Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Not really...

They are both moving, yes, at the speed of light within the milky way. But the revolution happens because of a pull of the earth on the sun. In fact, IF the sun were to be pulled in by the earth's gravitional pull, then we would all be dead in the sun. It's because the earth DOESN"T pull the sun, and actually pushes it aside, that we are moving in the motion we are.

Another example: Prof Underwood's theories push away Ross. Ross's theories push away Prof Underwood.

I don't think so.  In the 1400's they would have told me that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and I could have said (even knowing what science has taught us 600 years later) that I believed that it did.  To avoid being burned alive, I might have avoided mentioning that the Earth also revolves around the Sun.

But contrary to Ross' position, I don't think that accurate science will end up proving anything in the Bible wrong.

But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.

All said that this proposition [Copernicanism--mjb] is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on November 23, 2008, 12:41:18 AM

Knowing what we know now (400 years later) do you believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth once per day?

Viewed from the arbitrary spatial perspective of a particular spot on the Earth's surface, the Sun does revolve around the Earth once per day.  Of course if I was answering that question in front of a papal inquiry, I would probably shorten my answer to "yes"

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on November 23, 2008, 12:41:18 AM

Knowing what we know now (400 years later) do you believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth once per day?

Viewed from the arbitrary spatial perspective of a particular spot on the Earth's surface, the Sun does revolve around the Earth once per day.  Of course if I was answering that question in front of a papal inquiry, I would probably shorten my answer to "yes"

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on November 23, 2008, 02:43:55 AM

In the end it wouldn't matter how much you increase the accuracy of your scientific explanation. You will still run into the same issue, which is that for the first sixteen centuries of the church accurate science would have been viewed as contradicting Scripture. This occurs precisely because up until that time the orthodox interpretation of Scriptures were built assuming a Ptolemaic worldview, and the Ptolemaic theory was inaccurate science.

Sorry for taking forever to respond to this thread, but I forgot about it.

I think the key here is that you are correct that the orthodox interpretation of the Bible assumed a Ptolemaic worldview.  However, that is ok.  Ptolemy wasn't wrong.  The sun does revolve around the Earth.  He didn't have the complete picture (that the Earth also revolves around the sun), but that doesn't make the information that he did believe wrong.

This is true about many things in the Bible.  The Bible does not contain all truth.  For instance, the best recipe for chocolate chip cookies can't be found there.  However, that doesn't mean that the facts that are found in the Bible are wrong.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 30, 2009, 12:14:42 AM

I think the key here is that you are correct that the orthodox interpretation of the Bible assumed a Ptolemaic worldview.  However, that is ok.  Ptolemy wasn't wrong.

Ptolemy was wrong. I can give you any number of quite specific examples that show Ptolemy was wrong. The simplest is looking at the rate meteors hit the Earth. If you actually do the observation, you will notice that the number of meteors striking the Earth increase as we get toward morning. That is because the Earth revolves around the sun and is moving into the meteors once we pass midnight. Ptolemy, using his theory argued that the rate would be constant.

The fact that we can invoke Einstein's theory of General Relativity and provide a framework for discussing non-inertial reference frames to come up with a rotating universe with the Earth at the center, does not miraculously mean that Ptolemy was correct.

Quote

The sun does revolve around the Earth.  He didn't have the complete picture (that the Earth also revolves around the sun), but that doesn't make the information that he did believe wrong.

True. It was the fact that his theory made predictions that stand in contradiction to what is observed that makes the information that Ptolemy believed wrong. It's also beside the point, because the early church held--based on Scripture--that the Earth did not move. So after all your arguments, your theory would have been labeled as heresy--the same as the Copernican theory.

Lastly, it is worth noting the extreme form of epistemological relativism that you are espousing here. This is similar to the types of arguments I am most familiar with the all-roads-lead-to-the-top-of-the-mountain unitarian new agers. "Well, see both the Koran and the Bible mention Jesus, so they're equivalent. In fact I find that Jesus shares a number of characteristics with the Buddha..." Cruddy metaphysics is cruddy metaphysics whether applied to theology or natural philosophy.

Quote from: Colin Michael on January 30, 2009, 02:59:12 AM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on November 23, 2008, 01:23:51 AM

This is true about many things in the Bible.  The Bible does not contain all truth.  For instance, the best recipe for chocolate chip cookies can't be found there.  However, that doesn't mean that the facts that are found in the Bible are wrong.

So if they [these truths] philologically were proved wrong, what would you say then (as you discourage people from reading into the Greek)?

I don't think that any of the truths in the Bible have ever been proven wrong, or ever will be.  So until that happens, this question is moot to me.

Ptolemy was wrong.

Lastly, it is worth noting the extreme form of epistemological relativism that you are espousing here.

Quote from: Colin Michael on January 30, 2009, 11:54:41 AM

There have been philological errours all over the place, actually. For example, in the passage "God made man a little lower than the angels" angels is translated from the word Elohim (which typically means God, thus meaning God made man a little lower than himself). This mistranslation could easily lead man into heresy.

I disagree with your calling this a "mistranslation".  The people who translated Elohim in this case as angels, probably had a good reason for it.  "Typically" meaning God is different than "always" meaning God.  And besides that I believe that God protects the accuracy of his Word.  Therefore, if the Bible says we are created a little lower than the angels, then we are created a little lower than the angels.  We are also lower than God of course, but that doesn't mean that we can't be lower than the angels as well (at least in some respects).  If nothing else, they can fly and hold onto flaming swords.  I certainly can't do that

However, both morality and religion are subjective to perspective.

I disagree.  We may each have our own perspective about morality and religion.  But there is a perspective that right, and it is God's.  We should try to align our perspective with his as much as possible.

There have been philological errours all over the place, actually. For example, in the passage "God made man a little lower than the angels" angels is translated from the word Elohim (which typically means God, thus meaning God made man a little lower than himself). This mistranslation could easily lead man into heresy.