Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Neil deGrasse Tyson Embarrasses Himself Again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Neil deGrasse Tyson Embarrasses Himself Again

    When will Tyson stop speaking where he's not an authority?

    The link can be found here.

    The text is as follows:

    Is Tyson speaking out of his area again? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    Neil deGrasse Tyson of Cosmos has had a history of not getting his facts right when speaking to public audiences. I found out yesterday while browsing on Facebook that he had spoken to Bill Moyers on Moyers and Company. The Friendly Atheist gave a report on the interview here. Unfortunately, when Tyson spoke, he again revealed that he doesn't really know what he's talking about and this time it was done when talking about the second coming of Christ.

    At the start, Tyson doesn't realize apparently that there's much debate about what is called the second coming. There are some Christians that see the discourse in Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation as referring to a future scenario. Then there are some who like myself see it more referring to a past event. We look forward to the future bodily return of Christ, but Matthew 24 is really talking about the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Probably the best work you can read on Matthew 24 from that perspective now is Dee Dee Warren's It's Not The End Of The World. You can also listen to my interview with her on that book here.

    Of course, Tyson doesn't know about any of this. What I first was confronted with was a meme that someone made meant to show that the Bible cannot be trusted on anything, which is already itself a strange statement to make. Because the Bible was supposedly unscientific at one point, we cannot trust it on anything whatsoever? You can always count on fundamentalists to have all-or-nothing thinking, but let's take a look at the meme itself.

    starstoEarth.jpg

    Once again, I would have liked to have thought that this was a misquote. I would like to have thought that he did not say this. Unfortunately, the link from The Friendly Atheist shows otherwise. Of course, Tyson in all of this is showing that faith and science are supposedly incompatible. Towards the end of the article, he makes statements that could help indicate the cause of his misconception.

    So, this whole sort of reinterpretation of the, how figurative the poetic passages of the Bible are came after science showed that this is not how things unfolded. And so the educated religious people are perfectly fine with that. It’s the fundamentalists who want to say that the Bible is the literally, literal truth of God, that and want to see the Bible as a science textbook, who are knocking on the science doors of the schools, trying to put that content in the science room. Enlightened religious people are not behaving that way. So saying that science is cool, we’re good with that, and use the Bible for, to get your spiritual enlightenment and your emotional fulfillment.
    Unfortunately, Tyson doesn't realize that his hang-up on literalism is not one that was shared by the early church. The fathers, for instance, had a great love of allegory. This was also long before the rise of modern science. Saint Augustine wrote a book where he argued that all of creation happened instantly and did so in a book about the literal meaning of Genesis. In fact, you can find here a great statement from Augustine:

    Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
    Keep in mind this is long before modern science.

    The irony is that Tyson is doing to religion exactly what he accuses of religion doing to science. Tyson is knocking on the doors of religion trying to get to insist on a literalist interpretation of Scripture and saying that this is how it should be done. You can be a strong conservative holding to positions like inerrancy and reject the idea of the Bible as a science textbook and insist that not everything has to be interpreted "literally." Tyson thus wants to treat the idea that taking the Bible "literally" is ridiculous when not only does he do it himself, but he shows no indication that there are other understandings of the passages under question held by even conservatives.

    It could be understandable why Tyson interprets the data of Scripture the way that he does given the modern context that we live in. On the other hand, Tyson could also recognize that when it comes to claims like evolution, for a number of people, it could be said that they just look at the data of the complexity of nature and the beauty of the universe and find that's an inadequate answer. Tyson would probably say they need to study the evidence of evolution before dismissing it so quickly, and he would be right. I say the same thing back. Before Tyson speaks on interpretation, he needs to actually study it and how the text has been interpreted throughout the centuries and what some interpretations are of such passages.

    Of course, he also ends with saying that many of us can go and still get our emotional and spiritual fulfillment. Tyson is unaware that many of us go that route for intellectual fulfillment. We believe in Christianity because it actually answers the questions of the mind. Whether or not it gives spiritual or emotional fulfillment is irrelevant, and frankly, many of us will often say that it does not. The Christian life is not always rainbows and roses. I like how C.S. Lewis said years ago that he didn't go to Christianity to be happy because he knew a bottle of port would do that just fine. If we were searching for emotional and spiritual fulfillment, many of us would go elsewhere.

    Now of course, I recognize Tyson is a scientist, but the problem is scientists like him are speaking about how much religious people who do not understand science are trying to speak on the topic without knowledge. I agree. I have a problem with that going on. I would join Tyson in that. The problem I have is that has to be a two-way street. Tyson does not get to speak on religion just because he is a scientist. If Tyson wants to make his audience more friendly to what he has to say, then he needs to learn to not speak on areas where people who do know what they're talking about will only roll their eyes.

    Will he and others like him ever learn?

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  • #2
    I wouldn't even call Tyson a scientist at this point. His last published paper was in 2008.

