Neil Degrasse Tyson on atheism and agnosticism

[tsig]

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.

Why have such namby pamby higher powers, my higher powers really, really like me and hate everyone else the only reason HE'S not smiting everyone in sight is that I am praying mightily for HIM to restrain HIS hand and unless you send me money I will be forced to let HIM go.

Cash, check money order, credit cards, letters of credit, cowrie shells or wampum accepted.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Have you been talking to research theologians again?

Wiki.

 

[Olowkow]

Tyson has a public image as a popular scientist evangelist to protect, and he tries to be as diplomatic as he can by denying any anti-theism tendencies. He wants to come across as an Einstein or a Hawking sort of non-believer, rather than a Dawkins or Bill Maher type with regard to religion. He seems to be saying, "I'm not certain what I believe, because I don't want to publicly claim that I know for sure if there is a god or not." Additionally, in trying to ride the agnostic fence, Tyson is mistakenly lumping all "atheists" with "activist atheists" such as Matt Dillahunty and trying to distance himself from any allegiance to the latter.

"At the end of the day, I'd rather not be any category at all." He really doesn't want to be known as a fan boy of one side or the other, but he seems to know that this attitude risks offending both sides. In a way, he is very much like many of us, myself included, on a journey to understanding our supernatural beliefs. Frankly, his monologue strikes me as muddled and rambling, and I think he knows it.

 

[hgc]

Tyson has a public image as a popular scientist evangelist to protect, and he tries to be as diplomatic as he can by denying any anti-theism tendencies. He wants to come across as an Einstein or a Hawking sort of non-believer, rather than a Dawkins or Bill Maher type with regard to religion. He seems to be saying, "I'm not certain what I believe, because I don't want to publicly claim that I know for sure if there is a god or not." Additionally, in trying to ride the agnostic fence, Tyson is mistakenly lumping all "atheists" with "activist atheists" such as Matt Dillahunty and trying to distance himself from any allegiance to the latter.

"At the end of the day, I'd rather not be any category at all." He really doesn't want to be known as a fan boy of one side or the other, but he seems to know that this attitude risks offending both sides. In a way, he is very much like many of us, myself included, on a journey to understanding our supernatural beliefs. Frankly, his monologue strikes me as muddled and rambling, and I think he knows it.

That makes sense. He's trying to find the pleasantest possible way to describe his atheism. In the end, the risk of offending the activist atheist side is inconsequential. Our numbers are tiny. The non-activist atheists for the most part aren't even aware that their own lack of belief is properly described as atheism, so they sure don't care.

 

[Craig4]

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.

Not believing in Thor is like not believing a comic book character is your god. All ideas about gods aren't the same. It's all argument from assertion really with no evidence. However, rejecting something patently absurd like a sock monster and being unsure if god is the universe or if there is an intelligence behind nature isn't the same thing.

 

[Aepervius]

Not believing in Thor is like not believing a comic book character is your god. All ideas about gods aren't the same. It's all argument from assertion really with no evidence. However, rejecting something patently absurd like a sock monster and being unsure if god is the universe or if there is an intelligence behind nature isn't the same thing.

Pretty much all religion make far more claim than what would be the equivalent of "deism" or a natural force. Pretty much all theology today make claim equivalent to the sock monster basically , compared to deism or natural force.

 

[Lorentz]

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.

Personally I'm a bit worried about the possible existence of C'thulhu....
Yaweh? He's a pussy.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

However, rejecting something patently absurd like a sock monster and being unsure if god is the universe or if there is an intelligence behind nature isn't the same thing.

Intelligence is a property of our brains. The idea that a giant brain is the Universe and created nature is quite ridiculous. How is that less absurd than a sock monster?

The sock monster is actually more plausible. For a start, it doesn't have to possess fantastic intelligence or the power to create an entire Universe - it just has to eat socks. Secondly, we have more evidence for it (missing socks) than we do for an 'intelligence' whose creation doesn't seem to have been intelligently designed.

 

[Craig4]

Intelligence is a property of our brains. The idea that a giant brain is the Universe and created nature is quite ridiculous. How is that less absurd than a sock monster?

The sock monster is actually more plausible. For a start, it doesn't have to possess fantastic intelligence or the power to create an entire Universe - it just has to eat socks. Secondly, we have more evidence for it (missing socks) than we do for an 'intelligence' whose creation doesn't seem to have been intelligently designed.

I'm not defending Spinoza or sock monsters (I was assuming a monster made out of socks). I'm suggesting that you can't just say a comic book character god doesn't exist which means no gods exist. Saying we all know what it's like to not believe in Thor it doesn't follow that we should then say "well if you reject Thor there's no reason to be unsure about any other gods".

 

[qayak]

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.

They moved and didn't leave a forwarding address.

Sure you think I am kidding but that is the nature of trying to prove a negative, there is always an explanation for why the evidence can't be found. It maybe absurd, or even improbable but it isn't impossible which is the last grasp of all god botherers.

 

[qayak]

Saying we all know what it's like to not believe in Thor it doesn't follow that we should then say "well if you reject Thor there's no reason to be unsure about any other gods".

Actually, it does follow unless you use a special pleading fallacy for the other gods.

 

[tsig]

Not believing in Thor is like not believing a comic book character is your god. All ideas about gods aren't the same. It's all argument from assertion really with no evidence. However, rejecting something patently absurd like a sock monster and being unsure if god is the universe or if there is an intelligence behind nature isn't the same thing.

OK, then post some of those special ideas about gods.

 

[hgc]

I'm not defending Spinoza or sock monsters (I was assuming a monster made out of socks). I'm suggesting that you can't just say a comic book character god doesn't exist which means no gods exist. Saying we all know what it's like to not believe in Thor it doesn't follow that we should then say "well if you reject Thor there's no reason to be unsure about any other gods".

This idea usually rests on the argument that all gods have essentially the same quality of evidence to support them. To be intellectually consistent, as goes Thor so goes Jesus. Faith has no such need of consistency.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Nobody seems to like my suggestion to use the terms Erect and Flaccid Atheist.

 

[epepke]

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.

Yeah, you said that.

Why is harming atheists bad?

I could say that I don't want to be harmed, and I'm an atheist, but that's just me. Looking around at organized atheism these days, it strikes me that quite a few could do with a swift kick in the crotch to several kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium.

 

[pharphis]

Yeah, you said that.

Why is harming atheists bad?

I could say that I don't want to be harmed, and I'm an atheist, but that's just me. Looking around at organized atheism these days, it strikes me that quite a few could do with a swift kick in the crotch to several kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium.

Harming atheists is bad because it spreads the misconception that atheists all claim knowledge of god's nonexistence. There are certainly some atheists that might deserve to be scolded or refuted for whatever harm they may be doing but the rest of us do not deserve it

 

[3point14]

Not believing in Thor is like not believing a comic book character is your god. All ideas about gods aren't the same. It's all argument from assertion really with no evidence. However, rejecting something patently absurd like a sock monster and being unsure if god is the universe or if there is an intelligence behind nature isn't the same thing.

I think it is. Both are fictional creatures with no basis in reality used to explain that which is not understood. There's no evidence for the existence of either anywhere at all, both exist only in the imaginations of people. They're exactly the same. I find both equally absurd.

Why do you think one is any more patently absurd than the other?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Nobody seems to like my suggestion to use the terms Erect and Flaccid Atheist.

Isn't silence better than stiff opposition from the forum members?

 

[tsig]

Yeah, you said that.

Why is harming atheists bad?

I could say that I don't want to be harmed, and I'm an atheist, but that's just me. Looking around at organized atheism these days, it strikes me that quite a few could do with a swift kick in the crotch to several kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium.

Yes, some atheists seem to lack that doctrinal purity that we all value so highly. A purge is definitely on order.

 

[tsig]

Isn't silence better than stiff opposition from the forum members?

As long as we do not erect too many barriers and force the opposition to stand up.