Chili

Yes, the truth shall set you free, one way or the other.

I don't have time to see th elink but maybe tonight.

aa5874

But there is something very odd here, you claim Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274CE) explained how astromers make their hypotheses of the shape of the earth, yet 200 years later Nicolas Copernicus 91473-1543) was trying to convince Pope Paul III in his book "On the Revoultions' that the earth was not flat but spherical.

If Thomas Aquinas had such great influence on the Medieval Church, 2 centuries before, there would have been no need for Copernicus to explain in the first three chapters of his book that the earth was indeed spherical. Copernicus would not have felt threatened by ridicule and censure of the Inquisition.

Copernicus would not need to go over all the varieties of fixed flat earth system, he would not need to go back over a 1000 years and try to refute the philosophy of Empedocles and Anaximenes and others, Thomas Aquinas must have already established that to the Inquisition, 200 years before.

It would have been a waste of time for Copernicus to try to convince the Pope that there are anti-podes, Thomas Aquinas must have established to the Papal authorities that there were anti-podes.

It appears to me that Thomas Aquinas' philosphy had very little or no influence on the Papal authorities and the Inquisition and their literal interpretation of scriptures.

It should be obvious that if the earth was already considered to be spherical 200 years before, then either Copernicus or the Papal authorities and the Inquisition were not aware, since Copernicus spent years, long after Thomas Aquinas, trying to discover what was already established and proven.

Excerpt from 'On the Revolutions' by Copernicus;
"For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declare the earth to be a globe."


Why would Copernicus, in the 15th century, write a book to the Papal authorities, fearing ridicule and censure, to refute Lactantius from the 4th century?

And if the Medieval Church happily embraced astronomy, then why in the world would they have condemned the Copernicus' writings and put Galileo under house arrest, especially since, as you say, Thomas Aquinas was highly influential in the Church, 200 years before?

Amaleq13

Anyone who has actually read even the preface of Copernicus' book knows this to be false. In fact, anyone who just bothers to read the entire paragraph from which aa5874 has extracted this fragment would realize that the claim that Copernicus was trying to convince the Pope that the earth was round is blatantly false.

"Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me."

It is quite clear that Copernicus makes reference to Lactantius not to refute the claim of a flat earth but to make a comparison between his foolish mocking of the truth and those who Copernicus expects to mock himself.

Anyone who has actually bothered to read what Copernicus wrote would know that his conclusions about the motion of the earth are connected to the spherical shape of the earth. Anyone who has obtained a formal education anywhere on the planet should be familiar with the valuable teaching approach of starting with a review of the basics before launching into new territory.

He didn't, as anyone who has actually bothered to read the book knows. He refers to Lactantius as an example of the sort of foolish objections Copernicus expects and explains how the spherical shape of the earth was established so as to make his case for the motion of the planet.

I have never in my tenure here at BC&H seen such a blatant and unrelenting example of willful ignorance and intellectual laziness. :banghead:

aa5874

These are excerpts from Copernicus out of his book 'On the Revolutions' expounding on the shape of the Earth and explaining to Pope Paul III, in the 16th century, the reason why some believe the earth is not completely spherical.

Book 1 chapter 1 is entitled "The Universe is spherical.
Book 1 chapter 2 is entitled "The Earth too is spherical
Book 1 chapter 3 is entitled "How the Earth forms a single sphere with water.

In these three chapters, Copernicus details and refute those who claim the earth is not entirely spherical, that is, he refutes those who believe the earth is spherical like a drum, a cylinder, bowl-shaped, hollow, cone-shaped, flat or any other shape not entirely spherical.

Book 1.2, "The earth too is spherical, since it presses upon its center from every direction. Yet it is not recognised as a perfect sphere on account of the great heights of the mountains and the depths of the valleys.

Book1.2."....Meanwhile moreover, the elevation of the poles have the same nature everywhere to the portions of the earth that have been traversed. This happens on no other figure but the sphere."


Book1.3 ..So little reason have we to marvel at the existence of anti-podes or antichthones. Indeed a geometrical reasoning about the location of America compel us to believe that it is diametrically opposite the Ganges district of India."

Book1.3"...There earth together with its surrounding waters must in fact have such a shape as it shadow reveals, for it eclipses the moon with a perfect circle. Therefore the Earth is not flat.........nor drum-shaped.....nor bowl-shaped....nor hollow in another way.....nor again cylindrical.....nor does its lower side extend infinitely downwards, the thickness diminishing toward the bottom....but is perfectly round as the phiolosophers hold."

