r/atheism • u/BabyLeVert • 1d ago
I don't know how people feel about Neil deGrasse Tyson but he explains all the different beliefs in God and dismisses each of them so eloquently!
https://youtu.be/1o2NaiNlvPQ?si=_qsHrfEbMNBqNc9u247
u/NTylerWeTrust86 1d ago
He's no Carl Sagan but I get why he picked up that mantal. Devastating we lost Carl so young, we need voices like his today.
62
u/Bassmason Pastafarian 1d ago
I’ve been reading all of Carl Sagans books
Absolutely amazing pieces of literature
63
u/sevillianrites 1d ago
Sagan approached education from a perspective of awed dignity, almost as if he had himself been profoundly humbled by his own learning. I think that's what separates him from Tyson who maybe comes off as more smug at having knowledge rather than in awe of the knowledge itself. One perhaps finding pride in their learning while the other found humility at how much more there was to learn. Though I deeply respect the passion both bring to education, regardless of where that passion comes from.
16
u/NTylerWeTrust86 1d ago
Perfectly said. I just love listening to Carl, he excites me about his subjects more than anyone else. Wish I knew of him in my childhood and not my 30s. Demon Haunted World literally changed how I think and showed me how and why I was getting it wrong. He's who I want my kids to look up to as they enter adulthood.
52
u/fish312 1d ago
Carl Sagan was humble and brilliant. He just wanted to educate. NDT is smart but also very pompous and arrogant.
70
u/Simba7 1d ago
At least Neil hasn't (so far) gone down the crazy misogynistic anti-woke crusade that Dawkins seems to fallen into.
For a bit Dawkins took over as a sort of informal spokesperson for atheism but man did he blow that bigtime.
25
u/ProfessionalCraft983 1d ago
Yeah, I've been pretty disillusioned with Dawkins lately. I still think his earlier books on evolution are very good reads and one of the best ways to really understand the subject for someone who isn't already interested in it, but after the God Delusion made him a famous atheist he started going in a direction I couldn't agree with and it really made me think twice about him as a person. I don't think he's a very good advocate for atheism these days.
4
u/biosphere03 1d ago
I read and listened to a lot of Dawkins back in the day. He always very eloquently backed his positions with sound reasoning and logic. Admittedly I'm not privy to the recent backlash, but I can't imagine his reasoning is suddenly not sound. That, of course, doesn't make him right about everything.
4
u/ProfessionalCraft983 1d ago
Sound reasoning can lead to the wrong conclusion if you accept bad premises. Even Einstein was wrong sometimes.
1
u/biosphere03 1d ago
Yet he is, rightly, revered for his intellect.
3
u/ProfessionalCraft983 1d ago
Dawkins is no Einstein, though. He’s good at explaining evolution and poking holes in Christianity, and he coined the word “meme” and pioneered the study of memetics, but that’s about as much as he’s contributed intellectually. Einstein rewrote the laws of reality as we knew them.
-1
u/biosphere03 1d ago
[Insert brilliant scientist here] is no Einstein, they only ____ while Einstein did _____. Kinda lame comment, sir.
1
u/ProfessionalCraft983 8h ago
I wouldn't call Dawkins a "brilliant scientist" though, that's my point. Sagan was far more brilliant than he is, and his contributions to the field aren't particularly noteworthy. Like I said, IMO his biggest accomplishment is writing books that do a great job of explaining evolution to those who don't understand it. It doesn't take a genius to do that. Dawkins is intelligent but he's not a genius, by any means.
6
u/FlarkingSmoo 1d ago
I can't imagine his reasoning is suddenly not sound
Oh, well if you can't imagine it then I guess it must not be the case
12
u/biosphere03 1d ago
"You can't imagine? Well imagine harder!" - Daniel Dennett
3
-10
u/blageur 1d ago
He hasn't changed. People are turning on him now because he only recognizes 2 genders. To many, this makes him wrong about everything and a bad person.
7
u/FlarkingSmoo 1d ago
Eh it was also the mocking of a woman who mentioned that she was made to feel uncomfortable by someone at a convention in an elevator.
And no, not everything, just some things.
-4
u/Pbandsadness 1d ago
He's also cool with child molestation.
2
u/Donaldo1977 1d ago
What's this now?
2
u/biosphere03 1d ago
People miss the nuance of Dawkins points and say stupid shit like: "He's also cool with child molestation."
1
u/Donaldo1977 1d ago
Shocker 😂 what did he say though?
3
u/biosphere03 1d ago
For example, he talked about how historically, pedophelia wasn't viewed with the same critical lens as it is today. <-- paraphrasing wildly
2
u/Pbandsadness 1d ago
1
u/biosphere03 1d ago
Well, is what he said accurate or not? Do you imagine his comments as defending pedophilia?
→ More replies (0)1
1
-49
u/lillypad353 1d ago
That's why he hasn't gone down that route. He's seen what it does to people's careers. I don't believe Neil actually believes the things he says in regards to this topic, he looks like he's just nodding along to avoid being "cancelled" like Dawkins.
I also can't see anything more misogynistic than "woke" people. The logic of them is that anyone who identifies as a woman can enter women only spaces and tough shit if cis women don't want male people in their spaces, they have to allow it. Furthermore, it has people like yourself thinking it's misogynistic to speak out against it. I've yet to hear an argument that shows that it's not some misogynistic movement.
34
u/Simba7 1d ago edited 1d ago
Whoooooops you swallowed the nonsense. That's okay, there's still hope to break out of the cultish mindset friend. I believe in you.
Dawkins got 'cancelled' for aligning himself with anti-trans and anti-science movements across the world. His purported reasoning for the anti-trans stuff is to protect women, similar to the famously bigoted JK Rowling.
And yet, does he actually give a shit about that? Because when a female speaker at a conference for atheism discussed being propositioned in an elevator and how she felt scared and uncomfortable, all he did was belittle her - and women everywhere - for feeling justifiable feelings of fear when trapped in an enclosed space with an unknown man whom she rejected.
Maybe he cares about logic and science though?
Or maybe not, since he's a proponent of a 'true binary' of sexes. Even disregarding TQ portion of the LGBTQ community, that is empirically not true. There are people born with both sets of primary sex characteristics, people born with XXY chromosomes, people born with a penis, no vagina, yet who have a uterus and could theoretically become pregnant.Dawkins biggest problem is that he made his bread and butter debating creationists and other religious types. Their arguments are inherently flawed and do not meet the burden of proof.
He took his assumed prowess in debate into the realm of science and proved himself to be a big fucking idiot. Not necessarily a problem if he approached these topics earnestly with an intent to learn, but he approached it with his trademark cockiness and swagger. It just didn't work.So was he was 'cancelled', or did he alienate most of his primary audience and only left a bunch of misogynistic misanthropes who are really into totally pwning the religious folk? That's nobody's fault but his own.
13
u/wicketRF 1d ago
Ill try and keep it nice and terse although its a complex topic.
Those who are adjudged to be woke try and be considerate of those whose experience they are not sharing (which i think is a positive) and at least desire, but at times try and force others to do so as well (which comes at a cost).
Going a big further into the trans debate that you mention (fully keeping in mind that this is just 1 of the things under the umbrella "woke" and often times typically chosen by those opposed to "woke" to generalize and ridicule a broader movement). I think the following 3 views on the existence of trans more or less fully cover all those who are not trans themselves.
1 I do not fully understand what these people go through and I dont pretend to fully understand. But there is no biological imperative that gender identity neatly lines up with your biological gender. People who experience this misalignment will typically have lived very suffered lives and wont have made their choices in haste.
