Scientism and origin

[Secular Sanity]

Except I see nowhere that Collins implies that god is no more "than just where science has yet to tread".

Where exactly do you imagine the demagoguery in wishing science and religion were not so contentious...and actually advocating the bulk of evolutionary science? O_o

Err!

[Syne]

SS has apparently been reduced to making prelinguistic sounds.

[Secular Sanity]

SS has apparently been reduced to making prelinguistic sounds.  

Why on earth would you want anything more from me?  You don't watch or listen to anything that I post.  You don't even read the links.  If you did, you would not have asked these questions.

Except I see nowhere that Collins implies that god is no more "than just where science has yet to tread".

Where exactly do you imagine the demagoguery in wishing science and religion were not so contentious...and actually advocating the bulk of evolutionary science? O_o

Read the links that I posted.  Tell me if your first question is even applicable, and then maybe I'll answer your second question, not that I haven't already, but I'll be happy to spoon feed you because lord how lazy you are.

[Syne]

SS has apparently been reduced to making prelinguistic sounds.  

Why on earth would you want anything more from me?  You don't watch or listen to anything that I post.  You don't even read the links.  If you did, you would not have asked these questions.

Except I see nowhere that Collins implies that god is no more "than just where science has yet to tread".

Where exactly do you imagine the demagoguery in wishing science and religion were not so contentious...and actually advocating the bulk of evolutionary science? O_o

Read the links that I posted.  Tell me if your first question is even applicable, and then maybe I'll answer your second question, not that I haven't already, but I'll be happy to spoon feed you because lord how lazy you are.

Sad little girl, unless your claims are buried in an hour long video (which I don't have the time for just to make you feel validated and "heard" for something you can't even manage to simply quote) then you will need to be more explicit. Would you be willing to watch just any old propaganda video I would post...in its entirety...just to find whatever bit I allude to as supporting my point? O_o

We all know better than that...just like we know you're a hypocrite crying "you don't listen" when you more often than not simply cite something with no further argument than an apparent appeal to its authority. That is the pinnacle of intellectual laziness.

I did read your links, so if I missed something you seem to think is more obvious...by all means, stop the histrionics and do tell already. Quote him...make an actual point for once.

My question is applicable because you used Collins in an attempt to justify what Tyson said. That's either intellectually dishonest (and you're now trying to weasel your way out of it) or you actually have no idea what either has actually said.

[Secular Sanity]

My question is applicable because you used Collins in an attempt to justify what Tyson said. That's either intellectually dishonest (and you're now trying to weasel your way out of it) or you actually have no idea what either has actually said.  

What did Tyson say?

[Syne]

You're the one who quoted him: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-4263-p...l#pid14184


You know what, never mind. We all know you're only trolling. So I won't hold my breath that you'll get around to making a cogent argument or point.

[Secular Sanity]

You're the one who quoted him: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-4263-p...l#pid14184


You know what, never mind. We all know you're only trolling. So I won't hold my breath that you'll get around to making a cogent argument or point.

Yeah, that's what I thought.  Your question wasn't applicable, was it?  I wasn't using Collins to justify what Tyson said.  Like I said in my post, they're both basically saying the same thing, duh!   

Do you still need an answer to your second question or can you figure it out for yourself?

[Syne]

Apparently you don't know enough about Tyson to give that quote its proper context.

"If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on." - Tyson

See, he equates "your evidence for God" with what "God is". IOW, he's trying to shame people into not making claims about god by reducing their belief to their evidence claims.

Collins, on the other hand, cautions against it because "scientific research can unnecessarily be placed at odds with belief in God".


One of those is just a statement of fact, while the other is an emotional argument. We all know which one appeals most to you.

They're not saying the same thing, otherwise they'd come to the same conclusion...that science and religion can be reconciled.


So it seems I was right. You "actually have no idea what either has actually said". Come on back once you get caught up.

[Secular Sanity]

"We’re tackling these mysteries one by one. If you’re going to stay religious at the end of the conversation, god has to be more to you than just where science has yet to tread."—Neil deGrasse Tyson

"If gaps in scientific knowledge are the basis for belief in God, then as scientists fill in the gaps, the evidence for God disappears. The God of the Bible, however, is much more than a god of the gaps." - Collins

[Syne]

"Beyond being (really, really) funny, the incident was revealing. It spoke to the vehemence and belligerence science seems to inspire in popular culture. It also laid bare the frothing cults of personality surrounding people like Tyson, Bill Nye, Canadian astronaut Col. Chris Hadfield (who live-streamed parts of his 2013 mission to YouTube, including a much-shared acoustic guitar rendition of David Bowie’s “Space Oddity”), and other modern pop-star scientists.
...
Beyond such negative effects on the nitty-gritty of hard science, popularization and simplification pose a broader cultural problem. With their paraphrased ideas, relatable yarns, and mic-dropping, “Yeah science, bitch!” approach to the field, the pop-star scientists command a genuine authority. And they pass that authority onto their readers and fans, who rush to their defense to attack smirking Twitter jokers and share “I Fucking Love Science” memes. Pop science offers the general public the air of authority and credibility of science without all the. . . you know, science. There’s a word for this highly empirical, authoritative worldview: scientism."
- https://www.salon.com/2017/05/07/i-fucki...e-science/

---

"We’re tackling these mysteries one by one. If you’re going to stay religious at the end of the conversation, god has to be more to you than just where science has yet to tread."—Neil deGrasse Tyson

"If gaps in scientific knowledge are the basis for belief in God, then as scientists fill in the gaps, the evidence for God disappears. The God of the Bible, however, is much more than a god of the gaps." - Collins

Are you starting to clue in on the differences there yet? O_o
Do you even know who Tyson is? O_o
Is this quote just too much cognitive dissance for your argument?

"If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on." - Tyson

You should note that Collins immediately goes on to say, "Christians believe that God is always at work in the natural world, in the gaps as well as in the areas that science can explain." Because what Tyson says is only a caricature.