AMagisResponsetoGeocentrism
JoeMiller,
ExecutiveDirector,
MagisCenter
Magis Response to Geocentrism
Renowned philosopher of science and Dominican priest, Father William Wallace,
authored a 1997 book entitled, The Modeling of Nature. The intention of the book
was to show that we humans have a natural ability to transcend the limitations of
sense and gain a conceptual/non-mathematical understanding of the world in which
we live (a hotly contested topic then and now). To accomplish this we must
construct models that best:
1. Represent the underlying structure of natural systems (metaphysics)
2. Align with the way that our minds arrive at truth (epistemology)
The modeling that Fr. Wallace recommends is very relevant to the structure of the
universe because this is obviously an aspect of nature that transcends the
limitations of our senses.
Most cosmologists would claim that the whole discussion of “what’s at the center”
is a poor way of thinking about our expanding universe in the first place. A more
useful model is that of the surface of an expanding balloon, which has no
geometric center. If we draw dots on the balloon to represent galaxies and then
begin to blow air into it, we can visualize the universe’s expansion by observing
how the stretching fabric of the balloon pulls the dots away from one another.
Note: In your conceptualizing it’s important to focus on the surface of the
balloon only because as soon as you starts to think about the gas filled interior of
the balloon your mind will inevitably imagine a center of the geometric sphere.
From the perspective of an ant sitting on one of the dots it would look like all the
other dots are moving away from it (i.e. the ant would have a geocentric
perspective). In fact, if an ant were resident on every dot, each individual ant
would perceive itself to be stationary and central to all the other “moving”
dots/ants.
Without any other data each ant’s erroneous opinion would be understandable. But
unlike the ants we have a virtual mountain of theoretical and observational
evidence that says the expanding balloon surface is a better model of the universe
(i.e., all things, including our vantage point, are moving away from each other).
Bernard Lonergan, another brilliant Catholic priest and philosopher, writes on the
difference between “description” and “explanation” in his book Insight.
“A study of nature can advance from the descriptive relations of the object to the
inquirer, to the explanatory relations that obtain immediately between objects.”
He notes that a descriptive understanding of nature (what it looks like to me) is
“pre-scientific”. Science has given us the ability to explain the relationship
between objects (regardless of what it looks like to me).
People adhering to the geocentric perspective reject the expanding universe theory;
a theory held by the vast majority of reputable cosmologists. They’re motivation
for believing that the earth is at the center of the physical universe is primarily
theological. They view this as a privileged position and one worthy of our status in
the created order. This attitude exposes a basic misunderstanding of the dignity of
the human person, whose worth is based on a personal relationship with God rather
than a geographical relationship to the rest of His creation.
At Magis we rely on the expertise of our Academic Board of Fellows and other
top-level physicists and philosophers. Our experts don’t agree on everything but
they do all agree that the earth is not a stationary object at the center of a
moving/rotating universe. They also happen to agree that the Magis case for a
transcendent, supernatural, creator of the universe is very strong. If you’re looking
for cosmological evidence for God, don’t waste too much time researching
geocentrism. Look instead at evidence for a beginning. A beginning marks the
point that physical reality (including time itself) came into existence. Prior to the
beginning there was nothing and nothing could not have brought itself into
existence. Something else had to do it. That something else had to be something
really powerful and really intelligent existing outside of nature. That something
else sounds a lot like God.
Btw, Father William Wallace, whose insights on modeling have helped assure the
world that nature can and should be understood conceptually, was a member of
Father Spitzer’s Ph.D. dissertation committee at the Catholic University of
America. One of the surest and quickest ways to lose credibility with professional
scientists and mathematicians is to present a conceptual model that fails to reflect
and/or sufficiently take into account the theoretical and observational data. With
our William Wallace lineage we take modeling seriously. Too seriously in fact to
subscribe to any natural theory that goes squarely against the evidence. Ultimately,
this is the problem with geocentrism. It just doesn’t fit the data.
For further reading, Dave Palm, who writes for Envoy magazine, has created a
website dedicated to debunking geocentrism – www.geocentrismdebunked.org. It
is packed with information and links to other sites.And here is one other good
summation: http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/it-really-is-that-simple/