Why Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Stick To Science

[JimL]

Did you just ignore what I said? They were allowed to argue against such positions, they just weren't allowed to practice them, or publicly preach them/declare them as fact.

Yeah, did you hear what i said? They were forced to keep their mouths shut or face the consequences.

[JimL]

*Sigh*

Jim. Try reading some scholarship on the Inquisition like Kamen sometime. Few were put to death and of those, I don't know of a single one that was put to death for doing science. In fact, the church usually handed criminals over to the secular state that would then enforce the death penalty on people deemed dangerous to society. Like it or not, the church provided the central cohesive unit of society and going against the church in an extreme way was attacking the very fabric of society.

Yeah, sort of like the pharisees handing over the criminal Jesus to the secular state to let them do the dirty work for them.

I gave you some excellent resources from Tim O'Neill's site and he's no Christian fundamentalist. You could do something unusual and you know, actually study what he says.

You've got several people here who know more about this time period than you do. Might as well pay attention to them. Bruno is not the kind of person you want representing your position.

Yeah, actually Bruno is exactly the kind of person to represent my position, sort of like Jesus.

[Apologiaphoenix]

What do you really know about Bruno and please, give some real scholarly sources concerning him. Not Pop Atheist stuff.

[TimelessTheist]

Yeah, did you hear what i said? They were forced to keep their mouths shut or face the consequences.

No, they were forced to not 'teach' it as fact, or 'practice' it as if were true Christianity. It's against the law to teach junk science in public schools, this is just that, on a country-wide basis. Michael De Bay published a book whose premises were said to have supported Jansenism. He was summoned by the Inquisition on charges of heresy, given attempts to defend his book, failed to defend the premises of his book, and finally, admitted his teachings were wrong and heretical. Guess what the Inquisition did to him? Nothing at all. He kept his job, he wasn't thrown in jail, he wasn't tortured, nothing. Same with Copernicus. He wrote scholarly papers, within academia, arguing for, and proposing theories for, heliocentrism. Guess what happened to him? Nothing. Since he didn't publish these works in a book available to, and meant for teaching, the general public, but instead published them within academia, the Inquisition didn't even bother with him.

[rogue06]

Rogue. I agree the church was the main group that persecuted him, but it really started with the Aristotelians. I think they just handed him over to the church because the church had more power than they did.

I think he didn't make any friends among them considering how often his studies questioned their assumptions -- but as I noted, he wasn't alone and the others never faced any reprisals even though their work was also widely known

[rogue06]

*Sigh*

Jim. Try reading some scholarship on the Inquisition like Kamen sometime. Few were put to death and of those, I don't know of a single one that was put to death for doing science. In fact, the church usually handed criminals over to the secular state that would then enforce the death penalty on people deemed dangerous to society. Like it or not, the church provided the central cohesive unit of society and going against the church in an extreme way was attacking the very fabric of society.

I gave you some excellent resources from Tim O'Neill's site and he's no Christian fundamentalist. You could do something unusual and you know, actually study what he says.

You've got several people here who know more about this time period than you do. Might as well pay attention to them. Bruno is not the kind of person you want representing your position.

Nothing made them happier than for someone accused of heretical teachings to immediately and voluntarily recant and rejoin the Church. Their objective was to secure the repentance of the accused and if that happened forgiveness was granted and a penance was imposed.

Further, historians have discovered that the secular courts and methods they employed were far more brutal than what the Inquisition employed. As a general rule the sentences and penances handed out by the Inquisition were considerably less cruel. And this had nothing to do with whether someone was handed over to them by church authorities for heresy or whether they were arrested for some non-religious crime like rape or murder. Secular courts often started the process by trying to extract a confession through torture. As barbaric as the Inquisition was they saw torture only as a last resort.

To be clear this does not excuse the brutality that they inflicted but the fact is the Inquisition almost always tended to be less savage than the secular courts and methods they employed during this time. But again I reiterate, killing people who disagree with us is indefensible.

[Tassman]

No. You mean quoting Jim's words right back at him. Minds dulled by atheistic presuppositionalism have a hard time seeing objective facts.

I mean turning the issue of “word definition” into “scientism”; it's not.

Frankly, you're just starting to bore me. Someone find a small child of five who will actually understand something please.

And this little gem contributes to the discussion how exactly…..

Oh look. Someone can read on Amazon. (For Tassy, this is in-depth research) I suppose you know about all the voluminous Christian endorsements of books like "The God Delusion." How many conservative scholars endorse Ehrman's works? That game can be played just as well.

But you see, the difference is I read Ehrman's works anyway. I read the new atheists anyway. I read stuff that I know is on the fringe junk anyway. You read whatever your fellow non-Christians approve only apparently.

Okay. Let's play that game. Give me an argument against the resurrection but I will only accept books that argue against it that are endorsed by Christian scholars!

Unless Keener can convince those not of like mind about miracles it doesn't mean very much. He might be personally convinced about their existence and his Christian supporters likewise, but outside of this mutual admiration society I know of no non-Christian scholars who are convinced. Do you?

That's right, and that also deals with the idea that most NT scholars are Christians. They're not. Keener has presented an able challenge to that. Looking at his statement of faith doesn't change that. Real researchers read something that deals with their claim. Little cowards refuse to.

Big shock what camp you fall in.

Most “real” contemporary researchers who attempt to reconstruct an historical Jesus” - according to Raymond E Brown in his ‘The Death of the Messiah’ - agree that from a purely historical perspective Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of Pontius Pilate” – and that's about it. No miracles! No supernaturalism!

Keener's work. The one you ignore. Why? Too wussy to read what disagrees with you?

Support your claim of with a précis of Keener’s argument. Surely you can find something more than mere anecdotal evidence for miracles in his two lengthy volumes.

No, because I am not a presuppositionalist and in fact I write against presuppositionalism. You could have spent five minutes looking it up on my blog and realized that.

Oh really! But you assume that I'm an “atheistic presuppositionalist” whatever that is, given that you toss the term around so often.

It's in the book and I don't do spoon-feeding. If you really want to find out if your view is correct, you'll read the other side like I do. If not, you won't.

Debating by link or referencing a book without detailing key points is lazy and quite unacceptable. Have you actually read the two volumes?

Except I read what disagrees with me. You don't. As soon as a book comes out from Ehrman, I'm rushing to the library to see if I can get my hands on it. That's what people who care about finding out truth do. They read what disagrees with them.

…and do you sneer about it, as you’ve repeatedly done here (e.g. “oooh Ehrman” etc) before or after you've read him.

And Tassy once again doesn't realize I don't accept a natural/supernatural distinction.

By definition a miracle is quite distinct from the natural world: "1. an extraordinary occurrence that surpasses all known human powers or natural forces and is ascribed to a divine or supernatural cause, esp. to God." The corollary is that such alleged occurrences are non-natural, i.e. “supernatural”.

Are you jumping up and down and turning red in the face when you say this?

Why would I be “jumping up and down and turning red in the face”?

Once again: “If a supernatural event like a miracle is claimed to have occurred in the material, physical world, either today or in history, then it is a scientific claims.

And your response is…..

Really? Prove me wrong. Read what disagrees with you! I do.

Or do you just already know it all and don't need to read?

See above re providing a précis of Keeners’ book.

No. He doesn't. He was an atheist until he was convinced by the evidence. Most of the time when someone has done PH.D. research, they have strong opinions after that and will sign statements agreeing with that.

It must be nice to discount everyone just because they disagree with you.

Certainly, he may be convinced by the evidence for miracles, some people are convinced by “evidence” of pyramid power, but unless they are able to convince others then it remains a personal belief. So please detail the list of competent non-Christian scholars who have accepted Keener’s argument about miracles. I know of none.

And once again, why should that be the case prior to the evidence? Why not look at the evidence first and THEN decide what the least likely explanation is?

More to the point, why not look for a natural explanation to explain an alleged strange occurrence before leaping to the conclusion “it must be a miracle". We don't normally assume events in our daily lives to be miraculous no matter how strange they may seem. They may have in a more superstitious era - like 2,000 years ago - but not today outside of bible-belt circles.

No. I do not mean according to me. I mean according to other scholars in the field. See for instance people like Michael Bird, Craig Evans, Charles Hill, Chris Tilling, and Simon Gathercole in "How God Became Jesus." See the interviews I've done with scholars like Craig Blomberg and Daniel Wallace. See the reviews by Larry Hurtado.

Bauckham is one of the leading writers of the Early High Christology Club. That Ehrman ignores that is telling. Ehrman does mention at least twice Larry Hurtado, but there is no major interaction with his massive work "Lord Jesus Christ" where he argues the earliest Christology is indeed the highest.

If you were to write a Ph.D. thesis and not write against the best scholarship against your position, it would not be accepted.

By which you mean faith-based Christian scholars, which of course very few people outside the club take seriously. No more than non-Muslims takes seriously the faith-based scholars of Islam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...olars_of_Islam

Conversely, the likes of Ehrman, Burton Mack, Robert Funk, John D. Crossan and others are critical scholars, who make empirical, factual evidence (i.e. evidence open to confirmation by independent, neutral observers) the controlling factor in historical judgements.

This is as opposed to your little list of personal favourites, who put dogmatic considerations first and insist that the factual evidence confirm theological premises. Just as you do, despite your protestations to impartial scholarship.

I find this answer revealing. If there's no real answer next time, I'm definitely moving on. No need to interact with someone who refuses to really read what disagrees with them.

Just a refusal to answer a loaded question!

Nope. I can value someone even if I disagree with their work. I gave Crossan and Reed four stars on Amazon for instance because while I disagreed with their work on Paul, it contains valuable insights that should not be ignored. I even highly endorsed Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World" as well. I supported much of what he had to say.

That's what you do when you read books that disagree with you.

And as for books that agree with me, I've written much against several of them because they're just bad books!

So “anything you can do I can do better”, is that it?

How about James Crossley in debate with Bauckham on Unbelievable? Perhaps you should listen to that sometime. Note also Bauckham's thesis is that the Gospels were by eyewitnesses or were based on eyewitness testimony. It is not that Papias himself interviewed an eyewitness.

Of course not, Baulkham himself says Papias doesn’t. I said so, please focus. But an argument based on second or third-hand reports and not set down in writing until the second century by an historian whose veracity has been questioned is not a solid argument for eyewitness reportage except for those who want to believe it. This is probably why most non-Christian scholars give little credence to Baulkham’s hypothesis.

Actually, it is about faith. Aristotle was primarily a philosopher and secondarily into the sciences, although much of his science was wrong, some was right, such as his writings on the gestation of chickens.

Please address the issue.

Knowledge of how the universe functioned was demonstrably less in Aristotle’s day than the scientifically verified knowledge of today. Hence his (understandable) ignorance of the physical universe. This resulted in faulty premises, which in turn led to incorrect conclusions. It took science to reveal his error, which is my point. Philosophy is based upon the world-view of the day - it does not have the mechanism to obtain new knowledge of how the universe functions. Only science can do this. Therefore, to this extent philosophy is dependent upon science.

This only applies when speaking about materialistic reality.

True! But "material reality" is all we have credible knowledge of.

It does not necessarily follow with ethics, logic, mathematics, aesthetics, or metaphysics.

Mathematics and logic are tools of science which are useful for discovering verifiable facts about the universe, whereas the rest are basically matter of opinion, not absolute truths in any sense.

All of this is a philosophical statement that does not have empirical testing behind it. Therefore, I should just dismiss it since the premises are assumptions.

Not so. The so-called “truths of science” are empirically tested therefore they are substantiated statements. Philosophical “truths” are not. And where the conclusions of the latter conflict with scientific conclusions they are displaced – as per Galileo vis-à-vis Aristotle's celestial spheres etc.

Not yet. I'm just saying that you couldn't deal with a single real theistic argument if your life depended on it.

Why would anyone want to “deal with” a theistic argument when there is, as you acknowledge, "not yet" any established knowledge of something other than the “physical world”.

Largely through the work of Francis Bacon who would be appalled at the thought of separating it from either philosophy or Christianity. Neither would make sense.

But it IS separated from philosophy and Christianity and while philosophical methodology is a useful tool of science, Christianity has no use at all – despite Francis Bacon’s alleged reaction. He was a man of his age after all.

Okay. Sure. Simple answer. I don't because I don't accept idealism. I accept a common sense realism. That has a good theistic foundation.

So you CAN’T demonstrate that the world exists outside your mind.

Define “common-sense realism”. What’s “realistic” about imagined, invisible entities such as spirits? And what, precisely, is “a good theistic foundation”. Do you mean a faith-based belief system?

What is the basis for common sense realism in naturalism?

Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only laws of nature (physical law) (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world". Oxford Dictionary. Thus naturalism is based upon substantiated evidence of the material universe, whereas there is “NOT YET” any established knowledge of something other than the “physical world”, which you yourself admit.

And then you can get back to the actual argument itself, namely that science is able to acquire new knowledge of the physical world whereas philosophy on its own cannot.

The heliocentric universe was a demonstration of the acquisition of new knowledge based upon empirical research, as opposed to the philosophical notion of Aristotle’s geocentric universe which the science of Galileo was able to correct.

There are endless such examples.

They don't. I just defined the words on my own. It's all relative after all.

No it’s not. Not when it comes to defining words. Their correct usage is determined by commonly accepted agreement regarding meaning and contextual factors.

You actually think you're a threat? No Tassy. You're really just laughable.

One more chance and I'm done wasting my time.

Sure! Run away when your pontifications are not taken seriously. That’s your record. Furthermore, you can save face by scripturally justifying such behaviour: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet”. Matt. 10. So why not shake off the dust AP and move on to greener pastures. You haven’t convinced me.

[Sparko]

But Sparko, there are none so blind as those who will not see. C02 levels have been rising for decades, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels. Rising C02 levels in the atmosphere prevents the energy from the sun from radiating back into space thus warming the planet. Thats why it is dubbed the greenhouse effect! Its common sense then and scientists have documented and are well aware of this process and of the decades long rise in C02 levels. Now certainly you are not going to argue that we humans are not the cause of the rise in C02 levels in the atmosphere, are you?

more claims. first prove that humans are the major contributor to CO2 levels. Then prove that CO2 levels actually are the cause of global warming. Then show that global warming has actually occurred as claimed.

No, I actually look at and accept the evidence, you either don't look, or refuse to accept it.

No you blindly accept what people tell you is evidence. You don't bother to check, and even if you did you don't know enough science to actually check it out to see if it is true or not.

No, you actually have faith despite the evidence to the contrary merely because you don't want to believe it.

What evidence to the contrary?

Wrong. It had everything to do with the block universe, which you obviously know nothing of. Try googling it, you can probably get an understanding of it in about 10 minutes.

from your favorite source: wiki:

According to the growing block universe theory of time (or the growing block view), the past and present exist and the future does not exist. The present is an objective property, to be compared with a moving spotlight. By the passage of time more of the world comes into being, therefore the block universe is said to be growing. The present is supposed to be the place where this is supposed to happen, a very thin slice of spacetime, where more of spacetime is coming into being.

so there is no way to travel into the future by walking towards the earth. That doesn't even make a lick of sense anyway. Why would moving toward our planet move you into the future? It's just complete ignorance on your part.

And yet it is you who believe in an invisible being that lives beyond the universe and created said universe from out of nothing by thinking it into existence with no credible evidence.

We have plenty of evidence. You just ignore it. Heck, you don't even UNDERSTAND how the universe came to be according to secular science, nor have you investigated any theological evidence for God, yet you feel confident in dismissing it. Like I said, you suffer from Dunning-Kruger. You don't realize how ignorant you are.

[Apologiaphoenix]

To be clear this does not excuse the brutality that they inflicted but the fact is the Inquisition almost always tended to be less savage than the secular courts and methods they employed during this time. But again I reiterate, killing people who disagree with us is indefensible.

Indeed. There can be no justification for a wrong done, but let's make sure we're at least viewing the situation rightly.

Although I think you might bend the rules and be willing to kill someone who disagreed with you on bacon.

[The Pixie]

I read through the first couple of pages of comments, and could see no actual substance, so did not bother with the rest; apologies if this has already been discussed, please direct me to the page if it has.

The real problem is a sort of scientism here that science is the highest way of knowing truth and sometimes the only way of knowing truth. Both of these should be rejected by everyone. Now if materialism was true and everything that was in the universe was matter, then you could perhaps have a start of a case, but that is not known through science. That is known by doing philosophy instead.

The thing about science is that its methodology does give us more certainty than any other way of knowing the truth.

I am talking here about general truths, by the way. For specific facts, like what I ate for breatfast, clearly the senses are best. But if you want to know about generalities, science wins. It is not just that the experiments are repeatable, it is that the claims of science lead to necessary predictions, and that those predictions turn out to be right.

You bring up materialism. No, materialism is not known by doing science. It is also not known by doing philosophy - because we do not know if it is true. See, that is where science wins. We know the theory of relativity is a good model of the world. You just do not get that certainty with philosophy. We do not know if astrology is right, we do not know if the Book of Mormon is right, we do not know if the moral acceptance of genocide is right. We just have opinion.

The real problem is that science undermines certain religious beliefs, and so people are obliged to find excuses for pretending it is wrong.

[Apologiaphoenix]

The thing about science is that its methodology does give us more certainty than any other way of knowing the truth.

Do you have a reason I should think this?

I am talking here about general truths, by the way. For specific facts, like what I ate for breatfast, clearly the senses are best. But if you want to know about generalities, science wins. It is not just that the experiments are repeatable, it is that the claims of science lead to necessary predictions, and that those predictions turn out to be right.

And they can also turn out to be wrong, but there are many truths not known by science. How about right and wrong? How about existential questions? How about questions of beauty or literature or theology?

