Copernicus Reburied As Hero 369
CasualFriday writes "Mikolaj Kopernik, a.k.a. Nicolaus Copernicus, the 16th-century astronomer whose findings were condemned by the Roman Catholic Church as heretical, was reburied by Polish priests as a hero on Saturday, nearly 500 years after he was laid to rest in an unmarked grave. On Saturday, his remains were blessed with holy water by some of Poland's highest-ranking clerics before an honor guard ceremoniously carried his coffin through the imposing red brick cathedral and lowered it back into the same spot where part of his skull and other bones were found in 2005."
I've seen this before... (Score:5, Funny)
Jacek Jezierski, a local bishop who encouraged the search for Copernicus, said that he considers Copernicus' burial as part of the church's broader embrace of science as being compatible with Biblical belief.
In the end it's just one big format war...
Re:I've seen this before... (Score:5, Insightful)
But not vice versa.
Re:I've seen this before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've seen this before... (Score:5, Insightful)
For sufficiently vacuous definitions of religion, and definitions of science that bend over backwards to be purely descriptive, the two are compatible. However, as an empirical matter, incompatibilities are frequently observed.
Put it into perspective though (Score:4, Informative)
1. You have to put it into perspective though. All of the verses that posited an immovable Earth at the centre of everything are Old Testament, and by all accepted chronologies most were already 2000 years old or more at the time Copernicus got his ideas. (Though Earth being flat does get a nod in Matthew 4:8, which is late 1'st century AD. So even that would be very nearly 1500 years old in the time of Copernicus.)
I'd say that's pretty good covering their asses if it took that long before it was even possible to call them on it.
Stuff that was easier testable, well, they seem to have usually written the prophecy after the event.
2. Well, at least the Catholics seem to have given up on the throwing a fit part since the counter-reformation or so. Now it's just a mystery, or the Lord is using metaphoric language, or those who wrote it down didn't get it quite right. So when Genesis says there were trees with seed (at the earliest that would be the late carboniferous era, and even that's stretching it) before there was a sun created at all, well, the Lord was _actually_ saying there must have been some single-celled algae before the cloud cover first broke and the sun was visible.
I'm not kidding. If you listen to some of them, some verses in Genesis even describe the Theia impact. Of course, you wouldn't recognize it without being told where and how to mis-read it.
It's a more perverse setup, where falsifying it is akin to nailing jello to the wall. No matter what's written there, and how you think you finally have proof that all possible interpretations are plain old wrong, there comes the "but we're not literalists" blanket excuse and that's the end of it. If it says "black" there and you've measured it as white, well,the Lord of course meant "white" and was just metaphoric about it. So, natch, you haven't falsified it.
Of course, I also never got a good answer to "so what good is a book which really doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know? Because apparently to find X in it, you already have to know about X so you can read something as meaning X."
Re:I've seen this before... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it's the "immaculate conscriptions, resurrections, and trans-substantiations that weaken was is basically a decent and pragmatic way to live.
"Be humble. Love one another. Help people who need help. Treat others like you would like to be treated."
That's all a really great approach to walking the Earth. It's actually pretty profound when you think about the effect that such an approach to life would have on society.
But when you add all the silly stuff with the rising up to heaven and bread-to-flesh and burning for eternity that all the importance of that excellent framework gets lost and the whole thing becomes the equivalent of a bad fantasy novel.
It's a shame to think that we need miracles and fear and mumbo-jumbo just to act right.
But it's the claims of victimization that make me most sick. It's not enough to believe what you want to believe. You've got to act like you're being persecuted. Like there's a "War on Religion" and the poor evangelicals have to hide in caves so they aren't victimized. Except those caves are multi-million dollar megachurches with state of the art video and sound systems. Except that they own television and radio stations in every market. Except that the government has to subsidize every dollar that they collect by giving tax benefits to the donors. But they're victims of those horrible secularists who from what I can tell, don't care if people want to handle snakes and pass the collection plate, but for the most part just want to be left alone.
Victims my ass. Religionists started persecuting people as soon as they landed at Plymouth Rock. They couldn't wait to start burning women who looked funny at their husbands because they must be witches if they're not kissing their pious asses. You think for a minute that if they thought they could get away with it they wouldn't start putting homosexuals on a rotisserie? It's only because the secular members of society have drawn a few lines in the sand that they're not stoning women for adultery or having abortions and chopping off heads right here in the good old Christian USA.
