Right-Wing Zealots Are Already Freaking Out About The Return Of Cosmos!
The reboot of Carl Sagans Cosmos is here and, as Ned Twyman predicted, the anti-science crowd is furious. Unfortunately, even though it aired on FOX, Cosmos presented viewers with a scientific view of the universe and, to some, that means the end of the world.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, host of the show, continued in the tradition of walking us through the universe and presenting anti-Creation, anti-God propaganda. Can you believe he said that we are made of star stuff rather than invisible strands of Jesus love?
In all of our worlds 6,000 years there has not been a more ridiculous idea than that the world was not created in six days. All this reboot of the show accomplishes is to push the liberal, atheist viewpoint through anti-Christian propaganda!
After all, it was endorsed by Barack Benghazi Obama right?
Just take a look at what these geniuses have to say about it:
The fact that the religious nut cases are upset amuses me
... is that if it turns out God really did create us in his image, we are totally, irrevocably fucked
passion for science. I am not talking about dogmatic systems presented by religions. I am talking about my religious if you will spiritual connection to all that is. I am one with the universe and the universe is part of me. I find as much glory and beauty in the universe as I do thinking about the immutable indestructibility of my soul to live on forever. Every lifetime is a chance to learn something, to make something better, to reach farther into the universe and know its mysteries. Religious structures don't bother me.
... have considered that if God really created man in his own image, then God looks a helluva lot more like Barack Obama than him.
...would be a paste-eating, nose-picking, slobber-drooling dumbfuck
...just gets them a-foaming...
He believed that you could be spiritual & accept science.....and that science could also, in fact, even inspire spirituality. That, more than anything else from the good Doctor, challenged their worldview more than anything, IMO.
In the past science would not prevent belief. My father in law was an engineer and also devout. This was the case all over america. Now they say you have to choose. Science or religion. I always thought if there was a God, then that god invented science. Probably so people could learn, invent and create things. Such as a polio vaccine. Sometimes you just can't put it on a stone tablet.
And that cosmologists are highly spiritual, sorry if I do not see that.
What is happening though is that the fastest growing group right now are unaffiliated, especially 35 and bellow. Some places, like New Zealand, might be mostly secular by 2050. We are moving towards that tipping point why organized religion, especially the most fundie flavors, and not just Christianity, are fighting rear guard actions.
This is the case with advanced economies at least.
How long did it take for the church to finally say Galileo was correct? My guess is that the ultra-pious so-called Christians will take just as long to say Sagan is correct.
The church actually supported Galileo! The church now says:
But the conflict was not between a progressive scientist and a backward clergy, or between a blameless individual and an authoritarian Church. In fact, as we shall argue, Galileo's attempt to validate an essentially Pythagorean description of the universe owes more of its driving force to his own vanity and personal ambitions, than to the impersonal forces that motivate a disinterested scientist. The Church, on the other hand, did not initiate an aggressive attack against Galileo as much as it was forced into a position of having to defend its own integrity.
So, basically, the Church condemned Galileo because he was a pain in the ass. Continuing to rewrite history, the church complains about Galileo's "caustic tongue":
Galileo's caustic tongue and acid pen made him many a life-long enemy and even converted supportive colleagues into vindictive foes. The devastating sarcasm with which he frequently ridiculed the arguments and the character of his opponents created more bitterness than they shed light. Concerning his arch-rival, Colombe, Galileo remarked that Aristotle made many blunders, "Though neither so many nor so silly as does this author every time he opens his mouth on the subject."57 Referring to the "Pigeon-League," he once stated that he had "an idea for an emblem those pedants could put on their shingle: A fireplace with a stuffed flue, and the smoke curling back to fill the house in which are assembled people to whom dark comes before evening."58 De Santillana avers that Galileo's marginal jottings on his copy of a work by Fr. Grassi were so violent that, "The expletives alone would make a vocabulary of good Tuscan abuse."59
The Galileo affair is essentially a human drama played out by a cast of flawed and finite characters. It has the plausible pretext of being a loftier dispute involving science, philosophy, theology, and society. But in the main, it is a clash of souls, some less noble than others. There is a subtle irony to the fact that Galileo and Shakespeare were born in the same year. The world's pre-eminent playwright would have found the Galileo dispute much to his liking, and had he given it a script would doubtlessly have assigned the impersonal ideals a place of secondary significance.
