The evidence that Jesus ever existed is weaker than you might think

Before the European Enlightenment, virtually all New Testament experts assumed that handed-down stories about Jesus were first recorded by eye witnesses and were largely biographical. That is no longer the case.

Assuming that the Jesus stories had their beginnings in one single person rather than a composite of several—or even in mythology itself—he probably was a wandering Jewish teacher in Roman-occupied Judea who offended the authorities and was executed.  Beyond that, any knowledge about the figure at the center of the Christian religion is remarkably open to debate (and vigorously debated among relevant scholars).

Where was Jesus born? Did he actually have twelve disciples? Do we know with certainty anything he said or did?

As antiquities scholarship improves, it becomes increasingly clear that the origins of Christianity are controversial, convoluted, and not very coherent.

1. The more we know the less we know for sure. After centuries in which the gospel stories about Jesus were taken as gospel truth, the Enlightenment gave birth to a new breed of biblical historians. Most people have heard that Thomas Jefferson secretly took a pair of scissors to the Bible, keeping only the parts he thought were historical. His version of the New Testament is still available today. Jefferson’s snipping was a crude early attempt to address a problem recognized by many educated men of his time: It had become clear that any histories the Bible might contain had been garbled by myth. (One might argue that the Protestant Reformation’s rejection of the books of the Bible that they called “apocrypha,” was an even earlier, even cruder attempt to purge the Good Book of obvious mythology.)

In the two centuries that have passed since Jefferson began clipping, scores of biblical historians—including modern scholars armed with the tools of archeology, anthropology and linguistics—have tried repeatedly to identify “the historical Jesus” and have failed. The more scholars study the roots of Christianity, the more confused and uncertain our knowledge becomes. Currently, we have a plethora of contradictory versions of Jesus—an itinerant preacher, a zealot, an apocalyptic prophet, an Essene heretic, a Roman sympathizer, and many more —each with a different scholar to confidently tout theirs as the only real one. Instead of a convergent view of early Christianity and its founder, we are faced instead with a cacophony of conflicting opinions. This is precisely what happens when people faced with ambiguous and contradictory information cannot bring themselves to say, we don’t know.

This scholastic mess has been an open secret in biblical history circles for decades. Over forty years ago, professors like Robin S. Barbour and Cambridge’s Morna Hooker were complaining about the naïve assumptions underlying the criteria biblical scholars used to gauge the “authentic” elements of the Jesus stories. Today, even Christian historians complain the problem is no better; most recently Anthony Le Donne and Chris Keith in the 2012 book Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity.

2. The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. Every bit of our ostensibly biographical information for Jesus comes from just four texts – the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Though most Christians assume that associates of Jesus wrote these texts, no objective biblical scholars think so. None of the four gospels claims to be written by eyewitnesses, and all were originally anonymous. Only later were they attributed to men named in the stories themselves.

While the four gospels were traditionally held to be four independent accounts, textual analysis suggests that they all actually are adaptations of the earliest gospel, Mark. Each has been edited and expanded upon, repeatedly, by unknown editors. It is worth noting that Mark features the most fallible, human, no-frills Jesus—and, more importantly, may be an allegory.

All of the gospels contain anachronisms and errors that show they were written long after the events they describe, and most likely far from the setting of their stories. Even more troubling, they don’t just have minor nitpicky contradictions; they have basic, even crucial, contradictions.

3. The Gospels are not corroborated by outside historians. Despite generations of apologists insisting Jesus is vouched for by plenty of historical sources like Tacitus or Suetonius, none of these hold up to close inspection. The most commonly-cited of these is the Testimonium Flavianum, a disputed passage in the writings of ancient historian Flavius Josephus, written around the years 93/94, generations after the presumed time of Jesus. Today historians overwhelmingly recognize this odd Jesus passage is a forgery. (For one thing, no one but the suspected forger ever quotes it – for 500 years!) But defenders of Christianity are loath to give it up, and supporters now argue it is only a partial forgery.

Either way, as New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman points out, the Testimonium Flavaniummerely repeats common Christian beliefs of the late first century, and even if it were 100% genuine would provide no evidence about where those beliefs came from. This same applies to other secular references to Jesus–they definitely attest to the existence of Christians and recount Christian beliefs at the time, but offer no independent record of a historical Jesus.

 

In sum, while well-established historic figures like Alexander the Great are supported by multiple lines of evidence, in the case of Jesus we have only one line of evidence: the writings of believers involved in spreading the fledgling religion.

4. Early Christian scriptures weren’t the same as ours. At the time Christianity emerged, gospels were a common religious literary genre, each promoting a different version or set of sacred stories. For example, as legends of Jesus sprang up, they began to include “infancy gospels.” As historian Robert M. Price notes, just as Superman comics spun off into stories of young Superboy in Smallville, Christians wrote stories of young Jesus in Nazareth using his divine powers to bring clay birds to life or peevishly strike his playmates dead.

Early Christians didn’t agree on which texts were sacred, and those included in our New Testament were selected to elevate one competing form of Christianity, that of the Roman Church over others. (Note that the Roman Church also proclaimed itself “catholic” meaning universal.)

Our two oldest complete New Testament collections, Codex Siniaticus and Codex Vaticanus only go back to the beginning of the fourth century. To make matters worse, their books differ from each other – and from our bibles. We have books they don’t have; they have books we don’t have, like the Shepherd of Hermas and the Gospel of Barnabas.

In addition to gospels, the New Testament includes another religious literary genre—the epistle or letter. Some of our familiar New Testament epistles like 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude were rejected as forgeries even in ancient times; today scholars identify almost all of the New Testament books as forgeries except for six attributed to Paul (and even his authentic letters have been re-edited).

5. Christian martyrs are not proof (if they even were real). Generations of Christian apologists have pointed to the existence of Christian martyrs as proof their religion is true, asking “Who would die for a lie?” The short answer, of course, that all too many true believers have died in the service of falsehoods they passionately believed to be true—and not just Christians. The obvious existence of Muslim jihadis has made this argument less common in recent years

But who says that the Christian stories of widespread martyrdom themselves were real? The Book of Acts records only two martyr accounts, and secular scholars doubt that the book contains much if any actual history. The remaining Christian martyr tales first appeared centuries later. Historian Candida Moss’ 2014 book The Myth of Persecution gives a revealing look at how early Christian fathers fabricated virtually the entire tradition of Christian martyrdom—a fact that was, ironically enough, largely uncovered and debunked by later Christian scholars.

6. No other way to explain the existence of Christianity? Most people, Christians and outsiders alike, find it difficult to imagine how Christianity could have arisen if our Bible stories aren’t true. Beyond a doubt, Christianity could not have arisen if people in the first century hadn’t believed them to be true. But the stories themselves?

Best-selling New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman believes that the biblical stories about Jesus had their kernel in the person of a single itinerant preacher, as do most New Testament scholars. Historian Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald (co-author of this article) take an opposing position—that the original kernel was a set of ancient mythic tropes to which unsuspecting believers added historical details. Ehrman and Carrier may be on opposite sides of this debate, but both agree on one important fact: the only thing needed to explain the rise of Christianity is the belief fostered by the rival Christian preachers of the first century.

Witchcraft, bigfoot, the idea that an American president was born in Kenya, golden tablets revealed to a 19th century huckster by the Angel Moroni . . . we all know that false ideas can be sticky—that they can spread from person to person, getting elaborated along the way until they become virtually impossible to eradicate. The beginnings of Christianity may be shrouded in mystery, but the viral spread of passionately-held false ideas is becoming better understood by the year.

Keeping Options Open 

University of Sheffield’s Philip Davies—who believes that Christianity probably began with a single Jesus, acknowledges that the evidence is fragile and problematic. Davies argues that the only way the field of New Testament studies can maintain any academic respectability is by acknowledging the possibility that Jesus didn’t exist. He further notes this wouldn’t generate any controversy in most fields of ancient history, but that New Testament studies is not a normal case.

Brandon University’s Kurt Noll goes even further and lays out a case that the question doesn’t matter: Whether the original Jesus was real or mythological is irrelevant to the religion that was founded in his name.

That is because either way, the Christ at the heart of Christianity is a figure woven from the fabric of mythology. The stories that bear his name draw on ancient templates imbedded in the Hebrew religion and those of the surrounding region. They were handed down by word of mouth in a cultural context filled with magical beings and miracles. Demons caused epilepsy. Burnt offerings made it rain. Medical cures included mandrakes and dove blood. Angels and ghosts appeared to people in dreams. Gods and other supernatural beings abounded and not infrequently crossed over from their world to ours.

Who, in the midst of all of this, was Jesus? We may never know.

This article is the second in a series examining what we think we know about Jesus as a historical figure.

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org.  Her articles about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society have been featured at sites including AlterNet, Salon, the Huffington Post, Grist, and Jezebel.  Subscribe at ValerieTarico.com.

