And just how 'old' was the teaching that everything revolved around the earth?
Turned out to be WRONG...
And just how 'old' was the teaching that everything revolved around the earth?Turned out to be WRONG...
Well, if I may, I would not call that a tradition, but merely a very old model about how people imagined things worked. It was like a flat earth, or where rain came from. These are more like rudimentary theories than what I have been referring to, which relate more to factual events and origins as opposed to hypotheses about things which cannot be seen. Does that make sense? One thing they do have in common though is that once evidence to the contrary comes to light they are abandoned. At least if one is rational they are.
For something more analogous to what I have been speaking about consider the differing points of view about who wrote the various books of the Bible. Tradition is that St. Matthew wrote the Gospel which bears his name first, and in Hebrew, which was then translated into Greek. Modern theorists say that St. Mark's was first, and was not by St. Mark. I tend to stick to the traditional view because the modern theorists haven't really produced much in the way of evidence, or even convincing theories for my money. But, if somebody really does produce something concrete, or at least compelling, that what they are saying is true, then I will admit that the traditions are wrong and change my point of view. These traditions, like many, come from closer to the events than anything we have today which we think contradicts them. This is often the case, and so I tend to stick with them, not because I think they are somehow infallible, but just because they probably have a better pedigree than those which would deny them. But, again, that is just how I approach this stuff. What can I say? I am a traditional guy.