But, that was semi plausable. Everything rotates, and orbits, so the theory that the Earth was the Center was plausible if one just looked up. But if one actually took a telescope and measured, it was a different story then.
No (what follows is a ton of smartassery and my personal view of history, I'm sorry, but I find it very interesting). This matter has been often greatly confused. The single most defining characteristic of astronomical movement is caused by the revolution of the earth around itself (which is for some reason always forgotten
). This happens in a day, while the earth moving around the sun takes a year. The latter (and planetary movements) cause "barely" noticeable disturbances in the "perfect" circles the former creates. All the data gathered is pretty much compatible with the Earth (or anything you'd want to pick) as the center of the universe (this is just a question of mathematical transformations).
Anyway, people first believed all celestial bodies made circles around the earth - this was perfect scientific practice, as it was simple and it described what you saw. But as they discovered more data it became clear it wasn't so and people developed (more and more complex) systems which involve circles inside circles to accurately describe the movements (this is what those complicated machines that wizards generally have standing around are for). Gathering the data wasn't a matter of just looking or the right equipment. It was about constantly tracking planetary movement for many centuries, passing the data down over generations (and possibly building stonehenges), etc. People did that way before modern science was started, astronomy is an unbroken tradition going back to ancient babylonians and maybe even further.
What happened is when Kepler and Newton came along, they took all the piled up data and managed to create a simple system describing it by having everything move sort of elliptically around the sun. Newton further integrated astronomy with physics on the earth. These theories are the reason for modern heliozentrism.
Anyway, what's really interesting about this, is why did people do it. It had no practical application. Like building pyramids or giant cathedrals. While insights gained from it were sometimes also useful (star navigation or statics f.e.) it was on a down to earth basis with little reasonable justification for all the extra effort. Which was paid for by exploitation of slaves and peasants. But then modern science arose from it. Then it became useful and we started building computers and satellites.
Perhaps it would have come anyway, I don't know. But historically it was founded upon all the impractical bullshit people did in the past. We are still doing it today. I mean what's the point of spending billions just to watch distant stars? But perhaps now the idea that some day it will come useful is enough.
In the end I think, it is really just this. Both science and religion arise from something unreasonable. In both cases you'll just have to accept unfounded principles. You don't really have to belief them. That's pretty much clear for science, but it's also not unimaginable for an atheists to be a priest (maybe he thinks its psychologically better for people to believe etc.). But in the end you need, I don't know, hope, that they (and what you are doing) fundamentally makes sense. In the end discussing about whether to believe is pointless, it is better to try to get whatever you ascribe to as clear and good as possible.
Also, science is still better.