Q. I’m curious what your take on Scientology is, because the intergalactic story of Xenu does encroach on your territory a bit.
So, you have people who are certain that a man in a robe transforms a cracker into the literal body of Jesus saying that what goes on in Scientology is crazy? Let’s realize this: What matters is not who says who’s crazy, what matters is we live in a free country. You can believe whatever you want, otherwise it’s not a free country—it’s something else. If we start controlling what people think and why they think it, we have case studies where that became the norm. I don’t care what the tenets are of Scientology. They don’t distract me. I don’t judge them, and I don’t criticize them.
Now, where the rubber hits the road is, since we are a free country where belief systems are constitutionally protected—provided they don’t infringe on the rights of others—then how do you have governance over “all” when you have belief systems for the “some”? It seems to me that the way you govern people is you base governance on things that are objectively true; that are true regardless of your belief system, or no matter what the tenets are of your holy documents. And then they should base it on objective truths that apply to everyone. So the issue comes about not that there are religious people in the world that have one view over another, it’s if you have one view or another based on faith and you want to legislate that in a way that affects everyone. That’s no longer a free democracy. That’s a country where the few who have a belief system that’s not based in objective reality want to control the behavior of everyone else.
Q. The documentary essentially argues that Scientology shouldn’t be granted tax-exempt status as a religion.
But why aren’t they a religion? What is it that makes them a religion and others are religions? If you attend a Seder, there’s an empty chair sitting right there and the door is unlocked because Elijah might walk in. OK. These are educated people who do this. Now, some will say it’s ritual, some will say it could literally happen. But religions, if you analyze them, who is to say that one religion is rational and another isn’t? It looks like the older those thoughts have been around, the likelier it is to be declared a religion. If you’ve been around 1,000 years you’re a religion, and if you’ve been around 100 years, you’re a cult. That’s how people want to divide the kingdom. Religions have edited themselves over the years to fit the times, so I’m not going to sit here and say Scientology is an illegitimate religion and other religions are legitimate religions. They’re all based on belief systems. Look at Mormonism! There are ideas that are as space-exotic within Mormonism as there are within Scientology, and it’s more accepted because it’s a little older than Scientology is, so are we just more accepting of something that’s older?
The line I’m drawing is that there are religions and belief systems, and objective truths. And if we’re going to govern a country, we need to base that governance on objective truths—not your personal belief system.
Now, there is certainly a lot that could be said about Mr. Tyson's comments, but I want to focus primarily on the fact that he is describing a false dichotomy, drawing a distinction between religious belief and objective truth in a way that is mutually exclusive.
I wonder if he would say that the distinction between these two is an objectively true distinction? If so, how can this be known? The statement "It is objectively true that religious belief and objective truth are mutually exclusive" is not the kind of statement that is scientifically verifiable. Therefore, it must be verifiable some other way.
But this would mean that there is a method for verifying objective truth which stands outside of both religious belief and scientific inquiry. If that is so, then isn't it possible that if we apply this same method to a system of religious belief, we may find some of those beliefs to be objectively true?
Mr. Tyson's claim implies this is impossible.
What about truth claims that our religious systems have been making for thousands of years that have only recently been confirmed by science. Is Mr. Tyson saying these truths weren't actually known prior to the scientific examination? Would he say that the religious system coincidentally made very precise and accurate guesses about the reality of nature, but that these realities weren't actually considered knowledge until the last few hundred years? This would be an epistemological question, which lies within the realm of philosophy and quite outside the realm of science.
It seems to me that there is quite a body of accurate knowledge about the the nature of reality that has been acquired and passed down through our generations through our religious beliefs. Science has helped us acquire vast amounts of knowledge about the material universe, but nothing more. Religion and philosophy have been providing knowledge about much more than the material universe for a greater amount of time.
Mr. Tyson also claims that our governance of people should be based only upon objective truth. If by objective truth he means only truth that is scientifically verifiable, then I'm not at all sure this would even be coherent.
When we govern people, we are legislating for or against particular behaviors. I wonder which law of physics would Mr. Tyson use to ground the civic laws against stealing? Or to which cosmic constant would he appeal when prohibiting slavery?
Laws about rights and personal property only make sense when based on a moral standard because they are primarily concerned with how we ought to treat others. But I assume that in Mr. Tyson's analysis, morality would fall under the banner of religious systems rather than objective reality (though I think it falls under both).
Gravity, as a law of nature, implies nothing regarding the treatment of my neighbor, and the speed of light is impotent to ensure civil rights.
These only make sense if objective truth can be found outside the reach of what is scientifically verifiable.
Mr. Tyson goes on to say,
The Constitution makes no mention of Jesus, God, or anything. The Constitution is religion-free on purpose, which I’ve read was controversial. They were smart. They said, “Well, if we mention god, then it establishes a religion, and that would give the government power to influence your belief system, and you would no longer have a free country.”
It is true. The word 'god' does not appear in the constitution. However, the constitution defines how we as an independent nation will govern ourselves, and we would not have needed such a constitution unless so many of its founders had not first declared independence from Great Britain, and that very Declaration of Independence opens and closes with an appeal to God both as the one who bestows rights and the One who is the Supreme Judge in all these matters.
The declaration opens:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And it closes with:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
With such an appeal to God as creator, protector, and judge in the opening and closing statements of our nation's birth certificate, I'm not convinced the absence of the word 'god' within our constitution carries quite the weight Mr. Tyson is hoping for.
“Well, if we mention god, then it establishes a religion, and that would give the government power to influence your belief system, and you would no longer have a free country.”
This is also misleading. Mr. Tyson seems to imply that the government would only have the power to influence your belief system if it established a particular religion of the state. This is patently false. The government has prohibited the teaching of any type of creation science in public schools and endorses Darwinian evolution as the only viable theory for the origin of life. As a result, the belief systems of thousands of children are being influenced by the government with regards to the nature of our universe. By Mr. Tyson's own account, this means we no longer have a free country. Would he advocate for teaching more than one theory in public schools in order to avoid this attack on our children's liberty?
As for the idea of even the mention of god being enough to establish a religion, this is simply nonsense. First, to establish a religion is to establish a particular religion. The indefinite article makes all the difference here. The founders were not against establishing religion, if by that we mean validating that a religious system can be valuable for society. The founders were against establishing 'a' religion (i.e. proclaiming a particular religion as the one to which all citizens must adhere).
I wonder which religion Mr. Tyson assumes would be established by simply mentioning the word god in the constitution. Of all the different religious systems which claim knowledge of some god or another, which one would have automatically been assumed if the word god was included? And if Mr. Tyson is correct on this point, why wasn't the same care taken when deciding what would be printed on our money, in our Supreme Court, and anywhere else we find references to deity in public and government property?
Original Article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/31/neil-degrasse-tyson-defends-scientology-and-the-bush-administration-s-science-record.html
No comments:
Post a Comment