|  New Posts
 
ReasonableFaith.org > Forums > Choose Your Own Topic > Neil Degrass Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic?
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
lucid
Posted 05/18/12 Reply with quote  #1 

His views on atheism are similar to Sam Harris'. I.e there is no need for the term "Atheist" much like the term "Non-Golfists" or "Non-Skiers" 

He differentiates between "Atheism" and "Agnosticism", not in the rational of those positions, but in the way that one seems to be more outspoken than the other. Which is fair. 

Reason FTW, 
johnBee
Posted 05/18/12 Reply with quote  #2 
I love this guy.
Oh and I'm no longer a the'IST!
Good-buy: baggage
TheProblemOfAtheism
Posted 05/18/12 Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

His views on atheism are similar to Sam Harris'. I.e there is no need for the term "Atheist" much like the term "Non-Golfists" or "Non-Skiers" 

He differentiates between "Atheism" and "Agnosticism", not in the rational of those positions, but in the way that one seems to be more outspoken than the other. Which is fair. 

Reason FTW, 


He seems to deride the position of the atheist more for the "baggage" (ie the negative behavior of atheists) than for atheism itself.

And a part of me doesn't blame him. But at the same time, he seems to be dodging the actual philosophical issue behind it altogether, so one cannot say for sure whether he is or isn't an atheist (but for the name).
tcampen
Posted 05/18/12 Reply with quote  #4 
can we just refer to him as brilliant?
Damoksta
Posted 05/18/12 Reply with quote  #5 
Interesting guy/video.

On one hand, he claims he has no knowledge for either side and his passion is to get people to think. On the other hand, he wonders why the word atheist even exist (a la Sam Harris) and by implication assumes "No God" as the default position.

But isn't "No God" itself is a knowledge, propositional claim that requires evidence and argument for? To claim the natural world is all there is and therefore there is no God requires one to be able to prove the naturalism is true. Yet he doesn't want to shoulder that "baggage".

It's almost like a closet atheist masquerading as an agnostic so he doesn't have to have to shoulder the burden of proof.

"Ohai, I'm a Christian Theist but I don't like how theists are have to summon the time, the courage and the energy to shoulder burden of proof, so therefore I am an agnostic, but we should assume God exists by default since the universe cannot begin to exist by itself.... oops".
Alexander
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

His views on atheism are similar to Sam Harris'. I.e there is no need for the term "Atheist" much like the term "Non-Golfists" or "Non-Skiers" 

He differentiates between "Atheism" and "Agnosticism", not in the rational of those positions, but in the way that one seems to be more outspoken than the other. Which is fair. 

Reason FTW, 


In my experience, most atheists really don't care about the label other than they don't like being in the same group as agnostics, agnostics too often have a sense of smugness to them since they say "I don't know, and you don't either!" even though more often than not their belief is exactly the same as the atheist (Bill Maher, for example). Call me what you want, I do not believe in God. These 'debates' typically only come up when a theist is attempting to posture in a debate when the theist wants the atheist to defend something they don't necessarily believe in, as if you should somehow have to defend something you don't support because your opponent associates it with the label attached to you.

I find it fairly pointless. I don't like the term atheist or the assumptions that come with it when people hear that you are one, but it is the most accurate label for me.

When someone doesn't fit 100% with what you think an atheist is, just think about all the Christians you know (probably including yourself) who don't take every story of the Bible literally. This doesn't mean they aren't a Christian. Or just think of people and their political beliefs. Many people fall into one of two categories; liberal or conservative. Yet we all know that not all conservatives are the same and not all liberals are the same.
JudeNebula
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
But isn't "No God" itself is a knowledge, propositional claim that requires evidence and argument for? To claim the natural world is all there is and therefore there is no God requires one to be able to prove the naturalism is true. Yet he doesn't want to shoulder that "baggage". 

It's almost like a closet atheist masquerading as an agnostic so he doesn't have to have to shoulder the burden of proof.

"Ohai, I'm a Christian Theist but I don't like how theists are have to summon the time, the courage and the energy to shoulder burden of proof, so therefore I am an agnostic, but we should assume God exists by default since the universe cannot begin to exist by itself.... oops".

I'll answer your post by satire. In order to understand the atheist/agnostic position.

But isn't "No Tooth Fairy" itself is a knowledge, propositional claim that requires evidence and argument for? To claim the natural world is all there is and therefore there is no TOOTH FAIRY requires one to be able to prove the naturalism is true. Yet he doesn't want to shoulder that "baggage". 

It's almost like a closet atheist masquerading as an agnostic so he doesn't have to have
 to shoulder the burden of proof.


-------------

If you are going to posit the existence of magical creatures it is the burden of proof on you to provide the evidence. No group of scientists are going to believe that the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, God, or the Easter Bunny really exist without evidence. 
Damoksta
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JudeNebula

I'll answer your post by satire. In order to understand the atheist/agnostic position.

But isn't "No Tooth Fairy" itself is a knowledge, propositional claim that requires evidence and argument for? To claim the natural world is all there is and therefore there is no TOOTH FAIRY requires one to be able to prove the naturalism is true. Yet he doesn't want to shoulder that "baggage". 

It's almost like a closet atheist masquerading as an agnostic so he doesn't have to have
 to shoulder the burden of proof.


-------------

If you are going to posit the existence of magical creatures it is the burden of proof on you to provide the evidence. No group of scientists are going to believe that the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, God, or the Easter Bunny really exist without evidence. 




Yes, but we can ABSOLUTELY rule out the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. We can utterly reject the mythlogy and the role those supposedly supernatural being play with absolute ease.

E.g. for the tooth fairy:
We can prove with certainty that
- extracted tooth does not really disappear unless an adult sneak it away
- the penny/coin the tooth fairy leaves behind physically comes out from someone's wallet

E.g. for the Santa Claus
- we have empirical proof that there is nothing in the Arctic (GPS and Satelite photo) that makes presents
- We know the sources the the Santa Claus mythology
- We know the sources of the presents found in socks



Can you claim that sort of absolute rejection when it comes to God? Really, so can you refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-tuning argument, and the Argument for Specified Information?
JudeNebula
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Can you claim that sort of absolute rejection when it comes to God? Really, so can you refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-tuning argument, and the Argument for Specified Information?

Yes of course.


The KCA fails when Craig tries to give you a false dichotomy. The conclusion he comes to is either the first cause had to exist outside of space and time. And the only things we know that exist outside of space and time are abstract objects or get this ..because this is where he loses it....'unembodied minds'.

But as recent neuroscience has shown us unequivocally..and there is no debate about this anymore whatsoever, in the words of Harvard scientist Steven Pinker, "This is the least controversial question in all of neuroscience..mind is what the brain does." 

In other words, Mind=Brain.  There is no such thing as an unembodied mind. It's a complete figment of the imagination. No brain=No Mind.  The mind is a physical thing.

We have absolutely no reason to hypothesize something as ludicrous as a mind existing without a physical brain. It is utter fantasy, at the same level as the tooth fairy or the easter bunny.

 
If there is something that exists outside of space-time, and unembodied mind is the most preposterous of all hypothesis. 

A much more likely candidate for the thing outside 'spacetime' to kickstart our universe would be something like the Membrane of M-Theory of which our spacetime universe is only a fraction.  

Fine Tuning

I'll let Neil Degrasse Tyson take this one..


But of course, the greatest argument against the fine tuner, is Dawking Ultimate Boeing 747. I.E How did the Fine Tuner get so fine tuned himself? Where did God get the powers to create a universe, be all all loving, hate gays, etc etc...How did he get those powers? Did he just come like that? For no reason at all? He just happened..by pure chance..to have the power of being all knowing? Just by luck?   What improbability!
Arthur42
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #10 
You just got a penny for your teeth???  No wonder you turned out an atheist!
Alexander
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damoksta
Interesting guy/video.

On one hand, he claims he has no knowledge for either side and his passion is to get people to think. On the other hand, he wonders why the word atheist even exist (a la Sam Harris) and by implication assumes "No God" as the default position.

But isn't "No God" itself is a knowledge, propositional claim that requires evidence and argument for? To claim the natural world is all there is and therefore there is no God requires one to be able to prove the naturalism is true. Yet he doesn't want to shoulder that "baggage".


No more than "no ether" is a knowledge, propositional claim that requires evidence and argument for. God as a hypothesis does not succeed, it fails, and from this point of view, "No God" is in fact the default position until shown otherwise. From the point of the view of a scientist, there is no other possible position.

Quote:

It's almost like a closet atheist masquerading as an agnostic so he doesn't have to have to shoulder the burden of proof.


He is making the point that Steven Weinberg has said about most of his colleagues, that most physicists don't care about the 'God question' enough to even call themselves atheists. Neil Degrasse Tyson is a scientist, not a philosopher of religion. Why should he care to shoulder a burden of a proof for someone else's positive claim to knowledge that his field doesn't support? This is often a problem I have with Christians. They seem to think that their claim deserves special treatment and that everyone has to be involved in the debate. How much time do you spend thinking about whether or not Islam is true? You don't have to be involved in a debate that doesn't have any meaning to you.
Alexander
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damoksta
Quote:
Originally Posted by JudeNebula

I'll answer your post by satire. In order to understand the atheist/agnostic position.

But isn't "No Tooth Fairy" itself is a knowledge, propositional claim that requires evidence and argument for? To claim the natural world is all there is and therefore there is no TOOTH FAIRY requires one to be able to prove the naturalism is true. Yet he doesn't want to shoulder that "baggage". 

It's almost like a closet atheist masquerading as an agnostic so he doesn't have to have
 to shoulder the burden of proof.


-------------

If you are going to posit the existence of magical creatures it is the burden of proof on you to provide the evidence. No group of scientists are going to believe that the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, God, or the Easter Bunny really exist without evidence. 




Yes, but we can ABSOLUTELY rule out the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. We can utterly reject the mythlogy and the role those supposedly supernatural being play with absolute ease.

E.g. for the tooth fairy:
We can prove with certainty that
- extracted tooth does not really disappear unless an adult sneak it away
- the penny/coin the tooth fairy leaves behind physically comes out from someone's wallet

E.g. for the Santa Claus
- we have empirical proof that there is nothing in the Arctic (GPS and Satelite photo) that makes presents
- We know the sources the the Santa Claus mythology
- We know the sources of the presents found in socks



Can you claim that sort of absolute rejection when it comes to God? Really, so can you refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-tuning argument, and the Argument for Specified Information?


I think we can claim with just as much certainty that people do not come back to life when they die.

The Kalam is a philosophical argument and can be refuted using philosophy. At best, if the KCA were successful, it is an argument for a hypothesis for the existence of a cause to the universe. It does not show that such a cause is a deity, and even if it did, it does not show that this creator is anything like one of the gods that people believe in today. The Fine-tuning argument only begs the question as to why God would have to fine tune his own universe at all, and I've never understood why this has been considered such a compelling argument. The 'Argument for Specified Information' has been uniformly rejected by the specialists in this field and from my lay point of view looks like failed science as much as anything in our history. At this point I feel the need to point out a fairly obvious point in the philosophy of science; not being able to disprove a claim is not the same as the claim being proven true. Throwing out a bunch of claims and asking someone to disprove them with 100% certainty does not do much for your position.

Again, even if these arguments were successful, it would at best lead us to a point of agnosticism.
Rostos
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JudeNebula
Quote:
Can you claim that sort of absolute rejection when it comes to God? Really, so can you refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-tuning argument, and the Argument for Specified Information?

Yes of course.


The KCA fails when Craig tries to give you a false dichotomy. The conclusion he comes to is either the first cause had to exist outside of space and time. And the only things we know that exist outside of space and time are abstract objects or get this ..because this is where he loses it....'unembodied minds'.

 

If space, time and matter began to exist, then the cause of space, time and matter must be outside of space, time and matter. Unless you want to believe space, time and matter created itself out of nothing. If you want to believe that, then all power to you.


But as recent neuroscience has shown us unequivocally..and there is no debate about this anymore whatsoever, in the words of Harvard scientist Steven Pinker, "This is the least controversial question in all of neuroscience..mind is what the brain does." 

In other words, Mind=Brain.  There is no such thing as an unembodied mind. It's a complete figment of the imagination. No brain=No Mind.  The mind is a physical thing.
 
Comparing a being within the naturalistic realm to something "outside" of the naturalistic realmis appealing to the fallacy of equivocation, you have no basis to make such a claim.

We have absolutely no reason to hypothesize something as ludicrous as a mind existing without a physical brain. It is utter fantasy, at the same level as the tooth fairy or the easter bunny.
 
Just as it is a fantasy to consider space, time and matter creating itself out of nothing...Funny how  camel doesnt see its own hump.

 
If there is something that exists outside of space-time, and unembodied mind is the most preposterous of all hypothesis. 
 
Why is that? Are you suggesting you KNOW the properties of "things" outside space and time?

A much more likely candidate for the thing outside 'spacetime' to kickstart our universe would be something like the Membrane of M-Theory of which our spacetime universe is only a fraction.  
 
M theory as stated by Sir Roger Penrose "is a collection of ideas, it is not even a theory" Yep, lets put our faith in that.

Fine Tuning

I'll let Neil Degrasse Tyson take this one..


