dsreads’s answer to “Does this book align itself with any particular theory or religious belief about how the universe b…” > Likes and Comments
8 likes · Like
NDT doesn't present what we know right now as the ultimate truth. He mentions several times that there may be things we will never know, and that new discoveries could upend our current understanding of the cosmos.
Gotta echo Larkspur with this one. He reiterates that this is what we know currently several times throughout the book. He even mentions examples of how physicists can be and have been wrong in their understanding of the universe, how it works, and the specifics of the things within it.
I didn't really get much opinion or philosophy here... sure, there was some. But he seemed to always seemed to make it pretty clear when he ventured into opinion territory rather than "this is what we know right now" territory. And even then, the opinions he gives in the book definitely feel like they're coming from his career in the study of astrophysics.
Atheism is an amalgamation of related philosophies that are often very related, but centered on the idea that there are no gods. I suppose one could call that a religion, but it feels like a stretch. Religion tends to rely on belief and worship of one or many deities, though another common definition is simply a system of faith and/or worship. I supposed a lack of faith might be considered a system of faith? It doesn't affect me one way or another whether religious folks or atheists consider atheism a religion or not. I'm just confused by the hostile assertion that you made to end your comment.
Atheism most certainly is not a religion. It's not based on any supernatural belief system. It's an absence of belief.
On p. 33 he says
“What we do know, and what we can assert without further hesitation, is that the universe had a beginning”
Which in itself is a radically religious thing to say. The laws of thermodynamics dictate that something can’t come from nothing, thus, the universe came from… something. That something is no more and no less than the god people worship.
Of course Tyson, being his usual snarky atheist Dunning Kruger illustration, then contradicts himself several times, saying maybe it did come from nothing or was always there, or “shit I dunno, but I do know it couldn’t have been God!”
He has materialist blinders on. As does every atheist until they graduate high school and actually think about life for a second. Then they realize it’s an impossible case to make without talking yourself into paradoxical circles. Get off reddit and read a book by someone a little less ridiculed than NDT.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Vince
(new)
Mar 21, 2018 08:48PM
NDT doesn't present what we know right now as the ultimate truth. He mentions several times that there may be things we will never know, and that new discoveries could upend our current understanding of the cosmos.
reply
|
flag
Gotta echo Larkspur with this one. He reiterates that this is what we know currently several times throughout the book. He even mentions examples of how physicists can be and have been wrong in their understanding of the universe, how it works, and the specifics of the things within it.I didn't really get much opinion or philosophy here... sure, there was some. But he seemed to always seemed to make it pretty clear when he ventured into opinion territory rather than "this is what we know right now" territory. And even then, the opinions he gives in the book definitely feel like they're coming from his career in the study of astrophysics.
Atheism is an amalgamation of related philosophies that are often very related, but centered on the idea that there are no gods. I suppose one could call that a religion, but it feels like a stretch. Religion tends to rely on belief and worship of one or many deities, though another common definition is simply a system of faith and/or worship. I supposed a lack of faith might be considered a system of faith? It doesn't affect me one way or another whether religious folks or atheists consider atheism a religion or not. I'm just confused by the hostile assertion that you made to end your comment.
Atheism most certainly is not a religion. It's not based on any supernatural belief system. It's an absence of belief.
On p. 33 he says“What we do know, and what we can assert without further hesitation, is that the universe had a beginning”
Which in itself is a radically religious thing to say. The laws of thermodynamics dictate that something can’t come from nothing, thus, the universe came from… something. That something is no more and no less than the god people worship.
Of course Tyson, being his usual snarky atheist Dunning Kruger illustration, then contradicts himself several times, saying maybe it did come from nothing or was always there, or “shit I dunno, but I do know it couldn’t have been God!”
He has materialist blinders on. As does every atheist until they graduate high school and actually think about life for a second. Then they realize it’s an impossible case to make without talking yourself into paradoxical circles. Get off reddit and read a book by someone a little less ridiculed than NDT.
