QuoteThe moment you start bringing your personal belief system into governance, then that’s the end of pluralistic democracy. We have words for governance like that and they’re called dictatorships. You have a belief system, you have a philosophy, and that philosophy has some adherence and others have their own philosophies. Those are your personal truths. One of them is, “Jesus is your Savior.†I’m not going to say that Jesus is not your savior. That is your personal truth. But, in a country where we have different religions, if the person who said: “Jesus is your Savior†is going to govern a pluralist country, then their legislations must be based on objective truths, not personal truths.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/20/neil_degrasse_tyson_lets_the_science_deniers_have_it_the_beginning_of_the_end_of_an_informed_democracy/
I've heard Tyson say on multiple occasions that he sees it as his job to educate the electorate not to choose representatives who legislate based on personal truths. Good luck with that , Neil...
Yeah, good luck with that. Common sense and wisdom never made much of an impression on the self righteous.
Informed democracy ended when we put down our newspapers and radios and took to TV instead. I was there when it happened. Glazed eyes everywhere, like pod people.
Quote from: stromboli on October 21, 2015, 11:05:44 AM
Yeah, good luck with that. Common sense and wisdom never made much of an impression on the self righteous.
Perhaps, but letting these morons take over is neither a good option, certainly not for atheists. NDT is doing a fantastic job, and we should appreciate.
He lost me at "objective truths." In the end, there's no way to govern reasonably without relying on personal beliefs. For example, the belief that "rights" exist and that there is a set of them which everyone has. There no basis for that in "objective" anything, and there's no worldwide agreement on what constitutes that set. Yet governments that dismiss the notion of "rights" tend to be, ya know, a little despotic. In the end I'm sure Tyson and I agree on most issues of policy, but they're going to have to stand on something a little firmer than the silly idea that policies derived from personal belief are invalid.
Quote from: missingnocchi on October 21, 2015, 05:57:54 PM
He lost me at "objective truths." In the end, there's no way to govern reasonably without relying on personal beliefs. For example, the belief that "rights" exist and that there is a set of them which everyone has. There no basis for that in "objective" anything, and there's no worldwide agreement on what constitutes that set. Yet governments that dismiss the notion of "rights" tend to be, ya know, a little despotic. In the end I'm sure Tyson and I agree on most issues of policy, but they're going to have to stand on something a little firmer than the silly idea that policies derived from personal belief are invalid.
The word "objective" often refers to things that exist outside your perception or existence. For instance, the existence of a tree. OTOH, a human "right" is something that wouldn't exist if humans would cease to exist. I think NTD's quest to educate the American people is to let them know that decisions, political or moral, should be based on facts, rather than on a silly thing like religion, which is on the whole based on a fantasy.
Tyson seems to be a polarizing figure in the political sphere. You either believe the things he says or you think he's a plan of satan and out to destroy everything Leave it to Beaverish..
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 22, 2015, 02:48:13 PM
Tyson seems to be a polarizing figure in the political sphere. You either believe the things he says or you think he's a plan of satan and out to destroy everything Leave it to Beaverish..
Any public figure, even a public science figure, is inevitably political ;-(
Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 22, 2015, 02:42:52 PM
The word "objective" often refers to things that exist outside your perception or existence. For instance, the existence of a tree. OTOH, a human "right" is something that wouldn't exist if humans would cease to exist. I think NTD's quest to educate the American people is to let them know that decisions, political or moral, should be based on facts, rather than on a silly thing like religion, which is on the whole based on a fantasy.
In the end though, the goals of government are inherently humanist rather than scientific. Facts and science aren't ends unto themselves, they're tools to accomplish goals which are based on subjective values. You can use science to end global warming and poverty or you can use it to wage war and control people. If his target is religion then so be it, but the only way science can displace religion's role in politics is by becoming a new religion - the belief that we should do science for science's sake. That comes with consequences I don't think Tyson is actually willing to face, the atom bomb being the case in point. Science offers no arguments against the bomb, only humanisms can do that.
To sum up, if Tyson sees science as a means, then it's impotent against religion, and if he sees it as an end, then it's undesirable.
[spoiler]posting drunk so I hope this makes sense[/spoiler]
Quote from: missingnocchi on October 22, 2015, 10:40:05 PM
In the end though, the goals of government are inherently humanist rather than scientific. Facts and science aren't ends unto themselves, they're tools to accomplish goals which are based on subjective values. You can use science to end global warming and poverty or you can use it to wage war and control people. If his target is religion then so be it, but the only way science can displace religion's role in politics is by becoming a new religion - the belief that we should do science for science's sake. That comes with consequences I don't think Tyson is actually willing to face, the atom bomb being the case in point. Science offers no arguments against the bomb, only humanisms can do that.
To sum up, if Tyson sees science as a means, then it's impotent against religion, and if he sees it as an end, then it's undesirable.
[spoiler]posting drunk so I hope this makes sense[/spoiler]
I think you're missing the point. The difference that I see is that science provides facts while religion provides a fantasy. Wouldn't you rather make your decisions (moral/political/personal) on facts rather than fantasy? If you see science as the new religion, I believe you are forgetting something of crucial importance: science has an inbuilt mechanism to correct itself when the facts show that it's wrong; religion doesn't have that. If it ever changes it is often in spite of the facts. But don't count on it as religion sees its truths as sacred and eternal, and those who challenge that are seen as the work of the devil. "Science offers no arguments against the bomb", perhaps but you need to take into consideration that not all the facts were known at the time that the US used in Japan - the potential to kill all life. When that was known, the countries that went nuke after the USA bombing in Japan were reluctant to use it. So far, we have escape that fate of a nuclear winter because we know more than in 1945. And lastly, I don't think that Tyson sees science as an end but as a better alternative to religion in decision making.
Quote from: Baruch on October 21, 2015, 12:52:55 PM
Informed democracy ended when we put down our newspapers and radios and took to TV instead. I was there when it happened. Glazed eyes everywhere, like pod people.
There's no shortage of xtian fundies who, like me ban the TV but find plenty of ways to waste their minds online. Not pods, they're breeding viruses.