Out of Depth: A Critique of Neil deGrasse Tyson on Atheism and Religion

[@EnglishMike]

How often does Tyson actually talk about religion and belief systems? I grant that his views in this area aren't particularly well thought out, but he's admitted that he's not really interested in talking about it, which is no different from millions of Americans, Christians and non-believers, who don't care to put any thought into such things and are perfectly content not to do so. His problem is that as a public figure and science educator in America, he's undoubtedly asked about it a lot more often than other people, even if doesn't care to talk about it. I guess he might have been better served by taking a little time to get his views straight, but he's not under any obligation to do it. If he was presenting himself as some kind of authority on philosophy and religion, you might have a point, Randal, but that's not what I see in the clips you used. His one point about helping people think straight is clearly in the context of thinking about science -- his area of expertise -- not on religion or philosophy.

[@jackdispennett744]

I think the issue is that because of the halo effect, many people think because he’s smart in one thing he’s smart in everything, ergo the evidence for God must be pretty crappy if NDT doesn’t believe in it.

[@ov3rclocked]

The meaning of "atheist" and "agnostic" depends on how people use them - no one owns these words. People do often define them in conflicting ways, so insisting on prescriptive definitions ("this is what X really means") doesn't seem very useful. Since you're not the one who determines what words mean, people can simply disagree. For instance, Neil's definition of "agnostic" seems very widely used to me. While I agree it has issues with clarity, like potentially including some theists (as you mentioned), that doesn't to be seem enough to dismiss it outright: these people tend to allow for additional labels to add nuance, like "agnostic theist" (which would be what they use for the example you gave) or "agnostic atheist" (which is how many of them label themselves). A more useful approach, in my experience, is to try to understand what the person is trying to say (the meaning), and then show where their logic breaks down given the definitions THEY'RE using. And if that's not possible, then perhaps what they're saying DOES makes enough sense to be meaningful - and that can happen *even if the definitions they're using aren't the best*.

[@piesho]

"Religion tells people what they want to hear, not what they need to know." Yes. "Religions are made up of many distinct doctrines." Absolutely. That's why people go and listen to what they want to hear from the religion that offers them exactly that. If the preacher says something people don't agree with, people change religion (or at least church)

[@jackdispennett744]

Throughout history that wasn’t the case. Often you were limited to attending the Church that was backed by whatever governing authorities were in charge, with others being banned. Religious freedom of competing Christian traditions is a relatively rare phenomenon in history, spanning maybe the first few hundred years of Christianity before Proto-Catholic Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, and extending back a few hundred years back from the present .

[@gummiesrule88]

This is a strained and inaccurate set of arguments here. For example, by saying he "thinks for himself" Tyson is simply saying that he doesn't try to hew to the dogma of any particular group. Instead, he thinks for himself. He is NOT saying that the religious don't think for themselves. You certainly may not like what Tyson is saying for any number of reasons. But the solution is not to mischaracterize what he is saying in order to knock down a strawman.

[@danielpaulson8838]

0:35 "He's far out of his depth" - Logical fallacy. This is going to be fun. We haven't even left the gate.

[@ethanf.237]

Imagine thinking that a phrase used in the introduction of a video, before the actual analysis/ argumentation occurs, is a logical fallacy. Sounds like a convenient way for a reddit dweller to avoid careful engagement with the arguments presented.

[@danielpaulson8838]

@ It was a logical fallacy. Doesn’t matter if you don’t like it. And from someone with very limited knowledge and skills. He’s not making viable claims to address. It would be like talking to a flat earther. Whats a redit?

[@jeffdanelek2132]

Unfortunately, you failed to define what an agnostic is yourself. While it technically means that the existence of a god or gods is intellectually unknowable, I think it is still a better term to describe one who is undecided about whether god exists than is the term atheist, which strikes me as being more definitive in regards to ones beliefs. While I do agree that the terms are similar in meaning, they are not exactly interchangeable.

[@lkae4]

I think the definition that God is unknowable is self-defeating. So you absolutely know that God is unknowable because no absolute realities can be known? How did you figure out the absolutely reality of agnosticism then?

[@jeffdanelek2132]

@@lkae4 I didn't say I agree with agnosticism. I simply define it as best I can. I'm actually a pantheist myself.

[@lkae4]

@@jeffdanelek2132 Sorry, wasn't going at you. I agree there are different definitions. This one is absolute nonsense as we all know now.

[@weirdwilliam8500]

I think NDT is an atheist, but he doesn’t want to wade into that drama because he just wants to promote science.

[@EnglishMike]

Perhaps, but the vast majority of fast growing cohort of non-religious people in America are very reluctant to take that final step into becoming atheists. The number of atheists is growing but nowhere near as fast as people are leaving traditional religion, and perhaps Tyson is one of them. Most people prefer to leave the door open to some level of "something more up there, in control" which is fine by me. If they're not actual atheists, most of them are essentially functional atheists in that religion plays little to no part in their lives.

[@weirdwilliam8500]

@ Right. The term atheist has been systematically demonized for decades, such that many people see it as a specific kind of non-believer: bitter, angry, miserable, and insufferably strident and narrow minded. I’ve heard a lot of people talk about leaving their faith and beliefs but feeling like that doesn’t make them an ATHEIST! (I know it’s presumptuous of me, but I really do consider all “agnostics” as atheists according to the modern popular definition.) Fortunately, much like exposure to actual, normal gay people has eroded the stereotypes of them that persisted in the 90’s and prior, I think the same thing is happening now with atheism. Once we reach a critical mass of open, normal nonbelievers, it will demystify the label. I think that’s already happened for people under 40 or so, so now we wait. 😅

[@Max_Doubt]

Yes, even ultra-rare, outright deniers who _claim_ no gods exist can be open to countervailing evidence that would convince them otherwise.

