Neil deGrasse Tyson stops a religious troll (w/subtitles)

At the end of the Q&A period after Tyson and Dawkins' magnificent presentation "The Poetry of Science", this douchebag troll (who refused to sit and insisted on getting his "question" out) tries to bait Dawkins/Tyson into a religious discussion with the mildly retarded question about what they would do when they're about to die with nothing to console themselves but their knowledge of science (implying that they're incomplete without the source of origin:god). Dawkins passed the opportunity for retort to Tyson, who answers in a fantastically poetic way.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Neil Degrasse Tyson
• Richard Dawkins
• The Poetry of Science

[Arsonfly]

Calling him a troll is a little harsh. I think that it was a genuine question. The fact that it is religious doesn't make it trolling. As an atheist I found the question interesting, even if it took me two tries to understand it. However, I don't need any reasoning in death. It would be hard to come to grips with my execution, but only a fool would believe that there was an all powerful God who loved him all while he awaits his execution.

[makantang]

OWNED MODA FUCKER!!!

[tierranieve]

I'm still not quite sure I even understood his point. However, his entire question or hypothetical was premised on a fallacy: that a life of reason, absent God, should contemplate a deep meaningful order.

I think that is what makes NdGT's response so great. He rejected the presumption of an "obvious" cosmic order. Order can be grandiose and mystical from God, or it can be created and perpetuated by humans through reason to be simple and humble out of respect for the reality of our mortality.

[stevolution666]

@raymitch7410 is Kant the one that said black people were smelly and lazy.

[stevolution666]

@Arsonfly fool is more accurate than troll in this case

[Muhtadin]

When Richard Dawkins applauds for you, you know you're a BADASS!

[nakkadu]

I agree with Arsonfly, the reason they were on the stage was to discuss questions like that - he put his question well and stayed quiet for the answer - it's obvious to most of us that there is no God, but people who believe still deserve respect.

[raymitch7410]

@jimtrueblue99 Finally, I would like to point out that I never said artists can't or shouldn't use math. I specifically said you don't need to know trigonometry to make great art. If you don't get that, you may not be worth talking to...

[raymitch7410]

@jimtrueblue99 As I said before to another person " A formal education and study of Dante, Boethius, or even Aristotle is irrelevant to the fact that 2+2=4." and subsequently a formal education of all of them is not necessary to making future discoveries and accomplishments.

When you respond. Be sure to actually address my points and not continue to say irrelevant things. Or don't bother responding.

Oh, and artists don't need Trigonometry... btw... which was another specific example I gave...

[raymitch7410]

@jimtrueblue99 Also, let's get back to the real issue. You'll probably ignore all of my points again, but that's fine. You tried to call Tyson's supposed lack of knowledge of Boethius a gap in his education. Clearly he has not needed it to become a successful and important member of the scientific community, and it does nothing to undermine his accomplishments (which is what you were attempting to do).