Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic?

[rug]

Video at this article:

http://www.chicagonow.com/an-agnostic-in-wheaton/2012/05/neil-degrasse-tyson-wrong-about-atheism/

[cbayer]

1. Preach it, Neil! Agnostic, and I think he makes a great argument for defining himself

in that way. He says it better than I ever could.

I hope everyone here takes the opportunity to watch this video.

The article, on the other hand, is a big meh to me.

[eqfan592]

3. I thought the article was very well written, and made a very valid point.

Don't get me wrong, I friggin LOVE NDT, and I completely respect his choice to consider himself an agnostic. I just wish he could have done it without promoting a stereotype of atheism at the same time.

And without a doubt, one of my favorite quotes of his: “I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t.” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

[cbayer]

4. I agree about the atheism stereotype and I realized that is what the author of

the piece objects to as well.

OTOH, I have heard the argument made repeatedly that agnostics are really just spineless atheists, and I wholeheartedly reject that notion. I like the way he explained it and will refer to that when needed.

[eqfan592]

5. I also can't agree with the notion that agnostics are "spineless."

That being said, I think agnostic used in the way NDT uses it would fit more under the term "agnostic atheist," which is what I consider myself as well. Being an atheist does not automatically mean that one claims a special knowledge that there is no god (that would be a gnostic atheist). In fact, the way NDT describes his personal beliefs is EXACTLY how I describe mine.

[cbayer]

6. Well, I object to the word agnostic being used exclusively as a modifier.

Some want you to choose a side. If you say, "I don't know", they sometimes want to box you in to being either a not knowing or knowing theist/atheist I think that's just a semantic argument without actual merit. Like NDT, many do not want to pick a side. But, as he points out, others will often then pick a side for you and proceed from there.

You and he may describe yourselves similarly, but the "labels" you choose are different. To me, this is an area when the only person who has the right to choose the label is you.

[eqfan592]

7. Like I said, I have no problem with him choosing that label.

I was simply pointing out that, based off of how he describes himself, the distance between his beliefs and that of an agnostic atheist amazingly small if not non-existent.

And note that I did not say that agnostic/gnostic can only be used as a modifier. There are indeed people out there who neither believe nor disbelieve, and simply don't care one way or another. Agnostic would seem to fit such people. And while some of what NDT said would indeed seem t place him into this category, other statements would seem to place in into the agnostic atheist category.

But like I said, I don't care how he labels himself, I just didn't appreciate the stereotyping.

[cbayer]

8. Good points.

I agree that there are those that neither believe nor disbelieve, and also those who support both believers and non-believers in general, but do not want to be identified with either of them.

I would dare say there are a lot of people like that, but I could be wrong.

[eqfan592]

11. You could be right, but I wouldn't even try to guess at any sort of number. :) nt

[rug]

2. My favorite part starts at 0:19.

"But that's not the way to have a conversation."

[AlbertCat]

9. "But that's not the way to have a conversation."

Personally, I'm sick and tired of the same ol' "conversation" over and over and over and over.....

[cbayer]

10. What would you propose to do about that?

And what particular conversation are you talking about?

[AlbertCat]

12. Educate

A little education and rational thinking would eliminate a huge amount of the "here we go again" conversations.

[cbayer]

13. Are you open to being educated as well? Or will you be the supplier of said education?

[AlbertCat]

19. Are you open to being educated as well?

I am educating myself. I'm reading "How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker right now. It's not an easy read, but then neither was Lawrence Krauss' "Quintessence". But I plod thru... re-reading sections that go over my head.

I read most of "The Black Hole Wars" by Leonard Susskin but all that string theory stuff bores me because there is no empirical evidence to support it yet. (The math is elegant and beautiful, so say even detractors of the theory).

I really get bored with stuff like Deepak Chopra which comes across as word salad, self promoting more than self aware, and ends up being a string of bumper stickers.

And I'm researching traditional patterns for Hakama so I can make a pair for my niece.

Any other questions?

[cbayer]

21. Did you watch the video in this OP yet? If so, did you learn anything?

I am educating myself all the time. I am educated by this site and this group on a daily basis.

On what would you like to educate me?

[AlbertCat]

26. On what would you like to educate me?

Well, the only thing I am really qualified to educate you on is 18th & 19th century underpinnings and gowns.


But I did watch the video. I didn't really learn much because I've heard him say it all before.

[cbayer]

28. So I remain unclear on what kinds of education you think people need to

stop these circular discussions.

I might be interested in 18th and 19th century underpinnings and gowns. Watched a wonderful English period piece last night and loved the costuming. But it might have been early 20th century, now that I think of it.

[AlbertCat]

29. So I remain unclear on what kinds of education you think people need

Ok, how about more training in critical thinking and reason and logic, and heavy on the science and arts. After all, it's science all around us making our lives less tedious than previous generations. And it's art all around us that makes it pleasant.

