The idea that the Church was vehemently geocentric is refuted by the fact that the Jesuits discovered the same truth in the century Galileo was tried by the Roman Inquisition. Are there any books that I can cite to prove such a thing?
I recommend one Book. How the Catholic Church created Western Civilization.
amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/0895260387/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196022454&sr=8-1 This covers everything about Catholicism in a historical point of view. The Church contribition to science, education, etc.
<< Are there any books that I can cite to prove such a thing? >>
Audiobook chapter of the above by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Welcome, don’t mention it.
Thanks to both.
“What’s wrong with Christianity?” by D’nesh d’Souza.
I saw him defending the faith on EWTN on “The World Over.”
A short synopsis of the situation is printed in the “Essential Catholic Guide” sold by Catholic Answers. It explains in a shortened version what went on between Galileo and the Church.
You should look at Galileo Was Wrong, Vols. I and II by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett. Vol. I treats the scientific evidence and Vol. II discusses the Church, Scriptural, patrisirtic, etc. issues related to geocentrism.
These books defend the Church from the charges that she made an error in regards to geocentrism and Galileo.
There are some good articles on the subject at Catholic Educator’s Resource Center.
Patrick Madrid has a chapter on Galileo in his book Pope Fiction, which addresses it from an apologetics standpoint related to the Pope. Actually, that chapter may be the same (or at least similar) as the article by him on the CERC website above.
I read a book on the Jesuits in spanish but the original was written by a American ex-jesuit that worked for JP Morgan that have a good account too on the Jesuit’s duplicating Galileo’s finding in a fine example of scientific peer review. Sadly Father Clavius dead and Galileo personal problems deprived him of his allies in the Church during a key time.
They do so by repeating the error and they are riddled with multiple fallacies of fact, of logic and of interpretation. It would be difficult to find other modern examples of such apparent scholarship that are so saturated in errors of every sort. Anyone who is deluded enough to use these books to “defend the Church from the charges that she made an error in regards to geocentrism and Galileo” will be exposing themselves to ridicule; and rightly so.
Why not propose that one of the possible explainations for the Michealson Morley experiment is that the earth is not moving and the Sun, planets and whole universe go around it. This is actually a better explaination for the experiment than the theory of relativity. In my view Michealson and Morley in the late 1800s are a great defense of what the Church said.
Galileo assumed that because the moons of Jupiter go around Jupiter the earth goes around the sun. It is a big assumtion and a theory that niether him nor the Jesuits have poven. Throwing the theory of relativity on top of it doesn’t help. It’s a theory based upon another theory.
My first question to you is ‘have you read the books’?
Can you be more specific (please reply to contents of the books, not the content of other threads on this forum).
Michelson Morley was only a start of the optical type intereferometric experiments. Dayton C. Miller, for instance continued their work well into the first half of the 20th century with greater precision, and many times more experiments.
I’d like to see them perform the experiment in the Space Shuttle in orbit around the earth. My guess is that they would see the interference fringe then. I don’t think they would ever do it though for fear that it could turn their whole world inside out.
Yes - I have read them - they are riddled with error.
Go here for a clear refutation of their ideas (this was posted before the books were published, but nothing in the books changes this demolition of their position):
But there are far far more basic errors of fact and logic in them than one could possibly post on a message board. Even Bennett, who is supposed to have had a scientific education,makes multiple fundamental undergraduate errors They are, basically, scientifically worthless.
You need to give some examples so that we can discuss them specifically. Just making accusations and pointing to links doesn’t mean anything. Let’s hear why you believe what you believe in your own words.
By the way Steve40, I can give you many more examples of errors, but I am not convinced that you are qualified to understand them. Why don’t we start with my article, in my words here:
If you want to discuss this, I suggest you come armed with a decent knowledge of physics.
It’s important to articulate them now, because it is often in the articulating of our position that we realize in humility where we may have made a mistake and learn. Articulated now in your own words and we can discuss it.
It’s not a question of my qualification but a question of your willingness to teach and learn. A discussion between two individual does not require qualifications. It only requires patience and some charity. I learn the most when I teach. Teach me, I’m listening.