For example, the geocentric theory was supported more on belief. This was because of the lack of technology and understanding--nature was explained by myths and religion. Also, there was no solid proof that the reasonings were legitimate. Howbeit, the heliocentric theory was based on more concrete evidence. More and more technology was being produced and refined which made research more accurate. The theory was no longer depended on common sense--mathematics and other tools provided evidence. But, both rationales were structured with the assets available. Ultimately, the main difference is the backbone of the …show more content…
But why did the Catholic refuse even though there was much more proof supporting heliocentrism? To begin with, the heliocentric theory contradicted most of the Bible. The sun was not perfect for it had sunspots, the earth was not the center (and therefore not the most important body) in the universal system. This was interpreted as an insult to God and his creations—equivalent to insulting the people themselves. Also, if Catholicism was wrong, other religions and people would try to thwart the Church--religions like the Lutherans. Moreover, the funds would stop from piling up at their doorsteps. If people lost their belief, they would stop donating and giving money to the Vatican; the Vatican would no longer have a budget big enough to keep the facilities and luxuries going. Still, the Vatican lives on even though they accepted heliocentrism—no relevant impact