So Cosmos is more atheistic rant than actual cosmos? | Page 10 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
LoveThatMoney
LSU Fan
Who knows where?
Member since Jan 2008
6253 posts

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


quote:

Did you call me Chuckles?

Yes. Because you posted this: after your post. I felt it was funny.

quote:

My question is why spend so much time, almost half the show, using Bruno to make that point if not to paint the Church and Christians in a bad light.

Agreed. Seemed a bit much.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
GeauxTigerTM
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2006
12074 posts

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


quote:

Well, IMO just talking about evolution shouldn't offend anyone.


Agreed...but you know damn well it would.

quote:

If there are indeed subtle jabs at the church while doing it I could understand being offended though.


I hadn't watched it yesterday when this topic was brought up, but I watched it with my two boys and wife last night...waiting for some huge swipe at the religious. HOLY SHIT, what a let down! Tyson DID make a quick glance upwards after asking the question why some still felt that evolution does not take place, but it was a nano-second and you almost had to be looking for it to catch it. Given the fact that we live in 2014 and this topic, by virtue of it SOLELY being the fundamentalist religious folk (not just Christians, but Muslims and Jews as well), is still being discussed as if there is some controversy within the scientific community, I have to be honest and say that I'd have been damn disappointed if one of the nation's most well know science educators did not at least address that. I'd have liked it to be far more pointed.

As for the section about the eye, he simply repeated the suggestion that there are some that say the eye could not have evolved because it's so complex and therefore had to be specially created...and then went on a 10 minute discussion about why evolution can clearly account for it. Didn't mention religion at all there. He did a great job of explaining about how eyes evolved for underwater use, and because of that have never been perfectly suited for seeing in air. He rightfully explained that evolution can only work with what it has, so there was no starting from scratch and evolving an air based eye. At that point he COULD HAVE pointed out that for all the wonders of the eye, it's design is shitty on a host of fronts and any designer worth his salt would have designed it to be far more functional...but he didn't.

The outrage about this episode is really comical after having now seen it.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
GeauxTigerTM
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2006
12074 posts

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


quote:

The show is not doing well ratings wise.


I mentioned this yesterday, but I honestly have no idea how they got the funding to do this knowing there was no way it was going to draw any bigger of a crowd than stuff like Planet Earth or Life did on Science Channel. That's not an indictment of the show, Tyson, or anything...just that we now live in the post original COSMOS world where we, thankfully, can watch show after show of hard science information ranging from genetics to cosmology. What was revolutionary for Sagan in 1980 is now, in large thanks to Sagan, commonplace. No reason to think this would draw some huge crowd, other than those who really love science and watch comparable stuff on other venues (PBS, Science, etc.) and those who are looking to be offended. Hard to imagine your average viewer is gonna slide past other shows to sit down to watch an hour long show about a random science topic every Sunday night for 13 weeks.

And as far as that goes, and as much fun as this version has been so far in my opinion, I really preferred the shows hosted by Brian Cox called "Wonders of..."






Back to top
  Replies (0)
broeho
Florida Fan
Georgia
Member since Jan 2013
1072 posts

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


quote:

They can do that without casting stones at Christians.


16th Century Christians. Anyone who gets offended because a TV program portrays Christians from 400+ years ago in a bad-light can cry me a river. Some people just love to be offended.

They deserve to be portrayed badly anyway.

quote:

Bruno did not use the scientific method to come up with his infinite universe theory nor did he but forth any proof that it existed.


I hope I don't have to explain why this is completely irrelevant. I already said his story was lame, mostly because he contributed nothing to science, just to freethinking and general curiosity about the Cosmos. Since this is a TV program that is trying to generate interest/curiosity about the cosmos, his story is relevant.... Though like I've said many times I think they could use more entertaining examples.






Back to top
Methuselah
LSU Fan
On da Riva
Member since Jan 2005
14405 posts
 Online 

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


Finally got around to watching Sunday's episode on demand. (Couldn't miss GoT even for Cosmos).

Those who feel the show is out to just jab at Christians will be happy to see that last night they pointed out the first emperor of China having a big book burning to establish that only his thinking should be allowed and some Bavarian a-hole not allowing a kid who were more or less his slave in his mirror factory to read or study (the kid went on to perfect lenses he used to do experiments with light).

I thought it was a pretty good show this week. Kind of light on the special effects "awe" stuff but they did have some interesting things about light. Like a proton that carrier light (or maybe is light) is "born" traveling the speed of light and how light is unique in that it goes from zero to its maximum speed instantaneously and how they have never been able to get anything else to travel as fast as light.







Back to top
wadewilson
LSU Fan
San Francisco
Member since Sep 2009
16984 posts

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


Man, it's gonna be a shitfest if Islam makes it in this show's sights.





Back to top
molsusports
LSU Fan
Member since Jul 2004
27138 posts

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


it implicitly already has. they pointed out the middle east used to be a place where information and especially science from all over the world was studied and valued... that's an implicit criticism because there came a point when the tide on that reversed and science came to be viewed by their fundamentalists as the tools of the devil





Back to top
  Replies (0)
The Boat
Florida State Fan
LSURussian's head
Member since Oct 2008
64120 posts

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


I haven't watched an episode since the first one. Not because of religion or anything. But because they wasted so much time on that dumb Bruno cartoon. I was so bored.

The calendar was awesome. If stuff like that would have been the whole episode I'd have been hooked.






Back to top
DoUrden
Navy Fan
Surrounded by Okies
Member since Oct 2011
10594 posts

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


This show goes so far over my head at times.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
molsusports
LSU Fan
Member since Jul 2004
27138 posts

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


quote:

I haven't watched an episode since the first one. Not because of religion or anything. But because they wasted so much time on that dumb Bruno cartoon. I was so bored.

The calendar was awesome. If stuff like that would have been the whole episode I'd have been hooked.



I think you're really right. The cartoons have completely missed the point of the series IMO. You can mix in some history but they should do it more like David Attenborough did in his Life on Earth series. Show the things that inspired the questions and led to scientific discoveries.

Derailing into cartoons which look a lot less exceptional than pictures of nature or the cosmos is just a less rewarding avenue.






Back to top
Bayou Sam
LSU Fan
Snake and Jake's Christmas Club
Member since Aug 2009
5147 posts

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


quote:

I just watched the entire first episode and saw nothing whatsoever that would lead me to believe that this show has a tilt against religion. If anything, the vision Bruno had is IMO a great example of a vision from God. If I was a Catholic, I would be demanding he be sainted.


Bruno was burned for many heresies; for one thing, he disdained orthodox Christianity.

The significance of Bruno for science was that he was a great champion of Copernicanism and based his own philosophical speculations on the insights of Copernican theory, alongside Nicholas of Cusa. And his speculations wound up being quite ahead of his time (the infinite universe, plurality of worlds, earth and sun are "stars" no different than the rest, etc.). He also advanced arguments that anticipate Galileo's cosmic relativism.

Above all, Bruno represented the freedom of philosophizing outside the bounds of ecclesiastical authority, which of course is central to scientific inquiry.

I enjoyed the Bruno sequence, both because I like Bruno's books and because I was glad to see many people learn about an important figure in intellectual history that is probably not well known in the US.

As far as I know, the Church never burned anyone for being a scientist. However, that fact is somewhat misleading, since the Church's power to burn people was just about over by the time modern science came into being (primarily with Galileo).






Back to top
  Replies (0)
The Easter Bunny
Georgia Tech Fan
Minneapolis, MN
Member since Jan 2005
42455 posts

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


quote:

I dunno, when I was a little kid I was interested in space and whatnot but now it seems like a waste of resources and talent, other than the satellite business


What branches of science do you consider worth studying?






Back to top
  Replies (0)
elprez00
New Orleans Saints Fan
Hammond, LA
Member since Sep 2011
13744 posts

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


quote:

Anyone who gets offended because a TV program portrays Christians from 400+ years ago in a bad-light can cry me a river. Some people just love to be offended.

Just as anyone who paints modern Christians in a bad light due to the actions of Christians 1400 years ago is equally as ignorant.

Look, I was raised Southern Baptist in a very conservative family. I believe in an all powerful God, but I dont believe the Bible to be a textbook. I doubt my views are shared by many of my brethren. There is no more human viewpoint than the belief in an all powerful being who is capable of creating the complex unending universe of which we are able to comprehend only a fraction of, yet also believe that we are capable of comprehending time and events in the same frame of reference as that being.

People that spend their time worrying about whether God created the heavens and the Earth in 144 hours are missing the point.






Back to top
Bayou Sam
LSU Fan
Snake and Jake's Christmas Club
Member since Aug 2009
5147 posts

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


It's understandable why so many Christians starting treating the bible as a science textbook. Inerrancy and literalism are contemporary ways of controlling interpretation.

