On Neil de Grasse Tyson’s video rant above where he says he is an agnostic, not an atheist –
An agnostic what???
Theism is about ‘belief’, atheism is about ‘no belief’. Gnosticism is about knowledge, agnostic is ‘no knowledge’… Neil doesn’t seem to understand you either believe god exists, or you believe god does not exists. Their IS no ‘middle belief’.
He also does not understand that you cannot be an agnostic any more than you can be a ‘staunch’. You have to be an agnostic ‘about’ something. Despite him piling baggage onto atheists, saying that they are ‘in your face’, most atheists are actually agnostic atheists. They do not believe in god, but they cannot KNOW there is no god. Rare sensible theists will admit to being ‘agnostic theists’. Anyone at the extremes is slipping into dogmatism and close-mindedness.
An a-gnostic theist would become an a-theist IF he gained knowledge or proof that there was no God… and an a-gnostic a-theist WOULD become a theist IF he found evidence or proof that there actually WAS something to believe in!
It is a BASIC scientific position to be skeptical. I am skeptical about Neil’s motives. Perhaps he is under pressure from his ratings orientated sponsors, but he doesn’t sound like ‘just a scientist’, he sounds like ‘just a media presenter’ who is keen not to ‘offend’ half his audience!
I was also astounded by his seemed ignorance about what the atheism movement is about. We don’t meet to talk about how we don’t believe in god, we meet to mobilize against the virtual theocracies we live in, where Christian privilege (or Muslim privilege) turns unbelievers/apostates into second class citizens, to be despised as immoral, unpatriotic, etc. If he is ‘just a scientist’ then perhaps he needs to get his head out of the sky occasionally.
Neil… assuming you are not a dogmatist as well as a scientist… are you an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist?