Summary Statements - 8 of X - Byl quote on problems with the heliocentric view & determining absolute motion
Extended quote from J. Byl “God and Cosmos” pgs. 29-31:
“Almost every book dealing with science and Christianity discusses the Roman Catholic Church's seventeenth-century condemnation of Italian scientist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). Galileo promoted the Copernican theory that the earth was moving about a fixed sun; the Roman Catholic Church held this to be contrary to the Bible, which spoke of a fixed earth. This resulted in much debate. Which was in absolute motion, the sun or the earth? Although politics, personality clashes, and Aristotelian physics all played major roles, the prime objection raised against the Copernican universe was that it clashed with the traditional reading of the Bible.
The principal difficulty was that none of the proofs presented in favour of the Copernican model was conclusive. The formidable Roman Catholic theologian, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, Consultor of the Holy Office and a leader in the 1616 trial of Galileo … had no difficulty in accepting the Copernican model as a useful hypothesis. But he objected to its elevation as a truth; to do that would require definite proofs, proofs that Galileo could not supply. Galileo did present a certain amount of evidence, consisting primarily of observations made with the recently invented telescope. This included such novelties as the satellites of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, craters on the Moon, and numerous stars. Nevertheless, while these were all consistent with the Copernican model, none provided direct evidence for it. All of these observations could still be accommodated within a geocentric model.
On 5 March 1616 the General Congregation of the Index ruled that the doctrine of the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun was 'false and altogether opposed to Scripture.' ….
Had the Roman Church erred in its condemnation of Galileo? The matter is not quite as clear-cut as most people would take it to be. Indeed, the question of absolute motion can hardly be answered on scientific grounds. Of course, it is clear that the earth and the stars are moving with respect to each other. But this could be explained in different ways. We could take the earth as moving with respect to the fixed stars. Or we could take the stars as moving with respect to the fixed earth. Or we could take both to be in motion with respect to some other fixed point. Observationally these are all equivalent since all we can ever observe is relative motion, not absolute motion. To make the claim that it is 'really' the earth, rather than the rest of the physical universe, that is moving is to go beyond the observational evidence. Moreover, upon deeper reflection, what can it possibly mean to say that, for example, the distant stars are at rest? At rest with respect to what? The implication is that there exists some other feature of the universe with respect to which the motion of the stars can be measured. This in turn raises the further question as to whether this new feature is 'at rest' and with respect to what. And so on.
To see whether the earth is 'really' moving we must step outside the physical universe on to a fixed resting point. This only God can do. Hence, ultimately, it is only God who can adequately answer the question of absolute motion.
In short, the question as to whether it is really the earth or the sun that moves cannot be answered through scientific investigation. There are no direct proofs of the earth's motion; there cannot be....
Questions to be answered:
What problems are there with Galileo’s proofs of heliocentricity?
What is absolution motion?
What was the prime objection against the Copernican view of universe?
How does one determine what is at rest and what is in motion?
Other questions ….
