What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Geocentrists
Does Earth orbit the Sun, or does the Sun orbit Earth? For centuries, everyone thought the science was settled, but today the accepted cosmos is being challenged by writers, speakers, and movie producers who insist that science took a wrong turn in the seventeenth century. These new geocentrists claim not only that Earth is the center of our planetary system but that Earth is motionless at the very center of the universe. They insist they have the science to back up their claims, which they buttress with evidence from the Bible and Church documents. But do they have a case? How solid is their reasoning, and how trustworthy are they as interpreters of science and theology? The New Geocentrists examines the backgrounds, personalities, and arguments of the people involved in what they believe is a revolutionary movement, one that will overthrow the existing cosmological order and, as a consequence, change everyone’s perception of the status of mankind.
- GenresSpirituality
368 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 9, 2015
6 people are currently reading
16 people want to read
About the author
Karl Keating
32 books43 followersKarl Keating (b. 1950), a prominent Catholic apologist and author, is the founder and president of Catholic Answers, a lay apostolate of Catholic apologetics and evangelization.
He received his undergraduate degree in Applied Math at UCSD in 1972 and went on to get a J.D. at the University of San Diego. He worked as an attorney practicing civil law in the early 1980s.
Leaving Mass one Sunday, he found anti-Catholic tracts on the windshields of the cars in the church parking lot. He wrote his own tract in reply and distributed copies of it at the Fundamentalist church responsible for the anti-Catholic tract. That was the start of what has become the country’s largest lay-run apologetics and evangelization organization.
Catholic Answers was incorporated in 1982, and in 1988 Karl left the practice of law and went into apostolic work full time. That year marked the publication of his Catholicism and Fundamentalism, the first book to deal extensively with challenges posed by “Bible Christians.” Other books followed: What Catholics Really Believe, Nothing But the Truth, The Usual Suspects, and Controversies. He is at work on several more titles.
For nine years Karl served as the editor of This Rock. He has been a columnist for the National Catholic Register and the Canadian Catholic Review and has written for many other publications. Each Tuesday he answers questions on “Catholic Answers Live.” His avocations include backpacking (his favorite locales are the High Sierra and the Grand Canyon) and flying.
He received his undergraduate degree in Applied Math at UCSD in 1972 and went on to get a J.D. at the University of San Diego. He worked as an attorney practicing civil law in the early 1980s.
Leaving Mass one Sunday, he found anti-Catholic tracts on the windshields of the cars in the church parking lot. He wrote his own tract in reply and distributed copies of it at the Fundamentalist church responsible for the anti-Catholic tract. That was the start of what has become the country’s largest lay-run apologetics and evangelization organization.
Catholic Answers was incorporated in 1982, and in 1988 Karl left the practice of law and went into apostolic work full time. That year marked the publication of his Catholicism and Fundamentalism, the first book to deal extensively with challenges posed by “Bible Christians.” Other books followed: What Catholics Really Believe, Nothing But the Truth, The Usual Suspects, and Controversies. He is at work on several more titles.
For nine years Karl served as the editor of This Rock. He has been a columnist for the National Catholic Register and the Canadian Catholic Review and has written for many other publications. Each Tuesday he answers questions on “Catholic Answers Live.” His avocations include backpacking (his favorite locales are the High Sierra and the Grand Canyon) and flying.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 3, 2025
A PROMINENT CATHOLIC VOICE CRITIQUES THE GEOCENTRIC POSITION
Karl Keating is a Catholic apologist who founded the 'Catholic Answers' apologetics organization. He wrote in the introductory section of this 2015 book, “The focus [in this book] is more on the people than on their scientific and religious claims… [The geocentrists’] thesis is gaining adherents… More and more people … find the cosmological and scriptural ideas put before them by geocentrists to be convincing, even compelling. Flaws in the geocentrist argument are seldom obvious to the intended audience, which is not the scientist or the theologian but the layman, particularly the layman who is susceptible to sweeping claims and to hints of conspiracies.” (Pg. 5-6)
