Creationists Demand Airtime On 'Cosmos' For The Sake Of Balance

ErgoTheMirror

ErgoTheMirror
They've done an excellent job haven't they?

GetHyped
It seems more like you're projecting your own prejudices. If you honestly think that Cosmos and/or science is somehow a religion then you need a new dictionary.

Oh?

I'm supposed to submit to a specific authority that you believe in for the definition of The Word?

Interesting.

No, rather you're supposed to stick to commonly understood definitions of words if you wish to have a productive and logically consistent conversation.

GetHyped
No, rather you're supposed to stick to commonly understood definitions of words if you wish to have a productive and logically consistent conversation.

Yes I know what you think I'm supposed to do.

The commonly understood definition of "religion" you've proposed is one which is pushed for a very specific reason. Obfuscation of the underlying mindset so it can continue to be exploited on those who believe they are its most ardent opponents.

reply to post by ErgoTheMirror


My left foot is a religion. Why? Because I said so. The commonly understood definition of "religion" you've proposed is one which is pushed for a very specific reason. Obfuscation of the underlying mindset so it can continue to be exploited on those who believe they are its most ardent opponents.


This is about the intellectual integrity of your argument.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


Yes, NDT or Michio Kaku should go on the 700 club everyday, for balance sake! I can see it now, Pat Robertson getting a dose science in the middle of his prayer meeting fund drive.

reply to post by GetHyped


Just curious, but why did you not quote the entire definition?

religion |riˈlijən|
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
• a particular system of faith and worship: the world's great religions.
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: consumerism is the new religion.

Speaking of intellectual integrity...

ErgoTheMirror

GetHyped
No, rather you're supposed to stick to commonly understood definitions of words if you wish to have a productive and logically consistent conversation.

Yes I know what you think I'm supposed to do.

The commonly understood definition of "religion" you've proposed is one which is pushed for a very specific reason. Obfuscation of the underlying mindset so it can continue to be exploited on those who believe they are its most ardent opponents.

More like opponents of science (proponents of theism) push the idea of science being a religion so the can pontificate why their beliefs (theistic) should be seen as equally valid.

It seems they (theists) can't grasp the difference. One is evidence supported reality and the other is conjecture based on an emotional plea.

GetHyped
My left foot is a religion. Why? Because I said so.

This is about the intellectual integrity of your argument.

Is it?

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe.

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith, belief system or sometimes set of duties; however, in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is "something eminently social".

In his book The Varieties of Religious Experience, the psychologist William James defined religion as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine". By the term "divine" James meant "any object that is godlike, whether it be a concrete deity or not" to which the individual feels impelled to respond with solemnity and gravity.

Sacred things are not, however, limited to gods or spirits. On the contrary, a sacred thing can be "a rock, a tree, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word, anything can be sacred". Religious beliefs, myths, dogmas and legends are the representations that express the nature of these sacred things, and the virtues and powers which are attributed to them.

We can go on... if you like. Can't get any more "commonly" than dear old Wikipedia. There is no shortage of other definitions out there as well.

Unless of course you wish to identify some Specific Authority that we're all supposed to fall in line with?

solomons path
More like opponents of science (proponents of theism) push the idea of science being a religion so the can pontificate why their beliefs (theistic) should be seen as equally valid.

It seems they (theists) can't grasp the difference. One is evidence supported reality and the other is conjecture based on an emotional plea.

It is no opponent of science to point out when it has found itself in bed with the very harlot it once decried.

reply to post by ErgoTheMirror


That being said, I still do not see science, real science, as a religion. But there are obvious ideological themes and impulses around its discourse.

reply to post by Aphorism

Of course. Real science is a process... not a set of conclusions.

We're currently awash in conclusions.

ErgoTheMirror
reply to post by Aphorism

 

Of course. Real science is a process... not a set of conclusions.

We're currently awash in conclusions... and at least in the public sphere... very little process.

Despite your opinion on wayward bedfellows, the conclusions reached come from the process. They are conclusions based on all of the falsified evidence available at the time. If not for those conclusions, you wouldn't have a computer to share your opinions. There also wouldn't be advances like recombinant DNA therapy or missions to explore the solar system ... I'd say the conclusions are supported by their predictions and practical applications, in spades.

reply to post by solomons path

The conclusions reached now are built upon the conclusions reached by earlier processes. Without understanding the scientific nature of those people that are now mocked... a great opportunity for self reflection when making the same errors is missed.

Look at the *nature* of the people... not their beliefs. Identify who are the "heretics" that will eventually be identified as looking beyond the "commonly understood conclusions of the time". Identify who are the "priests" who will eventually be identified as working to maintain the "commonly accepted conclusions" of the time.

I'm being scientific about the Culture of Science. I'm stating flat out that the "commonly understood" and defended dogmas that aren't seen as dogmas of today will one day be represented in cartoons the same as the people in the first episode of Cosmos were. The "priests" back then were blinded to their dogmas the same as the "experts" of today.

It is the cartoonish representation of these "stupid theists" of old that is causing people to not recognize when they are in fact being those people now. It is a failure to recognize how those people *really* thought, the processes they were using, and the degree of intellectual effort put into their positions.

My biggest disappointment is that the reboot does, indeed, seem to have an added agenda. I enjoyed the original immensely. Carl Sagan did a fantastic job of communicating the wonder of creation and joined his audience in the anticipation of discoveries yet to come.

When you start using terms like "throwing down the gauntlet", you've dishonored the memory of both Cosmos and Sagan.

I had high hopes for the reboot, but with the smug and condescending attitude I've seen I don't care to watch any more episodes.

reply to post by sdcigarpig

So that means that the Hindu's could very well demand that their point of view be represented, and the Pagans, and the Druids, and the Mayans, and the Hopi's and the Aztecs, and any number of groups out there, who want to see that their point of view is displayed, would have all rights to do demand such, and if the creators of Cosmos gives in to the Christians, then they will have to also allow for equal time to all of the others who want to come in and state their point of view.

An excellent point.

Thanks for that

reply to post by ErgoTheMirror


Star for that, very nicely put.

While I'll disagree to a certain extent, that's certainly a possibility.

I think the main distinction would be in the methods employed and the evidence backing to reach those conclusions.

I'm curious as to which scientific principles and methodologies are applied in this creationist science stuff... so that other scientists are given the opportunity to prove whether or not these hypotheses have some validity ?

Since it has the word "science" attached to it, surely there must be some published research studies where we laymen can at least read through some of the abstracts out of curiosity, if nothing else ?

I don't like the show. I will continue to watch it for new information but the pacing and shallowness of the show is annoying.

Mr Tyson seems to be always pumping up the ideas as being the ultimate historical achievement. And when he gets to the ultimate zenith of drama; it is time for a commercial. Then after the commercial the idea has to be reintroduced and gets a very shallow examination. Every event in science has to be a shown as a cliffhanger before the commercial. I would like less commercial breaks and more in depth presentation.

I question if the presentation is due to a hidden agenda. Remember that the religious right was funded by the corporate wealthy. With more and more credence being offered that the republican agenda is losing steam due to the diversity of the country's population; I think this show is a way mold the current young generation to be more industrious and not just see science as great magic. This show seems to be a way for the corporation to instill a better work ethic into the young by giving them a reason to explore the realms of possibilities that science offers. Without these young people going into science endeavors, the military and corporate foundations of this country will fail. The country needs new talent going into the sciences. The religious right was a great way to control people for the corporate wealthy but that method has created unexpected consequences. Too many service and financial sector jobs with a lack of manufacturing and product development.

Thus, that is why I feel this show is on the Fox network and following its format.

The show is not that informative. It just barely touches the surface of science. It is meant to get the republican ideology back on track: Conservatism with a strong work ethic.

reply to post by CornShucker

When you start using terms like "throwing down the gauntlet", you've dishonored the memory of both Cosmos and Sagan.

