Neil DeGrasse Tyson

[Sandra Craft]

I just love this guy.

Tyson counsels Bill O'Reilly on how to be less susceptible to comedic mockery

Tyson answers odd question from audience member

I don't understand audience guy's question either, and as much as I love Tyson's answer I'm still being cremated.  It's a family tradition.

[Guardian85]

Cool dude!

The black guy, not the guy in the audience.

[Sandra Craft]

Cool dude!

The black guy, not the guy in the audience.

Yeah, I assumed that.  

Here's some more:

Star Stuff

Science and Faith

for The Big Bang Theory fans

[Anne D.]

Thanks for the links. I hadn't heard of Neil DeGrasse Tyson before. It's great to hear about someone who's out there trying to bring rationality to the public discourse. Wikepedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

[Sandra Craft]

Thanks for the links. I hadn't heard of Neil DeGrasse Tyson before.

But wait, there's more!

Intelligent Design vs. Stupid Design
So much for the perfection of life and the human body.  I love the bit about putting the entertainment center in the middle of a sewer systerm.

how creationism ends civilization
I swear, the Arabs are becoming a never-ending source of negative examples.

[Crow]

how creationism ends civilization
I swear, the Arabs are becoming a never-ending source of negative examples.

Islam.

Or should it be the change of Islamic philosophical thought from ijtihad to taqlid.

[Tank]

This clip really sums up Dawkins in a way I rather agree with. NDT explains perfectly why Dawkins approach can be considered sometimes to be at best fruitless and at worst counter productive. Listen to the end of Dawkins reply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

[Sandra Craft]

how creationism ends civilization
I swear, the Arabs are becoming a never-ending source of negative examples.

Islam.

Or should it be the change of Islamic philosophical thought from ijtihad to taqlid.

Correction noted, that was sloppy of me.

This clip really sums up Dawkins in a way I rather agree with. NDT explains perfectly why Dawkins approach can be considered sometimes to be at best fruitless and at worst counter productive. Listen to the end of Dawkins reply.

Just so.  The comment is funny and all, but is it helpful?  Is it doing anything more than preaching to the choir which, while emotionally satisying, isn't making any progress?  Not progress in combatting religious belief since that isn't the big problem -- as NDT pointed out in another vid about 40% of scientists are religious -- but in combatting anti-intellectualism.  Telling people "fuck you" rarely convinces them to change their mind.

[Guardian85]

This clip really sums up Dawkins in a way I rather agree with. NDT explains perfectly why Dawkins approach can be considered sometimes to be at best fruitless and at worst counter productive. Listen to the end of Dawkins reply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

Tyson's comment on Dawkins' style is not unjustified, but there is for some people a need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the information.
Tyson style can lead people by the hand, but some people need a wake-up call and in that regard Dawkins is the wake-up equivalent of a good swift kick where the back ends.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. It's all about where they are applied.

[Tank]

This clip really sums up Dawkins in a way I rather agree with. NDT explains perfectly why Dawkins approach can be considered sometimes to be at best fruitless and at worst counter productive. Listen to the end of Dawkins reply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

Tyson's comment on Dawkins' style is not unjustified, but there is for some people a need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the information.
Tyson style can lead people by the hand, but some people need a wake-up call and in that regard Dawkins is the wake-up equivalent of a good swift kick where the back ends.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. It's all about where they are applied.

I agree.

You can lead some theists to knowledge, but you can't make them think. - Chris

[Sandra Craft]

Tyson's comment on Dawkins' style is not unjustified, but there is for some people a need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the information.
Tyson style can lead people by the hand, but some people need a wake-up call and in that regard Dawkins is the wake-up equivalent of a good swift kick where the back ends.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. It's all about where they are applied.

I can see your point, but I think the only people Dawkins' attack style is useful with are those who are already doubting, already beginning to separate from their faith.  It goads them in the direction they've already started going, even if it's still subconscious.  They aren't the ones I'm concerned about since for me religious belief is not the issue -- I'm fine with people being religious as long as it's not destructive.

The ones who are going to remain remain religious no matter what anyone says or demonstrates because it's not a matter of proof or evidence or rationality to them (and I think they are in the majority) are the ones who concern me.  They don't need to be in our camp as far as belief in god is concerned but we do all need to agree on the benefits of science and the value of the intellect.  Dawkins' style is a huge disadvantage with reaching these people so, yeah, I tend to have a "please stop helping" reaction when I hear him speak publicly.

[Firebird]

Tyson's comment on Dawkins' style is not unjustified, but there is for some people a need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the information.
Tyson style can lead people by the hand, but some people need a wake-up call and in that regard Dawkins is the wake-up equivalent of a good swift kick where the back ends.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. It's all about where they are applied.

I can see your point, but I think the only people Dawkins' attack style is useful with are those who are already doubting, already beginning to separate from their faith.  It goads them in the direction they've already started going, even if it's still subconscious.  They aren't the ones I'm concerned about since for me religious belief is not the issue -- I'm fine with people being religious as long as it's not destructive.

The ones who are going to remain remain religious no matter what anyone says or demonstrates because it's not a matter of proof or evidence or rationality to them (and I think they are in the majority) are the ones who concern me.  They don't need to be in our camp as far as belief in god is concerned but we do all need to agree on the benefits of science and the value of the intellect.  Dawkins' style is a huge disadvantage with reaching these people so, yeah, I tend to have a "please stop helping" reaction when I hear him speak publicly.

I completely agree with this. It was one reason why I couldn't get through "The God Delusion". I agree with everything he says on an emotional level, but his dismissal of people who believe as mere idiots really turned me off. There are plenty of smart, educated people who believe, or have believed before, including many people in this forum. Dismissing such people as mere idiots is a terrible image for atheists, and the rigidity is no better than the organized religions that I find appalling in their dismissal of anyone with ideas counter to their beliefs. I, personally, do not believe and would be happy to argue with a theist as to why I feel that way, but there needs to be mutual respect of one's beliefs too.