That's not what I am arguing, and what you're doing here is proving my point. I'm saying you have no way to justify your reasoning, and I think you now realize it is predicated on a series of unprovable assumptions. I can account for logic in my worldview; it doesn't make sense in yours. Uniformity in nature and absolute laws only make sense with God. Therefore, your blind faith in atheism is unjustified.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
@shinyblurry
Look, an argument is an exercise in logic. You're attempting to argue that logic is arbitrary. It's a self-defeating argument. If you can't see that I cannot help you.
Don't bother responding, I am done. You should be too.

What do you think the 'laws' of logic are?

That's what I am asking you. What are they?

If the material universe is so inconsistent, then why are the laws of physics consistent, and for that matter all scientific observations?

Again, that's what I am asking you. Without a controlling influence, there is no basis for these absolute
laws. I can account for it, how do you account for it?

In what way do you think the universe is changing? Certainly it's progressing in a sensible linear fashion, as dictated by physics and such. Your usage of the term seems to imply that gravity works one day and does not the next. How is anything inconsistent?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_universe

What are you comparing nature to, when you say it's "uniform" the question makes no sense at all. Things can be uniform, or irregular when compared to other things. What are you comparing nature to when you make the judgment that it is uniform? The question cannot be answered because it is based on a false premise.

It is the fundemental assumption of science that nature is uniform. That water will always boil at a certain temperature and atmosphere, every single time. Without that assumption, science couldn't be done.

I don't know the future will be like the past, but given that the laws of physics have remained constant for my life, and to the best of my knowledge all of recorded history, and that observation leads me and scientists to conclude that it was always thus (except, perhaps prior to the big bang) it would be silly to assume things would suddenly change. About as silly as believing in something with no evidence for its existence.

Right, so since you don't know that for sure, there is no reason to believe that empirical testing is the best method for obtaining truth. You've just admitted that you cannot account for it without begging the question, so your stance is not based on evidence but viciously circular reasoning.

>> ^Drachen_Jager

>> ^shinyblurry:

They're very simple questions. How do you account for the laws of logic, which are immaterial, unchanging and absolute, in a material universe which is always changing?
How do you account for the uniformity in nature? How do you know the future will be like the past?

Look, the questions are all fundamentally flawed. Let me spell it out.

What do you think the 'laws' of logic are? If the material universe is so inconsistent, then why are the laws of physics consistent, and for that matter all scientific observations? In what way do you think the universe is changing? Certainly it's progressing in a sensible linear fashion, as dictated by physics and such. Your usage of the term seems to imply that gravity works one day and does not the next. How is anything inconsistent?

What are you comparing nature to, when you say it's "uniform" the question makes no sense at all. Things can be uniform, or irregular when compared to other things. What are you comparing nature to when you make the judgment that it is uniform? The question cannot be answered because it is based on a false premise.

I don't know the future will be like the past, but given that the laws of physics have remained constant for my life, and to the best of my knowledge all of recorded history, and that observation leads me and scientists to conclude that it was always thus (except, perhaps prior to the big bang) it would be silly to assume things would suddenly change. About as silly as believing in something with no evidence for its existence.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Big, Think, Neil, deGrasse, Tyson, Science, Breakthrough' to 'Big Think, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Science, Breakthrough' - edited by xxovercastxx

I accidentally responded to GF on his profile so if anyone is interested in that, thats where that is.

But I just also wanted to say is that no - what you are describing is not faith. Scientific theories are constantly and rigorously tested; if they fail tests, they are discarded or altered accordingly.

Faith doesn't allow the possibility of being wrong; that's why it's faith.

>> ^dirkdeagler7:

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
Tyson is just plain wrong here, he says:
"40% of scientists are religious, so this notion that if you are a scientist, your'e an atheist, and if you are religious, you're not a scientist, is just empirically wrong"
Well, those of us who do say there is a conflict between science and religion have never framed the problem that way, the mere fact that there are religious scientists out there isnt evidence of a non-conflict anymore than the fact that a nazi could marry a jew. People can hold 2 or more conflicting views at the same time, we all do it all the time.
First of all, lets look at that "40%" number, it really depends on which poll or survey you look at. Those surveys who asks questions like "Do you believe in a personal god" usually end up in the sub-20% area of "religious" scientists, but if you include people who answer yes to questions like "are you a spiritual person" then maybe the number is closer to 40%.
So I really think 40% is really stretching it in favour of Tysons view here, but I'll let it go, lets say its 40% then, fine. Whats the same number in the general public? 41% 43?. No. its like 90%, right? So what happened to the 50% difference here? Did "No conflict" just happen to them? They just so happened to learn about science and nature, and via a sheer bloody coincidence, the number of religious people dropped by over one HALF???!!
No conflict my ass.
Of course there is a conflict. Tysons own inflated number even shows it directly.
But even if his inflated number was 100%, that ALL scientists were religious, there would still be a conflict, because faith and science are fundamentally different ways of approaching information and knowledge. In fact, they are, by definition, the opposite of eachother. Science can almost fully be described as "A complete absense of faith" and vice versa. If you've got even a hint of faith in your science, you've contaminated the results. Period. Similarly, if you take a hint of science, even at the level of a curious 5-year old, and apply it to the claims of faith, they immediatly start to look preposterous.
No conflict my ass.

To say there is no form of "faith" in science is misleading as well. If you're an avid follower of the science world, how could you be blind to the number of areas where we hold things to be accepted/true that are impossible to prove (outside of complicated math or computer models)? The most obvious example would be a many worlds/dimensions view, so any string theory borders on requiring "faith" to accept. Anything beyond the atomic level is a combination of interpreted observation and applied mathematics that we'll never be able to observe/prove first hand, in a sense we have "faith" that we're correct and have yet to find a reason to break that "faith" but if it happens we accept our "truth" to be not true. People had faith in newtonian physics being a true predictor/theory and we found it to not be the case after all.
I'm not attempting to compare the validity or justifiability of the 2 different flavors of faith. But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and there are things we believe and treat as true in science that we only know to be true in the ways we can measure them, and those ways sometimes contradict themselves still! Imagine the wave-particle duality and the contradictions in quantum theorys and Einsteins relativity...both of which we still use today (hell we still use newtonian physics in schools).

They're not 'difficult' to answer. They're impossible to answer because they don't actually make logical sense. The fact that you think they do make sense is actually kind of disturbing.

They're very simple questions. How do you account for the laws of logic, which are immaterial, unchanging and absolute, in a material universe which is always changing?

How do you account for the uniformity in nature? How do you know the future will be like the past?

It is not a 'leap of faith' to disbelieve that which cannot be proved. If you'd paid attention before (I know it's hard, but try) you'd have realized that your argument leads to madness. If you insist on believing in God, and your sole argument is that the existence of God cannot be disproved, then you should, by all right believe in every single bit of nonsensical information which comes along. Why do you take the stairs out from your apartment building instead of flying out the window? You can't prove that you cannot fly to work by flapping your arms (or, you can, but only if you try). You cannot prove that bashing your head with a hammer is bad for your health (again, not without trying it). The list of things you cannot disprove is infinite. Why choose that one and reject all the others?

You seem to have trouble following the conversation. My sole argument for God isn't that He cannot be disproved, my evidence for your faith in atheism is that He cannot be disproved. You outright deny God exists and you have no evidence for it, therefore it is a leap of faith.

You have not proved your case, no matter what you seem to think, and no amount of word salad will help you.

Unless you have something cogent and substantive to add I am done. Go hit yourself in the head with a hammer if you want to prove me wrong.

You've proven my case for me. You've admitted yout blind faith in atheism, and then you try to justify it by conflating the issue by saying belief in God is equivilent to belief in fairies, which is false. God has explanatory power, fairies explain exactly nothing. Then you try to trivilaize the question by equating it with any number of meaningless statements, which is also false. To ask whether the Universe has an intelligent causation is a legitimate question, and God is a legitimate answer to that question.

>> ^Drachen_Jager

>> ^shinyblurry:

So in other words, you have no evidence that God doesn't exist so it is a leap of faith. I appreciate your candor. I also appreciate that you were unable to answer of my questions. They're very difficult questions for someone who has worldview founded on blind faith.

They're not 'difficult' to answer. They're impossible to answer because they don't actually make logical sense. The fact that you think they do make sense is actually kind of disturbing.

It is not a 'leap of faith' to disbelieve that which cannot be proved. If you'd paid attention before (I know it's hard, but try) you'd have realized that your argument leads to madness. If you insist on believing in God, and your sole argument is that the existence of God cannot be disproved, then you should, by all right believe in every single bit of nonsensical information which comes along. Why do you take the stairs out from your apartment building instead of flying out the window? You can't prove that you cannot fly to work by flapping your arms (or, you can, but only if you try). You cannot prove that bashing your head with a hammer is bad for your health (again, not without trying it). The list of things you cannot disprove is infinite. Why choose that one and reject all the others?

You have not proved your case, no matter what you seem to think, and no amount of word salad will help you.

Unless you have something cogent and substantive to add I am done. Go hit yourself in the head with a hammer if you want to prove me wrong.

So in other words, you have no evidence that God doesn't exist so it is a leap of faith. I appreciate your candor. I also appreciate that you were unable to answer any of my questions. They're very difficult questions for someone who has worldview founded on blind faith.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It most certainly is a leap of faith to say that there is no God, since you cannot disprove God. You have no evidence that God doesn't exist.
Likewise you cannot disprove that your entire universe is a Matrix, lived inside a giant computer. You cannot disprove that you are insane, and everything you think is happening is actually a figment of your imagination. You cannot disprove that God is actually an evil being who wants to create conflict among humans.
The list of propositions you cannot quantitatively disprove is unlimited. Why choose this one in particular to believe?
P.S. I deleted the rest of your response because there were a lot of words you didn't use correctly which made your sentences nonsensical. I suppose if that's you debate method it's probably effective, but only from the 'drag them down to your level and beat them with experience' method.
P.P.S. I find it amusing that you use an argument about uniformity and continuity which, if applied to God, would actually prove yourself wrong.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It most certainly is a leap of faith to say that there is no God, since you cannot disprove God. You have no evidence that God doesn't exist.

Likewise you cannot disprove that your entire universe is a Matrix, lived inside a giant computer. You cannot disprove that you are insane, and everything you think is happening is actually a figment of your imagination. You cannot disprove that God is actually an evil being who wants to create conflict among humans.

The list of propositions you cannot quantitatively disprove is unlimited. Why choose this one in particular to believe?

P.S. I deleted the rest of your response because there were a lot of words you didn't use correctly which made your sentences nonsensical. I suppose if that's you debate method it's probably effective, but only from the 'drag them down to your level and beat them with experience' method.

P.P.S. I find it amusing that you use an argument about uniformity and continuity which, if applied to God, would actually prove yourself wrong.

It most certainly is a leap of faith to say that there is no God, since you cannot disprove God. You have no evidence that God doesn't exist.

Since you say that you're using logic, and presumably you're a materialist, how do you account for the laws of logic in nature? Could you point to them for me? How do you account for the laws of logic in your worldview?

As far as science goes, why should we prefer empirical evidence as the best way of discovering truth? For science to be done, it must assume a little thing called the uniformity of nature. This is to say that the future will be like the past. Of course, there is nothing to guarantee this will be true even five minutes from now. The only way to justify this is by circular reasoning. It is no better than saying that God justifies God.

I can account for the laws of logic and uniformity in nature in my theistic worldview, how do you account for them in yours? The idea of the Uniformity of nature was a Christian idea which was that God made an orderly universe based on univeral laws and that we could investigate secondary causes to determine what those laws are. That is how science really got its start in Christian europe. You're welcome.






>> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^shinyblurry:
of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project
Complete and utter B.S.
Everything we know about the Universe has been learned through the rigorous application of logic.
There is nothing. Literally nothing that we have gained any other way.
Now you're trying to tell me, that because I am using the deductive tools by which 100% of substantive knowledge has been derived I am the one using faith? Atheism requires no leap of faith. Only the rigorous application of the scientific method, intelligence and logic. Just because you cannot manage some, or all of the skills required to arrive at the correct conclusion does not preclude others from doing so. To believe such would be the worst kind of hubris.
I repeat, total and utter B.S. Shame on you for even mentioning it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

Complete and utter B.S.

Everything we know about the Universe has been learned through the rigorous application of logic.

There is nothing. Literally nothing that we have gained any other way.

Now you're trying to tell me, that because I am using the deductive tools by which 100% of substantive knowledge has been derived *I* am the one using faith? Atheism requires no leap of faith. Only the rigorous application of the scientific method, intelligence and logic. Just because you cannot manage some, or all of the skills required to arrive at the correct conclusion does not preclude others from doing so. To believe such would be the worst kind of hubris.

I repeat, total and utter B.S. Shame on you for even mentioning it.

What you're doing is showing your faithiesm

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

The difference between everything you mentioned and God as a concept is that the idea of God has explanatory power. The question of whether the Universe had intelligent causation is a valid question, and from what we know (that space time energy and matter had a finite beginning), the cause of the Universe would be immaterial, spaceless, timeless and transcendent. These perfectly describe attributes of an all powerful God. We also have evidence of design in the Universe and the fine tuning of physical laws. So, to rule God out as an explanation is simply ignorant. Between evolution and special creation, you have virtually exausted the possibilities of how life came to exist.



>> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^Morganth:
No, this just illustrates that you do not understand. If there is a god who created the universe, why then would he have to be wholly provable from inside of it? You're actually having to make a number of assumptions about the nature of god to make your claim.
If there is a creator god, we would not relate to him in the way that Hamlet relates to a character in another act of the play, but rather in the way that Hamlet relates to Shakespeare. He could not find him in the highest tower or prove that Shakespeare exists in the lab. Really, the only way Hamlet could ever know that Shakespeare exists is if Shakespeare writes something about himself into the play.
Seriously dude? Hamlet? That's not a person. He's a character in a play, your analogy is utterly useless other than to confuse the gullible.
I make no assumptions about the nature of God, you are the one who makes assumptions about the nature of God. You HAVE to make assumptions about the nature of God to make your argument work. I'm saying there is no God, so there are no necessary assumptions about his nature, since he doesn't HAVE a nature.
There is an infinitum of proposals you cannot prove to be true or false. Unicorns, wizards and dragons ruled the earth 2000 years ago. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created God. All the matching pairs of socks that go missing are stolen by sock-goblins. The proposal that God exists is, therefore only one in an infinity of unprovable junk. Unless you are prepared to believe that UFOs abduct people and mutilate cows and every other stupid theory people throw out there, you have no reason to believe the Universe was created by some kind of sentient being. One is just as likely as the other. If we believed in unprovable junk we'd never get anything done, the scientists would all be bogged down in nonsense and we wouldn't have iPods and personal computers. We'd still be banging rocks together.

>> ^Morganth:

No, this just illustrates that you do not understand. If there is a god who created the universe, why then would he have to be wholly provable from inside of it? You're actually having to make a number of assumptions about the nature of god to make your claim.
If there is a creator god, we would not relate to him in the way that Hamlet relates to a character in another act of the play, but rather in the way that Hamlet relates to Shakespeare. He could not find him in the highest tower or prove that Shakespeare exists in the lab. Really, the only way Hamlet could ever know that Shakespeare exists is if Shakespeare writes something about himself into the play.

Seriously dude? Hamlet? That's not a person. He's a character in a play, your analogy is utterly useless other than to confuse the gullible.

I make no assumptions about the nature of God, you are the one who makes assumptions about the nature of God. You HAVE to make assumptions about the nature of God to make your argument work. I'm saying there is no God, so there are no necessary assumptions about his nature, since he doesn't HAVE a nature.