"Whut?"

Sagan clearly knew the pitfalls of religion and even warned of fanaticism.

I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive.
Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls.

The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark]

And like Sagan, Tyson has a BS detector, err..Baloney Detection!

Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us -- and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along.
[Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]

I had high hopes for the reboot, but with the smug and condescending attitude I've seen I don't care to watch any more episodes.

That's too bad, you're going to miss out on a great series. "Smug and condescending attitude," I don't get that at all.
The science is well explained and not overly detailed neither is it dumbed down. I'm impressed with Tyson's performance, a decent homage to the original series with some modern updates.

Perhaps you don't know Tyson as well as you think, have you ever watched a video of one of his lectures?

Tyson can be condescending for real.

solomons path
Star for that, very nicely put.

While I'll disagree to a certain extent, that's certainly a possibility.

/salute

solomons path
I think the main distinction would be in the methods employed and the evidence backing to reach those conclusions.

Here's the trick for us trying to explore this territory. We must teleport our minds as best we can back to the information available at the time.

It's easy to look at those dismissing Bruno and marvel at how they could be so blind to something "so obvious". But let's take the Cosmos episode at face value where it outright states he didn't *have* evidence... not really. Only his ability to reason things out. The evidence would come later.

Consider the reaction *now* when someone proposes an idea that seems "plausible" yet overthrows everything... but lacks any evidence except their reasoning it out. Cries of "Heresy!" are no different than "Evidence!?!?!" except thankfully the experts in a field no longer have the ability to burn heretics.

They can simply ruin careers or cut off funding.

When we place our state of mind into the appropriate time frame and look at the world as it would have appeared to them... we see the exact same dynamics play then as today and those in the past no longer appear quite so unreasonable. We also start to see how unreasonable we're going to look to others down the road who haven't fully perceived this dynamic.

We see this at play in more modern times. Look back on the history of Lamarckism. It went from plausible... to laughable... to a semi-vindication via Epigenetics. We are quick to dismiss this as "just the way science works"... but if we REALLY look at how we as a "scientific culture" treated this subject as well as many others the pattern becomes clear and it starts to become easy to identify the personas by their traits of behavior in current times regardless of their beliefs.

Looking into the path the "discovery" of meteorites went through where the "laymen" were telling the experts they came from the sky and were dismissed for quite some time. Or Alfred Wegener being dismissed for continental drift. Or any other number of science heroes who died or "failed in the careers" before their expert peers acknowledged their perspectives. In hindsight we applaud their strength in the face of opposition... while being that very opposition today.

Whether the experts wear robes or lab coats... it's the same personalities at play.

When someone reads the writings of people like Thomas Aquinas, the "mad desert saints" of Orthodox Catholicism, the Tao, etc... and contemplate the time, culture, and information they were working within the scientific mind is clearly visible when the surface word biases are pulled aside.

This process of "self correction" from testing and evidence is not unique to "science" as a field of study. It's just what people do across all areas. They refine and iterate their areas of interest as more perspectives become available and understandable. People were using "science" when they were still worshiping animals and rocks and it was the scientific mind that led them to do so in the face of the evidence they did have. It then led to how tools came to be and species were domesticated. The process existed long before someone decided to define it.

Another example I often consider. "Turtles all the way down" is often used as a pejorative when mocking ancient beliefs. But really think about it! Someone who has figured out the repeating fractal nature of reality wants to explain the concept of infinitely repeating patterns in the universe to a person who has possibly never done any math... much less contemplated the Mandlebrot Set. Turtle Shells repeating over and over is a *fantastic* method to communicate this concept.

The entire point of the great thinkers of the past was they were going against the commonly understood "facts" and available evidence. Their new evidence was initially sparse and when it did exist was difficult to comprehend to someone who had lived thinking about things a certain way.

The prominent theologians of old in east and west spent a great deal of time running their views of the world through the rigors of reason and verification with the best tools and information available to them.

At one time Catholicism in the west was the safest belief system to subscribe to to avoid ridicule... and most of the best minds were working within that worldview. What is it the safest worldview today? What will it be tomorrow?

Are we absolutely sure we're smarter than the universe that created us? Are we just on mute?

Who knows!?!?

ErgoTheMirror

We can go on... if you like. Can't get any more "commonly" than dear old Wikipedia. There is no shortage of other definitions out there as well.

Unless of course you wish to identify some Specific Authority that we're all supposed to fall in line with?

edit on 21-3-2014 by ErgoTheMirror because: (no reason given)

So we're playing the game of "dictionary abuse" where we cherry pick the context and meaning of words? Very intellectually dishonest. Let's see what else Wikipedia has to say about the definition of religion:

There are numerous definitions of religion and only a few are stated here. The typical dictionary definition of religion refers to a "belief in, or the worship of, a god or gods"[22] or the "service and worship of God or the supernatural".[23] However, writers and scholars have expanded upon the "belief in god" definitions as insufficient to capture the diversity of religious thought and experience.


Urarina shaman, Peru, 1988
Edward Burnett Tylor defined religion as "the belief in spiritual beings".[24] He argued, back in 1871, that narrowing the definition to mean the belief in a supreme deity or judgment after death or idolatry and so on, would exclude many peoples from the category of religious, and thus "has the fault of identifying religion rather with particular developments than with the deeper motive which underlies them". He also argued that the belief in spiritual beings exists in all known societies.
The anthropologist Clifford Geertz defined religion as a "system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."[25] Alluding perhaps to Tylor's "deeper motive", Geertz remarked that "we have very little idea of how, in empirical terms, this particular miracle is accomplished. We just know that it is done, annually, weekly, daily, for some people almost hourly; and we have an enormous ethnographic literature to demonstrate it".[26] The theologian Antoine Vergote also emphasized the "cultural reality" of religion, which he defined as "the entirety of the linguistic expressions, emotions and, actions and signs that refer to a supernatural being or supernatural beings"; he took the term "supernatural" simply to mean whatever transcends the powers of nature or human agency.[27]
The sociologist Durkheim, in his seminal book The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, defined religion as a "unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things".[28] By sacred things he meant things "set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them". Sacred things are not, however, limited to gods or spirits.[note 2] On the contrary, a sacred thing can be "a rock, a tree, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word, anything can be sacred".[29] Religious beliefs, myths, dogmas and legends are the representations that express the nature of these sacred things, and the virtues and powers which are attributed to them.[30]
In his book The Varieties of Religious Experience, the psychologist William James defined religion as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine".[31] By the term "divine" James meant "any object that is godlike, whether it be a concrete deity or not"[32] to which the individual feels impelled to respond with solemnity and gravity.[33]
Echoes of James' and Durkheim's definitions are to be found in the writings of, for example, Frederick Ferré who defined religion as "one's way of valuing most comprehensively and intensively".[34] Similarly, for the theologian Paul Tillich, faith is "the state of being ultimately concerned",[35] which "is itself religion. Religion is the substance, the ground, and the depth of man's spiritual life."[36] Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as das schlechthinnige Abhängigkeitsgefühl, commonly translated as "a feeling of absolute dependence".[37] His contemporary Hegel disagreed thoroughly, defining religion as "the Divine Spirit becoming conscious of Himself through the finite spirit."[38]
When religion is seen in terms of "sacred", "divine", intensive "valuing", or "ultimate concern", then it is possible to understand why scientific findings and philosophical criticisms (e.g. Richard Dawkins) do not necessarily disturb its adherents.[39]

What does any of this have to do with the TV show "Cosmos" in any meaningful way? If you drew this conclusion from a popular science TV shoe then you need to lay off the acid.

When you have to bend and abuse language to make your argument appear logically consistent on the surface, you have lost.