Neil deGrasse Tyson on religion and ..

[°Leprechaun]

..science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxz0W4OgG9k

I will add more later....

[°Leprechaun]

One need not be an expert in a subject to have an opinion of that particular subject.
Tyson is citing polls which in themselves are not necessarily scientific.

I am not an expert on science and religion, but I tend to agree with someone like Tyson and those like him, because he talks common sense.

Certainly, Tyson has enough knowledge to discern science from pseudoscience.

Science has facts to back it up, so when someone tries to discredit science, does that mean that such a person is ignoring accepted facts?

Anyway, I would give this video (and there are numerous others) a thumbs up.

So Neil deGrasse Tyson says you don't have to be scientifically illiterate to be religious. Cool?

And I don't know where he's getting these numbers from, but color me skeptical that <1% of "non-religion philosophers" are irreligious. If anything, it's a cop-out to separate philosophers from "religion philosophers" or theologians because both have the same fundamental objectives, even if their approaches are radically different.

“Normally I don’t go here…”

Huh?  He assumes he’s an expert on everything BESIDES Astrophysics, lol.

I think that both Tyson and Dawkins are brilliant contributors (arguably more so for Dawkins) in their respective fields. But otherwise, I wish these guys would stick to their own lane.

Would you say the same thing about religious people who try to justify their beliefs using "science".

[°Leprechaun]

One need not be an expert in a subject to have an opinion of that particular subject.
Tyson is citing polls which in themselves are not necessarily scientific.

I am not an expert on science and religion, but I tend to agree with someone like Tyson and those like him, because he talks common sense.

Certainly, Tyson has enough knowledge to discern science from pseudoscience.

Science has facts to back it up, so when someone tries to discredit science, does that mean that such a person is ignoring accepted facts?

Anyway, I would give this video (and there are numerous others) a thumbs up.

So Neil deGrasse Tyson says you don't have to be scientifically illiterate to be religious. Cool?

And I don't know where he's getting these numbers from, but color me skeptical that <1% of "non-religion philosophers" are irreligious. If anything, it's a cop-out to separate philosophers from "religion philosophers" or theologians because both have the same fundamental objectives, even if their approaches are radically different.

“Normally I don’t go here…”

Huh?  He assumes he’s an expert on everything BESIDES Astrophysics, lol.

I think that both Tyson and Dawkins are brilliant contributors (arguably more so for Dawkins) in their respective fields. But otherwise, I wish these guys would stick to their own lane.

Would you say the same thing about religious people who try to justify their beliefs using "science".

It was a Catholic Priest named Georges LeMaitre, a A Belgian priest who developed the idea of the Big Bang as a valid explanation for the beginning of the Universe, and the Soviet Union at the time opposed the idea; because they thought it was too religiously based.

Of course, scientific theories come from people of all religions (and also from those with no religion)
The problem is with people who use religion to trump science.

[°Leprechaun]

One need not be an expert in a subject to have an opinion of that particular subject.
Tyson is citing polls which in themselves are not necessarily scientific.

I am not an expert on science and religion, but I tend to agree with someone like Tyson and those like him, because he talks common sense.

Certainly, Tyson has enough knowledge to discern science from pseudoscience.

Science has facts to back it up, so when someone tries to discredit science, does that mean that such a person is ignoring accepted facts?

Anyway, I would give this video (and there are numerous others) a thumbs up.

So Neil deGrasse Tyson says you don't have to be scientifically illiterate to be religious. Cool?

And I don't know where he's getting these numbers from, but color me skeptical that <1% of "non-religion philosophers" are irreligious. If anything, it's a cop-out to separate philosophers from "religion philosophers" or theologians because both have the same fundamental objectives, even if their approaches are radically different.

“Normally I don’t go here…”

Huh?  He assumes he’s an expert on everything BESIDES Astrophysics, lol.


I think that both Tyson and Dawkins are brilliant contributors (arguably more so for Dawkins) in their respective fields. But otherwise, I wish these guys would stick to their own lane.

Would you say the same thing about religious people who try to justify their beliefs using "science".

Perhaps. It depends. But a Catholic priest was heavily involved with the formulation of the Big Bang theory. That doesn't prove God necessarily through a physical lens, but theists would point out how miniscule the chances are of all the perfect conditions for life setting in, especially since pre-Big Bang the universe was fueled by a mysterious energy that permeated space itself that was rapidly expanding in a fraction of a second -- but the universe was desolate and too cold to sustain life at this point.

Things like is there life on other planets.. did the universe have a beginning.. is the universe really infinite etc etc are mysteries that might not ever be "solved".

[°Leprechaun]

"So you do not believe that the Universe has a beginning ?"

Can anybody really know? So, no I don't know myself.

This was explored on a similar question about time in my op of this thread:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=545445.0

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.

Fortunately there aren't very many fundamentalists on this forum. If you want to debate Extreme Republican on evolution though, be my guest. I'd read it.

That would definitely be interesting.

[°Leprechaun]

My view on religion can be summed up with three words.
Nobody needs religion.

[°Leprechaun]

There's a big difference between "scientism" and "fundamentalism".
The former is (or should be) based on things like common sense, logic, facts, reason, etc.
The latter seems to be based more on an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible.
A literal interpretation is obviously easily refuted.
If anyone wants to challenge the previous statement bring it on.

I would add that science has been misused for evil purposes.

One problem that I have with religion in the US, has to do with language. Certain words are much more ambiguous and abstract than some people realize.
There are a lot, so I am not going to list all of them.

Take the word "Christian". There is no commonly agreed upon definition.

"The infinite" can't be defined.
"The infinite" can't be limited and to define something is to limit it. (although one can take exception to that statement)

Then there's the word "atheist". It can mean someone who doesn't believe in God (includes agnostics) or someone who believes that God does not exist (does not include agnostics).

I would be interested in definitions of "pantheist" and "panentheist" .
I would interested in discussions of pantheism and deism, but perhaps not in this thread since such a discussion would likely interfere with what is currently being discussed.

[°Leprechaun]

That's not what Scientism is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I didn't quote your entire post because it's long, but I really appreciate the work that you put into it.

If I get a chance today or tomorrow I will respond further.
Call this post a first but not last draft. I may create another post rather than editing this one.. idk

I don't think Harris or others on the metaphorical coin believe that science has all the answers. I certainly don't. It's quite possible it never will. Perhaps,  it is an unfair grotesque generalization but I tend to think the belief that the Bible is the inerant word of God is to authoritarian for me. Certainly I am not suggesting that the majority of Christians believe that.

[°Leprechaun]

That's not what Scientism is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I didn't quote your entire post because it's long, but I really appreciate the work that you put into it.

Hot Take : The New Atheists have more in common with the Christian Fundamentalists than people think.

I think that is a false equivalency, although if you mean only that there is some commonality, that's another matter. I don't think that they are two sides of the same coin. I tend to think it a mistake to compare such different world views. I'll be back later to see where this thread is headed.

[°Leprechaun]

At this point this thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

For the moment, things are quiet, maybe the discussion has ended.

So, I am not sure if I want to add anything at this point in time.

Regardless of what one's view of science and scientism is, I know science has brought about immense change, some good and some bad.