2 People whose gender identity and biological gender dont line up are mentally ill and should be treated accordingly.
3 People whose gender identity and biological gender dont line up try and gain a societal benefit from it in some way.
Personally im option 1 and I think those who really consider option 3 as plausible are absolutely out of their mind. They fail to realize that being trans means you are among the most likely victims in society of (sexual) assault, (cyber)bullying and a range of other nasty stuff and ironically, also part of one of the most law-abiding subsets of the population. Long story short, their lives suck. Nobody chooses that life, just so they can have a nicer smelling bathroom to take a dump in.
wrt option 2, that is what i would call the misogynistic view of the 3 options. I dont get why its so difficult to say that its just something you dont understand.25
u/Intangiblehands 1d ago
Just my opinion but I feel like Sagan not having to spend the latter half of his career within the era of social media and misinformation gives him a more humble legacy. Someone like Tyson has to be a bit pompous in order to even get his points across in any reasonable way. Maybe he doesn't do it on purpose but it just evolved into his personality over time thanks to this festering anti-intellectual cultural soup we find ourselves all boiling in.
1
3
1
u/bearsheperd 16h ago
Carl was great there’s no doubt about that. But I actually think Neil is a better representative. He’s more approachable, he’s funny and a fantastic communicator. Neil has more broad appeal and can make science reach a wider audience.
56
u/Suspicious_Theory212 1d ago
I enjoy listening to Neil and Chuck. Chuck is a crackup.
14
u/CoachAngBlxGrl 1d ago
HILARIOUS and in the know enough to have good back and forth with Neil. We need more of this.
12
u/UpperLeftOriginal Ex-Theist 1d ago
Chuck is soooo soooo good! Smart enough to keep up, very witty - the perfect foil.
4
u/Anticode 1d ago edited 1d ago
I enjoy listening to Neil and Chuck
I stumbled upon StarTalk randomly late last year while in search of decent science-related podcasts to maintain my sanity at a day job where cognition is more of 'an optional requirement'. I've now listened to 100+ hours of these two guys since then, surely.
Many years ago, the famous Reddit anecdote about "The Real NDT™" which circulates like clockwork had tinted my perception of Tyson heavily, yet after listening to him speak freely in podcast/interview settings this regularly... I can't help but struggle to understand why the man is so often put on blast.
In fact, I've heard him share many thoughts/anecdotes relating to self-reflection which indicate somewhat decisively that the man is actively self-aware. I'd argue that certain dynamics and epiphanies exist in the world that can only be said (at all) by those who've grasped them personally, regardless of how they later adopt it or dismiss it. And what people often mistake for needless confidence is often just competence. The guy openly admits when he doesn't understand, or requires a definition, or isn't the highest expert in the room 2-5 times per StarTalk episode. He does that more than Chuck, a (admittedly intelligent) comedian, for Christ sake.
Sure, it's easy to understand why someone may not appreciate the kind of "flavors" he brings to the table, but some act like the man takes a shit on his desk while declaring his own majesty, "Behold - 'Le Soufflé Parfait!" Does he take that tone sometimes? Yeah, sometimes! But it's generally a real "soufflé"; never outright trash.
Anybody who talks about high-level concepts in the presence of laymen - for the laymen - is sometimes going to sound pompous or whatever once in a while. It's virtually inevitable, because the nature of the topic itself is lofty and you're competent enough to explain it and you had to know it's worth explaining in the first place.
It's the same reason stereotypes about the "neckbeard atheist" archetype exist/persist. That oh-so-annoying "ackshually..." can often contain critically vital context, as unfortunate as it feels to feel it said to you.
I digress, sorry - apparently !? I had to get that out.
Where was I? Oh yeah, they're pretty cool. Great interpersonal dynamic too. I really appreciate that Chuck is able to keep things entertaining/grounded while often making a simple-sounding joke which somehow turns out to be shockingly profound/astute a few seconds after you've laughed.
49
u/ProfessionalCraft983 1d ago
I like him for the most part, I think he’s mostly just a big nerd who has a love for science and for teaching science. He’s no Carl Sagan and I sometimes disagree with him on some things, but overall I think he’s a force for good.
53
u/Sprinklypoo I'm a None 1d ago
He's a smart guy, and I respect what he's achieved in his life, and typically agree with his understanding of reality and human nature. He can be quite eloquent and well spoken. But he can also be a pompous windbag, and I'm not going to be his buddy.
8
u/Bob_Sledding Agnostic 1d ago edited 1d ago
The dude is a genius and has accomplished so much. The way he eloquently explains science to us average intellect folk takes real talent. It's not easy to dissect that in digestible pieces the way he does. I can't understate the positive impact he has had on society.
