What fun! Though, my brain is slightly bruised now.
I remember this episode. It's a lot of fun listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson, and he himself agrees. He's a good teacher, and I'm sure he agrees with that, too.
Does any of this affect victor's dating of Jesus' birth or death?
Does any of this affect victor's dating of Jesus' birth or death?
Please hold your questions until the end of the Class. At which point if the class hasn't answered your questions you can write them down and hand them to the coordinator.
I'm afraid if I wait until the end of the class, I'll be too tired, and when I get tired, I stop believing, and we all know what will happen then - I'll just stop being alive, kinda like the dead. You know, not living, because of fatigue related unbelief.
I'm afraid if I wait until the end of the class, I'll be too tired, and when I get tired, I stop believing, and we all know what will happen then - I'll just stop being alive, kinda like the dead. You know, not living, because of fatigue related unbelief.
No no, that's nodding in approval. Everyone in The Class gets that. Keep Calm and Wayfer On.
How someone can simultaneously be so smart and so dumb is astonishing to me.
You don't want to be called an atheist because of the way some atheists act? That's stupid. Atheism doesn't address behavior. It addresses one answer to one question: Do you believe in God (or gods)? If the answer is no, you are an atheist, as he acknowledged. The end.
Now, if he had just said, "I am an atheist, but I shun the label because it comes with sociological baggage that I regret," then that would make some sense. But "some atheists prefer BCE and I prefer BC" is no reason to say "I'm not an atheist."
So much to unpack here. So he's saying some religious folks used science to fix the calendar for tens of thousands of years of accuracy, and for that he doesn't want to switch from BC to BCE.
ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER!
Why does religion get deference when religious people properly employ science? Makes no sense.
Now, if he doesn't want to be called an atheist, that's his prerogative. But his reasoning is not logical or sound. He employs non sequiturs, straw man arguments and ad hominems. I expected better.
How someone can simultaneously be so smart and so dumb is astonishing to me.
You don't want to be called an atheist because of the way some atheists act? That's stupid. Atheism doesn't address behavior. It addresses one answer to one question: Do you believe in God (or gods)? If the answer is no, you are an atheist, as he acknowledged. The end.
Now, if he had just said, "I am an atheist, but I shun the label because it comes with sociological baggage that I regret," then that would make some sense. But "some atheists prefer BCE and I prefer BC" is no reason to say "I'm not an atheist."
So much to unpack here. So he's saying some religious folks used science to fix the calendar for tens of thousands of years of accuracy, and for that he doesn't want to switch from BC to BCE.
ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER!
Why does religion get deference when religious people properly employ science? Makes no sense.
Now, if he doesn't want to be called an atheist, that's his prerogative. But his reasoning is not logical or sound. He employs non sequiturs, straw man arguments and ad hominems. I expected better.
Biologically, genetically, morphologically similar beings all over the globe independently come up with gods. That is a behavior that reflects the psychology of those beings. It's noteworthy to me that so many come up with a Father figure in the sky, and a Mother figure in the earth. It's like convergent evolution, sharks dolphins, ichthyosaurs are streamlined but didn't learn from each other how to swim. . . and it's fascinating. I consider it a natural process. Certainly that addresses behavior.
A person who acknowledges a god or goddess or gods or flying pig is going to behave accordingly. A person who does not acknowledge them is going to behave accordingly.
This binary of gods / no-gods I feel overlooks something. I mean, what area of human behavior isn't loaded with absurdity?
We don't pay respect to alchemy in honor of Isaac Newton's contributions to understanding the laws of motion and dynamics.
We don't pay respect to anti-Semitism because Henry Ford revolutionized automobile manufacture.
Why should we opt for B.C. over B.C.E. just because religious people used scientific methods to calculate an accurate calendar? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other!
Now, if he were to say "I don't feel any more need to change B.C. to B.C.E. than Christians feel to change the names of Wednesday, Thursday and Friday -- all named for Norse gods," THAT would make sense. But clinging to B.C. because religious people figured out we need a leap year in 2000 is rather arbitrary.
We don't pay respect to alchemy in honor of Isaac Newton's contributions to understanding the laws of motion and dynamics.
We don't pay respect to anti-Semitism because Henry Ford revolutionized automobile manufacture.
Why should we opt for B.C. over B.C.E. just because religious people used scientific methods to calculate an accurate calendar? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other!
Now, if he were to say "I don't feel any more need to change B.C. to B.C.E. than Christians feel to change the names of Wednesday, Thursday and Friday -- all named for Norse gods," THAT would make sense. But clinging to B.C. because religious people figured out we need a leap year in 2000 is rather arbitrary.
Does that make more sense?
Hitler certainly paid respect to Henry Ford, the only American mentioned in Mein Kampf. I don't agree with his take.
