Neil DeGrasse Tyson Shows Science And Religion Can Co-Exist In ‘Cosmos’

[cbayer]

http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/03/11/3389411/degrasse-tyson-religion/

BY JACK JENKINS, GUEST BLOGGER ON MARCH 11, 2014 AT 11:35 AM


CREDIT: FRANK MICELOTTA/INVISION FOR FOX/AP IMAGES

Neil deGrasse Tyson has been called many things. Groundbreaking astronomer. Dynamic communicator. Sexiest astrophysicist alive.

But what about public theologian?

It might sound crazy, but the recent reboot of the television show Cosmos: A Personal Journey — Carl Sagan’s classic 1980s exploration of all things science, this time starring the charismatic Tyson and renamed “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey” — is already attracting more attention for what it says about religion than astrophysics.

The show, which premiered Sunday night, begins roughly as expected, with Tyson guiding viewers through a humbling and special-effect laden tour of our seemingly infinite cosmos. But things abruptly shift gears as the program enters its middle segment, with Tyson narrating an animated retelling of the life of Giordano Bruno, a 14th century Dominican friar who dared to make the bold claim that our universe is not confined to the solar system (with the sun at the center), but in fact home an infinite number of suns besides our own, each surrounded by worlds populated with intelligent beings.

more at link

[riqster]

1. I like it, may have to watch.

[cbayer]

4. I am gong to have to wait until it comes out on DVD, but

I am hoping that won't be too long.

Everything I have read has been positive and I am so glad he is doing this.

[trotsky]

2. Yes, of course they can.

As long as religion backs off every time science discovers something that conflicts with dogma.

[skepticscott]

3. So this hack thinks that "coexistence"

means that religion burns alive anyone who disagrees with its sacred beliefs?

Well, yeah, I guess that's one way to coexist with science..murder and suppress all of the scientists who dare to defy or contradict you.

[longship]

7. Where do you get that idea?

I did not get the take away from it that you did. And Tyson has been all over the place speaking about these very issues.

One particular episode is his interview with Massimo Pigliucci on his Rationally Speaking podcast where he takes on Neil's option to not call himself an atheist. It is an interesting discussion. Pigliucci is a philosopher and biologist, but this discussion gets pretty deep into the philosophical, as is Pigliucci's recent focus. You may find it an interesting listen.

And I find your term "hack" to be strange in context with Tyson.

Regards.

[rug]

17. Neil DeGrasse Tyson a hack?

[skepticscott]

22. So you think

the "hack" I was referring to was Tyson? Seriously?

Read again, please, with the hint that I was talking about the article and its headline (both idiotic and agenda-driven misrepresentations), and not about the program itself and not about Tyson. Do that before you condescend to tell me to educate myself.

[longship]

24. Well, you did not make that very clear.

I apologize for misinterpreting an arguably ambiguous post.


I said nothing about educating you. I merely thought you'd find the Tyson/Pigliucci interview interesting. I apologize for that, too.

We seem to be posting past each other here.

[skepticscott]

37. It was the author of the article who made the idiotic claim about "co-existence"

Tyson never did, as you well know, so I'm not sure where this alleged "ambiguity" came from.

And yes, you implied that I was speaking from a lack of knowledge about Tyson and his views, and pointed me somewhere you thought would provide the schooling I needed (I do know who Pigliucci is, btw-you seemed to be assuming that you're the only atheist who would). Otherwise, why would you have picked that podcast out of all the thousands you've listened to?

[longship]

38. Well, I post responses for all the readers.

Since this is a public forum.

And again, I apologize. I did not mean to offend.

[rock]

5. Speculates, not shows

And if I may venture an opinion too, he's wrong.

[cbayer]

6. How do you think he is wrong?

[Beachwood]

8. Um... but

“God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

The full quote, by the way is:
[In response to the view beholden by some religious people that God is the cause of various inexplicable events...] If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on. So, just be ready for that to happen, if that's how you want to come at the problem. So that's just simply the God of the gaps argument.
Specifically, this discussion was brought about as a result of Bill O'Reilly's supposition that, since humans don't understand how or why the tides rise and fall each day, that God must be the cause of this inexplicable mystery.

More interesting remarks can be found in this long interview. This quote is made at about 27 min. 40 seconds into the interview.

[cbayer]

9. I think he is making a rhetorical argument to counter O'Reilly's argument

and not necessarily stating this as something he himself believes.

I can't watch the video, but have seen several videos where he talks about religion.

My take away on NDT is that he is not closing any doors. He is adamant about keeping religion and religious beliefs from interfering with the discovery and teaching of science, but he recognizes that religion has it's own roles to play in terms of the human endeavor.

I very much like that he does not take an adamant position about his own religious beliefs or lack of beliefs, but remains open and flexible.

He's a great person to pursue this at this time, imo.

[Beachwood]

13. Then perhaps you might wish to review minute 28 of this interview.

"I don't even mind if someone wants to say 'you don't understand that, God did it."

Shortly after that sentence, is this.

"What would bother me is if you were so content in that answer that you no longere had curiosity to learn how it happened. Then you stop looking, because you're content God did it. I don't need you in the lab. You're useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world. And, if the world had been, if, I'm glad whoever those folks are, there aren't that many of them, because if they dominated the world, we'd still be in the cave. We would have never left the cave. Because there are mysterious things out there, and, no God is doing that and you don't need to know that. Don't even think about it."


