I think his tact on this stems from the fact that people attack evolution as just a theory as if that's some indication that it's not real.
That is actually rarely the case. If an experiment is done properly, there is no reason why it would yield different results 50 years later. And new, more complete theories rarely make the previously accepted theories outright wrong, they just show their limitations. Not this again. If you do indeed take an active interest in science, you should know that there is a huge difference between the everyday usage of the word "theory" and its usage in science. What do they disagree with? The evidence that supports the theory? You're trying to put religion on equal footing with science, while it actually has no footing at all. I would maybe concede this when debating moral issues, but not when the question is "Was the Universe created less than 10 000 years ago?" The long chain of causality explains why you're here. If you mean some other, external "why", then it's a question not worth entertaining because it presupposes the answer, i.e., that there is some external purpose. At best it's a premature question, because we currently lack the tools to answer the question "Is there an external purpose to our existence?" (there doesn't seem to be, as far as we can tell). At the same time, while passing on your genes may be the ultimate (i.e., coming from evolution) purpose to your life, that doesn't make proximate (i.e., what/who you live your life for) purposes less meaningful to you. The answer to the last question is already known with very high degree of confidence: if you're talking about consciousness, no. Because the outrage towards shows like "Cosmos" and general advocacy of close-mindedness and ancient, long shown to be baseless or even harmful beliefs and traditions comes from these minorities. And if they are indeed minorities, they're not small enough. And they're enabled to some extent by normal people wearing the same label. If religion aims to answer questions that go beyond objective reality, whatever that means (I have no idea), shouldn't the answers be subjective and, therefore, personal? Religion, especially in the States, is hardly that. You are right, of course. The problem is that the people freaking out about the show will only hear the bolded part and extrapolate it to the rest, and then spread it to their audiences. Precisely.
The reason it works is because science is boring and hard. Between that and the sex permits there's no contest.
There seems to be fundamental difference in how you and the science world interpreters the word fact. Science does not claim with absolute certainties just like NDT said. Most scientist will not claim they know absolutely everything about something. They operate under the mentality that there is always something new to learn. The idea that we don't have the cure for all levels of HIV and cancer does not in any way, diminish our ability to claim that they do exist and they are the causality of certain deaths and they are indeed a fact. When scientists claim that certain things are fact, they use it under that same context.
How does the scientific method though address questions of meaning? This is the problem when trying to impose a system that is based upon empiricism onto something that isn't. And as someone who has had some pretty long drawn out arguments that Intelligent Design isn't science I agree with you. That said I am also very troubled by the criticism of religion and the religious by those who claim to do so in the name of science. Questions of meaning are intrinsic to humanity. As far as we can tell we are the only creatures aware of our mortality and so it is our very rationality that seeks to out meaning to our limited existence. It means that not all answers to existence can be answered through what can be materially perceived. Yes it is which is why I said critics seem to obsess about the answers and not about the process of religion. The critics of these arguments tend to usually focus on a very small, albeit loud, segment of the religious such as Young Earth Creationism, without considering that that is only a very very small part of religion and not the reason why many are. The answers might be important to some but to many of those who are religious what they are really about the process. Just as I might not agree with a Christian about the answer to the meaning of life at the same time we both have an interest in understanding our existence beyond just material existence. I will address the inevitable response that such questions don't matter and that when you die and all that is left decomposes. If such questions didn't matter we wouldn't actually fear death.
lol I doubt you'd get any kind of agreement from others on this this thread is more of a tee-off sesh for science fanboys to vent their frustrations and expose their own inadequacies
[rquoter]While the early-modern religious persecution certainly can’t be denied, Bruno was killed because he flamboyantly denied basic tenets of the Catholic faith, not because religious authorities were out to suppress all “freedom of thought.” [/rquoter] I would say killing someone because he denied basic tenets of Catholicism would be suppressing freedom of thought.
That is actually not that hard of a statement for the Dalai Lama to make. For one Buddhist belief already fits in well with modern scientific theories of Evolution and cosmology. Even the concept of the Multiverse has existed in Buddhist and Vedic thought long before it was discussed in modern physics. Second many of the fundamental tenets of Buddhism, The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, are not bound by material proof. The concept of reincarnation and past lives could be subject if the claim is that we can remember our past lives but if the claim (as most Buddhist hold) we don't actually remember our past lives but our Karma spans lives I am not sure how that could be proved or disproved scientifically.
You would fear death because you wouldn't want your life to end. That shouldn't be hard to understand. There might not be any "answers" out there. Our lives might be as important (unimportant) as an ant's. That doesn't mean that our lives are worthless and meaningless, though. I have never understood why one has to go with the other.
Tyson's premise was that Bruno was killed for his scientific beliefs (it fits with Tyson's morality play of science vs. religion). But Bruno was killed for heretical theological proclamations. Also bad for sure, but not evidence the church was anti-science.
I don't see how this is a meaningful distinction. How would someone of that era express any scientific belief about the cosmos that is incompatible with Christian doctrine and not be called a heretic?
But why would you want your life to end if materially it really didn't mean anything? If it was just a loss of consciousness no more than falling asleep or going under anesthesia? It is because we are aware of the passage of time that we care about things like that I won't see my family, I won't be able to experience things like traveling or making friends. In a purely materialistic view none of those matter as long as I knew my genes got passed on. What we fear is both the unknown but also the loss of the experience of life. There is a great quote from the Watchmen where Dr. Manhattan says "A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there's no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?" That is a completely materialistic view of life and death yet we as humans don't ascribe that because we see that there is a meaning to life and not just reducing it to material existence. Except that meaning is tied with the awareness of mortality. Again to reference Doctor Manhattan he is immortal and omnipotent. Life to him loses all meaning. Even his own life becomes meaningless until he realizes there is something more to it. It isn't just patterns of matter and energy but there is something more to it.
I'm watching Cosmos right now and one thing we all need to keep in mind is that it is primarily about entertainment. The cartoons and stuff about Isaac Newton's fascination with numerolgy is interesting but doesn't really do that much to explain the science.
I agree in a sense but it's not because he's trying to avoid science or the reality of science but rather that the teachings of Buddhism are a lot more about human improvement/spirituality rather than origins vs evolution or God, ie the things that some religions are constantly fighting with science about. Would the Pope come out and admit something in the bible to be wrong because of a scientific discovery? No chance.
Actually the Catholic Church since 1996 has accepted Evolution but they phrase it as "Theistic Evolution" where God is the primary cause. They have also
Did you mean "not want your life to end"? It seems to me that there are two reasons for fearing death: not wanting it to end, regretting the way you've lived your life etc. and fearing the act of dying, i.e., the pain and discomfort associated with it. If you actually did mean "want your life to end", then that's easy - you're fueled by baseless ideas about the bliss that's supposed to come after death. It's just a coping mechanism. Well, I don't really have much to disagree here about. As I said, we don't think in ultimate causes from day to day. Ultimately we have sex to reproduce and ultimately we eat to stay alive, but does that mean we only have sex and eat to satisfy our most basic of needs? No, and we get huge amounts of enjoyment from doing these things for reasons other than the ultimate causes. "I share genes with her" is not a reason I would list when asked why I love my sister, even though at the most basic level it may be true. And even though that's what we are, there is nobody who actually thinks of himself as a collection of particles, because it is not insightful to do so. I do not know who this Dr. Manhattan is but I would say you can't equate what meaning of life would be to someone who was actually immortal and someone who is immortal through the writing of mortal beings. Anyway, all you're really saying is that we are more than the sum of our parts, and there is nobody disputing that. The atheistic reductionist is a strawman. But why does one introduce supernatural, objectively baseless beliefs at this point? I cannot understand that.
