firedragon
Veteran Member
'So hacked?' As in, it's truly pathetic that anyone is actually against them?
I think rather than bracing yourself too much, be a bit open minded, then you might understand what someone says.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
'So hacked?' As in, it's truly pathetic that anyone is actually against them?
Terribly wrong? Set us straight!
But magical thinking is a fundamental threat to and even more within science. And all religions (I know of) have some magic in their core beliefs. It stifles investigative thinking.
But magical thinking is a fundamental threat to and even more within science. And all religions (I know of) have some magic in their core beliefs. It stifles investigative thinking.
And when nature contradicts doctrine, we ignore nature and shoot (or drown) the messenger. (I don't know if that tradition was founded by the Pythagoreans but it's at least that old.)“We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine;
He doesn't really get involved in this whole debate, I honestly don't think he cares all that much. This is an interview with him where he is asked about atheism etc.
The whole notion of "Stick to your Wheelhouse" is, I think, incredibly asinine. Even the experts can be, and often are, wrong within their area of expertise. To think that because someone holds a degree in physics or geology that they are thus absolutely incapable of discussing history unless they somehow also become a historian is little more than a vain attempt to discredit them, rather than the (often) singular issue.
And when nature contradicts doctrine, we ignore nature and shoot (or drown) the messenger. (I don't know if that tradition was founded by the Pythagoreans but it's at least that old.)
For clarity; how exactly is it worded in Tyson's statements?I quite agree. But if we're unsure of something, we should preface what we say with "In my opinion..." or "I believe."
Tu quoque?Dissenters are often silenced by those in power. And humans commit atrocities in the pursuit of power and wealth.
You think these failings are restricted to those with religious beliefs? Have you seen satellite photos of the atheist state of North Korea?
And when nature contradicts doctrine, we ignore nature and shoot (or drown) the messenger. (I don't know if that tradition was founded by the Pythagoreans but it's at least that old.)
That wasn't so much a false history as it was a generalized claim. Isaac Newton did imply that is unsolvable. From there Tyson gave his reasoning where it can be problematic to just accept something is unsolvable.So far as I know Tyson is still giving his false histories on Isaac Newton. I just a made a post on this.
There are two other of Tyson's false histories I plan to post to this forum. But I won't describe them now as I don't want to derail this thread. I am hoping to keeping these comments limited to Tyson's Bush and Star Names story and his claim that Ghazali's writings ended the Islamic Golden Age.
The things provided haven't really been evidence of a "glaring lack of historical knowledge." Isaac Newton did believe some whacky stuff. Math being declared of the devil was problematic.I wasn't talking about religious subjects, but his glaring lack of historical knowledge cited in the OP.
One would think that somebody so uninterested in a subject matter would not talk at length about it.
I would argue that magical thinking (that is, a black box understanding of natural phenomena) permeates our everyday understanding of the world, including our understanding of science (where "scientific" is often understood as "being correct" rather than "deploying one or several of a wide variety of truth-seeking methods in their respective fields of study").That may even be true. As I said before, as long as it doesn't conflict with core beliefs, religion is mostly indifferent to science. Some practitioners are even in favor for it, while others are generally skeptic.
But magical thinking is a fundamental threat to and even more within science. And all religions (I know of) have some magic in their core beliefs. It stifles investigative thinking. And there is also real influence that stifles research, e.g. in genetic engineering, in parts of the world.
Who are "they" in this framing? The masses of rightless immigrant workers responsible for building that wealth, the small number of former feudal/tribal lords profiting from an unsustainable extraction economy, or the small native underclass that effectively lives off of their generosity?After what three?, four? generations? No. They either like their governments or are too apathetic to change them.
Tu quoque?
Fun fact: There are over a hundred competing theories out there claiming to be able to answer why the Roman Empire fell*, and none of them able to conclusively prove their case against all others.Terribly wrong? Set us straight!
See, for example, evolutionary genetics vs. Lysenkoism in the USSR, a state explicitly built on an atheistic ideology.In contrast Galileo and Giordano Bruno were disrespectful and challenged the authority of those in power. Challenging an oligarch is dangerous regardless if the oligarch believes in God or not.
And instead of bothering to fact check any of these claims yourself, you are you simply taking NDT's unsupported and factually wrong claims as factual truth, highlighting the OP's point about people perpetrating falsehoods with scientific authority.The things provided haven't really been evidence of a "glaring lack of historical knowledge." Isaac Newton did believe some whacky stuff. Math being declared of the devil was problematic
... after decades or sometimes centuries of bickering and trying to hide the truth.Historically, if understanding of scripture was shown to be demonstrably wrong by nature, then they could revise their understanding of scripture.
Human fallibility in interpretation was always acknowledged so it wasn't the massive problem you assume.