Why Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Stick To Science

[Tassman]

Yes and this simplicity came about from a necessary rational being that entails no parts, so I agree with you. God is definitely simpler than whatever in the world you pose as an explanation.

This is a bald assertion. Evolution is a clear demonstration that complexity has evolved from simplicity; no gods needed.

Actually, its "God made in the image of man"; Homo sapiens and our simian ancestors came long before any notion of a deity was extant.

God provides no evidenced explanation at all and the evidence for Natural Selection is undeniable.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html

We are rational creatures, we evolved via Natural Selection. There's so much data already and scientific research, in areas like neurobiology, sociobiology, human psychology, emergence, evolution, general biology, physics, can actually and will provide real answers. So why would anyone bother with speculative metaphysics from the pre-scientific era?

No, what we have to work with is Evolutionary theory and this is supported by abundant evidence.

the obvious fact that Theism is true.

Theism is unsupported by any evidence other than metaphysical conjecture based upon assumed axiomatic premises.

God helps my case, because God is a necessary being, what exactly is your alternative. Like what am I looking for in an atheistic universe, everything you guys come up with is so ad-hoc to the evidence.

Is a godless universe supposed to necessary? Is it supposed to be contingent? Is it supposed to magically create rationality ex nihilo from nonrationality? How does it work?

The concept of an infinite regress in an infinite, timeless universe is meaningless. It belongs to the Classical era of philosophy before the counter-intuitiveness of quantum universe was understood.

My assertion was not the premise of a Deductive Argument, merely a statement of fact using words with commonly accepted dictionary meanings. How you love your recursive arguments.

This is egregiously false, so let me give you an example of how logic can build on other types of knowing. Take the proposition: "All bachelors are unmarried men." Now on inductive, physical evidence we could never completely verify this since we have the famous "black swan" problem of induction. We would only be able to state that as far as we had tested it the proposition always held true. But logic can demonstrate the necessary truth of the proposition by considering it to be true by the meaning of the words and therefore it can be known to be absolutely true analytically a priori. This is an instance of logic assuring knowledge which goes beyond that of the senses and that of induction.

Therefore, logic can give us new knowledge

someScience assumes nothing of the sort. Science is not about objective metaphysical truth. It is a collection of methods for making abstract models of nature, then testing those models against reality and devising falsifiable conclusions. Conversely, Deductive metaphysical conclusions claim to be objectively true.

Or we can go with emergent dualism!

Let me hold my stick aside for a second and ask you: Do you think that science is the only method towards gaining NEW knowledge about the universe, yes or no?

Scientific methodology is the only means of NEW knowledge about the universe, is my argument.

Sez who? All you do here is beg the question and assume that matter has always existed.

You mean like you beg the question and assume that God has always existed? See above regarding the scientific postulate of an infinite, timeless quantum universe as supported by quantum physics.

Hawking's view, which is shared by most of his colleagues, is that although 'real time' had a beginning, it begins from a timeless Quantum World. This well grounded in the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Do I really need to go over possible world semantics? Or how there are a priori truths that we can just grasp clearly and distinctly?

do know better today. BTW: Your apparent hatred and fear of atheism seems to me to be grounded in insecurity of your own theistic world view. Not surprising, it's an untenable view.

Whatever you want to call it your above assertion cannot be explained in terms of the Laws of Nature.

I made no such supposed "god of the gaps" argument. All of the arguments for God's existence I hold to are based on what we do know and not on the gaps about what we don't.

Snip.

Now we come to the fine-tuning of the universe. Does this unique scientific event have deep theological context? Well, yes. And so it seems inappropriate to hand-wave this theistic explanation.

without exception, EVERY phenomenon which has been closely examined has turned out to have a natural explanation.

Projection!

Well those communities according to the godless evolution should have died off because those communities were lacking true beliefs.

Oh and if the godless evolution is so concerned with truth as it supposedly aids survival, why do religious people live longer than non-religious people?

The survival advantages in Evolution are measured in eons, not decades. But, regardless, you are wrong in anyway. The godly USA ranks only 28th on the UN Human Development Index (which includes life expectancy) compared to the godless nations such as Norway and Germany.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...-suggests.html

I also see things on spirituality too, so I guess the godles evolution is doing something fishy here.

http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/articl...331Reuters.pdf

Inasmuch as they are without reference to particular facts or experience they do require assumptions.

Ask that materialist who needs to explain the immaterial substances in our universe, if you want to beg the question so can I.

You need to be able to test it against reality, as per scientific methodology .

Again: There is NO credible evidence for the component in the first place.

[Tassman]

1.

Which interpretation?

Classification adopted by Einstein
The Copenhagen interpretation
Many worlds
Consistent histories
Snip.

Quantum Mechanics is counter-intuitive and difficult to understand - especially for the layman. But this doesn't mean it is not a well understood scientific theory and highly productive.

http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/quantum.html

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/cu...ange-world.htm

Your attempt to reduce it meaningless babble is deceitful.

the Hypothesis of God is especially attractive, because it does not really look as though the fundamental laws and states of the universe are very simple at all. There is a whole 'particle zoo' at the subatomic level. There is dark energy and dark matter. There are many complex equations in quantum theory.

necessarily make them correct.

The scientific search for one neat "Theory of Everything", which would somehow embrace all lower-level physical laws, is looking very unlikely to succeed. The hypothesis that such a search will succeed is an article of faith in the power of science. It is not an unreasonable faith; there are good reasons, in the past success of science and the elegance of the laws so far discovered, to hold it. But to do so is as much a step of faith as is a commitment to the God hypothesis , which also has good reasons to support it, but cannot at present be conclusively established.

