Believing in non sequiturs (such as that articulated by "my conscience flares up at killing, therefore killing us evil") is never philosophically unimportant, but certain issues someone could embrace fallacious conclusions about are--the issues, not the fallacies. The shape of Earth is ultimately one of them. Yes, the planet absolutely appears to be a sphere on an evidential level, not a disc. No, it does not logically follow from sensory observation that something really exists or has its perceived appearance, and so of course one cannot prove Earth is spherical as opposed to just discover evidence for this, but this does not mean someone is justified in believing Earth is flat! Something must be both true by necessity and utterly verifiable, without assumptions, to be justified as a belief.
Flat earthers sometimes confuse a lack of absolute proof for the same thing as logical impossibility or lack of evidence. None of these are the same. Of course the sphericity of Earth is not self-evident or inherently true like logical axioms. Of course it is not demonstrable a priori as a necessary truth that transcends the contingent, malleable nature of the sensory world. It is also not of high existential/moral importance on its own, unlike, say, the duty to not steal if theft is indeed immoral, the great potential in human relationships, or the nature of life in the face of mortality. There is still plenty of evidence that Earth is not a flat disc, but a sphere.
First of all (this is not yet evidence for a spherical planet), the associated flat earth conspiracy, which entails that organizations like NASA have fabricated all evidence of a spherical planet, has the typical epistemological failures of other conspiracy theories. I have even been told by someone that NASA is specifically a sex cult of all things! Like the presence of an American deep state, it can only be assumed, not proven, because it does not logically follow from anything accessible to the public--conspiracy theories could be true in many cases because they are logically possible, but there is either no evidence in their favor and there is probabilistic evidence against them. In this instance, something as simple as moving upwards to higher ground as the sun sets can unveil strong evidence for the subtle curvature of the world without secret cabals being directly relevant one way or another.
Not everyone can just go out to the sea and witness the distant curve of the horizon, witness ships disappear if they venture far enough in front of one's position, or travel to space, though each of these things reveals evidence of a kind. A smooth, open horizon does still offer signs that the ground and water do not stretch on in the exact same uncurving geometry for the entire scope of the world. Environments and objects drop off gradually, and the world subtly curves, and if one was at the furthest location one can see, it would appear the same way in other directions all over again. Certainly, any photograph taken from outer space showing a clearly spherical planet could be edited, but this does not make it likely that such a thing is true. What is much more easy to access is a vantage point where one can go higher and higher as the sun sets. If Earth is a sphere rather than a truly flat surface, then the sun would not be visually inaccessible after it sinks below the horizon.
As one moves to a higher altitude, it can be viewable again for a time. If the planet was flat (at least on the side we inhabit in this ideology), the sun and its light could not be seen anymore under these circumstances. One would have to be right at the alleged edge of the world, though some say the boundaries of the disc have massive walls of ice that could prevent this, and staring downward. The ultimate unverifiability of general sense experience aside, on the level of perception, there is much scientific evidence for the spherical shape of Earth that does not have anything to do with hypothetically altered images from NASA. The unprovable and unfalsifiable conspiracy theories can be sidestepped completely if one has the time, the energy, the willingness, and the terrain to just move upwards to keep seeing the setting sun.
While it is not actually very important to know that sensory evidences point to Earth being a sphere to get by and become familiar with far deeper things, there are some who say the Bible teaches that Earth is a flat disc, rather than a three-dimensional circle. This is often derived from assuming that the phrase "the four corners of the earth" in Revelation 7:1 is entirely literal. Is it literal when it says there are only four winds, rather than summarizing the four cardinal directions? The geometric shape of Earth is trivial in itself, but if it is a sphere and the Bible genuinely teaches that it is flat, this would mean that at least any such doctrine of the Bible is erroneous. One verse popularly cited in defense of a sphere is Job 26:7, which says that God suspends the world over "nothing," or, in other words, that it does not rest on any material objects below it, but this does not mean the verse teaches a spherical planet.
Job 26:10, however, does mention a division between light and darkness. If this is presented as a natural phenomenon that God only set in motion (as opposed to supernaturally causes) and if this division falls on the world, then this would require a spherical rather than flat Earth because, as already addressed, on a flat disc, light from the sun, terrain variations aside, would not illuminate part of the world while missing another part. This is also brushed up against in Luke 17:30-35. The reference to the return of Christ being both at day and night, as well as two people being in bed while two women grind grain (which would likely occur in the daytime), suggests a spherical Earth. The return happening at day and night in the same instant could only be the case if the planet had specific geometry, while the contrasting activities of the people used as examples are lesser evidences. People can be in bed during the day and they could work at night. It is just far less likely.
There is also Isaiah 40:22, but this verse could mean a disc or a sphere by the phrase "circle of the earth," so its affirmation of a spherical planet depends on if the circle in question is three-dimensional. The Bible is not necessarily focusing on scientific details in any of these cases, as much as some insist. However, this does not mean the Bible is false, and it does not necessarily mean it is teaching any literal doctrine that conflicts with what appears to be the case based upon scientific experience. Neither scientific paradigms nor religious frameworks can actually be proven beyond logically necessary details like the mere existence of an external world and an uncaused cause respectively [1]. All the same, empirical evidence points very much to Earth being a sphere and the Bible is ultimately consistent with this.
[1].
NASA as a sex cult lol. That's a new one. Is that what the S stands for? The things Flat earthers (conspiracy theorists in general, really) come up with sometimes are absolute gold.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, hi Cooper! It's been a while, hope all's been well!