Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains Why He Believes Faith & Reason Are Irreconcilable

[crowTrobot]

perhaps atheism is his religion.

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position"

(Bill Maher)

 

[MarAzul]

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position"

(Bill Maher)

That is cute. But it still leave atheist believing in something they cannot prove, or faith in their
believe just like people of any religion.

 

[crowTrobot]

That is cute. But it still leave atheist believing in something they cannot prove, or faith in their
believe just like people of any religion.

atheism does not imply a claim to provable knowledge that no possible form of creator exists. It wouldn't be describing anybody if it did, so your use of the word is essentially a straw man meant to validate theism.

also no belief (or disbelief) is ultimately "provable" in the sense you are using the word. so unless you want to call the belief the sun will rise tomorrow a "religious" belief your semantics are nonsensical either way.

 

[Cryptkeeper]

That is cute. But it still leave atheist believing in something they cannot prove, or faith in their
believe just like people of any religion.

What proof do you have of the legitimacy of your religion?
Put more simply, if you're a Christian, tell me exactly what proof your religion has that God is the reason of our existence.

 

[donkiez]

I feel that one of the biggest mistakes religious people seem to make is trying to classify science as a religion because both deal with some similar unknowns. They then seem to reject science and view it as an attack on their beliefs, when they should be looking for ways to integrate the two. As understanding expands so should we.

 

[Denny Crane]

I feel that one of the biggest mistakes religious people seem to make is trying to classify science as a religion because both deal with some similar unknowns. They then seem to reject science and view it as an attack on their beliefs, when they should be looking for ways to integrate the two. As understanding expands so should we.

NDT says it isn't possible. Evolution is the enemy of the religious belief system.

 

[donkiez]

NDT says it isn't possible. Evolution is the enemy of the religious belief system.

I think a better translation of NDT is that religions view evolution as the enemy of their belief system. Evolution doesn't really give a shit it just keeps on doing what does or doesn't do, and the rest of us are working on figuring it out either way.

My observation is that some people get so fundamentalist in their view points that they end up completely discounting and even laughing at the other side as ridiculous. I think you have to get deeper into social psychology to understand why, or maybe its just fear of being wrong? Personally I think evolution is so obvious that you are fool if you believe otherwise. I've also felt spirituality and a connection to something bigger than myself, I've even had coincidences that I consider miracles. I don't know what that is but I have a few theories and they aren't scientific.

 

[Cryptkeeper]

My personal belief is that we are a species of animals that has been able to evolve more efficiently than other species. I believe in evolution, and while i like religious books such as the Bible, I do not believe they have the final word as to how we came to existence. To me, the Bible isn't a book of fact, but rather a book of truth. The Bible teaches great lessons, but I don't really think our world was created any different than the others, contrary to what the Bible states.

I dunno, just thought id put that out there.

 

[MarAzul]

What proof do you have of the legitimacy of your religion?
Put more simply, if you're a Christian, tell me exactly what proof your religion has that God is the reason of our existence.

I admire those that are Christian, lucky people they are. I am not an atheist as I have no proof that God does not exist and I seriously doubt that is the smart bet.

 

[Cryptkeeper]

I admire those that are Christian, lucky people they are. I am not an atheist as I have no proof that God does not exist and I seriously doubt that is the smart bet.

But that doesn't exactly make sense. what proof do you have that God does exist? If you don't believe he doesn't exist, you must have some proof that he does, right?
I'm fine if you believe in God; that's your belief and it isn't in my power to change it. I'd just like to know what gives you reason to believe in God.

 

[Denny Crane]

I admire those that are Christian, lucky people they are. I am not an atheist as I have no proof that God does not exist and I seriously doubt that is the smart bet.

You have no proof the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or unicorns don't exist either.

It's a smart bet neither exist.

 

[Cryptkeeper]

You have no proof the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or unicorns don't exist either.

It's a smart bet neither exist.

"You must spread more reputation before giving some to Denny Crane again"

 

[Jesus Christ Son of God]

You have no proof the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or unicorns don't exist either.

It's a smart bet neither exist.

Hi!

 

[speeds]

 

[Further]

I believe in Crystal Light cause I believe in me

[video]

 

[MarAzul]

You have no proof the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or unicorns don't exist either.

It's a smart bet neither exist.

uh, unicorns and god are not in the same league Denny, nor are their accomplishments.

 

[speeds]

uh, unicorns and god are not in the same league Denny, nor are their accomplishments.

Point to MarAzul. What have unicorns ever done for anyone, really?

Fuck unicorns.

 

[Denny Crane]

uh, unicorns and god are not in the same league Denny, nor are their accomplishments.

Neither exist nor have any accomplishments, except the unicorn created the earth in 6 days.