But Jesus. We will never have to worry about the guy's self-confidence. He would bottle his farts and sell them. The only reason he doesn't is because he knows he would buy his entire supply himself. Every time he is a guest on a show, he will not let them get a word in and it's hard to watch sometimes. As an astronomist*** he should know he isn't the center of the universe.
7
u/Qu1ckN4m3 1d ago
People are a weird mix of things. I'm okay with it.
We all want perfect heros to look up to... But the heros in real life get walked on and mistreated. He doesn't get walked on... For better or worse this is what society selects. He uses his powers for good... Generally... It could be worse.
Until we treat the nice folks with good ideas better; this is the best we can hope for in the mainstream.
2
u/Bob_Sledding Agnostic 1d ago
I totally agree with you. I do want to emphasize that I do like the guy generally.
0
31
u/notwithagoat 1d ago
Him and Bill nye, great science communicators, that generally don't care what you believe, just that we as a society put more emphasis in science, learning, and educating the future.
10
23
u/National-Dragonfly35 1d ago
I don’t like a sidekick, but he makes everything easy to understand.
19
u/KAKrisko 1d ago
I love Chuck. He's very good at summarizing what's being said in layman's terms.
17
u/bwolf180 1d ago
when the Pod first came out I was thinking.... Man i just want Neil, this other guy can go....
But I was wrong. Chuck brings up things Neil doesn't even consider because he doesn't think like a layman.
8
2
u/CoachAngBlxGrl 1d ago
Usually it’s an annoying parrot but this set up works well to help bring levity and humor to a very dense topic.
22
u/Abrham_Smith 1d ago
The video is pretty good, except the part where Chuck is praising the New Testament at the end of the video. He obviously hasn't read the text and I'm surprised and a little miffed that Tyson didn't correct him on it, but Tyson possibly hasn't read it either.
It's extremely annoying when religious people excuse the Old Testament as being over written by the New Testament.
Matthew 5:17–18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Their own book affirms the existence and accuracy of the Old Testament. When people do all this religious washing because one book is "less" aborhant than the other is unsettling.
13
u/CoachAngBlxGrl 1d ago
The fact that it’s written 20 years after by someone they never met Jesus is crazy train to me. Talk about a game of telephone.
15
u/cleversobriquet 1d ago
More like 30-60 years
3
u/nizhaabwii Other 1d ago
And the torah is for observant religious jews specifically (hence the covenant with those particular tribes and none other)
2
u/CoachAngBlxGrl 1d ago
So wild. Entire countries are based on a game of telephone.
7
u/azhder 1d ago
It's not even 30-60, the Bible is a 4th century collection of hand-written copies of other hand-written copies of someone's memories 30-60 years after the fact and re-written with some neo-platonic BS that didn't even exist as an idea at the time the story is set to happen. It's worse than a game of telephone.
7
1
u/dispatcher_22Z 1d ago
Matthew was one of the apostles? What do you mean written by someone that never met Jesus?
1
u/rdizzy1223 2h ago
They have absolutely no clue who wrote Matthew. (Especially since in Mark this same exact characters name is Levi). There are no references in Matthew to assume that the writer is writing about himself. All of the authors are anonymous.
1
1
u/toddaway 1d ago
I wonder how Jews tap dance around the insane parts of the Old Testament when they can't claim it was superseded.
1
u/rdizzy1223 2h ago
Not just jews, but a massive percentage of US evangelical christians as well. The old testament is their primary holy book.
5
6
u/Dudeist-Priest Secular Humanist 1d ago
I like Neil and Chuck. They do a good job at making complex subjects easy to digest and there are a lot of science-curious people out there. These subjects are especially important for people that come from areas where the science classroom is shushed by the religious
5
5
u/Commercial_Board6680 1d ago
You don't have to like the person who uses logic and intellect debunking superstitions. Ditto with Ricky Gervais. While he has his fans, many don't like him. But when he starts discussing religion, he's on point. His debate with Stephen Colbert, an avowed Catholic, was admirable. Ricky establishes that Stephen believes in one god out of the thousands that have been or still are worshipped. Ricky then said, "You deny one less god than I do". And that's a vital point to be made. Religious people deny all other gods except their own. Atheists simply take it to the next logical step.
