Would you be a happier Christian if Copernicus didn't live?

[homeryap]

---

even if copernicus didn't live to make such a discovery, someone, from the list of all brilliant minds that lived, would eventually make such a huge finding. the lesson is, claims based on things other than hard facts are bound to be shattered.

[The_Child]

how could one answer a hypothetical scenario like that? i mean, if we follow the hypothetical situation, then it really wouldnt matter now would it. If Copernicus didnt live in the past, then in the future, in the situation where we are now, how would we possibly judge something that is not there. diba?

[tokidoki_v2.0]

umm.... wasn't it einstin who said that the center of the universe is relative? So from your point of view you are the center of the universe.

And modern science has proven that the size of the planet is irrelevant. there is an "ideal" design for a planet to have life. The thought that planet size causes insecurity for humanity is nothing more than a hormone charged sausage-waving dilemma. Would it be better if women ran the world? hehehe...

sigh, what is it with Christianity/Catholicism that man always has to be superior in everything?

[bcasabee]

Bro Rodsky, by stating "the way i understood it", I was just trying to be honest about my understanding, so that I can make sure, that we have the same understanding of the situation, and so that you can correct me if my understanding is not what you intended to be. And again, maybe there is really a flaw in the question itself? Don't you want to consider revisiting it? Consider your paragraph about the Catholic Church, "if no copernicus, church will stay in power and if church is powerful, there will be no scientific method because whatever the church say, it will be it", where's the logic in that? Isn't it worth questioning?
Bro Rodsky, the reason why I didn't include faith into my answers, because honestly, I cannot really find any relevance in it. Even Casa and Alel (you confiirmed it yourself with a grade of plus 1) answered with faith erased from the picture.
I even ask nicely to rephrased your question which will reconcile, faith, science and betterment of the people. But I was surprised by your reply. How can I answer your question if you yourself cannot reconcile the three.
If you wouldn't mind, can you answer your question first at the point of view of your own faith or the lack of it. That way, I can have, and other people here, some baseline on how to go about answering your question. Thanks bro.

Why do you talk as if I have some sort of "hidden agenda"? I merely wanted an answer to my question using its face value, and not some below-the-surface intent of undermining anyone's faith. By stating "...the way I understood it..." you are already alluding to some other hidden meaning behind my question, when in fact I simply wanted an answer to the question. Casablanca and Alel seem to have no trouble at all in answering it--I don't understand why you have to show that the question and the underlying premises for the question are flawed, if others have no difficulty in answering it based on the question's face value.

Now if you don't have anything to contribute (i.e. answering the question directly instead of attacking whatever you think are my question's flaws), why do you wish to show that the fundamental elements of my question were flawed? Is it an attempt to show that my question is thus meaningless/worthless and therefore people should stop contributing ideas to my thread?

I'm seriously beginning to think starting the thread was a big mistake--my initial apprehensions were correct and that the very reason why I stopped posting in this section of iStorya has surfaced once again.

-RODION

[akosabni]

i think you should keep your promise ... won't be participating in this section of iStorya in depth

anyway, if i'm a devout Christian, particularly a Catholic, i would you be happier living in a world where Nicolaus Copernicus didn't exist, or wasn't born, if the pope say so. If its faith your looking for, then the only thing that matters is, what vatican thinks.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

i think it wouldn't matter if Copernicus didn't live at all or not, because other scientists/astronomers are bound to make that same discovery.

as for his remains, that's a great discovery from a historical point of view.

[NASYO]

daghan cyag formula nahatag sa math world
kay wala to cya patya, mas lisod pa ang math ron

[tokidoki_v2.0]

"What vatican thinks?" That's not faith, bro, that's BULLYING and brainwashing.

[rodsky]

True, I guess regardless of Copernicus existed or not, perhaps other thinkers would eventually figure out the current accepted model of the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe as a whole.

But I guess I was envisioning the following scenario in my head, when I started the thread (in effect it's as if I'm answering my own question here). My scenario goes like this--suppose Copernicus wasn't born, and (let's further) suppose, no one else was intelligent enough to figure out the current model of the universe until the 1900's. Basically, I'm saying this from an idea put forth by Newton himself, that there has been a "domino" effect of knowledge, esp. in the physical sciences, since the time of Copernicus, and that the great scientists after him, were basically just "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants" to see further. And thus, if the first domino (Copernicus) wasn't toppled, then there would be no giant shoulder for people such as Kepler, Newton, etc...I know this may sound absurd, but let's just take it hypothetically. This would mean that the Ptolemaic model is still superior, and thus, the Roman Catholic church, and any faith that believes in the actual existence of heaven, hell and whatever ethereal places you have, would still have a more powerful hold on the faithful, because knowledge is somewhat limited to what the church declares to be truth.

I began to think about Christians, and those who are vigorous in campaigning or converting non-believers into Christianity, or any form of religion that has belief in "afterlife" for that matter, if it will be an easier job for them to be doing so, considering that there is now an absence of a strong belief in the methods of astronomy and science, primarily because the church still controls a large part of what is believed to be truth by the majority and the church hierarchy. I also began thinking about persecution--we all know what happened to Galileo (placed under permanent house arrest by the church for his scientific methods and insights)...would it be a likely scenario that proponents of scientific thought would be "hunted" and be "wanted" by the church and law?

These were just my musings. Apologies for everyone if this led to some kind of standoff. I merely wished to have a discussion based on the scenarios I outlined in more detail above. Thanks to all--a good night's rest made me think more clearly about the matter. If other people do still believe that my scenarios above isn't worth discussing then I utterly surrender to your most esteemed and sharp wits.

-RODION

[casablanca]

True, I guess regardless of Copernicus existed or not, perhaps other thinkers would eventually figure out the current accepted model of the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe as a whole.

But I guess I was envisioning the following scenario in my head, when I started the thread (in effect it's as if I'm answering my own question here). My scenario goes like this--suppose Copernicus wasn't born, and (let's further) suppose, no one else was intelligent enough to figure out the current model of the universe until the 1900's. Basically, I'm saying this from an idea put forth by Newton himself, that there has been a "domino" effect of knowledge, esp. in the physical sciences, since the time of Copernicus, and that the great scientists after him, were basically just "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants" to see further. And thus, if the first domino (Copernicus) wasn't toppled, then there would be no giant shoulder for people such as Kepler, Newton, etc...I know this may sound absurd, but let's just take it hypothetically. This would mean that the Ptolemaic model is still superior, and thus, the Roman Catholic church, and any faith that believes in the actual existence of heaven, hell and whatever ethereal places you have, would still have a more powerful hold on the faithful, because knowledge is somewhat limited to what the church declares to be truth.

I began to think about Christians, and those who are vigorous in campaigning or converting non-believers into Christianity, or any form of religion that has belief in "afterlife" for that matter, if it will be an easier job for them to be doing so, considering that there is now an absence of a strong belief in the methods of astronomy and science, primarily because the church still controls a large part of what is believed to be truth by the majority and the church hierarchy. I also began thinking about persecution--we all know what happened to Galileo (placed under permanent house arrest by the church for his scientific methods and insights)...would it be a likely scenario that proponents of scientific thought would be "hunted" and be "wanted" by the church and law?

These were just my musings. Apologies for everyone if this led to some kind of standoff. I merely wished to have a discussion based on the scenarios I outlined in more detail above. Thanks to all--a good night's rest made me think more clearly about the matter. If other people do still believe that my scenarios above isn't worth discussing then I utterly surrender to your most esteemed and sharp wits.

-RODION

i still stick to my original statement, that people are bound to question the church sooner or later, even in the absence of contrary scientific beliefs. i am a catholic, and i do believe in the existence of heaven and hell, but that doesn't make me a fanatic of the church. my faith is not necessarily dependent on vatican statements or church dogma. i think your hypothesis may only be applicable to the religious fanatics, IMHO.