[Tom Bishop]

Since this project stated years ago I found myself more focused on describing the physical Flat Earth Theory, which I have documented from the general arguments from various forum discussions and put on the Wiki, rather than here. I think that we are generally satisfied with most of the often discussed issues except for the nature and layout of the South, which I believe future generations will tackle (I have never really put much effort into it, but recognize that there are many more variables to consider than commonly assumed, especially when questioning the assumptions).

Lately I have been meaning to focus my FE activities back to non-physical aspects.

For instance, did you know that father of modern physics, Issac Newton, had some pretty interesting religious views, including a belief that he was chosen by God? See the work of professor Robert Iliffe:

https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/people/professor-robert-iliffe

Robert Iliffe
Professor of the History of Science
Linacre College

"Rob Iliffe is Professor of History of Science at Oxford, Co-Director of the Oxford Centre for the History of Science, Medicine and Technology, and a General Editor of the Newton Project."

From a video titled Professor Rob Iliffe on Newton, Science and Religion:

"Newton himself is a deeply devout and radical original Christian thinker. He's not a member of any Church, he's not always serving as a minister in the church, but he's somebody who spends virtually all of his life in this extraordinary quest to understand how Christianity had, in his eyes, come to be corrupted. He's somebody who certainly believes in natural theology. He believes that his own role as a natural philosopher is a religious role. He believes that doing natural philosophy is reading the book of God, but he's somebody who does a lot more than that, and he spends most of his time and he devotes his life to doing theology. He's somebody who believes he's one of the elect. He's specially chosen by God. He will reign with Christ in the Millennium. So he thinks he's a very special boy, and that that kind of self belief, that radical immense self belief, energizes the originality of his work in mathematics, physics, and theology itself."

~

"Newton privately is a man who writes millions and millions of words on theology, on the apocalypse, on the Whore of Babylon, the woman in the wilderness, the two horned and ten horned beasts, but publicly he's somebody who doesn't seem to be that religious. He doesn't seem to be that devout and that view of Newton is quite clear in the 18th century. It's only in the 19th century and the 20th century that we've come to understand the deep religiosity that Newton had, this immense undertaking that he did for many hours and each day of his life of studying the Bible."

~

"Newton's achievements in science were so great that he was worthy of being worshipped, that in the eyes of one of his followers, Etienne Louis Boule, that it was worth creating a gigantic Cenotaph that was dedicated to the life and works of Isaac Newton. And some people have laughed at Boule's project, certainly people in the 18th century in Anglican England would have been dismayed by it, even though Newton was of course their great hero. But what I think it shows in a sort of pre-figurative way is the way in which science can become a form of religion.

It can in some aspects take on the character of that thing that it sets itself against, and what you see in a number of people in the late 18th century and 19th century is a developing anti-religious animus that takes on the character of the very people that they hate. People become deeply upset that people still believe in religion. They preach the truth of science, they preach the necessity of Newtonian physics and other kinds of physics. They take on the the kind of evangelizing and proselytizing characteristics of that very practice that they detest so much."

Professor Iliffe appears to go as far as to say that Newton's science movement was a religion by another name.

[Dionysios]

In the long while since I’ve visited this forum I made two discoveries dealing with history which would probably be useful to this book and which I have mentioned in more detail in posts in the ‘Library Additions’ section.

One of these is a very positive factor dealing with the robust preservation of early Christian flat earthism in Russia for centuries after the west had caved in. I have posted there links to Slavonic manuscripts of the ‘Christian Topography’ and some accompanying history. I had long suspected this, but I never had much evidence of it until fairly recently.

Secondly, I discovered a couple of writers who described the apostasy of Western European flat earthism during the renaissance in greater detail and with more knowledge and evidence than I had previously known or suspected. These are two books by the late William Randles and also an article by Professor James J. Allegro.

W.G.L. Randles’s book ‘Unmaking of the Medieval Christian Cosmos’ in particular touches upon the anti-flat Earth role of the Protestant Reformation in league with renaissance humanists in smothering the old flat earthism which paved the way for the rise of heliocentrism during the “enlightenment”.

I’ll just observe that Randles personal views appear to resemble the science of medieval Catholicism a bit more than ancient stuff like Cosmas Indicopleustes - although the trends and science he attacks in this book are inimical to both.

https://www.amazon.com/Unmaking-Medieval-Christian-Cosmos-1500-1760/dp/1840146249

Allegro’s article does a fine job of condensing the vast information Randles collected into a shorter clearer article jam packed with razor sharp facts that overturn the very wrong status quo approach to the renaissance and proves flat earthism was actually still alive in Western Europe in the early 1500’s.

[Dr David Thork]

In my own flat earth non-physical studies (which I enjoy far more than the sunsets, tides and Coriolis discussions that I no longer have any inclination to participate in), Newton always comes back to Deism and alchemy. These themes run so strongly through his work, and that links back to many other flat earth proponents ... Deism being a recurring theme in flat earth history. Deist symbols and imagery appear all over flat earth texts and art.

Many of Newton's friends were deists, and he finds himself at odds with his own beliefs and theirs, when he starts looking at gravity and motion of planets, which runs contrary to the Deist belief of a clockwork universe set in motion by God. He then can't square the circle. His gravity vs knowing there must be a creator. So he writes

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.

Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.

He flip flops back and forth on so many issues leaving one wondering does he end up an ally or an enemy of the flat earth society? Its a lot like Einstein. Some of his theories are a problem, but then Special Relativity is needed by flat earth. Galileo, the same problems.

I shall look forward to reading your findings. I'll warn of my own experience though, on this forum. Not many people want to discuss such things. They always want to bring it back to sunsets, perspective or some equally dull similar topic so they can try to spring an 'aha!' moment on you, because they think no one but them could have mentioned it before. 

[Tom Bishop]

This was mentioned in a previous thread, but Galileo clearly does some hypocritical flip-flopping when trying to justify the earth in scripture with heliocentrism.

Unifying the Universe: The Physics of Heaven and Earth - Page 488

"Instead of obedience, an unruly Galileo embarked upon a lonely crusade, taking on the challenge of enlightening the Church hierarchy. He even wanted to convert the Pope to the Copernican View. Echoing a Roman cardinal of antiquity, Galileo proclaimed [30]:

'The Bible should not be treated as a text book of physics. . .the Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.'

It was vintage Thomas Aquinas, the early medieval thinker who separated matters of faith from arguments of reason. Galileo was reminding the Church to respect the divorce between faith and reason."

And at American Scientist we see:

American Scientist - Galileo’s Discoveries After 400 Years

"Galileo set out his own views of Scripture and science, offering an ingenious interpretation of Joshua’s making the Sun stand still to show that not only does Holy Scripture not oppose Copernican theory, it actually supports it."

Galileo says that if the Bible supports heliocentrism then we can point to the Bible as scriptual support for astronomy. And if it doesn't support heliocentrism then we can't use it.

[Tom Bishop]

Astrophysicist Paul Sutter produced content on the 'real story of Kepler, Copernicus and the Church'.

Space.com - Going Bananas: The Real Story of Kepler, Copernicus and the Church

From the embedded video:

"Kepler published a book defending Copernicus's model not on mathematical grounds, not on physics grounds, not on any kind of science grounds; he defended it on religious grounds. That's right, before Kepler developed his laws of planetary motion he defended the heliocentric model arguing—get this—that the Sun, the s-u-n, the Sun should be at the center of the solar system or the center of the universe just like the Son of God,  s-o-n, is at the center of Christian faith.

Jesus is the center of the Christian life, so if the Son of God is going to be at the center of Christian life then the Sun, which you know sounds a lot like son, ought to be the center of the universe. I'm not joking—that was Kepler's argument for the heliocentric model and that's why Kepler thought the heliocentric model was onto something."

[Tom Bishop]

It is possible that Kepler fudged his science to support his religious arguments.

From a NYTimes article - After 400 Years, a Challenge to Kepler: He Fabricated His Data, Scholar Says:

JOHANNES KEPLER, the father of modern astronomy, fabricated data in presenting his theory of how the planets move around the Sun, apparently to bolster acceptance of the insight by skeptics, a scholar has found.

The scholar, William H. Donahue, said the evidence of Kepler's scientific fakery is contained in an elaborate chart he presented to support his theory.

Kepler showed that the planets move in elliptical orbits rather than in circles as Copernicus suggested. In his book describing the insight, he said it was confirmed by independent calculations of the planets' positions. In fact, Dr. Donahue says, Kepler derived the data by calculations based on the theory itself.

Kepler anticipated stiff criticism of his theory. From antiquity, the circle had been considered the only geometrical shape perfect enough to describe the movement of heavenly bodies.