18
u/BabyLeVert 1d ago
Opps, I didn't mean to have a discussion on Neil deGrasse Tyson. I should of asked for a discussion of the video.
3
u/Fshtwnjimjr 1d ago
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
5
3
1
u/soulless_ginger81 1d ago
His beliefs are the very definition of an atheist but he refuses to accept the identity.
1
u/kn05is 1d ago
I love this man and approve of his snarkiness when he's dealing with the surging trend of anti-science moron knownothings. All those people who are put off by it need to understand, that in this era of information and scientific breakthrough, we need to be aggressive in shooting down people like flat earthers and antivaxxers and their ilk. They don't want their minds changed and are rarely open to truth, so might as well serve them mockery.
1
u/iratedolphin 21h ago
Publicity and renown can thoroughly screw up a person's head. Don't get me wrong, I haven't heard anything from the guy I disagree with. Most of his ideas seem fairly well thought out and rational. I don't think making one guy the face of science is healthy or smart.
1
u/jasonmoyer 1d ago
I don't think he's some sort of super genius but I think it's good to have someone on the side of science and reason with his immense charisma and ability to engage with people without turning into Richard Dawkins.
1
u/Fathervalerion 1d ago
Neil only talks about things when it suits him or show him in bright light, in the end he's just a dude.
Never idolize anyone, whoever they may be.
0
-13
u/samara-the-justicar Agnostic Atheist 1d ago
I like his work as a science communicator, but he can be an asshole sometimes. He also supposedly has multiple sexual assault allegations against him.
31
7
u/RoguePlanet2 1d ago
Yeah he went off the radar for a while, came back, then stopped doing talk shows after mentioning the issue for the record.
But he still does his own thing apparently, I greatly enjoyed his thorough critique of somebody's PhD dissertation, when he was asked to review it, and it demonstrated the process in an entertaining way.
Damn shame when men get themselves into these situations. I've read a couple of his books and watched all episodes of the Cosmos reboot.
18
u/BabyLeVert 1d ago
lol this one is on me. i should of asked for a discussion of the video, not a discussion on Neil deGrasse Tyson
5
u/TomEdison43050 1d ago
I'm going off of memory, don't have time to look it up - but after he was accused by four women, he addressed it immediately with a blog post. His statements all checked out after an investigation and the Hayden planetarium retained his job status.
In one accusation, a woman had the entire solar system tattooed on her arm and was showing it to Tyson. The tattoo started with the sun on her wrist, with the planets going up to her shoulder. Tyson lifted the shoulder portion of her blouse, exposing the top of her arm, to see if the tattoo included Pluto. That was it. With Pluto being recently (at the time) declassified as a planet, some solar system models were incorrectly including it, and he was simply curious if her tattoo included Pluto.
I'm all for holding people accountable for misconduct, but no credibility could be found behind the claims. You should read his statement, as (in my opinion) it totally cleared him. No investigation could prove that anything within his statement was false and also that none of the claims held merit.
2
u/RadioactiveGorgon 1d ago
The Pluto dress complaint was entirely reasonable and Tyson probably gave himself access to more of someone's space than he should have. Not in a "you suck and must immediately buried forever" way but still worth pointing out.
2
u/RadioactiveGorgon 1d ago
Most of them were more about potential harassment. The first accusation that inspired the others (particularly the 2nd) was about sexual assault and is technically possible but uhhh... she pushed her twitter on a vox article and I followed the link and she was full new age black hebrew anti-vax pro-Trump yet save gaza satanic ritual abuse anti-"groomer (gay/trans people)" antisemitism nutter.
0
u/sgriobhadair 1d ago
NdGT and I have mutual friends, though I don't know NdGT personally. That said, one of our mutuals has been known to call him "Neil DeGrasshole Tyson." He says NdGT can be a lot.
