The Cosmos

[IlarMeilyr]

Except that many brilliant scientists are perfectly willing to acknowledge that the very inception of the Universe is an unknowable for science. And lots of them therefore feel free to admit the possibility of a Creator.

What kind of scientist are they if they believe in something that can't be scientifically verified? That's just cognitive dissonance and wishful thinking and usually because they want to believe or they don't want to go to hell. Or a lot of people say they believe but don't really. Look at how many christians say they believe but admit the stories are just allegories. So there are many different levels of belief. And as a scientist. Could there be? Sure there could be. We didn't even know how big our universe was until the invention of the telescope. And do you realize the next closest star is 70,000 years from us? One day science will get us there in 40 years. Don't ask god to help

They cannot scientifically verify where the initial "thing" that "caused" the Big Bang came from.

But lots of them believe in it.

Scientists don't pretend to know everything. Some things are premised on either belief or are merely assumed pending further proof.

Its a universally accepted scientific theory. That's as good as it gets. Better than the creation story

So the sillybozo thesis is that a nearly 'universally accepted scientific theory' is not only as "good as it gets" but is also somehow NOT the same thing as believing something that cannot be scientifically verified.

There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a scientific theory is the highest honor any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena. Theories are rarely proven incorrect.

Theories are often proved to be incorrect.

You know not whereof you speak.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Everyone's gonna die eventually. There's nothing we can do about it. One day you, me, everyone you know will be faced with the realization they're gonna die.

This facts explains why religion's so popular. It gives people a false hope death is not the absolute end to experience. But it is.

It "is" because YOU maintain that this is "the" correct "answer."

But the truth is, although you might be right, you don't "know" any such thing. In short, open your mind and contemplate the FACT that you might also be wrong.

What you said is actually a mere statement of belief. And it's ok that you believe it. (Again, you might even be right.) But you confuse what you believe with "fact."

 

[haissem123]

Anyone who believes in God needs to watch the Cosmos. Watch the new one with Neil Degrasse Tyson and the old one with Carl Sagan. Once you learn the history of man, science and religion you will realize god(s) were made up long before we decided to just go with one god. Religious ignorance has held us back thousands of years. Religious people love to brag that it was on their watch that we came up with cures and that it was religious people who got us on the moon. They expose their ignorance to the fact that many of the scientists were/are atheists. They try to ignore the history of how many scientists were put to death for heresy by the churches for things that turned out to be correct. But today the church doesn't get so upset if you suggest the earth isn't the center of the universe or that the sun revolves around the earth because churches change with the times. They've learned not to fight science and instead ignore your anti scientific history and embrace science. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

300 years before Christ, Aristarchus of Samos discovered the earth was not the center of the universe. But it wasn't until the year 1500 of our lord that someone dared suggest it again. Who squashed this fact for 1800 years? Religion.

Think about instead of the 50 year cold war and all the other wars we fought if we would have put the time and energy into colonizing Mars. Take all the nukes we have built since the 1950's and tell me how much money that is. Human beings are stupid. One way to tell how dumb someone is, ask them if they believe in god.

the more I watch some of these astro guys or physicists trying to explain their "theories" of string theory alternate dimentions or whatever, quarts and black holes, the more I'm convinced they are just as clueless and searching for answers in the dark as any religions are or have been. my universal theory of everything sounds much more like an answer to me. we are. I am. He is.it's all like cosmically connected man. like new things of come to light man.

 

[haissem123]

Anyone who believes in God needs to watch the Cosmos. Watch the new one with Neil Degrasse Tyson and the old one with Carl Sagan. Once you learn the history of man, science and religion you will realize god(s) were made up long before we decided to just go with one god. Religious ignorance has held us back thousands of years. Religious people love to brag that it was on their watch that we came up with cures and that it was religious people who got us on the moon. They expose their ignorance to the fact that many of the scientists were/are atheists. They try to ignore the history of how many scientists were put to death for heresy by the churches for things that turned out to be correct. But today the church doesn't get so upset if you suggest the earth isn't the center of the universe or that the sun revolves around the earth because churches change with the times. They've learned not to fight science and instead ignore your anti scientific history and embrace science. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

300 years before Christ, Aristarchus of Samos discovered the earth was not the center of the universe. But it wasn't until the year 1500 of our lord that someone dared suggest it again. Who squashed this fact for 1800 years? Religion.

Think about instead of the 50 year cold war and all the other wars we fought if we would have put the time and energy into colonizing Mars. Take all the nukes we have built since the 1950's and tell me how much money that is. Human beings are stupid. One way to tell how dumb someone is, ask them if they believe in god.

the more i listen to these so called know it all in astro this and physist that. oops on the spelling, I'm more and more convinced they are all just as lost in the dark and guessing at answers then any and all religions. Some their theories, and most if not all are only theories, are far fetched. For all we know the last answer will hopefully never be answered. string theory, don't know gravity, don't know black holes then. If I told you something you had no way of proving yourself, would you take my word for it? then why take theirs? lol faith in your fellow man?

 

[sealybobo]

What kind of scientist are they if they believe in something that can't be scientifically verified? That's just cognitive dissonance and wishful thinking and usually because they want to believe or they don't want to go to hell. Or a lot of people say they believe but don't really. Look at how many christians say they believe but admit the stories are just allegories. So there are many different levels of belief. And as a scientist. Could there be? Sure there could be. We didn't even know how big our universe was until the invention of the telescope. And do you realize the next closest star is 70,000 years from us? One day science will get us there in 40 years. Don't ask god to help

They cannot scientifically verify where the initial "thing" that "caused" the Big Bang came from.

But lots of them believe in it.

Scientists don't pretend to know everything. Some things are premised on either belief or are merely assumed pending further proof.

Its a universally accepted scientific theory. That's as good as it gets. Better than the creation story

So the sillybozo thesis is that a nearly 'universally accepted scientific theory' is not only as "good as it gets" but is also somehow NOT the same thing as believing something that cannot be scientifically verified.

There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a scientific theory is the highest honor any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena. Theories are rarely proven incorrect.

Theories are often proved to be incorrect.

You know not whereof you speak.

Not scientific theories.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis'). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.

 

[haissem123]

They cannot scientifically verify where the initial "thing" that "caused" the Big Bang came from.

But lots of them believe in it.

Scientists don't pretend to know everything. Some things are premised on either belief or are merely assumed pending further proof.

Its a universally accepted scientific theory. That's as good as it gets. Better than the creation story

So the sillybozo thesis is that a nearly 'universally accepted scientific theory' is not only as "good as it gets" but is also somehow NOT the same thing as believing something that cannot be scientifically verified.

There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a scientific theory is the highest honor any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena. Theories are rarely proven incorrect.

Theories are often proved to be incorrect.

You know not whereof you speak.

Not scientific theories.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis'). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.

look up the theory of evolution and think about mankind's evolution. let me know when we get their if it doesn't sound a helluva lot like religions beliefs. ? theory of religions could be said to work. we'll see if it kills us for misusing it or not using it at all. which one? core common sense one? I know most of the theories check out and I believe most of them. but some of them sound like guesses, the ones coming out now. there is a theory of everything. I believe that's God's works and world. hope to see you all there some day.

 

[sealybobo]

Anyone who believes in God needs to watch the Cosmos. Watch the new one with Neil Degrasse Tyson and the old one with Carl Sagan. Once you learn the history of man, science and religion you will realize god(s) were made up long before we decided to just go with one god. Religious ignorance has held us back thousands of years. Religious people love to brag that it was on their watch that we came up with cures and that it was religious people who got us on the moon. They expose their ignorance to the fact that many of the scientists were/are atheists. They try to ignore the history of how many scientists were put to death for heresy by the churches for things that turned out to be correct. But today the church doesn't get so upset if you suggest the earth isn't the center of the universe or that the sun revolves around the earth because churches change with the times. They've learned not to fight science and instead ignore your anti scientific history and embrace science. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

300 years before Christ, Aristarchus of Samos discovered the earth was not the center of the universe. But it wasn't until the year 1500 of our lord that someone dared suggest it again. Who squashed this fact for 1800 years? Religion.

Think about instead of the 50 year cold war and all the other wars we fought if we would have put the time and energy into colonizing Mars. Take all the nukes we have built since the 1950's and tell me how much money that is. Human beings are stupid. One way to tell how dumb someone is, ask them if they believe in god.

the more i listen to these so called know it all in astro this and physist that. oops on the spelling, I'm more and more convinced they are all just as lost in the dark and guessing at answers then any and all religions. Some their theories, and most if not all are only theories, are far fetched. For all we know the last answer will hopefully never be answered. string theory, don't know gravity, don't know black holes then. If I told you something you had no way of proving yourself, would you take my word for it? then why take theirs? lol faith in your fellow man?

