"Cosmos" observation

[jrw14125]

Part of the show last night had Sagan in a grade school class talking to kids about the wonders in space. He told 1 kid "YOU are a part of the Milky Way galaxy!”

The kid’s face was so full of wonder and amazement and excitement and intrigue - you could almost picture the synapses firing with imagination! You could see a future explorer or scientist being created.

Now, contrast that with telling a kid that Satan (or the Jews) buried fossils to deceive us. That the earth and the universe are but 6000 years old. That there’s no chance of life on other planets b/c we are simply "God’s special creatures," and he did it all for us. Oh, and btw, that the world is gonna end soon, so you better be good so you can go to heaven with Jesus.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. that's 6,012 years, bucko. Don't blaspheme so.

[LiberalVoice]

2. Change the "you better be good" part to...

"you better do as I say" and your observation is perfect.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. And call the 800 number to make a faith contribution and buy

one of our books.

[Deep13]

4. I know it!

These superstitious people who insist that science is trying to take something away from them amaze me. The real world and universe is so astonishing without having to reign it in.

The minerals in your body were created by a supernova explosion billions of years ago.

[Fredda Weinberg]

10. I'll tell you what you ain't got

Since I've been on both sides of this divide ...

An indifferent universe is unacceptable. The terror is that evil is just as acceptable to nature as virtue. Humanity has no chance of redemption and is no better than the beasts.

Yeah, I'm secular now, but I know better than to condemn something that's survived thousands of years. I watched Cosmos, too - but it doesn't come close to the bliss of divine presence.

[GeorgeGist]

14. The cosmos is divine presence...

so I doubt you've really seen either.

[Fredda Weinberg]

15. The Cosmos is indifferent

The divine spirit cares - and that makes all the difference.

I understand your hostility - it's a mirror of the contempt true believers have for you. I, on the other hand, have sympathy for both sides.

[Deep13]

18. Let me ask you this.

If the cosmos and therefore all that exists is divine, what is not divine? If nothing is not divine, there is nothing special about divinity and it becomes a meaningless concept.

How is this not the case?

[Fredda Weinberg]

20. Who said everything is divine?

Just because god made heaven and earth doesn't mean we should worship 'em.

It may be a meaningless concept to you, but that's my point - you don't know what you've missed. I have no problem living a secular life, because I've had the experience of being in the divine presence. I can carry that sensation with me without the ritual trappings.

[Deep13]

21. "Everybody" post #14

He or she said the Cosmos is divine. I think Sagan defined cosmos well when he said that it is everything that is, ever was or ever will be. That's pretty inclusive. Who said anything about worshipping?

[Fredda Weinberg]

23. Why should I defend Everybody's mistake?

Sagan is wrong - for example, imagination is not part of the Cosmos. Humans may have invented divinity, but we also came up with the idea of morality, which is a cool concept.

We're only weakly empathic, but adhering to a moral framework makes us capable of living in societies that achieve much more than an individual can accomplish alone. We're not simply primates living in family clans anymore - give it credit or don't, but ideologies like religion have given rise to civilizations for centuries.

I happen to love the beauty of elegant mathematical equations - I spent years studying physics just for the pleasure of understanding their power to represent reality. But cosmology, even if imbued with awe, is a poor substitute for a caring deity.

[Deep13]

25. Don't know, but you brought it up.

"imagination is not part of the Cosmos"

Imagination is caused by the workings of the human mind which occurred from the natural consequences of natural selection. We have large brains to process the enormous amount of visual information from our complex, binocular eyes. This is necessary for living in trees. With four independently moving limbs with include ten articulable fingers, again necessary of arborial life, we need even more brainpower. Add to that our discovery of fire which allowed us to cook food enabling a smaller jaw (to which imacted wisdom teeth are a consequence) allowed us to make suble noises that aid in communication. More brain power was needed for that. Add to that the eloborate social structure allowed by the use of language. Allow of these things and probably more made imagination possible. The laws of nature that dictate how matter and energy work also govern how our minds work. The particles that make our bodies was created at the Big Bang. Heavier materials were synthesized in stars. The heavier still elements and the creation of the Earth were the result of a collosal supernova explosion.

Please explain how imagination is not part of the cosmos.

Morality is simply a code for group survival. Thinking people may have refined it, but its root cause is Darwinsism. Most of our moral rules are centered around social order and especially on reproductive prerogatives. Humans compete for mating rights on a physical level, not a sperm level and all sexual morality including the virtue many ascribe to chastity are a direct result of this fact.

"We're not simply primates living in family clans anymore "

Yes we are. Our clans are bigger and more complicated and are territory larger, but monkeys in a clan is essentially what we are.

