Neil Degrasse Tyson on atheism and agnosticism

[angrysoba]

Wilson's a deist. He believes in a fairly inactive deity.
Seems rather at odds with his claims against faith, doesn't it?

Yeah, I certainly did not know that. He's also against "-isms" according to that video so I don't know how he gives deism a pass.

 

[Dissolution]

Yeah, I certainly did not know that. He's also against "-isms" according to that video so I don't know how he gives deism a pass.

Because it's his -ism, perhaps?

 

[Dani]

NDT said something very similar in the Rationallyspeaking podcast with Massimo Pigliucci and Julia Galef. Massimo and Julia were clearly unconvinced by his rationalization, as I myself was, but they didn't seem to want to engage in a debate over it.

I like him. I'd rather have a beer with him than with Dawkins. But I also think he's utterly wrong. By trying to avoid being characterized the way he doesn't like he makes a characterization of atheism that is wrong. Factually and in fact semantically wrong. I can only describe his attempt at defending his position as "clumsy". Some of his statements from the video:

The only "ist" I am is a scientist.

Later on, he describes himself as an agnostic. Ok, the suffix is different, but he clearly contradicts what he conveys with this statement.

I don't associate with movements, I'm not in "ism". I just think for myself.

None of which has anything to do with whether he is an atheist or not. I don't associate with aesthetics much, but I'm brown haired, even if I don't like it.

The moment someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you.

Well, that's a very broad picture of what happens in our social exchanges, but I agree that it happens even if ironically he's making a gross generalization of it. At the same time, though, he has a choice to be explicit about what he is and what he is not regarding all the baggage. Example: Massimo Pigliucci is an atheist but he has criticized with passion other atheists like Dawkins or Harris. Whatever baggage there is with "atheism", it doesn't preclude Pigliucci or many other people from having a unique voice and think for themselves. Again, there's no argument supporting why he is not an atheist, just why he doesn't like its connotations.

And when you want to have a conversation, they will assert that they already know everything there is to know about you because of that association. And that's not the way to have a conversation. I'm sorry, it's not.

Well, how about educating people on the meaning of "atheist"? It's pretty straightforward, and any person who understands logic is capable of understanding that most of that baggage NDT is so worried about doesn't follow from its definition.

I'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real time, rather than assign a label to it and assert you know what's going to happen in advance.

Labels (aka concepts) have a purpose: communicate information. If a concept isn't clear enough for the purpose of the conversation, we always can switch to its definition. There's nothing about "labels" that prevents us from exploring each other's ideas in real time. They're just shortcuts for statements made of other labels.

My stance on religion, or spirituality or God. If I'd find a word that came closest it would be "agnostic".

Oh no! A label with its own baggage! Maybe he likes the baggage better? Also, a contradiction with earlier arguments supporting why he doesn't describe himself as an atheist (it's an "ism", it's a label).

On agnosticism and atheism:

No, they're not the same thing, and I'll tell you why. Atheists I know who proudly wear the badge are active atheists!

Well, yes. Tautologically yes. We could say that "active atheists" are "atheists who proudly wear the badge" and viceversa. The meaning is so similar that it looks nothing more than a circular argument. What about atheists? Nobody that I know claims NDT is an active atheist or an atheist who proudly wears the badge. Some just claim he's an atheist. He doesn't really address that. He doesn't even address its definition.

It's odd that the word "atheist" even exists. I don't play golf. Is there a word for non golf players?

No. Nor is there an agnostic equivalent for that matter. He defeats his own argument by labeling himself as an agnostic. Concepts such as "atheist" and "agnostic" exist because religion has permeated societies in a way golf hasn't. It's not odd, but natural that new concepts emerge and become increasingly used at the same time new controversies arise. Golf isn't pivotal and controversial enough to warrant new concepts to describe adherence to it. Religion is, it seems.

 

[Dissolution]

His objection about non-golf players is particularly pointless, as there are actually specific words for people that don't do certain things.
Teetotalers don't drink. Vegetarians don't eat meat. Bachelors aren't married.
It's a very weird thing to pick up on, to be honest.

 

[angrysoba]

Wilson's a deist. He believes in a fairly inactive deity.
Seems rather at odds with his claims against faith, doesn't it?

