The Earth is at the center of Robert Sungenis’ universe. Literally.
Yours too, he says.
Sungenis is a geocentrist. He contends the sun orbits the Earth instead of vice versa. He says physics and the Bible show that the vastness of space revolves around us; that we’re at the center of everything, on a planet that does not rotate.
He has just completed a 1,000-page tome, "Galileo Was Wrong," the first in a pair of books he hopes will persuade readers to "give Scripture its due place, and show that science is not all it’s cracked up to be."
Geocentrism is a less-known cousin of the intelligent design, or anti-evolution, movement. Both question society’s trust in science, instead using religion to explain how we got here – and, in geocentrism’s case, just where "here" is.
Mention geocentrism and physicist Lawrence Krauss sighs. He is director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University and author of several books including "Fear of Physics: A Guide for the Perplexed."
"What works? Science works. Geocentrism doesn’t. End of story," Krauss said from Cleveland. "I’ve learned over time that it’s hard to convince people who believe otherwise, independent of evidence."
To Sungenis, of Greencastle, Pa., evidence is the rub.
For several years the Web site of his Catholic Apologetics International (www.catholicintl.com) offered a $1,000 reward to anyone who could disprove geocentrism and prove heliocentrism (a sun-centered solar system).
There were numerous attempts, Sungenis said, "some serious, some caustic," but no one did it to his satisfaction. "Most admitted it can’t be proven."
… Meanwhile, Sungenis wants to make sure "people don’t classify geocentrists with Flat Earthers. We don’t believe that at all."
There’s also no proof that the Earth rotates, he said.
But what about Foucault’s famous pendulum? Its plane of oscillation revolves every 24 hours, showing the rotation of the planet. If the Earth didn’t rotate, it wouldn’t oscillate.
Nope, Sungenis said: There just may be some other force propelling it, such as the pull of stars.
I think the cosmosology in Terry Pratchett’s Discworld make more sense thean Mr. Sungenis’.
33 comments
A big part of my college program (St. John’s College, a great books school, kind of like Thomas Aquinas College but with Plato in St. Thomas’ place) was the history of math and science. I suppose that ultimately I believed in the Copernican system, but I never lost my love for the Ptolemaic. He was working from the idea that the night skies are presented to us as a bridge from the physical, everyday world, to God. So what we see, from our own vantage point, is revelatory. This is an important thought that we have really lost by the influence of modern perspectivalism.
However, in order to make a system out of the visible phenomena, Ptolemy had to come up with really contorted reasonings about the motions of stars and planets–including retrograde motions, as the planets “appear” to go backwards a fraction of the time. Not elegant enough, ultimately, but still a project with a certain nobility. We used to take a motto from Ptolemy: “Save the Appearances!”
Well, ever since I saw “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, I believe that the earth is banana shaped and the entire universe revolves around me.
I would imagine there are many Jesuit scientists (from back when Jesuits actually contributed to scientific advancement) in heaven rolling their eyes on this one.
It is unfortunate that the term “intelligent design” is commonly understood to be a euphemism for certain forms of Biblical literalism or rejecetion of evolution. While different groups may use the term in different ways, there is a legitimate interest in applying methods of intelligence research to natural biological systems. This kind of investigation is common in the cognitive sciences, archaeology, cultural anthropology, and forensic science. This form of study is a legitimate scientific inquiry and often has little to do with religious conviction or a priori rejection of evolutionary theory.
But doesn’t the theory of relativity mean very precisely that any astronomical motion can be viewed as occuring from any viewpoint? If I understand the basics of relativity, it would mean that it is just as valid to say that the universe rotates in relation to the Earth as that the earth rotates in relation to the Universe, or that the sun orbiting the earth is just another way to view what is normally called the earth’s rotation.
Speaking as a fan of yours, Jeff, and of this site, I respectfully contend that the title of this post is unnecessarily mocking of Mr. Sungenis. If his ideas on geocentrism make no sense, they are easily enough refuted. But to say “continues” to embarass, brings up old news and irrelvant issues to the one you cover. Just my two cents worth.
God bless.
The theory of relativity says that the speed of LIGHT does not vary, no matter how one measures it. It is a VERY absolute theory: “contrary to the widely entertained clich�, relativity theory is the most absolutist, and in that sense, most inflexible theory ever proposed in the history of physics.” [Jaki, A Mind’s Matter p. 11]
On the main topic, these people have missed what St. Augustine had to say about science: “It is often the case that a non-Christian happens to know something with absolute certainty and through experimental evidence about the earth, sky, and other elements of this world…. It is therefore very deplorable and harmful, and to be avoided at any cost that he should hear a Christian give, so to speak, a ‘Christian account’ of these topics in such a way that he could hardly hold his laughter on seeing, as the saying goes, the error rise sky-high.”
[St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, Lib I, cap. 19., quoted in “The Universe in the Bible and in Modern Science” in Jaki’s The Only Chaos and Other Essays, p. 250]
Regarding the “really convincing” proofs of the earth’s motion: “One was Bessel’s observation of stellar parallax in 1837. The other was the pendulum experiment, performed by Foucault in 1851. Less significant were two earlier proofs. They were connected with Roemer’s deduction in 1675 of the speed of light from the observation of the motion of Jupiter’s moons and with Bradley’s observation in 1728 of the aberration of light.” [Jaki, Bible and Science p. 117 note 19]
Sorry to post twice, but I forgot the relevant Chesterton quote, for he fought the same kinds of arguments:
It is assumed that the sceptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favour
of scepticism. I remember once arguing with an honest young atheist, who was very much shocked at my disputing some of the assumptions which were absolute sanctities to him (such as the quite unproved proposition of the independence of matter and the quite improbable proposition of its power to originate mind), and he at length fell back upon this question, which he delivered with an honourable heat of defiance and indignation: “Well, can you tell me any man of intellect, great in science or philosophy, who accepted the miraculous?” I said, “With pleasure. Descartes, Dr. Johnson, Newton, Faraday, Newman, Gladstone, Pasteur, Browning, Bruneti�re – as many more as you please.” To which that quite admirable and idealistic young man made this astonishing reply – “Oh, but of course they to say that; they were Christians.” First he challenged me to find a black swan, and then he ruled out all my swans because they were black. The fact that all these great intellects had come to the Christian view was somehow or other a proof either that they were not great intellects or that they had not really come to that view. The argument thus stood in a charmingly convenient form: “All men that count have come to my conclusion; for if they come to your conclusion they do not count.”
pGKC, ILN May 4, 1907 CW27:456]
Query~From a geometric perspective, if the universe has no boundaries~that is that it is an infinite plane in all directions, then any point that you pick on that plane would be the “center” and that “center” would be moving as that point would be moving, would it not? So any point that you pick, whether it is the earth, the moon, the sun, a star a thousand light years away or the rest room at the gas station down the road, they all arguably could be the center of the universe. Then again, I majored in political science, not any real sciences. Perhaps, I am missing something….
~~before people start labelling me, I do believe that earth rotates and that it does go around the sun…
The world is heliocentric-
doesn’t it revolve around the Son?
I believe that Danby’s comment above is correct: in the General Theory of Relativity, the universe can be considered from any reference frame; that is, we can designate any point we wish, such as a given location on the earth, as “stationary”, and we can then consider all velocities and accelerations relative to that “stationary” point, and the laws of motion will still make sense. Thus, in the reference frame of the sun, Foucault’s pendulum oscillates due to the rotational motion of the earth, whereas in the reference frame of the earth, Foucault’s pendulum oscillates due to the rotational motion of the REST of the universe AROUND the earth.
It’s a bit tough to wrap one’s mind around these concepts at first; they don’t even seem to make logical sense until one understands more about Einstein’s theory, which describes all gravitational forces as “warpings” of space and time. The bottom line is that modern scientists do not believe that the universe is “heliocentric”, i.e. that the planets revolve around the sun in any absolute sense; that’s just a computational convenience, because the motions of the planets are closest to perfect ellipses in the rest frame of the sun. Of course, by the same token, modern scientists do not believe in “geocentrism” either.
I haven’t read much of Mr. Sungenis’ work on geocentrism, so I don’t quite understand what his full theory is, but it seems to me that he may be shooting himself in the foot with his explanation of the Foucault pendulum: he claims that it is due to the pull of the stars, yet that is just the explanation provided by General Relativity, and Sungenis obviously can’t accept Relativity, because he believes the earth is stationary in an absolute (not relative) sense. It all depends on whether he can offer an alternative to General Relativity that preserves the rest frame of the Earth as somehow unique, yet still manages to explain all the experimental data in favor of Relativity. That’s a tall order.
yes indeedy….the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round….
put your hands together now!
I think that Danby, Dr. Thursday and Adam Y. are all correct. Or perhaps they are all wrong. It depends on how you look at it 🙂
“The world is heliocentric-
doesn’t it revolve around the Son?”
Wouldn’t that make it “Filiocentric?”
-ACEGC
I think we should blast Sungenis out to space for 3 months, and then make him navigate his way back…And only give him enough fuel to go out in a straight line, and then reverse and come back in a straight line. If he doesn’t make it back…..Ground Control to Major Bob…….
I don’t know about relevance, but didn’t Sungenis eventually come to reject the Church? Is he now a sedevacantist or have I confused him for someone else?
It seems to me he converted (came in the front door, so to speak) and then, in his zeal came to reject the post-conciliar Church (leaving, in a straight trajectory out the back door)
I don’t believe he is a sedevacantist, just a radical traditionalist that virtually becomes one at times. It is Gerry Matatics that is now a sedevacantist and Robert Sungenis has written against his position.
While he is a radical traditionalist he is actually one of the few amongst them, who does *not* become a “virtual sede” at times.
He is actually saying in no uncertain terms that the SSPX is in schism due to it’s refusal to submit to the pope, despite his agreeing with them on almost all of their criticisms of the postconciliar Church.
Hey – if it was good enough for Aristotle it’s good enough for me!!!
Most “radical traditionalists” don’t accept the Novus Ordo as valid, as does Sungenis. Before dismissing his theories, read his papers in their entirety why dontcha? Find out why he feels so passionately about geocentrism.
My family is a great fans of yours, Jeff. But I think you’re off base on this one. Go pick on someone else.
Before dismissing his theories, read his papers in their entirety
One hears this often, but it isn’t practical. Life is too short for anyone to undertake to research every crackpot theory in detail. Occam’s razor has to be brought into play where there is a choice between a tortuous incomprehensible explanation of a phenomenon, and a simple clear one. Poor Bob.
Okay, Elinor. Dr. Sungenis’ Science Creed may be found at
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm
and will take you only one minute to read. I’ll warn you in advance: it’s pretty wacky!
Guadalupe is 100% right. Sungenis is anything but a ‘radical traditionalist’. He accepts V2 in its entirety and bends over backwards to give its texts an orthodox meaning. Which is tough sometimes, but is the duty of all faithful Catholics to do. He is not a sedevacantist nor does he side with the sspx. He has, though, actually read some official Papal and Conciliar documents that were issued before Vatican II. If that scares you, don’t read him.
Elinor, it is certainly true that you don’t have to read him, if your time is better directed elsewhere. Don’t read him, by all accounts. I think Guadalupe’s point is only that if you choose not to read him, then don’t blast him. There is a third option: you can choose not to read him AND not criticize him.
Jeff, I refer you with all respect to my post above. I don’t know why this thread is titled the way it is.
I forgot, Father T:
Sungenis was a cradle Catholic, I think, who fell away and later “reverted”. I have read his site extensively and in matters of faith he is completely solidly orthodox Catholic. He loves the traditional Mass but does not reject the new Mass. That alone may make him a “rad trad” to some, but that is one crowd I wouldn’t care to please. By the way, I don’t buy into geocentrism (nor buy out of it– to me, it is not intrisic to the Faith, and so, like Elinor, have not researched it at all) and I don’t adhere to every prudential judgement he makes on particular problems the Church faces, etc. But in terms of his creed, he is certainly Catholic.
If the only quirk he had was his position on geocenticism, that might be one thing. But some of this material is blatantly anti-semitic.
http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?Example=3002&recnum=1900&task=showexample
Catholic Culture also rates his site as Danger: Fidelity. This was a change from their previous good rating of Catholic International.
Jeff, thanks for the reply. I know about the previous dustup on his position, or more accurately, on his presentation of supercession of the old covenant. My point on the thread title was the “continues” to embarass tag– supercessionism is Church teaching, but his way of presenting it can cause offense. Fine. But since that was years ago now, and since geocentrism isn’t a “fidelity” issue, I just opined that to keep going out of the way to make fun was a little gratuituous.
And if Catholic Culture gives CAI a danger: fidelity rating, then it is flat wrong.
Believe me, I am not the Sungenis web defender. I just find most of his materials to be edifying, and all of them to be within the realm of permissible Catholic thought in line with Church teaching. I just think he gets piled on quite a bit.
Sorry, one last post on the dead horse issue: I just want to make clear that I, too, believe that Sungenis makes too sweeping generalizations on the motivations of those who disagree with the Church teaching that all people need Christ for salvation. In other words, I believe in the Church’s traditional teaching, but not on the pedagogy and motivational claims that would belong to the realm of Sungenis’ private opinion.
I just wanted to make that part clear so my own motives are not mistaken. I am merely trying to address what I believe is a little bit of unfair treatment. God bless you, Jeff, and all your readers.
Sungenis is an expert in the use of footnotes to simulate scholarship.
Cacciaguida – bingo!
(Can I borrow that quote?)
Meg Q: Sure — just credit me and link my blog. Thanks!
Sorry, I WAS thinking of Gerry Mattaticks! Thanks for the correction.
My theory is the earth is the commutator with its north and south poles that reverse ocassionally by the moving interactions of other planets moving around it.The earth doen’t move and the solar system is the electrical fields that surround it.The air,gases or spaces between is the dialectric.Another of my theorys is this galaxy is no more than a small atom in a wide universe .The earth is possibly the nucleas and the stars or planets could be electrons ,protons or neutrons.
Alan
Comments are closed.