• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Neil Degrasse Tyson on atheism and agnosticism

pharphis

Master Poster
P
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
2,169
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.
 
Would you be happier if he said that he didn't want to be called an atheist because he didn't want to be lumped in with PZ Myers, who after all, despises what he calls "dictionary atheists"?
 
Ultimately it is up to him. I think it is interesting that in days gone by Bertrand Russell found himself having a similar problem and noted that when he spoke to intelligent people he referred to himself as an agnostic because his audience readily understood what he meant by that, whereas when he spoke to "the ordinary man in the street" he would call himself an atheist in order to "convey the right impression". It seems to me that Neil DeGrasse Tyson calls himself an agnostic to people in the street to avoid conveying the right impression:

Bertrand Russell said:
Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I tend to have sympathy with people accused of weaseling, because I've been accused of weaseling myself. Anybody who has read anything I write, though, knows that I don't weasel a lot. I say things pretty directly, even obnoxiously and offensively.

But I also have an extremely hard time answering a question of whether I believe in god. From a lot of perspectives, I don't, because a belief in god does not exist within my brain. Nor does a belief in mpsgrvld zxlbkrs, which means about as much to me as god. I don't know what it's supposed to mean, but obviously the person asking the question at least believes they know what it is supposed to mean.

It's like asking me if X=37. Well, I don't know. What is X? And then they don't say anything meaningful. So I'm an agnostic? Maybe not. I'm not undecided about the answer to a question I understand. I'm being asked to answer a question I don't understand, and none of the people who believe in god or X have told me what they are talking about. The ones who really, really believe are especially bad at it, which makes me wonder even more what they are trying to ask.

This is probably not the answer deGrasse Tyson would give, but it makes me understand if he might not give the answer that I, you, or anybody else would want.
 
Belz... said:
If he doesn't believe in god, he's an atheist. The definition of atheist isn't "knows for a fact that there are no gods."
Click to expand...

It depends upon what your definition of atheist is. I'm sure he is as much of an atheist as you or I am in the sense that he has no belief in God. But he is probably not one in the sense of actively denying the existence of one in the sense that say Victor Stenger might have done.
 
Exactly right, Gawdzilla. How many times have we had this discussion over the precisely-shaded meaning of atheist and agnostic and "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism and every other such thing.

I don't have any problem with the term atheist myself, while at the same time acknowledging that I cannot "disprove" some sort of god.
The simple fact is that there is no evidence of any gods, so why invest belief?
 
Bikewer said:
Exactly right, Gawdzilla. How many times have we had this discussion over the precisely-shaded meaning of atheist and agnostic and "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism and every other such thing.

I don't have any problem with the term atheist myself, while at the same time acknowledging that I cannot "disprove" some sort of god.
The simple fact is that there is no evidence of any gods, so why invest belief?
Click to expand...

This.

I think NDG would be as convinced as the rest of us if the proper evidence for a god (or gods) were presented. So far there has been no evidence presented.
 
Sounds to me like he's saying he's an atheist, but he doesn't want to be associated with the political and activist side of atheism because he really doesn't care and just wants to do his job.
A very practical stance, if avoidant. Not everybody has the inclination to split hairs over how many non existent angels can dance on the head of a non existent pin.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Sounds to me like he's saying he's an atheist, but he doesn't want to be associated with the political and activist side of atheism because he really doesn't care and just wants to do his job.
A very practical stance, if avoidant. Not everybody has the inclination to split hairs over how many non existent angels can dance on the head of a non existent pin.
Click to expand...

And on the practical side he wants to avoid having a campaign get going to fire him because he's an atheist.
 
angrysoba said:
It depends upon what your definition of atheist is. I'm sure he is as much of an atheist as you or I am in the sense that he has no belief in God. But he is probably not one in the sense of actively denying the existence of one in the sense that say Victor Stenger might have done.
Click to expand...

Which definition of atheist covers the second sense ?
 
Belz... said:
Which definition of atheist covers the second sense ?
Click to expand...

Well, here are the two that I have in mind:

1.) Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none. (example: NDT)

2.) Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist. (examples: Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger)

I took it from here which and reversed the two definitions to put them in the same order as my last post.
 
Meh. I don't see the point of the distinction, and there isn't much of a difference anyway. No one knows for sure. Doesn't change the fact that, if you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist.
 
angrysoba said:
Well, here are the two that I have in mind:

1.) Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none. (example: NDT)

2.) Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist. (examples: Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger)

I took it from here which and reversed the two definitions to put them in the same order as my last post.
Click to expand...

I am an atheist because I have never seen any thing to indicate that there is any entities called gods. I searched in a Catholic seminary and a lifetime of study and searching anywhere that anyone said they had found the divine yet I never saw any indication that god existed anywhere outside the human mind so I concluded that god is just as real as Santa or Satan.
 
Bertrand Russell is quite likely one of my top 3 philosophers, but I most respectfully disagree - to a point - with some bits of what he said and was posted by Angrysoba.

Fully agree on the issue of having doubts regarding whether say "Agnostic" or "Atheist" and that the answer can depend on the audience.

Now, my disagreement comes to testing the existence of gods. Some can be tested - I think all concepts of gods that make predictions about the universe can be, in principle, tested. Zeus and part of his entourage live at the Olympus, right? All we have to do is to climb or fly above the Olympus.

"Atheist" is, in my opinion, the best answer I can give regarding Zeus, Odin and the Abrahamic gods. "Agnostic" applies to concepts that most likely are not being considered by most possible interlocutors I met and can think about; they have some Abrahamic concept in mind.

I am pretty sure also that Russel would probably demolish my argument above in many ways, some of which I would not understand, but... I'll sitck for now with my position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom