Neil de Grasse Tyson: I'm agnostic

Amtmann

Thought folks might find this interesting.

Gbear

So essentially he says that he doesn't want to be an atheist because people on the other side of the god debate are unable to understand what it means and he'd rather avoid the hassle?

Dades

It's not as if people make all sorts of assumptions about you when you say in public you're an atheist...

(You militant religion-bashing Dawkins lovers...)

Mickeroo

Is there a word for people who don't ski? Snowboarders Neil, snowboarders.

magicbastarder

there *is* a word for people who don't play golf - 'proletariat'.

Turtwig

magicbastarder wrote: »

there *is* a word for people who don't play golf - 'proletariat'.

Em . . .

Zombrex

He seems to want to distance himself from "atheism" as a movement that discusses itself and reflects on how religion is wrong.

Fair enough. While not the technical definition of an atheist, that is certainly a common lay term usage of the term, to declare oneself an atheist implies active participation in atheist movements.

The problem would be that he reverts to agnostic as it was originally meant, rather than how it is used in modern terms. I'm pretty sure Tyson does not believe in a religious god and does not think such a belief is particularly reasonable. The modern usage of agnostic is a person who has not made their mind up but holds either position reasonable (atheist or theist). That is not how Tyson seems to use the term, he uses in its original form.

So on the one hand he rejects the a modern usage of atheist, but then on the other reverts by an older less used term of agnostic. Perhaps this is just easier to him, but personally I would think it would be easier to explain that atheist simply means non-acceptance of theistic claims.

He is still my man crush though ... drool ...

Penn

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

doctoremma

He sounds like Einstein.

mikhail

It seems he's distancing himself from an argument that getting involved in would harm his ability to promote science. In the end, He'll do more good with that than all of us put together are likely to achieve in the name of atheism. I guess I'm saying I'm okay with this.

Bryan Cox is similar in emphasising that it's an argument he doesn't want to get involved in.

Gbear

mikhail wrote: »

It seems he's distancing himself from an argument that getting involved in would harm his ability to promote science. In the end, He'll do more good with that than all of us put together are likely to achieve in the name of atheism. I guess I'm saying I'm okay with this.

Bryan Cox is similar in emphasising that it's an argument he doesn't want to get involved in.

I think it's kinda the problem with the rational community in general.

It manifests itself in both climate and evolution denial situations where it might be productive if scientists coupled fact with the snakey weasel tactics of the deniers and as a result, might be able to convince people more easily.

The likes of DeGrasse Tyson and Cox are perhaps a bit more media savvy, less concerned with being "right" in the strictest sense, so long as science as a whole benefits from how they engage people.

Pushtrak

Something worth reading... http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/09_sept_oct/Tyson.html

Tyson expounds on the subject.

Sparks

mikhail wrote: »

Bryan Cox is similar in emphasising that it's an argument he doesn't want to get involved in.

Which is understandable.

And then you try to find a school in Ireland that isn't run by priests or nuns in which to enroll your first child and suddenly, you find that that argument that looked like a complete waste of time, has suddenly transformed into an argument that is a complete waste of suddenly far more precious time, and that that argument is no longer ignorable, but has gotten right up in your face.

At that point (which is where I feel I am at the moment, having to look at schools to enroll my new son in despite him being barely a month old - because there just aren't that many non-religious schools in Ireland), the whole atheist movement becomes a necessity rather than an intellectual indulgence.

Pushtrak

FFS...

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/mum-demands-catholic-education-for-son-3095427.html

Zillah

Pushtrak wrote: »

FFS...

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/mum-demands-catholic-education-for-son-3095427.html

How dare you not perpetuate the privilege that I have grown used to.

Zombrex

Pushtrak wrote: »

FFS...

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/mum-demands-catholic-education-for-son-3095427.html

This highlights exactly why secularism is necessary. There are only two fair options, build a school for every belief out there, or make all schools equal. Of course the second is really the only option.

I-Shot-Jr

Zombrex wrote: »

This highlights exactly why secularism is necessary. There are only two fair options, build a school for every belief out there, or make all schools equal. Of course the second is really the only option.

From what I understand she wants her children to be taught Catholicism and raised catholic by the school. And she can't do this herself...because?

When I have kids I'm going to demand that the state provide them education on the force and the ways of the jedi. Let's see how far I get.

Icepick

mikhail wrote: »

In the end, He'll do more good with that than all of us put together are likely to achieve in the name of atheism.

That's because there is nothing to achieve in the name of atheism.

The entire debate about atheism and agnosticism is a red herring.
If someone asks you if there are unicorns or fairies, do you answer I don't know or no?

Gbear

Icepick wrote: »

That's because there is nothing to achieve in the name of atheism.

The entire debate about atheism and agnosticism is a red herring.
If someone asks you if there are unicorns or fairies, do you answer I don't know or no?

You say "I don't know" because one can never know for certain.
In the strictest sense everyone should be agnostic about literally everything.
However, I'm afairyest because I do not believe there are fairies.

The question of atheist or theist pertains to belief. You're either one or the other. Either you believe or you don't believe. What you know is a different question.

"Is there a god" is one of agnostic or gnostic. Most Theists seem to gnostic.
Most atheists if you were to really push them and if they were being logically consistent would be agnostic.

Sparks

Gbear wrote: »

Most atheists if you were to really push them and if they were being logically consistent would be agnostic.

<insert reference to teapot in Mars orbit here>

Gbear

Sparks wrote: »

<insert reference to teapot in Mars orbit here>

And yes, agnostic about teapots.

One might've escaped from the space shuttle and found it's way to orbit around mars!:pac:

Sparks

Gbear wrote: »

One might've escaped from the space shuttle and found it's way to orbit around mars!:pac:

Insufficient delta-v...