Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science and Faith

Question: Does religion have an inherent conflict with science?

DeGrasse Tyson:    Most religious people in America, fully embrace science.  So the argument that religion has some issue with science applies to a small fraction of those who declare that they are religious.  They just happen to be a very vocal fraction so you got the impression that there are more of them than there actually is.  It’s actually the minority of religious people who rejects science or feel threatened by it or want to sort of undo or restrict the… where science can go.  The rest, you know, are just fine with science.  And has been that way ever since the beginning.  And by the way, there’s no tradition of scientists knocking down the door, the Sunday school door, telling the preacher what to teach.  There’s no tradition of scientists picketing outside of churches nor should there be some [emergent] tradition of religious fundamentalists trying to change the curriculum in the science classroom.  There’s been a happy coexistence for centuries.  And for that to change now would be unfortunate.  Because I’ve seen this happen in other nations and the other states where the consequences are that you just basically recede back to the cave because that’s where you land when you undermine the scientific and technological innovations that come about when you’re a properly trained scientist or technologist.  Consider also that in America, 40% of American scientists are religious.  So this notion that there’s some… that if you’re a scientist, you’re an atheist or if you’re religious, you’re not a scientist, that’s just empirically false.  It’s an empirically false statement.  And what I mean by religious is that you can pose the question in a way that is unambiguous.  You don’t ask, well, do you go to church every Sunday ‘cause plenty of people go to church, like, just for the pie, you know, or the social scene after the service.  You ask people, do you pray to [a person or] God.  If you say yes to that, you’re religious by, presumably, anybody’s standards of your conduct.  And it’s the yes to that question that applies to 40% of scientists.  So… Well, there’re plenty of atheists who are scientists or not scientists to paint this as some built-in conflict is… There maybe a conflict but many… plenty of people in this country coexist in both worlds.

The astrophysicist debunks the notion that scientists cannot be believers

Why a federal judge ordered White House to restore Jim Acosta's press badge

A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration likely violated the reporter's Fifth Amendment rights when it stripped his press credentials earlier this month.

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 16: CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta (R) returns to the White House with CNN Washington bureau chief Sam Feist after Federal judge Timothy J. Kelly ordered the White House to reinstate his press pass November 16, 2018 in Washington, DC. CNN has filed a lawsuit against the White House after Acosta's press pass was revoked after a dispute involving a news conference last week. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Acosta will be allowed to return to the White House on Friday.
  • The judge described the ruling as narrow, and didn't rule one way or the other on violations of the First Amendment.
  • The case is still open, and the administration may choose to appeal the ruling.
Keep reading Show less

How to split the USA into two countries: Red and Blue

Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.

Image: Dicken Schrader
Strange Maps
  • America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
  • Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
  • Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
Keep reading Show less

Scientists just voted to change the definition of a kilogram

The definition of a kilogram will now be fixed to Planck's constant, a fundamental part of quantum physics.

Greg L via Wikipedia
Surprising Science
  • The new definition of a kilogram is based on a physical constant in quantum physics.
  • Unlike the current definition of a kilogram, this measurement will never change.
  • Scientists also voted to update the definitions of several other measurements in physics.
Keep reading Show less