Neil deGrasse Tyson on religion and ..

[°Leprechaun]

..science

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

I will add more later....

[jojoju1998]

I'm a Catholic so...

[RINO Tom]

“Normally I don’t go here…”

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

[Del Tachi]

..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.

[jojoju1998]

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.

[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.

[jojoju1998]

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.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

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.

[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.

[jojoju1998]

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.

He's the now Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Winona Rochester in Minnesota. He runs the world on fire ministry, which is a digital ministry.

[°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".

[jojoju1998]

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.

[°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.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

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.

[°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".

[jojoju1998]

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.

Yeah but you're making a huge dichotomy between science and faith.

The American evangelical trend doesn't help. But that's not the entirety of Christian thought. You have to go to Europe, where all the big names have worked. People like Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, Henri DeLubac, Karl Barth, have worked for years on the issues of science, modernity, and religion.


Have you heard of Robert Barron ? He's a Catholic Bishop in the US, that has lectured many times on faith and reason. He has his own Digital Media Ministry, which I think is so cool. Go watch his YouTube videos and his dialogues with prominent secularists.



Like, when you think of Christianity, who do you think of ?

[jojoju1998]

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".

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

[John Dule]

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.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

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.

[°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.

[James Monroe]

Seen the video before and I'll make the case for Neil Degrasse Tyson.

We're intrigued by majority rule in any structural society, so we spend our time ponding the sizable minority to join in the circle. With a tiny minority the rule of thumb becomes more discerning. You have to ask ourselves how can we covert a small amount of people to come over our side. Well, in the study a 7% of the National Academy of Science believe in a personal God. You can make some documented work on how such a insignificant number of highly educated people working in a secularized field are still longing for a personal deity. If that a number of people of people are convince believers how are you going to convince many more people in the population to come forth of holding down a belief that a God may not exist, when the population by large are more uneducated by not attending college, where the populace are more exposed to the religious concepts than any matter of scientific principle, no matter how much they teach basic science in the public schools.  What this shows is the United States has an inefficient science educational structure that needs to be reform so that young people can understand these abstract concepts at a young age to prepare them for a lifetime of critical thinking.

[RINO Tom]

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 truly great and articulate physicists I enjoy listening to are very humble and practically enthusiastic about the fact that their disciplines aren't TRYING to make claims in the arena of philosophy or the ultimate question of who/what created the Universe ... it's a non-falsifiable claim, it's not part of their expertise!  Folks engaging in a dogmatic devotion to the belief that natural sciences will eventually solve every question appear much less articulate and much less impressive in comparison.

[John Dule]

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.

Regardless of whether they're on this particular site, they exist, and they're always going to be a bigger problem than a few Reddit fedora-wearers. If the worst thing people can think of to say about my ideology is that it's "cringe," I consider that a win.

[RINO Tom]

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.

Did someone here say that?