Re: An astronomer's view of mechanics

oriel36 wrote:
All you are doing now is trying to justify axial and orbital motion
using the calendar system via the return of a star to a location and
that is little more than a mixture of creationism and
astrology, again, it really is that bad.

You say this, but I cannot see it.

and I do not
believe anyone who opposes the faith of people,be it simple or more
elaborate can ever really be a productive astronomer.

The faith that human consciousness is a real, meaningful phenomenon,
not some sort of illusion (were it an illusion, who is there to be
deceived by it?), that our fellow human beings matter, and that right
and wrong are as real as the truths of logic and mathematics - this
much faith I have. It is not much, but there are atheists who would
feel that this is enough faith to make me one who has capitulated to
superstition.

Some forms of revealed religion have led people to feel justified in
violating natural law; we see this in those who persecuted Galileo,
and we see this today in terrorism. But that is indeed no reason to
oppose the faith of people of good will.

The central
intutive feeling and intelligence for investigating celestial and
terrestrial phenomena is pretty much the same for appreciating
Christianity,not in its complexity but rather just the simple glow you
get from being absorbed in the pursuit.

Such understanding has its place. But the knowledge of mathematics -
even the calculus, which had an independent origin in Newton's method
of the fluxions - for dealing with complexities also has its place.
Our glittering technological civilization may have led people astray
in some ways - but our shiny toys *do* work reliably, and such
achievements as reducing Malawi's infant mortality to its lowest
levels since records were kept - an article in the Globe and Mail the
other day - are not to be neglected.

I have sufficient understanding of the technical matters at issue here
to know that you have stumbled; that the remarks of Newton and
Flamsteed to which you object change nothing of what Kepler and
Copernicus had already said, and that Newton led the way in a proper
fashion to further build upon what Kepler had achieved.

However important intuition may be, it does not serve as an argument
for faith for you to, lacking the proper mathematical knowledge,
stumble in those matters, and make of yourself an object of ridicule.
To do this prevents you from being properly heard as an advocate for
faith.

I believe that with greater understanding, you will find that the
conventional understanding of the motions of the heavens is not in
fact objectionable in some of the ways you object to it, and in the
others, the objections are not really valid.

John Savard

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cranks on the endangered species list
    ... modern physics mistake understanding and agreement with "unquestioning ... "Sufficiently advanced understanding is indistinguishable from faith." ... unrelated to science (and thus uninteresting to most scientists). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Cranks on the endangered species list
    ... modern physics mistake understanding and agreement with "unquestioning ... matter of "unquestioning faith". ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Cranks on the endangered species list
    ... The problem around here is that all too many people unfamiliar with modern physics mistake understanding and agreement with "unquestioning faith". ... The cranks and crackpots around here are in a completely different world, which is unrelated to science (and thus uninteresting to most scientists). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Cranks on the endangered species list
    ... "Sufficiently advanced understanding is indistinguishable from faith." ... Not when such "dissenting opinion" is IMPOSSIBLE. ... unrelated to science (and thus uninteresting to most scientists). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Theist on Theist
    ... he wants to assert that faith is a valid way of understanding ... while at the same time denying that the faith of creationists ... why would you not murder? ...
    (talk.origins)