On April 02 2014 04:09 zezamer wrote: Can someone give small summary what this shows about. I really enjoyed elegant universe and fabric of the cosmos. Would I like this ?
It's a reboot, of Carl Sagan's Cosmos A Personal Voyage Wiki
I haven't seen either of the shows you mentioned but if you are interested in space (the cosmos) you would likely enjoy it. Some people seem to dislike Neil Degrasse Tyson but I don't mind him, he is however no Carl Sagan.
I also recommend the original, though a little dated obviously its still very informative.
Someone else may give a better summary but I hope that helps.
On April 02 2014 04:09 zezamer wrote: Can someone give small summary what this shows about. I really enjoyed elegant universe and fabric of the cosmos. Would I like this ?
It's a reboot, of Carl Sagan's Cosmos A Personal Voyage Wiki
I haven't seen either of the shows you mentioned but if you are interested in space (the cosmos) you would likely enjoy it. Some people seem to dislike Neil Degrasse Tyson but I don't mind him, he is however no Carl Sagan.
I also recommend the original, though a little dated obviously its still very informative.
Someone else may give a better summary but I hope that helps.
I like the new version, but the original is so much better. Carl Sagan had such a clever way of explaining things, and such a clear, concise view of the world.
On April 02 2014 04:09 zezamer wrote: Can someone give small summary what this shows about. I really enjoyed elegant universe and fabric of the cosmos. Would I like this ?
It's a reboot, of Carl Sagan's Cosmos A Personal Voyage Wiki
I haven't seen either of the shows you mentioned but if you are interested in space (the cosmos) you would likely enjoy it. Some people seem to dislike Neil Degrasse Tyson but I don't mind him, he is however no Carl Sagan.
I also recommend the original, though a little dated obviously its still very informative.
Someone else may give a better summary but I hope that helps.
I like the new version, but the original is so much better. Carl Sagan had such a clever way of explaining things, and such a clear, concise view of the world.
One of Sagan's best attributes was his humility.
Many of the people who seem to dislike Neil Degrasse Tyson do so because he spends a lot of time ridiculing people who believe things that can easily be disproven by science. Whereas Carl Sagan's way was to inspire the ignorant, rather than ridicule them.
Anyway I really like the new version, and so does my 3 year old son
On April 02 2014 03:17 jinorazi wrote: church was the government, it was the authority until recent times. kings and peasants alike were ruled by religion. its history, quiet difficult to bypass when telling history.
This is so historically ignorant I really don't know where to begin.
Yes, at various times churches in different places have held significant political power. Outright theocracy with "king and peasant" ruled by religion? Pretty rare in history. A few Muslim Caliphates kinda did it, but even then a seperation existed. The Pope ruled a small territory in Europe, but other rulers routinely ignored his instructions. Popes tried really hard to ban war... how much do you think the average king listened to them?
On April 02 2014 03:17 jinorazi wrote: church was the government, it was the authority until recent times. kings and peasants alike were ruled by religion. its history, quiet difficult to bypass when telling history.
This is so historically ignorant I really don't know where to begin.
Yes, at various times churches in different places have held significant political power. Outright theocracy with "king and peasant" ruled by religion? Pretty rare in history. A few Muslim Caliphates kinda did it, but even then a seperation existed. The Pope ruled a small territory in Europe, but other rulers routinely ignored his instructions. Popes tried really hard to ban war... how much do you think the average king listened to them?
maybe i made it sound too literal? different eras are influenced by their own standards set by different sets of beliefs. isnt it apparent even today some parts of the world are lived in such deeply religious way? as in do as what "we" tell you to do, otherwise you're shunned. even north korea is deeply religious without being religious, if that makes sense. brain-washing, maybe its called in context to north korea but thats all it is.
we have creationists crying foul in usa, i'd imagine things arent so tolerable depending on when/where you live.
so church being "ridiculed" in the show isnt something about targeting religion, its just the way it was.
On April 02 2014 03:17 jinorazi wrote: church was the government, it was the authority until recent times. kings and peasants alike were ruled by religion. its history, quiet difficult to bypass when telling history.
This is so historically ignorant I really don't know where to begin.
Yes, at various times churches in different places have held significant political power. Outright theocracy with "king and peasant" ruled by religion? Pretty rare in history. A few Muslim Caliphates kinda did it, but even then a seperation existed. The Pope ruled a small territory in Europe, but other rulers routinely ignored his instructions. Popes tried really hard to ban war... how much do you think the average king listened to them?
maybe i made it sound too literal? different eras are influenced by their own standards set by different sets of beliefs. isnt it apparent even today some parts of the world are lived in such deeply religious way? as in do as what "we" tell you to do, otherwise you're shunned. even north korea is deeply religious without being religious, if that makes sense. brain-washing, maybe its called in context to north korea but thats all it is.
we have creationists crying foul in usa, i'd imagine things arent so tolerable depending on when/where you live.
so church being "ridiculed" in the show isnt something about targeting religion, its just the way it was.
The North Korea comment shows your hand a bit, I think. You've defined "religion" as "an oppressive system," and yes, if you define it that way, you include much of human history. You also exclude most of religious practice throughout history, which is an earnest search for meaning in the universe.
But the on-topic point is narrower and more important: This show takes its name and inspiration from the Carl Sagan version, which was very open and respectful of religious belief, without compromising for a moment on scientific points. It didn't shy away from the history, but it went out of its way to point out that none of this conflicted with the sincere religious beliefs of most people (including scientists).
Young Earth Creationism is a fringe theory even in Christian circles. The Catholic Church doesn't believe it. No major Protestant body espouses it. Certainly hardly any clergy believe it. It's popular in the United States as a form of identity politics, but its important to remember that a lot of the U.S.'s "evangelicals" don't even go to church: it's just a way of identifying with "traditional values."
On April 02 2014 03:17 jinorazi wrote: church was the government, it was the authority until recent times. kings and peasants alike were ruled by religion. its history, quiet difficult to bypass when telling history.
This is so historically ignorant I really don't know where to begin.
Yes, at various times churches in different places have held significant political power. Outright theocracy with "king and peasant" ruled by religion? Pretty rare in history. A few Muslim Caliphates kinda did it, but even then a seperation existed. The Pope ruled a small territory in Europe, but other rulers routinely ignored his instructions. Popes tried really hard to ban war... how much do you think the average king listened to them?
maybe i made it sound too literal? different eras are influenced by their own standards set by different sets of beliefs. isnt it apparent even today some parts of the world are lived in such deeply religious way? as in do as what "we" tell you to do, otherwise you're shunned. even north korea is deeply religious without being religious, if that makes sense. brain-washing, maybe its called in context to north korea but thats all it is.
we have creationists crying foul in usa, i'd imagine things arent so tolerable depending on when/where you live.
so church being "ridiculed" in the show isnt something about targeting religion, its just the way it was.
The North Korea comment shows your hand a bit, I think. You've defined "religion" as "an oppressive system," and yes, if you define it that way, you include much of human history. You also exclude most of religious practice throughout history, which is an earnest search for meaning in the universe.
But the on-topic point is narrower and more important: This show takes its name and inspiration from the Carl Sagan version, which was very open and respectful of religious belief, without compromising for a moment on scientific points. It didn't shy away from the history, but it went out of its way to point out that none of this conflicted with the sincere religious beliefs of most people (including scientists).
Young Earth Creationism is a fringe theory even in Christian circles. The Catholic Church doesn't believe it. No major Protestant body espouses it. Certainly hardly any clergy believe it. It's popular in the United States as a form of identity politics, but its important to remember that a lot of the U.S.'s "evangelicals" don't even go to church: it's just a way of identifying with "traditional values."
i see religion as a tool to govern, so it really does depends on who holds the tool. it can be used for good or evil. i think you're jumping the gun on my view of religion from few little comments. its something i've thought a lot of and i share a lot of similar views with sagan and tyson. when i saw tyson's interview one time, i was shocked to find out how he explained everything i thought of so articulately, thats when i became a fan of his.
On April 02 2014 03:17 jinorazi wrote: church was the government, it was the authority until recent times. kings and peasants alike were ruled by religion. its history, quiet difficult to bypass when telling history.
This is so historically ignorant I really don't know where to begin.
Yes, at various times churches in different places have held significant political power. Outright theocracy with "king and peasant" ruled by religion? Pretty rare in history. A few Muslim Caliphates kinda did it, but even then a seperation existed. The Pope ruled a small territory in Europe, but other rulers routinely ignored his instructions. Popes tried really hard to ban war... how much do you think the average king listened to them?
maybe i made it sound too literal? different eras are influenced by their own standards set by different sets of beliefs. isnt it apparent even today some parts of the world are lived in such deeply religious way? as in do as what "we" tell you to do, otherwise you're shunned. even north korea is deeply religious without being religious, if that makes sense. brain-washing, maybe its called in context to north korea but thats all it is.
we have creationists crying foul in usa, i'd imagine things arent so tolerable depending on when/where you live.
so church being "ridiculed" in the show isnt something about targeting religion, its just the way it was.
The North Korea comment shows your hand a bit, I think. You've defined "religion" as "an oppressive system," and yes, if you define it that way, you include much of human history. You also exclude most of religious practice throughout history, which is an earnest search for meaning in the universe.
But the on-topic point is narrower and more important: This show takes its name and inspiration from the Carl Sagan version, which was very open and respectful of religious belief, without compromising for a moment on scientific points. It didn't shy away from the history, but it went out of its way to point out that none of this conflicted with the sincere religious beliefs of most people (including scientists).
Young Earth Creationism is a fringe theory even in Christian circles. The Catholic Church doesn't believe it. No major Protestant body espouses it. Certainly hardly any clergy believe it. It's popular in the United States as a form of identity politics, but its important to remember that a lot of the U.S.'s "evangelicals" don't even go to church: it's just a way of identifying with "traditional values."
i see religion as a tool to govern, so it really does depends on who holds the tool. it can be used for good or evil. i think you're jumping the gun on my view of religion from few little comments. its something i've thought a lot of and i share a lot of similar views with sagan and tyson. when i saw tyson's interview one time, i was shocked to find out how he explained everything i thought of so articulately, thats when i became a fan of his.
See, religion as a "tool to govern" is not only objectionable, it's wildly historically inaccurate. Religious movements are frequently deeply subversive of governing structures. Whether you're talking about the modern Christian Right (or Left), the Anti-Nuclear movement, Civil Rights (both the Judeo-Christian version and the Nation of Islam kind), Temperance/early Feminism, Christian Socialism, Wahhabism, Abolitionism, romantic Pacifism, and so on, deeply subversive movements are everywhere. (You'll notice I even restricted myself to the last two centuries. Religion as subversive of state goes very far back, from Las Casas through Jan Hus and as far back as the Old Testament Prophets preaching against the Kings of Israel's disregard of the poor and powerless.)
Even in the Middle Ages, supposedly the great moment of power for the church, church power was constantly being derided and even openly attacked by secular authorities. Popes and bishops could pressure Kings and dukes, but often lost the contests they sought. (Even though, in most cases, the church was "right" by our modern way of looking at things).
Just got up to date with Deeper and Deeper, and this show continues to be fantastic. It is a welcome break from a lot of the usual network programming. Almost like playing an ambient video game but actually learning.
I don't mind this show, I'll watch any doc that's passable, but the writers are really obsessed with global warming. There seems to be a CO2 segment 2 out of 3 shows. As someone who knows what it is, and would like to see nice graphics along with some science, its a fairly big downer that they waste so much time on something only mildly related to, you know, the cosmos.
That's great news! StealthBlue if you're interested in good science docs I would highly recommend watching PBS Spacetime on Youtube. Its much more in depth than Cosmos and more complicated but its full of fascinating physics, astrophysics and quantum theory. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g