[@RickPayton-r9d]

"Religion tells people what they want to hear". "Obey me and be rewarded with paradise" said the (insert favorite here, pastor priest ...). I think Tyson's interpretation of religion, based on the scientific evidence, is quite correct.

[@Morpheus0000]

Such a clear and helpful rebuttal of Tyson's reductionist and naive philosophies.

[@ChristianCatboy]

As someone in the LGBTQIA+ community, I can sympathize on a gut level with NdGT's take, in this respect: It is very frustrating to stay in neighborly communication with people who make nit-picky distinctions about how certain words need to be used, and judge others based on whether or not they identify with certain labels. It's sorta like the gendered pronoun issue. Productive use of language always needs to be a joint effort - a "meeting of minds" - negotiated in good faith with people who may have different life-experiences and linguistic associations. I dislike being referred to as a "man", because in practice - in the real world of my lived psycho-social reality - that word does imply that I ethically "should" be a "masculine male", "by nature", and it gets applied to me by strangers based on whether my appearance conveys one category or the other in their own mind. This isn't an academic issue for me; it's a matter of effective communication. I need to make it obvious to strangers at a glance that I am neither a masculine male, nor a woman, or else they're going to assume one or the other, and that's going to be inaccurate and mutually-alienating. I also wear a cross, though, because the next stereotype they're likely to jump to is assuming that I'm a godless "proud sinner".

[@KingoftheJuice18]

Just because a message is comforting, hopeful, or attractive doesn't mean it's wrong. The truth of a message must be judged on other grounds, not its relative optimism or pessimism. As for science telling us what we "need to know," I can think of many important things we need to know that modern science doesn't address in any sort of meaningful way: the purpose of existence, the truth about morality, the worth of human (and other) life, the best and highest ways to live in this world, both as an individual and in community.

[@weirdwilliam8500]

It also doesn’t mean it’s right. That’s the point.

[@sohu86x]

Just because a message is comforting, hopeful, or attractive doesn't mean it's right.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

@@sohu86x Of course; I implied that too. And just because a message is depressing and nihilistic doesn't mean it's right.

[@weirdwilliam8500]

@@KingoftheJuice18 You’re confusing truth statements and value statements. Purpose, worth, and morality are value statements, not truth statements. We don’t choose what we value, nor can you really justify personal values with evidence. Whether or not a god exists IS a truth statement. Currently, there is no good evidence to believe any gods exists. The best I ever hear is arguments from social or emotional utility, which can justify holding the belief in a god, but cannot justify the belief being true.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

@@weirdwilliam8500 No, that's not the point. There are a lot of people like Tyson who suggest that religion is unlikely to be true *because* it's message is hopeful, reassuring, and inspiring.

[@Elaphe472]

What Neil believes is that religions is nuts, a conglomerate of absurd, irrational beliefs, like the belief that babies are born sinners and with a "hardened" heart. But he is careful about stepping over and cause bitter reactions.

[@notavailable4891]

When people like Tyson say they don't want to commit to a positive position it reminds me of womanizers who say they "don't like labels". Translated into honesty it means they want to do the shaboinky without paying the price of any commitment. Same with Tyson, he wants to nitpick other people's beliefs, poorly in my opinion, without putting anything on the line. Also he comes off like he enjoys smelling his own gas all day, I don't know why anyone is a fan tbh.

[@sohu86x]

Its not helpful but it is accurate. More accurate than the opposite position.

[@rogersacco4624]

If you found yourself in the afterlife you'd have no idea what to do apart from your time,place,and history which made you who you are.And you won't have any purpose or care about theology once the anxieties are removed.Eternal boredom!

[@aikendrum2908]

Randal - In your eagerness to provide a critique, I think you didn’t listen charitably to what Tyson was trying to say. At the end, you were essentially demanding that he establish himself as belonging to particular categories as you define them, which is exactly what he started out saying he had no interest in. If you just listen to him without judging him, I think you’d hear that he basically has no theistic beliefs, so he isn’t a theist, and his lack of belief would qualify him as an atheist to those who think atheism is just a lack of belief, and a non-atheist to those who think atheism must include a denial of all gods. Colloquially, since he isn’t an activist about it, he just calls himself an agnostic because he doesn’t know for sure one way or the other whether there are any gods and is willing to keep an open mind about future evidence showing up. (Most online KZbin atheists would claim him, citing his lack of belief, as happened on his Wikipedia page.) But he doesn’t really care about such labels; he isn’t sophisticated about theology and philosophy. He just cares about science and what cool things can be demonstrated to be true in the real world. His criticism of religion as being what people “want to hear” was no more than that. If you asked him, I’m sure he would agree that religions sometimes say what people don’t want to hear, but in either case he just views it as a made-up story with no demonstrable truth. You may still want to critique that, but I think this is a much more charitable view of what he believes than the way you presented his views as being self-contradictory when carved apart with your exacting definitions and philosophical rigor.

[@ibelieveingaming3562]

God isn't real.