I was raised conservatively religiously with some prejudices. I still remember my sister being shocked when she got an atheist teacher at age 14 or so. 'He's said he's an atheist..... but even so, he still seems like a nice man'. So it took me a bit of (un)learning, back as a young adult that the character of persons is rather independent from his or her walk of life. (i.e. I've met both nice and zealous believers, and both nice and zealous atheists).
Monotheism...
- Thread starter Swedish Borg
- Start date
I was raised conservatively religiously with some prejudices. I still remember my sister being shocked when she got an atheist teacher at age 14 or so. 'He's said he's an atheist..... but even so, he still seems like a nice man'. So it took me a bit of (un)learning, back as a young adult that the character of persons is rather independent from his or her walk of life. (i.e. I've met both nice and zealous believers, and both nice and zealous atheists).
These are prejudices that have not gone away. I don't know how long ago your sister had this teacher, what he taught, or why he would mention this about himself, but it's refreshing to hear that he did mention it.
I took an astronomy course in college in the '90s, and I remember after the final class I stayed behind with the intention of letting the instructor know how much I'd enjoyed it and how much more I understood after the course than I had when I started.
I had to wait for another student to finish talking to him first, and that conversation didn't go over well. The student was highly incensed that the instructor hadn't mentioned Genesis as an alternative to the Big Bang, and asked the instructor, "What religion are you?"
The instructor informed him that it was none of his business and irrelevant to the course. The student wasn't pleased.
My own chat went much better, and to this day, nearly 30 years later, I neither know nor care what religion, if any, my instructor followed. His job was to teach astronomy the science, not anything connected to astrology, philosophy, or religion.
It's beyond tiresome to be asked what's stopping me from committing every crime in the book if I don't follow a set of commandments and don't have to answer to anyone after I die.
I think a lot of folks are shocked that atheists are more often than not nicer than many religious people known to them. I chalk that up to Hitchens—and especially Sagan.
I think some free-thinkers in the 70’s may have come off as mean...
I have an interesting story. When I was very young...a few years old around 1970 or so...my parents took me across the street to an imposing church. There was a nursery in the vestibule. The parents dropped kids off here while they went behind the huge double doors. Now this was my first day being apart from my parents, mind you..so it actually unnerved me to see kids happy away from their parents when they should have been as upset as I was away from mind..stepford kid style I guess. All I really remember was the other kids backing away from me...even the teenage girl. I must really have had a fit. My folks were ashamed to go back. Two things: either religion really is child abuse—or I’m the Antichrist and came within two seconds of bursting into flame at the age of 3.
I’m taking love offerings between five and ten at the church of the tin vagabond.
I think some free-thinkers in the 70’s may have come off as mean...
I have an interesting story. When I was very young...a few years old around 1970 or so...my parents took me across the street to an imposing church. There was a nursery in the vestibule. The parents dropped kids off here while they went behind the huge double doors. Now this was my first day being apart from my parents, mind you..so it actually unnerved me to see kids happy away from their parents when they should have been as upset as I was away from mind..stepford kid style I guess. All I really remember was the other kids backing away from me...even the teenage girl. I must really have had a fit. My folks were ashamed to go back. Two things: either religion really is child abuse—or I’m the Antichrist and came within two seconds of bursting into flame at the age of 3.
I’m taking love offerings between five and ten at the church of the tin vagabond.
A
Amaris
Guest
Carl was the Bob Ross of science. You could just listen to him all day, and I always loved what he had to say. Of course, when I was a fundamentalist Christian as a child, it was different. I had seen one of his books in my middle school library, and 'Sagan' looked enough like 'Satan' to keep me away from it. It wasn't until after I graduated high school that I took an in-depth interest in his written works.
I miss Carl. Though, at least we have Neil.
I really did not like "Cosmos 2.0". It's dumbed-down and Disney-fied. NDT's habit of up-talking grates on my nerves. And he helped demote Pluto for a stupid reason.
I've discovered that I enjoy Brian Cox's programs.
You realize that it wasn‘t NDT all on his own who reclassified Pluto? I think the scientific (astronomical) community is pretty much United on that front.
Pluto wasn’t demoted. We got a better definition of what a planet is and Pluto didn’t fit anymore.
My favorite astrophysicist (no, not NDT) put it like this: Pluto is not the least of the planets anymore, he is the King among dwarve planets... He is King of the Dwarves!
I never saw the original Cosmos, but I enjoyed 2.0.
It‘s a good show and NDT is a good fit for it.
That all said, I jumped off the NDT bandwagon a while ago.
Yes, he is a good scientist, but he isn’t a very good science communicator.
He too often frames science as infallible and untouchable.
One of his most famous quotes: „science is true, wether you believe in it or not.“ is problematic.
I know what he means, but phrased poorly for the sake of sounding catchy.
Anyway, I could rant about NDT awhile, but rather recommend other science communicators to check out instead who make much better ambassadors for science imo:
Dr Becky Smethurst
Scott Manley
Kyle Hill
Matt O‘Dowd
Every single one of them runs circles around NDT in terms of being in sync with their audience and not sitting in some sort of ivory tower.
Check them out of you can.
Well, he'd better hang on to that crown because there could be hundreds of objects in the Kuiper belt of about the size of Pluto, so it's likely that at least one of them will be bigger if not more.
Most =/= "united."
Of course I know it wasn't his decision. But one of the reasons given was stupid. It went something like this: "If we continue to call Pluto a planet, we'd have to also call the other Kuiper Belt Objects planets, as well as objects like Ceres, and it would be too hard to expect people to remember that many names."
There are people who can rattle off immense amounts of useless sports trivia, people on this forum who can argue for hundreds or thousands of posts over the exact number of inches in length the different Romulan or Klingon ships are, but they can't remember a few more planetary names?
I'll admit that I haven't learned all the names of the moons in the solar system, but I've made a good dent on the Kuiper Belt Objects. It's not that hard.
What if they find a bigger one out there?
You should try the original. The second (1990) version is on YouTube. The real original version probably exists only in archival form or in my old VHS tapes when PBS re-ran it before the 1990 updated version came along.
Sagan re-narrated some of the portions in 1990 to account for new information received from the Voyager probes. Sadly the updated version didn't include some of the wonderful music the original did. It had the effect of making those parts of the episode feel much flatter and less exciting than they were before. Copyright issues, I guess.
I guess copyright issues are also partly to blame for some of the 2.0 episodes using the SAME music as the Contact movie. The music is fine in the movie, but ridiculous in what is supposed to be a science documentary.
Sagan's version used real human actors, not doe-eyed Disneyish cartoon characters.
I can see where some people might be confused. The anti-science people I've had the misfortune to interact with mock it because they don't understand the scientific method and why it's a good thing to toss the incorrect information in favor of the correct - or at least more-correct - information that is discovered. But it's a fact that things like gravity are true whether you believe in it or not, and so is the covid virus.
I'll check them out (haven't heard of any of them).
I was very disappointed by NDT's version of Cosmos. Just because Sagan was his mentor doesn't mean I give the series a pass when it failed to inspire me or even entertain me.
If you haven't seen any of the original Cosmos... there should be clips of some of the most interesting parts - like Sagan informing us that if you want to make a Dutch apple pie from scratch, you first have to invent the universe, and his "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" quote (this was in the episode about UFOs, but it can be applied to anything that requires scientific evidence to verify).
A
Amaris
Guest
I disagree. Yes, the language and style has changed, but it isn't dumbed down. For example, my favorite episode (S02E07, "The Search for Intelligent Life on Earth") discusses the actual mycelial network, and how bees are a genuine, true to form civilization sharing our planet. The modern episodes also explain why it is now more imporant than ever to save our biome, before we lose it all.
Remember the original Cosmos episode "Who Speaks for Earth?"?
Of course I'll concede that there are some parts of the original Cosmos that don't resonate the same now, since that series was made during the Cold War and climate change wasn't the same kind of problem then as it is now.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yes, I do, and we've learned a great deal since then, so it's important that the new Cosmos episodes address it.
Yes, but when you said
it sounded as if you were saying the original series did not address this.
A
Amaris
Guest
A simple miscommunication, then. While the original Cosmos did speak on global warming, the modern Cosmos needed and has made effort to address the modern crises we're facing, especially with climate change and biome collapse. That's why I said that now, more than ever, it needed addressing.
Another gentle reminder to thread participants to please try to stay on topic.
A
Amaris
Guest
Sorry! I actually forgot what the topic was and had to double check.
So say we all.
The original Cosmos was special to me because I was still a kid when I saw it (and read the book,) and it told me a LOT of things I didn't know.
The two later editions, I have to look at differently, because I am an old man now, and because I have stayed interested in the subjects, they had much less to tell me that I did not already know.
I think 9-year-old me would have gotten immensely more out of them.
Also why the hell isn't Possible Worlds out on DVD yet???
The two later editions, I have to look at differently, because I am an old man now, and because I have stayed interested in the subjects, they had much less to tell me that I did not already know.
I think 9-year-old me would have gotten immensely more out of them.
Also why the hell isn't Possible Worlds out on DVD yet???
Do you honestly think this has anything to do with monotheism?
Agree with you here. His "Wonders of the... " felt like spiritual successors to Cosmos in ways the Cosmos 2.0 did not. Especially the lack of a condescending host.
Why are you asking me instead of who brought it up?
Also, welcome to Thread Drift. hope you survive the experience.
Similar threads
