Religious Zealotry vs Science Truth

Consider Galileo and the Papal Bans on promoting the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus

Religious Zealotry vs Science Truth

J.H. Walker

History teaches a lot of things, about the environment, about human nature, about religious zealotry and that it repeats it’s self over many generations. That usually happens when the state’s consensus political view of the world is challenged by science truth, which in turn promotes a massive shift in human understanding of our solar system and our minuscule position within it.

I refer to Galileo and the Papal Bans on promoting the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair ).

What’s is remarkable to me is the fact that the Sun’s energy output is being moderated by the separate gravitational masses of the solar system, and that even the Sun orbits the Solar System BarryCentre.


7 thoughts on “Religious Zealotry vs Science Truth”

  1. With all due respect, and although interesting, for all practical purposes, the gravitational impact of the planets upon the Sun which in turn causes some movement (never outside of the Sun’s Corona) of the Sun with respect to the Solar System’s Barycenter is virtually insignificant with respect to the impact that the Sun’s irradiation has upon Earth’s Climate…..
    …….. The Solar System Barycenter
    http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/solarsystem_barycenter.pdf

  2. First of all, wikipedia is often a source of fake information. I tried being an editor there, only to find that fact often takes a back seat to religious beliefs. I stopped editing in disgust.

    Everybody has a religion, in that all religions are beliefs concerning reality. Even atheism is religious in that it has presuppositions concerning reality. Some religions by their very nature are very friendly towards scientific research, other religions are by their very nature hostile to science.

    Modern science had its birth in the religious milieu of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th–18th centuries. The Protestant theology had all the factors needed to nourish scientific research. For example, if it weren’t for Lutherans working with Luther in Wittemberg, would Copernicus’ book have been published?

    What about modern secular religion, how friendly is that to science? Is part of the reason for the hoax of human caused global warming is that it fits into the beliefs of modern secularism, therefore it’s allowed to continue even though there’s no scientific evidence for it?

    One thing I notice is that the definition of science itself is being changed from what I was taught when I studied science at the university. Can science itself survive?

  3. In the old days when things went bad people thought the gods were mad at them.
    They’d sacrifice a goat or a virgin or two and be done with it.

    Now we have to sacrifice our entire way of life as penance.

    Guess we don’t have as many goats….or virgins as we used to.

  4. I think Galileo affair is not good example.

    Galileo was genius scientist… but arrogant and pretty rude guy. He teach heliocentrism as Pure Truth (TM) without SOLID scientific proof (it followed some decades later – and included Papal astronomers *).

    In his time both teories had equal scientific weight.

    And yes, Church was guilt – because general ban on heliocentrism is bad answer to arrogant manners of one genius scientist…

    That ban was rather short *, compared with that Luther’s henchmen did.

  5. Landsheidt was probably correct in that analysis of the solar modulation by the planets. The graphs fit, not like the fake graphs of the warming theory.

  6. The church commissioned the work of Nicolaus Copernicus in order to fix issues with the calendars they had in the day. They may not have gone out advertising this, but the church paid for this remarkable discovery.

    You would be surprised how much science advanced because of research sponsored by the church. It just doesn’t get publicized much, because it doesn’t fit the hate Christians narrative. I was in the Perot museum in Dallas a few years back where they listed Copernicus as an “astronomer” rather than a Catholic monk.

Comments are closed.