There is an infinitum of proposals you cannot prove to be true or false. Unicorns, wizards and dragons ruled the earth 2000 years ago. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created God. All the matching pairs of socks that go missing are stolen by sock-goblins. The proposal that God exists is, therefore only one in an infinity of unprovable junk. Unless you are prepared to believe that UFOs abduct people and mutilate cows and every other stupid theory people throw out there, you have no reason to believe the Universe was created by some kind of sentient being. One is just as likely as the other. If we believed in unprovable junk we'd never get anything done, the scientists would all be bogged down in nonsense and we wouldn't have iPods and personal computers. We'd still be banging rocks together.

No, this just illustrates that you do not understand. If there is a god who created the universe, why then would he have to be wholly provable from inside of it? You're actually having to make a number of assumptions about the nature of god to make your claim.

If there is a creator god, we would not relate to him in the way that Hamlet relates to a character in another act of the play, but rather in the way that Hamlet relates to Shakespeare. He could not find him in the highest tower or prove that Shakespeare exists in the lab. Really, the only way Hamlet could ever know that Shakespeare exists is if Shakespeare writes something about himself into the play. >> ^Drachen_Jager:

You can believe in God and be a scientist.
You cannot properly apply the scientific method to religion and still believe in God.
So, scientists who believe in God are not as rigorous in their application of science as many of those who do not.
Climate-Change Skeptics claim hundreds of scientists are among their number, even though only five or six of those scientists are actual climatologists. Which shows the problem of narrow-minded scientific exploration in modern science.
Do lots of scientists believe in God. Yes. Is that a bad thing? Yes.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

Tyson is just plain wrong here, he says:
"40% of scientists are religious, so this notion that if you are a scientist, your'e an atheist, and if you are religious, you're not a scientist, is just empirically wrong"
Well, those of us who do say there is a conflict between science and religion have never framed the problem that way, the mere fact that there are religious scientists out there isnt evidence of a non-conflict anymore than the fact that a nazi could marry a jew. People can hold 2 or more conflicting views at the same time, we all do it all the time.
First of all, lets look at that "40%" number, it really depends on which poll or survey you look at. Those surveys who asks questions like "Do you believe in a personal god" usually end up in the sub-20% area of "religious" scientists, but if you include people who answer yes to questions like "are you a spiritual person" then maybe the number is closer to 40%.
So I really think 40% is really stretching it in favour of Tysons view here, but I'll let it go, lets say its 40% then, fine. Whats the same number in the general public? 41% 43?. No. its like 90%, right? So what happened to the 50% difference here? Did "No conflict" just happen to them? They just so happened to learn about science and nature, and via a sheer bloody coincidence, the number of religious people dropped by over one HALF???!!
No conflict my ass.
Of course there is a conflict. Tysons own inflated number even shows it directly.
But even if his inflated number was 100%, that ALL scientists were religious, there would still be a conflict, because faith and science are fundamentally different ways of approaching information and knowledge. In fact, they are, by definition, the opposite of eachother. Science can almost fully be described as "A complete absense of faith" and vice versa. If you've got even a hint of faith in your science, you've contaminated the results. Period. Similarly, if you take a hint of science, even at the level of a curious 5-year old, and apply it to the claims of faith, they immediatly start to look preposterous.
No conflict my ass.


To say there is no form of "faith" in science is misleading as well. If you're an avid follower of the science world, how could you be blind to the number of areas where we hold things to be accepted/true that are impossible to prove (outside of complicated math or computer models)? The most obvious example would be a many worlds/dimensions view, so any string theory borders on requiring "faith" to accept. Anything beyond the atomic level is a combination of interpreted observation and applied mathematics that we'll never be able to observe/prove first hand, in a sense we have "faith" that we're correct and have yet to find a reason to break that "faith" but if it happens we accept our "truth" to be not true. People had faith in newtonian physics being a true predictor/theory and we found it to not be the case after all.

I'm not attempting to compare the validity or justifiability of the 2 different flavors of faith. But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and there are things we believe and treat as true in science that we only know to be true in the ways we can measure them, and those ways sometimes contradict themselves still! Imagine the wave-particle duality and the contradictions in quantum theorys and Einsteins relativity...both of which we still use today (hell we still use newtonian physics in schools).