Geocentrism and doctrine

[shernren]

I have two very simple questions.

1. Why is it that, if geocentrism is not a doctrinal matter, it is treated as one by ancient and modern geocentrists alike?

The Catholic decision on geocentrism in 1616 was this: that the proposition that the sun is immobile in the firmament was "formally heretical", and that the proposition that the earth moved in the firmament was at least "erroneous in faith". (Or possibly the other way around.) Both terms in quotes are technical terms used by those convened to deliver theological judgments about theological matters.

Nothing has changed almost 400 years later. The Association of Biblical Astronomy's statement of faith states that:

"The Biblical Astronomer was originally founded in 1971 as the Tychonian Society, on the premise that the only absolutely trustworthy information about the origin and purpose of all that exists and happens is given by God, our Creator and Redeemer, in his infallible, preserved word, the Holy Bible. All scientific endeavor which does not accept this revelation from on high without any reservations, literary, philosophical or whatever, we reject as already condemned in its unfounded first assumptions.

... the reason why we deem a return to a geocentric astronomy a first apologetic necessity is that its rejection at the beginning of our Modern Age constitutes one very important, if not the most important, cause of the historical development of Bible criticism, now resulting in an increasingly anti-Christian world in which atheistic existentialism is preaching a life that is really meaningless."

The logical next question is:

2. Is it not possible that similarly, the creationists treat creationism (not creation) as a doctrinal matter, even though it is not one?

 

[laptoppop]

1. Because they are/were mistaken. (Further answer below)
2. No

It is often claimed by certain TEs that to be consistent, a person who accepted that the Bible clearly teaches a literal 6 day creation should also be a flat earth geocentric proponent. Typically this happens because the person does not understand the distinction between conservative Biblical scholarship and non-discriminating literalism. Proper Biblical scholarship recognizes and allows for word pictures, metaphors, etc. etc. Yes, one must excerise discretion and judgement in looking at the Bible -- so??

If you want a deeper answer:

Geocentrism
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geocentrism.asp
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1815

Flat earth
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
http://tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html

So please - lets drop these false strawmen arguments and discuss real issues.

 

[Mallon]

Typically this happens because the person does not understand the distinction between conservative Biblical scholarship and non-discriminating literalism.

I agree. And I'm an evolutionary creationist. The arguments YECs level against flat-earthers are the same arguments evolutionary creationists level against YECs.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

1. Because they are/were mistaken. (Further answer below)
2. No

It is often claimed by certain TEs that to be consistent, a person who accepted that the Bible clearly teaches a literal 6 day creation should also be a flat earth geocentric proponent. Typically this happens because the person does not understand the distinction between conservative Biblical scholarship and non-discriminating literalism. Proper Biblical scholarship recognizes and allows for word pictures, metaphors, etc. etc. Yes, one must excerise discretion and judgement in looking at the Bible -- so??

If you want a deeper answer:

Geocentrism
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geocentrism.asp
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1815

Flat earth
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
http://tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html

So please - lets drop these false strawmen arguments and discuss real issues.

Yeah, but the Genesis account itself, the same literal passage interpreted as being a six-day account by 'conservative biblical scholarship,' paints a picture of a flat insular earth seated on water.

 

[plainswolf]

On a side note, here is a website concerning pro-geocentrism titled: Galileo was Wrong with sections of many chapters available online. (I know diddly about this stuff).




+

 

[laptoppop]

Yeah, but the Genesis account itself, the same literal passage interpreted as being a six-day account by 'conservative biblical scholarship,' paints a picture of a flat insular earth seated on water.

I disagree -- but it is also important to note that an accurate historical account can still use word pictures in its description.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I disagree -- but it is also important to note that an accurate historical account can still use word pictures in its description.

Yeah, like the entire Genesis 1 account.

 

[shernren]

It is often claimed by certain TEs that to be consistent, a person who accepted that the Bible clearly teaches a literal 6 day creation should also be a flat earth geocentric proponent. Typically this happens because the person does not understand the distinction between conservative Biblical scholarship and non-discriminating literalism. Proper Biblical scholarship recognizes and allows for word pictures, metaphors, etc. etc. Yes, one must excerise discretion and judgement in looking at the Bible -- so??

Well, you brought flat earth into this thread. I did not mention flat earth in the OP and I had no intention to discuss it whatsoever. It is clear that Cosmas was holding quite a minority interpretation when he said that the Bible said the earth was flat.

You also brought in the idea that Biblical literalism was what I was getting at. Again, that's a bit off the mark. I acknowledge that "conservative Biblical scholarship" (i.e. reading what you like about the Bible and ignoring what you don't like about it) isn't about literalism. (Although plenty of creationists here do subscribe to complete literalism - shouldn't you go have a word with them once in a while?) Having said that, it is about what they conceive to be a matter of doctrinal importance. What makes YECs think YECism is a matter of doctrinal importance? If it was the same thing that made geocentrists think geocentrism was a matter of doctrinal importance, then the YECs should be wary. But nowhere did I state (though I did imply) that they must necessarily be the same.

