I have not seen the remake of the 1980's science TV series Cosmos and therefore have no comment on its contents. But those in the leftist media trying to use the show to push an anti-religion agenda are knuckleheads.
Here are some ideas about science and Judaeo-Christian religion that a) the leftist media love and that b) are entirely untrue.
1. There is an inherent conflict between science and western religion.
This notion was first popularized in the 19th century by the vastly influential book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology. That "history" has since been almost entirely discredited. In fact, both Old and New Testaments look to the natural world for revelation ("The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.") and warn against an ignorant Biblical literalism ("The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."). At least as far back as Saint Augustine, churches have recognized that the Book of Scripture is partnered with the Book of Nature, and that any apparent conflict between the two is due to man's faulty understanding. It is precisely because of such ideas that the scientific revolution took place in Christendom and not elsewhere, and that its first great practitioners were churchmen.
2. Science is based on reason; religion is based on faith.
Both science and religion are founded on unprovable assumptions. Science assumes, for instance, that observed phenomena are predictive of future events and that equations can be analogues of reality. Religion assumes that a moral consciousness and will, somehow connected to our own, underlie creation. These assumptions, while unprovable, are extremely practical. Indeed, I would argue that both scientists and religious believers live their lives as if all of them are true, even when they won't admit it.
3. Science is self-correcting but religion is not.
Just like scientists, churches have repeatedly corrected themselves when their beliefs brought them into conflict with their principles. The violence of the Reformation, for instance, was so out of keeping with Christian ideals that churches finally began to adjust their notions of doctrinal purity and political power. Anti-Semitic doctrines were also abandoned when the results on the ground conflicted with true Christian teaching. Neither scientists nor believers change their minds happily or easily, but they both finally do it when their hypotheses don't accord with the observable facts.
4. Religion never corrects science, only the other way around.
Cosmos host and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson recently said, "There is no example of someone reading their scripture and saying, 'I have a prediction about the world that no one knows yet...' and have that theory turn out to be correct." Not so. In fact, scientific "proofs" of racist beliefs have been repeatedly rejected (and indeed are being rejected today) solely because they violate some corollary of the scriptural declaration that man was made in God's image. I agree with Tyson that the Bible is not supposed to be a science textbook, but he might have had the good grace to point out that science is likewise not much good as a moral guide.
5. Many scientists are atheists, therefore atheism is scientific.
Most polls show that there are more atheists among scientists than in the general population. But there is absolutely nothing to suggest that scientific knowledge gives a person spiritual wisdom. Rather, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you understand the world solely through the scientific method, spiritual truths are likely to escape you.
The odds against a universe coming into being such that it includes a consciousness capable of understanding it are so enormous that even atheist scientists, like astronomer Fred Hoyle, have come to suspect, "the universe is a put-up job!" Other scientists have invented untestable (and therefore wholly unscientific) multi-verse theories to explain this amazing "anthropic principle" away.
Well, look, we all cling to irrational beliefs at times. Let atheist scientists grasp at such straws. But there is no reason to allow the most hidebound, superstitious, ignorant and bigoted segment of our society — I mean leftist journalists — to use their sneers and unfounded assertions to undermine the highest intuition of the human heart.
I have not seen the remake of the 1980's science TV series Cosmos and therefore have no comment on its contents. But those in the leftist media trying to use the show to push an anti-religion agenda are knuckleheads.
Here are some ideas about science and Judaeo-Christian religion that a) the leftist media love and that b) are entirely untrue.
1. There is an inherent conflict between science and western religion.
This notion was first popularized in the 19th century by the vastly influential book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology. That "history" has since been almost entirely discredited. In fact, both Old and New Testaments look to the natural world for revelation ("The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.") and warn against an ignorant Biblical literalism ("The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."). At least as far back as Saint Augustine, churches have recognized that the Book of Scripture is partnered with the Book of Nature, and that any apparent conflict between the two is due to man's faulty understanding. It is precisely because of such ideas that the scientific revolution took place in Christendom and not elsewhere, and that its first great practitioners were churchmen.
2. Science is based on reason; religion is based on faith.
Both science and religion are founded on unprovable assumptions. Science assumes, for instance, that observed phenomena are predictive of future events and that equations can be analogues of reality. Religion assumes that a moral consciousness and will, somehow connected to our own, underlie creation. These assumptions, while unprovable, are extremely practical. Indeed, I would argue that both scientists and religious believers live their lives as if all of them are true, even when they won't admit it.
3. Science is self-correcting but religion is not.
Just like scientists, churches have repeatedly corrected themselves when their beliefs brought them into conflict with their principles. The violence of the Reformation, for instance, was so out of keeping with Christian ideals that churches finally began to adjust their notions of doctrinal purity and political power. Anti-Semitic doctrines were also abandoned when the results on the ground conflicted with true Christian teaching. Neither scientists nor believers change their minds happily or easily, but they both finally do it when their hypotheses don't accord with the observable facts.
4. Religion never corrects science, only the other way around.
Cosmos host and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson recently said, "There is no example of someone reading their scripture and saying, 'I have a prediction about the world that no one knows yet...' and have that theory turn out to be correct." Not so. In fact, scientific "proofs" of racist beliefs have been repeatedly rejected (and indeed are being rejected today) solely because they violate some corollary of the scriptural declaration that man was made in God's image. I agree with Tyson that the Bible is not supposed to be a science textbook, but he might have had the good grace to point out that science is likewise not much good as a moral guide.
5. Many scientists are atheists, therefore atheism is scientific.
Most polls show that there are more atheists among scientists than in the general population. But there is absolutely nothing to suggest that scientific knowledge gives a person spiritual wisdom. Rather, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you understand the world solely through the scientific method, spiritual truths are likely to escape you.
The odds against a universe coming into being such that it includes a consciousness capable of understanding it are so enormous that even atheist scientists, like astronomer Fred Hoyle, have come to suspect, "the universe is a put-up job!" Other scientists have invented untestable (and therefore wholly unscientific) multi-verse theories to explain this amazing "anthropic principle" away.
Well, look, we all cling to irrational beliefs at times. Let atheist scientists grasp at such straws. But there is no reason to allow the most hidebound, superstitious, ignorant and bigoted segment of our society — I mean leftist journalists — to use their sneers and unfounded assertions to undermine the highest intuition of the human heart.
Issues
People