    I wish scientists (or people involved in science, more generally) would understand that being competent as a scientist does not render you competent in anything else.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      ...
      Unfortunately, Tyson doesn't realize that his hang-up on literalism is not one that was shared by the early church. The fathers, for instance, had a great love of allegory. This was also long before the rise of modern science. Saint Augustine wrote a book where he argued that all of creation happened instantly and did so in a book about the literal meaning of Genesis.
      ...
      But this literalism is shared by many modern day Christians, especially in the US.

      How about a post directed at Ken Ham, pointing out that his literalism is absurd?
      My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        When will Tyson stop speaking where he's not an authority?

        The link can be found here.

        The text is as follows:

        Is Tyson speaking out of his area again? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

        Neil deGrasse Tyson of Cosmos has had a history of not getting his facts right when speaking to public audiences. I found out yesterday while browsing on Facebook that he had spoken to Bill Moyers on Moyers and Company. The Friendly Atheist gave a report on the interview here. Unfortunately, when Tyson spoke, he again revealed that he doesn't really know what he's talking about and this time it was done when talking about the second coming of Christ.

        At the start, Tyson doesn't realize apparently that there's much debate about what is called the second coming. There are some Christians that see the discourse in Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation as referring to a future scenario. Then there are some who like myself see it more referring to a past event. We look forward to the future bodily return of Christ, but Matthew 24 is really talking about the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Probably the best work you can read on Matthew 24 from that perspective now is Dee Dee Warren's It's Not The End Of The World. You can also listen to my interview with her on that book here.

        Of course, Tyson doesn't know about any of this. What I first was confronted with was a meme that someone made meant to show that the Bible cannot be trusted on anything, which is already itself a strange statement to make. Because the Bible was supposedly unscientific at one point, we cannot trust it on anything whatsoever? You can always count on fundamentalists to have all-or-nothing thinking, but let's take a look at the meme itself.

        [ATTACH=CONFIG]10385[/ATTACH]

        Once again, I would have liked to have thought that this was a misquote. I would like to have thought that he did not say this. Unfortunately, the link from The Friendly Atheist shows otherwise. Of course, Tyson in all of this is showing that faith and science are supposedly incompatible. Towards the end of the article, he makes statements that could help indicate the cause of his misconception.



        Unfortunately, Tyson doesn't realize that his hang-up on literalism is not one that was shared by the early church. The fathers, for instance, had a great love of allegory. This was also long before the rise of modern science. Saint Augustine wrote a book where he argued that all of creation happened instantly and did so in a book about the literal meaning of Genesis. In fact, you can find here a great statement from Augustine:



        Keep in mind this is long before modern science.

        The irony is that Tyson is doing to religion exactly what he accuses of religion doing to science. Tyson is knocking on the doors of religion trying to get to insist on a literalist interpretation of Scripture and saying that this is how it should be done. You can be a strong conservative holding to positions like inerrancy and reject the idea of the Bible as a science textbook and insist that not everything has to be interpreted "literally." Tyson thus wants to treat the idea that taking the Bible "literally" is ridiculous when not only does he do it himself, but he shows no indication that there are other understandings of the passages under question held by even conservatives.

        It could be understandable why Tyson interprets the data of Scripture the way that he does given the modern context that we live in. On the other hand, Tyson could also recognize that when it comes to claims like evolution, for a number of people, it could be said that they just look at the data of the complexity of nature and the beauty of the universe and find that's an inadequate answer. Tyson would probably say they need to study the evidence of evolution before dismissing it so quickly, and he would be right. I say the same thing back. Before Tyson speaks on interpretation, he needs to actually study it and how the text has been interpreted throughout the centuries and what some interpretations are of such passages.

        Of course, he also ends with saying that many of us can go and still get our emotional and spiritual fulfillment. Tyson is unaware that many of us go that route for intellectual fulfillment. We believe in Christianity because it actually answers the questions of the mind. Whether or not it gives spiritual or emotional fulfillment is irrelevant, and frankly, many of us will often say that it does not. The Christian life is not always rainbows and roses. I like how C.S. Lewis said years ago that he didn't go to Christianity to be happy because he knew a bottle of port would do that just fine. If we were searching for emotional and spiritual fulfillment, many of us would go elsewhere.

        Now of course, I recognize Tyson is a scientist, but the problem is scientists like him are speaking about how much religious people who do not understand science are trying to speak on the topic without knowledge. I agree. I have a problem with that going on. I would join Tyson in that. The problem I have is that has to be a two-way street. Tyson does not get to speak on religion just because he is a scientist. If Tyson wants to make his audience more friendly to what he has to say, then he needs to learn to not speak on areas where people who do know what they're talking about will only roll their eyes.

        Will he and others like him ever learn?

        In Christ,
        Nick Peters
        What those who bring up the stars falling out of the sky line fail to understand that in ancient times just about everything in the heavens other than the sun and moon were referred to as "stars." Planets, meteors and actual stars were called stars. The Greeks called comets "hairy stars" although Aristotle thought that comets were astronomical phenomena[1]. A remnant of that sort of usage is still found in our language today when we use terms like "shooting star" or "falling star" although I doubt Tyson acts like a smug, sanctimonious twit any time someone uses them.










        1. The word "comet" has its origin in the Old French comète, from Latin comēta, from Ancient Greek κομήτης (komētēs, "longhaired"), referring to the tail of a comet, from κόμη (komē, "hair")

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
          But this literalism is shared by many modern day Christians, especially in the US.

          How about a post directed at Ken Ham, pointing out that his literalism is absurd?
          I have been a Christian for over 40 years. So far I have never met a single believer who thinks that actual stars will fall to earth, not one.

          There have been lots of posts directed at Ham and YECs on that topic. What more do you expect?
          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

          Comment


          • #6
            I have made clear in my writings that my view of Genesis 1 is that of John Walton's. I don't enter into that debate when it comes to science because that is my area, but Tyson is a more high-profile figure who has more reach with the popular audience than Ham does. I have also written quite often against a literalism on my blog and I will in fact be having a debate on the age of the Earth on my show next month. For now for some humor....KenHamthanks.jpg

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              I have been a Christian for over 40 years. So far I have never met a single believer who thinks that actual stars will fall to earth, not one.
              Are not meteorites included in the "falling star" category? There have been many meteorites.
              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                Are not meteorites included in the "falling star" category? There have been many meteorites.
                Yes, but when you're being hyper literal and applying a meaning to a word that was not intended by the original author, you tend to ignore things like that.


                It reminds me of the encounter Ravi had with a chap who was promoting his new book on the topic of there being no such thing as authorial intent. So Ravi asked him was was his intention in writing the book.....
                Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
                1 Corinthians 16:13

                "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
                -Ben Witherington III

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                  I have been a Christian for over 40 years. So far I have never met a single believer who thinks that actual stars will fall to earth, not one.
                  Tyson is like Richard Dawkins in this respect. Both regularly take views held by a tiny fraction of Christians out on the extreme fringe and portrays it as widely held. Neither seems capable of handling mainstream Christian views.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Tyson is like Richard Dawkins in this respect. Both regularly take views held by a tiny fraction of Christians out on the extreme fringe and portrays it as widely held. Neither seems capable of handling mainstream Christian views.
                    And in some cases a strawman of what even the extreme fringe might believe.
                    Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
                    1 Corinthians 16:13

                    "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
                    -Ben Witherington III

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      What those who bring up the stars falling out of the sky line fail to understand that in ancient times just about everything in the heavens other than the sun and moon were referred to as "stars." Planets, meteors and actual stars were called stars.
                      To me thats how you answer Tyson right there. I took one look at the image and never thought about biblical literalism vs metaphorical or allegorical I just thought - what a dope. Doesn't understand the language and the meaning of words. The word for any light at night in the sky was stars (with the exception of the moon) and we still say shooting stars to this day.

                      I figure some already know - I am a literalist (don't shoot me you might need a token one day) but I don't think even on a practical level you are going to make much headway dealing with him or people like him by talking about not reading the Bible literally or to be quite frank the preterist position either. Sure there are those that didn't take Genesis one a literal way in the history of the church but there are also a huge set that did so what you are really asking Tyson to do is choose one predominant Christian view over another - which is not something I think is his fault not to distinguish.

                      If you answer him like rogue does above then you have him nailed on ignorance but if you start peddling over to the nonliteralism argument - it sounds like a cop out and yeah as a literalist I think some of it is and I realize most of you would disagree but what I am saying is from a strategic outsides view Going straight to nonliteralism (even if you are a non literal)as an answer to these things I just don't think works.

                      But this literalism is shared by many modern day Christians, especially in the US.
                      Yep like me..I am so literal I don't even agree withe Ham and don't think he is faithful enough to the text which oddly enough puts me at less variance with science than him. theres just waay too many of us literalist left to blame Tyson and even without us the Tysons of the world and his follower hear "we shouldn't take the bible too literally" as "we shouldn't take the Bible seriously"

                      Just an outside perspective
                      Last edited by Mikeenders; 10-12-2015, 08:15 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Raphael View Post
                        And in some cases a strawman of what even the extreme fringe might believe.
                        I meant to add that but the pizza guy got here.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          I meant to add that but the pizza guy got here.
                          And you had to make it look like an accident?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                            And you had to make it look like an accident?
                            AP nodonut.gif

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                              And you had to make it look like an accident?
                              The NSA were getting a little carried away.
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                              14 responses
                              75 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                              6 responses
                              61 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                              1 response
                              23 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                              7 responses
                              52 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Working...
                              X