| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic
Linkied it for you.
Either way, he is still an AWESOME person.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I lived with a woman once who didn't eat meat or dairy and avoided using animal based products like soap as much as possible but she wouldn't refer to herself as vegan because she didn't like labels. Every time we went to a restaurant she had to check that the dish she wanted met her dietary restrictions and would go into a lengthy explanation about what she couldn't eat. It always ended with the server saying, "oh so you mean vegan?". I would always get a kick out of it.
Anyway, I always thought agnosticism was a statement about knowledge while atheism was a statement about theism. I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist because I would never say that "I know there is no god or gods" but I would say that "I am without belief in a god or gods". There is a difference between the two. To me saying "I am agnostic" means that you wouldn't claim to be complete in your knowledge. So I would say the spectrum goes:
1. Atheist (I know there is no god)
2. Agnostic Atheist (I am without belief in god)
3. Agnostic Theist (I am with belief in god but I will not define it)
4. Theist (I know there is a god)
Anyway, I would venture to say that most atheists are #2 and are not in your face media hogs, but regular working people. The reason you have atheists who do try and set political policy is because you have theists doing the same thing. I have never cared about people's personal religious beliefs. However, when they bring them to the public arena they have to expect ridicule.
|
|
I suspect that another reason that Tyson would prefer the agnostic label is that he simply wants no part of the Church/State political issues that atheists tend to pursue. In other words, if you want City Hall to remove that Christmas Tree or that manger from it's lawn, he's not going to be a voice in your corner.
You are probably right. I wouldn't be either because I don't think its that big of a deal. However, if you want to make gay marriage illegal because of your religion I will oppose it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos&feature=relmfu
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic
Yay!!
It's Citizen Duck!
I suspect that another reason that Tyson would prefer the agnostic label is that he simply wants no part of the Church/State political issues that atheists tend to pursue. In other words, if you want City Hall to remove that Christmas Tree or that manger from it's lawn, he's not going to be a voice in your corner.You are probably right. I wouldn't be either because I don't think its that big of a deal. However, if you want to make gay marriage illegal because of your religion I will oppose it.
I've also heard it said that physicists don't have the whole problem with religion that biologists do because of the creationism vs evolution "debate". If religious activists started trying to remove something as basic to physics from the high school curriculum (say replacing the teaching of Newton's laws with Divine Motion) Tyson might flee to the atheist camp pretty quickly.
But whatever, he's allowed to call himself whatever suits his beliefs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that another reason that Tyson would prefer the agnostic label is that he simply wants no part of the Church/State political issues that atheists tend to pursue. In other words, if you want City Hall to remove that Christmas Tree or that manger from it's lawn, he's not going to be a voice in your corner.You are probably right. I wouldn't be either because I don't think its that big of a deal. However, if you want to make gay marriage illegal because of your religion I will oppose it.I've also heard it said that physicists don't have the whole problem with religion that biologists do because of the creationism vs evolution "debate". If religious activists started trying to remove something as basic to physics from the high school curriculum (say replacing the teaching of Newton's laws with Divine Motion) Tyson might flee to the atheist camp pretty quickly.
But whatever, he's allowed to call himself whatever suits his beliefs.
I am on my last semester (hopefully) of my PhD in physics and not long ago while walking to the food court on campus I passed by this booth with signs that read "your physics professors are lying to you". I stopped and listened to the guy but he was mainly talking about big bang cosmology. The funny thing is that he had a poster board with pictures of several professors with the image of a stamp that said LIAR over their faces. Not one of them taught a cosmology course. He had the professors that taught thermodynamics, E&M, solid state physics, and a class called modern physics which covered the basics of special relativity and atomic and nuclear physics. The latter professor was very religious. I couldn't understand how he came upon the pictures and why he thought they taught about the big bang theory and then it dawned on me that he downloaded their pics from their professional websites and he just assumed that they taught about the BBT because they were physicist. I tried to point it out but the guy at the booth wouldn't listen. I told it to the professors and of course they all ran down to the booth to have a good laugh and troll the guy.
Atheist. Why on earth bother tap-dancing with the idea that you find the idea of a supernatural, omnipotent and omniscient being to be completely false? You don't say that I lack belief in the easter bunny, or "i would need to be omniscient to prove a negative" . you say "sorry kid, your parents put the candy there, go thank your parents"
To me it seems like he's trying extremely hard to stay out of the debate and/or politics of the issue. Either from personal distaste of the debate itself, or a desire to keep his name out of it so that his role as an educator and advocate for science isn't diminished.
Neil Tyson... Either way, he is still an AWESOME person.
Yeah, but I'm not a fan of his chicken.
He's a smart guy. I'm sure he knows the difference. He's whichever one he says he is. Fin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos&feature=relmfu
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic
His description of his agnosticism is clearly atheism with everything but the name. He's smart enough to know that with lots of brainpower to spare too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, he's an atheist. He just isn't a jerk about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Less filling!
He's an agnostic. Part of being a good scientist is knowing the limits of what you do know. He knows the limits of his knowledge.
He has stressed the fact that he's an agnostic rather than an atheist and, yet, atheists still call him an atheist. Its the same thing as if theists called him a theist even though he stresses that he's an agnostic.
He also said hasn't seen any evidence that religion is right.
This kind of agnosticism is just saying "I'm not telling you my opinion, that way you don't feel compelled to tell me how I'm wrong".
