Cosmos - The Series
- Thread starter VINYLONE
- Start date
Really? I thought they were tastefully done.
I think the cartoon sequences are used to emphasize a point of view not reflected in the narration (for example, Bruno brightness versus the darkness of his prosecutors)., and I can see where a couple of them might raise hackles (not necessarily a bad thing).
I love the series so far.
I love the series so far.
I watch it with Sloan, who is six. She loves it. I'm so-so... I don't care for the cartoons too much, but they aren't bad. My only real complaint, and it's not really a complaint, is it seems like they are trying WAY too hard to push Science > Religion. I watch it for the info and the thought provoking ideas, not to have Atheism thrust up my butt hole.
**** yeah. I just finished episode 5 last night and it was really ****ing good. Were you guys able to see any of the eclipse out there?
Can you give me an example of this push you're referencing? I've watched almost all of the episodes and I have not noticed anything like that. What Atheistic principles are you referencing?
I don't know if the show is actually talking about principles, but more along the lines of... ****, I don't know how to say it. For example, the first episode spent a lot of time defiling the Catholic Church for persecuting that one science guy - forgot his name. A lot of the cartoons spent, what in my opinion, was too much time on that point. The church is evil because it stifled science. While I agree with that sentiment to a point, there should also be a happy medium. It was centuries ago, and hindsight is a beautiful thing. No need to demonize an entire faith based on their actions hundreds of years ago.
Does that make any sense? I don't really have a problem with it, but it was enough for me to notice and scratch my head.
I agree Cosmos' treatment of the issue is a little heavy-handed. However, it's not as if churches today have embraced science; many still oppose various scientific advances and notions. If there were no such actions today, no one would bother with the actions of hundreds of years ago.
Uh, tell that to the Scientologists and christianscience.com. Even Mormons have taken huge leaps in their understanding of science and how it relates to doctrine. Many churches still do hold their archaic teachings and standards, but society is seeing a massive influx of scientific knowledge and awareness, and it is only a matter of time until those churches begin to embrace it. It doesn't have to be Science or nothing, or Religion or nothing; they coexist pretty damn well.
Only as long as your god is a truly non-falsifiable entity.
If Science can make a prediction that threatens faith then they don't coexist well at all. That's usually, historically, when things have hit the fan.
For what it's worth, I like Cosmos but think that Neil Tyson is somewhat too heavily scripted. He's a lot more engaging when he's off the cuff like his appearances on television have been previously.
Those groups seem like good examples of religions opposed to science in many forms to me. Is that what you meant?
However, it's not just them. For example, stem cell research was slowed for years because of religious opposition from a wide variety of groups.
Defiling? That's a stretch.
I thought NDT did a good job showing what many of the early scientists, astronomers, philosophers were up against, especially when these scenarios were sanctioned by the state. I think you have to give a historical backdrop to make the discoveries appreciable. I didn't take that the church was evil from any of these episodes (I've currently only watched to episode 6) but there was a specific zeitgeist and if you questioned, you were maligned.
That's history. Nothing more.
I think from episode #4 on things have ramped up. Episode #4 was fantastic. 5 and 6 were equally as good.
Edited to add:
I was blown away by the referencing of tardigrades and later, nuetrinos in episode 6. Tardigrades. Wow.
Last edited:
I suppose it would boil down, as it should, to the person who believes and not the religion as a whole. Without science as a catalyst, I find most of modern theology ridiculous. Using what little I admittedly know about science, it's even possible to get a grasp on ancient religions, the worship of multiple gods, etc.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Bruno ain't a martyr for "science" as "The Passion of the Scientist" series portrays.
"He died not as a scientist or for scientific beliefs, but because he had rejected the fundamental truths
of the faith he had promised to uphold at his ordination—the divinity of Christ, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Trinity."
"He died not as a scientist or for scientific beliefs, but because he had rejected the fundamental truths
of the faith he had promised to uphold at his ordination—the divinity of Christ, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Trinity."
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I was addressing the why not the should.
It looks like he challenged every major doctrine of the Catholic faith imaginable...after promising to uphold them at his ordination. Then he embraced the Mormon doctrine of "the plurality of eternal worlds."
How does this make him a martyr for "science?"