This is where THE spokesman for science oversteps his duties. Just as evangelists overstep their religious "duties" by attacking science and losing thinking and reasoning people as converts, so this particularly bad spokesman for science loses people like me who have reasonably concluded that there is likely to be a God at least as much as there is likely to not be a God. I am reasonable enough to believe in the scientific method but also reasonable enough to see that a majority of "truth" expounded by science is overturned by later scientific thinking. In that Tyson insinuates there is no God here with the polemic wording of his statement where the converse is also true, he is an abysmal thinker.
Neither does the evidence support the non-existence of God since any scientific evidence is based first on the general assumption of no supernatural events and that everything can be explained with natural laws. So why would our science spokesman say it was either way? If I assume there is a God and collect evidence to prove that...this would be the same methodology.
Define atheist!?!?! Because there are two types. Atheist is greek for a=without theist-gawd or without gawd. So it has BECOME to mean (1) 'Claim there is NO gawd' because fundie xtians put their own meaning on words. (2) 'I do not believe there is evidence for a gawd so I do not believe in gawd' which is most atheists, then you have (3) those that live their life 'without gawd' not that there aint one but it don't care about me and I don't care about it. And Tyson's words over time reflect the 3rd one. ANd atheist has such bad connotations with 80% of the people in USA that Tyson wants no part of it.
But why, if he wants no part of it, does he use science to make any claim about God - personal or not? It is beyond the scope of science. Just as scientific thinking is beyond the scope of religion because it assumes supernatural as the first cause. I agree "atheist" is a term of derision in the USA and does not descibe Tyson's narrow contention that he has no "personal" God.
Because the xtian bigots that don't like reality are pushing their creationist BS into the science class room. And if gawd cannot be shown as real then it has no place in science. So it aint gawd he is against but the bigoted fan club!!!! If the gawd fan club kept their BS in their churches he would not be condemning their 'personal gawd'. So yes gawd is beyond science so it should stay out of science!!!
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.
This is where THE spokesman for science oversteps his duties. Just as evangelists overstep their religious "duties" by attacking science and losing thinking and reasoning people as converts, so this particularly bad spokesman for science loses people like me who have reasonably concluded that there is likely to be a God at least as much as there is likely to not be a God. I am reasonable enough to believe in the scientific method but also reasonable enough to see that a majority of "truth" expounded by science is overturned by later scientific thinking. In that Tyson insinuates there is no God here with the polemic wording of his statement where the converse is also true, he is an abysmal thinker.
ReplyDeleteLoose thinking on your part as he never says there is no gawd.
DeleteBut that there is no evidence for a personal gawd!
Neither does the evidence support the non-existence of God since any scientific evidence is based first on the general assumption of no supernatural events and that everything can be explained with natural laws. So why would our science spokesman say it was either way? If I assume there is a God and collect evidence to prove that...this would be the same methodology.
DeleteI would love to know what "evidence" of any god you have collected.
DeleteAnd you are VERY wrong as ALL evidence is against any form of gawd!!!!
DeleteSo as Ted asks were is your great evidence for a gawd???
Define atheist!?!?! Because there are two types. Atheist is greek for a=without theist-gawd or without gawd.
ReplyDeleteSo it has BECOME to mean (1) 'Claim there is NO gawd' because fundie xtians put their own meaning on words.
(2) 'I do not believe there is evidence for a gawd so I do not believe in gawd' which is most atheists, then you have (3) those that live their life 'without gawd' not that there aint one but it don't care about me and I don't care about it.
And Tyson's words over time reflect the 3rd one. ANd atheist has such bad connotations with 80% of the people in USA that Tyson wants no part of it.
But why, if he wants no part of it, does he use science to make any claim about God - personal or not? It is beyond the scope of science. Just as scientific thinking is beyond the scope of religion because it assumes supernatural as the first cause. I agree "atheist" is a term of derision in the USA and does not descibe Tyson's narrow contention that he has no "personal" God.
DeleteThe contention that there is no "personal god" is no more narrow than the unfounded contention that there is one.
DeleteBecause the xtian bigots that don't like reality are pushing their creationist BS into the science class room. And if gawd cannot be shown as real then it has no place in science. So it aint gawd he is against but the bigoted fan club!!!! If the gawd fan club kept their BS in their churches he would not be condemning their 'personal gawd'.
DeleteSo yes gawd is beyond science so it should stay out of science!!!