Actually, that is a perfectly legitimate statement.
Galileo told a longstanding friend of his, Pope Urban VIII, that he was going to write on the Ptolemaic system versus the Copernican system in his Dialogue on the Two World Systems. Urban, who was well aware that Galileo was an advocate of heliocentrism, asked (not ordered, asked) Galileo to treat the geocentric model with respect and not ridicule. When Galileo did not do this, Urban was displeased. Moreover, Galileo quoted Urban, and put Urban's words in the mouth of a man named Simplicius -- "simpleton" is a good translation. Naturally, Urban really did not appreciate being called an idiot in print. So he had Galileo called before the Papal Inquisition to explain himself. Remember that Henry VIII of England had people executed for less.)
Before I go on, let me say a few words about the Papal Inquisition. Don't confuse it with the Spanish Inquisition, a wholly separate organization. The name Inquisition comes from the Latin inquirere -- to look into, or to examine ("inquire" is from the same root). In the Papal Inquisition, defendants had such things as the right to counsel, the right to be told the specific charges against them and their property would not be seized by the Inquisition. Torture was permitted, but only when specifically authorized by the Pope or the head of the Inquisition (at that time, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine) and was to be used only once.
One thing that should be pointed out is that a major part of the Dialogue on the Two World Systems was concerned with a basically flawed theory about tides. Galileo believed that tides were caused by the sloshing back and forth of water in the seas as a point on the Earth's surface sped up and slowed down because of the Earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the Sun. He advanced this theory because Cardinal Bellarmine called for evidence that the Earth circled the Sun, and Galileo thought this would suffice. Unfortunately for him, the theory is flat-out wrong, and could be shown to be wrong -- for one thing, it said that there should be only one high tide per day, not two. Galileo clearly knew of this problem, but essentially blew it off.
Another thing that should be pointed out is that the Vatican assigned two Jesuits, Christoph Scheiner and Orazio Grassi, to look into Galileo's science. Both had solid credentials as astronomers. However, Galileo had managed to alienate both of them. Schiener was one of the first astronomers to observe sunspots and was, as far as he knew, the first to describe them in a scientific paper. (In fact, the first paper on sunspots was published the previous year by David Fabricius, but his paper was unknown outside of Germany.) Galileo attempted to grab the glory of having first seen sunspots from Scheiner, and compounded this by plagiarizing Scheiner in his own paper.
Grassi and Galileo disagreed on the nature of comets. What made things worse was that Grassi was right and Galileo was wrong. Grassi had observed a comet over a period of time, and had noticed that the moon moved faster in the sky than the comet did; Grassi reasonably (and correctly) assumed that the comet was further from the earth than the moon was. Galileo believed that they were optical illusions in the atmosphere. After several rounds of argument in various pamphlets, Galileo wrote an essay, Il Saggiatore -- "The Assayer" -- attacking Grassi and his theory. This essay is still taught in Italian schools as a masterpiece of polemical writing. Naturally, having been held up to ridicule, Grassi was no friend to Galileo.
No, calling Galileo a pain in the arse is founded solidly on the facts.
I swear I missed the Jesus strands in me. Given I am jewish, can this person explain that one to me?
and not one of them mentioned Jesus strands to us.
They must of all been some of those subversive, liberal nuns....The kind who get on buses and follow Paul Ryan around trying to shame him.
were not even from progressive orders!!
There is irrefutable evidence that Tyson, Sagan, and the majority of us are right yet they are resolute in keeping their head in the sand. It's both infuriating and sad.
"The Flintstones" was not a documentary people, the earth is not 6,000 years old. Use that noggin on top of your shoulders and actually think.
Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:01 AM - Edit history (1)
If only they would.
Incredibly moving. And engaging.
I'm going to be watching it all.
and Critical Thinking
by Maria Popova
Necessary cognitive fortification against propaganda, pseudoscience, and general falsehood.