He notes, “Galileo’s fault was that he arrogated the interpretation of Scripture to himself. It was not that he expounded the Copernican theory---after all, Copernicus himself did the same and was not brought up on charges before the Inquisition---but that he [Galileo] presumed to say how Scripture should be interpreted. He compounded his problems by presenting his thoughts in ways guaranteed to annoy those in authority, including even the pope.” (Pg. 35-36)
He acknowledges, “It is not easy to demonstrate that many of the Fathers ever wrote about cosmology at all… [or] to show a ‘unanimous consent’ when most of them apparently had nothing to say on the topic. Like everyone else in ancient times, when they wrote about the heavens, they wrote in terms of appearances (the Sun rises and sets; the stars move through the sky) without any attempt to formulate astronomical theories.” (Pg. 47)
He asserts that Paula Haigh is wrong in thinking that “the Fathers of the Church taught geocentrism as… beliefs to be held as matters of Catholic faith. Did they accept geocentric cosmology? Yes, as did probably everyone at the time. There was no unreason in …the default position of people living in an era prior to the development of the physical sciences… But did the Fathers TEACH geocentrism as part of the faith? There is no evidence of that.” (Pg. 59-60)
He observes that “John Salza … kept saying, ‘The Bible never says that the Earth is in orbit!’ that’s not really the point. The Bible doesn’t give us the periodic table of the elements either…” (Pg. 77)
He states that “its proponents have failed to offer the mathematical calculations that they say will prove it. Until they do, they can hardly object to others---including educators---not accepting their system. The new geocentrists make broad claims but they fail to show through calculation or experimentation that their claims are justified, and they ignore commonsense alternatives to their theories.” (Pg. 97)
He suggests, “All this speculation comes down to preserving the physical centrality of the Earth, without which, according to [Robert] Sungenis, man would be unimportant. In this he errs. He assumes that importance… is a matter of geography, when… [it] is a matter of God’s love for man, whom he created in his own image and likeness.” (Pg. 233)
He reports, “[geocentrists] say the star field revolves around the Earth every 24 hours. How can it do so without the stars moving fantastically faster than the speed of light? Sungenis thinks the aether makes this possible… the geocentrist would have to deny the well-established limit that is the speed of light---not only for the stars but for any body more distant from the earth than is Saturn.” (Pg. 251-252)
He points out, “It is true that neither Robert Sungenis nor Robert Bennett belongs to the Flat Earth Society… and the same can be said for each of the geocentrists mentioned in ‘The New Geocenrists’… [But] Is it prudent for a reader who has no formal scientific background to rely on the writings of someone who happily boasts that he is upending the scientific extablishment[?]… Is it prudent for a layman to rely on a writer who has subscribed to multiple and often ludicrous conspiracy theories? Is it prudent for him to ignore four centuries of scientific investigation (much of it by Christians who were as sincere in their faith as are today’s geocentrists) and adopt the views of a writer who has no formal training in science beyond a few lower-division college courses? Is it prudent for the reader to take as his own the historical and theological judgments of someone who is neither a historian nor a theologian?” (Pg. 279-280)
He also notes, “[Sungenis’s] obsessive anti-Jewish writings… may be irrelevant to his calculation of the gravitational force exerted by the Sun on the Earth, but those writings are not irrelevant when it comes to weighing his overall judiciousness and his ability to be fair to scientists with whom he disagrees…” (Pg. 284)
He concludes, “[Sungenis’s film ‘The Principle’] is based on a misapprehension. It goes wrong from its very premise, and it goes wrong when it tries to read into uncertainties in cosmological theory a necessity to return to Geocentrism. To whatever extent the film succeeds, its success will be a function not of the scientific acumen of its producers but of the capacity of its audience to be swayed by assertions that seem true but are in fact false.” (Pg. 351)
This is not a book that is likely to persuade dogmatic geocentrists, but it is a very helpful overview of the perspective for us ‘outsiders.’
Karl Keating is a Catholic apologist who founded the 'Catholic Answers' apologetics organization. He wrote in the introductory section of this 2015 book, “The focus [in this book] is more on the people than on their scientific and religious claims… [The geocentrists’] thesis is gaining adherents… More and more people … find the cosmological and scriptural ideas put before them by geocentrists to be convincing, even compelling. Flaws in the geocentrist argument are seldom obvious to the intended audience, which is not the scientist or the theologian but the layman, particularly the layman who is susceptible to sweeping claims and to hints of conspiracies.” (Pg. 5-6)
He notes, “Galileo’s fault was that he arrogated the interpretation of Scripture to himself. It was not that he expounded the Copernican theory---after all, Copernicus himself did the same and was not brought up on charges before the Inquisition---but that he [Galileo] presumed to say how Scripture should be interpreted. He compounded his problems by presenting his thoughts in ways guaranteed to annoy those in authority, including even the pope.” (Pg. 35-36)
He acknowledges, “It is not easy to demonstrate that many of the Fathers ever wrote about cosmology at all… [or] to show a ‘unanimous consent’ when most of them apparently had nothing to say on the topic. Like everyone else in ancient times, when they wrote about the heavens, they wrote in terms of appearances (the Sun rises and sets; the stars move through the sky) without any attempt to formulate astronomical theories.” (Pg. 47)
He asserts that Paula Haigh is wrong in thinking that “the Fathers of the Church taught geocentrism as… beliefs to be held as matters of Catholic faith. Did they accept geocentric cosmology? Yes, as did probably everyone at the time. There was no unreason in …the default position of people living in an era prior to the development of the physical sciences… But did the Fathers TEACH geocentrism as part of the faith? There is no evidence of that.” (Pg. 59-60)
He observes that “John Salza … kept saying, ‘The Bible never says that the Earth is in orbit!’ that’s not really the point. The Bible doesn’t give us the periodic table of the elements either…” (Pg. 77)
He states that “its proponents have failed to offer the mathematical calculations that they say will prove it. Until they do, they can hardly object to others---including educators---not accepting their system. The new geocentrists make broad claims but they fail to show through calculation or experimentation that their claims are justified, and they ignore commonsense alternatives to their theories.” (Pg. 97)
He suggests, “All this speculation comes down to preserving the physical centrality of the Earth, without which, according to [Robert] Sungenis, man would be unimportant. In this he errs. He assumes that importance… is a matter of geography, when… [it] is a matter of God’s love for man, whom he created in his own image and likeness.” (Pg. 233)
He reports, “[geocentrists] say the star field revolves around the Earth every 24 hours. How can it do so without the stars moving fantastically faster than the speed of light? Sungenis thinks the aether makes this possible… the geocentrist would have to deny the well-established limit that is the speed of light---not only for the stars but for any body more distant from the earth than is Saturn.” (Pg. 251-252)
He points out, “It is true that neither Robert Sungenis nor Robert Bennett belongs to the Flat Earth Society… and the same can be said for each of the geocentrists mentioned in ‘The New Geocenrists’… [But] Is it prudent for a reader who has no formal scientific background to rely on the writings of someone who happily boasts that he is upending the scientific extablishment[?]… Is it prudent for a layman to rely on a writer who has subscribed to multiple and often ludicrous conspiracy theories? Is it prudent for him to ignore four centuries of scientific investigation (much of it by Christians who were as sincere in their faith as are today’s geocentrists) and adopt the views of a writer who has no formal training in science beyond a few lower-division college courses? Is it prudent for the reader to take as his own the historical and theological judgments of someone who is neither a historian nor a theologian?” (Pg. 279-280)
He also notes, “[Sungenis’s] obsessive anti-Jewish writings… may be irrelevant to his calculation of the gravitational force exerted by the Sun on the Earth, but those writings are not irrelevant when it comes to weighing his overall judiciousness and his ability to be fair to scientists with whom he disagrees…” (Pg. 284)
He concludes, “[Sungenis’s film ‘The Principle’] is based on a misapprehension. It goes wrong from its very premise, and it goes wrong when it tries to read into uncertainties in cosmological theory a necessity to return to Geocentrism. To whatever extent the film succeeds, its success will be a function not of the scientific acumen of its producers but of the capacity of its audience to be swayed by assertions that seem true but are in fact false.” (Pg. 351)
This is not a book that is likely to persuade dogmatic geocentrists, but it is a very helpful overview of the perspective for us ‘outsiders.’
March 23, 2015
Keating examines claims by Geocentrists
Karl Keating in Chesterton style debunks a group that is trying to main stream the idea that the earth is the center of the Universe. Keating writing style kept me reading after the first few pages. I "almost" felt sorry for the people who's ideas and practices he disassembles. It was an interesting read in how science should not be done, i.e. start with the conclusion and select the data that supports it or as the Queen of Hearts would say, "first the verdict then the trial".
Karl Keating in Chesterton style debunks a group that is trying to main stream the idea that the earth is the center of the Universe. Keating writing style kept me reading after the first few pages. I "almost" felt sorry for the people who's ideas and practices he disassembles. It was an interesting read in how science should not be done, i.e. start with the conclusion and select the data that supports it or as the Queen of Hearts would say, "first the verdict then the trial".
October 22, 2016
Examination, not of the classics like Voliva and Teed, but what the "Galileo was wrong!" crowd have been up to in recent decades. They mean it.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews