You all need to pay less attention to the subtext and more to what Tyson actually says.

I'm assuming you didn't just make that up, so can you please provide some examples of Tyson telling average people how ignorant they are for not believing in the validity of string theory?

I did not. One of his first arguments to definitively prove a manned moon landing was that the math supports the fact that the Saturn V rocket held enough fuel to get there. It was like saying that a passport stamped "China" definitively proves that one has been to China.

NR,

I wanted to reply directly to your OP, I am kind of grunching now but will go back and read the thread:

The distinction he makes between elite scientists and laymen is valid IMO. If there are a percentage of doctors that still think smoking doesn't affect health negatively we should focus our attention on them, not the general smoking public.

I think this is incorrect.

Education is helpful in that it teaches us to think critically, this is not limited to the natural sciences. Given that most people that believe in God believe in a spiritual form I am not surprised natural scientists haven't found much evidence. I don't give any special authority to the thoughts of elite scientists when it comes to the supernatural.

I think Tyson's concerns are more about the role of science in society. He doesn't believe there is any need for the hypothesis of a God in science. This too is valid and Christians should support an approach of methodological naturalism in the sciences.

I could be mistaken, but I thought that was brought up because some people had stated that there wasn't enough fuel to make the trip.

It was good to hear someone educated in the field make his observations on everything, I mean, it's a 1000 times better than hearing a misinformed Rogan talk about why the moon landing is suspicious.

I think Original Position may have a point in that I got carried away with subtext, but it's hard not to in this case, imo. I agree that his greater goal here is concerned with the role of science in society, he is an educator after all, but i do find his approach interesting, perhaps even questionable.

Here is a question for you: If I was a scientist, and approached everything through methodological naturalism, and did not give any credence to anything spiritual, but when I went home I prayed to "an invisible God", would you take issue with that?

This guy is entertaining and covers the distinction between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9fIDM5ijSY

No. Scientists do this, for example Francis Collins and Ken Miller. Well I don't know if Ken Miller prays or not but does believe in God.

What gets the scientific community hot under the collar is when evangelicals start trying to redefine science. The only way to successfully perform science is via methodological naturalism. IMO trying to redefine science to include God is unnecessary and even dangerous for academia.

Invoking the supernatural as a hypothesis halts inquiry and scientific discovery. This is what has modern scientists freaked out about the Christian majority in the US.

I came across that video a couple of weeks ago. I think someone posted it in a thread (possibly you?).

As for the Ken Miller's of the world, I agree that it's possible to engage in science by the standard method, and believe in God. Although, I don't think (my speculation) that Tyson approves of this. He's not taking issue with scientists not using methodological naturalism, but seemingly the mere belief in God is problematic for him, because of methodological naturalism. Again, this is speculation, as it's been pointed out, not all of this is explicitly stated.

I think there is also an interesting observation to be had on methodological naturalism as a whole, and why it is that we inherently trust this process. If you haven't, I encourage you to watch the Lennox video I posted above, he criticizes the logic of our inherent trust of it, but this is a different conversation altogether. (pro tip: watch at 1.5x speed, Lennox speaks unbearably slow)

it WAS me !

Tyson is absolutely taking issue with scientists potentially doing science outside of methodological naturalism. I think Miller and Tyson (and many others) see this as a real and imminent threat (which it is).

Generally speaking I think secular "elite" scientists like Dawkins and Tyson (sorry to Tyson for lumping him in with Dawkins) have a very narrow worldview. It is precisely their years of education and training which make the lens through which they view the world narrow. I doubt they make a great distinction between philosophical and methodological naturalism. For them the only way to view the world is naturalism period. We can hardly hold this against them, what do we expect from people who have given their entire adult life to the sciences.

If you were to discuss God and spirituality with people specializing in fine arts you would likely get more diverse opinions.

EDIT:

I watched the Lennox clip, he has some good points.

slow down and enjoy the accent...

EDIT II

I feel I should add that I do think the input from "elite" scientists is valuable in the discussion of the supernatural. These are very smart people with tons of experience and understanding of how the world works.

At the same time I believe many laypeople have valuable input to the discussion as well. Just because someone is a plumber and doesn't have an undergrad in anything he can still have meaningful input to the discussion.

I don't think I can hold it against him, I'm only wondering if he's making a mistake, given that there are other perspectives to consider, like Lennox' argument for example. I'm sure his methodology is beyond reproach, but he doesn't leave much room for philosophical ideas. And perhaps he shouldn't, given his field.

Yeah, sometimes I'm in a hurry for no reason.

This clip by Raimon Panikkar sums up my point of view well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvsov6OuTWs

In short, everyone has a perspective which forms a worldview. If we are wise we will listen to what other people perceive.

My interpretation:
You never get so smart or so educated that you no longer need to listen to what other people perceive about the world.

My recollection was that NdT brought it up but I'm not 100% either. And Rogan was just as bad...wishy washing the entire time and going back and forth. He was afraid to just be skeptical because he was around someone so "smart".

Yeah, he casually asked some questions which he actually believed to be problematic for an authentic moon landing, but didn't want to disagree with Tyson because he was out of his element, and I don't blame him. He definitely wasn't ranting about it being a hoax like he has in the past, but who would in front of a famous astrophysicist on air, who basically said anyone who believes it's a hoax is an idiot. Rogan had no choice but to listen and agree, as would most people.

I've seen quite a bit of NDT and I agree that he doesn't always come off well, but I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Did you watch "The great debate" when he gets angry at Krauss? I was a little embarrassed for him, I think a few people were, but they played it off well, and so did he, but he was genuinely agitated. I thought it was funny.

I like that guy's attitude. I often think someone with an attitude like that is worth more than someone with more knowledge and understanding but with a bad attitude.

re: Pannikar -- I'm going to avail myself of the opportunity to shamelessly plug his books:

Christophany

The Rhythm of Being

Both highly recommended imho

Of course credit goes to WN for introducing me to RP thx.
I plan to check out his books...

People who believe the moon landing is hoax are not necessarily idiots, but believing the moon landing is a hoax is definitely idiotic.

It doesn't really matter, there is always a small minority who can't believe anything. In Liberia right now hospitals health personnel are under threat (destruction and killings have already occured) by people who refuse to believe Ebola is real.

His words not mine. I'm too ignorant to make any claims either for or against as to whether the moon landing was real or fake.

Although, I always enjoyed the theory that they prematurely announced the voyage to the moon in an effort to win the cold war, without the substantial knowledge of what was required, so they ended up faking it, and simply going at a later date. It's a movie-like idea, which is why I think people gravitate towards it, but it's highly improbable.

Liberia. Just sigh. That country has had it rough.

It is not just "highly improbable", it is a fanciful farce concocted by fanciful people. The only real argument to make in its favor is "you can't prove me wrong".

However, people who use "you can't prove me wrong" (or any gap argument) as an argument for their own belief by implication don't accept it. If they actually did, they would realize it would also ruin their own case.

I'm really out of my element with the moon landing, I've done next to no research beyond hearing a podcast. What struck me as interesting is the statement that it would have been easier to get a man on the moon in 1969, then it would have been to maintain a conspiracy of that magnitude for 50 years.

If you’re interested, Glenn Friesen has his doctoral thesis "Abhishiktananda’s [Henri Le Saux] Non-Monistic Advaitic Experience" online, here. He cites Pannikar quite a bit, and the two (Pannikar and Le Saux) seem sympathetic.

As an aside, I really like the substance and topic of "Rhythm of Being" but I struggled with his writing style. Maybe all the novel terms, idk.

I've read some of Abhishiktananda's work as well. They were very good friends as I understand it. Thanks for the link

I started reading the Glenn Friesen website. I am fascinated with this fella as I share the same ethnicity as him, it is really really uncommon to hear mennonites talking about mysticism and eastern religion.

Perhaps NdT is looking at this purely from the PoV of an elite scientist, that he himself feels that it's unfair to tackle the rank and file when he himself is on the same level as those elite scientists. I am not though and this conversation regularly comes up and I'm going to continue to have it because I think that the conversation needs to be held at all levels, and that it's important that it simply happens, regardless of whether or not it changes minds. The subject needs to kept in the public consciousness.

Also, I thought his point about how religious fervour ended an age of intellectual process and that it's possible that it could happen again, was a good one and worth bearing in mind. The current Australian prime minister is attempting to force religious influence into their schools and whilst we might find that shocking now, in 50 years, if it succeeded, we might simply consider that the norm and resists challenges to it, as happens in the UK. It happens that easily.

He actually used those words? I ask because the Saturn 5 didn't take anyone to the moon, that was simply the launch vehicle used to get the Command and service modules into space, and it seems odd that such an educated scientist would make such a basic mistake.

Exactly. There were almost 500,000 people involved in building and launching the Apollo 11 mission. Unless they were almost all in on it then they actually built a working ship, including the Landing module, and if it all actually worked then why fake it at all? Can you imagine the magnitude of what it would take to fake that landing, including the Mission control room that was full of technicians just pretending and computers giving fake readouts, etc etc. And all this happened not once, but 6 times.... Plus China and Russia would have jumped all over a chance to prove it was fake, and they didn't, unless they were in on it too? It's simply too unlikely that it was faked.

What's interesting about this for me though, is that what you find 'interesting' (and which I'm assuming causes you to find it unlikely that the moon landings were faked?) is the same type of a combination of logic and what makes sense to you that partially supports my atheistic view point, that Jesus fails as any type of proof of there being a god, because whilst it's likely that he was a real man, the events surrounding his death, the times that he was a part of, the nature of people's understanding of reality and their beliefs were such that everything else about him is myth and exaggeration, perhaps even deliberate propaganda, but that you wouldn't accept that as any kind of convincing argument for what I believe?

Just a note, that the conspiracy theory (or one of them) is that the moon landing did happen, just not in 1969, but a few years later.

There is a bit of Occam's razor here, so I think we should be aware of that going into this specific argument. Just because it would theoretically be more difficult (I only assume this, I can't know for sure) to cover this up for all these years, than it would have been to actually go to the moon, really doesn't prove anything outright. My knowledge on this is abysmal, so I can be tossed with the waves here, I can only really count on experts and even other people who have more knowledge, and accept that they say we went to the moon in 1969.

The problem when applying this type of Occam's razor to religion, seems to be the same problem that "miracles" have, that when defined a certain way, it makes them non-existent because of what they represent, and because another answer is always more likely. Is it more likely that someone walked on water, or that people just said (or thought) that someone walked on water? Obviously the latter. Occam's razor will always reject religion axiomatically, so while I get your point, and you may even be right, I think it wouldn't be intellectually honest to just accept it as such and move on.

As far as me personally, I'm definitely motivated by this when deducing something in my thoughts, or in my life, as to what makes more sense, and what it the easiest explanation, it is useful, but it also does have it's limitations.