Methinks thou dost protesteth too much.

If you want a deeper answer:...
Flat earth
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
http://tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html

Like I said, flat earth's not on the plate. It's possible to interpret Bible passages to read that the earth was flat, and the people of the ANE did indeed believe to some extent that the earth was flat, but it simply wasn't a major belief in the belief systems of the organized church. Geocentrism, however, was.

Geocentrism
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geocentrism.asp
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1815

The last one is entirely a scientific critique of a shoddy geocentrist book. No theology there.

Do you notice that your first two actually contradict each other at points? Danny Faulkner says:

Bouw does correctly point out that Galileo’s argument about the phases of Venus does not distinguish between the heliocentric and Tychonian models, but this needlessly clouds the issue since the Tychonian model was not even being discussed at the time. The truth of the matter is that the Tychonian model was a far less significant contender than either the heliocentric or the Ptolemaic theories than modern geocentrists would have us believe. The reason is that the Tychonian model was a sort of halfway house for geocentrists. Geocentrists could hold on to a stationary Earth while discarding virtually everything else that was in the Ptolemaic model. Like so many other compromises, the Tychonian model failed to satisfy many on either side. Nevertheless, Bouw does a clever slight of hand trick. He insists that heliocentrists of four centuries ago did not offer real proofs and further claims that they improperly attempted to shift the burden of proof to the status quo. That is, in the absence of a real challenge to the status quo, the status quo should prevail. Bouw claims that that status quo was geocentrism, so his favoured geocentric model, the Tychonian system, should prevail. This is preposterous. The Tychonian system was not the status quo then; the Ptolemaic model was.

But Thomas Schirrmacher says in Thesis 9:

In Galileo’s time, science did not have to decide between Ptolemy and Copernicus. Ptolemy’s view that all planets and the sun orbited the earth, was no longer a real option. Rather it is important, ‘that the choice now lay between Copernicus and Brahe,’ because everybody believed that other planets orbited the sun. The question was, whether or not the earth was moving itself or was staying in the centre of the universe. ‘Nearly no expert believed in Ptolemaic astronomy any longer. The conflict was between Tycho Brahe and Copernicus.’
Tycho Brahe, predecessor of Kepler as German Imperial Court astronomer, held to the central position of the earth, while at the same time integrating the observation of the other planets moving around the sun.

‘The arguments and observations which Galileo referred to, were acknowledged, but they denied only the Ptolemaic system, but did not favor in the same way the Copernican system. They were compatible with the Tychonian system, which had the advantage that the central position of the earth was maintained.’
​

Galileo never took a position on this issue nor presented arguments against Tycho Brahe with the exception of his polemical and totally distorted description of Brahe’s system in his work against Horatio Grassi.

So what is it now? Were the geocentrists of the time Ptolemaic? Or Tychonian? This is important. The Tychonian system abandoned the Aristotelian notions of incorruptible heavens with crystal spheres. The old creationist canard is that geocentrism wasn't Biblical, it was Aristotelian. You see Faulkner trying to hold that out. Yet at the same time you see Schirrmacher saying that the strongest contemporary geocentric theory wasn't even Aristotelian - so if not Aristotle, what influenced them to hold to it? (The truth is that both camps were quite strong at the time - while the scientific establishment was largely Ptolemaic, there were a few outspoken Tychonists, notably Cardinal Bellarmine who held a similar model in which the heavens were fluid.)

This example alone demonstrates that creationists aren't really out to understand the geocentrists; they're out to distance themselves as much as possible. Why the fear? The geocentrists are an interesting and complex bunch. They aren't the Aristotle-enslaved crones that creationists often paint them to be. They were heavily influenced by Biblical literalism, which was itself an interesting product of the times of the Counter-Reformation.

So, does anybody here actually want to discuss why the geocentrists felt that geocentrism was doctrinally important? Or are the creationists instinctively running for cover?

(As shown above, read creationists - and rabid anti-creationists! - on Galileo with a very large pinch of salt. For balanced treatments try "Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible" by Richard J. Blackwell, and "Between Copernicus and Galileo: Christoph Clavius and the Collapse of Ptolemaic Cosmology" by James M. Lattis.)

 

[laptoppop]

I acknowledge that "conservative Biblical scholarship" (i.e. reading what you like about the Bible and ignoring what you don't like about it) isn't about literalism.

Was it really necessary to take this bigoted cheap shot? That is NOT conservative scholarship.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm not sure what shernren was getting at, laptoppop, but isn't that exactly cheap shot that is routinely taken at TEs and liberals (note that these are not the same)?

Perhaps that is what shernren was getting at.

