Neil deGrasse Tyson is a respected Astrophysicist and educator.
Here, (turn down your speakers) he gives his insights on religious people, and the scientific-elite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyson
When you’re educated and you understand how physics works, and you’re mathematically literate, and you understand data, and you understand experiment, and you go up to someone who doesn’t have that training, and they’re religious, and you ask them "why are you religious in believing in invisible things that influence your life, what’s wrong with you?" That’s unfair…disrespectful, for the following reason - until that number (7% of elite-level scientists are religious) is zero, you have nothing to say to the general public. These are scientists among us in the national academy of sciences who are religious and pray to a personal God, and I know some of them, and you’re fighting the public for the religious beliefs...
His claim:
There are 7% of elite-level scientists who are religious (believe in God) and Tyson claims that until that number is zero, the general (non-elite) public should not be berated for their religious beliefs.
My interpretation:
His premise seems to be that if there are elite-level scientists who mistakenly believe in God, there will naturally be layman who also mistakenly believe in God, since knowledge of God's non-existence corresponds to your knowledge and expertise of the natural sciences. Therefore, religious "layman" should not be criticized for their belief in God, as long as there are religious "elite" making the same error.
My question is if people agree with his premise, that the knowledge and belief (or more accurately - disbelief) in God, objectively depends on your expertise in these fields. Or is he mistakenly making the assumption that the knowledge of God (or Atheism) hinges on this expertise?
Any and all thoughts on this would be appreciated, including if I've misinterpreted his premise. I would like to know how some of you view this.