Cosmos is better than a caring diety because we are not under anyones thumb. I don't want or need some god, real or imaginary, looking out for me. Anyway, he/she/it/they have been asleep at the switch for 38 years, so it is not like it would change anything. This is our universe (not ours exclusively) and we are home in it and the future, while frought with danger, presents unlimited possibility. How we survive or kill ourselves is entirely up to us.

[Fredda Weinberg]

27. How sad

You continue to lecture me as though I were a bible thumping fundamentalist. Dude, I'm a computer engineer who's perfectly comfortable around systems with enormous capacities - but they don't posess the emergent feature we call consciouness.

You compare human civilization to familial clans - that's funny to someone who lives in NYC. Taking the subway each day is an exercise in social order - don't imagine for a moment that I consider myself related to the thousands of strangers I pass each day. We extend courtesy when we want to - not everyone will give up their seat to an eldery or disabled person, but the best of us do.

If you're satisfied with the way you are, that's great. What you can't seem to grasp, and this is what makes you no better than the parochialists I walked away from decades ago, is that others can possess a world view just as satisfying - or even more so - than your own. I made a deliberate decision to explore the secular world, so I embrace it gladly, but bear no animus to those who choose to persist in that insular culture.

[Deep13]

30. I thought we were having a discussion.

I was not aware that I was lecturing. You stated a conclusion and I disagreed. You disagreed with my conclusions. This is a discussion forum after all. Also, this is a public discussion forum, so my comments were written with that in mind and that others besides us might be reading them.

Dudette, nothing we have created is anywhere near as complicated as one human brain. Anyway, how do you know those computers do not have at least a dull glow of consciousness? I agree that they do not, but I think it is an interestion question nevertheless.

Modern "clans" include things like community (even huge ones like NYC), country, social clubs, political party, coworkers etc. These are not clans in the literal sense of the word, but the group dynamics and need to 'belong' to a group are left-overs from our prehistoric past.

I fully appreciate that you disagree. Apparently, you are annoyed by any critical analysis of your statements. I thought we were discussing the matter rationally, but I guess it is not possible to respect anyone capable of the wandon destruction of life as you characterized me in another post. Moral exist inspite of religion, not because of it.

[Fredda Weinberg]

32. Religion is part of our prehistoric past too

Your analysis of life in the big city is too funny ... no, we are not a big clan and our manners are wholly unnatural. I spent time down south and eventually acclimated to greeting total strangers - but reverted immediately when I got back to our crowded sidewalks.

I don't mind critical analysis - that's not what I've seen in this thread. I responded to a post which demonstrated no understanding of the profound satisfaction devout adherence to a religious belief offers.

I've had the best of both worlds - and enjoyed Cosmos greatly when it first aired. But morality? Right and wrong? I'm afraid you won't find an equation for deriving those principles from Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

[Deep13]

17. I used to be a Fundy.

The universe is indifferent. That is a fact and our unwillingness to accept it does not change anything. Facts exist independent of what we want or need.

Evil is only acceptable if we accept it. Many (but not all or, hopefully, most)religious people seem ready to accept that and to redefine tolerance as evil and hate as good because their holy books say so.

Your statement presumes the Christian concept of original sin and the need for redemption. I absolutely reject that concept. Humans are not evil by nature requiring redemption. We do beneficial and harmful things, but it has nothing to do with having a sinful nature. We are not sinners because there is no sin. (See the Gospel of Thomas)

[Fredda Weinberg]

22. Ummm ... I'm not Christian

Redemption has nothing to do with original sin - it's release from the natural condition you say is inescapable.

Look, predation can't be morally justified - so religion buffers it with invocations that relieve us from guilt for taking what is obviously a sentient life. Ridicule the practice if you must, but it's perfectly understandable.

Don't attempt to lecture me on reality - I live a totally secular life and have no trouble facing the inevitable end. It's actually quite funny how your tone parallels those who cling to parochial ways ... both sides seem incapable of appreciating the other's differences.

So I walk comfortably along my own path - and appreciate that I've experienced the ultimate satisfaction.

[Deep13]

24. "predation can't be morally justified "

I assume you mean that in some methaphoric way. I do not know what or how religion buffers it. Obviously, predatory animals would never imagine a need to justify their basic nature. Nor do I. They live as what they are and so do I. I used to believe that it was necessary to transcend nature because I accepted St. Paul's Platonic idea of a dichotomy between the worldly and the spiritual. The attempt to escape my worldly nature caused me much psychological suffering. The problem, of course, was that I was baking with the wrong recipe. There is no distinction between divine and worldly, therefore, there is no reason to escape our natural condition. From the Earth we came and to it we shall return. So what? I don't care about what I missed or how I felt before being born. What makes death any different?

[Fredda Weinberg]

26. I'm sorry you suffered

I've reconciled my sense of morality with my biology, just as I've come to terms with my female biological imperative. I didn't find it painful - it just took a while to gain sufficient perspective.

