The Sun is not a hot ball of gas

[Quaremerepulisti]

I agree Michael, but it is a long time since anyone in the Church believed angels do move the stars as St Thomas Aquinas taught. Today, thanks to the Copernican revolution in both Church and State, aliens out there are far more credible than angels. If you think I exaggerate read what  the Jesuit Fr Pietro Lazzari, Professor of Church History at the Roman College, consultant to the  Holy Office in 1741 said when they began to undermine the geocentric decree of Pope Paul V in 1633:

'Nor is it relevant to say that here one is dealing with the interpretation of Scripture and an opinion considered being against the faith. It would be unfortunate if, whenever there has been a consensus in the past, we try now to maintain the old shared opinions. Once it was a common opinion, which was supported by citing Scripture, that the heavens were moved by intelligent beings [angels]. Thus at about the same time, in paragraph 4, of book 2 of his Philosophical Course, Cardinal Sfondrati said: "It was and is the opinion of almost all philosophers and theologians that the heavens are moved by intelligent beings." In question 6 of article 3 of De Potentia, St Thomas says that it belongs to the faith." Who among the more erudite and enlightened philosophers or theologians hold it now? Nor do I think that a book denying it would represent a criticism from the sacred Congregation.''

Thus "almost all" philosophers and theologians were wrong.  GET OVER IT.  Unless you can explain why, if angels are moving the "incorruptible" stars around, why their motion should inexplicably follow Newton's laws of motion.

[Cassini]

I agree Michael, but it is a long time since anyone in the Church believed angels do move the stars as St Thomas Aquinas taught. Today, thanks to the Copernican revolution in both Church and State, aliens out there are far more credible than angels. If you think I exaggerate read what  the Jesuit Fr Pietro Lazzari, Professor of Church History at the Roman College, consultant to the  Holy Office in 1741 said when they began to undermine the geocentric decree of Pope Paul V in 1633:

'Nor is it relevant to say that here one is dealing with the interpretation of Scripture and an opinion considered being against the faith. It would be unfortunate if, whenever there has been a consensus in the past, we try now to maintain the old shared opinions. Once it was a common opinion, which was supported by citing Scripture, that the heavens were moved by intelligent beings [angels]. Thus at about the same time, in paragraph 4, of book 2 of his Philosophical Course, Cardinal Sfondrati said: "It was and is the opinion of almost all philosophers and theologians that the heavens are moved by intelligent beings." In question 6 of article 3 of De Potentia, St Thomas says that it belongs to the faith." Who among the more erudite and enlightened philosophers or theologians hold it now? Nor do I think that a book denying it would represent a criticism from the sacred Congregation.''

Thus "almost all" philosophers and theologians were wrong.  GET OVER IT.  Unless you can explain why, if angels are moving the "incorruptible" stars around, why their motion should inexplicably follow Newton's laws of motion.

Which laws would they be Quaremerepulisti? Which laws of Newton's apply to the stars for you? 

[John Lamb]

Unless you can explain why, if angels are moving the "incorruptible" stars around, why their motion should inexplicably follow Newton's laws of motion.

That's the way that the angels push them.

[Non Nobis]

Unless you can explain why, if angels are moving the "incorruptible" stars around, why their motion should inexplicably follow Newton's laws of motion.

That's the way that the angels push them.

Yes, angels wouldn't push them in any random manner, but in beautiful order.

However, I think that what can be explained by natural means should be explained that way, even while recognizing that God is the primary cause and perhaps angels have some influence.  Over the centuries it is to be expected that man understand natural laws better.  God created nature and its laws, and they give glory to Him.  The problem is when men don't accept that nature points to (and indeed proves) God, and that God can act outside nature too.         

[Cassini]

Unless you can explain why, if angels are moving the "incorruptible" stars around, why their motion should inexplicably follow Newton's laws of motion.

That's the way that the angels push them.

Yes, angels wouldn't push them in any random manner, but in beautiful order.

However, I think that what can be explained by natural means should be explained that way, even while recognizing that God is the primary cause and perhaps angels have some influence.  Over the centuries it is to be expected that man understand natural laws better.  God created nature and its laws, and they give glory to Him.  The problem is when men don't accept that nature points to (and indeed proves) God, and that God can act outside nature too.       

Yes Non Nobis, I agree with you. The trouble comes when certain laws lie beyond human understanding or are impossibly difficult for man to know. In the case of the movement of the stars, not even Quaremerepulisti can tell us the laws he believes in. Until then the stars are moved by God's angels as His first cause. Indeed this could be why God placed cosmic movements outside known laws, so nobody could claim they belong to nature thus offering an alternative to His existence and concursus.

[LausTibiChriste]

Trads argue over the stupidest shit sometimes.

[Cassini]

Trads argue over the stupidest shit sometimes.

Discussing the work of angels has been occupying Catholics since the religion was founded. Our discussion is directly related to a certain conflict in the history of faith and reason. It may all be shit to you Laus, but why advertise this ignorance of yours on a Catholic forum? Surely you have better things to do?

[LausTibiChriste]

Trads argue over the stupidest shit sometimes.

Discussing the work of angels has been occupying Catholics since the religion was founded. Our discussion is directly related to a certain conflict in the history of faith and reason. It may all be shit to you Laus, but why advertise this ignorance of yours on a Catholic forum? Surely you have better things to do?

I was referring to whether or not the Sun is a ball of gas or not, dummy, not angels.

Kids are being murdered in droves and the Church is in disarray but you wanna argue about what matter the sun is made up of? Who gives a rats ass.

[Cassini]

Trads argue over the stupidest shit sometimes.

Discussing the work of angels has been occupying Catholics since the religion was founded. Our discussion is directly related to a certain conflict in the history of faith and reason. It may all be shit to you Laus, but why advertise this ignorance of yours on a Catholic forum? Surely you have better things to do?

I was referring to whether or not the Sun is a ball of gas or not, dummy, not angels.

Kids are being murdered in droves and the Church is in disarray but you wanna argue about what matter the sun is made up of? Who gives a rats ass.

You do, or you would not be reading this thread and posting expletives on it.

[Innocent Smith]

Trads argue over the stupidest shit sometimes.

Discussing the work of angels has been occupying Catholics since the religion was founded. Our discussion is directly related to a certain conflict in the history of faith and reason. It may all be shit to you Laus, but why advertise this ignorance of yours on a Catholic forum? Surely you have better things to do?

I was referring to whether or not the Sun is a ball of gas or not, dummy, not angels.

Kids are being murdered in droves and the Church is in disarray but you wanna argue about what matter the sun is made up of? Who gives a rats ass.

I believe you should capitalize the word dummy offset by a comma if you are going to call Cassini one.

But why be such a punk? Cassini is a very learned man and you should have a little respect for him. I have had the pleasure to read his commentary since the long defunct Ingnis Ardens forum.

[RedCaves]

 
Isn't it made of plasma?

[Maximilian]

I think that what can be explained by natural means should be explained that way, even while recognizing that God is the primary cause and perhaps angels have some influence. 

I wonder if this is really a solid principle?

Let's say for the sake of argument that we use an alternate principle which is that "we should explain things the way they are." If we start with our knowledge that all created matter is a manifestation of God's creative action, then we will want to explain things in accordance with this fundamental reality.

The more science studies reality, the more it realizes that it can't explain even simple ordinary things without reference to God. To take one example, photosynthesis is the fundamental basis of all life on earth. This is how energy is collected from the sun which is then distributed to all living beings. Photosynthesis operates on the basis of "quantum tunneling" which Einstein refused to believe in because he referred to as "spooky action at a distance." His description is actually pretty accurate, but apparently it is a reality.

Those in recent history who wanted to use your principle of explaining things by natural means so often fell into gross errors through ignorance. They believed that creation was like a watchmaker's work, when instead the more we learn the more we come to realize that it is infinitely complex beyond our comprehension or imagination. Therefore these "natural explanations" fail to describe fundamental reality.

Darwin, for example, knew nothing of DNA or even of genetics at the level of Gregor Mendel. Reality turned out to be infinitely more complex than his simplistic "natural explanations."

Over the centuries it is to be expected that man understand natural laws better.       

I wonder if this is true? For each thing gained there is something lost. Do we really understand nature better now, or have the losses exceeded the gains?

Think about someone like "Sheldon" from the "Big Bang Theory." He is a genius in some ways, but in other ways he is an utter moron. Although he is deliberately created as a caricature, in many ways he accurately represents the scientific mindset. While becoming smarter about some things, it becomes stupider and stupider about many things, even in the natural realm.

We can see a real-life example of Sheldon in Stephen Hawkings. He is a genius in some ways, but lately he has become obsessed with aliens -- who don't exist! This is a fundamental failure to grasp the reality of nature.

He is not unique among scientists. Sheldon's worship of Marvel Comics characters is not an inaccurate portrayal of the gross failures of the modern scientific mind to come to grips with nature the way it really exists.

[Quaremerepulisti]

I think that what can be explained by natural means should be explained that way, even while recognizing that God is the primary cause and perhaps angels have some influence. 

I wonder if this is really a solid principle?

Yes, it is.  First, there's Ockham's razor.  Second, if you deny it, you end up in occasionalism and eventually in nominalism.

Let's say for the sake of argument that we use an alternate principle which is that "we should explain things the way they are." If we start with our knowledge that all created matter is a manifestation of God's creative action, then we will want to explain things in accordance with this fundamental reality.

I think you are conflating "natural means" with mechanism.  They aren't the same things.

The more science studies reality, the more it realizes that it can't explain even simple ordinary things without reference to God. To take one example, photosynthesis is the fundamental basis of all life on earth. This is how energy is collected from the sun which is then distributed to all living beings. Photosynthesis operates on the basis of "quantum tunneling" which Einstein refused to believe in because he referred to as "spooky action at a distance." His description is actually pretty accurate, but apparently it is a reality.

That's fine.  But photosynthesis still occurs according to the natural means of the plant.  It is not a miracle.

Those in recent history who wanted to use your principle of explaining things by natural means so often fell into gross errors through ignorance. They believed that creation was like a watchmaker's work, when instead the more we learn the more we come to realize that it is infinitely complex beyond our comprehension or imagination. Therefore these "natural explanations" fail to describe fundamental reality.

Darwin, for example, knew nothing of DNA or even of genetics at the level of Gregor Mendel. Reality turned out to be infinitely more complex than his simplistic "natural explanations."

Again, you are confusing mechanism for natural explanations.  The Thomist rejects the former but embraces the latter.

I wonder if this is true? For each thing gained there is something lost. Do we really understand nature better now, or have the losses exceeded the gains?

Think about someone like "Sheldon" from the "Big Bang Theory." He is a genius in some ways, but in other ways he is an utter moron. Although he is deliberately created as a caricature, in many ways he accurately represents the scientific mindset. While becoming smarter about some things, it becomes stupider and stupider about many things, even in the natural realm.

We can see a real-life example of Sheldon in Stephen Hawkings. He is a genius in some ways, but lately he has become obsessed with aliens -- who don't exist! This is a fundamental failure to grasp the reality of nature.

He is not unique among scientists. Sheldon's worship of Marvel Comics characters is not an inaccurate portrayal of the gross failures of the modern scientific mind to come to grips with nature the way it really exists.

This is a result of a philosophical defect (mechanism and materialism), not the result of understanding nature better.

[Graham]

Unless you can explain why, if angels are moving the "incorruptible" stars around, why their motion should inexplicably follow Newton's laws of motion.

That's the way that the angels push them.

Yes, angels wouldn't push them in any random manner, but in beautiful order.

However, I think that what can be explained by natural means should be explained that way, even while recognizing that God is the primary cause and perhaps angels have some influence. 

This is as good a place as any to interject that the modern explanation of the stars' movements doesn't exactly render the medieval explanation obsolete, if only because the two explanations don't try to explain exactly the same things. The modern explanation seeks simply to calculate and predict visible movement, and "natural means" suffice for that explanation. On the other hand, the medieval thinkers sought to explain how those movements recapitulate the spiritual order and, causing all corporeal motion, arrange the world according to Providence. In short, for them the celestial bodies had a ministerial role which we normally associate with angels.

[Quaremerepulisti]

This is as good a place as any to interject that the modern explanation of the stars' movements doesn't exactly render the medieval explanation obsolete, if only because the two explanations don't try to explain exactly the same things. The modern explanation seeks simply to calculate and predict visible movement, and "natural means" suffice for that explanation. On the other hand, the medieval thinkers sought to explain how those movements recapitulate the spiritual order and, causing all corporeal motion, arrange the world according to Providence. In short, for them the celestial bodies had a ministerial role which we normally associate with angels.

Well the makeup of the physical universe simply isn't what the medieval thinkers thought it was.  How do supernova explosions fit into this?  And quasars, etc.