The lesson of Geocentrism

In another thread, Buck pointed out that he is not a geocentrist because the Scripture does not teach geocentrism, and he is right. But the point of the whole story is that the Christian community of the time *believed* that the Scripture taught geocentrism, and they were wrong. This is the lesson we must learn for the current debate.

Before Galileo began promoting the heliocentric view of the universe, the Church believed that the sun and stars, the entire universe in fact, revolved around the earth. This was based, they believed, on a simple, plain reading of Scripture. The entire scheme of Genesis 1 made it clear: the earth was there at the very beginning and the rest of the universe was built around it. The sun and moon were "greater and lesser lights" *for the earth*, the stars part of the firmament over the earth. The earth played the central role, it was the location of God’s special creation, Man, and everything they read conformed to the idea of the earth being at the physical and literal center of things, with all else revolving around it. And there were other Scripture throughout the Bible which backed this up.

Also, their own eyes could see the geocentric nature of their world. They were in one spot and everything revolved around them. Why go out and seek for these convoluted theories to describe something when both the Scripture and their own eyes made it clear that geocentrism was true? It must be admitted that *without* our current knowledge of the universe, if we placed ourselves back in their position, we would read the Scripture the same way.

When Galileo began presenting the heliocentric theory, the Christian community, both Catholic and Protestant, said it was contrary to Scripture and, therefore, must be false. In fact, they went so far as to say that if Geocentrism were true, the Scripture was not true. They were entirely incompatible. And, if those Scriptures which they believed established Geocentrism were proven "false" then what about the rest of Scripture? Where would it end? And theologically: Galileo was pointing out that the sun was one star among countless others, and the earth was one planet among countless others. The Earth was just one of those specks in the universe. This was all too much, it just could not be true. If the Earth was not the physical center and focal point of the universe, then what does that say about God’s special creation of Man? Where does that leave us? No, you could not be a Heliocentrist AND a truly be a Christian. Galileo was a heretic.

The Christian community also called on the support of scientists who, up to the time Galileo presented heliocentrism, also believed in geocentrism. They were all Christian, of course, and without any real evidence to the contrary, also accepted the Biblical and observable evidence for geocentrism. Galileo’s theory was simply that, an unproven theory.

Eventually, the proof began rolling in and more and more scientists began accepting that it must be true. But many in the Church held out, saying that those who were accepting heliocentrism were simply selling out, accepting the scientific conclusions of men over God’s Word. Still, more and more Christians began accepting this scientific conclusion, and found that, after all, it did NOT destroy Christianity, it did NOT mean that the Bible could not be trusted, it need not affect anyone’s faith in the least.

They realized that it had been the Church’s traditional interpretation of Scripture which had been incorrect all along, and that the scientific theory which had SEEMED to contradict God’s Word really did not. Almost the entire Christian community did as we do today in regards to geocentrism: we allow the evidence of God’s Creation to inform our interpretation of God’s written Word.

But there were still hold-outs even deep into this century. I remember reading tracts written in the mid-sixties which said that the world had been duped by an unproven scientific theory which was still contrary to a plain reading of Scripture. This seemed to pretty much peter out, though, when we got to the moon.

I think that in one hundred years, if Jesus tarries, we will look back on the current debate regarding evolution and an old earth just as we now look back on the geocentrism fiasco. The Church will realize that it was it’s own traditional reading of Scripture which was incorrect, and allow the evidence of God’s Creation inform it’s interpretation of Scripture. Most already do. This does not mean, of course, that the concepts of evolution itself will not continue to be fine-tuned and we will know a lot more about how it all works together. Just as Galileo had some things wrong with his concept of heliocentrism, there are still some areas to clarify and fight over regarding the particulars of exactly how God used evolutionary processes in His Creative process.

Here is a follow-up question. Which was more potentially damaging to Christianity:

1. Galileo's teaching of heliocentrism

2. The Church's teaching that heliocentrism directly contradicted Scripture

Question: Is there any scientific evidence that conclusively proves that the earth is NOT in the center of the universe?
After all, we don't know the outer limits of the universe. Maybe the earth is dead center.

We are not even at the center of our own galaxy. But as for the universe, with it going off infinitely in all directions, there is no center. Further, even though this was a disturbing implication for the Church, I am not sure Galileo ever asserted that the Earth could not still be at the center of the universe.

The more important point, though, is that we know that the sun, moon and stars are not in orbit around the earth, which was taught as the literal and absolute reading of Scripture at the time of the controversy.

Now we know that some of the verses can be read to be based on the perspective of Man. From our viewpoint, the Sun does revolve around the earth. But this solution, which means that the scientific explanation AND Scripture can both be correct, was not what the Church wanted to hear at the time. They saw the heliocentric model as simply a refutation of Scripture with a LOT of dangerous implications. And, of course, they were dead wrong.

By going off infinitely in all directions do you mean 'always expanding'? If so, then it would still have a center at any given point in time. It seems to me that if we can't locate it's outer boundary then we can't conclude that the earth isn't always in it's center at every given point in time. I'm not claiming it is but I don't think anyone can conclude it isn't either.

Oh, sure, we might be at the center of the known universe (although that might be difficult since we are not at the center of our own galaxy), and someone more familiar with astronomy could answer that. But the real issue that was fought about was whether the universe rotated around the earth, rather than the earth rotating around the sun.

I wonder if that's possible; that the sun & the other planets might actually be revolving around the earth. You could maybe do that with a computer program. Fix the earth as stationary and then have the sun & planets maintain the same relative distances from the earth through time.

It would be like a tooth on a gear in a transmission. If you could somehow hold that tooth stationary, and keep the transmission running, then all the other gears, their teeth, and the whole transmission itself would be moving around that one tooth.

You might be able to create the model for curiosity sake, but we know that ain't how it works.

Although this site still thinks so:

http://www.geocities.com/armedconven...ocentrism.html

This site argues that even Creation Scientists have been duped into believing heliocentrism and that heliocentrism and evolution go hand in hand. He points out the Scriptural and theological arguments which the Church used long ago and cites some of the prominent Christian thinkers who maintained geocentrism was required by Scripture. We now see these guys as a bit "off" nowadays, but there was a time when everything he is saying was solid Christian teaching.

Actually I'm not convinced that there's any conclusive evidence that that's not how it works. In order to calculate the center of anything you have to be able to determine its boundaries. I don't think we know what the boundaries of the universe are.

Oh, as far as being in the center of the universe, that is possible I suppose, but not geocentrism. Not the idea that the sun physically revolves around the earth rather than the other way around.

As far as the center of the universe, if it is infinite in all directions, I guess you can pick any single position and say "this is the middle". I think that astronomers do, however, have a fairly good idea where the center of all the existing stars are at this point. But this has no theological significance anymore that I can see. If God chose to place Man on the outer rim of a galaxy that is way "off center" I can't see how that makes any difference. It did to the Church at one point, but now no one seems to think this impacts our Christianity in the least.