Obviously, I still distinguish between the sacred and the profane - going back to the antique definition of the term. Part of my inculcation was the concept that each generation chose to accept "the Law" - most of which governs our interpersonal relationships, rather than dictating how we relate to god. Even as a secularist, I choose to serve a higher cause, because I think it does matter whether or not I leave a legacy to future generations.

Perhaps you can wantonly destroy life - but I think you're engaging in rhetorical hyperbole out of disgust for the meaningless prattle you claim you once accepted. But I suggest that the ideology was enduring because it satisfied a basic need - this is not an original discovery - and rejecting spiritual comfort is unnecessary.

[Deep13]

29. "Perhaps you can wantonly destroy life "

Yawanna unpack that one for me? I never said anything of the sort. You make it sound like I've got a pile of corpses on my front lawn or are hoping to have them soon.

"engaging in rhetorical hyperbole out of disgust "

False. I was a Fundy in the 1980s. After, I tried to steer a happy medium wishfully thinking that science and religion each exist in their own worlds and that they can coexist. They can (and do) as long as people are willing to overlook some of the logical implications of each. I finally decided (after learning more about religion) that the scientific method and any notion of religious faith are mutually exclusive. Skepticism is not a reactionary mirror image of oppressive religions. It is the premise that ideas should not be accepted as true unless the evidence supports them. This basic premise immediately puts skeptics at odds with all belief systems. I respect religious people and their right to believe what they want. I would be lying, however, if I claimed to respect the religious ideas themselves.

I agree that religious ideology satisfied basic needs. The need to understand the nature of the universe and our place in it, to square harsh realities against human concepts of right and wrong and for social control. My feeling is that science and secular government has eliminated the need for all three.

I don't expect you to agree. This is just food for thought.

[Fredda Weinberg]

31. We agree on quite a bit

But along my scientific education, I learned its limitations - there's less evidence than you might think. You can't prove string theory, for example and for the longest time, quantum chromodynamics was an act of faith.

But I'm afraid we can't agree that science and secular government are the alpha and omega for civilized life. The potential is surely there, but so few actually learn enough science to make it worthwhile. That's why I appreciated Sagan, but hate to see him used to demean what I was.

As for the religious ideas themselves, well, I call 'em trappings because the details are almost irrelevant. What I keep with me is the sensation - and as I grew up surrounded by people hungry for a sacred space in this secular world, I realized how fortunate I was to have experienced these things before I developed my own healthy sense of skepticism.

[Deep13]

33. String theory: some small problems and one huge one.

There is a growing chorus that suggests that string theory is not a real scientific theory because it purports to prove nothing. It all exists on paper and makes no predictions that can be proven or disproven by observation. It appears to be unique among scientific "theories" in that. For those that don't know, the Holy Grail of physics is the unification of physics. There appear to be two basic forces of nature: gravity as expressed in general relativity and quantum mechanics. All previously theorized forces of nature like electromagnatism have been integrated into one of these two grandaddy theories. The problem is, these theories are mutually exclusive. Both may be, but one must be wrong, at least in certain circumstances. Because q.m. governs the very small and because the effect of gravity on such a tiny scale is almost nonexistant, these theories do not run into each other in any practical way. Nevertheless, at certain badly behaved events like black hole and the big bang, gravity is so concentrated that q.m. must be taken into account. The unification of physics is an attempt to describe both forces as part of a single, unified force. One such attempt is string theory. Both relativity and q.m. make definite predictions that can be tested by observation. As far as I know, string theory has failed to do that.

Science has limitation, no doubt. The biggest is that humans do it and we are not perfect. "I don't know" is always an acceptable answer in science and there is a great deal of "I not only don't know, but I haven't the faintest clue" in science. Nevertheless, it is the only way we have made any progress in understanding how things work. My point is that science seems to be removing the original causes of religion. Gods used to be real in people's minds, not metaphorical. Now most of the gods are relegated to mythology because we really don't need them to explain anything. We know immortal people do not live in the sky. We know what planets really are. We have a better understanding of weather and know where the seasons come from. We know disease is caused by microbes, not sin. Mental disease is a disease and not demonic possession. We know heaven is not a place in the sky, because we have been there. God has been relegated to an abstract being living in some sort of spiritual parallel world. The more we learn, the smaller and less concrete God's sphere of influence becomes.

I know what you mean by the desire for spiritual space. I have always expressed it as a need to escape civilization and be one with the Earth. I'm a square peg and the civilized tendency to try to fit in a round hole takes its toll. One must escape for that and be part of something more universal. One such moment for my was the late honeymoon my wife and I took on Mt. Rainier. We did not get anywhere near the top, but we did hike 1300 vertical feet. I developed a nasty head cold. When we got to the plateau where we could see the next state, I thought, "I am so sick I can hardly take another step. This is the greatest day of my life!" Similarly, going to a truly dark observing site is almost a religious experience. With the Milky Way overhead, one can easily see knots of dust and gas winding its way down the luminous band. Look through a telescope and the number and density of stars is awesome. It is like standing on the front porch of the cosmos.

[Bill McBlueState]

5. as always,

Reality is far more fascinating than the fantasies people invent.

[opihimoimoi]

6. Their Fantasies don't even come close..as their imagination is

Hampered by IGNORANCE

Tragic...as History will tell us...to delve in Fantasy is not a very good thing...usually counter productive and wasteful...

[JohnnyRingo]

7. Fundies seem to think that if they can't understand something

that "it can't be explained by conventional science".

They use this argument the origins of life here.
They claim "it's too wonderous and complicated to be explained by science". not realizing that some people do understand it.

Those who can explain the beginnings of the cosmos and life here shouldn't mind if people want to rely on faith of a higher power to validate their existance.

I don't think we need leaders who maintain a 19th century viewpoint of science however.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. Johnny, it is worse.

There are historical studies which show that mental illness and fundie religious thoughts go hand in hand, and beccause these folks are already delusional, the chances that they could understand even the simplest concepts about science or math are pretty slim. Therefore, even obvious scientific truths that thinking people understand and apply in their day to day realities are considered sinful by the fundies. And they go around attacking those because our beliefs are based in science, not their peculiar brand of faith. Not only do they willfully refuse to try to understand a scientific issue, they quite possibly are not capable of doing so.

The logical upshot is this. Fundie religious movements are dangerous to the future of mankind. Fundie religions, christian, muslim, take your pick, actually cause severe harm.

Worse yet, they manage to infect the brains of the very young. Do you recall a few years back when those proud parents paraded their 3.5 yr old girl on the 700 Club station, and the parents got that poor kid to admit that she was born a sinner, but had been reborn? A three year old renouncing her MORTAL SINS? My dog is about as well trained, and only a slightly messier eater.

Unfortunately, such events only cause scientists, realists and people who practice rational thinking to concentrate on undoing the damage done by Fundies, rather than expanding our universe of understanding. (Think of 70% of the state of Kansas)

Then we come to politicians. I, for one, do not believe that Cheney or Rummie are actual doomsday prophets. More like, doomsday profits. Bush, well, he probably does hear voices and does believe in his messianic vision. It does not matter, because they have successfully pandered to the ultra religious nutcases and have their support from top to bottom. In return, they give them actual voices on policy - AIDS in Africa, Creationism in NASA, faith biased initiatives which discriminate equally against agnostics and the wrong sects. There are many more examples, but it pains me to go through the list. So, we are left with idiotic policies becoming enacted. We have to fight battles previously won in the 1920s with the Scopes trial. That is the strength of irrational thinking based on religion. That is why all religions are evil and destructive. I say tax the suckers first.

[JohnnyRingo]

16. I'm with you on every well written word.

I was trying to be careful not to offend religious DUers and their right to believe in faith based explainations. I've been taken to the proverbial woodshed before.

So...You said it, I didn't. Hahahaha

[ChairmanAgnostic]

28. But, like the people fighting the zealots in Kansas, the idiots in DC and

the "morans" in the GOP, we have to continue to raise this. Fear, politeness, or a refusal to stand up for what is really right and wrong is our task. If you and I don't stand up to the idiots, why would anyone else? If they see you and me rising up to the challange, being patient, polite, but strong in the face of fundie religious attacks, others will take heart.

[Deep13]

8. Just under the bowl of the big dipper, there is or was a microquasar.

A quasar is a galaxy-sized black hole that billions of years ago powered the enormous production of radiant energy. The most distant ones are still visible in large telescopes. Micro-quasars are stellar-sized black holes that do the same thing on a much smaller scale.

A few years ago, I heard of one and found it in my 8" telescope. It was not very bright, but definitely visible. What was astonishing is that this 'star' vanished every few seconds and then slowly flickered back into view. The period appeared random. I suspect that the cause was a dopler effect created by the intense gravity of the black hole causing the light to shift in and out of the visible range.

There is some bizarre shit out there.

[jrw14125]

12. you think it could be a flash

caused by the channeling of some forms of light b/c of teh star's magnetic wave? ie: the same way they "see" a neutron star with radio telescopes?

[Deep13]

19. I suppose you could put it that way.

I figured it was at the edge of the visible wavelength and gravity occasionally compressed the waves into ultraviolet.

[nashville_brook]

9. my friends who grew up in fundy households describe

being terrified of the fire and brimstone and outright stupidity. first comes the terror. as they got older they say they couldn't trust their parents. sad, really.

[jrw14125]

13. First, the missing link, now land-hunting catfish! bad week for fundies...

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060412_catfish_hunter.html

[cosmic _mind]

34. Carl Sagan

was awesome. Pretty cool for a human. And he had a brain.