I'm pro-telescope, but not pro-stabbing.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sense of sacred vs science
- Thread starter SkylarHunter
- Start date
Sometimes something is worth doing, even if it does **** people off.
Tools for understanding the universe trump mountain worship for me.
It's an analogy. And from the perspective of these indigenous people, probably an accurate one.
Sad irony is that "mountain worship" is a mode of understanding the universe. One that Westerners fail to value, and thus see fit to stab repeatedly until it dies.
The reality of it is different from how one thinks they "feel" about it.
No one is actually punctured & bleeding from it.
They can still understand things by worshiping the mountain.
A telescope won't impede them in this effort.
The stars will pretty much always be there. people, their cultures, beliefs, traditions and histories won't be. we die at a much faster rate and our ideas die with us. we've done an aweful lot already to erase past cultures based on notions of our superiority. We cannot fully understand who we areas a species unless we understand our past and that is part of the collective inheritence of the human race. the vastness of space challanges our sense that we have a special place in the universe and makes what we do on this planet perhaps more, rather than less significant. The implications of our knowledge of space are not simply scientific but also moral.
Even if there was some way we could set off a space craft now, we probably won't find intelligent life in the universe for a very long time given the vast distances we'd have to cover and the technologies we'd need to do it. We'd be crossing a vast and lifeless desert looking for an oasis and never quite sure whether its a mirage until we get there. Till then, all we have is each other. We need to get our planet in order before we exporting our problems when we finally colonise Mars, or some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. We sort of owe it not simply to our ancestors but to our descendants to get it right this time round. Space can wait a little bit longer till we sort ourselves out.
It's a value judgement.
Besides, I don't think we'll ever "sort ourselves out".
We'll always be a quagmire of human depravity.
But at least we can investigate the universe while we suffer.
Augustus
…
How many telescopes are there in the world (and even in space)? Is this one really going to make a substantial difference in the 'progress' of humanity, one which couldn't be made anywhere else?
You probably wouldn't be too happy if someone built a church in your back garden with the excuse that they saved you a bit of lawn so stop complaining.
The article calling it sacredness v 'science' seems a bit hyperbolic also. It's sacredness v a big telescope. In the grand scheme of things, this telescope means nothing, and they could probably find somewhere else to build one just as good but it will be 'inconvenient' for some scientists to do so. Better to inconvenience the 'primitive' locals, whose beliefs are a bit of a 'joke'.
In the grand scheme of things, it is about as important to build a telescope there as it is to build a cinema. It is really just for the enjoyment of some people after all.
Space is only a consolation because it is unspoilt by human depravity. Why turn a desert into a battlefield for our own egotism? Space exploration will not provide the answers to the greatest questions we have to ask. It can only inform the value judgements we make as we evolve as a society away from mountain worship. As science strips away the foundations for religious belief, our need for value judgements will become more rather than less pressing and our individual suffering will seem only more needless when we think about our insignificance. We can and should fix it.
Here is one Hawaiian's answer....
http://welivemana.com/articles/native-hawaiian-astrophysicists-mana‘o-thirty-meter-telescope
Churches don't advance anyone's understanding.
They likely reduce it.
Catchy titles are always misleading & infuriating us.
Such is news delivery.
My enjoyment of astronomy trumps their enjoyment of a telescope free mountain.
It's not fair.
But stuff happens.
I think I'd approve of this project if the telescope doubled as a temple for the religion of these people. Carve into the base of this telescope sacred imagery, and epic narratives of the indigenous people. Make it a monument in their honor, with its function as a telescope a secondary aspect. Let the space be open to the public: as a worship space for the indigenous denizens of the island, as a place to learn about their indigenous religion for outsiders, and as a place to enjoy the wonders of astronomical stargazing.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
If it's like many "sacred" locations, it's just a matter of coming up with the right donation amount the locals are shaking you down for.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Sure it does if they don't own the land and haven't for a long period of time. By that logic the native Americans would have the right to every ounce of property in this part of the world. Ownership rights and majority rule are the only thing that offers true protection, although they may get lucky and find a sympathetic judge.
It isn't fair but then life isn't fair.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Telescopes will probably do more good for the local population than any worship site.
The back yard scenario you laid out supports my point. If the indigenous people owned the mountain we wouldn't be having this conversation. The question is who has priority, those who own the property or those who claim they should by some ancient tradition. This is a case of the local "place indigenous people of any kind here" claiming your back yard is a ancient sacred site and you can't put in the garage you want to construct.
Augustus
…
The state 'own' the land.
The government could sell off all the green spaces in your town to private landlords and makes some money from it, would that be for the best?
You think that you should have access to green spaces through some 'tradition', but why not sell them to rich people who can use them for their personal enjoyment?
Lots of historical sites sit on 'valuable real estate', sell them off too. History and culture aren't important, just commercial exploitation.
Anyway, it's just indigenous people; they don't really have any culture because they are backwards. Best they get with the program.
Anywhere where there are minorities, the majority should just move them on. Get the Christians and the Yazidis out of Iraq, the Islamic State own their land now. They think they own it by some ancient tradition, but times change. Muslims could use their land better. they're just backward people who refused to assimilate into the majority culture.
Best they don't stand in the way of progress.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
All your snide comments aside... that is the way the world works. Ancient traditions die and the world moves on. The minority has the same right as the majority to buy or lease the land. But if we just handed it to everyone who had a historical claim, we would soon find ourselves owning nothing but swampland and mountainsides.
Augustus
…
That was the view of some Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke who thought that the Native Americans had no right to their land as they had failed to commercially exploit it, and thus Europeans had every right to exterminate them.
It formed the basis for the field of 'scientific' racism; something that apparently still finds favour with some on this forum.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
It's not a matter of favor. It's a matter of practicality. Practically speaking, using a mountaintop for a telescope is a no brainer when compared with the desire for a "sacred" site that may be visited by a few hundred people a year. On the one hand you have a telescope valued by scholars, educators and students. On the other you have a site where people can "commune" or "worship". Telescopes need to be placed as high as possible and as far from light as possible. There are limited ideal sites on which to put one. Realistically, the loss of this site for the local people means what?
The intelligent choice if I were one of the locals would be to move for a cooperative effort. Something where they could still visit the site and the telescope/observatory could have a limited impact on the area.
But if the choice is one or the other, I give it to the astronomers every time.
Regardless of whether or not you describe your perspective as the "practical" choice or the "intelligent" choice, at its root this perspective is grounded in your personal values. That makes it a matter of favor: favoring your personal values over those of others.
Not just personal values, the values of a cultural majority that has systematically stolen the lands which were legally by priority owned by the native inhabitants under their system of law, by imposing at gunpoint a foreign system of ownership and law that denied their right to ownership in favor of the invading peoples. Yes, historically, that often happens; it still doesn't make it right, and we as a nation and often as individuals continue to impose that same imperialistic system on the native peoples who Western culture has repeatedly robbed and raped, by continuing to do it over and over again just to prove that we can, and for whatever reason reason we choose. Most Americans favor the values of the dominant culture over any and all minority cultures, especially those that still survive despite the efforts to wipe them out.