Hmmm...it seems that him and Dawkins have been engaged in something like a long-running row for a while, with E.O Wilson taking a few shots at Dawkins (He's a journalist not a scientist. Nobody takes the Selfish Gene seriously etc...).

Saucer of milk, table for two?

 

[angrysoba]

NDT said something very similar in the Rationallyspeaking podcast with Massimo Pigliucci and Julia Galef. Massimo and Julia were clearly unconvinced by his rationalization, as I myself was, but they didn't seem to want to engage in a debate over it.

Thanks, as I hadn't listened to the talk he had with Massimo and Julia, which is here and it is in direct response to the video in the OP.

 

[marplots]

His objection about non-golf players is particularly pointless, as there are actually specific words for people that don't do certain things.
Teetotalers don't drink. Vegetarians don't eat meat. Bachelors aren't married.
It's a very weird thing to pick up on, to be honest.

Strike bachelors off the list. They do certain things as often as possible.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Tyson is an atheist according to the dictionary definition. That's fine, so am I. He's not a New Atheist, because he disagrees with their philosophy. That's fine, I disagree with them too, and tend to identify more as a Secular Humanist. He says he's a scientist. That's great, I love science too. That's really all he needs to say.

 

[angrysoba]

Tyson is an atheist according to the dictionary definition. That's fine, so am I. He's not a New Atheist, because he disagrees with their philosophy. That's fine, I disagree with them too, and tend to identify more as a Secular Humanist. He says he's a scientist. That's great, I love science too. That's really all he needs to say.

Well, in the podcast he, Pigliucci and Galef went into the question of definitions pointing out that while words have meanings as reported in dictionaries, it is not enough to point at a dictionary entry and say that the matter is settled, as people mean different things by certain words and patterns of usage changes over time.

I think Tyson is specific about not meaning one specific dictionary definition but rather the label is comfortable with. Pigliucci and Galef seem to think he is being disingenuous, and I tend to agree, as he became evasive when they asked him what he actually believes - "I don't have beliefs" - however, I think that Pigliucci is also right to point out that "belief" has a perfectly ordinary neutral meaning set apart from the one with religious connotations.

 

[pharphis]

Because he wants to distance himself from the Four Horseman-style New Atheist stuff that the conservative Christians in America seem so afraid of, so that he can create things like Cosmos and not have people dismiss it as extremist propaganda, mainly.

He also appears to be echoing Sagan's own comments on atheism.
He's a big influence on him, so perhaps he's just making the same mistakes as the guy that inspired him?

This is an interesting idea regarding Sagan's influence. It seems plausible and they both presumably benefit on their science activism goal by distancing themselves from the straw-atheists. On the other hand, I find it unlikely that NO ONE would correct the guy (Dawkins, Dennet, etc.) either before or after the interview I linked to in the OP.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I'm kind of reminded of an interview I heard with Matt Stone and Trey Parker (the creators of South Park) who were talking about a similar issue. When asked about their actual stance on religion, given how frequently and scathingly they make fun of organized religion, they said that yes they believe in "God" but it would take them 3 hours to explain what exactly they mean by it. In some more recent interviews, they've referred to themselves as "atheist" while in older ones they mocked the New Atheist movement. It goes to show that belief, and a person's stance on religion in general, is one of those things that can be incredibly nuanced and vary greatly from individual to individual that it defies categorization by general terms. So I can sort of understand why someone would shy away from using just one label and sticking to it.

 

[Dani]

I'm kind of reminded of an interview I heard with Matt Stone and Trey Parker (the creators of South Park) who were talking about a similar issue. When asked about their actual stance on religion, given how frequently and scathingly they make fun of organized religion, they said that yes they believe in "God" but it would take them 3 hours to explain what exactly they mean by it. In some more recent interviews, they've referred to themselves as "atheist" while in older ones they mocked the New Atheist movement. It goes to show that belief, and a person's stance on religion in general, is one of those things that can be incredibly nuanced and vary greatly from individual to individual that it defies categorization by general terms. So I can sort of understand why someone would shy away from using just one label and sticking to it.

I remember that interview and thought their position was disingenuous. I had a similar position in the past for a short time until I realized that I wasn't being concise with my terms and there was no way to know whether I was being consistent. I was just playing with words.

The definition of "atheist" is very straightforward. It's not a philosophy or an ideology. It's just a very specific idea. It's easier to ascertain whether we are athests than it is to do the same with many other concepts that describe behavior and we use regularly. "Agnostic" has a different meaning, but according to the definitions, we can describe some people as agnostics and atheists at the same time. The difference is that "agnostic" focuses on epistemology (redundantly, in my opinion) and "atheist" on ontology. I much prefer the use of "atheist" to describe my position, because it's an answer to the question "do you believe in God?". "No" seems more informative than "I cannot absolutely know that". I think the concept "agnostic" is useless except for those people who really haven't given a tentative answer to the question, but I can understand that most western atheists and some believers can be described as agnostics too.

I also understand the use of "ignostic", a concept that fits Epepke's position. The premise for using "ignostic" is that God is not falsifiable because it's either absurd or too vague. I think it varies, so I can see myself using both "atheist" and "ignostic" interchangeably, depending on the situation.

Many people still confuse atheism with an ideology. It's not. Clearly, by its definition. What really worries me is basic communication. Without that you can't have a coherent conversation. Neil Degrasse Tyson argues against coherence.

 

[pharphis]

I remember that interview and thought their position was disingenuous. I had a similar position in the past for a short time until I realized that I wasn't being concise with my terms and there was no way to know whether I was being consistent. I was just playing with words.

The definition of "atheist" is very straightforward. It's not a philosophy or an ideology. It's just a very specific idea. It's easier to ascertain whether we are athests than it is to do the same with many other concepts that describe behavior and we use regularly. "Agnostic" has a different meaning, but according to the definitions, we can describe some people as agnostics and atheists at the same time. The difference is that "agnostic" focuses on epistemology (redundantly, in my opinion) and "atheist" on ontology. I much prefer the use of "atheist" to describe my position, because it's an answer to the question "do you believe in God?". "No" seems more informative than "I cannot absolutely know that". I think the concept "agnostic" is useless except for those people who really haven't given a tentative answer to the question, but I can understand that most western atheists and some believers can be described as agnostics too.

I also understand the use of "ignostic", a concept that fits Epepke's position. The premise for using "ignostic" is that God is not falsifiable because it's either absurd or too vague. I think it varies, so I can see myself using both "atheist" and "ignostic" interchangeably, depending on the situation.

Many people still confuse atheism with an ideology. It's not. Clearly, by its definition. What really worries me is basic communication. Without that you can't have a coherent conversation. Neil Degrasse Tyson argues against coherence.

Can you explain what you mean by the bolded part?

Thoughts (anyone) on apatheist as a useful term? I tend to think people use it to dodge the question of "do you believe" or appear above the fray (much like some "agnostics" (NDT's definition) do.

 

[Dani]

Can you explain what you mean by the bolded part?

Thoughts (anyone) on apatheist as a useful term? I tend to think people use it to dodge the question of "do you believe" or appear above the fray (much like some "agnostics" (NDT's definition) do.

Sure. The Dragon in My Garage, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Flying Teapot are different examples that illustrate that whatever we call "knowledge", our answer to the question "do they exist?" should be consistent with our answer regarding the existence God. That is, if we want to be consistent, of course. If we describe ourselves as agnostics, we at least have to admit that, upon being asked, we should declare our agnosticism regarding the other three claims.

And all of this highlights the existence of a premise, which is what we mean by "knowledge". If we mean scientific or objective knowledge, we already admit that it's tentative if we know what we're talking about. I include Parsimony, ECREE, Occam's Razor, Burden of Proof or whatever you want to call it in my knowledge system. If I didn't, I would have no way to know if the next time I open the front door the world is still out there.

On the other hand, if we mean something like "absolute knowledge", implying that we can't really know whether we are recognizing the absolute truth about reality, then of course I agree. But then that's just a redundant reminder of the fact that we construct our knowledge systems with assumptions or axioms and renders any affirmative use of "knowledge" useless.

I'm not against being described as an agnostic on the basis that I don't claim to absolutely know that God doesn't exist, but on the other hand it says more about my knowledge system than about my particular position on the question at hand.

 

[pharphis]

Sure. The Dragon in My Garage, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Flying Teapot are different examples that illustrate that whatever we call "knowledge", our answer to the question "do they exist?" should be consistent with our answer regarding the existence God. That is, if we want to be consistent, of course. If we describe ourselves as agnostics, we at least have to admit that, upon being asked, we should declare our agnosticism regarding the other three claims.

And all of this highlights the existence of a premise, which is what we mean by "knowledge". If we mean scientific or objective knowledge, we already admit that it's tentative if we know what we're talking about. I include Parsimony, ECREE, Occam's Razor, Burden of Proof or whatever you want to call it in my knowledge system. If I didn't, I would have no way to know if the next time I open the front door the world is still out there.

On the other hand, if we mean something like "absolute knowledge", implying that we can't really know whether we are recognizing the absolute truth about reality, then of course I agree. But then that's just a redundant reminder of the fact that we construct our knowledge systems with assumptions or axioms and renders any affirmative use of "knowledge" useless.

I'm not against being described as an agnostic on the basis that I don't claim to absolutely know that God doesn't exist, but on the other hand it says more about my knowledge system than about my particular position on the question at hand.

Ok, makes perfect sense. Well said, too

 

[JaysonR]

I think that it's worth noting that Dr. Tyson's comments are social responses to a public discourse of employing his name on behalf of atheist made media (typically social and some quote and image combination), and that Tyson's views are probably bias from experience in being party to the Beyond Belief convention (which I highly recommend to just about anyone interested in this forum).

If you sit through the entirety of that convention, it gets pretty "wild" (by the standards of conventions; not by the standards of human capacity in behavior), and a schism emerges in the community whereby anti-theists slide to one side and non-theists (at this convention; this meant not being hard on theists and that's about it) slide to the other (with pro-theists marginalized to hardly be worth mentioning).

Dr. Dawkins and Harris were very harsh because this was during a specific period where they were both actively involved in several instances of remark, rebuke and response of a variety of contentions from a variety of groups (mostly pro-theist groups, but some non-theist demographics also critiqued their methods).

To Dr. Tyson, it could be that "atheist" is reflected in Dr. Dawkins and Harris (as well as many others; e.g . Krauss) under the context of their expressions of the position in this kind of setting.

I don't really have any position on his statement; just something I thought of as I read this.

(sorry, I'm referring to the 2006 Beyond Belief convention "Science, Reason, Religion & Survival")

 

[ThunderChunky]

Tyson seems more a politician.

 

[bigred]

Awhile ago I came across this interview with NDT where he claims he's not an atheist, but an agnostic. His reason for avoiding the atheist label (while he is an atheist by definition...) appears to stem from wanting to not be grouped with the anti-theists and gnostic atheists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

This didn't sit well with me at all because I think it makes atheists look bad and backs up the common theist position that atheists say "god does not exists (gnostic atheism). I feel like he's trying to weasel into a middle ground and I wonder what the rest of you think the consequences are for this position.

I think it MIGHT make it easier for him to reach more people through his science advocacy, but I also think it spreads the common misconception that atheists claim knowledge on the non-existence of a god.

I think that's about as interesting as the Pope's views on quasars.

 

[Dissolution]

I think that it's worth noting that Dr. Tyson's comments are social responses to a public discourse of employing his name on behalf of atheist made media (typically social and some quote and image combination), and that Tyson's views are probably bias from experience in being party to the Beyond Belief convention (which I highly recommend to just about anyone interested in this forum).

If you sit through the entirety of that convention, it gets pretty "wild" (by the standards of conventions; not by the standards of human capacity in behavior), and a schism emerges in the community whereby anti-theists slide to one side and non-theists (at this convention; this meant not being hard on theists and that's about it) slide to the other (with pro-theists marginalized to hardly be worth mentioning).

Dr. Dawkins and Harris were very harsh because this was during a specific period where they were both actively involved in several instances of remark, rebuke and response of a variety of contentions from a variety of groups (mostly pro-theist groups, but some non-theist demographics also critiqued their methods).

To Dr. Tyson, it could be that "atheist" is reflected in Dr. Dawkins and Harris (as well as many others; e.g . Krauss) under the context of their expressions of the position in this kind of setting.

I don't really have any position on his statement; just something I thought of as I read this.

(sorry, I'm referring to the 2006 Beyond Belief convention "Science, Reason, Religion & Survival")

Tyson basically backed what you've put here in this short clip from that convention, which is slightly NSFW due to one instance of swearing:



I can understand what he means, but I think that he may have taken it too far.
There's quite a bit of grey between the black of a Dawkins or Hitchins and the white of his stance, in my opinion.