National Geography VS Discovery

Which one is popular?

Are you asking about the magazines or the television channels?

Always cracks me up.

Whatever the program on NG or Disc, they’ll always leave the last five minutes to preach about global warming and evil man overpopulating the planet (except for those wonderful NG and Disc scientists, of course) who are out there with their techie science equipment saving the Earth.

:shrug:

Notice it was Animal Planet to capitalize on Sasquatch and none of the ‘real’ scientific channels;).

Peace, Graubo

I like Nat Geo magazine better. I love their stories about animals and the photography.
I think Discovery channel is more popular in terms of TV. At least I think it is carried on more basic cable packages (in my area).

HISTORY CHANNEL!!!1 :thumbsup:

Also known as the Hitler Channel. Although now it’s becoming the UFO/Ghost/Junk Dealer Channel.

But perhaps some of you get BBC Knowledge? They sometimes have Richard Dawkins doing some show there, and Richard Attenborough. Both are extreme naturalists.

Extreme naturalists? What are they?

They are, and they’re not afraid to push their ideology. You disagree?

He’s asking what an extreme naturalist is, and I’m curios too! It’s kind of like saying “extreme biologist”. They are really passionate about their field of expertise? I hate it when people push the ideology of biology as well as the natural processes of the world. :slight_smile:

Don’t get me started on cell theory. What if I don’t want cells!

A fanatical naturalist. An extremist naturalist. An ideologue. A “Christian fanatic” - would be recognised by many, wouldn’t it?

Perhaps “extreme” is the wrong figure of speech in this instance.

As a scientist I follow naturalism too in my work, but I don’t push it outside of its sphere. Ok, it’s methodological naturalism and not philosophical naturalism, but still.

That makes sense in a way, but if someone is a naturalist it denotes their field of study, not their belief systems. For example, I am a christian naturalist. I can be an extreme or fanatical Christian, but not a fanatical naturalist. Do you know what I mean?

If someone is a “pagan naturalist”, or an “atheist police officer” for that matter, they can be a fanatical pagan or atheist, but no one would call them a fanatical police officer, for example.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that someone that studies nature, teaches it, and focuses on the problems and concerns of the natural world more than other areas might be a good Christian or well-grounded individual just doing their job! (if they are naturalist that is). :slight_smile:

The Heresy Channel when it comes to anything religious.

It should but it often does not these days. The reason being of course that people, often project from their own field into other fields. An engineer tends to see the world one way, a doctor another, a psychologist yet another. However these guys, at least Dawkins more than Attenborough, also tend to push their ideologies into their work. Mixing evolution with atheism and mixing zoology with atheism is just not necessary. Trying to fit some pantheistic atheism into the whole thing, adding some faux spirituality is I think pushing religion/ideology into science/natural history shows.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that someone that studies nature, teaches it, and focuses on the problems and concerns of the natural world more than other areas might be a good Christian or well-grounded individual just doing their job! (if they are naturalist that is). :slight_smile:

No. I think it’s more like “Here’s an amazing picture of a panda. Note how it appeared only through pure unguided forces, and this is all there is and it is beyond amazing.” Adding an unnecessary atheistic veneer to ordinary scientific observation. It’s ideology mixed with zoology.

Ah I see what you mean. I think Attenburough is a fantastic narrator and naturalist. I’m not too familiar with Hawkins’ work though. If someone in a nature documentary said the above quote, I would assume they are saying that the Panda was not lured out with food, or scared out of a shelter, or tranquilized and then woken up for the camera. I completely agree with you that spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof) don’t have a place in documentaries or magazine articles of this kind…except in very low doses.

For example, a christian naturalist explaining the social structure of a bee colony might say “see how marvelously nature has been ordered.” Or an atheist naturalist might observe a school of fish being devoured by swordfish and remark, “witness the pure chaos of nature.” These things are for effect…but they shouldn’t become preachy (on either side) or it detracts from the whole thing.

Isn’t that someone who goes about naked?

Now that’s “naturist”. I’ll stop hijacking the thread now. :slight_smile:

Is Richard Attenborough still living? I’ve always enjoyed his narration and to me he seemed to hold a deep love for nature. Which inspired in me a love for God.

Unlike the narrations done by Oprah, mainly because I’m familiar with her New Age spiritualism.

I think he denies God exists because there is such a disease as River Blindness.
www.cdc.gov/parasites/onchocerciasis/

There is a pantheistic sense one gets from many scientists enamoured with the cosmos or beauty of evolution. Jerry Coyne wrote an article in USA Today a few days ago where he denied free will and even “himself”, but what followed was his sense of wonder for the evolved human brain which creates an illusion of self and free will to itself (he never explains what or who is being fooled to think what or who has a free will but that’s just his lousy philosophy). I think of all these people as having some alternative form of spirituality, a patheistic type - God is in the laws of physics and a sense of wonder at the complexity and beauty of the cosmsos (life etc) and although life itself is meaningless we can find meaning in it, even though we don’t really exist but we can still feel wonder and we can celebrate that wonder (even though the celebration is really an illusion too).

Oh I think Attenborough and even Dawkins are interesting and good when they stick to their own field without philosophizing.

Ok no more hijacking threads… sorry.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.