So in other words you have no objection to what I just said, except the fact that Aristotle was old, and therefore he must have been wrong. Once you again you make another careless appeal to time.

Spare me!What was wrong with it is that analogies about the Laws of the Universe are not evidence of those laws.

when I interact with my little daughter. Nor do the lesser creatures when they interact with their offspring. How presumptuous you are.

There have been five mass extinctions of life on earth (some say we are on our way to a sixth mass extinction) and approx 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct. So, why do you suggest that the universe has any more

Codes of behavior have nothing to do with moral facts, unless you can point out to me a code of behavir that ends up being objectively true.

As far as morals being derivatives of self-preservation and procreation consequent upon natural selection

We act according to our instinctive needs as do ALL the social animals which depend upon community living for survival - NOT upon an externally imposed moral code. If you think the latter then provide evidence.

Nothing can be

something has always existed

Yes! According to Hawking science is slowly awakening to the concept of the timeless cosmos, i.e. one without beginning or end and from which our current universe (one of many) was born. This is the current direction of theoretical physics. No gods are necessary. If a deity can exist eternally, so can the cosmos.

Easy, Supernatural: You know, like a ALL gods, including yours - were invoked during the pre-scientific era in an attempt to explain otherwise inexplicable phenomena. They were pre-scientific solutions to how the universe worked in the absence (seemingly) of any other reasonable explanations. E.g. Thor took care of thunder and lightning, Neptune was the boss of the sea and Yahweh created the whole enchilada and so on. Got it? There is no inherent difference between ANY of the gods. There are ALL man-made. Needless to say, science has been more successful at explaining the universe, and how it works, than postulating deities. And cheaper; one doesn't have to offer sacrifices and offerings in order to keep them appeased.

Facts relating to the functioning of the natural laws and constants of the universe!

And this social cohesion is a genuine lie, right? Because nothing really matters and we have obligation to maintain social cohesion, so I guess this is another illusion put forth by the godless evolution.

about the world or is it a trivial day-to-day experience?

We find meaning through the lie of a purposeless evolution that gives us a psychological advantage just so we can propagate our pointless dna.

Demonstrable fact, not a lie! And what's with this continual "pointless, godless universe" bit. Wishing for something different than the actuality is merely escapist fantasy. Personally, I have a satisfying, meaningful life; most creatures do. Although I admit there may be some existentially challenged baboons lurking in the jungles of Africa <sarcasm>

Or is it hopeless?

Change our view to what:

Same jam, you're still absolutely certain of the fact that you are uncertain (as you KNOW this to be true with absolute certainty), however I'm more interested in whether or not you are absolutely certain that there are no proven absolute premises, except ones we have defined to be true?

Sez who? Are you absolute sure about this?

. Ancient paradox! Yes it's a cute retort, but ultimately unhelpful for either side.

because you say so

Scientific knowledge is not about objective metaphysical truth. This is not an absolute truth in and of itself; it is the nature of science as defined. It is a methodology for testing hypothetical models of nature against reality. And it has shown itself to be enormously successful in discovering new facts about the universe; metaphysics hasn't!

that works off of individual interpretations,

Your God perhaps,

See above re the role of gods in the pre-scientific era and why they were invented and why they're no longer necessary.

[JimL]

Who is asking?

So, the fact that you think makes it self evident that you exist, you just can't explain, it isn't self evident to you, exactly what you are? Can't your philosophy answer that one for you Cornell?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Whoosh!

[Sparko]

Whoosh!

Yeah I put in a smiley just for people like JimL...

[JimL]

Yeah I put in a smiley just for people like JimL...

You put one in for yourself as well i see Sparko.

:clueless

[seer]

You put one in for yourself as well i see Sparko.

:clueless

Sorry Jim, Cornell got you - fair and square. Just admit it.

[Sparko]

You put one in for yourself as well i see Sparko.

:clueless

sure Jim. Kind of ironic coming from you, who has shown over and over how clueless you are about science, yet you worship it like a religion.

[JimL]

Sorry Jim, Cornell got you - fair and square. Just admit it.

No, he didn't seer. Cornell has gone on and on about the possibility of the universe being no more than an algorythm and yet he argues that philosophy "I think therefore I am" proves his existence.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I think this sums it all up.

[Tassman]

sure Jim. Kind of ironic coming from you, who has shown over and over how clueless you are about science, yet you worship it like a religion.

[seer]

I think this sums it all up.

LOL, one of my favorite parts!

[seer]

No, he didn't seer. Cornell has gone on and on about the possibility of the universe being no more than an algorythm and yet he argues that philosophy "I think therefore I am" proves his existence.

Of course it proves his existence, his personal identity, as it does yours. Even if we lived in a virtual universe your personal identity is still confirmed, even if your understanding of the universe is incorrect.

[David Hayward]

... Sagan just came across as being ignorant, when it came to matters of religion. Tyson, on the other hand, seems to be directly dishonest, if anyone remembers that thread I posted about his blatant lies in the first episode of Cosmos about the history of the Church.

Looks like Tyson lies a lot. Here's a journalist giving several examples, in a an article entitled, "Another Day, Another Quote Fabricated by Neil DeGrasse Tyson", which follows on from the same journalist's more detailed criticism in "Did Neil deGrasse Tyson Just Try To Justify Blatant Quote Fabrication?".

And