Re:I've seen this before... (Score:4, Insightful)
Great post, but I think organized religion is more a symptom than a cause.
Humans have a set of fundamental tribal instincts that exist regardless of high-level social structures. It's easy to see where they came from. If you wanted to be chieftain, you had to be dominant; you had to convey unquestionable authority. Intimidation and xenophobia were effective means of keeping everyone united and under your control—even begging you for protection. Strange events and coincidences could be spun as signs of your greatness and wisdom. If your people had some specific histories or beliefs, they could also be twisted into supporting your rule. And if others couldn't understand your reasoning, you could just call it mystic knowledge that only you and chosen believers can comprehend.
Civilization has come a long way, but if you peel back the veneer of religion and politics you'll find we're still a bunch of savages looking for tribal identity. Whether you call yourself an evangelical Christian pastor, a fundamentalist Imam, or a member of the Communist Party of China, you still use the same tactics of intimidation against free thought and fear of foreigners, infidels, or minorities. You still use propaganda to twist events to your interpretations. You still hardly care about your group's beliefs except to turn them into justifications. And you still create a ruling caste that claims greater enlightenment than the masses.
Religion's flaw is that it, like race or color or political party or organization, divides people. It delineates "is" and "is not". Whenever you define a group, you invite that chieftain element who prey on tribal instincts. As people look to the chieftain for direction, they care less and less about what their beliefs and values originally meant and begin to only see them as a justification for the same attitude of fear and hatred every chieftain preaches. And the tribe more and more resembles every other, especially the ones its people are told to hate and fear.
The people sometimes deemed "liberal" or "freethinking" or "secular" are those who suppress that protective tribal instinct, and are less moved by the promises and threats of their chieftain. But freethinkers are a group like any other, and blaming religions or political parties or any other group just feeds the tribal instinct. Many have broken away, only to form their own tribes—and now embody everything they once fought against. Only when the majority of us can leave our tribal thinking behind and stop thinking of every grouping and delineation as a tribal boundary will the chieftains among us lose their voice. Only when we can stop fearing and hating that which makes others different will we be able to understand who anyone really is.
Ourselves most of all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid there's a plenty of prior art on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I've seen this before... (Score:5, Funny)
Bill Joy's epitaph will be :wq.
Or possibly :q! if he has failed to write an autobiography.
I don't know how you quit from emacs.
Re:I've seen this before... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know how you quit from emacs.
Death is the only escape!
Death is the only escape! (Score:5, Funny)
That figures. Typically verbose.
Re:I've seen this before... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know how you quit from emacs.
I think there are support groups for that.
Re: (Score:2)
You know? I think I'm okay with that. (Score:4, Insightful)
What about today's mistakes? (Score:3, Insightful)
They're doing this as a PR stunt to distract people from the mistakes they're making today.
Copernicus is known in almost every science class today. Who cares what The Church does with whatever-is-left-of-his-body now? 500 years later?
Re:What about today's mistakes? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're doing this as a PR stunt to distract people from the mistakes they're making today.
If I designed a device to automatically lower fresh tinfoil hats from the ceiling whenever the one you're wearing now got worn out, I would make a mint.
Who cares what The Church does with whatever-is-left-of-his-body now? 500 years later?
Catholics care. They care because they believe in the sacrament of forgiveness. They care because they believe that people have immortal souls that can last more than 500 years after someone's death.
Re:What about today's mistakes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Strange that a religion that claims to be so forgiving is also always threatening eternal torment to anyone who disobeys them ... an organization that claims to be the standard bearer of all things good uses the exact same psychological framework as an abusive relationship?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Catholic church teaches that Hell is the absence of God's grace, and not a literal physical torment. Catholics do not threaten people with torture (admittedly, not in recent years). That sort of thing is what you will hear coming from the various non-Catholic Christian sects in the US. The church knows that they have made mistakes. Nowadays, they teach the concept of a "living" church...one that acknowledges that change is inevitable and usually for the best.
I will admit though, that most of these refor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interestingly, those who are unwilling to accept God will thus be exactly where they wanted to be. A place without God.
Or, putting it another way, everybody gets the heaven they wish for (faithfull wishing in practise for Borg collective, if early descriptions are to be believed...). Which is quite meaningless.
The only reason Hell is considered terrible is that we, as humans, are said to constantly be in the presence of God as we live.
The only reason hell (also in the sense "absence of god" of course / especially...that's something you can experience) is considered terrible is that faithfull are constantly reinforcing in themselves the notion that it is.
Further, man sees faces, religions, and all those things that are merely skin deep. God sees your soul, your heart, and your entire being. To reject God is more than just to deny his existence. To reject God is to act in a manner that goes absolutely against His will. All who live can return to God. And if you truly, absolutely don't wish to, then you can go to the place you want to, known by us as Hell.
...which has a problem when put under logical scrutiny (hey, we are supposedly made in his image
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it meaningless? Perhaps, perhaps not. The idea that we should *not* attempt to better people's situations seems to be a...not commonly held ideal.
See, you're just providing an argument why it's meanigless. Sure, we do have a morality of which "making situation of people better" is an important part (China, for example)
But you established previously that the "modern concept of heaven" doesn't include that. It's merely everybody gets the heaven they wish for (which somehow fits with general wishful thinking of religions; and how their concepts were washed out over the ages due to greater understanding of reality)
"God is inherent in all things" is simil
Re:What about today's mistakes? (Score:4, Funny)
Whereas in heaven you get to lavish an eternity of praise upon an absolute dictator who is alleged to be perfect in all things forever.
Wait a minute.. Heaven sounds like North Korea!!!
Two tickets for Hell please...
Re:What about today's mistakes? (Score:4, Informative)
How can I experience absence of God in Hell, since God created everything, including Satan and Hell?
Re:What about today's mistakes? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you're saying that they are now forgiving Copernicus for being right all along?
Even as religious statements go that's pretty lame.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Somehow I doubt Copernicus is going to forgive them.
Re:What about today's mistakes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? He was one of them. He was employed by them. They were his friends and family. They didn't kill him. He died of natural causes (a stroke in his 70's). They just said that his idea of a heliocentric earth (one of many achievements) was heretical, but well after the fact. And then they admitted that they were wrong. What's not to forgive?
Re:What about today's mistakes? (Score:5, Insightful)
By this point, the Catholic church has mostly improved from malicious to benign on the science front (they may contest doing research in certain areas of science on moral grounds, but they don't really try to contradict science anymore). Most of the anti-science creationism and whatnot isn't from the Catholic church.
Disclaimer: I was raised Catholic and appreciate most of the philosophy but don't care for the religion.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They're doing this as a PR stunt to distract people from the mistakes they're making today.
Copernicus is known in almost every science class today. Who cares what The Church does with whatever-is-left-of-his-body now? 500 years later?
Q: What's the definition of infallible?
A: Get it completely wrong, persecute people who used actual science to get it right - I mean REALLY persecute them - put your political agenda and your authority ahead of truth - threaten them with torcher, put them under house arrest, deny them medical aid, make them fear for their lives, threaten them with eternal damnation - then 400-500 years later admit that your predecessors made a mistake and make use of the very science you tried to bury to shout from the roof
Re:What about today's mistakes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, then I guess I'll piss you off even further by pointing out that Galileo's views were discredited by actual DATA at the time. The most accurate data they had at his time did not support his interpretation. So no, scientific truth was not buried because of politics, scientific falsehoods (as judged by the scientific community of the day) were buried because of politics. Condemning the house arrest of political dissidents in an era when those unpopular with the rulers were often killed out of hand is as silly as complaining that Attila the Hun failed to abide by the Geneva Conventions.
As to the infallibility question, the doctrine you refer to only applies when the Pope makes a ruling that he declares infallible, not in everyday decisions. Think of this as the difference between Lehman Brothers putting out a stock prediction and claiming to have received information from the future that this will be the price.
Typical (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm glad the church recognizes the value of bleeding-edge Renaissance science. Maybe next year they will find out the importance of electricity, birth control, or logic.
Pomp and circumstance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pomp and circumstance (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that when I have mod points that I want to use on a thread I always end up commenting instead?
Anyhow, you may not find it important, but others do. This is the equivalent of saying "we fucked up big time and we are reversing ourselves". Large organizations show real remorse differently than individuals. So, this is a very large positive step.
Now, why it took 500 years to figure this out is another story altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
papal infallibility ?
1870 (Score:5, Informative)
That doctrine is actually much more modern than most people would guess, having been issued in 1870 [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It would be significantly shorter than 500 years if they knew -where- Copernicus was buried...
Location of his grave was one of bigger historical secrets in Poland. (and the fact that the suspected location was a chamber filled with thousands of bones from many, many corpses, mixed in disarray, didn't make it any easier. It's been a luck that his corpse was found in a casket, and not in 300 pieces mixed with all the rest...
Re:Pomp and circumstance (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, they're just trying to salve their own consciences. This is like the British government apologizing for how they treated Alan Turing. "Oh well, we're so much better now, so please forgive us." On one level it's idiotic because the guy is dead, in Copernicus's case loooong dead, so it does him no good. On another level, it's just a bunch of self-righteous bastards trying to show us how keenly they feel about it.
If the Church wants to convince me that it isn't still an enemy of science, it can start by stopping spreading bullshit about the effectiveness of condoms. Apologizing for Copernicus is cheap, relatively speaking, because it doesn't mean having to sacrifice a current position. I'd like to see the Church do something in the way of contrition that had the vaguest bit of meaning in the here and now.
Re:Pomp and circumstance (Score:5, Insightful)
Copernicus' remains were recovered as part of an archaeological discovery. Would you suggest not reburying them? Or perhaps just tossing them back in the hole and throwing the dirt back in?
Re:Pomp and circumstance (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
End of thread. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Pomp and circumstance (Score:5, Interesting)
.
Re:Pomp and circumstance (Score:5, Interesting)
This was no ordinary discovery. According to TFA, they spent six years searching for the remains. Once they were found, they used DNA markers (!) and facial bone reconstruction to positively identify the man as Copernicus. Everyone joking about how the church is 500 years behind in technology should take note.
Re: (Score:2)
Once they were found, they used DNA markers (!) and facial bone reconstruction to positively identify the man as Copernicus. Everyone joking about how the church is 500 years behind in technology should take note.
What, they have archbishops with degrees in molecular genetics now? Oh, wait, they probably used a biotech company to do that...
Re:Pomp and circumstance (Score:5, Informative)
Actually they used police forensic experts, who (surprise, surprise) were probably not priests. Darn. I guess you got me. You'll probably even point out that I goofed when I said they took six years even though they actually found the bones in 2005 after starting in 2004. In any case, it does not change the fact that the church is painfully well aware of advances in modern science and doing the best it can to reconcile those with their beliefs and those of their faithful followers.
Re: (Score:2)
Weeel, guess who has something to gain from this... regarding the recent... well... scandal..?
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's hardly the first time that bodies of e.g. saints have been moved and reburied, often to build a church on top of them. Does it have any real meaning where the bones lie and how they got buried if at all? Well, it's a bit like questioning if offside is real in soccer because within the rites and ceremonies of the Church it certainly matters. For example, even if it doesn't apply to Copernicus, being denied a Christian burial was a grave punishment. Of course an atheist can just shrug at that and go
Re:Pomp and circumstance (Score:5, Funny)
For example, even if it doesn't apply to Copernicus, being denied a Christian burial was a grave punishment.
You mean that in this case, a naughty grave was punished by not being used to bury a famous scientist?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think in essence this is a church advert. (They couldn't care less of the science he has discovered. Religion needs promotion. Same happened at the death of Newton.)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, they didn't just dig him up so they could put him back again. He was in an unmarked grave which was dug up by archaeologists. After investigation, they figured out who it was.
What do *you* suggest they should do with the bones? Hmmm?
Throw them in the trash ... or rebury them with dignity and a proper headstone?
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't for him or his work. It was to benefit Poland and the church. Poland gets to beat it's chest and say "Look at what we did." The church can point and say "Clean hands, clean hands, we are no longer evil".
It's as if they were saying "Let them eat tripe."
Re: (Score:2)
Guilt (Score:2)
Its guilt from the church as they realize they are a closed minded establishment and look stupid. Only took them 500 years on this one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the trick is that he was buried in an UNMARKED grave (and i suppose it was not "holy ground")
so as part of the paper work they had to
Exume the body/bones
"ReSanctify" the ground and prep for the burial
Do a whole burial ceremony
File the 21 chunks of paper that The Church requires
Its all a bunch of Red Tape (and how many not Chinese bureaucracies are around that date from 2 Millenniums ago??)
Re:Pomp and circumstance (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like when in 1992, the pope apologized for putting Galileo on trial. Yeah, the gesture is pretty symbolic and centuries late, but it's at least one way to look like less of an asshat.
Now, once they stop telling people in Africa that condoms cause AIDS, maybe their apology will actually appear sincere instead of lying through their teeth for the PR.
Why was he buried in an anonymous grave? (Score:5, Informative)
Copernicus' burial in an anonymous grave in the 16th century was not linked to suspicions of heresy. When he died, his ideas were just starting to be discussed by a small group of European astronomers, astrologers and mathematicians, and the church was not yet forcefully condemning the heliocentric world view as heresy, according to Jack Repcheck, author of "Copernicus' Secret: How the Scientific Revolution Began."
"Why was he just buried along with everyone else, like every other canon in Frombork? Because at the time of his death he was just any other canon in Frombork. He was not the iconic hero that he has become."
Pearly gates. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since heaven is a fantasy, then he obviously isn't going there. I vote for option #2.
Re: (Score:2)
Well... what do priests usually do?
Re:Pearly gates. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pearly gates. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He's way, way too old for that.
I'm sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah exactly! The living need to be advertised to -
"Look at us! We're the new Catholic Church, we're no longer pro-heliocentrism! Give us a couple more centuries and we might even stop being anti-feminist* enough to allow contraception** or female priests***!"
Because that's exactly what it is, unless you think that Copernicus still has a close, living relative somewhere who needs closure after 500 years.
*not a guarantee
**not very likely
***you're kidding, right?
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Symbols have power. I don't see any harm in showing respect for a noted independent thinker. Also, any act that demonstrates that religion and science do not have to be in opposition is a Good Thing.
Furthermore, in deference to his religious beliefs, I'll imagine he is pleased.
Re:I'm sure (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather the church put a bit more effort in making life better for the living
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Billions of dollars spent annually on charities, schools, hospitals, homeless shelters, and relief efforts isn't good enough for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively you could not rely on symbols to show that religion and science do not have to be in opposition, you could just take the straight forward method and actually take actions now, in real time, that demonstrate, to people alive right now, that religion and science don't have to be in opposition. Not that it matters much because science gained the upper hand long ago and can't effectively be stopped any longer. By locking people up or forcing them to recant on pain of torture, anyway.
As for a Coper
Re: (Score:2)
But to the majority of people in the world, these things matter, changing their opinion, world view, etc. So, since these things matter to the majority, they should have import to anybody with the sense to realize that what matters to most people should matter (in some way) to us all. See what I did there?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I gave up my Dawkins-like hatred for organized religion somewhere in my 40s. I'd rather attract "victims" (heh heh) to critical thought with sweet science than pour vinegar on someone's religion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. I gave up my Dawkins-like hatred for organized religion somewhere in my 40s. I'd rather attract "victims" (heh heh) to critical thought with sweet science than pour vinegar on someone's religion.
The people in the history books who brought about social change were mostly all "obnoxious" in their time (Galileo, Rosa Parks, ...). These were people willing to go to the mat for what they believed. Time will tell with Dawkins, but he's certainly brave and I respect that. And there are certainly enou
I'm sure Copernicus feels better... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Wait. He's dead. He doesn't care at all what you do to his bones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Church has a lot more important things to apologize for. In fact, they could skip apologizing for anything for all I care if they would stop doing horrible things now.
Re:I'm sure Copernicus feels better... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, now I am. We have his skull out to examine, and yep, no working brain in there. So he's incapable of thinking or caring about anything.
It's my nick (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> but I have only one question for Benedict 16th: What the Hell took you so long?
He hasn't been Pope for that long, perhaps, and has been busy with problems related to living priests and has only now got to dead ones?
Future Slashdot Story on 5/23/2510 (Score:4, Funny)
Pope John Paul George Ringo the Third officially stated via the openly gay pontiff's Jupiter-hosted website [www.catholic.popestuff2], "We've had a little time to think about it and we finally understand that whole uproar or whatever. Hey like the third testament says in Bieber 10:15 'Whatever you want shawty I'll give it to ya'."
He went on to say, "Here's some water! Hope that makes up for it."
Editor's Note: Catholicism was a dominant religion centuries ago in which old men in funny hats told others what to do.
Editor's Editor's Note: Religion was a wide-held belief that ideas found in stories millenniums old should be used to rule our lives. Not kidding.
(article translated from Chinese via Skybot Vacuum Cleaner with Babel Attachment)
Re: (Score:2)
Church Admits Touching Children and Covering it Up Not Such a Good Idea.
Thanks. They've already admitted that, Troll.
Re: (Score:2)
That's kinda my point. Get it? Good. Now move on.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
umm (Score:3, Interesting)
Do we have a cite for this?
Re:umm (Score:4, Informative)
His "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" was in the Index of Prohibited Books from 1616 to 1835
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium#Reception [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#Copernicanism [wikipedia.org]
Re:umm (Score:4, Informative)
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
How long until Richard Dawkins will be sainted? 2510?
Re: (Score:2)
How long until Richard Dawkins will be sainted? 2510?
Considering that being a saint means that the Church is very sure the person got to heaven, my guess is that isn't going to happen. There are only two scenarios which I can imagine would alter this. 1) Dawkins could have a complete change of heart and publicly convert to Catholicism. 2) The Catholic Church could change its doctrines to some form of universal salvation and declare that all dead people to be saints or close enough for it to include Dawkins. Neither of these seems like a likely scenario, with
The two books to read (Score:5, Informative)
They stopped at six (Score:2)
From TFA:
The tombstone is decorated with a model of the solar system, a golden sun encircled by six of the planets.
They stopped after Saturn because the next one is...you know...*dirty*
Re:They stopped at six (Score:5, Funny)
Professor: "I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all."
Fry: "Oh. What's it called now?"
Professor: "Urectum. Here, let me locate it for you."
Re: (Score:2)
What did the Church actually do? (Score:5, Informative)
In case anyone is interested, I just looked to see what was actually done about Copernicus. No action was taken during his lifetime. During the Galileo affair, motion around the sun was declared to be erroneous and heretical. Thus Copernicus' major work was taken out of circulation for 4 years, until it could be "corrected." 9 or 10 corrections were made, which appear to have been simply inserting the word "hypothetically" or equivalent, on the grounds that it was a hypothesis that hadn't been proven.
Note that I am not defending the actions of the Catholic Church. I just thought people might want to know what they were. The uncorrected version was put on the Index.The "corrected" version was not, so it continued to circulate. The source I looked at (http://hsci.ou.edu/exhibits/exhibit.php?exbgrp=1&exbid=14&exbpg=4) says that there was no official finding that Copernicus was heretical, although it appears that there was a general condemnation of heliocentrism (at least this is how I read a couple of seemingly contradictory statements).
Alternate headline... (Score:4, Insightful)
Great Scientist's Remains Further Desecrated in Black Magic Ritual Effort to Distract Citizenry.
Re:So it takes 500 years for the Church to admit (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the catholic church we're talking about, they've much more progressive than the American sects that oppose science (hence the acceptance of evolution in Europe, there are no debates about what should be taught in schools here).
I'm aware that the catholic church is extremely conservative but compared to the madness of the American fundamentalists that make the news they're moderates.
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Informative)
There are lots of Catholic schools in America (Catholics too, obviously) and they all teach that the Church has accepted the notion that man came about by the process of evolution, albeit a process conceived of and initiated by God. Also, I would guess that the vast majority of Christian schools in the country are Catholic, even though Catholics only make up 30 percent [wolframalpha.com] of US Christians.
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many scientists are responsible for modern theories. The term 'big bang' was actually just bullshit made up by the religious to insult the concept.
Really, I always thought that Monsignor Georges Lemaître was a established scientist and mathematician, given that he was a not only a researcher but a professor of mathematics, astronomy and physics.
But I guess it's cool to be a bigot and ignore the man's credentials just because he was in the clergy.
Back then there weren't the same social issues with hanging or burning someone, at least not to the modern extent.
Back then when? What the hell are you talking about. We are talking about modern scientists and about how, according to you, the church puts modern scientists down.
The religious still put science down to the lowest possible level, even saying it has no logical backing because it is not based on the bible.
Which religious, which religion? A
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe relic worship isn't practiced in any protestant belief, that's a catholic thing. Protestants don't have saints and don't pray to relics, a big part of the reformation was ditching all the "extended universe" canon stuff and going back to what's in the original book.