[Polar Bear]

I'll say right up front here that if the moderator decides to delete this post, he/she has my full understanding. Because I just feel the desire to post the following, and it does of necessity at least touch on religion. Not in a pro/con sense, but just on how the Cosmos series is referencing religion...

After watching three episodes so far, I must say I'm very surprised about how heavy-handed it has been regarding religion. I'm not a zealot by any means. And I'm very much enjoying the series. But I've never had any difficulty at all believing in currently accepted science and still believing in the possibility that there is a god behind it all.

Assuming that man eventually figures it all out...that we come up with Einsein's dream and modern science's much sought after Theory of Everything...how can we possibly know what put it all in place in the first place. I mean...no matter how far back you go in time...to the beginning...to the Big Bang if that was indeed the beginning...what about the instant before that. Ad infinitum.

I don't know. It just seems presumptuous...on a scale beyond description...to think that just because we come up with some math to describes things...that we know how it all came about in the first place. It may not be God (or a god). I don't think we can ever prove it is. But I think it's just as impossible to prove it is not.

Again...this is just my personal observation regarding how Cosmos deals with religion/god and modern science. Nothing more. I guess I feel like the religious references could have been left out entirely without compromising the quality or content of the show, regardless of one's beliefs.

[BarryRX]

Well, that's the beauty of science....it's true whether YOU choose to believe it or not. There are plenty of religion shows on tv for you to watch, but this show is about science. It's easy to believe in an eternal God, so why not an eternal universe. And, even if we don't understand what happened before the 'big bang', that doesn't necessarily mean the explanation is God. At one time we didn't understand thunder and thought the explanation was God. The point is that just because we do not yet understand something, the answer must be God. I really don't think that science attacks religion. In fact, throughout most of our history it has been the other way around. Just ask Galileo. To say that we can't prove it isn't God is faulty logic. If I were to say to you that a 500 foot tall green unicorn is running around the neighborhood at night, it wouldn't be your job to disprove it, it would be my job to prove it. Perhaps you could share what references the show made that you feel were "heavy handed" towards religion. Perhaps I was being insensitive to them and didn't really notice them.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by BarryRX

Well, that's the beauty of science....it's true whether YOU choose to believe it or not. There are plenty of religion shows on tv for you to watch, but this show is about science. It's easy to believe in an eternal God, so why not an eternal universe. And, even if we don't understand what happened before the 'big bang', that doesn't necessarily mean the explanation is God. At one time we didn't understand thunder and thought the explanation was God. The point is that just because we do not yet understand something, the answer must be God. I really don't think that science attacks religion. In fact, throughout most of our history it has been the other way around. Just ask Galileo. To say that we can't prove it isn't God is faulty logic. If I were to say to you that a 500 foot tall green unicorn is running around the neighborhood at night, it wouldn't be your job to disprove it, it would be my job to prove it. Perhaps you could share what references the show made that you feel were "heavy handed" towards religion. Perhaps I was being insensitive to them and didn't really notice them.

Sorry, but I think you've missed my point. I'm not arguing that the explanation for anything is god. I think I said that pretty clearly when I said it's impossible to prove the existence of god. What I stated is that that, likewise, the advance of science doesn't prove there is not a god.

For example, I agree that "even if we don't understand what happened before the 'big bang', that doesn't necessarily mean the explanation is God". What I'm saying is that it also does not prove the non-existence of God.

Finally, a couple of examples...in the first episode a very long segment on Bruno, with multiple references to his mistreatment due to conflict of scientific ideas and religion. And in episode three, reference to the "prophet" (forget his name) who predicted the return of Halley's Comet in 76 years. It was stated that his prophecy was much more specific and accurate than those of other prophets, making the comparison to religious prophets pretty apparent.

Again, I'm not questioning the accuracy of the comments...just their necessity in the context of the series.

[wannab]

And there is an old truth that says "you cannot prove a negative"

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by wannab

And there is an old truth that says "you cannot prove a negative"

Agreed. That's pretty much what I'm saying. Heheh.

[blueash]

There was a recent "debate" between Bill Nye the science guy and a representative of a creationist organization. While there was a lot of back and forth the most salient exchange if I may paraphrase was when Mr. Nye asked if there was any data which could ever be found and presented to the creationist which would make him accept that the story in Genesis was wrong, and the reply was no. And therein lies the difference between science and faith. Science does not claim infallibility. Science is always subject to re-exploration and re-interpretation based on new data or different interpretation of old data. And other scientists can then test and refute or support those conclusions.

Religion is not based on this kind of rigor. It is faith, and in its most ardent supporters of any religion, unshakable faith.

Scientists may wish their math and their evidence would cross over to the faith world but it does not, and neither should those representing a faith based world view expect that their certainty should be accepted by those in the science world. It is this conflict which has been mentioned in Cosmos with this being a science based program has pointed out the role of faith in slowing or opposing scientific conflict when that progress might conflict with faith. Science and faith don't speak the same language or use the same rules. There are of course scientists with strong religious beliefs who in their own minds and hearts have managed to accommodate both systems into their life.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by blueash

...Cosmos with this being a science based program has pointed out the role of faith in slowing or opposing scientific conflict when that progress might conflict with faith...

Agreed. I'm just not sure mentioning it in this program served any beneficial purpose.