Neil deGrasse Tyson on religion and ..

[Antonio the Sixth]

NdGT seems like the poster child for the kind of arrogant scientism that had its heyday in the late 19th century but somehow keeps limping around in public discourse despite having been so thoroughly discredited.

Science is truly wonderful and inspiring, but it needs better advocates than the kinds of charlatans who think it's the alpha and omega of human wisdom.

[Antonio the Sixth]

NdGT seems like the poster child for the kind of arrogant scientism that had its heyday in the late 19th century but somehow keeps limping around in public discourse despite having been so thoroughly discredited.

Science is truly wonderful and inspiring, but it needs better advocates than the kinds of charlatans who think it's the alpha and omega of human wisdom.

The American Dichotomy between Faith and Reason is a bit... too much. But then again, the US hasn't moved past the 1920-1960s culture wars.

American fundamentalism really is an intellectual black hole. Its pull is so powerful that it has drained any shed of worthwhile metaphysical thinking from both Christianity's fiercest defenders and its staunchest opponents.

[Antonio the Sixth]

NdGT seems like the poster child for the kind of arrogant scientism that had its heyday in the late 19th century but somehow keeps limping around in public discourse despite having been so thoroughly discredited.

Science is truly wonderful and inspiring, but it needs better advocates than the kinds of charlatans who think it's the alpha and omega of human wisdom.

The American Dichotomy between Faith and Reason is a bit... too much. But then again, the US hasn't moved past the 1920-1960s culture wars.

American fundamentalism really is an intellectual black hole. Its pull is so powerful that it has drained any shed of worthwhile metaphysical thinking from both Christianity's fiercest defenders and its staunchest opponents.

I mean; I like Bishop Robert Barron. I find him to be an excellent theologian when it comes to matters of faith and science.

I'm not familiar with him so I'll reserve judgment. I'm talking about broader intellectual trends though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in good faith.

So your premise here is that Atlas almost never criticizes Evangelical fundamentalism? You know that's ridiculous. Or if your beef is with a specific poster or two, then you should make that clear.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in good faith.

So your premise here is that Atlas almost never criticizes Evangelical fundamentalism? You know that's ridiculous. Or if your beef is with a specific poster or two, then you should make that clear.

My premise is that if you look at modern discourse and conclude that "scientism" is the major (or even a major) problem in our society, that has more to do with your preconceived notions than it does with anything else.

Except no one actually said that. This particular thread just happens to be a critique of scientism, and you don't like that, so you're trying to shift the conversation to something else.

If you have substantive arguments, make them. If you find the whole topic uninteresting, don't post about it. But please save us this spineless bullsh*t. You're better than this, Dule.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in good faith.

So your premise here is that Atlas almost never criticizes Evangelical fundamentalism? You know that's ridiculous. Or if your beef is with a specific poster or two, then you should make that clear.

My premise is that if you look at modern discourse and conclude that "scientism" is the major (or even a major) problem in our society, that has more to do with your preconceived notions than it does with anything else.

Except no one actually said that. This particular thread just happens to be a critique of scientism, and you don't like that, so you're trying to shift the conversation to something else.

If you have substantive arguments, make them. If you find the whole topic uninteresting, don't post about it. But please save us this spineless bullsh*t. You're better than this, Dule.

You said that in the first comment you wrote in this thread. Don’t play dumb.

No I didn't. You might want to read that again.

For such a tireless advocate of dispassionate rationality, you're coming off awfully clouded by your own emotions on this particular matter.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in good faith.

So your premise here is that Atlas almost never criticizes Evangelical fundamentalism? You know that's ridiculous. Or if your beef is with a specific poster or two, then you should make that clear.

My premise is that if you look at modern discourse and conclude that "scientism" is the major (or even a major) problem in our society, that has more to do with your preconceived notions than it does with anything else.

Except no one actually said that. This particular thread just happens to be a critique of scientism, and you don't like that, so you're trying to shift the conversation to something else.

If you have substantive arguments, make them. If you find the whole topic uninteresting, don't post about it. But please save us this spineless bullsh*t. You're better than this, Dule.

You said that in the first comment you wrote in this thread. Don’t play dumb.

No I didn't. You might want to read that again.

For such a tireless advocate of dispassionate rationality, you're coming off awfully clouded by your own emotions on this particular matter.

You said that “arrogant scientism” is a problem with public discourse. My point is that it is the exact opposite of “scientism” that is the problem with public discourse around science. Can you address that argument, or will this exchange continue its devolution into useless pedantry?

I said arrogant scientism was a presence in public discourse, which it objectively is (in fact, my exact word choice was "limping around", which hardly makes it sounds like the Major Issue like you claimed I said). I am not contractually obligated to only talk about major societal problems, nor is anyone else on this forum. I try to put some degree of thought in my word choice and I'd appreciate if you stopped putting words in my mouth. If not wanting to be reduced to a strawman is pedantry, then so f**king be it, I'll be as "pedantic" as I need to be for you to acknowledge what I actually did and did not say. And again, if you have substantive objections to critiques of scientism, it is incumbent on you to make these objections. Otherwise this is, once again, merely whataboutism and a complete waste of both of our times.

But if you want me to spoon-feed you a substantive disagreement you're unable to provide yourself, fine, here's one for you. Scientism and fundamentalism are fundamentally (no pun intended) two sides of the same coin, in that they rest on a broken conceptual foundation that implies that science and religion are competing worldviews, rather than separate domains of human thinking that exist to answer entirely separate questions. The idiots who claim the earth is 6000 years old because "muh Bible says so" old and the idiots who claim "modern science disproves God" are making the same basic mistake. If you're truly interested in rooting out religious obscurantism, then, perhaps you should be willing to recognize this mistake and call it out whenever it rears its ugly head.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't even know if this dichotomy is that common anymore in academia.

https://stanforddaily.com/2021/04/20/constructive-science-and-religion-dialogues-at-the-university/

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2022/06/bishop-barron-says-intersection-of-faith-science-important-part-of-new-ministry

Once again, I never claimed it was common. I don't think it needs to be for me to be allowed to call it out when it's directly relevant to the thread I'm posting in.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's completely absurd to equate these two. Full stop. That's what I'm getting at with my posts in this thread, and I thank you for outright stating this false equivalency so I can address it without having to make inferences about your position.

I'm sorry you were unable to state your position in such a way as to make the disagreement clear and instead had to resort to cheap strawmanning to engineer something to be mad about. I'm sure you can do better next time.

It's ridiculous to assert that "science and religion exist to answer entirely different questions." Really? Entirely different? So religion doesn't seek to provide any answers whatsoever about the origins of the natural world or the human race? Myths don't try to explain natural occurrences or the relationship between humankind and the world? I understand that you approach religion from a philosophical perspective because you're more educated on religious philosophy than 99% of people, but it's an extreme and demonstrably incorrect statement to say that there's no overlap whatsoever between the questions science and religion address. It's possible that you personally see science and religion as completely bifurcated, with no conflict between them-- but that is not the way millions of religious people approach their faith, and I'm not going to ignore their worldviews in favor of an (incorrect) analysis of religion as something that is intended to be purely philosophical or metaphorical. Your statement here completely ignores how religion guides people's thinking in the real world.

What I think you mean to say is that they're not mutually exclusive-- which I can agree with, but that's not the same thing as saying they're entirely separate. In short, this is an argument so stupid that only a smart person could possibly make it.

Of course plenty of religious people have used religion as the basis for making empirical claims. And people like NdGT use science as the basis for making metaphysical claims. My point is that they're both epistemically incorrect in doing so, and their mistake is fundamentally the same even if it leads in opposite direction. So your argument boils down to the fact that a lot of people make this mistake, and therefore their framing should be taken as normative even though it's conceptually unsound. An oddly democratic position coming from you!

It's a basic truth that there are areas of conflict between science and religion. And once you accept that these conflicts exist, you have to make some kind of judgement about which approach is preferable to solving those conflicts. Saying that science and faith are in any way equivalent when it comes to resolving these conflicts is a false equivalency. Evidence and deductive reasoning are not in any way comparable to faith when it comes to their validity.

Or we could, you know, resolve these conflicts based on the actual merits of the specific claims involved? I've always taken the side of "science" when it comes to making testable, replicable predictions about empirical phenomena, and nothing I've posted here in any way undermines that. That's what science is for - no more and no less. What more do you want exactly? If you're looking for some dogmatic allegiance to "science" as the only source of truth, then I'm afraid you're exactly the kind of person this thread is for.

Another point: I don't think there are any adherents to "scientism" (insofar as such a thing exists) who actually think that science can answer moral truths or provide us with value judgements.

Uh, didn't Sam Harris write a whole book about exactly that?

I've certainly never heard Tyson make such a claim-- perhaps I'm not in the right online neckbeard communities to be exposed to these arguments, but I've never thought that anyone would entertain such an idea.

His main thing seems to be blithely dismissing the value of philosophy. I don't have quotes on hand but from what I've heard before he seemed anything but humble on the matter. If there's any specific claim of his you want to bring up, I'm happy to discuss it, but I'm not that interested in the topic to dig it up myself.

On the other hand, there are overwhelming numbers of religious people who would contend that religion can answer the questions that you and I would consider to be within the purview of science-- questions about the laws of nature and natural history. Many of these people do indeed post on this site.

Yes, and I've criticized them plenty of times. Your point?

In fact, the only reason people make the argument that "science and religion are not in conflict" is because religion has effectively ceded one of its primary goals-- that of explaining the natural world-- to science (and even then, only in the face of overwhelming evidence). This has precipitated the cowardly attempt by "progressive" religious philosophers to retroactively define their faith as something that is only metaphorical. If anything, this process has not gone far enough. There are still millions of people in this country who refuse to accept the basic reality of evolution and the age of the Earth.

This is a deeply ignorant (and laughably America-centric) understanding of the relationship between religion and science, which have enjoyed a productive relationship with religious structures in many civilizations across centuries. That aside, once again, I've not exactly been kind to religious fundamentalists who deny scientific findings, so all you're doing here is concern trolling.

Until that is no longer the case, I will continue to mock the assertion that "scientism" is a problem with our society that is worthy of discussion.

It's worthy of discussion because I (and other posters) am interested in discussing it. Period. If you aren't, you're welcome to f**k off from this thread. But I don't need to justify my personal gripes based on how much social harm they might cause. As if you yourself didn't constantly bring up petty bullsh*t with no real world implications on this forum. Get over yourself.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Where's the strawman? You just stated a more up-front version of what you'd implied from the beginning of this thread, and I responded to it. I'm not understanding this comment.

No, this is a completely separate point from the one you made initially. I refuse to believe you're actually that stupid, so you must be lying to my face here. You came into this discussion accusing me of having said, and I quote you, "that "scientism" is the major (or even a major) problem in our society" when I'd said nothing of the sort, and have still never said anything of the sort. I'm more than happy to move on to more productive topics of discussion, but you first have to acknowledge that you were full of sh*t.

In fact, screw it, I made a mistake by even responding to your substantive points before I actually got you to own up to that. There is just no point to arguing with someone who can't show a baseline level of intellectual honesty. If I have to be "really mean" to get that out of you, then so be it.