Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

I remember watching Carl Sagan's original series on PBS, loved it, so anxiously awaited Neil deGrasse Tyson's reboot of the same. The thing which struck me was the anecdote on Giordano Bruno and his epiphany that "God was present in nature and that the universe and life was infinite". Tyson described Bruno's vision/dream as imaginary. I think Bruno had a 'clear as water', OBE. My opinion, what do you guys think?

 

Tyson's view is that of a typical materialist. What is amazing is how many Nobel Prize winning scientists, especially in physics, believe that there is much more to our universe than just atoms bouncing around randomly. And there is research being done that soon, I am hopeful, will discredit the materialist paradigm. Sadly, the western world will be playing catch-up to China, India and Russia, whose science community is not handcuffed by materialism, and can get funding for their research based on results, not dogma.

With Lovingkindness (metta),
vic

 

vic, could you (or someone) please define the way you're using "materialist"? I've seen it used a lot here, and I really don't know what you all mean by it. Do you mean someone who only believes in the physical world but not in an afterlife?

 

I won't speak for Vic but my interpretation of a materialist is lifted exactly from the definition, " a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter."

In other words, those that simply won't accept anything outside their "perceived" understanding of our existence. I might just have to watch some episodes of this, I'm certain I won't agree with everything presented but that doesn't mean I won't find an interest in some of it.

 

Thanks for that explanation, Matty.

I suppose I'm somewhere in between a materialist and whatever resides at the opposite end of that particular spectrum -- as with my views on the afterlife and on god, I'm agnostic. I don't necessarily believe that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality, and in fact I hope that's not the case, but I just don't know, as I have no proof of anything else.

In any case, I very much appreciate the explanation.

 

I suppose I am an unabashed Materialist, then.

 

Matty's definition is right on the mark. Most scientists are materialists in that they do not believe in anything that they cannot consistently measure. This rules out, according to their dogma, consciousness surviving death and psychic phenomenon. The difference between a materialist and an agnostic is that an agnostic is willing to view new evidence in the hope of understanding. A materialist will ignore and/or discredit any evidence that is contrary to their materlialist worldview.

With Lovingkindness (metta),
vic

 

Glad to help. For the record, I can coexist with all the materialists of the world. Just because they have a different world view than me doesn't mean they aren't good people, in general. The only issue I've ever had with them is their inherent stubbornness to take anything else into consideration regarding our existence that doesn't fit within their current assertions of how things really work. That or when a materialist, or anyone for that matter, tries to lay claim to the absolute understanding or truth to our existence.

This world is vast beyond our comprehension. How any human can try to assert they have the level of intelligence to explain even a fraction of it is simply laughable to me. I always find it funny when you read an article about something that happens in this world that BAFFLES scientists like this article.

Materialists can't figure out some of the most simple concepts about our universe but somehow some of them can declare that they are certain consciousness is part of the brain and that there is no afterlife. Alrighty then...

As I've said before, I love many things regarding science. I just wish the scientific community stopped expecting us to look to them for all the answers. If this is going to be the case then perhaps they need to be a little more open to things they can't measure by typical materialist standards.