Posted on 03/25/2014 8:03:13 AM PDT by Heartlander
"God created all things"
Ephesians 3:9
and science gives us information about God's universe.
"Science is possible only because we live in an ordered universe which complies with simple mathematical laws.The job of scientist is to study, catalogue and relate the orderliness in nature, not to question its origin.But theologians have long argued that the order in the physical world is evidence for God. If this is true, then science and religion acquire a common purpose in revealing God's work."
Paul Davies
The guy behind this reboot of Cosmos is a vicious,militant atheist named Seth McFarland
OK. So a science program has an anti-theistic slant. This is a surprise? I’m still not getting the problem here.
It is odd that a great scientific series on the cosmos should open with an attempt to single out one victim of the Inquisition and hold him up as a martyr to science. For inexplicable reasons, Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey begins not with Copernicus confidently proposing his heliocentric hypothesis or Galileo excitedly proclaiming his telescopic discoveries. Rather, it begins with the story of Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), a renegade Dominican friar executed in 1600 for persistently preaching heretical theological views about a wide variety of core Christian doctrines.Of course, in 2014 we don't burn people at the stake,… Christians don't cast about casually labeling any dissenting theological perspective as "heresy."
But Cosmos makes Bruno out to be a martyr who died heroically in the defense of early modern science, and this is a role he certainly did not play. Jole Shackleford details this nicely in his exploration of the myth that "Giordano Bruno was the First Martyr of Modern Science" in Ron Numbers' edited volume Galileo Goes to Jail and other Myths about Science and Religion (2009).
The idea of a reboot of the classic Cosmos series (1980) is exciting. The original series inspired in many people a deep and abiding love for science, and the revival has tremendous potential to expose a new generation to the wonder and value of science. I began watching Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey with great interest, in the hope of discovering some new perspectives on the fabulous story of our unfolding universe. Some new ideas are there indeed, and I will eagerly tune in to future episodes to see what else emerges. But I also saw -- among the compelling videos of the solar system and galaxies -- considerable slipshod history of science and a curiously antireligious bias.
I agree that the Bruno segment was strange and out of place, and its connection to the subject was strained. But that’s not the point. Complaining about a bias against religion on a science program? That’s what I don’t get. Why shouldn’t it be biased?
Dear Seth and Neil:
We saw you’re boobs.
No, that’s not a typo.
No, really, these guys are entitled to their own opinions on religion and science, but not their own facts.
Non sequitur. What’s that article got to do with it?
Agreed
Are you stating that you believe it's OK for a science program to be biased against religion? Why?
“Are you stating that you believe it’s OK for a science program to be biased against religion? Why?”
Are you stating that you believe it’s OK for a religious program to be biased against science? Why?
Galileo died of old age while under house arrest.
Can you show me where I said that?
It’s obviously the inverse of what you appeared to be incredulous about. If one expects a science show to give religious arguments a fair hearing, wouldn’t it be important for religious programs to offer scientific arguments that may go against their particular religious teachings?
I thought it was cardiac arrest.
Most Universities were started by Judeo-Christians and debate from all sides was encouraged. Even today we see these types of debates. Again, can you show me where I said I believe it’s OK for a religious program to be biased against science?
As so often happens, we’re talking past one another here.
Let’s clear this up.
You seem to think it’s NOT ok for a science program to show ‘bias’ against religion and it’s NOT ok for a religious program to show ‘bias’ against science. When these two views of the world are in conflict, what would you recommend happen?
You changed the subject and stated It’s obviously the inverse of what you appeared to be incredulous about. If one expects a science show to give religious arguments a fair hearing, wouldn’t it be important for religious programs to offer scientific arguments that may go against their particular religious teachings? And, in fact, Universities do this...
So now you change the argument without answering or acknowledging - fine. Now you ask, When these two views of the world are in conflict, what would you recommend happen?
I will be kind enough to answer your question although you avoid answers. World views should be a side note to science. Science today has been hijacked by atheism - anyone who loves science should not sit idly and allow this to happen. An agnostic stance would not be an issue but science should not distort data to make it fit an atheistic narrative and then pretend that atheism is immune to criticism.
We can see how this bias has made people avoid the show by looking at the posts on this thread. This does not advance science.
Now let's see if you can actually answer a question. Do you believe that your mind was ultimately formed by mindlessness - lacking any intelligence?
“No - you are trying to evade and frame a different argument.”
Same argument, other side of the coin.
“And, in fact, Universities do this...”
Universities are not television shows about science. If ‘Cosmos’ is showing a bias against religion, science classes in Universities show an extreme bias as it’s not even discussed at all, unless to show previously held views proven incorrect.
“World views should be a side note to science.”
Science is a world view. It’s a methodology, a way of thinking and solving problems.
“Science today has been hijacked by atheism - anyone who loves science should not sit idly and allow this to happen.”
Super-natural questions are simply not a part of science, by design and necessity.
“An agnostic stance would not be an issue but science should not distort data to make it fit an atheistic narrative and then pretend that atheism is immune to criticism.”
This simply is not happening, science has no ability to test the super-natural so can not make predictions on it. This absence is not hostility. The conflicts arise when religion has made claims on which science has cast doubt.
“We can see how this bias has made people avoid the show by looking at the posts on this thread. This does not advance science.”
To allow untestable, unprovable and often times contradictory narratives equal footing with science would not advance science either.
“Now let’s see if you can actually answer a question. Do you believe that your mind was ultimately formed by mindlessness - lacking any intelligence?”
Believe? No. It’s not a matter of what I believe to be true, but what there is evidence for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.