Neil deGrasse Tyson on religion vs. objective truth

The headline on this Daily Beast piece is a bit misleading: "Neil deGrasse Tyson Defends Scientology -- and the Bush Administration's Science Record." 

Sure, both statements are true. But only in a certain context. Here's some of what astrophysicist Tyson says about Scientology.

So, you have people who are certain that a man in a robe transforms a cracker into the literal body of Jesus saying that what goes on in Scientology is crazy?

...But why aren’t they a religion? What is it that makes them a religion and others are religions? If you attend a Seder, there’s an empty chair sitting right there and the door is unlocked because Elijah might walk in.

OK. These are educated people who do this. Now, some will say it’s ritual, some will say it could literally happen. But religions, if you analyze them, who is to say that one religion is rational and another isn’t? It looks like the older those thoughts have been around, the likelier it is to be declared a religion.

If you’ve been around 1,000 years you’re a religion, and if you’ve been around 100 years, you’re a cult. That’s how people want to divide the kingdom. Religions have edited themselves over the years to fit the times, so I’m not going to sit here and say Scientology is an illegitimate religion and other religions are legitimate religions. They’re all based on belief systems.

Look at Mormonism! There are ideas that are as space-exotic within Mormonism as there are within Scientology, and it’s more accepted because it’s a little older than Scientology is, so are we just more accepting of something that’s older?

Great points. It reminds me of the saying that an atheist is someone who tells believers, "I just deny one more God than you do."

Meaning, every major religion (and maybe also every minor one) teaches that it knows who/what the True God(s) is or are. Beliefs, rituals, and such based on that supposed knowledge make great good sense to the religion's followers, while the practices of other religions are looked upon as misguided, if not bizarre.

Next Sunday countless Christians will worship on Easter, which celebrates the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

That is really a very weird belief. Sure, to Christians it isn't, but that's because they take it to be true. To them the idea that the angel Gabriel verbally revealed the Quran to Muhammed over about 23 years, though... that is clearly absurd. 

Well, in religion one person's ridiculous absurdity is another person's blessed faith. Thus there are lots of different religions, each appealing to different groups of people. Which seemingly is a lot like music -- there are many different genres, classical, rock, hip hop, rap, blues, jazz, etc. etc. -- except it really isn't.

Because few people who like a certain type of music also claim that this type is objectively better than other sorts of music, whereas religions typically make objective truth claims. 

Religions are popular because they make people feel better. So does listening to music. But people don't get into actual music wars, with killing and such. Nor do they try to justify social policies and laws based on their music preferences.

Religious believers do, though. Why?

Because in order to feel good about their religion, most devotees need to believe that its teachings are true, even without any demonstrable evidence for this. After all, how comforting would the notion of heaven be, if it was viewed as a fictional place rather than as an actual afterlife destination?

This objectification of a subjective belief, Tyson points out, causes problems.

Now, where the rubber hits the road is, since we are a free country where belief systems are constitutionally protected—provided they don’t infringe on the rights of others—then how do you have governance over “all” when you have belief systems for the “some”?

It seems to me that the way you govern people is you base governance on things that are objectively true; that are true regardless of your belief system, or no matter what the tenets are of your holy documents. And then they should base it on objective truths that apply to everyone.

So the issue comes about not that there are religious people in the world that have one view over another, it’s if you have one view or another based on faith and you want to legislate that in a way that affects everyone. That’s no longer a free democracy. That’s a country where the few who have a belief system that’s not based in objective reality want to control the behavior of everyone else.

...But the point here is that if you’re religious, and your religion tells you that being gay is bad, then don’t be gay. But you have to remind yourself that that’s your belief system, and there are other belief systems that don’t agree with that, so you should not be in the position to make legislation that affects other people. 

Absolutely. Nicely said, Dr. Tyson.

However, I did have to pause and ponder the statement, "It seems to me that the way you govern people is you base governance on things that are objectively true." At first this seemed far distant from how legislators in this country actually govern, even when they govern well.

But the more I thought about it, it does seem that objective reality is indeed the basis for all legislation and executive action.

Laws and policies are intended to make a difference in the real world. So even though it isn't always obvious how "objectively true" is the touchstone for governing, it does seem to be, deep down.

For example, a few months ago the Oregon legislature considered a bill that would eliminate non-medical reasons for not immunizing children. I thought this was a good idea. Extensive research has show that immunizations are generally safe and effective, bringing many more health benefits than problems.

It shouldn't matter what people believe about immunizations; what counts are the objective facts about immunizations. These can be argued about and debated, but the goal is to learn what is objectively true.

Sure, personal values play a role in political discussions. These should be subservient to generally held facts, though. This was the theme of one of my first Church of the Churchless blog posts, "Religious values have no place in politics."

But I can’t think of any examples of opinions about political issues that are incapable of being founded on either proven or provable factual premises. Consider abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage—three issues that are commonly considered to comprise the core of “values-based” voting in the last election. 

Opinions about each of these issues can, and should, be founded on objective facts derived from social science and medical science research. There are costs and benefits to various individuals and society as a whole from the presence or absence of abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage. These costs and benefits can be determined. They can be communicated. They can be discussed. They can be the basis for informed political decisions. 

But you can’t determine, communicate, discuss, or decide anything on a religious or what-God-wants basis. The moral tenets of every religion are unproven and unprovable, using Volokh’s words. However, the moral tenets that flow out of political decisions founded on accurate real-world information can be proven, because the real world is provable. 

For example, fetuses either feel pain or they don’t. If they do, then it should be possible to determine how much pain is experienced during an abortion. People could use this information to help decide when an abortion is justified and when it isn’t. Intelligent debates about the pros and cons of abortion could replace the frenzied moralistic “I’m right and you’re wrong!” screeching that now passes for political discourse in this country. 

You can’t debate with someone who doesn’t have a defensible reason for why they believe what they do. You can’t debate with someone who responds to a reasoned argument with “Because the Bible says so” or “Jesus condemns sinners.”

Comments

[777]

I didn't know that scientologies were so simple but perhaps that empty chair is purely symbolic

Thinking about Prophets, . . . Mohammed and Dante were more successful than Aleicter Crowley who was 'channeling' as so many but ended sadly

Channeling can happen on many levels but when it comes from low beneath it's nasty -

Without preaching I Like to defend the bread & wine stuf ;
"eating the guru"
is also symbolic and a very good reminder that , , , , yet you have identified your Self as a vibration, a structure of tones, , , ,
it's easy to imagine that that tone can become part , even be absorbed by a bigger , more powerful song, an orchestra , ,

even between people it just happens without realizing, , ,
to be attracted / distracted
6th sense ( little IQ at work there )

777

[Appreciative Reader]

Perhaps the most astonishing thing about people who believe blindly in their own particular religion is how amazed they often genuinely are when faced with others’ equally preposterous beliefs and actions.

For instance : Fundamentalist Christians are seldom able to appreciate the essential similarity of their own position with that of the fundamental Muslim who blows himself up in order to take out ten unholy Kuffars (“innocent bystanders and victims” to you and me). RC believers fail, to a man, to see how, when they take at all seriously their Pope’s opinions and directions on things like abortion, contraception, gay relations and the big bang theory, they are not all that different from the brainwashed “martyr” who zips on his suicide vest.

It’s easy enough to behold the mote that is another’s eye, but difficult as hell to check out the beam in one’s own! (The Bible may have got lots of stuff totally wrong, but it does have a great many wisecracks that are often right on target!)

- - - - - - -

Incidentally, and touching on another aspect of what you talk of in this post : Science can certainly inform (when we let it) our actions, both personal and in aggregate, but it can never actually be instrumental in deciding policy. That will always be dictated more by our de facto moral code than anything else.

You mention how “scientifically” determining whether fetuses feel pain can help determine our policy on abortion. Now certainly, knowing for a fact whether fetuses feel anything or not can INFORM our policy, but it can in no way actually DETERMINE how we’ll end up acting. I think we do know as fact, as scientifically proven fact, that animals feel pain. Yet that does not stop, at the personal level, the majority of us humans from actually eating them! Nor does it result, at the aggregate level, in policy or laws that ban butchery (in the literal sense of that word).

But (like most things) I guess that’s only partly true. We do after all have laws that seek to prevent some forms of cruelty to animals. However hypocritical, they do indicate that “policy” can and does take into account (even if perfunctorily and ineffectively) what we know scientifically.

Sorry, that was off-topic. Rant over.

[x]

Perhaps the most astonishing thing about people who believe blindly in their own particular religion is how amazed they often genuinely are when faced with others’ equally preposterous beliefs and actions.

I've never seen a believer express amazement.

Believers live in a cocoon of soothing scriptures, tenets, cliches, bromides, encomiums, platitudes, and assurances that effectively disable the capacity for amazement and astonishment.

[Appreciative Reader]

I've never seen a believer express amazement.

Believers live in a cocoon of soothing scriptures, tenets, cliches, bromides, encomiums, platitudes, and assurances that effectively disable the capacity for amazement and astonishment.

Right you are, about the cocoon of soothing cliches, et al; yet they're often amazed. Not at themselves, naturally, but at others who are exactly similar to them (but they don't, somehow, realize it). That's what's so astonishing.

You'll see plenty of RCCs who hang on to the Pope's wholly weird opinions and dictums (and either comply wholeheartedly, or--more usually--fail to comply and then sheepishly confess ; but, either way, hold said absurd Papal dictums as sacred and sacrosanct). And yet these people are amazed and outraged when the Muslim terrorist takes his Mullah's or his Caliph's exhortations (which are no more absurd than the Pope's, although they're usually far more bloodthirsty and "evil") seriously. Now there are obvious dissimilarities here, but the core similarity is obvious, isn't it? Yet to the RCC it isn't.

Actually, this blog of Brian's serves as an excellent example. Not the blog itself, that is, not the posts themselves, but the comments. They're often very entertaining. I've gone through more or less the entire blog (as have you, x : I remember seeing your many comments going back years in your earlier avatar of cc), so you'll know what I'm talking about.

Your own comments are uniformly (and consistently) skeptical. But there have been so many comments where, for instance, some commenter will chime in enthusiastically when weird Jesus-cult beliefs are criticized, but turn indignant when RSSB beliefs are so criticized. Again, there are those commenters who very ably deconstruct weird RSSB beliefs ; and then suddenly you see them talk about equally weird (or at least, equally unproven) Advaitic ideas in all earnestness, and get incensed when these beliefs are similarly questioned by others -- or, in at least one case, round up a very thorough criticism of RSSB fallacies by pronouncing (in all seriousness) that RSSB gurus are demons (with a detailed esoteric discussion of demonhood). I mean, come on!

Gives you food for thought, that. You'd expect blind-faith believers in one religion to empathize with the blind faith of people of other religions, but no, it often doesn't work that way. (Religious wars, in fact, are fought not so much against atheists as against believers in other faiths, after all.)

Sorry, long comment. (I know your dislike for long comments, x, that you've expressed earlier often enough! :-) ) But you know my primary take-away from observation of this curious phenomenon? It is that I myself need to be (as do we all), at all times, as critical (in fact more so) of my own apparent beliefs as others', because it's so difficult (apparently) to see one's own weirdness.

Believers VERY OFTEN express amazement at others' beliefs. And that is, if anything, even more amazing than their beliefs themselves!

[x]

I don't believe that a believer can be amazed by anything, AP, despite what you say, and I will not budge from this belief until you provide a video of a believer expressing amazement...and it had better be convincing...

[observer]

"Believers live in a cocoon of soothing scriptures, tenets, cliches, bromides, encomiums, platitudes, and assurances that effectively disable the capacity for amazement and astonishment"

Something that amazes me is the arrogance and the superior attitude of the intellectual person.

Obviously these well educated, wealthy, self indulgent types have very little understanding, empathy or compassion for those people who are not as fortunate as they are. People who are not living a comfortable lifestyle which enables them to spend their time and intellect on discussing how foolish people believe in something that gives them hope, faith, courage and probably even a reason to live.

[x]

Good point, observer. If one has to believe in something unbelievable just to carry on, so be it. Believe what you gotta believe. If it serves you and enables you, keep the faith, but keep it to yourself.

If you must talk about your precious belief and publish your heartfelt testimony, don't get upset when a skeptic skewers you.

[777]

-
Appreciative Reader & X

So many believe so many things, and they cannot prove

So , , , listen to your real Self , a sweet tiny sound above your eyes,
It's not beyond your possibilities
it's so rewarding
You don't even need silence- just curb your attention somewhat

Then there s no believe at all , . . it's for sure

777

[Appreciative Reader]

Quote x :
I don't believe that a believer can be amazed by anything, AP, despite what you say, and I will not budge from this belief until you provide a video of a believer expressing amazement...and it had better be convincing...

I enjoyed your comment, x.

I’ve observed here before, that with you it’s often difficult to know if you’re actually joking! Poe’s Law, you know. I know emoticons are juvenile-ish, but you really must make use of the odd smiley (or “LOL”) or two, once in a while.

This comment of yours, above, is obviously a spoof. So, a (somewhat bemused) “Ha ha ha”.

Bemused, I say, because I’m not sure whom you’re parodying here : the hardboiled no-nonsense skeptic, or the obnoxious stubborn believer. Your joke can fit in with either trope (with the former, strictly as not-very-realistic parody ; and with the latter, realistically enough to fully illustrate Poe’s Law).

Here’s a taken-at-face-value response to a straight-faced expression of a literal belief that believers are literally incapable of feeling amazement, and the insistence on holding on to that literal belief in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary (with chuckles in the background in appreciation of the obvious parody being played out here) :

Believers tend to believe the weirdest things. Weird things like a big bearded YHWH doing all kinds of weird stuff. Weird things like non-believers being consigned to hell for eternity and their being incapable of salvation through intercession. Weird things like diseases being caused by djinns and evil spirits that must be “exorcised” in order to effect a cure. Weird things like believers-in-religion being incapable of feeling (or exhibiting) such a basic emotion as amazement.

Believers also totally scramble up the logical process sometimes. Their understanding of the process of logical reasoning is uniquely addled, when it comes to their own beliefs. They have seen freethinkers demand of them that they prove their beliefs. So they react by aping the freethinkers’ logical thought, by demanding (sincerely if wholly erroneously) that the freethinker, likewise, should prove to them that the beliefs in question are not true. Believers demand of freethinkers that they prove the non-existence of God. Believers demand of freethinkers that they prove that there is no heaven or hell as depicted in their particular Book of Books. Believers demand that they be shown conclusive evidence of there being no djinns and spirits that cause, for example, episodes of epileptic seizure. Believers demand that they be shown proof (and proof that “had better be convincing”!) that believers-in-religion are incapable of feeling and expressing amazement.

Amazing people, these believers, eh? :-)

[777]

App R,

Believing is doubting, hoping . . .
better check things out

777

[Appreciative Reader]

Oops! x, in that last comment of mine, the last sentence in the last-but-one paragraph should read “Believers demand that they be shown proof (and proof that “had better be convincing”!) that believers-in-religion are CAPABLE (or, alternatively, NOT INCAPABLE) of feeling and expressing amazement.”

Silly typo! Kills the joke, doesn’t it, when you fluff the punch line! LOL

- - - - - - -

@777 : I think I understand with what you’re saying. And I guess I agree.

If you’ve actually followed some discipline (in your case it’s RSSB, isn’t it?) and actually experienced first-hand all that the system promises (in your case, per your earlier comments on this blog, the celestial sounds, the bliss, the “inner Guru”, and the “inner constellations”), then I suppose those bits (as opposed to the whole full-blown theology) is NOT belief.

It may still be hallucination. Even if “real”, it may still be trivial. Or, of course, it may be of the greatest importance and relevance. In any case, it wouldn’t be belief, that I grant you freely (per my lights, that is).

[x]

“Believers demand that they be shown proof (and proof that “had better be convincing”!) that believers-in-religion are CAPABLE (or, alternatively, NOT INCAPABLE) of feeling and expressing amazement.”

Believers pretend to be amazed by their Gods, by the supernatural powers of their spiritual leaders, or by their own imagined specialness, but that's as close as they get to amazement.

Believers can be shocked, momentarily stunned, but they are always rescued quickly by their belief, whereas a skeptic can remain in an uncertain state for quite a while, whether it's a state of amazement or puzzlement.

[lulo]

X..bull