But the kit, Sagan argues, isnt merely a tool of science rather, it contains invaluable tools of healthy skepticism that apply just as elegantly, and just as necessarily, to everyday life. By adopting the kit, we can all shield ourselves against clueless guile and deliberate manipulation. Sagan shares nine of these tools:
2) Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
3) Arguments from authority carry little weight authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
4) Spin more than one hypothesis. If theres something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among multiple working hypotheses, has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
5) Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because its yours. Its only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you dont, others will.
Always a good time for a little Sagan.
Of course I do not expose her to religion at all. We have a Bible on the bookcase though. She's welcome to read it. She says she might one day...no rush.
But I'm not so sure all that sex and violence is good for young minds.... let alone the occult stuff.
No use bothering with the childish fools.
The happier I become.
It's going to be a really happy couple of weeks!
Does that mean God has a Willie? I wonder how big it is? I wonder if he plays with it like I do? I wonder....
The knowledge we've gathered over the centuries regarding the true nature of reality is so thrilling and intriguing. It's sad that so many are so full of ignorance, fear, and hatred that they miss out on it.
I was a huge fan of Sagan and I've thought for a while now that Tyson is a contemporary Sagan. I'm not sure if anyone can fill Sagan's shoes but Tyson comes close.
Science, no matter how beautiful and revelatory and (above all) no matter how grounded in reality isn't enough. It's just not emotionally appealing enough. Hallmark Moments in geology or evolutionary ecology are in notably short supply.
Science doesn't reassure you that you get to see Grandma and Grandpa again, or that you'll never die, or that you get a second chance to make up for all the things you fucked up in your life, or that you get to spend eternity eating cotton candy with Pro-Wrestling Jesus at the Pearly Gates Midway & Gun Show, or that you're really, really important in the grand scheme of things.
If what you're really after in life is among the items listed in the preceding paragraph, are you going to be receptive to or interested in a way of viewing reality that hammers home the inescapable fact that you, and I and all of us and everything we treasure are specks of dust in a realm bigger than we can even can understand? Not just no, but fuck no.
For my part, I always found the thought of our own insignificance both awe-inspiring and liberating. Once you realize how tiny you are and how short your life is, you kind of realize that life's much better spent learning about and trying to understand and enjoy this amazing place than following the chimpanzee part of your brain in a quest for power or an illusion of immortality. But then, I've never spent much time in the majority . . .
Given that they got it seriously wrong. Bruno was not the scientific martyr legend claims he is. Yes, he was executed for formal heresy, but his heresies were denial of the Trinity, denial of the divinity of Christ, denial of the efficacy of the sacraments and so on; not the idea that there might be multiple worlds in the universe.
Nicholas of Cusa, some years previously, had advanced the idea of multiple worlds. Nicholas became a bishop, and later a cardinal, and died in his bed.
This random sampling of the intellectual hemorrhoids that are the overwhelming majority of Twitter posts (key portion of the word is "twit" is but fools exposing themselves in public.
We give the fools to much attention.
Simple minds require simplistic answers to complex questions. Republicans created a monster when they sought to exploit the stupidity of religious fundamentalists for their own ends. Now it's out of their control. These people are not content to wallow in their ignorance; they crave dominion over the lives of others, and will stop at nothing to impose their sick and twisted belief system on the rest of us. Their stranglehold on our education system dooms America to inferiority. Rigid dogma suffocates innovation, so kiss "American Exceptionalism" goodbye.
I was raised by a fervent believer, though she was not so vitriolic. I am now a devout atheist. Matter and energy is, was, and always will be.
You GO, Neil!
The irony is that I was introduced to the original series via the youth group at my (very Southern) Baptist church. Every Thursday evening we'd eat hot-dogs, watch Cosmos and play hacky-sack.
These poor idiots are in denial. It is really funny. Science is a concept that the flat earthers are not capable of dealing with and so they pretend that science does not exist.
So if Jesus really is coming back, I wish to hell he would hurry up.
is that if Jesus really were to return to earth, he would buy an M-60 machine gun, use it to dispatch all the fundamentalist Christians to Hell, and take the atheists to Heaven. Apparently no one told those people Christianity isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.
No, actually someone DID tell them that: Matthew 7.21 from the Bible says "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
Man is an arrogant sumbitch.
and told the humble masses that science was good and accurate.
They are so entrenched in their fictional account they would not believe him.
They would tack him back up on the cross.