firedragon
Veteran Member
I didnt know that. who scooped it up?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The false histories of Neil deGrasse Tyson
- Thread starter Hop_David
- Start date
I didnt know that. who scooped it up?
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
As well the over use of "They". It cannot be ignored or denied that his words lead to a significant increase in anti-Muslim attitudes throughout the nation, and even beyond our borders to various military bases.
You are, again, missing the overall point by getting hung up on the minutiae. And yes, he did use that time of intense anger to set Us against Them, and it did inevitably lead to divisions between Christians and Muslims which he never tried very hard to dissuade.
Evidence needed.
"So far as you know", which isn't fact.
Then it looks like your problem is more with "Tyson's fans" than Tyson himself, as Tyson acknowledged the error years ago.
No. Far from it. But projection in that manner is also quite dishonest.
Hop_David
Member
"They" being terrorists. Not the general Muslim population. A point Bush makes repeatedly.
Absolutely false.
Here is Bush's actual 9-11 speech.
And here is a collection of comments Bush has made on Islam.
Bush repeatedly urged respect for Islam. This is not minutiiae. This is the elephant in the room when it comes to Tyson's slanderous speech.
And you're pretending this elephant doesn't exist. You are helping me make my case.
Bush & Star Names fiction delivered at Beyond Belief (2006)
Bush & Star Names fiction delivered at The Amazing Meeting 6
Bush & Star Names fiction delivered at University of Washington
Tyson was using this story from 2006 up until Sean Davis blew the whistle on him in September of 2014.
So back at you. You were saying Tyson's misquote was a single event that happened more than 10 years ago. Evidence needed.
I do have a problem with Tyson's toxic cult of personality. Time and time again they repost Tyson's false histories. It has been posted to this forum many times.
These popular New Atheist urban legends are alive and well in spite of the fact they've been thoroughly debunked. And you call me "incredibly stupid" for challenging these falsehoods when they crop up. His false history has been posted here as recently as July, 2021.
And I also have a problem with Tyson himself. It took a lot of arm twisting to get him to admit the Bush and Star Names fiction was a fiction. I have yet to see any efforts on his part to correct the misinformation he's spread on Ghazali, Newton and Copernicus.
He repeatedly uses false history in his arguments against religion.
Regarding al-Ghazali and Neil DeGrasse Tyson's depiction of him and the influence he had, the fact remains that at one time, Arabic culture promoted open discussion and intellectual pursuit, and then collapsed back into fundamentalism. We saw this in a small way just last month in Afghanistan, when a Western regime that promoted education was replaced by a government of fundamentalist zealots, and a return to the past.
Tyson's greater point was that at various times in history, various enlightened cultures have ascended and scholarship flourished. He illustrated this with what he called naming rights. In antiquity, it was the Greeks who were leading the world in philosophy, science, and mathematics as illustrated by the fact that they named the constellations (Scorpio, Orion, Gemini). By the middle Ages, it was the Arabs, and hence so many stars have Arabic names (Aldebaran, Deneb, Formalhaut, Algol, Betelgeuse). And in our time, it was the Americans that dominated the academic world when many new elements were named (Californium, Berkelium, Einsteinium, Lawrencium).
We know why the ancients lost hegemony and the West entered its Dark Ages. Why did the Arabs? Tyson cites fundamentalism replacing academic enlightenment. He points to al-Ghazali. If he is being unfair there, then it's because he has misidentified the factors that led to the Arabic intellectual decline, which is still an issue today if one judges by Nobel prize awards, who get them, and who doesn't. It relates to who values scholarship and who doesn't. We saw clearly what led to that change in Afghanistan, but something analogous happened to the Arabs of the Middle Ages to knock enlightenment out of Arabic culture, and it's a good bet that as with the Taliban, it was religious belief. I understand that the Taliban has already begun destroying musical instruments: ‘The day the music died in Afghanistan’: Taliban destroys musical instruments; Afghan diplomat reacts
Historically, we have this from the Christian church: Here are two hugely influential church fathers telling you how they feel about those who study nature:
As soon as church authority was challenged by the new science, it's demeanor changed. Centuries later, we had Bruno and Galileo. That was a whole other kettle of fish. These universities sponsored by the church were not the kind of institutions we think of today, which purpose is to promote academia, not the church as its medieval universities were intended to do through teaching the priesthood, whose purpose was to promote the faith. The education they received was not intended for the common man, and was not available to him, either. These weren't universities like we think of them today, where people of all stripes apply to acquire a liberal education, but institutions intended to promote church doctrine and authority.
But putting history aside, my view of the relationship of the church to science and liberal education is primarily derived from what I have seen in my lifetime, which includes an endless parade of scientifically illiterate creationists arguing against evolution without understanding it. What I've seen is denominations warning parents not to send their children to university. I've seen religious schools popping up just to keep children from getting a secular education, and diverting tax dollars toward the teaching. I've seen landmark legal cases protecting the church from injecting its pseudoscience into public curricula "to let the children decide." Christianity promotes faith as a higher virtue than reason. It's been that way for centuries. Where does the disrespect for science that we see in the anti-vaxxers and climate deniers come from? Religious teaching, where people are taught to respect faith over science. Where else could it be coming from? Not the public schools. Not the movies. Not the universities. The church (one could ask the same question about the source of Western homophobia, and the answer would be the same).
He's no al-Ghazali, but this guy will tell you why higher education is from Satan:
2018 JWBroadcasting "Higher education is useless" video CLIP
Tyson's greater point was that at various times in history, various enlightened cultures have ascended and scholarship flourished. He illustrated this with what he called naming rights. In antiquity, it was the Greeks who were leading the world in philosophy, science, and mathematics as illustrated by the fact that they named the constellations (Scorpio, Orion, Gemini). By the middle Ages, it was the Arabs, and hence so many stars have Arabic names (Aldebaran, Deneb, Formalhaut, Algol, Betelgeuse). And in our time, it was the Americans that dominated the academic world when many new elements were named (Californium, Berkelium, Einsteinium, Lawrencium).
We know why the ancients lost hegemony and the West entered its Dark Ages. Why did the Arabs? Tyson cites fundamentalism replacing academic enlightenment. He points to al-Ghazali. If he is being unfair there, then it's because he has misidentified the factors that led to the Arabic intellectual decline, which is still an issue today if one judges by Nobel prize awards, who get them, and who doesn't. It relates to who values scholarship and who doesn't. We saw clearly what led to that change in Afghanistan, but something analogous happened to the Arabs of the Middle Ages to knock enlightenment out of Arabic culture, and it's a good bet that as with the Taliban, it was religious belief. I understand that the Taliban has already begun destroying musical instruments: ‘The day the music died in Afghanistan’: Taliban destroys musical instruments; Afghan diplomat reacts
Historically, we have this from the Christian church: Here are two hugely influential church fathers telling you how they feel about those who study nature:
- "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn." - St. Augustine
- "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." - Martin Luther
As soon as church authority was challenged by the new science, it's demeanor changed. Centuries later, we had Bruno and Galileo. That was a whole other kettle of fish. These universities sponsored by the church were not the kind of institutions we think of today, which purpose is to promote academia, not the church as its medieval universities were intended to do through teaching the priesthood, whose purpose was to promote the faith. The education they received was not intended for the common man, and was not available to him, either. These weren't universities like we think of them today, where people of all stripes apply to acquire a liberal education, but institutions intended to promote church doctrine and authority.
But putting history aside, my view of the relationship of the church to science and liberal education is primarily derived from what I have seen in my lifetime, which includes an endless parade of scientifically illiterate creationists arguing against evolution without understanding it. What I've seen is denominations warning parents not to send their children to university. I've seen religious schools popping up just to keep children from getting a secular education, and diverting tax dollars toward the teaching. I've seen landmark legal cases protecting the church from injecting its pseudoscience into public curricula "to let the children decide." Christianity promotes faith as a higher virtue than reason. It's been that way for centuries. Where does the disrespect for science that we see in the anti-vaxxers and climate deniers come from? Religious teaching, where people are taught to respect faith over science. Where else could it be coming from? Not the public schools. Not the movies. Not the universities. The church (one could ask the same question about the source of Western homophobia, and the answer would be the same).
He's no al-Ghazali, but this guy will tell you why higher education is from Satan:
2018 JWBroadcasting "Higher education is useless" video CLIP
Regiomontanus
Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
You make some good points but I think you are painting Christians with a very broad brush. Faith and Reason are central to the Catholic faith as I understand it. I see no tension between my worship of the Creator and my study of the cosmos.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I don't see any facts supporting that theory, do you have any?
Here's a paper discussing the Islamic Golden Age (approx. 8th-14th centuries AD) and reasons for its collapse. The author seems to favor a major role for religion in this transformation, but considers other factors such as colonialism: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/chaney/files/paper.pdf
"Religion and the Rise and Fall of Islamic Science - Eric Chaney∗ May 2016
"Why did the surge of scientific production in the medieval Islamic world dwindle? To explore this question, I gather data on intellectual production from Harvard’s library collection and a catalog of books from seventeenth century Istanbul. I document that the proportion of books dedicated to scientific topics declined in the medieval period, noting that the empirical patterns are most consistent with theories linking the decline to institutional changes. I discuss the role religious leaders played in generating these developments, concluding that the evidence is consistent with the claim that an increase in the political power of these elites caused the decline in scientific output."
"Muslim-majority regions produce a disproportionately small share of world scientific output today.2 During the medieval period, however, Islamic societies witnessed a spectacular flowering of scientific and technological production. For years, scholars have pointed to this “Golden Age” as evidence that Islam and science are not inherently incompatible. Scholars still struggle, however, to explain the low levels of scientific production in these regions today. One line of literature traces the current underproduction of science in the Islamic world to the medieval decline of scientific production and the concomitant rise of an obscurantist social equilibrium that has persisted to the present. Some have argued that external shocks such as the Mongol invasions brought about these changes, while others have pointed to endogenous factors. In recent years, scholars have challenged these interpretations, instead claiming that Islamic science did not decline in the medieval period and pointing to colonialism as the culprit (e.g. Saliba, 2007)."
"By providing evidence that the political empowerment of religious leaders was at the very least a proximate cause of the decline of scientific output in the medieval Islamic world, the paper adds to the growing literature arguing that “religion matters” in understanding differences in human capital formation rates (e.g. Mokyr, 2002; Botticini and Eckstein, 2005; Becker and Woessmann, 2009; Benabou et al., 2013) and thus economic outcomes (e.g. Barro and McCleary, 2003) across societies. While complementing such studies, the results in this paper also suggest the importance of better understanding the impact of actions taken by religious leaders in the political and institutional spheres (Benabou et al., 2013). Consistent with Cantoni and Yuchtman (2013), I argue that where religious elites hold more power they will favor an institutional and educational framework that discourages human capital accumulation that could detract from their control over the population (see Acemoglu and Autor, 2012, for a related discussion). This view predicts a negative correlation between the political power of religious leaders and scientific production that is consistent with the results presented in this paper."
"Why did the surge of scientific production in the medieval Islamic world dwindle? To explore this question, I gather data on intellectual production from Harvard’s library collection and a catalog of books from seventeenth century Istanbul. I document that the proportion of books dedicated to scientific topics declined in the medieval period, noting that the empirical patterns are most consistent with theories linking the decline to institutional changes. I discuss the role religious leaders played in generating these developments, concluding that the evidence is consistent with the claim that an increase in the political power of these elites caused the decline in scientific output."
"Muslim-majority regions produce a disproportionately small share of world scientific output today.2 During the medieval period, however, Islamic societies witnessed a spectacular flowering of scientific and technological production. For years, scholars have pointed to this “Golden Age” as evidence that Islam and science are not inherently incompatible. Scholars still struggle, however, to explain the low levels of scientific production in these regions today. One line of literature traces the current underproduction of science in the Islamic world to the medieval decline of scientific production and the concomitant rise of an obscurantist social equilibrium that has persisted to the present. Some have argued that external shocks such as the Mongol invasions brought about these changes, while others have pointed to endogenous factors. In recent years, scholars have challenged these interpretations, instead claiming that Islamic science did not decline in the medieval period and pointing to colonialism as the culprit (e.g. Saliba, 2007)."