Done in 1609, Kepler's fakery is one of the earliest known examples of the use of false data by a giant of modern science.

The discovery was made by Dr. Donahue, a science historian, while translating Kepler's master work, ''Astronomia Nova,'' or ''The New Astronomy,'' into English. Dr. Donahue, who lives in Sante Fe, N.M., described his discovery in a recent issue of The Journal of the History of Astronomy.

The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary.

Experts, nearly unanimous in defending the great astronomer, say Kepler's act may be less reprehensible than it seems. For instance, methods of investigation and reporting at the start of the scientific revolution were often quiet rudimentary.

''Kepler was one of the people who invented modern science,'' said Walter W. Stewart, a researcher with the National Institutes of Health who is helping Congress investigate cases of scientific fraud. ''It's not clear his standards were the same as ours.''

[Tom Bishop]

Newton brings in "divine intervention" to explain the failings of his science.

From The Kam Story by Professor H Scott Dumas:

“ At the beginning of the 18th century, Newton famously wrote that the solar system needed occasional divine intervention (presumably a nudge here and there from the hand of God) in order to remain stable.(11) This was interpreted to mean that Newton believed his mathematical model of the solar system—the n body problem—did not have stable solutions. Thus was the gauntlet laid down, and a proof of the stability of the n body problem became one of the great mathematical challenges of the age.

(11) Newton's remarks about divine intervention appear in Query 23 of the 1706 (Latin) edition of Opticks, which became Query 31 of the 1717 (2nd Edition) edition see Quote Q(New) in Appendix E). Similar 'theological' remarks are found in scholia of the 2nd and 3rd editions of Principia, and in at least one of Newton's letters. In a 1715 letter to Caroline, Princess of Wales, Leibniz observed sarcastically that Newton had not only cast the Creator as a clock-maker, and a faulty one, but now as a clock-repairman (see (Klo73), Part XXXIV, pp. 54-55). ”

The University of California San Diego credits Newton with providing the laws of physics for the Solar System:

“ Then came Isaac Newton (1642-1727) who brought the laws of physics to the solar system. Isaac Newton explained why the planets move the way they do, by applying his laws of motion, and the force of gravitation between any two bodies, letting the force decrease with the square of the distance between the two bodies. ”

Further reference here:

P. Kelly, LL. D. in his Metrology; Or, an Exposition of Weights and Measures (1816) comments on p.10:

“ Some philosophers have doubted the perfect equability of the earth's diurnal rotation on its axis; but from the best observations that have been made for 2000 years, in fixed observatories, it is concluded that there is no variation whatever. It is perhaps the only uniform motion of which astronomers are certain. And here it may be worthy of remark, that no natural cause has yet been assigned for the diurnal rotation of the planets. Sir Issac Newton observes, in one of his letters to Dr. Bently, (reviewed in Dr. Johnson's Works, Vol. II. p.332, Murphy's edition) that "the diurnal rotations of the planets cannot be derived from gravity, but must require a divine arm to impress them."

The above question respecting the natural cause of plentary rotation was submitted to the principle Astronomers of France in the summer of 1814, at a Metting of the Board of Longitude. It was introduced by a visitor from England, who wished to learn if any new light had been thrown on the subject, by the great advances made in analytical science and physical astronomy, by some of the members present. They all agreed that no satisfactory solution had yet been given of the phenomenon; and they listened with much attention to the opinion quoted from Sir Issac Newton's Letters, which they had not previously known, and on which the Count Laplace modestly observed -- "Si Netwon n'a pas pu l'exfliquer ce n'est pas a nous d'y pretendre." (Translated: If Netwon could not explain it, it is not up to us to claim it.) ”

[Tom Bishop]

Galileo says that Catholics should not question the falsity Copernican system:

“ The falsity of the Copernican system should not in any way be called into question, above all, not by Catholics, since we have the unshakeable authority of the Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the most erudite theologians, whose consensus gives us certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth. The conjectures employed by Copernicus and his followers in maintaining the contrary thesis are all sufficiently rebutted by that most solid argument deriving from the omnipotence of God. He is able to bring about in different ways, indeed, in an infinite number of ways, things that, according to our opinion and observation, appear to happen in one particular way. We should not seek to shorten the hand of God and boldly insist on something beyond the limits of our competence. ”
                  —Le Opere Di Galileo Galilei, p. 316, footnote #2.

[Peter Winfield]

Galileo says that Catholics should not question the Copernican system:

The argument was not about the shape of the Earth, it was about the motion of the sun and stars.

Both the Catholics and the Copernicans agreed that the Earth was a globe, they just didn't agree on which of them was stationary.

They both knew that the motion of the stars is an insurmountable problem for a flat Earth model.

[Tom Bishop]

Curiously, despite Newton's label as "Father of Modern Science," not all physicists agree that he submitted a satisfactory manifesto on his system. On p.71 of Einstein’s Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius (NY 2008) its author, physicist Hans C Ohanian (bio), says that Newton was less than honest with us:

"A CAREFUL EXAMINATION of Newton’s writings has revealed
that some of the errors in the Principia were deliberate and dishonest
attempts to mislead. In the Principia Newton proposed that the exact
quantitative agreement between theory and observation was the ultimate
criterion of scientific truth. As he said in the preface, “He that works with
less accuracy is an imperfect mechanic; and if any could work with perfect
accuracy, he would be the most perfect mechanic of all.”17 And to con-
vince his audience that he was the “most perfect mechanic,” he proceeded
to fabricate the required agreement between theory and observation, by
fair means or foul. Newton faked some theoretical calculations and he
engaged in flagrant cherry-picking of observational data, discarding those
data that did not quite fit his calculations. Richard Westfall, one of New-
ton’s most incisive biographers, called this “nothing short of deliberate
fraud,” and he labeled Newton a master of the “fudge factor?”18

One example of Newton’s fakery is seen in his theoretical calculation
of the speed of sound. He correctly and perceptively identified sound as
an oscillation arising from the elasticity of air, and he recognized that the
speed of sound waves must depend on the ratio of the elasticity of air to
its density. But when he calculated the value of the speed from this ratio,
he found it was too low by about 20 percent, and to fix this discrepancy
between theory and observation he conjured up two fudge factors, both of
which were pure fiction.

First, he imagined that whereas sound travels at a finite speed in the
space between the air particles, it travels at infinite speed through the body
of any air particle it encounters, and he therefore inserted a correction fac-
tor that depends on the fraction of the air volume that is actually occupied
by the bodies of particles. Then he imagined that not all of the air that
surrounds us is “true air”; instead, some of it is “vapor,” which does not par-
ticipate in the propagation of sound and therefore, somehow, made sound
travel even faster, and for this he inserted another correction factor. With
these two fudge factors, his final theoretical value for the speed of sound
came to 1142 feet per second, which—surprise, surprise—agreed exactly
with the value of 1142 feet per second that had been recently measured in
experiments by his friend William Derham.19 “This passage,” commented
Westfall, “is one of the most embarrassing in the whole Principia, since
the adjustments rested on no empirical grounds whatever, and in their
manifest hollowness served only to cast undeserved doubt on the basic
analysis"20

Other examples of similar fakery are found in Newton’s theoretical cal-
culations of the precession of the equinoxes, the magnitude of the force
of gravity acting on the Moon, the height of the tides, and the size of the
equatorial bulge of the Earth.” In all of these cases, he had a good qualita-
tive understanding of the underlying physics, but inadequate mathemati-
cal tools and/or inadequate observational data for an accurate quantitative
analysis—and so he inserted fictional fudge factors into his calculations
and / or cherry-picked the data.

These instances of fraud by Newton are somewhat reminiscent of the
fraud that Galileo perpetrated with his theory of tides. But whereas we
might give Galileo the benefit of doubt and charitably regard his mistaken
theory of tides as an isolated case of self-delusion, no such excuse will
serve for Newton. His acts of fraud occurred repeatedly, much too often
to admit of self-delusion as a plausible explanation. In the perpetration of
fraud, Newton was a recidivist, deserving of no charity. Besides, we have
documentary evidence from letters between Newton and Roger Cotes, the
editor of the second edition of the Principia, that they engaged in collusion
to “mend” the numbers. Cotes would propose to Newton some fraudulent
adjustment of observational data, “to make that Scholium appear to best
advantage as to the numbers,” and Newton would do Cotes one better by
contriving some fudge factor that suited the occasion.

Newton's fraud did not receive wide attention because the Principia was
much admired but little read, and its influence on the development of
physics was indirect. Although most of the “Newtonian physics” found in
today’s physics textbooks is based on Newton’s ideas and results, very little
of it remains in the form presented by Newton in his Principia. Almost the
entire content of his book was reorganized and rephrased by his followers,
starting with the great Swiss mathematician Leonard Euler and continuing
with the French savants and mathematicians of the eighteenth century:
Pierre Maupertius, jean Le Rond d’Alembert, Joseph Louis Lagrange,
Pierre Simon de Laplace, Adrien Marie Legendre."

[Tom Bishop]

These collected quotes on Copernicus and the Copernican Revolution are of interest here:

“ The Copernican revolution outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements, within the system of medieval Christendom. Since it changed the character of men's habitual mental operations even in the conduct of the non-material sciences, while transforming the whole diagram of the physical universe and the very texture of human life itself, it looms so large as the real origin both of the modern world and of the modern mentality, that our customary periodisation of European history has become an anachronism and an encumbrance. ”
                 —Historian Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science: 1300-1800, New York, The Free Press, 1957, pp. 7-8.

  “ The work, published in 1543, was called On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres. It stated that the center of the universe was a spot somewhere near the sun...The scheme met the requirements of philosophical and theological belief in circular motion. In every other respect, however, Copernicus struck at the heart of Aristotelian and Christian belief. He removed the Earth from the center of the universe and so from the focus of God’s purpose. In the new scheme man was no longer the creature for whose use and elucidation the cosmos had been created. His system also placed the Earth in the heavens, and in doing so removed the barrier separating the incorruptible from the corruptible. ”
                  —James Burke, The Day the Universe Changed, p. 135

  “ If the people of Europe had known as much of astronomy and geology when the bible was introduced among them, as they do now, there never could have been one believer in the doctrine of inspiration. If the writers of the various parts of the bible had known as much about the sciences as is now known by every intelligent man, the book never could have been written. It was produced by ignorance, and has been believed and defended by its author. It has lost power in the proportion that man has gained knowledge. A few years ago, this book was appealed to in the settlement of all scientific questions; but now, even the clergy confess that in such matters, it has ceased to speak with the voice of authority. For the establishment of facts, the word of man is now considered far better than the word of God. In the world of science, Jehovah was superseded by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. All that God told Moses, admitting the entire account to be true, is dust and ashes compared to the discoveries of Descartes, Laplace, and Humboldt. In matters of fact, the bible has ceased to be regarded as a standard. Science has succeeded in breaking the chains of theology. A few years ago, Science endeavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the bible. The tables have been turned, and now, Religion is endeavoring to prove that the bible is not inconsistent with Science. The standard has been changed. ”
                  —Robert G. Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses

  “ Christianity is dead and rotting since Galileo cut its throat. ”
                  —Slote, The Winds of War

  “ Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus’ idea of placing the sun rather than the earth in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato’s Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature…Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status…then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea. ”
                  —Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, p. 187

  “ Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler did not solve an old problem, they asked a new question, and in doing so they changed the whole basis on which the old questions had been framed. ”
                  —Ken Robinson

  “ It has often been noted that three major revolutions in thought have threatened the idea of human centrality. First, Copernicus demonstrated that Earth was not the center about which all celestial bodies revolved. Next, Darwin showed us that we were not central in the chain of life but, like all other creatures, had evolved from other life-forms. Third, Freud demonstrated that we are not masters in our own house-that much of our behavior is governed by forces outside of our consciousness. There is no doubt that Freud’s unacknowledged co-revolutionary was Arthur Schopenhauer, who, long before Freud’s birth, had posited that we are governed by deep biological forces and then delude ourselves into thinking that we consciously choose our activities. ”
                  —Irvin D. Yalom, The Schopenhauer Cure

  “ The superior simplicity of the Copernican theory was just as much of a myth as its superior accuracy. The myth of superior simplicity was dispelled by the careful and professional work of modern historians. They reminded us that while Copernican theory solves certain problems in a simpler way than does the Ptolemaic one. the price of the simplification is unexpected complications in the solution of other problems. The Copernican system is certainly simpler since it dispenses with equants and some eccentrics: but each equant and eccentric removed has to be replaced by new epicycles and epicyclets. . .he also has to put the center of the universe not at the Sun. as he originally intended. but at an empty point fairly near to it.....I think it is fair to say that the ‘simplicity balance” between Ptolemy’s and Copernicus’ system is roughly even. ”
                  —The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Imre Lakatos, pp 173-174

  “ The popular belief that Copernicus' heliocentric system constitutes a significant simplification of the Ptolemaic system is obviously wrong. The choice of the reference system has no effect on the structure of the model, and the Copernican models themselves require about twice as many circles as the Ptolemaic models and are far less elegant and adaptable!

Modern historians, making ample use of the advantage of hindsight, stress the revolutionary significance of the heliocentric system and the simplification it had introduced. In fact, the actual computation of planetary positions follows exactly the ancient patterns and the results are the same. The Copernican solar theory is definitely a step in the wrong direction for the actual computation as well as for the underlying kinematic concepts ”
                  —'On The Planetary Theory of Copernicus' - Otto Neugebauer 1968, p 103

  “ The personality of Galileo, as it emerges from works of popular science, has even less relation to historic fact than Canon Koppernigk’s…He appears…in rationalist mythography as the Maid of Orleans of Science, the St. George who slew the dragon of the Inquisition. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the fame of this outstanding genius rests mostly on discoveries he never made, and on feats he never performed. Contrary to statements in even recent outlines of science, Galileo did not invent the telescope; nor the microscope; nor the thermometer; nor the pendulum clock. He did not discover the law of inertia; nor the parallelogram of forces or motions; not the sun spots. He made no contribution to theoretical astronomy; he did not throw down weights from the leaning tower of Pisa and did not prove the truth of the Copernican system. He was not tortured by the Inquisition, did not languish in its dungeons, did not say ‘eppur si muove’; and he was not a martyr of science ”
                  —Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, p. 358.

  “ …in the Renaissance movement championed by Marsiglio Ficino, the doctrine came alive again, but in a somewhat altered form; one might say that what Ficino instituted was indeed a religion, a kind of neo-paganism. Copernicus himself was profoundly influenced by this movement, as can be clearly seen from numerous passages in the De Revolutionibus. ”
                  —Wolfgang Smith, The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology, p. 174

  “ In the middle of all sits Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe: Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles’ Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne ruling his children the planets which circle round him. The Earth has the Moon at her service. As Aristotle says, in his On Animals, the Moon has the closest relationship with the Earth. Meanwhile the Earth conceives by the Sun, and becomes pregnant with an annual rebirth. ”
                  —Nicolaus Copernicus , De Revolutionibus, Of the Order of the Heavenly Bodies 10.

  “ (Copernicus’) reasons for his revolutionary change were essentially philosophic and aesthetic,” and in a later edition he is more convinced that the “reasons were mystical rather than scientific ”
                  —J. D. Bernal, Science in History, 1st edition, London, Watts, 1954; 2nd edition, 1965).

  “ Actually neither this Galileo, nor his mentor Copernicus, had a shred of truly tangible and unequivocal evidence for their heliocentric belief – and well do historians, astronomers, and philosophers of science know it! As I recently found it succinctly expressed in a research paper “Since Galileo science has shed logical proofs in favour of plausibility.” (Chris Biebricher: ‘Evolutionary Research,’ in Vincent Brummer, Interpreting the Universe as Creation. Kampen Kok Pharos, 1991, p.93.) Indeed, by this “scientific method” of adding plausible explanations to plausible explanations astronomy has arrived at the present view of the cosmos. However, those who forget that “plausible” and “proven” are not synonyms inevitably will see their chickens come home to roost. ”
                  —Walter van der Kamp: The Cosmos, Einstein and Truth (1993), p.28.

  “ Among all the discoveries and convictions, probably not a single fact has had a deeper influence on the human spirit than the teaching of Copernicus ... Humanity has probably never been asked to do more; for consider all that went up in smoke as a result of realising this change: a second paradise, a world of innocence, poetry and piety, the witness of the senses, the conviction of a poetic and religious faith; small wonder that one did not want to give this up, that people in every possible way resisted such a doctrine, which those who accepted it justified and summoned to a so far unknown, yet unthought of freedom of thinking and greatness of vision. ”
                  —German poet Johann von Goethe (1749-1832), Geschichte der Farbenlehre, Chicago, University Press, p.67.

  “ Their cosmic quest destroyed the medieval vision of an immutable social order in a walled-in Universe, with its fixed hierarchy of moral values, and transformed the European landscape, society, culture, habits and general outlook as thoroughly as if a new species had arisen on this planet. ”
                  —Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, Grosset & Dunlop, New York, 1963, p.13.