And that's fine. If he doesn't want to engage in this kind of discussion he isn't required to. His statements aren't useful in backing up any kind of argument, because he is explicitly staying out of the argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then again, maybe he's still dodging the bullets from Pluto supporters.
Dear Neil,
Your mom thought I was big enough.-Pluto
He also said hasn't seen any evidence that religion is right.This kind of agnosticism is just saying "I'm not telling you my opinion, that way you don't feel compelled to tell me how I'm wrong".
And that's fine. If he doesn't want to engage in this kind of discussion he isn't required to. His statements aren't useful in backing up any kind of argument, because he is explicitly staying out of the argument.
Yes, he says that he hasn't seen any evidence that religion is right.
I acknowledge that.
He, also, hasn't said that he sees any evidence that religion is wrong.
As for myself (seeing as how some of the more fanatical atheists here like to rush to calling me a 'troll'), my position is simple. Our evolution led to our ability (propensity?) to believe in the divine. There are actually parts of our brain which have evolved to make us feel religious experiences. It is the obligation of science to ask if these neural structures improve our ability to propagate our genes as a species. If they do, then it is profoundly retarded to dismiss this phenomenon out of hand. The benefits of having faith need to be explored. Agnostics can do that because they start from the proper scientific foundation (which is, "I don't know"). Theists and Atheists can't - not without a great deal more effort.
Say what now? Whether or not they improve our chances to propagate, it'd be "profoundly retarded" to think that these neural structures, whatever their effect may be, haven't evolved randomly. The benefits of having faith does need to be explored, but first you have to be able to recognize the difference between evidence and miracles.
Look, DD every time I read one of your posts on here you're talking about how Atheists don't believe in god, so we must not have an open mind, right? Yet you paint yourself as the most level headed guy on the thread, so here's my question for you: What are the top five pieces of evidence, given your experience, that God does not exist?
Before you turn it all around, I'm an atheist, I've seen no evidence for his existence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for myself (seeing as how some of the more fanatical atheists here like to rush to calling me a 'troll'), my position is simple. Our evolution led to our ability (propensity?) to believe in the divine. There are actually parts of our brain which have evolved to make us feel religious experiences. It is the obligation of science to ask if these neural structures improve our ability to propagate our genes as a species. If they do, then it is profoundly retarded to dismiss this phenomenon out of hand. The benefits of having faith need to be explored. Agnostics can do that because they start from the proper scientific foundation (which is, "I don't know"). Theists and Atheists can't - not without a great deal more effort.
It could also be evidence of our ability to come to conclusions when no evidence exists.
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say. Look at what's supposed to be going to happen on the 1st of January 2000 - let's not pretend that we didn't have a warning that the century was going to end! I think that we need to take a larger perspective on who we are and what we are doing here if we are going to survive in the long term.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's an agnostic. Part of being a good scientist is knowing the limits of what you do know. He knows the limits of his knowledge.
He has stressed the fact that he's an agnostic rather than an atheist and, yet, atheists still call him an atheist. Its the same thing as if theists called him a theist even though he stresses that he's an agnostic.
He's identifying as an agnostic because he doesn't want the "baggage" that goes along with being an atheist. Its like having a bill, feathers, and webbed feet but not identifying as a duck because you don't want to lobby against hunting season and chefs with orange sauce.
As for myself (seeing as how some of the more fanatical atheists here like to rush to calling me a 'troll'), my position is simple. Our evolution led to our ability (propensity?) to believe in the divine. There are actually parts of our brain which have evolved to make us feel religious experiences. It is the obligation of science to ask if these neural structures improve our ability to propagate our genes as a species. If they do, then it is profoundly retarded to dismiss this phenomenon out of hand. The benefits of having faith need to be explored. Agnostics can do that because they start from the proper scientific foundation (which is, "I don't know"). Theists and Atheists can't - not without a great deal more effort.
The evolutionary explanation that I favor for the existence of belief in the supernatural is that our brains evolved to be "too good" at seeing patterns. A million years ago this was great, since it would have been better to run away from something that was not actually there than not run away when there was actually a predator after you. Now, we don't need that level of paranoia, so it just leads to people saying "profoundly retarded" things. So no, I don't think that it improves our fitness as a species any more.
I'm also pretty sure that he wants to be called agnostic is so that he does not have to deal with people like you reflexively badmouthing him for being an atheist.
Theists and Atheists can't - not without a great deal more effort.
Except that you're wrong.
I'm an atheist, and I admit that I don't know.I don't know of any atheists who claim certainty.
I think you dropped some straw.
An atheist is someone who believes there is no deity. That is different than knowing. Hitdice says he is an atheist who doesn't know.
You need to read the thing I wrote again, please.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some atheists would prefer to say that they're someone who does not believe there is a deity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You need to read the thing I wrote again, please.
good luck with that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some atheists would prefer to say that they're someone who does not believe there is a deity.Someone who does not believe there is a deity may be ether an agnostic or an atheist.
Agnostics don't say that there is no god. They say that they have no ability to know. Not the same as Atheism, which says their is no god.
I brought visual aids.
**Vanna White pose**
ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
a·the·ism (th-zm)
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agnostic. Because he says he is.
Ask 5 random self-professed Christians what it means to be Christian, and most likely you would get five different answers. Some of which might exclude some of the other self-professed Christians from being Christian.
Pulling out a dictionary to "prove" that some is or is not a member of a faith is futile since everyone has their own personal definition of a belief or faith. The definition in the dictionary may be a common interpretation but it does not apply to everyone.
Personally, I think the best policy is just to take peoples' word on it when they say are a particular religion.