David Fitzgerald is an award-winning historical researcher and the author of Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All and the Complete Heretic’s Guide to Western Religion series. His latest book is Jesus: Mything in Action.

 

Source: The evidence that Jesus ever existed is weaker than you might think

Advertisements

Opinion | A God Problem – The New York Times

After 73 Years of Marriage, This Canadian Couple Chose to Die on Their Own Terms

George and Shirley Brickenden knew they wanted to die together. Canadian law gave them that opportunity.

This is a truly beautiful story about two people dying.

George and Shirley Brickenden, who are 95 and 94, respectively, decided they didn’t want to wait any longer for death to arrive. They’d been married for 73 years and their bodies weren’t faring so well. Shirley had a heart attack in 2016 and nearly died; she now has rheumatoid arthritis and it in constant pain. George was found passed out, unconscious, on his birthday and his heart was also failing.

Under Canadian law, both of them qualify for what’s known as physician-assisted death. They’re older than 18, Canadian citizens, mentally competent, suffering from a “serious and incurable disease, illness or disability,” and in an “‘advanced state of irreversible decline,’ with enduring and intolerable suffering.” Furthermore, there was no coercion involved. They checked off all the boxes.

And both of them decided to end their lives together, in peace, at the same time last week.

Shortly before 7 p.m., Mrs. Brickenden turned to her husband. “Are you ready?

“Ready when you are,” he replied.

They walked into their bedroom and lay down together, holding hands. The two doctors, one for each patient, inserted intravenous lines into their arms.

Angela rubbed her mom’s feet. [Pamela] rubbed her dad’s. “They smiled, they looked at each other,” Pamela said. Then Mr. Brickenden looked at his children, standing at the end of the bed.

“I love you all,” he said.

This is exactly why the law was passed. Forcing people to live in pain is a form of torture. The Brickendens were able to get their lives in order, say goodbye one last time to their children, and end life hand in hand with the person they love most. If you were to imagine your own perfect death, it would probably look something like that.

In Canada, however, this is now a legal procedure with sensible hurdles in place to prevent people from abusing it. It was made for situations like these. There may be certain situations where the moral thing to do isn’t always obvious, but this isn’t one of them.

Their mutual obituary is really incredible:

As age and overwhelming infirmities overtook them, on a beautiful spring day, after 73 years of marriage, they toasted each other with family and good champagne, held hands and left this life gently and together, on their own terms. This was their final act of love, hoping their act will pave the way for others who are suffering. They were fully at peace with this decision and had the support of their four devoted children who have always known this was how they wanted it to be when the time came. We are all forever grateful for the compassionate assistance of Dying with Dignity. They have blessed this earth together for 73 years and it’s time for them to bless the stars.

Instead of flowers, they asked for supporters to make donations to Dying with Dignity.

In the United States, death with dignity is only legal in six states and Washington, D.C. That leaves a lot of places where people who are ready to end life are forced to prolong it against their will. That needs to change.

(Thanks to @rlewis2202 for the link)

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2018/04/02/after-73-years-of-marriage-this-canadian-couple-chose-to-die-on-their-own-terms/#cXgEQo2Gu9jRgkEz.99

Source: After 73 Years of Marriage, This Canadian Couple Chose to Die on Their Own Terms – Friendly Atheist

In Memoriam: Stephen Hawking – Scientist, Atheist, Intellectual Giant

Legendary British theoretical physicist and intellectual giant Stephen Hawking is dead. He died peacefully at his home in Cambridge, England, at age 76.

In a statement, his family confirmed the great man’s death:

We are deeply saddened that our beloved father passed away today. He was a great scientist and an extraordinary man whose work and legacy will live on for many years.

His courage and persistence with his brilliance and humor inspired people across the world. He once said, “It would not be much of a universe if it wasn’t home to the people you love.” We will miss him forever.

The acclaimed British theoretical physicist, cosmologist and author was not only a great scientist who revolutionized our scientific understanding of black holes and the nature of the universe, he was also a great science communicator who achieved a global celebrity.  Appearing in numerous popular TV shows, Hawking, with his unique synthesised voice, became a fixture of popular culture, a living symbol for advanced theoretical work in the sciences.

In addition to, or because of his work in science, Hawking was also an outspoken atheist.

Speaking at the 2014 Starmus Festival at Tenerife in the Canary Islands, Hawking clarified some previous statements he had made about God. In so doing Hawking clearly stated, for the record:

I’m an atheist.

In the past, there had been some ambiguity concerning Hawking’s attitude towards God. In his landmark work “A Brief History of Time,” Hawking wrote that the discovery of a unifying set of scientific principles known as the theory of everything would enable scientists to “know the mind of God.”

However, in his follow-up book about the quest for the theory of everything, titled “The Grand Design,” Hawking said the mechanism behind the origin of the universe was becoming so well known that God was no longer necessary.

When asked about his previous references to God, Hawking responded:

Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.

This wasn’t the first time Hawking discussed his religious belief, or lack thereof. In 2007, Hawking told Reuters:

I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws.

And in a 2011 interview with The Guardian, Stephen Hawking said that heaven and the afterlife is a “fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

Also in 2011, during an episode of the Discovery Channel program Curiosity entitled “Did God Create the Universe?” Hawking declared:

We are each free to believe what we want and it is my view that the simplest explanation is there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization. There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that, I am extremely grateful.

Speaking with the Spanish-language paper El Mundo during the 2014 Starmus Festival Stephen Hawking said he believes that humans are not alone in the universe, and that meeting extraterrestrial life could be like Christopher Columbus coming to the Americas: “Which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans,” Hawking warned.

Hawking also told the paper:

The idea that we are alone in the universe seems to me completely implausible and arrogant. Considering the number of planets and stars that we know exist, it’s extremely unlikely that we are the only form of evolved life.

An advocate for the exploration of space, Hawking said he believed that space travel offers the best hope for our species’ immortality, noting:

It (space travel) could prevent the disappearance of humanity by colonizing other planets.

Concerning evolution and the Big Bang theory, Hawking declared that God is not a necessary condition for the creation of the universe. Instead, Hawking argued the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.

Hawking’s claim is a direct challenge to traditional religious beliefs that claim a creator is necessary for existence. In his  book, “The Grand Design,” Hawking argues:

The universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.  It is not necessary to invoke God to set the universe going.

…Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

In short, physics was the reason for the Big Bang, not God.

Hawking, always the advocate for science, took a very public stand against Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. Prior to November’s election, Hawking and 374 other scientists warned Americans that Donald Trump was unfit to serve as president because of his controversial and profoundly mistaken position on climate change.

The letter, published on ResponsibleScientists.org prior to the election, and signed by 375 members of the National Academy of Scientists, including Hawking, opens by declaring:

Human-caused climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a physical reality.

The letter goes on to explain that human health, food production and even national security are at stake, and describes the matter as “basic science.”

On humans and our place in the world, Stephen Hawking said:

We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the universe. That makes us something very special.

And:

I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate.

And:

We are in danger of destroying ourselves by our greed and stupidity. We cannot remain looking inwards at ourselves on a small and increasingly polluted and overcrowded planet.

Bottom line: Stephen Hawking – scientist, atheist, intellectual giant, is dead at age 76. He will be missed.

image: http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/sites/410/2018/03/HawkingInM1.png

In Memoriam: Stephen Hawking – Scientist, Atheist, Intellectual Giant (Image via Facebook)

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2018/03/memoriam-stephen-hawking-scientist-atheist-intellectual-giant/#dZDXg37lJ5X2CzHa.99

Source: In Memoriam: Stephen Hawking – Scientist, Atheist, Intellectual Giant

Science News – Top 10 Science Stories of 2017

 

YEAR IN REVIEW

Colliding neutron stars, gene editing, human origins and more top stories of 2017

BY SCIENCE NEWS STAFF

A gravitational wave discovery is the year’s biggest science story — again. Read More

YEAR IN REVIEW

This year’s neutron star collision unlocks cosmic mysteries

BY EMILY CONOVER

A rare and long-awaited astronomical event united thousands of astronomers in a frenzy of observations. Read More

YEAR IN REVIEW

CRISPR gene editing moved into new territory in 2017

BY TINA HESMAN SAEY

Scientists edited viable human embryos with CRISPR/Cas9 this year. Read More

YEAR IN REVIEW

The Larsen C ice shelf break has sparked groundbreaking research

BY CAROLYN GRAMLING

The hubbub over the iceberg that broke off Larsen C may have died down, but scientists are just getting warmed up to study the aftermath. Read More

YEAR IN REVIEW

The story of humans’ origins got a revision in 2017

BY BRUCE BOWER

Human evolution may have involved the gradual assembly of scattered skeletal traits, fossils of Homo naledi and other species show. Read More

YEAR IN REVIEW

Seven Earth-sized planets entered the spotlight this year

BY LISA GROSSMAN

The discovery of seven Earth-sized planets orbiting a single cool star fuels a debate over what counts as good news in the search for life outside the solar system. Read More

YEAR IN REVIEW

A quantum communications satellite proved its potential in 2017

BY EMILY CONOVER

Quantum communication through space is now possible, putting the quantum internet within closer reach. Read More

YEAR IN REVIEW

Worries grow that climate change will quietly steal nutrients from major food crops

BY SUSAN MILIUS

Studies show that rice, wheat and other staples could lose proteins and minerals, putting more people at risk of hunger worldwide. Read More

YEAR IN REVIEW

Approval of gene therapies for two blood cancers led to an ’explosion of interest’ in 2017

BY LAUREL HAMERS

The first gene therapies approved in the United States are treating patients with certain types of leukemia and lymphoma. Read More

YEAR IN REVIEW

Brains of former football players showed how common traumatic brain injuries might be

BY LAURA SANDERS

Examinations of NFL players’ postmortem brains turned up chronic traumatic encephalopathy in 99 percent of samples in large dataset. Read More

YEAR IN REVIEW

Zika cases are down, but researchers prepare for the virus’s return

BY AIMEE CUNNINGHAM

The number of Zika cases in the Western Hemisphere have dropped this year, but the need for basic scientific and public health research of the virus remains strong. Read More

More Headlines from Science News

Good News: Montreal Is Taxing Churches

No more religious exemptions, Montreal is taxing churches: For the first time churches in Montreal are being forced to pay taxes, and some church leaders are very unhappy.

CTV Montreal reports that churches and church space not being used explicitly for the purpose of worship is now taxable property, and is to be treated as any other property as far as taxes are concerned.

As one might expect, those benefitting from the tax exempt status enjoyed by churches are not happy. Again, CTV Montreal reports:

Joel Coppetiers, the Minister at the Cote des Neiges Presbyterian church, was shocked when his institution first received a municipal tax bill…

“The indication is there’s not an exemption for the church as a whole, there’s only an exemption for those areas used for public worship and things directly related to it,” said Coppetiers.

And while some of those that benefit from the tax exempt status previously enjoyed by churches in Montreal are unhappy with the changes, others are celebrating the small step towards a more just and fair tax structure.

Indeed, subsidizing tax-exempt churches costs taxpayers money, a great deal of money.

For example, a recent report from the Secular Policy Institute shows that tax exempt churches  cost U.S. taxpayers $71 billion every year.

Among the report’s findings: Each year religious groups receive $35.3 billion in federal income tax subsidies and $26.2 billion property tax subsidies. In addition, religious organizations also enjoyed approximately $6.1 billion in state income tax subsidies, along with $1.2 billion of parsonage, and $2.2 billion in the faith-based initiatives subsidy.

Discussing the problem with tax exempt churches, Bill Maher makes a powerful case for ending tax exempt status for religious institutions, noting:

Why, in heaven’s name, don’t we tax religion? A sexist, homophobic magic act that’s been used to justify everything from genital mutilation to genocide. You want to raise the tax on tobacco so kids don’t get cancer, OK. But let’s put one on Sunday school so they don’t get stupid.

Maher’s right. We should tax the church. There is no reason why the non-religious should subsidize religious superstition.

Perhaps more important, tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Bottom line: Montreal is getting it right. Taxpayers should not be in the business of subsidizing religious superstition. It’s time to tax the church.

Church Notre-Dame Montreal (image via Max Pixel)

Church Notre-Dame Montreal (image via Max Pixel)

Source: Good News: Montreal Is Taxing Churches

The Vaccine That Causes Autism Has Finally Found Its Proper Home

Too funny not to report… LOL. Enjoy!

The meeting of imaginary creatures has now come to order and there’s a brand new member.

VaccineAutismFakeBizarro2You can’t see Him, but God was the one taking the picture. He’s sitting next to Jenny McCarthy‘s moral conscience.

(via Bizarro by Dan Piraro)

Source: The Vaccine That Causes Autism Has Finally Found Its Proper Home

Bill Maher: All Religions Are “Stupid and Dangerous,” But Islam Is the Most Violent These Days

In an interview with CNN’s Van Jones last night, comedian Bill Maher answered a question about “radical Islamic terrorism” by saying he thinks all religions are “stupid and dangerous.”

MaherJonesReligionMaher made clear that different religions are problems in different eras:

I am an atheist… but, you know, all religions in my view are stupid and dangerous. But in different eras, they take the lead

That’s my point of view. It’s the point of view, by the way, of millions and millions of people in the world. And in this country. Religions are down all over. Why? I’d like to think I had something to do with it…

When asked if it was wise to alienate all religious people — including the overwhelmingly religious black community that is so important for Democrats at election time — Maher said his criticism was reserved for the ideas themselves, not all the people who believe them.

I didn’t say all religious people are stupid. I said all religions are stupid… My only loyalty, always, is to the truth. It’s not to a group of people, or it’s not to ratings. It’s the truth. That’s the truth as I see it.

He then elaborated on why Islam was a unique problem today, just as Christianity used to be a bigger problem in the past. But the way Donald Trump and Steve Bannon were responding to the threat, Maher added, was the wrong way to do it.

… In the 16th century, it would be Christianity that I would be going after for being way too intolerant and way too violent, ’cause that’s the age of the Inquisition. And they were. Now, that really is more Islam than Christianity.

I think they’re both dumb, and religions are all dangerous, but at this time in history, one is just more violent, more intolerant, and more dangerous.

The counterweight to radical Islam is secularism

… [The Trump administration wants] to make this a battle between the two religions, who, by the way, have been going at each over for over a thousand years. This does go back to the Crusades. I mean, it ebbed and flowed in history. But that’s the one thing we do not want. And, of course, it’s the dumbest thing [so] Trump’s gonna do it.

You know, for all the abuse CNN gets from the White House, it has its bright spots. Bringing on Maher, who has no problem criticizing religion, is a good move. Not all beliefs deserve respect, and some truths are difficult to hear. All the more reason to hear even more of them.

Source: Bill Maher: All Religions Are “Stupid and Dangerous,” But Islam Is the Most Violent These Days

Hubble Captures Brilliant Star Death in “Rotten Egg” Nebula | NASA

The Calabash Nebula, pictured here is a spectacular example of the death of a low-mass star like the sun.

Brilliant star explosion with orange jets, blue shockwave

The Calabash Nebula, pictured here — which has the technical name OH 231.8+04.2 — is a spectacular example of the death of a low-mass star like the sun. This image taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope shows the star going through a rapid transformation from a red giant to a planetary nebula, during which it blows its outer layers of gas and dust out into the surrounding space. The recently ejected material is spat out in opposite directions with immense speed — the gas shown in yellow is moving close to one million kilometers per hour (621,371 miles per hour).

Astronomers rarely capture a star in this phase of its evolution because it occurs within the blink of an eye — in astronomical terms. Over the next thousand years the nebula is expected to evolve into a fully-fledged planetary nebula.

The nebula is also known as the Rotten Egg Nebula because it contains a lot of sulphur, an element that, when combined with other elements, smells like a rotten egg — but luckily, it resides over 5,000 light-years away in the constellation of Puppis.


Image credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA, Acknowledgement: Judy Schmidt

Text credit: European Space Agency

Last Updated: Feb. 6, 2017
Editor: Karl Hille

Source: Hubble Captures Brilliant Star Death in “Rotten Egg” Nebula | NASA

How Would Neil deGrasse Tyson Explain Donald Trump to Someone Who’s Lived on Mars for Decades?

Somehow, the words “Go back while you can!” were not part of his answer.

You can imagine the culture shock someone would have if they disappeared from Earth for a few decades only to return and see what we’ve done to the place.

This week, at a premiere of the movie The Space Between Us (all about a boy raised on Mars who comes back to Earth for a girl), Neil deGrasse Tyson was asked by Vulture what he would say to someone like that.

NdGTCBSHumanityHis answer was all about the different types of truths we have floating around right now.

The first, he said, is “an objective truth that can be established outside of your own mental state,” such as by the methods and tools of science. This is the kind of truth that is true “whether or not you believe in [it],” he said, “so I would recommend that if you base policy on any kind of truth, it should be that truth.”

The second truth involved someone that’s true just for you (like religion), even if you can’t objectively prove it.

The third category was reserved for someone like Donald Trump.

The third kind of truth, he said, is what he calls “political truth.” “That’s what’s true simply because you repeat it so often that everyone thinks that it’s true, even if it’s not the truth,” Tyson said.

Sadly, we’re living in a country where this kind of alternative truth — a.k.a. A lie — is spreading faster than we can contain it. We have to be vigilant and vocal if we want our society governed by objective truths.

(Screenshot via YouTube)

 

Source: How Would Neil deGrasse Tyson Explain Donald Trump to Someone Who’s Lived on Mars for Decades?