 

[Cryptkeeper]

uh, unicorns and god are not in the same league Denny, nor are their accomplishments.

Are you not going to answer my question?

But that doesn't exactly make sense. what proof do you have that God does exist? If you don't believe he doesn't exist, you must have some proof that he does, right?
I'm fine if you believe in God; that's your belief and it isn't in my power to change it. I'd just like to know what gives you reason to believe in God.

 

[crowTrobot]

uh, unicorns and god are not in the same league Denny, nor are their accomplishments.

You could (sort of) make a logical argument that unicorns are not in the same league as a deistic god because apparent fine tuning (or perhaps some other philosophical argument) MAY or may not point to a creator adjusting laws of nature. Belief in such a God would be slightly more rationally defensible than belief in a unicorn.

That doesn't get you anywhere when you start talking about any specific anthropocentric/intervening God of human tradition, including Yahweh. Thor is quite comparable to a unicorn, and so is Yahweh.

 

[Further]

You could (sort of) make a logical argument that unicorns are not in the same league as a deistic god because apparent fine tuning (or perhaps some other philosophical argument) MAY or may not point to a creator adjusting laws of nature. Belief in such a God would be slightly more rationally defensible than belief in a unicorn.

That doesn't get you anywhere when you start talking about any specific anthropocentric/intervening God of human tradition, including Yahweh. Thor is quite comparable to a unicorn, and so is Yahweh.

Thor is more comparable to John Henry. Neither a unicorn nor Yahweh could wield a fictional hammer quite like Thor or Henry.

 

[MarAzul]

Are you not going to answer my question?

Your question contained this, "If you don't believe he doesn't exist".

Again I say, I have seen nothing to prove God is not responsible for origins of creation. Since no man can create any form of life, that is very strong evidence he needs considerable help in doing so.
You can give every Darwinian scholar in this form and any you can recruit, a fair shot at doing so without a resulting change in the facts.

 

[crowTrobot]

Since no man can create any form of life, that is very strong evidence he needs considerable help in doing so.

that's very anthropocentric of you.

what's your evidence that abiogenesis couldn't happen naturally? humans would need considerable help creating supernovae also, but we understand pretty well how they occur naturally without the need of intelligent intervention. the same might be true for abiogenesis.

also for all you know scientists could create life in a lab tomorrow. the fact that they haven't yet isn't evidence for anything.

 

[MarAzul]

that's very anthropocentric of you.

what's your evidence that abiogenesis couldn't happen naturally? humans would need considerable help creating supernovae also, but we understand pretty well how they occur naturally without the need of intelligent intervention. the same might be true for abiogenesis.

also for all you know scientists could create life in a lab tomorrow. the fact that they haven't yet isn't evidence for anything.

That would be a well kept secret, also beyond belief.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

also for all you know scientists could create life in a lab tomorrow. the fact that they haven't yet isn't evidence for anything.

I created life in a lab, she was a tight lil' bitch.

 

[crowTrobot]

That would be a well kept secret, also beyond belief.

not the point, which was you are diving head first into a god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

 

[PapaG]

 

[PapaG]

Error does not compute.

Big Bang Theory

Primordial Soup

Abiogenesis

None of these can be proven using the scientific method.

Etc etc

 

[PapaG]

I do think it's more plausible that abiogenesis can explain how oil, natural gas, and coal are produced over how organic life and the rise of the human race was the result of the process, though.

Logically, it makes more sense than human beings eventually rising after billions of genetic mutations from some elements that somehow had the Quickening and made them able to reproduce.

 

[crowTrobot]

Big Bang Theory

Primordial Soup

Abiogenesis

None of these can be proven using the scientific method.

Etc etc

Science is more about determining probability by looking at evidence than actually "proving" things in the philosophical sense you mean here.

Technically it isn't proven that the earth revolves around the sun. The evidence indicates the probability must be pretty close to 100%, and for practical purposes we can operate as it if were proven, but there's always a slim chance something else might be true.

Evidence for common descent (all life is interrelated and forms a branching tree) is similarly compelling, as is evidence that the earth is billions of years old, even though scientists can't directly observe or recreate these things.

It's hard to say much firmly about abiogenesis AT THIS POINT, but there isn't really any intrinsic barrier to scientists finding evidence of how it "most probably" happened. Obviously they aren't going to be able to recreate it exactly since it likely took millions of years and billions of incremental steps. But that doesn't mean scientists can't look at evidence and assign probability to different hypothesis of how it may have occurred.

Same is true for big bang. Scientists don't need to recreate one to assign probability to the hypothesis. Expanding universe + CMBR in the context of GR is pretty compelling evidence that a hot big bang of some sort is what "probably" happened.