"Where would we be if their understanding of the world ruled the world?

So, I don't mind it but just don't prevent others from conducting that investigation, themselves."

[cbayer]

14. As I mentioned, I can't stream videos.

NDT has been very hard to pin down in terms of his religious beliefs or lack of beliefs, and I think this has been purposeful.

Much of what he say is open to interpretation and he is highly resistant to being labeled.

I like and respect that about it and I think it makes him much more approachable when he is trying to reach out to believers.

The same argument he makes here could be made for religious searches. If one is so content with their pat belief that there is not god and not longer curious, then they have stopped looking and shut the door.

If they dominated the world, it might be a dull place indeed. It is the search, the philosophical questions, the continued mystery that makes humans so interesting, imo.

[Beachwood]

21. and that is why

I spent 4 minutes precisely transcribing his remarks for you to read.



NDT said his views quite succintly. Religion and Science can "co-exist" as long as religion stays out of the business of science.

Specifically here:

"I don't mind it but just don't prevent others from conducting that investigation themselves."

[cbayer]

23. And I most certainly agree with him.

What he is fairly vague about is his own beliefs when it comes to religion. He has described himself as agnostic but says he doesn't believe in a supreme ruler. In that way, he leaves the door open for other kinds of concepts of a god or gods.

His position about not allowing religion to interfere with science is exactly right, imo, and, again, I think he is very approachable for those with religious beliefs.

[Goblinmonger]

25. I think it is clear he calls himself agnostic

because atheist is used very negatively. He says he doesn't believe in a god which makes him an atheist but, so far at least, he has avoided the wrath that is placed on Dawkins.

[trotsky]

33. Worth noting that even if he is "leav(ing) the door open" for other kinds of gods

(which he has not said, that is just you choosing to read into his words), by denying the concept of a "supreme ruler" god he is rejecting all of the Abrahamic faiths, and many others. He's really just as anti-religious as others that you routinely savage.

[hrmjustin]

20. Not all people who are religi8us are afraid of scientific reasearch.

[pangaia]

28. Whew! Finally someone said it. Thanks.

[Goblinmonger]

10. If I wrote that Amy Mainzer is the sexiest physicist alive

I think I'd take some flack for it and probably be called a sexist.

[hrmjustin]

11. I have to say I loved the cosmos.

I always thought you can believe in science and religion.

[cbayer]

15. I have always thought that too.

I have never understood the argument that you can only embrace one.

[hrmjustin]

18. Well some think you have to have rigid thinking on faith.

The fact is in my life their were moments my faith is stronger and weaker. This time of year it is strong.

[Goblinmonger]

26. Science isn't something you can believe in.

What about transubstantiation? Science would say it is bullshit. That is still bread. It doesn't change molecular form. The RCC would say otherwise.

[hrmjustin]

27. I think I can determine what I believe in thank you.

First I am not RCC so I never said I believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. I do believe in the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine but Episcopalians have different points of views on this but we do agree that it is a mystery of God.

Thanks for telling me what I believe though.

[Goblinmonger]

31. I'm saying that science isn't something that you believe in.

I guess you could believe in the scientific method. But do you really go around saying "I believe in gravity"? Science isn't a point of faith. And I think phrasing it that way helps give credence to those that say they don't believe in evolution.

[hrmjustin]

32. Again your telling me what I believe in. I could do that on my own.

[Goblinmonger]

34. I believe in Rice Krispies.

[hrmjustin]

35. Ok.

[trotsky]

36. Special K bars kick Rice Krispie ass.

Sorry pal.

[Goblinmonger]

39. bigot

[trotsky]

40. ...

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Giordano Bruno was murdered by the inquisition.

I suppose that is a form of "coexistence" where one of the parties is killed and the others continue to exist.

The article is pretty lame. Bruno wasn't engaged in "public theology", nor did he have a mystical vision, he read the ancient philosopher Lucretius's book "On the nature of things", and agreed with the Epicurean proof of an infinite universe. Bruno couldn't be "a scientist" because he was murdered before science as we know it developed. Plus the 14th century was from 1301 to 1400, Bruno was murdered in 1600, he was a 15th century Dominican Friar.

[pokerfan]

16. The Catholic League disagrees

And the Inquisition was a force for good...

The propagandists involved in this show, represented most conspicuously by Seth MacFarlane, told viewers last night that “the Roman Catholic Church maintained a system of courts known as the Inquisition and its sole purpose was to investigate and torment anyone who dared voice views that differed from theirs. And it wasn’t long before [Giordano] Bruno fell into the clutches of the thought police.”

The ignorance is appalling. “The Catholic Church as an institution had almost nothing to do with [the Inquisition],” writes Dayton historian Thomas Madden. “One of the most enduring myths of the Inquisition,” he says, “is that it was a tool of oppression imposed on unwilling Europeans by a power-hungry Church. Nothing could be more wrong.” Because the Inquisition brought order and justice where there was none, it actually “saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.” (His emphasis.)

http://www.catholicleague.org/cosmos-smears-catholicism/

[Warren Stupidity]

19. well they would

[pangaia]

29. Well, to be exact..

If he was murdered in 1600 he was a 16th century friar. 1500-1599 was the 16th century.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Well to be exact the 16th century starts 1501, the 1st century having started year 1,

there being no year 0. Centuries in the CE start at year one, not at year zero.