What's all this extra baggage that I never said? It wouldn't be correct for anyone to mischaracterize anything or make it fit a false narrative. But I never suggested that did I?
Science by definition is biased against religion. Religion doesn't require evidence and makes a virtue of believing in things without it. One of the fundamental ideas of science is to reject that idea. Of course it's biased against religion. If one chooses to take the religious approach seriously, fine. But it's not reasonable to expect that science should do so.
I pointed out a false narrative to you in post 24 as identified by the NCSE. Again, Peter Hess stated, “It is odd that a great scientific series on the cosmos should open with an attempt to single out one victim of the Inquisition and hold him up as a martyr to science… But Cosmos makes Bruno out to be a martyr who died heroically in the defense of early modern science, and this is a role he certainly did not play…”
And you responded with “ I agree that the Bruno segment was strange and out of place, and its connection to the subject was strained. But that’s not the point. Complaining about a bias against religion on a science program? That’s what I don’t get. Why shouldn’t it be biased?”
Now if you want to convince yourself and justify why this bias is acceptable – go ahead. But you’re wasting your time and mine if you think you are going to convince me…
So again I state, there is no justification for a science program to be intentionally biased against religion or to mischaracterize religion in order to fit a false narrative. Science should not have an agenda and should be free to follow evidence wherever it leads. This Cosmos series is a mixture of Hollywood and science – and Hollywood comes with its own agenda , beliefs, and ‘faith’.