But of course, the greatest argument against the fine tuner, is Dawking Ultimate Boeing 747. I.E How did the Fine Tuner get so fine tuned himself? Where did God get the powers to create a universe, be all all loving, hate gays, etc etc...How did he get those powers? Did he just come like that? For no reason at all? He just happened..by pure chance..to have the power of being all knowing? Just by luck?   What improbability!
 
Appealing to the fallacy of equivocation much?
 


 
Rostos
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damoksta
Quote:
Originally Posted by JudeNebula

I'll answer your post by satire. In order to understand the atheist/agnostic position.

But isn't "No Tooth Fairy" itself is a knowledge, propositional claim that requires evidence and argument for? To claim the natural world is all there is and therefore there is no TOOTH FAIRY requires one to be able to prove the naturalism is true. Yet he doesn't want to shoulder that "baggage". 

It's almost like a closet atheist masquerading as an agnostic so he doesn't have to have
 to shoulder the burden of proof.


-------------

If you are going to posit the existence of magical creatures it is the burden of proof on you to provide the evidence. No group of scientists are going to believe that the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, God, or the Easter Bunny really exist without evidence. 




Yes, but we can ABSOLUTELY rule out the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. We can utterly reject the mythlogy and the role those supposedly supernatural being play with absolute ease.

E.g. for the tooth fairy:
We can prove with certainty that
- extracted tooth does not really disappear unless an adult sneak it away
- the penny/coin the tooth fairy leaves behind physically comes out from someone's wallet

E.g. for the Santa Claus
- we have empirical proof that there is nothing in the Arctic (GPS and Satelite photo) that makes presents
- We know the sources the the Santa Claus mythology
- We know the sources of the presents found in socks



Can you claim that sort of absolute rejection when it comes to God? Really, so can you refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-tuning argument, and the Argument for Specified Information?


I think we can claim with just as much certainty that people do not come back to life when they die.

If you pre-suppose natrualism, then of course you will hold that view.

The Kalam is a philosophical argument and can be refuted using philosophy. At best, if the KCA were successful, it is an argument for a hypothesis for the existence of a cause to the universe. It does not show that such a cause is a deity, and even if it did, it does not show that this creator is anything like one of the gods that people believe in today.

 

The KCA does not prove the Christian God or any other religion. It s intention is not to do so. Rather it is, an argument to prove naturalism as false. Naturalism does not consider anything outside of space, time and matter, yet, if these began to exist, then the cause must be outside this.

 

 

The Fine-tuning argument only begs the question as to why God would have to fine tune his own universe at all, and I've never understood why this has been considered such a compelling argument.

 

Why not? Do you know how the minds of a deity work?

 

The 'Argument for Specified Information' has been uniformly rejected by the specialists in this field and from my lay point of view looks like failed science as much as anything in our history. At this point I feel the need to point out a fairly obvious point in the philosophy of science; not being able to disprove a claim is not the same as the claim being proven true. Throwing out a bunch of claims and asking someone to disprove them with 100% certainty does not do much for your position.

 

I am not sure what you are getting at here.

 


Again, even if these arguments were successful, it would at best lead us to a point of agnosticism.

 

It would render naturalism false. Craigs argument for Christianity is a collection of arguments, the KCA in isolation is not meant to prove christianity.
JudeNebula
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
If space, time and matter began to exist, then the cause of space, time and matter must be outside of space, time and matter. Unless you want to believe space, time and matter created itself out of nothing. If you want to believe that, then all power to you.


To say space,time and matter began to exist is slightly inaccurate. According to most theories, what was always around was energy. Not in time, since there was not dimension of time. So that energy, or  vacuum energy exists eternally, there was then inflation (which is energy turning into matter and the visible universe).

So no, matter didn't create itself out of nothing, it was transformed from energy.

Quote:
Just as it is a fantasy to consider space, time and matter creating itself out of nothing...Funny how  camel doesnt see its own hump.

Once again..no one believes this. Matter came from energy. Energy is eternal, it can neither be created nor destroyed.
 

Quote:
Why is that? Are you suggesting you KNOW the properties of "things" outside space and time?

Do you know the properties of God? Does he exist outside of space and time? How do you KNOW these things?

Anyway, a brain is a physical thing. By definition it cannot exist outside of space and time if it is a physical thing. Its like saying there are chairs in outside of spacetime. A mind is no different than a chair.

But once again the burden of proof is on you. Show me even the slightest bit of evidence that a brain(mind) can exist outside of space/time.

come on. Just the slightest bit of evidence. Remember, this is your (or at least WLC's hypothesis)...Generally when you make hypothesis, you present reasons for it.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.