[cbayer]

30. So, let me make sure I understand this.

You think that the people frequenting this group need more education in the science and arts and more training in critical thinking, reason and logic so we will no longer have circular arguments regarding religion?

The most educated and astute people I know have the same debates about religion all the time, so this just makes no sense to me at all.

And it seems to me, though I may be wrong, that what you are really saying is that if religious people were more educated, then they would be wise enough to see things the way you see things.

Am I getting this right?

[rug]

14. That's not it either.

[longship]

15. Probably just silly rhetoric arguments.

I call myself an atheist. Am I also agnostic? Well, according to Huxley's definition, no. (He's the one who created the term, after all.)

Do I know that gods don't exist? Hell no! But I see absolutely no evidence for any such thing. Plus, there's the problem of the various different gods believed by many different cultures. Which god(s) is/are the right one(s)?

Here's the deal. They can't all be right. So maybe all but one of them is wrong. All believers are atheistic towards the vast proportion of all the gods humans have worshipped. I just choose to take it one more step.

BTW, do not think that I, or any atheist, would turn the world into Chromium and Steel, with no religion. I don't think any non-believer thinks that would be possible. And as far as I am concerned, that is entirely okee-dokee. I hope that is so for other non-believers, also.

But, religion is a personal thing, not a public thing. My beliefs are none of anybody's business. Not are yours mine. It is at this juncture which people of diverse religious beliefs (or lack of) can meet, one-on-one, or en masse, to realize that we all speak the same human languages, and have the same goals, no matter how many, or how few gods we believe in.

Religious people have used their political power to poison the religious well for centuries. That is the one historical truth that non-believers would have the world understand, whether they believe or not.

We all have to rise above this craven power grab by people who ultimately are saying that the extent to which you do not believe like me, you are to be cast into, dare I say, the outer darkness.

In the end, we know all the stories, we've heard all the arguments. But the one thing we have apparently not learned is probably Jesus' greatest lesson, tolerance.

Or as Oliver Cromwell said in the 17th century:

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

That's something us Democrats have to do every day. The extent to which you do not, is the extent to which you are part of the problem. It is what separates us from what we are fighting against.

Tak!

[rexcat]

16. He should be able to define himself as he wishes...

To be labeled an "atheist" has its downsides in our society. Agnostic" is a little softer to the theist ears in our society rather than atheist. There are too many "negative" connotations being labeled an atheist in our society so I understand his argument but I also see it as somewhat of a cop out, but that is just my opinion. From his conversation he currently sees no evidence of a god(s) at this time but if there was irrefutable evidence of a god(s) than that would be a game changer for him. It kind of makes him an atheist but if he wants to call himself an agnostic by all means go for it.

I see no evidence of a god or gods but I am comfortable labeling myself as an atheists rather than an agnostic. The whole story line of a virgin birth, healing by touching, the resurrection story, everlasting life (after death), etc. just seems too good to be true. Usually if it seems too good to be true it isn't. If I saw "irrefutable" evidence I would either become a believer or seek professional help. I would hope that I would seek professional help but to each his/her own.

[daaron]

17. I use agnostic as a modifier, for sure.

It touches knowledge, not belief. I suppose some agnostics might use it as a cop-out, but I suspect it's more likely they are using it as a lever-arm to give themselves room to breathe and think about a hotly contested hot-button, and very personal, subject.

[cbayer]

22. Did you watch the video.

NDT does not define himself as an agnostic to give himself room to breathe, and he is not one to cop out because it is easier.

[daaron]

23. I wasn't responding to the video (I don't like watching vids - prefer to read things).

Just reflecting on the ways which 'agnostic' is used by those who claim it.

[cbayer]

24. Here is a transcript link

http://bigthink.com/ideas/43539

But he's such a good speaker and the video is short.

[daaron]

27. Thx. Very interesting.

I appreciate the eschewing of 'isms' especially in the sciences.

[edhopper]

18. My take on him that he is an atheist,

but to him an atheist is one who is fairly sure or has decided that God does not exist. He feels God is irrelevant to his world. He is agnostic in that he doesn't know nor care about God. Atheism to him is a more active denial of God.
He sees no reason to believe in a God though.

[AlbertCat]

20. He feels God is irrelevant to his world.

Indeed.

I'd even push it to "the supernatural is irrelevant to his world."

[edhopper]

25. Though when it comes to the supernatural

he definitely isn't just agnostic.

[bananas]

31. That's a great video. nt

[darkstar3]

32. Who cares?

The way Dr. Tyson defines himself has no bearing whatsoever on me.

[rug]

33. Thank you for taking the time to say this has no bearing whatsoever on you.

[darkstar3]

34. Perhaps you are unaware of the fallacy you invoked by posting the OP in the first place?

I was trying to explain, quite simply, that just because some supposed authority figure says something doesn't make it true. It's not just that his view has no effect on me, it's that his view has no bearing on anyone besides himself.

[rug]

35. I was not aware of any fallacy until I read your post.