A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old September 14th 18, 12:48 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

palsing wrote in
:

On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:11:07 PM UTC-7, Jibini Kula
Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

There is no conflict between science and religion...


Try telling that to a creationist...

Or anyone else who doesn't know what either science or religion
actually is, sure. Like Chris (who doesn't know his ass from a hole
in the ground).

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Ads
  #42  
Old September 14th 18, 01:09 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,857
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:41:46 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:11:07 PM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:


There is no conflict between science and religion...


Try telling that to a creationist...


Simply because there is a conflict between science and the religious beliefs
that some people hold, it is not necessarily the case that there is a conflict
between science and religion _per se_.

There are, after all, some religious people who are not Creationists.

Science has been described as a methodical application of common sense. It is,
therefore, a form of the use of reason.

Religion requires accepting certain things on faith. Should we conclude from
these premises that religion and science are in total opposition?

Before we can do that, we would have to ask: *what* things does religion ask us
to accept on faith?

If you look at Euclid's _Elements_, while the book is logical through and
through, it starts from five postulates that aren't proven by logic; they have
to be accepted as the starting point. That's not to say they're accepted on
faith, since they are things observed in every day experience.

Scientists accept on faith that the laws of nature are consistent and
intelligible.

So faith is part of science as well as part of religion.

And science draws conclusions about the physical world we live in.

While some religions may have tenets contrary to reason, the basic teachings
shared by most religious faiths don't come into conflict with what science
addresses.

Religion involves faith in things like:

- the Universe serves a meaningful purpose;

- other people have feelings like I do, and how I treat them matters;

- Justice, somehow, will eventually triumph, even if not where we see it;

These longings of the human heart are not in conflict with science. Even the
idea of a personal God is not incompatible with science, as many mainstream
Christian denominations demonstrate.

John Savard
  #43  
Old September 14th 18, 04:19 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 950
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thursday, 13 September 2018 19:41:46 UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:11:07 PM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

There is no conflict between science and religion...


Try telling that to a creationist...


"There is no conflict between religion and science, TRUE science."
Dr. Zaius, "Planet of the Apes."
(The original movie, not the s--- lefty remake).
  #44  
Old September 14th 18, 04:49 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,811
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Religion requires accepting certain things on faith. Should we conclude from
these premises that religion and science are in total opposition?


Yes.

Before we can do that, we would have to ask: *what* things does religion ask us
to accept on faith?


It doesn't. Because we should accept nothing on faith. To do so is to
reject reason. Faith is an epistemological system that can never
reliably produce accurate knowledge. If faith is involved, then the
search has already failed.
  #45  
Old September 14th 18, 08:43 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,251
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

I don't feel sorry for theorists as they are perfectly content in their convictions however people of simple faith may be taken in by the projection of pseudo-authority and find themselves in an uncomfortable position of supporting something they are not sure of. Denominational Christianity doesn't help as they have fashioned religion via the Bible as a monolithic work despite the fact that the Bible is a work covering dozens of traditions and most individual works, including what is called the NT, are at complete variance with each other.

The Bible sets off Christ against each of these traditions by allowing the older or less relevant traditions to have their say and that is unique by any measure. The empiricists here have merely done what the Church did after it jettisoned its scientific heritage when a Sun centered system emerged, they create a narrative from beginning to end to suit themselves and their followers and while that would be okay for a certain section of people, the more creative and productive person recognises faith as the ability to be inspired and in turn inspiring. It is why Galileo said you can teach a person anything, you can make them feel excited, satisfied, curious in different measures when it comes to astronomy -

“You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself.” ― Galileo

The Church may have unwittingly created science vs religion, faith vs fact, truth vs myth and consequently these unfortunates who follow that precept but people who can be inspired (spirit) become confident people who have no fear dealing with the Bible as a work with lots of different perspectives but with vibrancy at its core.

This is why I get so much done astronomically, creation looks so much better when you become encompassed in the Infinite and Eternal.





  #46  
Old September 14th 18, 01:24 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 550
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:49:03 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Religion requires accepting certain things on faith. Should we
conclude from these premises that religion and science are in total
opposition?


Yes.


You seem to be blinded by your prejudices.

Before we can do that, we would have to ask: *what* things does
religion ask us to accept on faith?