 

[laptoppop]

Not by me. I may differ in interpretation, but I don't accuse people of intellectual dishonesty. Yes, I do believe I'm "right" -- but as I have said before, if I'm wrong, the first round of sasparilla in heaven is on me.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Not by me. I may differ in interpretation, but I don't accuse people of intellectual dishonesty. Yes, I do believe I'm "right" -- but as I have said before, if I'm wrong, the first round of sasparilla in heaven is on me.

Oddly enough, my friends and I from college, who are largely theistic evolutionists, all try and, once a day, say "Well we're not scientists, and we're not God. Maybe the creationists are right...."

And of course then we utterly dismiss the thought. But it's a good exercise to go through just to remember our views aren't infallible.

All that being a long way of saying, if ya'll are right when I get to heaven.... well I'm going to bug God about it first, but then you can feel free to come over to the Lutheran area and the first round of pilsner's on me.

 

[busterdog]

Oddly enough, my friends and I from college, who are largely theistic evolutionists, all try and, once a day, say "Well we're not scientists, and we're not God. Maybe the creationists are right...."

And of course then we utterly dismiss the thought. But it's a good exercise to go through just to remember our views aren't infallible.

All that being a long way of saying, if ya'll are right when I get to heaven.... well I'm going to bug God about it first, but then you can feel free to come over to the Lutheran area and the first round of pilsner's on me.

"In heaven there is no beer (no beer),
That's why we drink it here...
And when we are gone from here,
Our friends will be drinking all our beer..."

 

[Tinker Grey]

Not by me. I may differ in interpretation, but I don't accuse people of intellectual dishonesty. Yes, I do believe I'm "right" -- but as I have said before, if I'm wrong, the first round of sasparilla in heaven is on me.

Oh, I wasn't saying you. But, you understand what I am saying. Whole threads are started on the subject that if one accepts evolution they must pick and choose all scripture. As you've seen from the conversatoins, it just ain't fair.

Again I don't know what shernren was going for, but I'd bet it was throw away dig at those who make digs at TEs (and maybe liberals).

 

[shernren]

Was it really necessary to take this bigoted cheap shot? That is NOT conservative scholarship.

No, it wasn't. If I explain what I meant will you address the rest of my content?

I acknowledge that "conservative Biblical scholarship" (i.e. reading what you like about the Bible and ignoring what you don't like about it) isn't about literalism.

It's quite simple really. Conservative scholarship means that you take in anything that doesn't disagree with your accepted view of the Bible. But not anything that seems remotely disturbing or scary - things like the documentary hypothesis, or multiple authorship of Isaiah, or even evolution. It's also quite strange, really. Imagine believing that the Torah would be any less inspired if it was written up by a committee over a few centuries instead of by Moses in a few years. Or that if Isaiah was written by three people instead of one it would no longer mean anything to our Christian walk. The irony is that then conservatives go on to far-out theories about Biblical authorship which often don't have any evidence for them, chiefly things like the "tablet hypothesis".

Now, will you please address my content, where you'll note that I agreed with you that flat earth is a strawman and left open the question of whether YECs should be obligatory geocentrists? You might start by trying, with me, to figure out why AiG is contradicting itself on the matter of Galileo's contemporaries, and figuring out what the real situation actually was. I'm only trying to get at why geocentrists considered geocentrism a doctrinal issue. If you feel threatened by that, then - well, it's not my fault that you believe what you believe.

 

[laptoppop]

No, it wasn't. If I explain what I meant will you address the rest of my content?

It's quite simple really. Conservative scholarship means that you take in anything that doesn't disagree with your accepted view of the Bible. But not anything that seems remotely disturbing or scary - things like the documentary hypothesis, or multiple authorship of Isaiah, or even evolution. It's also quite strange, really. Imagine believing that the Torah would be any less inspired if it was written up by a committee over a few centuries instead of by Moses in a few years. Or that if Isaiah was written by three people instead of one it would no longer mean anything to our Christian walk. The irony is that then conservatives go on to far-out theories about Biblical authorship which often don't have any evidence for them, chiefly things like the "tablet hypothesis".

No, that is NOT what conservative scholarship means. Since you persist in your insulting description, I see no reason to continue to dialog. To describe conservative scholarship as making decisions based on prior doctrine is to call it intellectually dishonest.

I could throw insults at liberal interpretations - but I'd rather debate on merit. I do believe there are dangers and problems with liberal interpretations -- but I also believe that, especially the folks around here, that liberal scholars are sincere and not deliberately discounting things they find inconvenient.

By the way, if YOU are honest, you will admit that there is no "evidence" for the documentary hypothesis. Nothing resembling the imagined source documents have EVER been found. It remains based solely on the textual interpretation and vocabulary analysis. When articles by people supporting the documentary hypothesis have been analyzed using the same methodology ,they too were found to have multiple authors. The system has never been proven, it is inferred -- in direct contradiction to things like Jesus referring to Moses as the author.

 

[Deamiter]

When articles by people supporting the documentary hypothesis have been analyzed using the same methodology ,they too were found to have multiple authors. The system has never been proven, it is inferred -- in direct contradiction to things like Jesus referring to Moses as the author.

I've often heard people claim this -- was the analysis performed by experts in the field of literary analysis? Did anybody educated and established in even a related field agree with the analysis of the article or was it performed by a critic who set out to find evidence of multiple authorship by selectively and poorly applying the methodology?

 

[gluadys]

I've often heard people claim this -- was the analysis performed by experts in the field of literary analysis? Did anybody educated and established in even a related field agree with the analysis of the article or was it performed by a critic who set out to find evidence of multiple authorship by selectively and poorly applying the methodology?

I was about to ask the same thing. Can we have a reference to the relevant studies?

 

[shernren]

Since you persist in your insulting description, I see no reason to continue to dialog. To describe conservative scholarship as making decisions based on prior doctrine is to call it intellectually dishonest.

And this:

... in direct contradiction to things like Jesus referring to Moses as the author.

isn't "prior doctrine"?

Cute.

May I remind you that I started this thread as an invitation to whosoever desired to discuss why geocentrists considered geocentrism to be a doctrinal issue. I only made one reference to YECism in the OP, and my question went nowhere near stating outright that YECs were fundamentally mistaken - merely that they might be making creationism a doctrinal point where it wasn't one, which is frankly a danger for any belief any Christian ever holds dear. Note furthermore that a flat earth was never raised in the OP, nor was YECism criticized outright, nor was anyone named by name, nor was any scientific evidence brought forth. By any standard I tried my best to be hospitable in that at least. I was willing to be swayed; I can even already argue some of your points for you instead of against you.

And then you came in complaining about "false TE strawman memes", bringing flat earth into a thread which I had never intended to bring flat earth into, assuming that I (who else could "certain TEs" refer to in a thread where nobody else had posted yet?) was not going to recognize the difference between your views and literalism, and brusquely dumping two links about flat earth (which was never going to be on the table) and three links about geocentrism (one of which was not about doctrine and the remaining two of which contradicted each other).

In my reply I made an offhand comment about conservative scholarship having preconceived conclusions. Not a word about the Bible! Just about some people who study it whose views you seem to be extraordinarily fond of. And you did not understand fully why I had said it (which itself seems suspicious, given that I had said so many better things which we could have talked about), so I explained myself.

And you think I'm insulting and academically dishonest?

What I will say is that the authorship of the books of the Bible has never been a big issue to me. (And it should be even less of an issue for those who believe in verbal plenary inspiration - if all the words came straight from God, does it matter when they did and who they came through? Does it matter if I type a letter on an Apple II or on Microsoft Office 2007?) But from what little I know of biblical scholarship, conservative or otherwise, I see no reason to change my stance on what I said - although I am always willing to be persuaded by evidence, clear reasoning, and a night out in a dingy Chinese takeaway with the best short soup in Australia.

But that was not the point of the thread. I had an idea, and I wanted to talk about it. If my offhand comment made you uncomfortable, I apologize. I know how nervous creationists can feel to participate in a thread started by a TE (and on the topic of geocentrism of all things). You feel like a guy walking into a unisex loo for the first time: where are the urinals? and what are those bins? There's a jittery feeling in interacting with foreign systems of thought that you just can't shake.

But I'm trying to be a hospitable host here, not a duelist. So sit. Have some tea, or coffee, or plain water. Take a deep breath. Relax.

We're only here to talk.

 

[shernren]

On the other hand, it just gets tiring sometimes to have to fight over and over. For example -- in a recent thread one person described conservative Biblical scholarship as folks deliberately ignoring what they didn't agree with. Sheesh!! Even when I pointed out that was accusing all conservative exegesis as intellectually dishonest, he persisted. There comes a point where you are just hitting your head on a brick wall when they refuse to even discuss something without being insulting and bigoted.

Let me lay out the facts again.

You barged in here all but accusing me of saying that all creationists should be flat-earth geocentrists.

I make exactly one quirky little comment about conservative scholarship, which you hammered on at the expense of the rest of my post.

Who's the unreasonable one here?

I don't get why creationists find this so hard. After all, since geocentrism obviously isn't a doctrinal issue for them, surely they must have thought clearly about why the Catholic church of Galileo's day thought it was a doctrinal matter and why they were so very wrong. They've had centuries to fix it; surely the patch should be done by now. Instead we have writers from no less than AiG itself tripping over each others' feet trying to set things right, never once engaging the most important historical facts surrounding the case.

If they don't want to talk about it, they could just say so, minus the theatrics and the martyrdom complexes.