The Reformation was all about who had the authority to interpret scripture. Eventually those who fought for freedom of conscience and toleration won. That legal reality combined with the simultaneous development of higher criticism in the 17th meant that all kinds of interpretations opened up. Many of these either humanized or rationalized the bible or else cast doubt upon its foundations. Seems to me creationism is a reaction to that, and to relativism in general.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
wadewilson
LSU Fan
San Francisco
Member since Sep 2009
16984 posts

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


quote:

People that spend their time worrying about whether God created the heavens and the Earth in 144 hours are missing the point.


I grew up in the church too, and was never taught this, by any pastor or my parents.

It's a pretty big deal for some people though.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
GeauxTigerTM
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2006
12074 posts

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


quote:

The cartoons have completely missed the point of the series IMO. You can mix in some history but they should do it more like David Attenborough did in his Life on Earth series.


All I can say is that it seems like you're not familiar with the original Sagan Cosmos. In the original, he did this all the time...though not with cartoons. They had live action actors portraying various historical people. They are going out of their way, including toning Tyson's speech patterns down, to give us an updated though consistent feel of the original.

This is a clip from Episode 3 about Kepler. It's only 5 minutes or so, but it's only a clip of how long he actually did talk about Kepler and do so using actor portrayal. He really did do this a ton in the series.

LINK

And don't get me wrong...I'm a huge fan of Attenborough's Life, and love Brian Cox's series "Wonders of..." I just think that Cosmos is it's own thing, and in this case they were going for a particular story telling style that Sagan had already put in place rather than a modern science show that happened to share the name of Cosmos. It may not be for everyone, just like the original.






Back to top
OMLandshark
Ole Miss Fan
Member since Apr 2009
39883 posts

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


quote:

Man, it's gonna be a shitfest if Islam makes it in this show's sights.


They've already brought them up about how enlightened they were when Christianity was at its low point, which is actually true. It's just a matter of time before he brings up the Sack of Baghdad and will state that the Muslim world still hasn't recovered from it both physically and mentally.






Back to top
wadewilson
LSU Fan
San Francisco
Member since Sep 2009
16984 posts

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


I've only actually watched a couple episodes. I just find myself busy on Sunday nights.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
Alahunter
Alabama Fan
Member since Jan 2008
86436 posts

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


I've seen the last two episodes. They've been meh, imo. It's interesting to note though, that his icons in science history, in the last episode, refers to their students as "disciples".





Back to top
  Replies (0)
molsusports
LSU Fan
Member since Jul 2004
27138 posts

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


quote:

The cartoons have completely missed the point of the series IMO. You can mix in some history but they should do it more like David Attenborough did in his Life on Earth series.


All I can say is that it seems like you're not familiar with the original Sagan Cosmos. In the original, he did this all the time...though not with cartoons. They had live action actors portraying various historical people. They are going out of their way, including toning Tyson's speech patterns down, to give us an updated though consistent feel of the original.

This is a clip from Episode 3 about Kepler. It's only 5 minutes or so, but it's only a clip of how long he actually did talk about Kepler and do so using actor portrayal. He really did do this a ton in the series.

LINK

And don't get me wrong...I'm a huge fan of Attenborough's Life, and love Brian Cox's series "Wonders of..." I just think that Cosmos is it's own thing, and in this case they were going for a particular story telling style that Sagan had already put in place rather than a modern science show that happened to share the name of Cosmos. It may not be for everyone, just like the original.



I'm struck by a couple of things.

1) As a child I saw some of these episodes but I seem to have retained almost no memory of the historical narratives - and only recall the images of wondrous scientific curiousity (e.g. the celestial bodies, man-made spacecraft etc)
2) I'll have to go back and watch more of the originals from the Sagan Cosmos series to have a more informed opinion but based on the clip you linked I still think there's an important difference. They certainly do use actors for the re-enactments and I'm obviously guilty of not remembering that from my childhood but... they also used real footage of real things to demonstrate the reasons to care as a viewer (in the middle of these narratives).

My bias is this iteration of the Cosmos series is for fewer people than the original series. Why? That's probably complicated. There has been a resurgence of fundamentalist religious belief in the United States since the original series and I'm sure that contributes at some level - but I think the cartoons are really unhelpful. They probably don't really bring in children because they aren't action-filled enough to be interesting and they probably lose many adults who were just not expecting to see cartoons in a science series.






Back to top
  Replies (0)


Back to top