It doesn't.


which causes you to misunderstand what John said. OF COURSE religion
asks us to accept certain things on faith. So does science.

Because we should accept nothing on faith.


Then you have no science. In fact, you have no LIFE.

To do so is to reject reason.


Not at all. Such a position is arrogant nonsense.

Faith is an epistemological system that can never reliably produce
accurate knowledge.


"Accurate knowledge." Hmm, that phrase seems to be tinged with private
interpretation. Science deals with models that allow prediction of
observable events. Models are maps, and we know that a map is not the
territory it purports to describe. "Accuracy" is a relative term, and
"knowledge" is what we gain by living and growing.

If faith is involved, then the search has already failed.


Then everything is vain. As John pointed out, science requires faith
in certain things, too: "Scientists accept on faith that the laws of
nature are consistent and intelligible."

This was certainly a problem for Saint Albert with the development of
quantum mechanics, which he himself started.

“If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics,
you do not understand it.” -- John Wheeler

“It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
-- Richard Feynman

We can predict a LOT of things with QM, so if "knowledge" means that,
then science gives us "accurate knowledge," but if "knowledge" means
"understanding" then science doesn't give us "accurate knowledge."

Some of the biggest questions in cosmology today are (1) What is dark
matter? (2) What is dark energy? (3) How can general relativity and
quantum mechanics be made compatible? (4) Did time start at the Big
Bang?

Quantum field theory is the most accurate map we have of the small,
but we have no idea how far "down" it reaches. Does it go to the
Planck level? What's below that? Is there a "below that"? String
theory says no. General Relativity is the most accurate map we have
of the large, but it doesn't tell us what dark matter and dark energy
are. Cosmologists take of faith that the FRWL metric accurately
describes the universe, but does it? Spacetime is a model, and we
don't know what the heck it is.

“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite
different.” – Steven Carlip
  #47  
Old September 14th 18, 02:23 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:10:00 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:41:46 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:11:07 PM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:


There is no conflict between science and religion...


Try telling that to a creationist...


Simply because there is a conflict between science and the religious beliefs
that some people hold, it is not necessarily the case that there is a conflict
between science and religion _per se_.

There are, after all, some religious people who are not Creationists.

Science has been described as a methodical application of common sense. It is,
therefore, a form of the use of reason.

Religion requires accepting certain things on faith. Should we conclude from
these premises that religion and science are in total opposition?

Before we can do that, we would have to ask: *what* things does religion ask us
to accept on faith?

If you look at Euclid's _Elements_, while the book is logical through and
through, it starts from five postulates that aren't proven by logic; they have
to be accepted as the starting point. That's not to say they're accepted on
faith, since they are things observed in every day experience.

Scientists accept on faith that the laws of nature are consistent and
intelligible.

So faith is part of science as well as part of religion.

And science draws conclusions about the physical world we live in.

While some religions may have tenets contrary to reason, the basic teachings
shared by most religious faiths don't come into conflict with what science
addresses.

Religion involves faith in things like:

- the Universe serves a meaningful purpose;

- other people have feelings like I do, and how I treat them matters;

- Justice, somehow, will eventually triumph, even if not where we see it;

These longings of the human heart are not in conflict with science. Even the
idea of a personal God is not incompatible with science, as many mainstream
Christian denominations demonstrate.

John Savard


Scientists accept on faith that the laws of nature are consistent and
intelligible.


No. In fact as the ability to research progresses many notions thought to be immutable have been left aside or at best updated in form which would not be intelligible to earlier generations. Despite this, science continues to progress unhindered.

On the other hand with the possible exception of Theravada Buddhism, all the major faiths and most minor faiths have basic tenants which cannot be set aside without the whole house of cards falling down.


- the Universe serves a meaningful purpose;

- other people have feelings like I do, and how I treat them matters;

- Justice, somehow, will eventually triumph, even if not where we see it;


All three of which can and are explained in a satisfactory manner by science and secular philosophy.
  #48  
Old September 14th 18, 02:30 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,811
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 05:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:49:03 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Religion requires accepting certain things on faith. Should we
conclude from these premises that religion and science are in total
opposition?


Yes.


You seem to be blinded by your prejudices.


