From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:08:47 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Nov16.165812.24709@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>In article <1e6qqfINN39m@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>, starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr) writes:
>>2.  I'm not sure what is meant by "world views conforming".  If one means
>>"eliminating contradictions" -- a God about whom there are no testable
>>predictions is equivalently a God whose doings do not affect science.
>
>It seems you understand what I've been trying to say.  I'll try to explain
>what I mean by "world views conforming."  If I demand that a scientific world
>view conform to some religious world view, what I mean is that the results of
>science must agree with my religious beliefs; religion is set up as a judge
>over science.  Demanding that a religious world view conform to a scientific
>world view is to set up science as the judge of religion.  The Vatican
>demanded Galileo's views conform to their religious views (I know there is
>some dispute on this) which was wrong.  To do the opposite is equally wrong.
>
>  -- Scott @Brandeis
>
>	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
>	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
>	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
>	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
>					 who need no repentance." 
>		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]

The Vatican only demanded of Galileo that he acknowledge that his theory
was only a hypothesis, just as the advocates of the ptolemaic model claimed
no more than that their theory was a hypothesis.  Galileo's "sin" (rightly
or wrongly condemned) was that he insisted that his theory, because it
saved all the appearances better (more simply) than the ptolemaic theory,
was thereby identical with the truth.  As a matter of fact, the Church
had already acknowledged the validity of Copernicus's investigations, which
said more or less the same thing as hypothesis.  As Owen Barfield put it, 
Galileo didn't just propose a new theory of the universe, he proposed a new 
theory of theory.  The consequences of that theory of theory were enormous, 
and the Church recognized it, whether or not they were justified in 
suppressing Galileo.

Just for diversion, there is a lot to be said now for the ptolemaic view
of a geocentric solar system. Many of the calculations required for space
travel are more clearly understood and worked out in terms of loops and
epicycles.  Likewise, there is some interesting research based on a modified
geocentric model, where you model the planetary system as revolving around
the earth from a viewpoint high above the earth looking down.  The patterns
made by the planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Jupiter and
Saturn together) make the most remarkably symetrical forms as they revolve.
You would never ever arrive at them from a heliocentric model.  Mars makes
a seven sided looped figure, Mercury a four sided one, Jupiter and Saturn 
make a kind of hexagon or hexagram pattern, and Venus makes the most beautiful
seven pointed loop figure.  On top of that, no other planet makes such loops,
except with the earth itself.  That is, Mars makes the seven pointed figure
when viewed from a Mars-centric point of view as earth makes with Mars, but
the patterns between Mars and Venus, or Mars and Saturn, etc., are totally
chaotic. The same is true for all the other planets. In other words, in 
respect of the movements of the planets to each other, the earth is remarkably 
unique among all the planets.  There are also material consequences for these 
patterns as well.  Does that make the geocentric model the "true" one?
No, no more than the symetries of the heliocentric model make it the "true"
one. 

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA