"Except for the point, the still point, there would be no dance, and there is only the dance." ~ T.S. Eliot in "Burnt Norton"

Monday, April 8, 2013

In our class discussion on the New Atheist movement, we have seen polarized views spanning from the  "delusions of grandeur" put forth by Richard Dawkins to the Karen Armstrong's opinion that the New Atheist movement is based on "poor Theology," or the lack of religious education.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9DlT7m_0ew

In this video, we see the opinion of another New Atheist, Neil DeGrasse Tyson.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist, who primarily focuses on questions of cosmology, evolution and galactic astronomy. (You might recognize his face from the video a few weeks ago- "Reflecting on Battlestar Galactica!")  However, in this particular video, we see him commenting on the relationship between religion and science.
How does DeGrasse Tyson's argument correlate with the arguments of New Atheist thinkers?  How does it depart?
Do you think his idea is idea is correct that "we would've never left the cave" without scientists questioning religion?



16 comments:

  1. There appears to be a link connecting Mr. Tyson's observations with Mr. Dawkins' and Mr. Hitchens' in that the evidence used to validate the existence and 'reality' of Religion is nonexistent in the eyes of a scientifically rational person. Hitchens and Dawkins, however, make sure to specify, as seen in our course readings, that their claims are meant to effect the outcome of religion (namely, religious rights against the freedom of another) by addressing the scientific invalidity of its origins. For Tyson, there is value in a perpetual state of inquiry and the only negative outcome of religion is its potential contentment in leaving questions unsolved. In other words, Tyson sees religion as benign insofar as scientifically-determined truth can remain dominant. For Hitchens and others, religion is potentially dangerous in providing rights and freedoms outside rational laws.
    Documented history seems to disagree with Mr. Tyson's reasoning - likely because some of his quotes including "we would've never left the cave" bear perhaps a second purpose to stimulate the attention of the listener. Our first societies, especially the lands of ancient Judea in the case of Christianity, were largely deo-centric and still continued to pursue science and technology which built our modern culture. It is interesting that the first image displayed in the youtube clip is related to astronomy (perhaps even Egyptian astronomy if my observations are correct). The culture of Ancient Egypt was especially conscientious of the scientific study of the stars, as evidenced in their meticulously accurate star-charting tools and elaborately aligned burial chambers which celebrated the planets and Orion's belt. Yet this culture was also heavily religious (albeit, not Christian), and the worship of the gods actually fueled the 'path of scientific inquiry' which Tyson holds in highest regard. To take a "God of the gaps" approach to science may lend itself to the blindness Mr. Tyson refers to. However, a more conscientious vision of the transcendentalism of God - the maestro of an ever-unfolding creation, would be perpetually curious in theology and science, and thus would be more beneficial according to Mr. Tyson's standards.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think Degrasse Tyson's comments fall more into the category of agnosticism than "new" atheism especially when you compare them to some of the statements made by Dawkins and Hitchens who come off as extremists which makes it very difficult to accept them in mainstream society. Tyson does not want to get rid of institutionalized religion (he specifically says he has no time or desire to picketing churches) what he is more concerned about are people's ignorance to science and to simply accept phenomenon that we can't explain yet as God (the whole god of the gaps argument). The problems that Tyson has towards Christian Fundamentalism are concerns not just touched upon by those in the science field but other Religious moderates. In my opinion Tyson is what Dawkins could have been, a brilliant scientist whose primary concern is to advance its own cause by explaining that science and rationality is the most important way in which we can explain the greater realities in our universe (and you can do this without having to dispute or degrade opposing views).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since you said that "Tyson does not want to get rid of institutionalized religion", do you think Tyson is hoping for a dialogue or an integration between religion and science?

      Delete
  3. I would not consider Tyson's statements to be characteristic of a New Atheist. As other students have pointed out, Tyson has no bone to pick with religion. He isn't even bothered by those we would consider on the extremist side of religion. His only qualm is with those who close their minds to science and discovery out of sheer stubbornness or complacency. New Atheists, however, seem to believe that religion is wholly detrimental to society.

    I do believe that Tyson is right. It is virtually impossible not to come in contact with some facet of science in the process of discovery. Everything we perceive is the most feasibly explained through science. Science is more of a universal language than anything. Therefore, I do not think we would be anywhere near where we are today without inquiring scientific minds.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that his way of viewing both religion and science can be categorized by Barbour in saying they're independent and not in dialogue. He doesn't to appear have a problem with religion and i find his way of saying "i think for myself" very intriguing. Tyson's position on science and religion imply something that he doesn't state. He talks early on that if religion never questioned science then we wouldn't have progressed as a species. This idea that we created religion and belief to explain the world, then questioned this system to learn more about what we do implies this idea that religion and science grow on each other within their own respects. As Tyson said, if your answer in the lab is that God did it, then he has no use for you because he constantly challenges what religion is saying so that he can grow in his understanding of the world. Also in the video, there is a mention of maybe there is an afterlife and we just don't it, but that it is better to have lived questioning the world and learning from what is around us and who we are then to just assume it is from something divine. I tend to agree with this. While I am a firm believer and strong in my faith, i find myself constantly questioning the world and seeking to better understand how things work and how or why we think the way we do. I'm a science major for just this reason and i pursue science to help me better understand what is around me and what I interact with every day. At the same time, i don't base research or my questions off of disproving the believe in God, but i marvel at creation and this world in its complexities as something that only something beyond our humanity must have created. It is science and questioning that strengthen my faith. Don't misunderstand my pursuit and the acquisition of knowledge as something that strengthens my faith as me saying i never doubt what i believe. Many times in my life i've wondered if what i've been raised to understand as true is actually truth and if beyond this world there is more. What i've come to conclude though is that the specificity with which we're created and with which we live is so great that there has to be something even greater.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tyson's argument for me does not necessarily correlate with the ideas of the New Atheist. Like stated above, he was not bashing on the ideas of the religious world or people who have religious beliefs. He was simply stating that we would have not gotten far in discovery if it wasn't for science. I completely believe with this idea and believe that science has been the answer to many things throughout the years that the idea of religion simply cannot answer.

    I do believe that Tyson is right by saying "we would have never left the cave" without science questioning religion. I've always believed that fossils don't lie. How is one going to claim that ancient remains are of less evidence then a religious story being told? I"m not saying that one shouldn't believe/preach the religious aspect of things, however when it comes to concrete evidence and facts science answers those questions of uncertainty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Furthermore, what would Tyson say of his peer Richard Dawkins? Would he think Dawkins comments were too negative and that his views more accurately represent the New Atheist movement?

      Delete
  6. I must agree with many of classmates on their overall assessment of Tyson's arguments. I must say however that I believe Tyson has a great point when he discusses the fact that we would have never left the cave if not for the questioning of religion by science. In many ways, religion has had issues that they were blatantly wrong about in which science may have progressed further without such a hindrance. Such issues as the universe revolving around the earth come to mind. However, Tyson does not seem to be hostile in this regard. It is almost if, though he certainly falls in line with the independence model, that he would have rather seen dialogue between science and religion throughout the ages in order to unitarily progress. However, because they are in different realms and religion has shown itself sometimes as a hindrance, he believes they might stay in their own separate realms. I also do not think he is a true New Atheist. While he does share overlapping beliefs with many of the New Atheists, he is much more agnostic then anything else. And though he believes he does not have an answer to the question of God, he probably argues closer to the line of the atheists though with an open mind to the possibility of aspects such as an afterlife.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tyson does not match the characteristics of New Atheism because he is only bothered by closed mindedness towards scientific ideas. New Atheists actively engage to make believers see their non believer perspective on religion. Tyson accepts that not everyone is going to agree with him, but he takes more of an agnostic approach. He feels people are ignorant to say any unexplained phenomena is due to God--the god of the gaps argument.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with Teresa's assertions about the link between Tyson's rationale and atheists' rationale such as Dawkins: he does not delve into morals and sin. That being said, I'm not sure I agree with Tyson's implication (that I got) that religion somehow hampers scientific progress (the cave bit) because of what happened during the time of Galileo: many religious people such as Kelper were pioneers in the fields of math and science, and from what I know, these individuals were not persecuted. Part of me feels he runs the risk of looking at the Bible as a science book, which Prof. Berry brought up in class as a mistake both religious and scientific atheists make. I can understand where he is coming from, but I feel he must realize that religion in and of itself does not mean we will not "leave the cave."

    ReplyDelete
  9. I do not believe that Tyson agrees with new atheism. In the video he shows no hostility towards religion, he is just trying to show that it is okay to be curious and it is okay to wonder about another way of thinking. I think that Tysons idea that we never would have left the cave is true. Without curiosity people would stick to things that they know are safe, what they understand and with what they're parents taught them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Neil Degrasse Tyson would easily make my list for top 100 people of all time! I love that he is taking up the modern mantle of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos," and am very much looking forward to hearing it. I was, however, somewhat surprised to discover that he was associated with the New Atheists, although I know him to be a non-believer. I suppose this is because he displays significantly less volatility than the others, but I have certainly heard him discussing religion as being detrimental to scientific discovery. As for my opinion on the matter, despite my utmost respect for Dr. Tyson, I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that religion completely inhibits discovery, and propose that that is something going of a far fetched claim for only a few individuals to make. However, it is true that although religion doesn't completely inhibit discovery, it has delayed it somewhat. That being said, perhaps religion has a certain degree of benefit to it, as JPII said, religion can solve the arrogance of science.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I find Tyson's argument to be pretty contradictory. On one hand, he departs from what we have seen from the New Atheist movement in that he says that he only thinks for himself, and that he isn't trying to change anyone's opinions or beliefs. In discussing the New Atheism movement in class, it seems that they have intentions of changing people's beliefs in regards to religion. Tyson then contradicts himself by bluntly discrediting those with creationist ideas. He also says that these people shouldn't voice their opinions because it hurts others by making them blind to the "natural world." I also have to disagree with him on the point that without science we wouldn't have left the cave, if I am understanding him correctly. Humans are curious beings, and this leads us to new discoveries all the time. I don't see science as a new discovery that makes religion obsolete, I just see it as another discovery.

    ReplyDelete
  12. How does DeGrasse Tyson's argument correlate with the arguments of New Atheist thinkers? How does it depart? Do you think his idea is idea is correct that "we would've never left the cave" without scientists questioning religion?

    As many classmate have pointed out Tyson's argument does not seem to fall in line with the argument or viewpoint taken by New Atheism. Tyson states that he doesn't innately have a problem with religion. But instead is more specifically against those who close their minds to science and discovery due to religious complacency. On the other hand, New Atheists believe that religion is actively a detriment to society. However, in my opinion, I more or less concur with his point that if humans entirely remained religiously complacent, that we never would have left the cave. However, I don't think that science is the only means of discovery that could have been used as a method to escape the cave.

    ReplyDelete
  13. DeGrasse Tyson makes a good point when he says if we were content that "God did it" we'd still be in the cave. It is something I agree with because we would have very little true knowledge of the earth. For instance, we'd probably still widely believe in something like geocentrism. The Bible tells us that. So, would we ever have challenged it if we were content with the Bible's explanation? In regards to Dawkins, I think that he's a little more radical with his points. When discussing the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac he says, "if not as literal fact, how should we take the story? As an allegory? Then an allegory for what? Surely morals could one derive from this appalling story? Remember, all I am trying to establish for the moment is that we do not, as a matter of fact, derive our morals from scripture." I disagree with this point. I grew up reading the bible and I take many of my morals from that. There is so much symbolism and underlying truth in the Bible that Dawkins is over-looking in my opinion. You can't take the scriptures so literal, but instead pull them a part and investigate them deeply.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have found that DeGrasse Tyson’s argument concurs with the New Atheist thinkers in that they both are not satisfied by the phrase “God Made It” when trying to understand more about our natural world. I think it is important to question and criticize religion. Having thoughts of doubt or questioning a certain doctrine of your faith should not be frowned upon but seen as a way to deepen your spiritual mindset. Tyson raises an important issue, that curiosity should be maintained. We live in a mysterious world and though much has been revealed to us, if we were to discontinue the search of our meaning and purpose we would be lost. “Science allows us to see the world outside of ourselves”, in these words Tyson may be implying that science and religion could be one in the same in that it is a search for what is greater than us as individuals. Science should not be considered a threatening thing, but rather a way in which we can be brought closer to understanding our divine creator and our ultimate purpose. Tyson is completely right in saying that “we would have never left the cave” if no one questioned religion.

    ReplyDelete