other words, he was not brought to trial for violating doctrine. The claim that “he didn’t dictate doctrine,” based on the faulty premise that he did not have that authority is incorrect. One of the reasons that he irritated people (beyond his personality) is that he _did_ insist that doctrine be changed. Please go back and read the various descriptions of “maintining the appearances.” The phrase has a different meaning, now, regarding putting up a false face in public, but the technical meaning in philosophy at that time was a different issue. As long as Galileo had simply published his findings on science, he would have been left alone. It was specifically that he insisted his science be used _without proof_ to modify doctrine that got him in trouble. Had he actually had proof, we might be looking at a different story, but his proof was lacking. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/97 "2003-07-26T23:20:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*Not really. There was no doctrine regarding the heliocentric or terracentric theories. \*\* Yes, there was. The Catholic Church actively taught the idea that the Earth was the center of Creation, metaphysically AND physically. This wasn’t originally part of Christianity, nor was it the doctrine of other branches of Christianity at the time. The discovery of objects orbiting something that wasn’t Earth disproved the Church’s claims that Earth was the center and focus of everything. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/98 "2003-07-27T00:03:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > This is getting old. If you have a serious challenge to any of the facts contained in the _CE_, please pony up citations now. Much of the Catholic Encyclopedia is not facts, but theology. And even facts can be colored by bias. Specific citations? Here’s one. I have read much about Jesus’ life, from pious fiction to serious archeology/anthropology to those who claim the dude never existed. The [following quote,](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm) from CE, would fall pretty far on the pious side of the fence: > [@](#): > > Briefly, therefore, the fact of Christ’s Resurrection is attested by more than 500 eyewitnesses, whose experience, simplicity, and uprightness of life rendered them incapable of inventing such a fable, who lived at a time when any attempt to deceive could have been easily discovered, who had nothing in this life to gain, but everything to lose by their testimony, whose moral courage exhibited in their apostolic life can be explained only by their intimate conviction of the objective truth of their message. Again the fact of Christ’s Resurrection is attested by the eloquent silence of the Synagogue which had done everything to prevent deception, which could have easily discovered deception, if there had been any, which opposed only sleeping witnesses to the testimony of the Apostles, which did not punish the alleged carelessness of the official guard, and which could not answer the testimony of the Apostles except by threatening them “that they speak no more in this name to any man” (Acts, iv, 17). Finally the thousands and millions, both Jews and Gentiles, who believed the testimony of the Apostles in spite of all the disadvantages following from such a belief, in short the origin of the Church, requires for its explanation the reality of Christ’s Resurrection, fot the rise of the Church without the Resurrection would have been a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself. 500 eyewitnesses? About the number that personally witnessed UFOs land in Roswell, right? So the CE is a book of facts? (Note: this text is followed by a section that purports to refute all possible arguments against an actual, physical, supernatural, resurrection of the body and person of Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.) Now, you want me to accept a history story as incontrovertible fact, a story about Church/science interaction, from a source which has much to gain in the eyes of the world if shown to be accurate? Not without some serious corroborating evidence, friend. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/99 "2003-07-27T00:23:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes, there was. > > The Catholic Church actively taught the idea that the Earth was the center of Creation, metaphysically AND physically. This wasn’t originally part of Christianity, nor was it the doctrine of other branches of Christianity at the time. > > The discovery of objects orbiting something that wasn’t Earth disproved the Church’s claims that Earth was the center and focus of everything. You can, of course, provide a citation to the council, synod, papal bull, encyclical, or _some_ sort of reference to support this statement, which is, in fact, not true? Quoting anti-religious tracts is not going to cut it, here. We will need to see an actual pronouncement from the church, not speculation by a theologian or preacher, but an official church declaration regarding the physical universe. The fact of the matter is that you have built up your argument by reverse-engineering what you want to believe occurred in despite of the evidence. Even the noted antireligious writer, Thomas Huxley, offered his opinion that the trial of Galileo was pretty much a victory for the church on points. Rather than your neat fable of the heavy-handed church squashing Galileo’s science, the historical record shows that the Holy Office of the Inquisition (or its immediate predecessor) rejected claims against Galileo on two separate occasions when outraged prelates sought to have him tried for heresy, on each occasion finding nothing wrong with his writings. It was only on the third review by the Holy Office–after Galileo had demanded action from the pope–that they finally looked over his latest claims in which he insisted that they declare his unproven theories (with their errors of fact) to be “True” that they finally got tired of having him show up and declared his statements contrary to faith. And, at that, the did not cite any previous document of the church that actually supported their position. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/100 "2003-07-27T00:26:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*He didn’t dictate doctrine. He had no authority or power to do so. > > It’s not as if he were part of the religious hierarchy. He was prosecuted for spreading false teachings that contradicted Catholic doctrine (which is how it was known they were false). \*\* So what? Galileo basically said “I’m right, all my critics are wrong, and the church needs to adjust its doctrine accordingly.” He was, in fact, telling the church that they had to change their doctrine. That he personally had no power to do so is irrelevant – that is what he was seeking to have happen. **TVAA** , I don’t know what your problem is, but I look back over this thread and I see valid citation from myself, **tomndebb** , and **Reepicheep**. I see nothin’ from you, except for a couple of links that don’t contradict anything we’ve actually said. Are you ever going to put up or shut up? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857.md?page=6)