I have to be honest with you. When I watch science shows and they say some things matter of fact I think, "how do they know that for sure?". But I assume they have thought of everything and thoroughly thought it through but that isn't always true. We don't know everything and some things we think we know we do not.

In the Cosmos they showed this woman who discovered something big and when she showed it to her professor, he said her hypothesis was absurd and it turned out 3 years later she was right.

But how many times has religion turned out to be wrong? Turns out the only thing they aren't proven to be wrong about is the one thing that can't be proven.

If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way.

 

[haissem123]

Anyone who believes in God needs to watch the Cosmos. Watch the new one with Neil Degrasse Tyson and the old one with Carl Sagan. Once you learn the history of man, science and religion you will realize god(s) were made up long before we decided to just go with one god. Religious ignorance has held us back thousands of years. Religious people love to brag that it was on their watch that we came up with cures and that it was religious people who got us on the moon. They expose their ignorance to the fact that many of the scientists were/are atheists. They try to ignore the history of how many scientists were put to death for heresy by the churches for things that turned out to be correct. But today the church doesn't get so upset if you suggest the earth isn't the center of the universe or that the sun revolves around the earth because churches change with the times. They've learned not to fight science and instead ignore your anti scientific history and embrace science. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

300 years before Christ, Aristarchus of Samos discovered the earth was not the center of the universe. But it wasn't until the year 1500 of our lord that someone dared suggest it again. Who squashed this fact for 1800 years? Religion.

Think about instead of the 50 year cold war and all the other wars we fought if we would have put the time and energy into colonizing Mars. Take all the nukes we have built since the 1950's and tell me how much money that is. Human beings are stupid. One way to tell how dumb someone is, ask them if they believe in god.

the more i listen to these so called know it all in astro this and physist that. oops on the spelling, I'm more and more convinced they are all just as lost in the dark and guessing at answers then any and all religions. Some their theories, and most if not all are only theories, are far fetched. For all we know the last answer will hopefully never be answered. string theory, don't know gravity, don't know black holes then. If I told you something you had no way of proving yourself, would you take my word for it? then why take theirs? lol faith in your fellow man?

I have to be honest with you. When I watch science shows and they say some things matter of fact I think, "how do they know that for sure?". But I assume they have thought of everything and thoroughly thought it through but that isn't always true. We don't know everything and some things we think we know we do not.

In the Cosmos they showed this woman who discovered something big and when she showed it to her professor, he said her hypothesis was absurd and it turned out 3 years later she was right.

But how many times has religion turned out to be wrong? Turns out the only thing they aren't proven to be wrong about is the one thing that can't be proven.

If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way.

this last sentence here is truly profound. Did you mean it to be? how true of God and his love. If it doesn't react through us to all around us then it truly doesn't exist.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

sillybozo doesn't mind constantly reaffirming that he knows not whereof he speaks.

 

[sealybobo]

Its a universally accepted scientific theory. That's as good as it gets. Better than the creation story

So the sillybozo thesis is that a nearly 'universally accepted scientific theory' is not only as "good as it gets" but is also somehow NOT the same thing as believing something that cannot be scientifically verified.

There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a scientific theory is the highest honor any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena. Theories are rarely proven incorrect.

Theories are often proved to be incorrect.

You know not whereof you speak.

Not scientific theories.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis'). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.

look up the theory of evolution and think about mankind's evolution. let me know when we get their if it doesn't sound a helluva lot like religions beliefs. ? theory of religions could be said to work. we'll see if it kills us for misusing it or not using it at all. which one? core common sense one? I know most of the theories check out and I believe most of them. but some of them sound like guesses, the ones coming out now. there is a theory of everything. I believe that's God's works and world. hope to see you all there some day.

Science sees through DNA that all livings things on earth are related. Life on earth started as a single cell organism and evolved to 2 and ultimately into things with eyes and then Dinosaurs, Tardigrades, Trilobites, Trees, Flowers, plants and other animals over millions of years. 99% of the animals that lived on this planet are now extinct. We are their ancestors. We are what we are because a meteor hit and wiped out the dinosaurs. They were here for millions of years before we were. We've only been here for 1 million years. We've only been smart for 40,000 to 100.000 years. God finally talked to us 2000 or 7000 years ago? We're special?

