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

[rodsky]

---

First off, I promised myself before, that I won't be participating in this section of iStorya in depth. However in light of this recent news article...

Copernicus's remains identified - Telegraph

Main St. USA: Copernicus' Remains Identified Through DNA

I began to ponder on the thought of how religious (esp. Christian) people might feel if say, hypothetically, Copernicus wasn't born.

Why is this question significant.

It is said that modern civilization owes its existence to the concept known as "Copernican Heliocentrism" Copernican heliocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which, like everyone already knows, the idea that the Sun (and not the Earth) is at the center of the Solar System.

This challenged the view of the Earth-centered universe, and thus, ideas long held by religious orders about the presence of heaven and hell and other spiritual places were also questioned. Face it--to the common man, someone proposing an idea that the sun is at the center of things, and that the earth goes around it must be totally absurd, considering the fact that when he looks up at the sky everyday, he sees with his own eyes, that the sun rises in the east and then sets in the west, and everything in the sky moves around the earth. This earth-centered system, perpetuated by Egyptian astronomer-geographer Claudius Ptolemy (100-170 AD), lasted to the 1500s C.E. The Catholic Church favored this earth-centered view because it left room for heaven and hell to exist.

So basically, when Copernicus published his work, nagkaproblema ang church, because how will they now explain to their congregations, their followers, where heaven or hell was, if the Earth was not in fact, the center of all things in the universe? And this led to other ideological miseries of the church, because how come Jupiter is larger than the earth, and it has more moons than the Earth, meaning there are more superior planets in terms of size and satellite number?

To make a long story short, the modern world as we know it, especially this (re)discovery by Copernicus (the ancient Greeks were first to develop this Sun-centered idea, but their ideas were lost) was changed by findings in astronomy--the hold of the church on its people became lesser, and thus this paved the way for civilizations and societies to adapt the scientific method (some in generous, but others in self-serving means) to pursue progress and development for their lives.

Now going back to the question--if you are a devout Christian, particularly a Catholic, would you be happier living in a world where Nicolaus Copernicus didn't exist, or wasn't born? Because you'd know the consquences to this--the church would stay in power--the idea of heaven and hell would be stronger and more influential among people--people would be more "virtuous" (as defined by Catholicism), there will be no "scientific method" and thus only what the Church says must be true...

...do you think you'll enjoy the world better then, if Copernicus didn't exist?

-RODION

[casablanca]

people today are more open-minded. even if copernicus didn't exist and heliocentrism never discovered, i think that the church would be finding it hard to influence us totally. we have free will, free thought, i don't think ideas of where heaven and hell are located are enough to keep us boxed in by the church. people will begin to question, eventually. there's bound to be a revolution of some sort.

[Alel]

people today are more open-minded.
...
people will begin to question, eventually. there's bound to be a revolution of some sort.

I do hope this would remain true in light of other discoveries. Sigh.

In the first place, Heliocentrism is no longer a very controversial issue for the typical modern Catholics that are products of childhood indoctrination nowadays, since this discovery was taught in elementary schools, hardly something that is going to be questioned in their later years. Its boud deeper into their consciousness together with religious views among other things.

A subconscious "defense mechanism" will activate when people starts to question the lessons and ideas that had been hammered in their minds during their early childhood, in the fear that everything that they established on these ideas: their self-being among other things - will shatter.

But since Heliocentrism is one of those 'childhood-lessons' together with religion, its no longer that controversial than it used to be.


Alel

[bcasabee]

The thesis contains generalizations that are unfounded. For instance, it is basically saying that if Copernicus didn't exist, there would be no science up to this year and the years to come. That's a very funny assumption.

But, if I would be ask if I will be better today if there is still no science today. The answer would be very simple by answering the question, "what makes an ancient person happy during their time, when the term science didn't even exist yet"? Well, during their time, they don't have internet yet, but they converge and socialize in person, they talked in real time and they laugh in real time. During their time, there is no PSP, PS3, XBOX yet, but their children where happy creating their own toys, they fly kites under the sun, using the clean unpolluted air. During their time, they don't have tv yet, so they converge around Lola to listen to her stories and they sleep early too in a very quiet and cool breezy night. And the list goes on and on and on........makes me even think that they were a lot better before than compared to the so called advance society today.

[jaegermeister08]

kinsa mang god nis copernicos nga mas malipay mangkong tipok nani siya? karon paman ko kadongog aning tawhana!

[rodsky]

The thesis contains generalizations that are unfounded. For instance, it is basically saying that if Copernicus didn't exist, there would be no science up to this year and the years to come. That's a very funny assumption.

But, if I would be ask if I will be better today if there is still no science today. The answer would be very simple by answering the question, "what makes an ancient person happy during their time, when the term science didn't even exist yet"? Well, during their time, they don't have internet yet, but they converge and socialize in person, they talked in real time and they laugh in real time. During their time, there is no PSP, PS3, XBOX yet, but their children where happy creating their own toys, they fly kites under the sun, using the clean unpolluted air. During their time, they don't have tv yet, so they converge around Lola to listen to her stories and they sleep early too in a very quiet and cool breezy night. And the list goes on and on and on........makes me even think that they were a lot better before than compared to the so called advance society today.

I'll tackle your second paragraph first. First off, I was asking members of the Christian and Catholic churches--in your paragraph you never mentioned anything about faith.

Now back to your first statement. It is a well-established fact that the wide acceptance of Copernican Heliocentrism after Copernicus' time paved the way for the emergence of new ideas in science and technology. Carl Sagan even uses the statement "the Heliocentric idea is directly responsible for modern civilization" in the Cosmos series. Basically it's like a tree with branches, in that the main trunk are Copernican/Galilean ideas, and the main branches include Kepler, Newton, et al, and the smaller branches correspond to other ideas that are now part of modern scientific thought. Now this tree wouldn't have grown the way it did, if you cut the trunk (i.e. Copernicus wasn't born). So funny it may be to you, my initial proposition is still sound when viewed in that manner. Do you see it now?

-RODION

[rodsky]

kinsa mang god nis copernicos nga mas malipay mangkong tipok nani siya? karon paman ko kadongog aning tawhana!

The elementary or high school you graduated from should seriously go through re-accreditation again.

-RODION

[rodsky]

people today are more open-minded. even if copernicus didn't exist and heliocentrism never discovered, i think that the church would be finding it hard to influence us totally. we have free will, free thought, i don't think ideas of where heaven and hell are located are enough to keep us boxed in by the church. people will begin to question, eventually. there's bound to be a revolution of some sort.

Great reply +1

Alel too +1

You never mentioned your faith though. I was more interested in hearing from people of faith from the Christian and Catholic beliefs.

-RODION

[bcasabee]

Bro rodsky, the way I understood it, the central question of your arguments is "would I as an individual would be better today if there was no science today", is it? Now, the 2nd paragraph of my post only answered that question. Faith, for all I know is very irrelevant to the question. I would be happier if you can rephrase your question which will consolidate faith, science and the happiness of the people.Thanks.

My first paragraph was just a reaction to what I thought as your "pasakalye introductory paragraphs". I know you are a science fan, why don't you consider the idea of a parallel universe, wherein in another universe, Copernicus wasn't born, yet science still existed on that universe. Is that a valid argument? If that is a valid argument, then your introductory paragraph indeed is just a bias generalization of the many possible scenarios that might came about if Copernicus wasn't born on a particular parallel universe.

[rodsky]

Bro rodsky, the way I understood it, the central question of your arguments is "would I as an individual would be better today if there was no science today", is it? Now, the 2nd paragraph of my post only answered that question. Faith, for all I know is very irrelevant to the question. I would be happier if you can rephrase your question which will consolidate faith, science and the happiness of the people.Thanks.

My first paragraph was just a reaction to what I thought as your "pasakalye introductory paragraphs". I know you are a science fan, why don't you consider the idea of a parallel universe, wherein in another universe, Copernicus wasn't born, yet science still existed on that universe. Is that a valid argument? If that is a valid argument, then your introductory paragraph indeed is just a bias generalization of the many possible scenarios that might came about if Copernicus wasn't born on a particular parallel universe.

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