Dear Bohm and Wobble... peace to you... and I have responded in the only way I can: with the truth. Take it or leave it, but that's all I have. It still doesn't negate the "holes" presented in the presentation. Given that those who SAW the dang show somewhat agree (to a greater or lesser degree), I am going to leave it there... and say, to you both, again... you might want to watch the show. I doubt that your perception will be different than mine... but who knows.
A few corrections if I may. Gallileo Galilei was Italian, not Greek.
You are absolutely right, dear Twitch (peace to you!)... and I was thinking of Aristarchus when I wrote "Greek". I was going to start with him and move forward to Galileo but then thought more would know of him that the the other. I just forgot to go back and remove "Greek."
Copernicus and later Gallileo both postulated the heliocentric model of the the solar system where the sun is the center, a radically new theory based on astronomical observations, a new science at the time (this theory was later proven by Kepler and Newton) The new theory bucked the long held geocentric model that dated back 2000 years to Ptolemy. Aristarchus and his early idea of a heliocentric model didn't catch at the time, partially because it was too radical and didn't have the datum to back it up. Thus, the old flat earth as the centre idea lasted for quite some time. It wasn't until we made better eyes and math for ourselves did the truth reveal itself. Even then, it wasn't easy.
Again, you are correct. My point, though... is that in spite of the fact that we didn't have the "eyes" or "math"... Aristarchus was right. The TRUTH was that the earth revolved around the sun. Regardless of whether "we" were able to prove that at a given time or not. The TRUTH did not change; OUR UNDERSTANDING changed. The thing, though, is that at the TIME he said it... what Aristarchus said was TRUE... WAS true! Even if it didn't catch on... for close to another 2,000 years. Even if no one else on the entire PLANET believed it/agreed. But... until OTHERS WERE READY TO ACCEPT THE TRUTH... the "facts"... according to those who claimed to know... were that the earth... was flat.
My point? Just beause an idea is radical doesn't mean it isn't TRUE. And just because the general consensus of those who [claim to] "know" is that it is NOT true... doesn't mean it isn't TRUE.
Gallileo's recanting of his ideas was due to pressure from the Catholic powers that saw it as a threat to doctrine and as heresy that questioned the realm of god, and so on.
Interesting. Things I've read indicate it was about more than that, that "heresy" was really just an excuse used by his enemies after he insulted one of them, a Jesuit, through one of his writings. Prior to, he actually had friends in the RCC, including the Pope... who later whimped out under pressure (from the Jesuits). And so, my understanding is that it wasn't actually the RCC... but an offended faction that USED the RCC to mete their revenge.
Reality was that this shift in understanding of our world and beyond presented too big a shift in established religious doctrine and ultimately, control. The point here being that it was science and the search for understanding that was ultimately correct and that religion was the force that tried to suppress it, not the other way around as is inferred by your statement. There is far more evidence of this in history than the the other way around.
Again, I don't get that religion, in general, had a problem, but certains one... due to nothing more than an insult (Galileo basically shot down another's argument, in a published writing... and not to prettily, either).
Scientists present the greatest problems? To what?
PresentED, dear one. At that time. It was the SCIENTISTS of their respective day who made things hard for Aristarchus, Copernicus, Galileo, et al. Apparently, such scientists couldn't handle differing or dissenting views from their own... and either shut the ideas themselves down... or those who came up with them. I mean, I didn't make that up: it's out there... and was even stated in the program. So...
Acceptance of a god centered universe? Religion? Your ideas?
Please... reread what I posted. Remember, the eyes can deceive you... and what you THINK I posted... I did not post. Not at all.
Perhaps one should remember this when you drive your car, call your daughter, go to the hospital or take your meds.
Sigh... I have great respect for science, dear Twitch. Please, if you're going to take me to task, at least bother to read ALL that I posted... AS I posted it. Please...
In fact, some scientists are such because of the wonder of it all and thus try to seek understanding.
Yes, I understand. And (gasp)... some are even religious...
Some are agnostic in theory.
And some are Jewish, "christian", Buddhist. In fact, a couple of astrophysicists weighed in on that on the post-program show...
In practise, it's a discipline and one that brought us out of the Dark Ages of religious repressionism.
I don't knock what it HAS accomplished... anymore than I can knock the hospitals, relief efforts, orphanages, or other "good" done by religion. I wasn't even speaking of those things. MY point was, in their attempts to SELL what they believe... they use the same tactics as religion: smoke, mirrors, high talk, fluff... and, if none of that works... the "Well, you really have to be more intelligent to get this part..." thing. That you and others can't see that... don't WANT to see that... is no different to ME... than JWs, et al. who can't... don't WANT to... see that THEY do this.
That's all I'm sayin'...
It ain't perfect, but it's told us more about the universe than any old holy book or subjective opinions.
I do not dispute that. On the other hand, religionists could say, of such holy books/opinions... "It's told us more about GOD than science." Do you SEE what I mean?
I just think that if science is going to ridicule religion (and I don't blame them for doing so)... they really shouldn't be using the same kinds of tactics to DO it. Smacks of hypocrisy. You got facts? You got proof? You can prove or disspell a theory/idea? By all means, go ahead. Do that. But... DO that. Don't use the same old "holely" tactics.
That's ALL I'm sayin'...
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA, who finds it interesting that no one's bothered to answer my QUESTIONS... still. Which I don't find too much different from when it's a spiritual/religous/Bible question. I mean, I'm just sayin'. So, please... feel free - take your pot shots at me. But the questions are still there...