I agree because we are the smartest animal we know, we are special. So is a whale or crow or dog. Maybe not as special as us but pretty damn special.

Oh, and how smart are "we" really? If it weren't for the 1% who invented fire, engines, cures, tools, where would people like you and me be? We'd still be in caves. LOL

 

[sealybobo]

sillybozo doesn't mind constantly reaffirming that he knows not whereof he speaks.

Forget what I say. I'll go with what Carl Sagan things over what you religious fools believe.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why because I don't believe in your imaginary invisible friend?

Because you think Neil Tyson will save your soul, you mindless monkey.

 

[sealybobo]

Why because I don't believe in your imaginary invisible friend?

Because you think Neil Tyson will save your soul, you mindless monkey.

I'm not the one claiming or hoping someones going to save my soul. That's just wishful thinking and is holding you back from knowing the truth.
If you didn't believe believing your cult was the key to salvation I wouldn't care about your delusion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, and it was an easy masters program. I worked for the University of Phoenix when I was in my late 20's and I figured what the hell it was free if you worked there. So even though they didn't pay well, it was like I was being paid to go to college. It was a once a week program where you go from 6-9pm and do a lot of group work outside of class. It was great for me because I didn't have to leave work to drive to class once a week or leave work to go meet with my group. They always met at my work. Lots of busy work though. Lot of papers. The toughest professor I had went to Harvard. He was tough. The MOM didn't involve a lot of the tough classes like advanced economics, accounting, calculus and all those other mathy type classes or I would have never got the degree.

No science is not my forte but it is Neal Degrasse Tyson's and Carl Sagan's. And they disagree with you dummy. I just happen to agree with them. Better than a Pope or corrupt church.

Cool story.

Except classes are not free for University facilitators. I just checked and there is no masters program for "organizational management," "Global Management" is availible only as a concentration for an MBA.

Oh, and economics is absolutely required for an MBA from UoP.

Master of Business Administration - University of Phoenix

Here's the deal dude, I have facilitated a macro-economics course for the nation's largest private university for over 5 years. I am on hiatus whilst completing a doctoral program, but what you claim is something I have in-depth knowledge of.

 

[sealybobo]

Why because I don't believe in your imaginary invisible friend?

Because you think Neil Tyson will save your soul, you mindless monkey.

In 1000 yes more evolved and intelligent humans will study your religion like we study the Greek gods today.

I wonder who the last ancient Greek stopped believing in Zeus? Which apostle went to convert those gullible Greeks? Must have been easy convincing those superstitious people.

Thru Jesus you too can become a god. Live forever in paradise formerly called mt Olympus

 

[sealybobo]

Oh, and it was an easy masters program. I worked for the University of Phoenix when I was in my late 20's and I figured what the hell it was free if you worked there. So even though they didn't pay well, it was like I was being paid to go to college. It was a once a week program where you go from 6-9pm and do a lot of group work outside of class. It was great for me because I didn't have to leave work to drive to class once a week or leave work to go meet with my group. They always met at my work. Lots of busy work though. Lot of papers. The toughest professor I had went to Harvard. He was tough. The MOM didn't involve a lot of the tough classes like advanced economics, accounting, calculus and all those other mathy type classes or I would have never got the degree.

No science is not my forte but it is Neal Degrasse Tyson's and Carl Sagan's. And they disagree with you dummy. I just happen to agree with them. Better than a Pope or corrupt church.

Cool story.

Except classes are not free for University facilitators. I just checked and there is no masters program for "organizational management," "Global Management" is availible only as a concentration for an MBA.

Oh, and economics is absolutely required for an MBA from UoP.

Master of Business Administration - University of Phoenix

Here's the deal dude, I have facilitated a macro-economics course for the nation's largest private university for over 5 years. I am on hiatus whilst completing a doctoral program, but what you claim is something I have in-depth knowledge of.

The mom existed when I went and tuition was free! I went there with the guy who now runs uop Detroit. At least I think he still does. Name is jimmy velue. He has a MOM. Call him or em him if you work for uop. Or even if you don't. Call and ask them if they use to offer a masters in organizational management.

This would be like me saying they don't have an it degree just because they didn't when I went 15 yes ago.

 

[sealybobo]

Oh, and it was an easy masters program. I worked for the University of Phoenix when I was in my late 20's and I figured what the hell it was free if you worked there. So even though they didn't pay well, it was like I was being paid to go to college. It was a once a week program where you go from 6-9pm and do a lot of group work outside of class. It was great for me because I didn't have to leave work to drive to class once a week or leave work to go meet with my group. They always met at my work. Lots of busy work though. Lot of papers. The toughest professor I had went to Harvard. He was tough. The MOM didn't involve a lot of the tough classes like advanced economics, accounting, calculus and all those other mathy type classes or I would have never got the degree.

No science is not my forte but it is Neal Degrasse Tyson's and Carl Sagan's. And they disagree with you dummy. I just happen to agree with them. Better than a Pope or corrupt church.

Cool story.

Except classes are not free for University facilitators. I just checked and there is no masters program for "organizational management," "Global Management" is availible only as a concentration for an MBA.

Oh, and economics is absolutely required for an MBA from UoP.

Master of Business Administration - University of Phoenix

Here's the deal dude, I have facilitated a macro-economics course for the nation's largest private university for over 5 years. I am on hiatus whilst completing a doctoral program, but what you claim is something I have in-depth knowledge of.

And they stopped offering the mom when I was half way through it. I'll be honest I don't think I could a got the MBA. Too tough. I also hated not having the mom to sell to people like me who are afraid of the Kathy type classes.

 

[sealybobo]

Mathy

 

[Treeshepherd]

Anyone who believes in God needs to watch the Cosmos. Watch the new one with Neil Degrasse Tyson and the old one with Carl Sagan. Once you learn the history of man, science and religion you will realize god(s) were made up long before we decided to just go with one god. Religious ignorance has held us back thousands of years. Religious people love to brag that it was on their watch that we came up with cures and that it was religious people who got us on the moon. They expose their ignorance to the fact that many of the scientists were/are atheists. They try to ignore the history of how many scientists were put to death for heresy by the churches for things that turned out to be correct. But today the church doesn't get so upset if you suggest the earth isn't the center of the universe or that the sun revolves around the earth because churches change with the times. They've learned not to fight science and instead ignore your anti scientific history and embrace science. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

300 years before Christ, Aristarchus of Samos discovered the earth was not the center of the universe. But it wasn't until the year 1500 of our lord that someone dared suggest it again. Who squashed this fact for 1800 years? Religion.

Think about instead of the 50 year cold war and all the other wars we fought if we would have put the time and energy into colonizing Mars. Take all the nukes we have built since the 1950's and tell me how much money that is. Human beings are stupid. One way to tell how dumb someone is, ask them if they believe in god.

Pythagoras refuted geocentrism in the 6th Century BC. He was a religious freak and a priest. Aristarchus of Samos studied at the Lyceum (dedicated to the god Apollo). Francis Bacon is said to have invented the scientific method. He was a priest. Copernicus was a Polish priest. Mendels was a priest, and the father of genetics (and a major influence on Darwin). You might say that Dostoyevsky (Jesus freak) is the father of modern psychology (if you read Crime and Punishment). Pascal (Jesus freak) was a mathematical genius and the father of computing. At least 35 craters on the moon are named after Jesuits, all of whom made significant contributions to science. Lemaitre was a priest who first proposed the Big Bang theory. The list goes on and on.

Not sure how you figure that the Cold War can be blamed on religion, or that nukes are a religious invention. It's true that Niels Bohr was an early nuclear physicist. If you read his stuff, or Einstein's, you get the sense that scientific breakthroughs often comes as a result of inspiration, or some sort of epiphany. It's often similar to an experience of the sacred. Einstein's revelation about the theory of relativity sounds like a mystical experience, as he describes it.

The practices of religion serve to break down mental pre-conceptions and constructs, filters and biases, and to enable the practitioner to see with fresh eyes.

Religion is not the cause of war. It can be used as a tool of exploitation, for political ends, just as patriotism or humanism can. Today's wars are sold to the public by appealing to secular humanism. If the entire world were atheistic, the incidences of war would not diminish by one scintilla.

And I think it's helpful to understand that the TV show Cosmos plays very loosely and creatively with history, to the point of willful deceit in my opinion.

• "The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality." - Niels Bohr

The cosmos even admits that Giordano Bruno believed in god too. But the church burned him because he believed the universe was bigger than the church believed. The cosmos also explained how Newton thought he could figure out hidden messages in the bible. Nothing ever came from it.

Plato decided to hide math and science from the masses. He didn't think they could handle it. He's connected with christianity.

And we know that many of the discoveries you think someone discovered in 1500ad was actually discovered and lost 1000 years earlier.

Don't forget that until America most countries church and state were one and the same.

I don't put all the blame for wars on religion but they sure don't do much to stop them. You think atheist liberals would war more than conservative theists? I doubt that very much. We'd rather spend the money on science and poverty. Instead of stealing Iraq's oil let's figure out how to harness photosynthesis

Giordano Bruno was a Dominican friar. He was clergy, a part of a Church brotherhood. He had many clashes with his Church superiors and fellow brothers, who he publicly chided as idiots. And, yes, the Church burned him at the stake. Of course, burning someone to death sounds outrageous to us because it is, indeed, outrageous. I try to put outrageous historical acts into context, though. In Bruno's time, local lords were hanging people or putting people in the stocks for the crime of vagrancy (without a trial). Women were drowned during Bruno's time for adultery, by secular authorities.

A common misunderstanding of today is that the Medieval Church was scouring the countryside burning laymen at the stake. While the Church was a moral authority of the time, they had little sway over the punishments of laypeople. What the Medieval Inquisition did was punish its own clergy in some very high profile cases which are retold again and again by historians. The Spanish Inquisition and others were completely taken over by secular authorities.

"Throughout the Inquisition's history, it was rivaled by local ecclesiastical and secular jurisdictions. No matter how determined, no pope succeeded in establishing complete control over the prosecution of heresy. Medieval kings, princes, bishops, and civil authorities all had a role in prosecuting heresy, except where they individually opposed the practice. The practice reached its apex in the second half of the 13th century. During this period, the tribunals were almost entirely free from any authority, including that of the pope. Therefore, it was almost impossible to eradicate abuse.[4]
In southern Europe, Church-run courts existed in the kingdom of Aragon during the medieval period, but not elsewhere in the Iberian peninsula or some other kingdoms, including England In Scandinavian kingdoms it had hardly any impact." -wikipedia

What Cosmos does in its cartoons is that it portrays Bruno as a mild mannered scientist. He was neither mild mannered, nor what we would consider an actual scientist. He was not a "martyr for science". He was a friar who was executed for his theological beliefs on pantheism and other 'heresies'. The Church at the time had no official position on heliocentrism, and Bruno's scientific beliefs were not even brought up at his trial. Cosmos comes out in its debut episode and spins a fantastical yarn that has to be regarded as intentionally deceptive.

"Pope Clement VII (r. 1523–1534) had reacted favorably to a talk about Copernicus's theories, rewarding the speaker with a rare manuscript. There is no indication of how Pope Paul III, to whom On the Revolutions was dedicated reacted; however, a trusted advisor, Bartolomeo Spina of Pisa (1474–1546) intended to condemn it but fell ill and died before his plan was carried out (see Rosen, 1975). Thus, in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology, and this is clearly shown in Finocchiaro's reconstruction of the accusations against Bruno (see also Blumenberg's part 3, chapter 5, titled “Not a Martyr for Copernicanism: Giordano Bruno”)."
Nicolaus Copernicus Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Niel deGrasse Tyson has been caught in other fabrications, and his loyal followers have been hypocritically erasing evidence of that from his wiki pages.
Neil deGrasse Tyson falls from grace over quote fabrication scandal - Houston science news Examiner.com
Tyson is a serial religion basher, and he uses fabrications to build his arguments.

Sealybobo, you're the perfect candidate to be a deGrasse Tyson acolyte. You say that Plato hid math and scientific knowledge from the masses and then you immediately connect Plato to Christianity. That might even be too far an intellectual stretch for the Tyson cult. The continuity between Greek and Christian concepts has nothing to do with any policy on sharing math and science with people, obviously. You'd have to be blinded by some sort of anti-Christian agenda to make that claim.

 

[sealybobo]

Anyone who believes in God needs to watch the Cosmos. Watch the new one with Neil Degrasse Tyson and the old one with Carl Sagan. Once you learn the history of man, science and religion you will realize god(s) were made up long before we decided to just go with one god. Religious ignorance has held us back thousands of years. Religious people love to brag that it was on their watch that we came up with cures and that it was religious people who got us on the moon. They expose their ignorance to the fact that many of the scientists were/are atheists. They try to ignore the history of how many scientists were put to death for heresy by the churches for things that turned out to be correct. But today the church doesn't get so upset if you suggest the earth isn't the center of the universe or that the sun revolves around the earth because churches change with the times. They've learned not to fight science and instead ignore your anti scientific history and embrace science. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

300 years before Christ, Aristarchus of Samos discovered the earth was not the center of the universe. But it wasn't until the year 1500 of our lord that someone dared suggest it again. Who squashed this fact for 1800 years? Religion.

Think about instead of the 50 year cold war and all the other wars we fought if we would have put the time and energy into colonizing Mars. Take all the nukes we have built since the 1950's and tell me how much money that is. Human beings are stupid. One way to tell how dumb someone is, ask them if they believe in god.

Pythagoras refuted geocentrism in the 6th Century BC. He was a religious freak and a priest. Aristarchus of Samos studied at the Lyceum (dedicated to the god Apollo). Francis Bacon is said to have invented the scientific method. He was a priest. Copernicus was a Polish priest. Mendels was a priest, and the father of genetics (and a major influence on Darwin). You might say that Dostoyevsky (Jesus freak) is the father of modern psychology (if you read Crime and Punishment). Pascal (Jesus freak) was a mathematical genius and the father of computing. At least 35 craters on the moon are named after Jesuits, all of whom made significant contributions to science. Lemaitre was a priest who first proposed the Big Bang theory. The list goes on and on.

Not sure how you figure that the Cold War can be blamed on religion, or that nukes are a religious invention. It's true that Niels Bohr was an early nuclear physicist. If you read his stuff, or Einstein's, you get the sense that scientific breakthroughs often comes as a result of inspiration, or some sort of epiphany. It's often similar to an experience of the sacred. Einstein's revelation about the theory of relativity sounds like a mystical experience, as he describes it.

The practices of religion serve to break down mental pre-conceptions and constructs, filters and biases, and to enable the practitioner to see with fresh eyes.

Religion is not the cause of war. It can be used as a tool of exploitation, for political ends, just as patriotism or humanism can. Today's wars are sold to the public by appealing to secular humanism. If the entire world were atheistic, the incidences of war would not diminish by one scintilla.

And I think it's helpful to understand that the TV show Cosmos plays very loosely and creatively with history, to the point of willful deceit in my opinion.

• "The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality." - Niels Bohr

The cosmos even admits that Giordano Bruno believed in god too. But the church burned him because he believed the universe was bigger than the church believed. The cosmos also explained how Newton thought he could figure out hidden messages in the bible. Nothing ever came from it.

Plato decided to hide math and science from the masses. He didn't think they could handle it. He's connected with christianity.

And we know that many of the discoveries you think someone discovered in 1500ad was actually discovered and lost 1000 years earlier.

Don't forget that until America most countries church and state were one and the same.

I don't put all the blame for wars on religion but they sure don't do much to stop them. You think atheist liberals would war more than conservative theists? I doubt that very much. We'd rather spend the money on science and poverty. Instead of stealing Iraq's oil let's figure out how to harness photosynthesis

Giordano Bruno was a Dominican friar. He was clergy, a part of a Church brotherhood. He had many clashes with his Church superiors and fellow brothers, who he publicly chided as idiots. And, yes, the Church burned him at the stake. Of course, burning someone to death sounds outrageous to us because it is, indeed, outrageous. I try to put outrageous historical acts into context, though. In Bruno's time, local lords were hanging people or putting people in the stocks for the crime of vagrancy (without a trial). Women were drowned during Bruno's time for adultery, by secular authorities.

A common misunderstanding of today is that the Medieval Church was scouring the countryside burning laymen at the stake. While the Church was a moral authority of the time, they had little sway over the punishments of laypeople. What the Medieval Inquisition did was punish its own clergy in some very high profile cases which are retold again and again by historians. The Spanish Inquisition and others were completely taken over by secular authorities.

"Throughout the Inquisition's history, it was rivaled by local ecclesiastical and secular jurisdictions. No matter how determined, no pope succeeded in establishing complete control over the prosecution of heresy. Medieval kings, princes, bishops, and civil authorities all had a role in prosecuting heresy, except where they individually opposed the practice. The practice reached its apex in the second half of the 13th century. During this period, the tribunals were almost entirely free from any authority, including that of the pope. Therefore, it was almost impossible to eradicate abuse.[4]
In southern Europe, Church-run courts existed in the kingdom of Aragon during the medieval period, but not elsewhere in the Iberian peninsula or some other kingdoms, including England In Scandinavian kingdoms it had hardly any impact." -wikipedia

What Cosmos does in its cartoons is that it portrays Bruno as a mild mannered scientist. He was neither mild mannered, nor what we would consider an actual scientist. He was not a "martyr for science". He was a friar who was executed for his theological beliefs on pantheism and other 'heresies'. The Church at the time had no official position on heliocentrism, and Bruno's scientific beliefs were not even brought up at his trial. Cosmos comes out in its debut episode and spins a fantastical yarn that has to be regarded as intentionally deceptive.

"Pope Clement VII (r. 1523–1534) had reacted favorably to a talk about Copernicus's theories, rewarding the speaker with a rare manuscript. There is no indication of how Pope Paul III, to whom On the Revolutions was dedicated reacted; however, a trusted advisor, Bartolomeo Spina of Pisa (1474–1546) intended to condemn it but fell ill and died before his plan was carried out (see Rosen, 1975). Thus, in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology, and this is clearly shown in Finocchiaro's reconstruction of the accusations against Bruno (see also Blumenberg's part 3, chapter 5, titled “Not a Martyr for Copernicanism: Giordano Bruno”)."
Nicolaus Copernicus Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Niel deGrasse Tyson has been caught in other fabrications, and his loyal followers have been hypocritically erasing evidence of that from his wiki pages.
Neil deGrasse Tyson falls from grace over quote fabrication scandal - Houston science news Examiner.com
Tyson is a serial religion basher, and he uses fabrications to build his arguments.

Sealybobo, you're the perfect candidate to be a deGrasse Tyson acolyte. You say that Plato hid math and scientific knowledge from the masses and then you immediately connect Plato to Christianity. That might even be too far an intellectual stretch for the Tyson cult. The continuity between Greek and Christian concepts has nothing to do with any policy on sharing math and science with people, obviously. You'd have to be blinded by some sort of anti-Christian agenda to make that claim.

Actually they admit in the Cosmos that most men would have learned their lesson but Bruno was stubborn.

They explain in the old Cosmos how Plato is connected to Christianity. I'll try to find it.

Democritus was a great man back in ancient Greece. He believed that the prevailing religions of his time were evil and that neither souls nor immortal gods existed. There is no evidence that Democritus was persecuted for his beliefs. But then again, he came from Abdera, a very liberal open society where you could think what you want. However, in his time the brief tradition of tolerance for unconventional views was beginning to erode.
For instance, the prevailing belief was that the moon and the sun were gods. Another contemporary of Democritus, named Anaxagoras, taught that the moon was a place made of ordinary matter and that the sun was a red-hot stone far away in the sky. For this, Anaxagoras was condemned convicted and imprisoned for impiety a religious crime. People began to be persecuted for their ideas. A portrait of Democritus is now .
on the Greek 1 00-drachma note but his ideas were suppressed and his influence on history made minor.
The mystics were beginning to win. Pythagoras who lived here on Samos in the 6th century BC.
this small Greek Orthodox shrine was erected on his front porch. There's a continuity of tradition from Pythagoras to Christianity. Plato was a follower of Pythagoras.

Plato believed that ideas were far more real than the natural world. He advised the astronomers not to waste their time observing stars and planets. It was better, he believed, just to think about them. Plato expressed hostility to observation and experiment. He taught contempt for the real world and disdain for the practical application of scientific knowledge. Plato's followers succeeded in extinguishing the light .
of science and experiment that had been kindled by Democritus Plato's unease with the world as revealed by our senses was to dominate and stifle Western philosophy. Even as late as 1600 .

It wasn't until the 1600's we rediscovered what Plato hid from the masses. He didn't want the masses having the truth. The facts. Science. Because science makes people question the church. That's science 101. Question authority. Don't put your trust in the writings of the ancients. They say miracles occurred? That's not enough for science. Not after peer review. I seriously question the writings of the ancients.