"By providing evidence that the political empowerment of religious leaders was at the very least a proximate cause of the decline of scientific output in the medieval Islamic world, the paper adds to the growing literature arguing that “religion matters” in understanding differences in human capital formation rates (e.g. Mokyr, 2002; Botticini and Eckstein, 2005; Becker and Woessmann, 2009; Benabou et al., 2013) and thus economic outcomes (e.g. Barro and McCleary, 2003) across societies. While complementing such studies, the results in this paper also suggest the importance of better understanding the impact of actions taken by religious leaders in the political and institutional spheres (Benabou et al., 2013). Consistent with Cantoni and Yuchtman (2013), I argue that where religious elites hold more power they will favor an institutional and educational framework that discourages human capital accumulation that could detract from their control over the population (see Acemoglu and Autor, 2012, for a related discussion). This view predicts a negative correlation between the political power of religious leaders and scientific production that is consistent with the results presented in this paper."
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
This is a frankly infantile notion of science and academic culture that doesn't really hold up to empirical study or facts. The supposedly enlightened Greek poleis literally prosecuted people for crimes such as "atheism", "corruption of the youth", and "introduction of new deities and cults", whereas the vaunted "tolerance" of the Caliphate was largely based on the simple fact that Christians and Jews paid extra taxes that Muslims did not, and so they had a vested economic interest in not forcibly converting people - that was still often breached by forced conversions and the occasional persecution of notable Jewish scholars and officials. And it should be noted that the first major project where the US government put a large number if immigrant scientists to use was the creation of the nuclear bomb.
You are perpetrating a claim that most historians no longer adhere to and largely consider a myth at this point. The medieval "Dark Ages" are not only misplaced in their periodization (there was an economic crisis during the early medieval period in Western Europe, yes, but that crisis had started long before the Western half of the Roman Empire collapsed, arguably in the 3rd century AD) in its causes (the crisis was military and economic in nature, with religion playing a minimal role in it) and in its extent (while urbanization and large engineering projects declined during the Middle Ages in Europe and the Mediterranean basin, technological advancement and scholarship did not, and due to advances in agriculture and practical technology, West, North and Central Europe came out of the Middle Ages much more highly developed than it had entered them, to the point where the institutions of European scholarship all came out of the Middle Ages, not the Roman era).
I also find it shocking how you equate literally everyone in Asia with "Arabs", when Afghanistan a) never was part of Arabian empires, b) is not populated by people speaking or reading Arabic, and c) the Abbasid Caliphate collapsed nearly a millenium ago. There is frankly very little about medieval Arabia that has any bearing on what is going on in modern day Afghanistan; even the much-vaunted Wahhabite movement goes back to the 18th century AD.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
This is a theory based on facts that have led other scholars to very different conclusions.
Is there a reason why you believe his theory is more sensible than any of the competing ones?
You just lost my interest in further discussion with you on this matter when you made it personal and offensive. Your opinion on the matter is of no interest to me if you can't keep your game elevated when expressing it. I simply have no interest in what you think of me.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I attacked your position, not your person.
It is not, and never was, your fault to adhere to these wrong notions.
But I'm not the boss of you - whether you want to defend the ridiculous claims you made or not is solely your personal choice.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
And the Deobandi movement that influenced the Taliban goes back to 19th C South Asia
The reasons are quite similar, but are nothing to do with the long discarded myth you insist on perpetuating.
Warfare, fragmentation of Empire, political instability, changing trade patterns and economic decline.
Not at all.
Theology was a postgraduate degree and most people didn't even complete undergraduate degrees. To even be able to study it you had to have studied natural philosophy and classical scholarship.
Yes, completely different empires do tend to have have different institutions
It would take a very *special* kind of analysis to look at this and think the primary factor is al-Ghazali...
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
A year later. Bravo him, right? All of the quotes you give are from 2002. November and December of that year. In 2001 he was not so clear, and regardless that he didn't go full bore with the "we're gonna hunt down those dirty Muslims" you cannot deny that such was the American sentiment as a result of the event and his "Us vs Them" statements.
That is an address to the Islamic Center. Not a "9/11 Speech". What I quoted from three day later, Sep. 20th, was an address to Congress. Let's look at some statements from September 11th itself, shall we?
Prayers and god bless. Our Great Nation is being tested. 9/11
Address to the Nation, September 11th, 2001, 8:30 EST Words and phrases like "our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom", "evil, despicable acts of terror", "Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature", "The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts ... We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them", "I pray they will be comforted by a power greater than any of us, spoken through the ages in Psalm 23: 'Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me.' "
Language from that day, as well as information quickly unveiling al-Qaeda as the group behind the attack, just as quickly bred a very dangerous anti-Muslim, "Us vs Them" mentality that necessitated the various statements and bridge-buildings that you reference from later in the month. Statements which do not wash away the environment that was sown by his language as used in the State of the Union Address from that evening.
No, it's not. As stated before, you're latching on to the involvement of 9/11. Not the overall point of the speech that it was claimed the Christian god named the stars (which was claimed, factually, just not on the date erroneously claimed), when a good number of stars have very non-Christian names, and are rather Arabic. You are shunting the entire point of the speech to focus on something that wasn't there at all. The essence and example of a Straw Man Argument.
Did you even look at the dates of those? The first is from 2006, yes. The second one is in 2008. And the last one that you give is dated at 2011. So, you're missing about 3 years or so in your claim of how long this "blatant false history" that wasn't even the point went on for.
No, I said you're referencing an event that happened over a decade ago. Now, bear with me here. I'm not a Chronologist, or an expert with this whole "Time" thing. I mostly make pretty pictures, but y'know I dabble in looking at a clock (and sometimes a calendar!) every now and again. You gave us a speech from 2008. The only speech you gave until the two additional ones above. Now again, not an expert in time, but I'm pretty sure that 2008 was over a decade ago.
Firstly it doesn't seem he has very many "arguments against religion" at all. You make it sound like he goes on about that as much as Richard Dawkins. Secondly, he's not using "false history". He's using a misdated quote from George Bush - which was actually said - to illustrate a point that actually had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and he's using a quote from al-Ghazali that is and was commonly stated in the same manner all throughout Academia. Neither of these are "false histories", as the topics being discussed with these as illustration absolutely did happen. There is and was an arrogant "Christianity vs Islam" mentality that drives a wedge between two cultures despite numerous similarities and cultural facts, and there was a decline in the sciences following the Islamic Golden Age.
Your axe is dull.
Augustus
…
Using a fake quote to completely misrepresent someone's philosophy is false history no matter how many other people repeat it.
That's basically a tautology.
Anyway, this happened centuries later and had nothing really to do with al-Ghazali, short term output even rose after aG. It did have plenty to do with warfare, instability, fragmentation of empire, declining wealth, changing patterns of global trade and other more mundane factors that have caused decline in many other powerful empires though.
It is much more likely that more conservative religion was an effect of decline, not the cause.
And peddling myths about religion is often part of an arrogant "Science v Religion" mentality that also drives a wedge between cultures.
Hop_David
Member
Absolutely false.
Again, here is a link to his comments on Islam. Scroll down and you will see numerous comments made in 2001.
I only screen captured the top part of the quotes. But that doesn't excuse you. You could have followed the link I gave. Or you could have read Bush's actual speech, something I've linked to numerous times in this thread.
Ummmm.... Maybe people were pissed off because terrorists flew planes into the twin towers?
Regarding his "Us vs Them" statements, the "Them" were the terrorists, not the Islamic people in general. A point Bush made over and over and over again.
So I absolutely deny there was anti-Muslim sentiment because of Bush's statements.
I agree with his comments on the terrorists. He is describing the terrorists, not Muslims in general.
Oh my gosh. He quoted Isaiah. You're not aware that Isaiah is from the old testament? And the common origin of the Abrahamic faiths? I am stunned.
So, no. There is absolutely no claim that it was solely a Christian God that named the stars.
You have an online portfolio? If so I'd like to check it out. I do some graphics. I do illustrations, ads and charts for our weekly newspaper.
Posting three separate occasions of Tyson telling this story demonstrates it was part of his routine.
According to Adler from the Washington Post the video was up on Tyson's Hayden Planetarium website when Davis' story broke in 2014. See the eleventh paragraph from Neil deGrasse Tyson admits he botched Bush quote
Tyson took down the video in 2017 so it's a 404 now. But to this day the false quote is on one of the Hayden Planetarium pages, Neil deGrasse Tyson politics quotes. See the lower right hand corner.
And the story is passed off as fact by Tyson's clueless cult members to this day. In this forum as recently as July, 2021. And you're telling me I'm incredibly stupid to challenge a New Atheist urban legend that is very much alive and well to this day.
Well, there's the Bush and Star Names story which reinforces the stereotype of intolerant, hate-thy-neighbor Christians. Which in the case of Bush's 9-11 speech is completely undeserved.
Then there's this fiction that Islamic innovation came to a halt in 1100 when Ghazali wrote that math is the work of the Devil.
Then there's the fiction that Newton didn't bother trying to model n-body mechanics because he thought God kept the solar system stable.
Then there's the fiction that Copernicus kept his ideas secret until he was on his deathbed, for fear of the church.
Then there's the fiction that the Christian leadership during the dark ages were flat-earthers who suppressed scientific inquiry.
Those are the five Tyson fictions I object to.
Last edited:
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
When I listened to Tyson a few times I noticed him making various assertions far afield from astronomy, and realized he was just preaching an ideology (including mistaken ideas, etc.), and therefore wasn't worth my time (of course). It's interesting to see more about that.
Hop_David
Member
He's worth listening to. Tyson provides us with great ammunition against the New Atheists.
I know of 5 of his arguments against religion. And all of them are steaming mounds. They are all based on invented history.
And he has delivered these repeatedly, often to large groups of self proclaimed skeptics. Folks who are always telling us to challenge claims to see if they are supported by evidence. And here we witness them swallowing Tyson's false claims without question. Thus demonstrating these "skeptics" are credulous.
Celebrity "skeptics" like Shermer, Tyson, Dawkins, Krauss, Novella, Harris, Plaitt, etc. have a mutual admiration society. They are warmly received guests on one another's podcasts. When they write books they give each other gushing reviews to put on the back cover blurbs.
I would like to see Dawkins, Krauss, et al confronted. Ask them if they are okay with Tyson using false history to push their narrative? Ask them why none of them have challenged Tyson's false claims? They've been listening to him tell these tall tales year after year after year.
Tyson tells us scientific literacy empowers us to know when someone is full of ****. And here Tyson does us the wonderful favor of leaving B.S. stains on the bibs of his legions of fans. Thus we can question if members of his toxic cult of personality are scientifically literate.
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
Ah, well, I sympathize with anger against his falsehoods, but it's enough to just point them out, and not worry too much past given friendly helpful correction against the falsehoods. In the end we will all be rewarded according to our deeds, and his only chance is similar to our own: repentance.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Yeah, I'm not in favor of "scientific" types that tell shame stories on religion.
There are some things I'd like to add though.
Islam is not an Abrahamic Religion. It's an idolatry cult based around moon worship that claims to be so to give it street cred.
Second, Bush is not a conservative. He's a RINO who used this crisis to push more government control down our throats. Go to any airport nowadays, and it's sorta like being in a enemy-occupied territory. Freedom of speech? You can't even say "bomb" in an airline without someone grabbing you and taking you for questioning. No gun rights either. And you don't even have the right to bodily autonomy. You get patted down and felt up by creeps in uniform.
Third, the Muslims are notorious plagiarists. What caused their decline was that Western culture started booting them out, and so they were left to their own devices again. And yes, those are Indian numbers (500 BC), not Arabic (600+ AD).
History of Numbers
Not invented. Taken credit for.
But I will agree with you that Tyson is misrepresenting religion's role in things.
Augustus
…
Pretty much all people (not just the celebrities) who make a song and dance of identifying as 'freethinkers' and 'sceptics' all think the same way and all believe in the same pseudo-historical myths.
They are also massively self-congratulatory about their own "Rationality" while being as impervious to evidence as the worst kind of religious fundamentalists. As everyone else in their thought bubble is publicly committed to "Rationality" how could they all be wrong?
There's no need to actually bother researching issues as "all rational people agree on the facts" so they just assume someone else bothered to do the research that demonstrates they are all right.