• 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

Correa Neto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Any concept that cannot be tested can be ignored.
 
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...
I believe that pins exist!! I am definitely a propinist as I have been physically affected by them on occasion. I am an atheist as I do not believe in theists/
 
epepke said:
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"?
Click to expand...
I had to google this since I was unaware. I would have preferred him to just be honest (assuming he isn't ignorant) about what atheism and agnosticism are, and state this he is both agnostic and atheist (assuming this is correct based on his quotes).

Maybe weasel isn't a good word to describe what he's doing in this video but it's unsettling and not just because it's a dictionary issue. I think it does harm to atheists.
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...
I know, I more or less said that somewhere in my first post, and this is part of why I have issue with this video
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 don't think Dawkins is this position. The common quote is him saying he is 6 on a scale from 1-7 for 1= god exists and 7= god does not exist. 6 would then be agnostic atheism or soft atheism. I'm too lazy to find a quote but my guess is that he probably believes there is no god, but does not assert it as knowledge
 
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...

Most of those which call themselves atheist, if you dig are in reality agnostic atheist. There are very few gnostic atheist in my experience.

As for those who call themselves "agnostic" only, if you scratch the surface long enough, you find out sooner or later that there is pretty much no difference to agnostic atheist in how they live their live or belief.
 
Aepervius said:
As for those who call themselves "agnostic" only, if you scratch the surface long enough, you find out sooner or later that there is pretty much no difference to agnostic atheist in how they live their live or belief.
Click to expand...


I usually chalk it up to a difference between theory and practice. I acknowledge the theoretical possibility that there could be something, somewhere that would fit someone's definition of a deity. In practice, my actions and decisions are pretty much indistinguishable from what they would be if I were certain there were no such thing.

I remain a Tyson fan, but I really can't stand the "I don't believe in gods, but I don't like to consider myself an atheist" bit. To me it's like saying, "I have brown hair, but I don't like to consider myself a brunette." Just because you don't like what certain people do and say, you don't get to go changing the meanings of words just to avoid grouping yourself with them.
 
Aepervius said:
Most of those which call themselves atheist, if you dig are in reality agnostic atheist. There are very few gnostic atheist in my experience.

As for those who call themselves "agnostic" only, if you scratch the surface long enough, you find out sooner or later that there is pretty much no difference to agnostic atheist in how they live their live or belief.
Click to expand...

If you keep digging and scratching you're bound to hit a nerve.
 
tsig said:
Any concept that cannot be tested can be ignored.
Click to expand...
Well, yes.

But they are pretty good stuff to discuss after one too many pints or joints. And some young chicks can be impressed by this stuff too. So, it has its uses.
 
Correa Neto said:
Well, yes.

But they are pretty good stuff to discuss after one too many pints or joints. And some young chicks can be impressed by this stuff too. So, it has its uses.
Click to expand...

Indisputable.:)
 
pharphis said:
I don't think Dawkins is this position. The common quote is him saying he is 6 on a scale from 1-7 for 1= god exists and 7= god does not exist. 6 would then be agnostic atheism or soft atheism. I'm too lazy to find a quote but my guess is that he probably believes there is no god, but does not assert it as knowledge
Click to expand...



I think that's correct - I don't recall Richard Dawkins ever saying that a god (or God) of some sort is absolutely impossible in the literal sense of him knowing that as a matter of certainty.

What he says is that there is no evidence of such a God. And he might very well go further, as I would, and point out that all the evidence from science is overwhelmingly against any such supernatural creator.

As far as Victor Stenger is concerned - afaik (from his book and YouTube clips) his position is the same as that of Richard Dawkins and all other non-religious scientists. He treats it as a matter of evidence. And all the evidence from science is now overwhelmingly against the sort of gods and other supernatural beliefs that were common in ancient times.

Of course in casual conversation, Dawkins, Stenger, or any of us, might make an unguarded remark to say that such supernatural gods are surely imaginary. But what that really means, in more careful language, is that the evidence of science (and all other subjects) is very clearly against the possibility of supernatural gods of that sort.
 
Last edited:
I simply don't understand agnosticism as commonly understood.

No-one's agnostic about Thor or the sock monster. Why equivocate over one fictional figure in thousands.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Indisputable.:)
Click to expand...
Yeah.

But such and others nice occasions are very rare. Usually people will be asking about a specific god, the Abrahamic god. The "agnostic" answer will be misunderstood and maybe even trigger a "GOTCHA!" moment.

Sure, the answer may depend on the moment. Sometimes I'll just say "I am... Oh, wait, gotta go to the loo. I'll be right back... "
 
3point14 said:
I simply don't understand agnosticism as commonly understood.

No-one's agnostic about Thor or the sock monster. Why equivocate over one fictional figure in thousands.
Click to expand...

Not believing in the sock monster or Thor doesn't mean someone might not believe in or be open to the possibility of a "higher power" for lack of a better phrase. I could see someone finding the Norse Pantheon unsatisfying but be open to Spinoza's Pantheism or Epicurean indifferent gods.
 
Craig4 said:
Not believing in the sock monster or Thor doesn't mean someone might not believe in or be open to the possibility of a "higher power" for lack of a better phrase. I could see someone finding the Norse Pantheon unsatisfying but be open to Spinoza's Pantheism or Epicurean indifferent gods.
Click to expand...

You see, to me, that's just another story with no evidence.

All of these deities or higher powers, all of them, are made up off the top of the head of some mescalined out stone aged mystic or some overly keen theology professor or by someone in between. The one thing none of them have going for them is evidence, they're all speculative fiction. I will admit that some of these fantasies have more consistent internal logic than others but this is mainly achieved simply by moving the fiction further away rather than it being any more true.
 
Ask NDT to make a list of all the gods he believes in.

If that list is empty, then that would make him without a belief in god, and, hence, atheist.
 
pgwenthold said:
Ask NDT to make a list of all the gods he believes in.

If that list is empty, then that would make him without a belief in god, and, hence, atheist.
Click to expand...

I don't know if that works.

If I had to make a list of extra-terrestrial civilizations I believed in I would also come up with an empty list. But it does not follow that I am completely without belief in extra-terrestrial civilizations. I'm not an a-ETist!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom