... on Whether Geocentrism is Obliging? Debate with Anthony Zarrella

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Galileo and the Church (quora) · ... on Whether Geocentrism is Obliging? Debate with Anthony Zarrella · With Zarrella et al. on Geocentrism · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Anthony Zarrella on Metaphysics of Science

Q

Did the Pope just denounce Creationism? Isn’t accepting evolution equivalent to rejecting creationism? By creationism, I mean the idea that the world is 6000 years old.
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Pope-just-denounce-Creationism-Isn%E2%80%99t-accepting-evolution-equivalent-to-rejecting-creationism-By-creationism-I-mean-the-idea-that-the-world-is-6000-years-old/answer/Alec-Cawley

Context link

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'
Independent | Adam Withnall | Tuesday 28 October 2014 09:43 GMT
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

As to header in Independent : “Francis goes against Benedict XVI’s apparent support for 'intelligent design' - but does hail his predecessor’s 'great contribution to theology'”

Where exactly does “Francis” go against Intelligent Design?

It is not synonymous to and does not strictly of itself imply Young Earth Creationism, though they can be combined.

Ratzinger or “Benedict” was also no Young Earth Creationist, as seen by a document from 1993 or 1994. While he was a “cardinal”.

Quora Question Details Bot

Aug 8, 2017

Isn’t accepting evolution equivalent to rejecting creationism? And by creationism I mean the idea that the world is 6000 years old. I honestly have no idea what current Catholic thinking is.

[same link]

Paul Reid

Nov 19

The Catholic Church never held to Creationist ideas at any point in it's 1500 or so years. Creationism is a recent invention, by Protestants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

That is false.

An Answer:

Alec Cawley

Wessex man and European

Answered Mar 26, 2017

Generally speaking, the Catholic Church has not taken a position on scientific matters. The one exception was when Galileo deliberately goaded his one-time friend, who had become Pope, into a dogmatic position against the Copernical model of the universe. One of the problems with claiming to be an absolute authority is that it is very hard to back down once you have taken a position. So, having once taken that position, it took a very long time before the Church could admit it was wrong.

However, the Catholic Church has never taken such a forceful position on the Creation. It generally kept quiet while watching to see how the science developed. It implicitly accepted evolution in some form a long time ago. It explicitly accepted it, stating that evolution was the mechanism by which God had wrought his creation (you would have to check for the exact phrasing) about the middle of the 20th century.

The controversy about the heliocentric model was a blot on an otherwise fairly tolerant landscape, driven essentially by Galileo being an assertive and egotistic braggart, even if he was (fairly) right.

Anthony Zarrella

Apr 14, 2017

2 upvotes

“The one exception was when Galileo deliberately goaded his one-time friend, who had become Pope, into a dogmatic position against the Copernical model of the universe. One of the problems with claiming to be an absolute authority is that it is very hard to back down once you have taken a position.”

Actually, the Pope emphatically did not make any dogmatic pronouncement of the kind.

He made a judicial declaration that Galileo was not permitted to promote heliocentrism.

If he had actually dogmatically defined heliocentrism as false, then that dogma would be unchangeable (and would have led to a truly massive crisis of faith for Catholics when heliocentrism was actually proven). The Church would be nothing but a fringe cult by modern times, had that been the case.

This is merely a technical correction though - most of your answer is quite right.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

I would not consider you correct.

Urban VIII personally only did what you said, up to sentence, but then he sent the sentence to all the Catholic world - making it his, and involving the Church in condemnation of “the sun is immobile centre of the universe” (formally heretical) and “earth is moving around sun and also in a daily motion” (at least erroneous).

You maybe should buy from Pope Michael his reedition of nine papal decisions against Heliocentrism.

Anthony Zarrella

23h ago

“Urban VIII personally only did what you said, up to sentence, but then he sent the sentence to all the Catholic world”

Yes, as a judicial sentence, not as an infallible dogmatic decree.

“involving the Church in condemnation of “the sun is immobile centre of the universe” (formally heretical) and “earth is moving around sun and also in a daily motion” (at least erroneous).”

Remember, he only prohibited Galileo from teaching those propositions as settled truth—he did not prohibit him from discussing them as theory.

Does that sound like what a pope would do with formal heresy?

Moreover, infallibility, per Vatican I, applies only to matters of faith and morals. Scientific empirical facts are neither.

We don’t proclaim, “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth… and that the Earth is the center of the universe…” It’s not a dogma of faith, and has never been taught as such.

“You maybe should buy from Pope Michael his reedition of nine papal decisions against Heliocentrism.”

Sorry, but again, I view David Bawden as a formal schismatic at least, and possibly a material or formal heretic. I trust his imprimatur no more than I would that of Bishop Donatus Magnus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

23h ago

"Yes, as a judicial sentence, not as an infallible dogmatic decree."

When does a judicial sentence become that?

• 1) It needs to involve the Pope
  
  
• 2) It needs to imply the Catholic world
  
  
• 3) It needs to be on faith or morals (for Pope to decide)

It did involve Pope Urban VIII, it was sent to the Catholic world, and it was about both exegetics and philosophy and therefore about the faith.

"Sorry, but again, I view David Bawden as a formal schismatic at least, and possibly a material or formal heretic. I trust his imprimatur no more than I would that of Bishop Donatus Magnus."

It is not by his imprimatur, he is reediting older books. Which already have imprimatur or imprimi potest from pre-Vatican II authorities. Note, I asked him about one book which had a post-Vatican II imprimatur and have so far no response to the dubia. Do you think imprimaturs expire even without direct revocation and putting on index?

"Remember, he only prohibited Galileo from teaching those propositions as settled truth—he did not prohibit him from discussing them as theory."

No longer true by end of 1633.

"Does that sound like what a pope would do with formal heresy?"

The actual distinction is between mathematical hypothesis and theory of fact.

If Galileo wanted (as per previous discussions) treat it as about a mathematical model making counting orbits easier but with no relevance to facts, Galileo had at one time been free to do so. At one time, no longer by end of 1633. It's like I don't believe in "i", but am fine with using it for computer modelling when formulas have "dimensions".

But if Galileo was so involved with Heliocentrism as a fact that he was willing to adapt exegesis to it - that was the rub.

"Moreover, infallibility, per Vatican I, applies only to matters of faith and morals. Scientific empirical facts are neither."

Is God existing a matter of faith and morals? Did Vatican I say that God can be deduced from empirical facts? Yes and yes. Therefore, sth being "empirical fact" has no bearing to make it immune from Papal infallibility.

Moreover, Heliocentrism is to this very day not verified as empirical fact. It is not on par with "grass is green" and hardly even on spectral theory of colours.

"We don’t proclaim, “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth… and that the Earth is the center of the universe…”"

We also don't proclaim "... who ascended to the Father, assumed His Blessed Mother there, who is there Queen with His Kingship, and who thence shall return to judge the living and the dead" - and yet, Assumption is either dogma or fidei proxima (I seem to have cleared Pacelli from a doubt on that encyclical which didn't concern the main point).

There are lots of dogmata that are less solemn than the articles of the faith and yet are necessary to propose once the other alternative has been proven to lead to damnable errors, like Heliocentrism and Acentrism did with Giordano Bruno.

Anthony Zarrella

23h ago

1 upvote from Hans-Georg Lundahl

Without getting into a rehash of the entire geocentrist debate, I’ll just point out a few things:

• 1) Infallibility does not merely need to “involve the pope” and “imply the Catholic world”—he must propose something as a doctrine to be definitively held by all the faithful. Popes of that era knew quite well how to anathematize heresies—so I feel confident that if heliocentrism had been intended to be so anathematized… well, Pope Urban VIII could have very easily just said, “Anathema sit.”
  
  
• 2) God’s existence can be derived from empirical facts, but is not itself an empirical fact (in the sense that I’m speaking of—i.e., God cannot be measured and tested by instruments and experimentation, nor can He be directly observed with the senses [a few special prophetic instances notwithstanding]).
  
  
• 3) A re-edit of a text requires a new imprimatur (or perhaps it’s a nihil obstat—I admit I get the two confused sometimes), because the editing process can introduce error. Regardless, my point was that I would go to a source other than Bawden, if I wished to read historical papal proclamations.
  
  
• 4) Heliocentrism is verified to as great an extent as could practically be wished. We’ve sent people into outer space who have directly observed the Earth’s rotation and the orbits of the planets, and we’ve launched unmanned instrumentation that has given even clearer data. Either heliocentrism is verified or there is a vast conspiracy, consisting of hundreds of thousands of scientists, dedicated to pretending that it is (and you know how I feel about conspiracy theories).
  
  
• 5) Giordano Bruno was condemned primarily on the basis of Christological heresies and possible pantheism. The fact that he also rejected geocentrism has no clear connection to that.
  
  
• 6) My point regarding the Creed was not that only those truths contained in the Creed are doctrinal. But geocentrism simply has never been taught in the same way as those doctrines. It’s not even in the pre-Vatican II Catechisms, unless I’m greatly mistaken.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3h ago

"Popes of that era knew quite well how to anathematize heresies—so I feel confident that if heliocentrism had been intended to be so anathematized… well, Pope Urban VIII could have very easily just said, 'Anathema sit.'"

On your view, condemnation of errors of Berengarius of Tours was not yet infallible?

It is I think in Denzinger.

"God’s existence can be derived from empirical facts, but is not itself an empirical fact (in the sense that I’m speaking of—i.e., God cannot be measured and tested by instruments and experimentation, nor can He be directly observed with the senses [a few special prophetic instances notwithstanding])."

Heliocentrism is not an empiric fact. I do not believe it can be derived from them, and it certainly is not in itself.

Accept Geocentrism as an empiric fact, that is ONE from which you can derive the existence of God, it is basically Prima Via, with a physically different version in Abraham's argument according to Josephus Antiquities.

"A re-edit of a text requires a new imprimatur (or perhaps it’s a nihil obstat—I admit I get the two confused sometimes), because the editing process can introduce error."

Not if it simply reprints text as such.

Also, under new canon law, imprimatur is not strictly required, is it?

"Regardless, my point was that I would go to a source other than Bawden, if I wished to read historical papal proclamations."

Very mistrusting. If it weren't part of a psychiatric superstition, I would from popular usage consider that attitude "paranoid." Note, once again, popular sense, not DSMH sense.

"We’ve sent people into outer space who have directly observed the Earth’s rotation"

We directly observe the universe rotating around us. 7 billion pairs of eyes trump a few cameras and a few astronauts.

In other words, the argument is as good as "I flew around a tower in a chopper, and the tower was turning around its axis, I observed that". In Geocentrism, the men on the Moon (if any) were in a situation definitely comparable to the chopper.

Your explanation for why 7 billion pairs of eyes can be discounted works exactly other way round for why a few pairs of eyes can be so.

It would be God's providence which of the views is the more common one.

" and the orbits of the planets"

You have heard of Tycho Brahe? Galileo's first judge, Cardinal Bellarmine, had.

"Either heliocentrism is verified or there is a vast conspiracy, consisting of hundreds of thousands of scientists, dedicated to pretending that it is (and you know how I feel about conspiracy theories)."

Some conspiracies are easier than others, like a vast conspiracy to ignore Geocentric arguments, or to ignore Tycho Brahe, because arguing with Dichotomy between Ptolemy and Modern Science is easier.

So, that kind of vast conspiracy is as easy as Martin Luther launching one, which lasts to this day.

"The fact that he also rejected geocentrism has no clear connection to that."

It has if you study the philosophy of Prima Via.

"But geocentrism simply has never been taught in the same way as those doctrines. It’s not even in the pre-Vatican II Catechisms, unless I’m greatly mistaken."

Will have a look at the Trentine one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

I did look on Catechism of Trent, here is from First Article:

4 The words " heaven" and " earth" include all things which the heavens and the earth contain ; for, besides the heavens, which the Prophet called " the work of his fingers," 5 he also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty : and that they may be " for signs and for seasons, for days and for years," 8 he so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course, that nothing varies more their continual revolution, yet nothing more fixed than that variety.

By Celestial bodies, Earth is not meant.

Edit - here is more:

The earth, also, God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation, and " made the mountains to ascend, and the plains to descend into the place which he had founded for them." That the waters should not inundate the earth, " he hath set a bound which they shall not pass over, neither shall they return to cover the earth." 6 He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees, and every variety of herb and flower, but filled it, as he had already filled the air and water, with innumerable sorts of living creatures.

Lastly, he formed man from the slime of the earth, immortal and impassable, not, however, by the strength of nature, but by the bounty of God. His soul he created to his own image and likeness ; gifted him with free will, and tempered all his motions and appetites, so as to subject them, at all times, to the dictate of reason. He then added the invaluable gift of original righteousness, and next gave him dominion over all other animals By referring to the sacred history of Genesis the pastor will make him self familiar with these things for the instruction of the faithful.