|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 9:57:50 AM UTC-5, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
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. If you look at the OED definition you will find as many examples published outside the United States as in. And of course there are as many theologians in the United States who are critical of the term as out. For the purposes of this dicsussion the terms is handy. But if it harms your senses, just insert, judaism, christianity and islam in your mind when you come across it. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 2:30:02 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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. What makes all this pathetic is every single one of you are a product of what the Catholic Church did by leaving the difficulties surrounding a Sun centered system and predictive astronomy unresolved and specifically why one can't mesh with the other. The Brits didn't help when the lack of a resolution was exploited by Royal Society mathematicians but then again it now appears to be a pan-European thing. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 4:15:11 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 9:57:50 AM UTC-5, Gerald Kelleher wrote: 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. If you look at the OED definition you will find as many examples published outside the United States as in. And of course there are as many theologians in the United States who are critical of the term as out. For the purposes of this dicsussion the terms is handy. But if it harms your senses, just insert, judaism, christianity and islam in your mind when you come across it. You are so sweet but the other guys here have learned to live in the shadows when it comes to the Church involvement in the Sun centered system but then again every single astronomer at the time, including Galileo, would not have been able to answer the question as to whether the astronomy which predicts the time and dates of events like eclipses and transits can also prove the Earth and the other planets orbit the Sun. You can't read the deficiencies found in direct/retrograde resolutions within the framework available to Kepler, Galileo et all and therein is the valid objection of the Pope at the time and exists still. http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/chain.htm Again, the Catholic Church is largely responsible for your narrow perspective because the failure to expand direct/retrogrades as a two part resolution allowed people in the late 17th century to descend into homocentricity. You can see this homocentricity today close to the Equinox as empiricists explain the changing seasons using a planet with a zero degree inclination and a pivoting circle of illumination off the Equator. Your buddy Peterson shows up in the comment section of that website - https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
Gary Harnagel wrote in
: 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. Or his stupidity. But he *is* name Chris, so it's required. -- 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. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 7:30:02 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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. "Faith-based thinking" is a slippery phrase. What does it even mean? "truth" is also a bit slippery. Science doesn't deal in truths. We used to think it did, but today we understand that science deals with models that predict observables. 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. It is to me. I accept scientific models until refuted by experimental observations. I also hold beliefs that are not refuted by such observations. You hold a belief that there is no God, which would be destroyed the moment God showed Himself. "Accurate knowledge." Hmm, that phrase seems to be tinged with private interpretation. No. Reality is not determined by interpretation. Sure it is. "Reality" is unknowable to our senses. We construct models (maps) of reality, but the map is not the territory. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 7:41:44 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 7:24:41 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: 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. Sure, science would continue, but some scientists would be left in the dust because they couldn't adapt. Saint Albert and QM is a case in point. I would hope that I'm flexible enough to embrace new evidence, whatever it is. 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. I don't know what your point is. The Abrahamic religions DO continue "even though" they believe those things you list. 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. I wasn't aware of this in particular; however, there has been an under- current for a long time: “Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” – Fred Hoyle So there must be some undiscovered shortcuts or life began elsewhere long, long, long ago. Maybe even before the Big Bang? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
Sure, science would continue, but some scientists would be left in
the dust because they couldn't adapt. Saint Albert and QM is a case in point. I would hope that I'm flexible enough to embrace new evidence, whatever it is. Assuming by St. Albert you mean Albert Einstein. Who of course is dead. If Einstein were somehow still alive I am sure he would not be fundamentally unable to continue inquire should he learn some of his theories were incomplete. I don't know what your point is. The Abrahamic religions DO continue "even though" they believe those things you list. You missed my point. Accepting that a diety guided the 13 Jewish tribes to a promised land because they are a chosen people, that Jesus is divine, and that Mohamed received the Qu'ran from the lips of a diety are fundamental components of those faiths. If one were to accept proof disputing the tenants, that person would no longer be considered among the faithful. This holds even among the more liberal denominations. “Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” – Fred Hoyle There has a been many additions to biochemistry since the 1980s when Hoyle wrote what that quote. So there must be some undiscovered shortcuts or life began elsewhere long, long, long ago. Maybe even before the Big Bang? Not likely. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:37:19 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: No. I simply recognize reality. Faith-based thinking has never produced a truth. "Faith-based thinking" is a slippery phrase. What does it even mean? No, it's rigorously defined. It means accepting as true that which is not supported by evidence. In many cases (for instance most religion) it means accepting as true that which is contradicted by evidence. Faith-based thinking is the opposite of evidence-based thinking. "truth" is also a bit slippery. Science doesn't deal in truths. We used to think it did, but today we understand that science deals with models that predict observables. Pragmatically, science very much does deal in truths, where we define that as things which accurately describe how nature works. It is to me. I accept scientific models until refuted by experimental observations. I also hold beliefs that are not refuted by such observations. You hold a belief that there is no God, which would be destroyed the moment God showed Himself. Which is why I don't claim there are no gods. But I consider it true beyond reasonable doubt that there are none. It's the same standard I apply to unicorns and leprechauns. Sure it is. "Reality" is unknowable to our senses. We construct models (maps) of reality, but the map is not the territory. It is entirely reasonable to see the model and reality as being one and the same. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
Chris L Peterson wrote in
: On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:37:19 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: No. I simply recognize reality. Faith-based thinking has never produced a truth. "Faith-based thinking" is a slippery phrase. What does it even mean? No, it's rigorously defined. The difficulty, of course, is that it's defined in multiple, mutually exclusive ways by different people. Your delusions notwithstanding. -- 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. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 15:27:38 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote: Chris L Peterson wrote in : On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:37:19 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: No. I simply recognize reality. Faith-based thinking has never produced a truth. "Faith-based thinking" is a slippery phrase. What does it even mean? No, it's rigorously defined. The difficulty, of course, is that it's defined in multiple, mutually exclusive ways by different people. Not really. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |