Sunday, November 16, 2008

Ptolemaic system vs. Copernicus, Galileo, and Kelper

The Ptolemaic system was first thought up in the 2nd century a.d. by the Greek scientist Ptolemy. His theory was that earth was the center if the system and that everything else orbited around earth in sphere of incresing perfection. After the last ring was Heaven, the most perfect, and Christians accepted this because it gave a good explanation of Heaven. Then in the 16th and 17th centuries a few scientists question this theory, mainly Copernicus. The Copernican theory said that the sun was the center of the universe and that the earth and the other celestial bodies moved around it. There was no realm for heaven, and basically it was right because it was preved by math to be more accurate than the Ptolemaic system. Kelper and Galileo expanded on the principle math and refined the theory. Now that it was proven that the Ptolemaic system was wrong, and there was no longer a physical place for heaven, the church and christians all over Europe were confused and had no idea what to believe. Several rejected the theory, and the church made Galileo recant his theories and beliefs of the new Copernican system. Christians were frightened of this new belief about the universe, and the French scientist Pascal himself a devout Christian was deeply troubled by this knowlege. If God and heaven could no longer be explained by the exestence of the realm beyond which man could somewhat see, then how did they know he even existed at all? While almost all scientists of the time were Christian and kept their faith in God, they felt they had to explain their world through science and math. Unfortunately theology was forced to change dramatically along with the ground breaking advances in science.

6 comments:

Sarah Hayes said...

Well said Lena. I think the Copernican theory made Heaven more abstract than it already was.

The Captain said...

What was the Church's response to all the scientists' discoveries, I wonder. I mean, if Heaven is proved to not be in the outer realms of our galaxy then where is it? I agree with you Sarah, I think it just made the theory of heaven more abstract and confusing. I can imagine why all the Christians became so upset at all these scientific discoveries.

simon said...

No offense to the christians but i really dont get why people believe in heaven and hell... I'm not saying you cant believe it but why? It's so obvious... There's no heaven...

simon said...

No offense to the christians but i really dont get why people believe in heaven and hell... I'm not saying you cant believe it but why? It's so obvious... There's no heaven...

Temisa said...

Heaven can exist, even if our eyes cant see it or we cant detect it with technology. it can be out there. People just need to have faith that it is real just like we have faith that everything we claim is "fact" (like science or astronomy)is true. In the end can we ever be sure of anything. Everything we choose to "know" is just belief

wizzolf schaferhund said...

hello Temisa -
the difference between the religion-forged ideas of heaven and hell and their possibility of existence versus the things that come to be known as 'facts' in the scientific world is that religion claims its verities via revelation through holy scriptures and portents and through subjective means to a conscripted end, whereas science attempts through observation and experimentation and hypothesizing and testing, always with the desire to prove the theory wrong, and always scrutinized by peers, to explain the natural (as opposed to supernatural) mysteries of our universe. the religionist says, "oh well, this mystery is presently inexplicable, i throw my luck unto god (or gods)," and the scientist says, "let us seek for a better explanation and not jump to conclusions." this would seem to pigeonhole religious belief into an ever-receding pocket of ignorance, nay? what say you?