“The Perimeter of Ignorance”by Neil deGrasse Tyson

1.According to the author, when does divinity get invoked in the works of scientists,historically?

2.What led Newton to bring God into his argument?

3.What scientist improved on Newton?

4.When did the celestial sphere move from being in the domain of the divine to being in thedomain of science?

5.What is the “clockwork universe” and when was this idea popular in science?What scientificdiscoveries does the
author assert undermine this idea?What technology made this possible?

6.What is intelligent design?Why does the author argue it is a “philosophy of ignorance”?

7.What evidence does the author present that suggests that people were not “intelligentlydesigned”?

8.What part of the body does the author describe as “an entertainment complex built around asewage system”?

9.Why does the author feel that simple awe in the face of what we don’t understand is a badidea (or bad science)?
Do you agree or disagree?

Neil DeGrasse Tyson wrote an article that was interesting. He argued that Science and religion cannot co-exist.
Granted, what he is picking on is the insistence of some Christians that the Bible talks about nature, about how the
universe came into existence. He argues that it is not science and that it should not be taught in a science
classroom. I agree with that. But he goes on against even more general pronouncements issued by scientists like
Newton and LaPlace. DeGrasse warns: "But a careful reading of older texts, particularly those concerned with the
universe itself, shows that the authors invoke divinity only when they reach the boundaries of their understanding.
They appeal to a higher power only when staring into the ocean of their own ignorance. They call on God only from
the lonely and precarious edge of incomprehension. Where they feel certain about their explanations, however,
God gets hardly a mention."
They invoke God out of necessity in the face of something that they do not understand. But I am not convinced by
this sort of argument because it assumes that the scientist in question did not have a previous belief, a
fundamental belief- God is a function, ad hoc, only present when we don't understand something. I think that for
some who see mathematics, for example, as the language spoken by God, I think that the practice of science is an
act of piety and that invoking God at some point is not the creatio ex nihilio, or in other words that up until then
they had no use of God, no belief, nothing, but rather that the belief expresses itself differently depending on the
circumstances. Thus the same belief could animate a scientist writing equations that for him or her are a sort of
revelation of His handwriting and also be present when he or she gives space to contemplate the mystery of God.
We don't always understand what someone meant by their poetry. Doesn't mean that we cannot understand or give
up hope of understanding, but that understanding might require a rephrase, and indeed this is the equivalent of
scientific progress.
Thus, I do not believe that "God" is simply there ONLY at the perimeter of our ignorance but that God is the
required belief that secures the possibility of knowledge. "God", furthermore, is shorthand for something we
believe in without an empirical, scientific, reason.

Religion is not a meaningful word.

Let's say jews and muslims are both taught that God hates the other group.
God can't attack and love both sides.

Religion is just a shitty poor word.

God also has many meanings as a word.

Pantheism is very different than the dual christian ideas.
I think you're this close to a straw man.
But it is so common that it appears normal and coherent.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson wrote an article that was interesting. He argued that Science and religion cannot co-exist.
Granted, what he is picking on is the insistence of some Christians that the Bible talks about nature, about how the
universe came into existence. He argues that it is not science and that it should not be taught in a science
classroom. I agree with that. But he goes on against even more general pronouncements issued by scientists like
Newton and LaPlace. DeGrasse warns: "But a careful reading of older texts, particularly those concerned with the
universe itself, shows that the authors invoke divinity only when they reach the boundaries of their understanding.
They appeal to a higher power only when staring into the ocean of their own ignorance. They call on God only from
the lonely and precarious edge of incomprehension. Where they feel certain about their explanations, however,
God gets hardly a mention.""

This is me railing against some of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's statements.

*clearing throat* Neil, science and religion do co-exist, so you're point of "cannot co-exist" is moot. Furthermore, all
sciences and religions are tools inspired by The Creator to benefit men and us women. Frankly Neil, it boggles my
mind that man cannot reconcile the two with some genuine giving and taking from both camps, so everybody avoids
a hypocritical life. A very smart philosopher I've read has a relevant forum thread, "Concise Definition of Free Will,"
in which CelineK's opening post states, "The only free will that exists is the ability **to notice or not**.
Both camps need to reflect on the words **to notice or not**. Both camps exist in this physical reality. A reality
which affects both camps, some in subtle ways, some not. And I agree with you Neil that the poor Creator gets
slighted by both camps.

Omar, I agree with everything else you wrote, with the exception of "scientific progress" which is offensive in itself
as another slight of God. I am combining both camps in one camp which will be called __________? Suggestions
welcome. 

larify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony 
Else
From THIS  age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY  aspect of living.

This all works from the perspective of the scientist who (as I suspect Neil DeGrasse Tyson does) only hears about God
as a proposed fix at the limits of human understanding. If that's all theism was, then he'd be right to reject it. But
anybody who's actually a practicing theist knows that this is all in all a relatively tiny portion of what it means to be a
part of any particular faith, or even a faithless philosophical theist. Theism has it's own set of metaphysical claims,
ethical claims, historical claims, epistemological claims, all networked together and cross-examined. In other words,
it's a broad field like any other.

I have never seen any serious theist put forward the idea that the existence of God is primarily justified/believed in
as an explanation for features of the natural world that we don't understand- this notion seems to purely come from
atheists just before they shoot it down again. It is as though they think Aquinas was coming up with God when he
wrote the cosmological argument or something.


I have enormous respect for DeGrasse but I thought that on that article he went out of his way to disassociate
religion from science. He brought the faith of Newton and others to judgment and found them disingenuous. When
they were describing the laws of the universe they did not mention God but where their understanding falters they
then mention God. His main argument is against the "God of the gaps". That opinion, I think, speaks too much about
the reasons, if there are any, behind the scientists' omission of God. I think it serves his argument only too well.
Science, in my opinion begins with the theistic perspective, the intuition, and search, of the immutable behind the
transient. We know this. I think that as science has progressed that first order studies have been abandoned. I think
that questions that once were central to reasonable people, such as "Why is there something instead of nothing?" or
"What is A?", or "How can the finite know the infinite?" that has all gone out of the window.
I think that science has no need for a personal God, but the impersonal God is another story. When Einstein says
that God does not play dice he does not mean Yahweh, or Jesus. What if he had said "The Law does not play dice"? I
think that many scientists are religious because religiosity can take many different meanings; for me the meaning
that ties them together is the belief that the infinite can be known by the finite, which is, in my opinion, a
declaration of faith.

I think that science has no need for a personal God, but the impersonal God is another story. When Einstein says that
God does not play dice he does not mean Yahweh, or Jesus. What if he had said "The Law does not play dice"? I think
that many scientists are religious because religiosity can take many different meanings; for me the meaning that ties
them together is the belief that the infinite can be known by the finite, which is, in my opinion, a declaration of
faith."

Such a declaration of faith falls short in the experience of **to notice or not**regarding each individual's free-will. A
faith that science will outlive God is misspent energy, time, earthly resources, etc. Developing a open-ended faith, a
willingness **to notice or not** God's various methods of communication is the key to reversing the ever-increasing
damage we, as a species, are doing to our environment.

But sometimes other scientist could not explain ,

Historical Litteracy

During the discussion earlier coming from the group 1 the things that we have learned is that History is a broud
consept it can be writen, verbal and images , since Historical Literacy is the ability to read, write, and think critically about
the past. it enable students to make meaning from and in the wide range of texts they will encounter and produce at school and in
the world.knowledge extending beyond common senseA t this level, for instance, students can read a variety of texts, decode their
meaning, and make a distinction between “facts” and “opinions. And also since historians are often study and preserve archival
materials. Historians research, analyze, interpret, and write about the past by studying historical documents and sources .
historians are biased and unbiased, ang also can be objective and subjective in gaining knowledge that has lasted for a long time

Always remeber that our history is not our destiny

Nationa archieves

Casual observers might assume that public historians and archivists enjoy a close working
relationship. Both fields share a commitment to preserving historical documentation and
making history accessible to diverse popular audiences. Practitioners typically work in a
broad array of institutions ranging from large federal agencies to small non-profits. They
generally endorse such core values as open access to information, respect for personal
privacy, ethical approaches to community engagement, and methodological transparency.
Public historians and archivists often participate in joint advocacy efforts, attempting to
hold public agencies and private institutions accountable by promoting sound
recordkeeping practices and solid historical studies. They share similar funding sources,
and have benefited from the support of such governmental agencies as the National
Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute for Museum and Library Services. eneath
the surface, however, a clear disciplinary divide has complicated relationships between
these two professions. Public historians and archivists attend different professional
conferences, read different journals, pursue different degrees, and train in different
graduate schools. Their foundational literature contains little overlap. Distinct historical
factors have shaped their basic principles and practices. In fact, public history and archives
professionals remain peculiarly isolated from each other, as well as from academic
historians. A brief consideration of their distinctive histories over the past forty years largely
explains the separation, but also points toward collaborative possibilities for the future.

Public historians brought a messianic zeal and an expansive vision to their work in the late
1970s, as they began to define their field of study. Though historians always have
attempted to engage multiple publics, a group of university-based scholars coalesced
roughly forty years ago around a series of theoretical and practical issues in an effort to
revolutionize their discipline. In part, their work grew out of the community-based History
Workshop movement associated with the Marxist historians Eric Hobsbawm, E.P.
Thompson, and their colleagues in Britain. It also owed much to the rise of New Left
scholars in the United States, who sought to link their work with working-class audiences,
racial and ethnic minorities, and the social protesters who were challenging social and
academic norms. Public historians at the time enthusiastically embraced new fields
including popular culture studies, local and community history, visual literacy, and critical
media analysis. They incorporated such seemingly radical methodologies as oral history
into their work. They considered museum exhibitions and film to be legitimate methods of
scholarly output, equal if not superior to the traditional monograph. Public historians
remained committed to producing carefully considered and cutting-edge historical
scholarship, but they sought out venues where they could communicate their conclusions
in popularly accessible and innovative formats. Perhaps more than anything, they
developed the concept that communities and professional academics needed to work
together to co-create histories. A sacred concept for these public historians involved the
need to “share authority” with community insiders, amateur historians, and local lore-
keepers when crafting historical interpretations.

Vocational interests, however, also drove the public history movement during its early
years. A shrinking academic job market, the radical overproduction of history doctoral
degrees at elite academic institutions, and concerns that humanities education appeared
tangential to American life drove historians to seek out new connections with the
marketplace. The first issue of the Public Historian, which

appeared in 1978, claimed that an untapped market existed for public history professionals
in the following areas: governmental agencies, corporations, research institutes, electronic
and print media, historical sites, environmental organizations, archives and historical
societies, museums, national and state parks, and educational institutions. Robert Kelley,
one of the influential founders of the movement, made the occupational link even more
explicit by defining public history “in its simplest meaning” as “the employment of historians
and the historical method outside of academia.”1 He described an ideal public history
curriculum as containing extensive practical experience through structured internships,
opportunities for team-based collaborative work, and coursework outside of history in such
fields as public administration, business economics, and environmental studies. By the
early 1980s, several universities had established

egrees and concentrations in public history, including pioneering programs at Middle

Tennessee State, the University of California at Santa Barbara, the University of South
Carolina, Arizona State University, Loyola University, and New York University. Some
programs concentrated their curriculum on such particular public history subspecialties as
public policy, historic preservation, and film. Others offered a potpourri of individual
courses on a diverse array of topics. Clearly, the first generation of public historians viewed
their domain as broadly encompassing a wide range of sub-disciplines. Still, their
relationships with many of these related fields remained tenuous. This proved especially
true in the case of archival management. No public history program contained extensive
coursework that explored archival theory and practice. A typical offering might include one
elective archives course, usually taught by an adjunct working in the field. This single
course itself often featured a substantial practicum component that focused on processing
collections, thereby privileging experiential learning over theoretical