-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson: "Agnostic"
- Thread starter Desperado
- Start date
- Status
I had an atheistic "Death to religion!" view of world not so long ago, but I feel like I was growing sour, not just at religion, at everything. I like non-super-naturalist.
What's your take on human-intuition? My father and I got into it, discussing the beginning of the universe. My sister and mom think it's coincidence. Thinking about someone and then they happen to call or text you. Deja Vu, that sort of thing.
I think it's something else, although I have no idea what it really is, if it even exists.
staticneuron
Member
Yes and No. Agnosticism is about assessing the truth of something, and in the case of a deity, because of lack of evidence no on can prover nor disprove his existence.
Religion (most of them anyway) puts forth Faith as their higher tenants which means belief in something despite the evidence for, against or missing. So Christians are NOT agnostic because to be Christians they have to accept god and Jesus Christ exists as a truth. You misinterpret the "God works in mysterious ways" bit as confusion about his existence. That simply isn't true. They are saying they don't know how or why he does what he does, but accepts his existence as truth and any reasonable agnostic wouldn't do that.
The whole problem with talking about this is that people forget, there are more factors than just the core philosophy of being an agnostic. Religions are set up in a way to directly counter any thoughts that open up the possibilities of their deities NOT existing.
And as far as some atheists, they believe that evidence presented today are sufficient enough to consider belief in a benevolent benefactor is a far fetched tale.
Liquid Helium
Member
This is a bit silly, you don't get to define what labels apply to you, they just apply to you based on your characteristics. If you do not actively believe in god you are an atheist, that's a fact, that is what that label means. If there was a black person who said "I don't consider myself black, I don't go to black meetings or talk with people about being black" it doesn't change the fact that the persons skin is black and so that label applies to him.
But he is. He described himself as an agnostic atheist. You don't get to just redefine words because you object to their misconceived meaning.
I mean, look at Kent Hovind, the young earth creationist theme park and Noah's Ark dinosaur seminar guy. He explained how Noah could fit 2 of every animal on the ark by saying that he was only required to bring 2 of every KIND of animal. Therefore he only had to bring 2 dogs and over time since the flood those 2 dogs became the various dogs we have now. Kent Hovind doesn't realize or admit that what he described is evolution. That doesn't make it not evolution.
Neil deGrasse Tyson said he is a man of science that doesn't currently believe in a god because there is no evidence to support it (atheist), but he doesn't know that there isn't a god (agnostic) and would gladly believe in a god when the evidence supports it.
I disagree. It seems to me that your explanation makes the assumption that agnosticism is a choice. I don't think it is.
I understand what you mean by the whole Christians thing, but there are a couple of things to remember. Truth is very much subjective and heavily tied to belief. As such, truth is not necessarily knowledge (this is why people get deceived/FOXnewsed).
When a Christian believes in God despite evidence to the contrary, this is often seen as the right thing to do (having Faith, as you said). However, this person STILL does not "know" that God does exist. They may believe he does, they may have faith that he does, and they may think that it is true that he exists. But this person is STILL agnostic. If you were to subject them to a "knowledge machine", the result would be agnostic regardless of what they believe/think is true/think is the right thing to do.
The "God works in mysterious ways" quote does indeed imply Agnosticism because if you asked them how they know that God did X, or how he did X, or why he did X, or how they know that God will do X, they'd tell you they don't. They just have faith and they believe it, which to them is a good thing.
He doesn't label himself an atheist because it creates an invisible barrier. Not in the sense that people won't like you, but why should we be defining ourselves based on our differences? He doesn't want to do that. Black, white, yellow, brown, gay, straight, bi-sexual, a-sexual, poor, rich, middle-class, emo, socialite, jock, nerd, popular, cool, weird, normal, jew, muslim, christian, buddhist, agnostic, athiest. Labels. We love to label each-other so we can identify one another. Neil's objectivity should be commended. Fuck labels.
We should just reject value of metaphysics and be done with it. Metaphysical propositions are neither true nor false but meaningless. Both statements god is and isn't are equally empty.
It's a noun. You proposing we get rid of all nouns and adjectives? How would you propose we communicate?
He doesn't currently believe in a god, therefore he is currently an atheist by definition.
He's making the same error towards atheists that he is afraid people would make about him by lumping all atheists together as gnostic atheists and misconstruing the word "atheist".
He's right, and i've been saying this forever. Glad he's on the side I thought he'd be on.
I am, obviously.
He said it himself, spiritually he's an agnostic, the evidence for a higher power isn't there but if it ever did come about, he would embrace it, as most rational people I think, would.
Of course not, he's not changing the dictionary or re-defining words. He's simply not putting the label of "Atheist" on himself. We can label him as we see fit. I don't believe in a higher power (and I did say earlier that I'm non-spiritual[that's another label
] but I actually feel spiritual without religion. Working on growing in personal developmental, meditating in the morning and feel as if in my life I am "walking a path" so to speak). I won't call myself an atheist anymore, labels are what separate us from one another. I don't want to do that. You can label me as an atheist, that won't hurt my feelings. Saying, "I'm this and you're that".. is pointless, in my opinion. I have nothing against atheists, agnostics, or religious views. The fundamentalists from every side need a good smack on the back of the head, then some love and a kiss on the back of the head. Categories, humans shouldn't be defined by what we look like, wear, or think as, but by what we do. Neil is a scientist.He is absolutely right. I tend to avoid other people who identify themselves as Atheists. Many of them are just as annoying as bible thumpers. Both of them just want to shout at other people and convince them that their way of thinking is the right way. It is just sad and makes me think of the I don't want to live on this planet anymore meme.
captainnapalm
Member
I'm not surprised. The longer this new atheist movement carries on being as smug and self-righteous as it is, the more and more people will seek to actively disassociate from it.
onadesertedisland
Member
What causes the cognitive dissonance regarding the meaning of atheist? It's like saying socialism in the US. People read all kinds of things into a word when they disagree with it in order to make it "ok" to hate.
Atheism means a lack of belief in god or gods. Period. It doesn't say anything else about a person. Tyson is in this, the accurate definition, an atheist since he does not carry a belief in god or gods. His agnosticism towards this concept is a reflection of his scientific mind, not a hedge towards the possible veracity of religion.
He isn't joining a side or a team. No one can claim him since there is no team atheism. He simply is stating that somewhere in his life, he returned to the basic, null position of not believing in god or gods.
Imagine something imaginary, now, forget that imaginary thing. It doesn't exist and you don't believe in it. That is atheism. You don't "NOT BELIEVE" in that imaginary thing, you simply don't have a belief.
I think the issue is with individuals wanting to fence-sit on the idea of belief. This semantic argument of agnostic is the same tactic used to devalue evolution by creationists. You either believe or you do not. I kind of believe in god, or I am not sure if I believe in god means you do not, hence atheist. Belief in the supernatural is hard in the face of reason.
If it makes you personally more comfortable by attaching a modifier to the statement, then do so. But know that when doing so you are inadvertently continuing misconceptions about what it means to be an atheist.
Tyson is making a political decision to carry the agnostic tag.
Atheism means a lack of belief in god or gods. Period. It doesn't say anything else about a person. Tyson is in this, the accurate definition, an atheist since he does not carry a belief in god or gods. His agnosticism towards this concept is a reflection of his scientific mind, not a hedge towards the possible veracity of religion.
He isn't joining a side or a team. No one can claim him since there is no team atheism. He simply is stating that somewhere in his life, he returned to the basic, null position of not believing in god or gods.
Imagine something imaginary, now, forget that imaginary thing. It doesn't exist and you don't believe in it. That is atheism. You don't "NOT BELIEVE" in that imaginary thing, you simply don't have a belief.
I think the issue is with individuals wanting to fence-sit on the idea of belief. This semantic argument of agnostic is the same tactic used to devalue evolution by creationists. You either believe or you do not. I kind of believe in god, or I am not sure if I believe in god means you do not, hence atheist. Belief in the supernatural is hard in the face of reason.
If it makes you personally more comfortable by attaching a modifier to the statement, then do so. But know that when doing so you are inadvertently continuing misconceptions about what it means to be an atheist.
Tyson is making a political decision to carry the agnostic tag.
Mr. Saturn
Member
Not all atheists are in your face, and not all christians are bible thumpers, but hey feel free to keep making generalizations.
Oh and I love how you point out the aggressive atheists who try to convince everyone their way is the only correct way, but you fail to say anything about the fact there are some religious people out there who think their beliefs are the only correct ones.
I don't understand why when there's a story about atheists, people will talk about how atheists are these huge assholes and how they're arrogant and they make generalizations about those are religious, while when there's any story on religion that could be considered remotely negative and someone points out that religion may have played a role in the incident, people will say, "Oh you can't say that, not all religious people are crazy, young earth creationists, bible thumpers etc, etc." and I agree with that I really do.
I understand it seems unfair to judge all religious people as being kooky just because the crazy ones are more outspoken, and I believe its' the same for atheism as well. I'd imagine there actually are lot of perfectly friendly atheists out there, the reason you don't know about them is because they're probably going to be non confrontational.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Gotta love the conspiracy theories regarding Tyson's choice of words. He couldn't possibly be speaking in earnest. It's obviously a conspiracy to be politically correct or garner a wider audience or whatever. I mean, if he doesn't agree with my definition, he must have ulterior motives!
I wholeheartedly disagree. His views are that of an agnostic, not believing because you don't see evidence, but would if you did see evidence (don't know). Which would sort of be every atheist because obviously, if there was evidence to see, you would believe. Neil has nothing to gain except respect among thinkers to let himself be free of a certain label, even if you can put a label to his spirituality.
onadesertedisland
Member
Atheists are the most hated minority in the US. Could a prominent scientist whom is about to have a very prime-time science show on Fox be making a calculated decision to distance himself from that hated minority?
onadesertedisland
Member
Agnostic towards what? He is agnostic towards god? Then that statement means he does not know, claim to know, if there is or is not a god.
How can one be anything other than an atheist with that position?
Your right, the problem is, is there a point to be an atheist? It might make you feel important because your part of some big group that all believes in the same thing, that's really it though. In the grand scheme of things..
Basileus777
Member
Oh, wow. So much ignorance condensed into one small post.
That is what an agnostic view is. Religion and Athiesm are absolutes. Knowing.
Agnosticism is outside of knowing, we can't know.
Sorry for my brashness.
The point I was trying to convey is that there is no point in categorizing ourselves this or that.. it only causes separation. We shouldn't, but we're human, we always will.
That's all I meant.
I believe you're looking to deep into things.
onadesertedisland
Member
Not knowing, is not subscribing to belief. Hence, atheist.
It's not an absolute, it's a null. No value. Belief is a simple concept that is or is not. You believe or you do not. You do not know if you believe?==No belief.
Dead or not dead.
Not knowing if dead?==Not dead.
Belief isn't just black or white.
An atheist claims, "There is no higher power". An absolute.
Religious, "There is a higher power", an absolute.
Agnostic, "There is no way of knowing", no value..a true null.
I'm an atheist. I don't claim to know there's no higher power. There's no proof of one, therefore, I personally don't believe in such things until I see evidence, like all rational thinkers should.
deGrasse Tyson appears to share very similar views as I do, but he prefers to be labelled agnostic if he has to be labelled at all. Fair enough. I don't agree with his reasoning for it - I'm not part of any movement and I do not believe atheism is or should be a movement, but fair enough.
Not all atheists claim the absolute. I dare say most atheists do not, not even Richard Dawkins. Those who do are not following proper course of reason. We're not the polar opposite of the vehemently religious. Being an atheist and an agnostic are not mutually exclusive things.
You, on the other hand, seem to claim an absolute knowledge on what atheists are. You couldn't be more wrong.
No, that's a gnostic atheist. They do not believe in a higher power and claim to know there is none. They aren't scientific.
Agnostic atheist: "I do not believe in a god given current evidence but do not know if there is or isn't a god."
Perhaps you don't wish to be associated with it, but there is a movement for those that identify themselves as atheist. Just as not every Catholic is a habitual church goer, not every atheist is actively trying to push an agenda- But you're considered to be a part of that group when you identify as an atheist.
The opposite is true of an agnostic. There are no rallies being thrown, no political agendas being pushed, no movement to speak of. Identify with whatever group you like, but at least acknowledge that there is a difference.
Where are all these confrontational atheists hiding? What building do they hold their meetings in? Do they stand on street corners holding placards and handing out newsletters? Do they knock on your doors in the morning? I've never been confronted by an atheist and I feel like I'm being left out.
Where are all these confrontational atheists hiding? What building do they hold their meetings in? Do they stand on street corners holding placards and handing out newsletters? Do they knock on your doors in the morning? I've never been confronted by an atheist and I feel like I'm being left out.
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...s-richard-dawkins-reason-rally/1#.T56HW8Wjuvs
Basileus777
Member
The stigma predates the existence of those open and confrontational atheists. Or do people really believe that if Dawkins and such didn't exist, atheists would be more accepted?
Who did they confront?
And people wonder why people distance themselves from Atheism.
...Everyone?
When you're holding rallies for anything the idea is to be seen and heard. Unless you mean someone getting up in your face yelling at you. I have no video of that, sorry.
Not confrontational at all.
captainnapalm
Member
Among super religious people, probably not. But there's a whole mass of us moderate types who they're starting to annoy as well.
I get they think they have a right to act smug and superior because they're convinced they're right, but hopefully the irony of how similar that attitude is to their enemies on the opposite side of the belief spectrum isn't lost on them.
Not what's being argued.
The argument is over whether or not there is a distinction between agnosticism and atheism. Agnostics aren't holding rallies and attempting a social movement- Atheists are.
That is bullshit.
If we start out with the principle that the burden of proof is on the people making the extraordinary claim, we can't consider anything but the real null hypothethis. Seeing we cannot falsify or confirm the original hypothethis "Does God exist?", we are left with the null hypothethis. Seeing we are open to change if new data is put forward, we leave the question open until the extraordinary proof comes along. So we live our lives as Atheists, because we have no other reason to venerate Vishnu, Allah, Moses or Joseph Smith.
The scientific position of agnosticism is precisely that.
People in this thread are really having a rough time understanding this basic premise.
More like:
Man says, "Atheists are all assholes, and since I'm not an asshole, I don't want to be associated with atheists."
GAF says, "You can't redefine the word atheist."
I understand that his crusade is science, not religion, and to adopt an atheist moniker would do harm to his goal of making science friendly and approachable to anti-science people. I get that. But he considers himself a scientist, and as such, I expected a little more adherence to correct terminology and less of the "I'm agnostic because I don't want to be lumped in with those mean old atheists" argument.
As my wife puts it, everybody thinks atheists are confrontational because you have to be confrontational to be able to declare yourself an atheist in the first place. Tyson is not confrontational.
Also, for the argument that there isn't a word for non-golfers - there is a word for non-drinkers (teetotaler). It's not a popular word, but the reason why it exists is because drinking is the norm, just as being religious is the norm. These words identify minority opinions and behaviors precisely because the expectations are the exact opposite, which can lead to particularly uncomfortable situations.
soul creator
Member
The whole point of this thread is people distancing themselves from "angry" atheists, which is what your posting of that specific article is in reference to. My response was to show that atheists didn't just start holding rallies out of nowhere because they felt like shitting on religious people one day, which is what's generally implied when people twist themselves into knots to distance themselves from active and "angry" atheists.
But the larger point is that there are plenty of atheists that *don't* hold rallies and attempt a social movement, since the word by itself doesn't mean any of that. So the only reason to distance yourself from it when it's the most accurate description of one's belief is because they have a mistaken belief that atheism requires you to be politically active.
Of course, part of the reason for active atheism and being "out" is to correct that misconception. Yet somehow, people are looking down on them for fighting against it, and not the people who pushed those misconceptions in the first place.
onadesertedisland
Member
If I were around children at Christmas I might say I do not know if Santa is real or not as to not offend them. This does not make me a possible believer in Santa.
Liquid Helium
Member
I don't think that any outspoken atheists hatred of religion comes from religious people being annoying, it comes from their beliefs being detrimental to society. I don't think there is any irony involved, being outspoken isn't a bad thing or at least the people who do campaign and go to rallies don't think so.
soul creator
Member
another random thought: there are people who think scientists are uppity know it alls with lab coats who want to take all the fun and mystery out of life, so if they ever become a large enough majority, I look forward to Tyson's next comment, "I'm not a scientist, since I don't consider myself a know it all, and I reject labels...I'm more of a...reality observationist"
- Status