You bring up materialism. No, materialism is not known by doing science. It is also not known by doing philosophy - because we do not know if it is true. See, that is where science wins. We know the theory of relativity is a good model of the world. You just do not get that certainty with philosophy. We do not know if astrology is right, we do not know if the Book of Mormon is right, we do not know if the moral acceptance of genocide is right. We just have opinion.

The other areas are areas of philosophy and history but why should those be assumed to be in the realm of opinion? Do you really think genocide is just the realm of opinion?

The real problem is that science undermines certain religious beliefs, and so people are obliged to find excuses for pretending it is wrong.

I do not hold a single religious belief that is undermined by science.

[rogue06]

Indeed. There can be no justification for a wrong done, but let's make sure we're at least viewing the situation rightly.

Although I think you might bend the rules and be willing to kill someone who disagreed with you on bacon.

Hrrrumph! I've allowed the undercooked bacon heretics to speak their minds freely despite their being oh so wrong.

[Sparko]

Hrrrumph! I've allowed the undercooked bacon heretics to speak their minds freely despite their being oh so wrong.

That's only because you realized that if they didn't like your bacon then they were no threat to your stash.

[The Pixie]

Do you have a reason I should think this?

Did you notice the rest of my post?

Oh, you did:

And they can also turn out to be wrong...

Yes, sometimes they turn out to be wrong.

Think about that. Science makes claims that sometimes are wrong. Does philosophy do that? Theology? No. They are just opinions. But in science, things can be wrong, and when they are, science gets corrected.

See, this is why science is better.

And they can also turn out to be wrong, but there are many truths not known by science. How about right and wrong? How about existential questions? How about questions of beauty or literature or theology?

That is right, science does not know everything.

But neither does theology or philosophy - what do they tell us about gravity or quantum entanglement. We have nothing that gives us all truths, so this is a poor way to judge the best one.

The other areas are areas of philosophy and history but why should those be assumed to be in the realm of opinion? Do you really think genocide is just the realm of opinion?

What about genocide? What does theology tell us about genocide? The OT seems to support it, do you stand by that? It does look like a matter of opinion from a Biblical point of view.

I do not hold a single religious belief that is undermined by science.

So why care enough to blog about it? I think on some level a lot of Christians feel that their religion is threatened by science, and so do their best to belittle it.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Did you notice the rest of my post?

Oh, you did:

Sure did.

Yes, sometimes they turn out to be wrong.

Think about that. Science makes claims that sometimes are wrong. Does philosophy do that?

Sure does! Logical positivism is dead for instance! Every system of philosophy involves critique of another. Aristotle critiqued Plato and it's all gone on from there. Are there still differing positions on issues? Yep. Just as much as there is in science, but if a position is shown to be inconsistent to a philosopher, he will give it up.

Theology? No.

Yep. Sure does. The ontological argument can be shown to be faulty. Views like Arianism and Modalism were shown to be false. Now is the truth harder to ascertain in these cases? Yep. Does that mean it's all just opinion? Nope.

They are just opinions. But in science, things can be wrong, and when they are, science gets corrected.

See, this is why science is better.

This assumes that this is all just opinions, but how can this be shown? It doesn't refute a position to say it is an opinion. You can say it's my opinion that God exists. I can say it's yours that He doesn't. Does that mean His existence is opinion entirely? No. He either exists or He doesn't. What do we do to make our case? We present data and critique it.

That is right, science does not know everything.

But neither does theology or philosophy - what do they tell us about gravity or quantum entanglement. We have nothing that gives us all truths, so this is a poor way to judge the best one.

Which is why I never judged a best one. You made such a judgment though.

The thing about science is that its methodology does give us more certainty than any other way of knowing the truth.

I have said repeatedly when you study the physical universe, science is the best. It is designed for just that. When you study ethics, science is not the best. When you study theology, science is not the best, and when science acts like an authority in these fields, it oversteps those bounds.

What about genocide? What does theology tell us about genocide? The OT seems to support it, do you stand by that? It does look like a matter of opinion from a Biblical point of view.

That would depend on what genocide is. From the definition, no, it does not.

So why care enough to blog about it? I think on some level a lot of Christians feel that their religion is threatened by science, and so do their best to belittle it.

Why? Because I care about having right information out there. If a scientist speaks wrongly on philosophy or theology, he needs to be corrected. If a theologian or a philosopher speaks wrongly on science, he needs to be corrected. No field needs to be disparaged, including that of Tyson. Tyson gives a statement that many engaged in an atheistic group think will mindlessly engage. My beef is not with science. It is with Tyson's statement.