Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

My Creator is the Creator mentioned in our Constitution and is specifically called out as the source of our unalienable rights, among them, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. If there is no Creator, then the source of our rights is the government and if they can give us these rights, they can take them away. That's why we rely on a Creator beyond the reach of human agencies. Sounds pretty close to what people are talking about here. Who is your Creator???

Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

You're right in the belief that this was not intended to be a debate on religion. The crux of this issue is people who disagree with science according to Sagan. The problem is that much of what is happening today is giving science a bad name. We are being told that one cannot question science because of the "scientific method" practiced by scientists of today. If 90%+ of scientist agree on an issue then it must be right and not to be questioned. But that is exactly what the scientific method does, is question science. Science is never settled and always subject to change. The role of the scientist is to determine with some certainty and clarity the accuracy of scientific data. The role of the politician is to take these data and ascertain the likely impact of this information on the populace and develop policies to deal with it. These roles are very mixed these days with some assuming both roles and some assuming none.

And I appreciate the opportunity to present a rationed argument for consideration without being disparaged or disparaging others.

Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

You are aware, no doubt, that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a Carl Sagan devotee and even joined with Sagan's wife Ann Druyan to remake the Cosmos series. He follows in Sagans footsteps in demeaning those who don't think like him on many different subjects including this video. He's certainly not a non-biased witness of Sagan's quote presented in this posting.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

How do you think that Neil DeGrasse Tyson would be treated by the scientific community if he said that he believed in an Intelligent Agent that created the universe and everything contained in the universe and believed that an Intelligent being created man as we see now?

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

Believe what you want but Evolution remains a Reality

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

That's your opinion. That wasn't my "question" or the intent of my comment.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

And we (or at least I hope, most) appreciate a rational hypothesis put forward for consideration without any carping or denigrating (and insulting) others.

The degree of incivility in the Attic is astounding. With the same individuals harping on the same subjects in the same manner — with no positional alteration — even when evidence or data to support a different viewpoint is provided.
There are some (in my estimation, unguided) individuals who will not even investigate provided references or links to information that would be germane to a discussion.
_________________

As to your thoughts on the scientific method: There seems to be a polarization among scientists as well as political groups. I understand the process and significance of the scientific method, and the fact the highest certainty on any particular subject is a theory with predictive explanatory power(s).

It seems people (in general) or those not very literate of science, do not understand the concept of falsifiability. NO theory is 100 percent true(*), and new evidence may be discovered that upsets theory.

The problem, as I observe it, is scientific methodology provides more “guidance” than “answers” when politicians, special interest groups and lawmakers regard Theory as proven Fact and make decisions or laws that affect entire populations.(**)

90 percent of scientists within any specific field agreeing on a subject is rare in scientific circles, it seems. And there is (almost) always a dedicated “fringe group” or more holding specific beliefs(***) that attempt to find fault with supported theory — coming up with unverifiable arguments and contrary hypotheses that are usually A). Antithetical to demonstrable experimental observation, B). Have little or no predictive power, and C). Depend upon some unproven, non-observed, generally non-factual, statistically insignificant or impossible alteration of known observed data.

The highest truth is verifiable observation. The only manner in which facts of nature be determined.


(*) Although some observations come close. The “law” of universal gravitational attraction, for one. Although even that may be altered if “dark matter” and “dark energy” hypotheses are correct.

(**) Cases in point: Masking directives and mandatory inoculations for certain groups (Covid).

(***) Examples are Creationists, “Young Earth” supporters, Flat Earthers, and other entrenched believers.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

jcboy3

Man made the gods. Out of nothing.

jcboy3

Tha phrase used to be life, liberty, and property (as estate or dower). Thomas Jefferson changed this to pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. The phrase was changed back in the Constitution’s 5th and 14th amendment, assuring that you no longer had the right to happiness.

So much for “inalienability”.

BTW, no such thing as a Creator.

Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

I don't believe one's personal religious beliefs are very high on most people's priority list in the scientific community so I don't think it would have any bearing on how he's treated.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Well, you should see how they treated biologist Michael Behe specifically on the subject of irreducible complexity.

Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence stated that we are endowed by our Creator with UNalienable rights (many), among them are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The amendments refer to life, liberty and property as things that the state does have the right to take from you if you are guilty of certain crimes. We still possess the right to pursue happiness, because, fortunately for us, the state does not have the right or ability to take away our pursuit of happiness.

Since you don't believe in a Creator, you must then believe that all our rights are granted to us by our government and that, as such, the government can take them away from you should they choose to. Case in point, I would argue that one of our unalienable rights (not specified) is our right to choose our friends. Can the state take this right away from us???

As far as there being no Creator, your loss, not mine.

jcboy3

In the pursuit of happiness, the state can and does control your access to drugs, alcohol, and sex. The state can control what you read or watch. The state can control your entertainment. You do not have a right to pursue happiness, and there is a reason it isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.


The state can take what it wants from you that has nothing to do with the existence of, or even belief in, a creator.