No. I simply recognize reality. Faith-based thinking has never
produced a truth.

Before we can do that, we would have to ask: *what* things does
religion ask us to accept on faith?


It doesn't.


which causes you to misunderstand what John said. OF COURSE religion
asks us to accept certain things on faith. So does science.


I do not accept any axioms on faith. I'm always open to considering
different axioms, different choices for assumptions behind reasoning.
That is not faith.

"Accurate knowledge." Hmm, that phrase seems to be tinged with private
interpretation.


No. Reality is not determined by interpretation.

  #49  
Old September 14th 18, 02:41 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 7:24:41 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:49:03 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Religion requires accepting certain things on faith. Should we
conclude from these premises that religion and science are in total
opposition?


Yes.


You seem to be blinded by your prejudices.

Before we can do that, we would have to ask: *what* things does
religion ask us to accept on faith?


It doesn't.


which causes you to misunderstand what John said. OF COURSE religion
asks us to accept certain things on faith. So does science.

Because we should accept nothing on faith.


Then you have no science. In fact, you have no LIFE.

To do so is to reject reason.


Not at all. Such a position is arrogant nonsense.

Faith is an epistemological system that can never reliably produce
accurate knowledge.


"Accurate knowledge." Hmm, that phrase seems to be tinged with private
interpretation. Science deals with models that allow prediction of
observable events. Models are maps, and we know that a map is not the
territory it purports to describe. "Accuracy" is a relative term, and
"knowledge" is what we gain by living and growing.

If faith is involved, then the search has already failed.


Then everything is vain. As John pointed out, science requires faith
in certain things, too: "Scientists accept on faith that the laws of
nature are consistent and intelligible."

This was certainly a problem for Saint Albert with the development of
quantum mechanics, which he himself started.

“If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics,
you do not understand it.” -- John Wheeler

“It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
-- Richard Feynman

We can predict a LOT of things with QM, so if "knowledge" means that,
then science gives us "accurate knowledge," but if "knowledge" means
"understanding" then science doesn't give us "accurate knowledge."

Some of the biggest questions in cosmology today are (1) What is dark
matter? (2) What is dark energy? (3) How can general relativity and
quantum mechanics be made compatible? (4) Did time start at the Big
Bang?

Quantum field theory is the most accurate map we have of the small,
but we have no idea how far "down" it reaches. Does it go to the
Planck level? What's below that? Is there a "below that"? String
theory says no. General Relativity is the most accurate map we have
of the large, but it doesn't tell us what dark matter and dark energy
are. Cosmologists take of faith that the FRWL metric accurately
describes the universe, but does it? Spacetime is a model, and we
don't know what the heck it is.

“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite
different.” – Steven Carlip


Then everything is vain. As John pointed out, science requires faith
in certain things, too: "Scientists accept on faith that the laws of
nature are consistent and intelligible."


This is simply not true. If observation and data call into question a basic law of nature, human understanding of science would change but would continue.

On the other hand, just to use the Abrahmic religions as example, the belief systems simply could not continue if one accepts the archaeological evidence that 13 Jewish tribes after a long period of captivity in Egypt wandered into the Levant, that Jesus was both human and god, or that Mohamed's writings were inspired by some infinitely powerful being.

A good current example of what was considered a fundamental base of science being scattered without destroying scientific inquire itself is the current challenges to Darwin's theory of evolution from developments in biochemistry. Data no longer supports that evolution must occur over generations as Darwin and successive generations believed. While this is certainly shaking up evolutionary inquiry, evolution as a branch of science does and will continue to exist.
  #50  
Old September 14th 18, 03:57 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,251
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

There is a curious bunch of Americans who adopted the term 'Abrahamic' religion but this empirical subculture reminds me of those two Russians on television yesterday trying to sound like they were tourists interested in visiting Salisbury.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Denial of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Science Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 April 24th 17 06:58 PM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 6th 15 12:14 PM
Neil (EGO) Degrasse Tyson STEALS directly from Sagan RichA[_6_] Amateur Astronomy 4 April 17th 15 09:38 AM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON : CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 14th 14 04:32 PM
'My Favorite Universe' (Neil deGrasse Tyson) M Dombek UK Astronomy 1 December 29th 05 12:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.