Mr Spinkles
Mr
The following is my own summary/commentary of one of the chapters in my astronomy book.
In the Middle Ages and up through the Renaissance, philosophy was dominated by Aristotle, and much of Christian teaching was based on a reconciliation of Aristotle's philosophy with Scripture.
Here is the rundown: Aristotle said that the heavens are perfect, the Earth is not perfect, and the stuff way down beneath the Earth is very, very imperfect. He said that, since the perfect shape is a circle, all the motion of the heavens must be in circles around Earth, and all of this motion must be constant (the stars never speed up or slow down). The Church said that the outer ring of stars (beyond the planets, sun and moon) were heavenly perfect bodies, and that the Earth was the center of the universe and did not move, and inside the Earth was the most imperfect place of all--hell.
For centuries, astronomers and clergy based all their models of the universe on the "first principle" that all heavenly bodies moved in circles and at constant speeds. Unfortunately, these models (which were constantly bein adjusted to increase precision) could not accurately predict the positions of the seven known planets. Lots and lots of 'epicycles' (little circles inside of circles, sort of like sub-orbits) were added to increase the precision of the model, but still it was off.
A new model based on the hypothesis of Copernicus came in the 16th century, a model that placed the Sun at the center of the universe with the Earth orbiting around it. This model did not predict the postitions of the planets any more accurately than the geocentric or "Ptolemaic" model, however it was much simpler. Even so, Copernicus, being a clergyman, did not publish his ideas until at the very end of his life, fearing charges of heresy and criticism for challenging the notions of heavenly perfection and Earth's centering in the universe.
Well, eventually Galileo comes along and studies the night sky with the newly invented telescope, and discovers a few key things: the moon has mountains and valleys--it is not perfect but has imperfections just like Earth. Also, Jupiter has moons that orbit around it, meaing that Earth is not the center of all heavenly motion, and that objects can orbit other objects in motion without being left behind (and therefore, Earth could conceivably orbit the Sun while keeping the moon in its orbit). Finally, Galileo noticed that Venus goes through a waxing/waning gibbous phase (similar to lunar phases) but that would be impossible unless Venus orbited the Sun. Later, Kepler would discover mathematically that planetary motion is elliptical, not circular, and that planets move along their orbits at varying speeds--further disproving that the heavens were perfect and moved only in perfect fashions.
Now I'm going to quote from my astronomy textbook, by Michael A. Seeds:
Galileo didn't buy this, and was finally tried by the Inquisition and forced to recant, then had to serve house arrest for the rest of his life. In 1979, the Vatican finally reopened Galileo's trial...
St. Augustine (C.E. 354-430) promoted the doctrine of "Beleive in order to understand". But Galileo and other Renaissance scientists used their own observation to understand the universe, and when their observations contradicted scripture and/or church teaching, they beleived their observations were the true representation of reality. Galileo paraphrased Cardinal Baronius in saying "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".
Nowadays, we take it for granted that science trumps religious doctrines in almost every scenario...in fact, in a desperate attempt to defend religious doctrines, many now try to disrupt true science and claim that science does in fact support their religious convictions. When science and religion disagree, people know that science is usually right....which is why Muslims, Christians, New Agers, and so forth constantly try to get science on their side when pushing their "first principles". As was proved nearly 400 years ago with the adoption of the heliocentric model, faith just doesn't cut it when confronted by contradicting observation.
One final point: I've heard many times on this forum that science can't be relied upon, because back in the day science promoted the idea that the Sun revolves around Earth. The fact of the matter is, modern science was born when the geocentric model was finally rejected, and this improved understanding of nature was a triumph of the scientific way of looking at things, not a reversal of it.
In the Middle Ages and up through the Renaissance, philosophy was dominated by Aristotle, and much of Christian teaching was based on a reconciliation of Aristotle's philosophy with Scripture.
Here is the rundown: Aristotle said that the heavens are perfect, the Earth is not perfect, and the stuff way down beneath the Earth is very, very imperfect. He said that, since the perfect shape is a circle, all the motion of the heavens must be in circles around Earth, and all of this motion must be constant (the stars never speed up or slow down). The Church said that the outer ring of stars (beyond the planets, sun and moon) were heavenly perfect bodies, and that the Earth was the center of the universe and did not move, and inside the Earth was the most imperfect place of all--hell.
For centuries, astronomers and clergy based all their models of the universe on the "first principle" that all heavenly bodies moved in circles and at constant speeds. Unfortunately, these models (which were constantly bein adjusted to increase precision) could not accurately predict the positions of the seven known planets. Lots and lots of 'epicycles' (little circles inside of circles, sort of like sub-orbits) were added to increase the precision of the model, but still it was off.
A new model based on the hypothesis of Copernicus came in the 16th century, a model that placed the Sun at the center of the universe with the Earth orbiting around it. This model did not predict the postitions of the planets any more accurately than the geocentric or "Ptolemaic" model, however it was much simpler. Even so, Copernicus, being a clergyman, did not publish his ideas until at the very end of his life, fearing charges of heresy and criticism for challenging the notions of heavenly perfection and Earth's centering in the universe.
Well, eventually Galileo comes along and studies the night sky with the newly invented telescope, and discovers a few key things: the moon has mountains and valleys--it is not perfect but has imperfections just like Earth. Also, Jupiter has moons that orbit around it, meaing that Earth is not the center of all heavenly motion, and that objects can orbit other objects in motion without being left behind (and therefore, Earth could conceivably orbit the Sun while keeping the moon in its orbit). Finally, Galileo noticed that Venus goes through a waxing/waning gibbous phase (similar to lunar phases) but that would be impossible unless Venus orbited the Sun. Later, Kepler would discover mathematically that planetary motion is elliptical, not circular, and that planets move along their orbits at varying speeds--further disproving that the heavens were perfect and moved only in perfect fashions.
Now I'm going to quote from my astronomy textbook, by Michael A. Seeds:
[emphasis added] (Gelileo would be spinning in his grave right now if he knew about the evolution textbook wars.) Galileo's struggle with the Church was the birth of modern science. Modern science relies on real-world evidence, and not on "first principles" (i.e. that all planetary motion is circular). When faced with real-world observation that contradicts "first principles" and Church doctrine, Galileo beleived the evidence trumped the first principles. The Pope, however (who happened to be a friend of Galileo's) argued that since God is omnipotent, He could make nature appear to take one form while it actually takes another form, and therefore we cannot discover the nature of the heavens by mere observation....we need faith in first principles, and divine revelation.
Galileo didn't buy this, and was finally tried by the Inquisition and forced to recant, then had to serve house arrest for the rest of his life. In 1979, the Vatican finally reopened Galileo's trial...
St. Augustine (C.E. 354-430) promoted the doctrine of "Beleive in order to understand". But Galileo and other Renaissance scientists used their own observation to understand the universe, and when their observations contradicted scripture and/or church teaching, they beleived their observations were the true representation of reality. Galileo paraphrased Cardinal Baronius in saying "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".
Nowadays, we take it for granted that science trumps religious doctrines in almost every scenario...in fact, in a desperate attempt to defend religious doctrines, many now try to disrupt true science and claim that science does in fact support their religious convictions. When science and religion disagree, people know that science is usually right....which is why Muslims, Christians, New Agers, and so forth constantly try to get science on their side when pushing their "first principles". As was proved nearly 400 years ago with the adoption of the heliocentric model, faith just doesn't cut it when confronted by contradicting observation.
One final point: I've heard many times on this forum that science can't be relied upon, because back in the day science promoted the idea that the Sun revolves around Earth. The fact of the matter is, modern science was born when the geocentric model was finally rejected, and this improved understanding of nature was a triumph of the scientific way of looking at things, not a reversal of it.