Nicolas Copernicus refuted all the fixed non-spherical earth accepted up to the 16 th century. His book 'On the Revolutions' did deal with the shape of the Earth, and it was rejected by Papal authorities and the Inquisition as contrary to Scriptures.

Jehanne

Ask yourself this, "Why was Copernicus writing to Pope Paul III?" Why should he even care what the Pope thought? As his capacity as Pope, Paul III could have done a number of things, including, but not limited to the following:

1) Declare Lactantius to have been in error, and declare that his interpretation of Holy and Sacred Scripture was at odds with the faith of Holy Mother Catholic Church.

2) Declare Copernicus' views to be in perfect accordance with Holy Scripture.

3) Declare Copernicus to be a heretic.

4) Declare Lactantius to have been a heretic. (After all, another Church Council had already done this!)

5) Convene a Church Council to discuss the matter further or have it discussed at the Council of Trent, which was already in session at the time.

Instead, Pope Paul III does nothing. Why? My guess is that he regarded the shape of the earth as being theological opinion and probably did not care what the "science" said.

Amaleq13

Nobody denies he covers arguments which establish the spherical shape of the earth. What you refuse to accept (apparently, for no other reason than perverse stubborness since I refuse to believe you truly lack the intellectual ability) is that he is quite doing so only to set up his effort to argue for a moving earth.

The shape of the earth is relevant to his conclusions about the movement of the earth and the arguments that had already established a round earth are relevant to his argument attempting to establish the movement of the earth.

It was rejected because it denied the earth was at the unmoving center of the universe!!!

Amaleq13

I don't have to ask because I've read what he wrote. He was writing to argue for a moving earth.

Jehanne

Why write to the Pope?

Amaleq13

You can't read his opening paragraphs for the answer?

"I can readily imagine, Holy Father, that as soon as some people hear that in this volume, which I have written about the revolutions of the spheres of the universe, I ascribe certain motions to the terrestrial globe, they will shout that I must be immediately repudiated together with this belief...Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it...Astronomy is written for astronomers. To them my work too will seem, unless I am mistaken, to make some contribution also to the Church, at the head of which Your Holiness now stands."

Antipope Innocent II

See, this is why people who don't understand ancient and medieval texts (or, in this case, Early Modern texts) shouldn't try to interpret them for others. Especially when those others do understand them.

Copernicus is NOT "trying to convince Pope Paul III .... that the earth was not flat but spherical". In this period you argued your position starting from first principles. This meant you always defined and summarised the proofs of all the predicative elements of your argument (even if they were well-known and not in the least in any kind of dispute) to lay the foundations of the part of your argument that may be questioned by opponents. This was because it was considered sensible to lay out the context of the debate and establish what was agreed before going on to discuss what was under dispute.

That's what Copernicus is doing in that part of his work. He says that "we must note" (ie it's already understood) that the universe is spherical. Then he says that the Earth is spherical. Then he says that we must now "recall to mind" (ie it's already understood) that the motions of the planets are circular. Then he goes on to begin his argument about what these already accepted, predicative assumptions imply about the position and movement of the Earth.

All three of these predicative assumptions are supported by very brief summaries of arguments to support them, as was customary. But they are brief, as was also customary. Really brief; a mere 342 words in the case of the two small paragraphs on the shape of the Earth. Either Copernicus really thinks those 342 words are so hard-hitting that they completely overturn (your supposed) flat Earth idea in two paragraphys or you've got things wildly wrong and this is just the customary, brief, predicative summary of things already known and accepted before his launches into his actual argument.

It's pretty obvious to anyone with a good understanding of these things, of course, that it's the latter.

A that's why you can't find any statement by the Pope or anyone else about this flat Earth idea that you've been assuming (wrongly) for about ten pages now. That's why there's no mention of any flat Earth in the whole of the documentation of the Galileo case, despite your false attempts at pretending there is. That's why you can't produce any medieval writing on any kind of flat Earth theory. That's why you can't explain why every single medieval writer who mentioned or discussed the shape of the Earth said it was a sphere. That's why all those monks, bishops, abbots, theologians etc I detailed could happily talk about the spherical Earth without censure.

Why? Because your initial assumption that the Medieval Church believed in a flat Earth is and always has been wildly and hilariously WRONG.

How long is it going to take for this to sink into your skull?