without HD videos of cats in boxes and frat boys falling on their asses?

But the pelicans put on a spectacular show every evening and three days ago we were entertained by a humpback for about 45 minutes. This guy definitely had his eye on a lady humpback and was putting on a display I've never even seen on a National Geographic special.

So, I guess I will just have to make do.

You can watch it here, and turn it down to 140p to reduce the bitrate.

limited connection speed and the high cost of data transfer.

But I will see it at some point. I have only read about the Bruno component, so will withhold any personal take on it until I am able to.

Only part about religion was when it was noted that the Catholic Church, under the famous inquisition, murdered followers of Copernicus who had proposed a heliocentric universe.
People to this day do not believe the earth revolves around the sun.

hopefully it will be on DVD sooner than later.

Not surprised that it was awesome and very glad to be reading positive reviews.

The religious aspect is interesting to me only because I think he is making an attempt to entice people who think they don't like religion , including those who think their religion contradicts it.

My view: science and faith in religion co-exist on separate planes.

Science is all about physical facts, truths that continue to be updated through research. A non-scientist myself, but fascinated with space and time knowledge since childhood.

Faith in a higher power, which is spiritual in nature, not physical, is concentrated in belief that varies throughout the world, depending upon culture. My belief happens to be Christian. I do not share the view of some Christians who try to make the Bible into a history and science book.
My faith and spiritual life is private, and I do not evangelize. Everyone has the choice to find his own spiritual path as he or she desires, or not.

Trying to make the two, religious belief, and physical science, into one entity, is like mixing oil and water; they may co-exist, but never be incorporated together.

Trying to make it into one entity makes about as much sense as making them so adversarial that one feels they must vanquish the other.

Different but often complementary. I am glad NDT is taking this on and I look forward to seeing it.

My opinon exactly, but never articulated it this well! Plus as a non-Christian / non-traditional religionist, I don't have quite the authority you have.

Thank you for your well elucidated opinion!

Our natural spiritualistic or faith based senses are preyed upon by religious zealots.

I have been awaiting this show with anticipation, ever since I first heard about it on NPR. Cosmos, the relaunch. Tyson is very charismatic, and his connection to the Carl Sagan, serendipitous. Sagan's wife, Ann Druyan, is a co-producer.

The initial airing, last night (introduced by our very own President!) spent more time than I expected covering religion's view of science and scientists. Esp. during the Inquisition! Early astrologers lived and were persecuted during times when it was sacrilege to profess to any view that didn't follow directly from the bible. The scinece, spurred by Copernicus, was marked in large part by heliocentrism, the observation that the Sun is at the center of the universe, and the earth travels around it.

But Tyson explains how for these scientists, including a priest named Girodano Bruno, an immediate predecessor of Galileo's, his own spirituality was woven into his view of the cosmos. In particular, he felt the bible and religious orthodoxy of his time was too limiting, for a universal god.

Still he was burned at the stake.

So, for those who can actually think, and hold two seemingly competing ideas simultaneously in their minds, there should be no conflict with their religious belief systems. Sadly, I don't think there are that many of these folks left, mainstream religion and fundamentalism having brainwashed it out of them.

Love that it is airing on Fox, as well as NatGeo!

In any case, it's very provocative, and I loved it!

From Wikipedia:

"Giordano Bruno (Latin: Iordanus Brunus Nolanus; Italian: [dʒorˈdano ˈbruno]; 1548 – February 17, 1600), born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician, poet and astrologer.[2] He is best known for his cosmological theories, which went even further than the then-novel Copernican model: while supporting heliocentrism, Bruno also correctly proposed that the Sun was just another star moving in space, and claimed as well that the universe contained an infinite number of inhabited worlds populated by other intelligent beings.[3]

Beginning in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of the Trinity, denial of the divinity of Christ, denial of virginity of Mary, and denial of Transubstantiation. The Inquisition found him guilty, and in 1600 he was burned at the stake.[4] After his death he gained considerable fame, particularly among 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who, focusing on his astronomical beliefs, regarded him as a martyr for free thought[5] and modern scientific ideas. However, scholars note that Bruno's ideas about the universe played a small role in his trial compared to his pantheist beliefs, which differed from the interpretations and scope of God held by the Catholic Church.[6][7]"

I think NDT is the perfect person to try to lure some of the science-rejecting religionists into the world of science. He sees that the rejection of things like evolution is dangerous and seems to agree with you that religion and science can co-exist and are different entities.

I hope he is successful.

What you said!

itself, this reflects the attitude of its host and executive producers to religion in general, if people like to believe, that's fine, but don't pretend it answers any questions of relevance.

The example of Bruno was rather interesting, because after being shown how he was treated by the Church and society at the time, along with a summation of his beliefs, and his famous quote to the Inquisition, NDT ultimately said that he was NOT a scientist, that his ideas were imagination without evidence, and that, at least for some of his ideas about the cosmos, he had a lucky guess. His example is shown to emphasize the importance of freedom of thought and freedom of speech, and how dangerous it is to suppress them.

I think this first episode was about 3 things, honoring Carl Sagan and giving a distilled version of the scientific method, and showing what the scientific method was able to reveal. Outside of a historical footnote, religion doesn't really have a place in Cosmos.

science answers.

As to relevance, that is very much in the eye of the beholder. Irrelevant for some, relevant for others.

I think it is NDT's aim to appeal to religious people who may erroneously think that they can't embrace both religion and science.

IMO, that's a very worthwhile goal to pursue and I wish him the best. He is the right person for the job.

then its best not to mention religion at all except in a historical context, no different than most science documentaries and tv shows.

One show that comes to mind is "Evolve" which was on the Discovery Channel a few years ago, the show emphasized body parts or behaviors and how they evolved, the Eye was the first episode, obviously. I don't think religion or god was mentioned once in the entire show, and it ran for at least 6 or 8 episodes. Obviously, creationists would hate the show, hell it debunks most of their arguments, for everyone else, religious or otherwise, it would be entertaining and informative, though one episode, which focused on sexual behaviors(and body parts), would make the more prudish blush.

As far as relevance, I'm not talking about personal relevance, but societal or objective relevance, religion offers none.

When you are trying to attract people to whom religion is very important, than I think it is best to acknowledge that upfront.

Other science documentaries and tv shows are apparently not doing such a great job, as the numbers of evolution deniers is alarmingly high. So I'm going to support his approach at this point.

It you have a show that creationists are going to hate, you are never going to hook them. The goal here is to do exactly the opposite.

Hostility and dismiveness is just not getting the job done, it it?

Religion has lots of societal and objective relevance. How can you look at the current domestic and international political struggles and not see that?

"opposition research" at best. NDT's approach isn't any different than mine or most other science focused shows, you acknowledge some people have beliefs that aren't supported by any evidence, then you move on to the real stuff.

threatening manner possible.

More importantly, I think the kids might watch it and that schools might use it.

NDT's approach couldn't be more different than your own. I have never seen him show one drop of hostility towards religious people. Not one.

And if you don't think NDT isn't hostile towards religious beliefs, particularly those that conflict with settled science, I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

I particularly like his talk on the "God of the gaps" and how science is shrinking the gaps that gods exist in currently(for most scientifically literate people).

The only beliefs I can think of that he's more outspoken against is astrology, for obvious reasons.

is not very clear and the hostility can come across as very much towards the people.

You can keep your bridge. I don't want it.

NDT feels very strongly about religious beliefs that conflict with science and makes not secret of that. But he has been engaging and welcoming towards religious people otherwise and has even been vague about his own personal position.

Talking about god of the gaps is not anti-religion. I have seen him make the point as well that there is so much that is unknown that every time science fills in a gap, new ones present themselves..

I've never heard him say a word about astrology, but I've also never seen him attack religious people.

He is the right messenger at this time. Those hostile towards people with religious beliefs are the wrong ones and have shown a very poor track record in bringing about change.

even though he has stated he doesn't believe in a personal god of any sort, but, whatever.

It seems to me that you know very little about NDT(no surprise), while still commenting about him. Here, allow me to remedy this:

On Astrology:

But I've seen most of them already. I'm a big fan of NDT and know quite a bit about him.

He has said he is agnostic, which infuriates those among us that insist that one must be theist or atheist. They think he's dodging. I think he is what he says he is.

You often come across as very hostile towards believers. I'm not going to go search for quotes and will take your word that you don't mean it that way, but that is how you often come across to me.

have to break it down to some degree of hostility. C'mon folks, isn't this the problem?

doesn't give me the excuse to behave in a hostile manner.

dialogue and it was disappointing to have it devolve...

My problem.

Thanks.

pointing it out.

I should back out when I know I am getting angry and I honestly appreciate having it pointed out to me.

and downright "in your face" with his views about separation of religion and science. At the same, he was able to show that people like Bruno themselves were able to retain their spirituality, despite their new ideas about the universe - ideas that challenged the status quo. It can actually be an expression of one's spirituality, albeit in a different dimension, perhaps, than organized religion would have us accept.

religion provides responses to questions. But there is no way to determine if those responses are answers.

Science evolved in many different cultures, and continues to, alongside any number of religions. Not specifically in opposition or as a replacement of religion, in my understanding. The sciences' challenges to religion were secondary. The goals were advancement of a scientific approach to understanding and defining the world. I don't think there were any primary intents to replace religion, per se. Science did what science did. And does.

The misunderstanding and push back from some religious extremists, their resistance, is futile. It's a well worn story. I think that many in religion and many in the sciences - not necessarily separate groups - would agree. Inquiry can coexist in both approaches.

Whether it comes down to science/religion, religion/other religion or belief/disbelief, the key is in seeking to coexist.

we are all connected.

Symphony of Science "We are all Connected", its autotuned, but not bad:

for this great gift!

"All my relations."

ALL - animals, plants, air, water...

Where does this lovely statement come from?

Thank you, okasha.

And thank you Neil deGrasse Tyson for bringing this awareness to the forefront of American culture and media!

And it does indeed encompass all living things, including some not usually reccognized as such.