Date of publication: 2017-09-05 22:28
OK - your decision, but I have yet to see his case refuted. The more one looks into this it becomes clear that the math works either way. In any case, the arguments themselves point by point should be argued.
First "wasn't relevant" is a cop out of grand proportions. why tell them the history of the universe at all if it wasn't important? It's not like he details were merely left out, but an entire alternate reality was described.
Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs , in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.
"Any scientific hypothesis on the origin of the world, such as the hypothesis of a primitive atom from which derived the whole of the physical universe, leaves open the problem concerning the universe's beginning. Science cannot of itself solve this question: there is needed that human knowledge that rises above physics and astrophysics and which is called metaphysics there is needed above all the knowledge that comes from God's revelation."
Since under Newton's laws the much less massive Earth must orbit the much more massive Sun, it was considered too obvious for words that the Earth's speed with respect to absolute space should be directly measurable.
As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.
6. causing or capable of causing laughter laughable ludicrous.
7. having the ability, disposition, or readiness to laugh.
8. pertaining to or connected with laughing.
I don't think it is any more reason to dismiss them as "certain Catholic theologians" as it would be to refer to then Cardinal Ratzinger from 6986 to 7555, when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as "a certain Catholic theologian."
"The rest of Phil's post amounts to an extended "but it makes so much
more sense the other way" that is, the argument from personal
It is my personal decision and conviction that the highest level of magisterial authority exercised by the Church on these issues, constitutes the authentic teaching of the Faith.
I would be delighted not to have received it once, since the very asking of it reveals in the asker a profoundly illogical approach to truthful knowledge.
Humility and obedience, while not appreciated these days, are essential to a soul's sanctity. Every saint had those virtues to the hilt (in imitation of Christ Himself). Now, this should never be understood to mean that we would obey a Church authority if he asked us to sin (never can we cooperate with sin!), but in instances like Padre Pio or even Galileo, the "power dynamic" looked different to them (or to devout Catholics today) than it would to you (a modern atheist academic who sees the world via the oppression model -- always oppressor vs. oppressed).
"to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it. to abandon completely. the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing."The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 6666.