re: So Cosmos is more atheistic rant than actual cosmos?

quote:

---

Yea, but they spent 1/4 of the show on Bruno (killed by the church), but barely mentioned Copernicus or Galileo (neither killed by the Church)
Why spend so much time on him unless to show the brutality of the church?

---

Jesus, this again? Because Bruno was the only "scholar" to believe in a universe in the same manner that modern scientists believe. Even Copernicus and Galileo did not fathom the extent of the universe in the same fashion that Bruno did and in the same fashion that Tyson (and other modern scientists) do. Couple that with the fact that it is an interesting story that has largely gone unnoticed, and you have your answer.

quote:

---

Because Bruno was the only "scholar" to believe in a universe in the same manner that modern scientists believe.

---

He saw it in a dream. What do scientist say a precognitive dreams?

I found the entire show interesting. I just find the subtle religious jabs pointless. You can make the show just as if not more interesting if you don't include subtle attacks.

For one, I believe in evolution. I don't believe the Earth was created between 6k - 10k years ago.

I do believe that a God sparked the beginning of everything, but God let the process progress through evolutionary means. I believe that God is science and vice versa.

I just find the debate between creationists and scientists to be incredibly dull and annoying. I was hoping that this show wouldn't involve any of that bullshite, but the first episode set the tone and the second episode sent the message that this show will be a weekly lecture aimed at certain people of faith.

quote:

---

He saw it in a dream. What do scientist say a precognitive dreams?

---

Tyson himself said there was not really any scientific evidence for what he was believing, which made him more out to be a loon than Copernicus or Galileo. But still he was mostly right and was the first recorded person to see the universe close to how it actually is.

quote:

---

Yes he did. So why spend so much time on a guy who had a dream instead Copernicus or Galileo both of which used scientific methods to draw their conclusions. Both of them were persecuted. Too bad they were 't burned at the stake. Maybe we would have learned more about their discoveries than ex-monks that have precognitive dreams.

---

I've wondered about this also. Having watched it a couple of times now and having seen a lot of discussions on it, here's my take:

I think the point was how it is dangerous and self defeating to persecute people because they have an opinion that is different than yours. In many cases that opinion may be based on science. But in some (like Bruno) it may be based on a different religious take on things. I think that is a valuable lesson in any day and age - going around burning people at the stake (or other forms of execution) for having a different opinion than yours and expressing that opinion may not be a great idea.

Heck, I think that execution is still an accepted punishment for "heresy" - ie: having the gall to give another opinion. And I think these parts of the world tend to be less advanced because of this type of suppression of ideas.

quote:

---

they didn't believe in an expanding universe that could potentially have no limit and is beyond the comprehension of men?

---

No body believed it because there wasn't any proof that there was an expanding universe.

quote:

---

No body believed it because there wasn't any proof that there was an expanding universe.

---

Well that's the fricking point, Chuckles. Tyson elucidated how the pursuit for knowledge of the universe was far too limited by the "known." In this case, everyone knew the earth was the center of the universe, just like everyone knew the earth was flat. Because they closed themselves off to the possibility of another truth, they were unable to even imagine something else. The same is as true for scientists as it is for theologians.

As Tyson says, "Once the idea was in the air, it gave others a target to aim at, if only to disprove it." So the knowledge of the cosmos is founded upon mankind re-imagining the fabric of space and time, and then putting it to the test.

The point is to not limit your understanding of the cosmos, which is a fundamental precept in first starting to understand it. In other words, it is a perfect topic to discuss during his first lecture. To put it in a cliche: think outside the box. Once you accept this frame of mind, understanding the depth and vastness of the universe will be much easier.

quote:

---

superstition

---

shots fired

quote:

---

just like everyone knew the earth was flat

---

Ironically, another myth perpetuated by academia. Most did not believe that.