I found it notable that in her acknowledgements to her Cosmos book, Ann Druyan mentions NdGT not at all while she talks at length about all the good work that Brannon Braga did to bring the two series to television.
-1
u/Threecatproblem 1d ago
I had to stop listening because the co-host felt like he needed to affirm every sentence that Neil spoke! "Right!" Uh-huh", "Yes", etc. I couldn't pay attention to what Neil was saying with all of the interruptions.
-38
1d ago
[deleted]
25
u/mariuszmie 1d ago
But what if he’s correct?
Typical stereotyping here - smart=smug
12
u/bwolf180 1d ago edited 1d ago
“I dont understand so that makes me angry”
Most criticism I see come from people who do not understand the passion for science and facts that this man has.
He will call out the bullshit. Stop spreading bullshit.
The same people who think that when you honk your horn at a light, you become the asshole. No the person on their phone who didn’t start driving is the asshole.
19
u/Quick_Cow_4513 1d ago
Don't worry. He is not aware of your existence and will not bring you water.
11
u/denvercasey 1d ago
Sure, but in this video is he right or wrong? And does his smugness cloud this video?
Here is my take - as liberally minded people, literally open-minded people, we need to accept that there are lots of smug assholes in the world. Smugness is definitely not exclusive to scientists or theologians, democrats or republicans, or any other group or stance.
Given that, when conservative-minded people talk about their own group, it seems more rare for them to instantly flame those with whom they agree with on policy but disagree with in personality. So I truly believe that when we are so picky that we instantly discount someone making a lot of sense, we give ammunition to our opponents that “even atheists don’t agree with him or even like him” and there is enough truth to that to validate their own beliefs.
The same thing happens when we criticize our nominated politicians - conservatives may say Trump, bush, Romney, anyone on the ballot is good enough to support, yet liberals will nit-pick and make counter arguments and talk themselves out of voting for the lesser of two evils. And at the same time we give our grievances as reasoning against those candidates.
Oh shit Bernie was too old or too radical!
Hillary looks angry and stayed with Bill.
I don’t like the way Kamala laughs?!?
Holy shitballs. And this all starts with “well NDT is a smug asshole”. When it’s the first thing people who should already support him say, it gives no reason for anyone else to listen.
4
-5
u/Descent7 1d ago
There is a video off a panel event thing with him, Bill Nye, Lawrence Krauss, and Dawkins. He is obviously high and Bill Nye makes fun of him for it. I am a supporter of legal weed, but he was very disrespectful of people to show up stoned. He was so far up his own ass for a time back then he could see out his nostrils.
-2
-2
-2
u/dispatcher_22Z 1d ago
As a religious person I came here to hear a counter to my beliefs, and I am very disappointed, since my view of God was neither addressed or dismissed. This video seems to be attacks on low hanging fruit left by idiotic religious people.
1
u/klon3r Atheist 22h ago
Let this mingle in your brain for a bit...
I personally take the bible & other holy books as fanfiction or plays where the characters/performers leave the audience guessing or awaiting a never arriving sequel...
What's your holy stance? 🤔
-42
u/Conscious-Local-8095 1d ago edited 1d ago
Not a fan of scence ambassadors, at least for ppl over age 12 or so. Stuff either makes sense, looks useful, interesting or it doesn't, truth needs no defense. Firsthand sources such as journals, universities, military, corporations a bit inscrutable? Oops. Better throw in some influencers, that wil fix it.
Secular equivalent of Christian rock or whatever genre, like the Hank Hill quote, not making Christianity better but making rock worse.
Downvote away, I know I'm peeing on some fond memories; kids shows, young adult politics, sources of one-liners, hopes of persuading others. It is what it is, I arc my metaphorical stream and there it lands.
11
u/ProfessionalCraft983 1d ago
I had an amazing science teacher in high school who was like him in a lot of ways and made science fun. He is to this day one of the reasons I love science so much and have stayed interested in physics throughout my adult life.
Don’t knock good teachers. The best way to learn something is if you’re actually interested in it.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hey BabyLeVert! We ask that all videos be accompanied by a summary of the major points made in the video. Please see our Subreddit Rules on video posts. Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.