Isaac Newton is certainly an example of how madness and creativity walk a fine line.
The process of how you and I both think . . . It all evolved through "these religious people" . . . it's not arbitrary.
There's no "reset button" . . . you can't whitewash to a purer state of mind . . . and if we whitewash too much we forget the why and the how and the reasons of where we are now.
There's no "reset button" . . . you can't whitewash to a purer state of mind . . . and if we whitewash too much we forget the why and the how and the reasons of where we are now.
I think there are some things we can fix if we have the will to do it. Other things, maybe not so necessary. B.C. to B.C.E. = not necessary. I would discuss things I think are necessary, but it would veer too much into politics. Let's just say I favor changing SOME location names so they honor something we, today, deem worthy of honor. And some names just have to go ("Atlantic goliath grouper" is a perfectly fine name for a fish. The name it replaced is not).
All of which is to say: I agree with you, Bolshevik, but that wasn't really what I was disputing. If someone wants to switch to BCE for culturally sensitive or historically accurate reasons, more power to them, as long as the general public understands, which more and more people do. I could see secular, Jewish or Muslim communities favoring BCE and CE. I could even see Christians favoring BCE on the grounds that the calculation was off (Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in 1 AD, which means ALL the numbers are off).
I could also see, just as easily, not giving a flip, the way we all feel about Odinsday, Thorsday and Friggaday.
I'm just rejecting the logic expressed in the video, because it's not reasonable. "I don't want to change because..." The reason you give has to make sense. His doesn't.
There is nothing wrong with giving religious people credit when it's due... for following science. A religious person came up with the big bang theory. Religious people came up with all sorts of terrific things by employing or attempting to employ the scientific method to a problem. That does not mean we owe the religion any deference (for the same reason we don't owe Newton's alchemy or Ford's anti-Semitism any deference).
Nothing wrong with sticking with BC. It's just that Tyson's "why" is BS.
Oh I don't think he was suggesting "the Catholic Church came up with a good calendar we all use . . . we should all be Catholics . . . or the Church gets points". He is impressed. And he is showing appreciation.
I trying to imagine . . . I guess a 'thought experiment' . . . if other beings evolved a psyche as complex as humans . . . would they come up with similar religions? Just like a dolphin and ichthyosaur came up with similar adaptations, because it works, similar things evolve and re-evolve and come up again and again and again.
Part of survival is coping. The human mind has an awareness that is depressing. And a complicated beings needs to pass down things that work, so the next generation isn't wasting precious energy reinventing the wheel. Evolution recycles. I think Dr. Tyson pointed out how the language (using goodbye) we used is recycled, and still meaningful, whether you subscribe to a religion/god or not. You can go from language and calendars to concepts of the individual and rights.
Oh I don't think he was suggesting "the Catholic Church came up with a good calendar we all use . . . we should all be Catholics . . . or the Church gets points". He is impressed. And he is showing appreciation.
I am impressed too. And I think showing appreciation is warranted. I simply don't believe that declining to switch from BC to BCE is a reasonable method of showing that appreciation. That DOES give the church "points," as you put it.
Anyway, I'm splitting hairs here. The church deserves a lot of credit not only for commissioning this important work but also convincing the world to go along with it. Could you imagine the discussion coming up on the House floor today? "You want us to do WHAT? Get the church's hands off our calendars! You're telling me the all-wise scientists had it wrong all this time? My calendar, My choice!"
I am impressed too. And I think showing appreciation is warranted. I simply don't believe that declining to switch from BC to BCE is a reasonable method of showing that appreciation. That DOES give the church "points," as you put it.
Anyway, I'm splitting hairs here. The church deserves a lot of credit not only for commissioning this important work but also convincing the world to go along with it. Could you imagine the discussion coming up on the House floor today? "You want us to do WHAT? Get the church's hands off our calendars! You're telling me the all-wise scientists had it wrong all this time? My calendar, My choice!"
Oedipal defense mechanisms as symbolized by mother earth god devouring the . . . right nevermind.
To lighten it up I'll bring back Dr. Tyson to show my appreciation for his ongoing efforts to bring science into discussions:
Why should we opt for B.C. over B.C.E. just because religious people used scientific methods to calculate an accurate calendar? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other!
Now, if he were to say "I don't feel any more need to change B.C. to B.C.E. than Christians feel to change the names of Wednesday, Thursday and Friday -- all named for Norse gods," THAT would make sense. But clinging to B.C. because religious people figured out we need a leap year in 2000 is rather arbitrary.
Does that make more sense?
The question is not whether your words make sense to me or not. I explained some of how and why what makes sense to me.
The question is what makes sense to you.
We don't "cling to BC as opposed to BCE" because of the need for a leap year. We -- as a culture and society -- cling to it because the force and energy necessary to overcome inertia and make the change is not important enough for culture and society to muster it at this moment. It seems survival of culture and society for our grandchildren beyond six generations is far more important at this time.
It matters not to me whether you or anyone else uses BC or BCE as long as I can recognize to what your or they are referring, similar to AD or CE.
If someone wants to switch to BCE for culturally sensitive or historically accurate reasons, more power to them, as long as the general public understands, which more and more people do.
It appears that you got my point before I made it.
Part of survival is coping. The human mind has an awareness that is depressing. And a complicated beings needs to pass down things that work, so the next generation isn't wasting precious energy reinventing the wheel.
You're missing and making my point at the same time.
We don't use that faulty reasoning to cling to BC as opposed to BCE. I agree with you.
Tyson does use that reasoning. At least, he does in the video. That reasoning is what I'm criticizing.
I'm more interested in the ideas than the people who express them. I was neither missing nor making your point. Apparently, we were discussing the same thing from a different angle.
Now, if he had just said, "I am an atheist, but I shun the label because it comes with sociological baggage that I regret," then that would make some sense. But "some atheists prefer BCE and I prefer BC" is no reason to say "I'm not an atheist."
. . .
I get your point here.
For me, "do you believe in god/s" circle yes or no . . . . is not how I see the question . . . but for others the question is straightforward. For me it's a question of, what color is you favorite flavor? I don't think there's a bearded guy in the sky with naked winged midgets with harps. But clearly when you have more than one person other things are present. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Just as a conscious person is very different than a dead one.
so a term like atheist for me would emphasize the more forceful use of the term, an active push away from something else, which is not straightforward
Recommended Posts
Nathan_Jr
What fun! Though, my brain is slightly bruised now.
I remember this episode. It's a lot of fun listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson, and he himself agrees. He's a good teacher, and I'm sure he agrees with that, too.
Does any of this affect victor's dating of Jesus' birth or death?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Please hold your questions until the end of the Class. At which point if the class hasn't answered your questions you can write them down and hand them to the coordinator.
Let all things be done decently and in order.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I'm afraid if I wait until the end of the class, I'll be too tired, and when I get tired, I stop believing, and we all know what will happen then - I'll just stop being alive, kinda like the dead. You know, not living, because of fatigue related unbelief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
No no, that's nodding in approval. Everyone in The Class gets that. Keep Calm and Wayfer On.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
How someone can simultaneously be so smart and so dumb is astonishing to me.
You don't want to be called an atheist because of the way some atheists act? That's stupid. Atheism doesn't address behavior. It addresses one answer to one question: Do you believe in God (or gods)? If the answer is no, you are an atheist, as he acknowledged. The end.
Now, if he had just said, "I am an atheist, but I shun the label because it comes with sociological baggage that I regret," then that would make some sense. But "some atheists prefer BCE and I prefer BC" is no reason to say "I'm not an atheist."
So much to unpack here. So he's saying some religious folks used science to fix the calendar for tens of thousands of years of accuracy, and for that he doesn't want to switch from BC to BCE.
ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER!
Why does religion get deference when religious people properly employ science? Makes no sense.
Now, if he doesn't want to be called an atheist, that's his prerogative. But his reasoning is not logical or sound. He employs non sequiturs, straw man arguments and ad hominems. I expected better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Biologically, genetically, morphologically similar beings all over the globe independently come up with gods. That is a behavior that reflects the psychology of those beings. It's noteworthy to me that so many come up with a Father figure in the sky, and a Mother figure in the earth. It's like convergent evolution, sharks dolphins, ichthyosaurs are streamlined but didn't learn from each other how to swim. . . and it's fascinating. I consider it a natural process. Certainly that addresses behavior.
A person who acknowledges a god or goddess or gods or flying pig is going to behave accordingly. A person who does not acknowledge them is going to behave accordingly.
This binary of gods / no-gods I feel overlooks something. I mean, what area of human behavior isn't loaded with absurdity?
Edited by BolshevikI do not believe in spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Really? Using the word "religion" in this context seems to mix an individual's personal belief with a cultural phenomenon.
If you parse those concepts rather than mixing them up, it makes sense to me.
It's not so easy to overcome inertia when trying to change culture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Maybe I wasn't clear.
We don't pay respect to alchemy in honor of Isaac Newton's contributions to understanding the laws of motion and dynamics.
We don't pay respect to anti-Semitism because Henry Ford revolutionized automobile manufacture.
Why should we opt for B.C. over B.C.E. just because religious people used scientific methods to calculate an accurate calendar? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other!
Now, if he were to say "I don't feel any more need to change B.C. to B.C.E. than Christians feel to change the names of Wednesday, Thursday and Friday -- all named for Norse gods," THAT would make sense. But clinging to B.C. because religious people figured out we need a leap year in 2000 is rather arbitrary.
Does that make more sense?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Hitler certainly paid respect to Henry Ford, the only American mentioned in Mein Kampf. I don't agree with his take.
Isaac Newton is certainly an example of how madness and creativity walk a fine line.
The process of how you and I both think . . . It all evolved through "these religious people" . . . it's not arbitrary.
There's no "reset button" . . . you can't whitewash to a purer state of mind . . . and if we whitewash too much we forget the why and the how and the reasons of where we are now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think there are some things we can fix if we have the will to do it. Other things, maybe not so necessary. B.C. to B.C.E. = not necessary. I would discuss things I think are necessary, but it would veer too much into politics. Let's just say I favor changing SOME location names so they honor something we, today, deem worthy of honor. And some names just have to go ("Atlantic goliath grouper" is a perfectly fine name for a fish. The name it replaced is not).
All of which is to say: I agree with you, Bolshevik, but that wasn't really what I was disputing. If someone wants to switch to BCE for culturally sensitive or historically accurate reasons, more power to them, as long as the general public understands, which more and more people do. I could see secular, Jewish or Muslim communities favoring BCE and CE. I could even see Christians favoring BCE on the grounds that the calculation was off (Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in 1 AD, which means ALL the numbers are off).
I could also see, just as easily, not giving a flip, the way we all feel about Odinsday, Thorsday and Friggaday.
I'm just rejecting the logic expressed in the video, because it's not reasonable. "I don't want to change because..." The reason you give has to make sense. His doesn't.
There is nothing wrong with giving religious people credit when it's due... for following science. A religious person came up with the big bang theory. Religious people came up with all sorts of terrific things by employing or attempting to employ the scientific method to a problem. That does not mean we owe the religion any deference (for the same reason we don't owe Newton's alchemy or Ford's anti-Semitism any deference).
Nothing wrong with sticking with BC. It's just that Tyson's "why" is BS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Oh I don't think he was suggesting "the Catholic Church came up with a good calendar we all use . . . we should all be Catholics . . . or the Church gets points". He is impressed. And he is showing appreciation.
I absolutely agree on change being a constant.
"Religious People" aren't stupid. They're describing something.
I trying to imagine . . . I guess a 'thought experiment' . . . if other beings evolved a psyche as complex as humans . . . would they come up with similar religions? Just like a dolphin and ichthyosaur came up with similar adaptations, because it works, similar things evolve and re-evolve and come up again and again and again.
Part of survival is coping. The human mind has an awareness that is depressing. And a complicated beings needs to pass down things that work, so the next generation isn't wasting precious energy reinventing the wheel. Evolution recycles. I think Dr. Tyson pointed out how the language (using goodbye) we used is recycled, and still meaningful, whether you subscribe to a religion/god or not. You can go from language and calendars to concepts of the individual and rights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I am impressed too. And I think showing appreciation is warranted. I simply don't believe that declining to switch from BC to BCE is a reasonable method of showing that appreciation. That DOES give the church "points," as you put it.
Anyway, I'm splitting hairs here. The church deserves a lot of credit not only for commissioning this important work but also convincing the world to go along with it. Could you imagine the discussion coming up on the House floor today? "You want us to do WHAT? Get the church's hands off our calendars! You're telling me the all-wise scientists had it wrong all this time? My calendar, My choice!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Oedipal defense mechanisms as symbolized by mother earth god devouring the . . . right nevermind.
To lighten it up I'll bring back Dr. Tyson to show my appreciation for his ongoing efforts to bring science into discussions:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The question is not whether your words make sense to me or not. I explained some of how and why what makes sense to me.
The question is what makes sense to you.
We don't "cling to BC as opposed to BCE" because of the need for a leap year. We -- as a culture and society -- cling to it because the force and energy necessary to overcome inertia and make the change is not important enough for culture and society to muster it at this moment. It seems survival of culture and society for our grandchildren beyond six generations is far more important at this time.
It matters not to me whether you or anyone else uses BC or BCE as long as I can recognize to what your or they are referring, similar to AD or CE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
It appears that you got my point before I made it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Very true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You're missing and making my point at the same time.
We don't use that faulty reasoning to cling to BC as opposed to BCE. I agree with you.
Tyson does use that reasoning. At least, he does in the video. That reasoning is what I'm criticizing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I get your point here.
For me, "do you believe in god/s" circle yes or no . . . . is not how I see the question . . . but for others the question is straightforward. For me it's a question of, what color is you favorite flavor? I don't think there's a bearded guy in the sky with naked winged midgets with harps. But clearly when you have more than one person other things are present. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Just as a conscious person is very different than a dead one.
so a term like atheist for me would emphasize the more forceful use of the term, an active push away from something else, which is not straightforward
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.