|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Does astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson now favour "intelligent design"?
Has noted (former?) atheist astrophysicist Degrasse Tyson now joined the growing ranks of atheist scientists who are hedging their bets that the universe is a kind of "simulation" created by a superior God like intelligence.
Isn't it time more atheists admitted this new rapidly growing trend by science?
I have yet to hear Tyson claim to believe that the Universe is an intelligently designed simulation. Perhaps he claims this as a possibility. But then most atheists readily admit the possibility that they are wrong and that there may be some sort of higher power out there. A proper skeptic apportions his beliefs to the evidence but unfortunately, as you and I both know, not all atheists are proper skeptics.
There is nothing that prevents atheists or skeptics or anyone else from speculation and exploring new ideas. Atheism has no dogma and atheists are under no obligation to remain atheists. You seem to enjoy impugning atheists as if they are under some obligation to their own atheism, this is not the case.
As for the hypothesis that the Universe is a Simulation I don't see how exploring this idea is tantamount to admitting there is a God unless your conception of God is a neck-bearded programmer covered in cheese curl dust. Even if we were to assume that the Universe is definitely a Simulation that tells us nothing about whether life was designed or on what level the rules are defined.
For example the Universe might be a Simulation designed to play itself out without any interference from the designers. They could be sitting in a lab observing the emergent properties of this Universe, many of which might well be more interesting than this little backwater planet we call home. Such a designer fits in well with a deistic God, but not the personal deity of the great monotheistic religions.
But again, atheists are not forbidden from discussing such things and even if someone like Tyson did accept the Simulation hypothesis that doesn't mean he believes in God. The leap from "the Universe appears designed" to "the Designer MUST be the personal God that I believe in" has always been one of the gaps apologists cannot bridge.
Again when the creators of your Universe might well just be a bunch of eggheads in another Universe letting a sim play out on their computer there's no reason, other than superstition, to call them God.
I'm with Titen, above. If there were a god...who is the genius to claim the idea?
As for Jesus, or God...give me a break. There is a thread that would indicate that we are all connected to the universe, however, this is more a proof for Star Wars.
People's or religions various ideas about who or what the ultimate programmer is are based on cultural differences. Including science culture. It's a God concept similar to certain early star trek episodes. It's just a version of intelligent design.
I agree that it would be a form of intelligent design but not necessarily a God. God is an ill-defined and superstitious label. And again human beings could still be the side-effect of emergent processes, even in a "designed" simulated universe.
The devil is in the detail as they say.
The basic principle is similar ie a higher power created the universe.
It's highly doubtful, Oz. However, as Titen mentions, many brilliant astrophysicists may on rare occasions respond to a Question in an open forum, on this particular topic but only in terms of admitting remote possibilities.
I have read many of his works and sat in the front row of several of his speaking engagements. He's someone I admire and I am engrossed in his work. He is appearing (in Nov. I believe) again in my area and I will be there.
I'll be glad to report back here, should he have anything at all to say to his audience with regard to your question.
Dr. Tyson has self-identified himself as an agnostic, not an atheist. He still propounds scientific conclusions regarding the universe. He has never indicated that the universe was the result of intelligent design. He has always concluded that there is a scientific cause & effect regarding the systems in the universe. There are very few astrophysicists who maintain that "a universal intelligence" created the universe. They believe that there is a scientific reason why the universe came into being.
Yes, you're absolutely correct on this Grace. He has made it a point to express that he is "agnostic.."....never has he referred to himself as Atheist. Thanks for reminding of this, girlfriend.
Yes of course he is honest enough to describe himself correctly as agnostic. This is my beef with many online so called "atheists " who, in all honesty, are agnostics. Why deny it to oneself? It should be embraced.
@Paula, you're welcome indeed. Dr. Tyson is a fascinating man & love his synopsis on the universe.
Grace....and by the way, it doesn't get past me that he's also tall, dark, handsome & sexy with a smile that lights up a room! Woo Hoo!! LOL
Hey, I'm old...not dead yet!
by mbuggieh4 years ago
A recent essay published in salon.com entitled "Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. the right: “Cosmos,” Christians, and the battle for American science" made the following points:"The religious right has been...
by Baileybear7 years ago
<snipped graphic image>Search for 'birth defects' and you will find lots of disturbing images like this one - some look barely human
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
An article on National Geographic, in discussing "The Multiverse" stated it simply this way: "One can best get a sense of the fine-tuning problem by thinking about the gravitational force. If this...
by Ron Karn7 years ago
If all life forms evolved from a single organism, where did the first organism originate from? It seems to me that to classify the science of evolution as scientific fact that they would need to establish a basis...
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
Is Natural Selection in Evolution the result of happenstance?Are the Laws of Nature directed in an arbitrary way?Was the Big Bang a random accident?Was Hydrogen created out of Nothing?Were the first copied pairs of DNA...
by Jack Lee14 months ago
For the evolution scientists, which came first the chicken or the egg?I don't think this dilemma has been fully explained or explored. All evolution scientists and biologists, please explain...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.