Done? Ok. This should let you know where I'm coming from for this piece, which is being written on a high of caffeine and angst.
What makes me so mad about what that Federalist piece reveals is not merely the fact that Neil deGrasse Tyson, beloved host of Cosmos and demigod of the "nerd" community, fudged quotes to support his talks. It's his entire attitude and apparent compulsive need to belittle everyone who is not as "objective" or "sciencey" as he is supposed to be.
Just look at this tweet of his. If the sheer smug of that statement doesn't make you want to ralph, you might be someone who "****ing Loves Science" on Facebook. But let's take that tweet at face value. He doesn't want people who aren't grounded in objective reality to be in positions of power. Ok, so what does that mean? Who are these people who don't include such things in their worldview that are so dangerous?
Well, here's a clue. Surprised? Me neither. Closely tied to his agenda of making science the standard of political authority is the denigration of Christianity. Look no further than this clip from Bill Maher's show in which Maher takes a quote from a Creationist, Ken Ham, paraphrases it to make sound like a crazy Christian redneck rambling, and lets Tyson knock the softball out of the park with a remark, an eye-roll, and a head shake.
(As a side note, Tyson also seems to have a strange fixation with aliens and their superiority to humans).
What do we learn from this? We learn that Tyson is not trying to have an intelligent debate about epistemology or formulate a coherent empirical philosophy. He's acting as a prophet, a carnival barker, a mouthpiece to rouse the rabble of religion-haters.
The point of this isn't to make Tyson look like a jerk, though. That's too easy. He wouldn't be so popular and respected without a reason. There's a disturbingly vast contingent of people in this country that rely on this kind of brainless affirmation of their biases. They sneer at Christians, so when a guy on TV does it, they celebrate. They think looking at pictures of space and making puns about molecules makes them cool and smart, so when a guy with a meme face does it, they salivate.
This mentality has little if anything to do with actual science. As many other smarter, angrier people have explained, almost no one retweeting NDT or liking posts by IFLS actually enjoys conducting experiments, gathering data, and testing hypotheses. What they're interested in is having an Authority on their side. They appropriate Science as their trump card. "Oh, you're skeptical about climate change? You must hate Science." "Oh, you believe in God? Well, Science doesn't, idiot." And the real irony is when these people try to use Science to trump, you know, actual science, like in the climate change and abortion debates.
In essence, the crowd hanging on Tyson's every word is no different than, say, the Joel Osteen
Science is their God, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, for the moment, is its avatar.
In my opinion, equating Tyson to the Westboro Baptist Church, the Manson Family, or Joel Osteen is an inflammatory, slanderous statement made specifically to provoke response. You have achieved that and I hope you also intended to provoke further discussion. Before I continue into other parts of this writing, I will add that your statement is no different than those who believe Obama is Hitler. It is just as ignorant and asinine, Just as how I can say "In essence, the Eucharist is a wafer piece of bread which you believe contains the Body (real or spiritual) of Christ"
ReplyDeleteIn order to better understand Tyson and his presentation of information, I feel as though it is better to empathize with the audience he is trying to communicate with. Consider the perceived decline in the intelligence of the 'average' US citizen and factor in the explosion of social media in the past decade. I feel as though deGrasse is using the tools and delivery best available to him.
Could you imagine deGrasse using twitter to try and explain the masterful Miller-Urey experiment? Not familiar with it? read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
And deGrasse is more than capable of having an intelligent conversation, however I don't think that would fit into a 40 minute television program or 140 characters. You might have to do a little more research on his work to get into the level of sophistication you appear to require of him. In addition, the simple use of 'empircal philosophy' is in of itself an oxymoron to the same tune of a 'spiritual truth'.
The popular page "I F'ing Love Science" is much the same as the methodology of Tyson's presentation and dialogue. Inherent in its title you can tell that this page is intended as nothing more than to reassure people of a paradigm they already adhere to. A similar page in the name "I F'ing Love Jesus" or "I F'ing love Muhammed" is no different. However to use that one page as the primary reflection of a greater topic is a gross abuse by your logic. If you want a better display and message of "Scientism" please refer to the page "This week in Science" which recaps about a half dozen scientific advances in the previous week. There are several alums from Hillsdale I would gladly refer my atheist and agnostic friends to talk to a Hillsdale alum when they look for a meaningful discussion which is why I am attempting to offer you an alternative to IFLS.
As a side note, your 8th section, beginning "The point of this isn't..." is dripping with so much condescension I can barely hear you on your pulpit (Or a soapbox).
If I took your approach to NGT without understanding context, then I would tell you that I can 100% confirm that a man was swallowed by a whale and survived, another man cut a large body of water in half, and that a woman made from the rib of a man was convinced by a talking snake to eat a forbidden item off of a tree on knowledge and thus condemned the remainder of her species for eternity. Either I am reading the wrong translation of the Bible, or thankfully I am smart enough to look beyond anecdotal oral traditions from millenniums ago.
I will end by saying that I believe religion and faith, wherever people find it, does wonders for the state of morality in mankind. I think that people of faith should embrace that wonderful quality of their beliefs and be humble enough to concede to others when it comes to empirical experimentation and rational logic.
tldr: Read Miller-Urey experiment, Christians have as much to benefit from Scientists and vice-versa, understand an audience, and get off your pulpit.
Regards,
A Hillsdale Alum
Apologies for the repetition and poor structure of the end of my 6th section. It should read:
ReplyDelete"There are several alums from Hillsdale I would gladly refer my atheist and agnostic friends to talk to when they look for a meaningful discussion, which is why I am offering you an alternative to IFLS"