My One-Sided Argument with Neil deGrasse Tyson
Is God the ultimate conspiracy theory?
It’s going on 3 a.m. again. I have refreshed my YouTube feed a dozen times, and it is far too late to make a commitment and begin a new series on Hulu. I’m also not ready to queue up one of the usuals I’ve re-watched a dozen and a half times to fall asleep. I cycle through the repeat offenders: The Office, How I Met Your Mother, Friends, Scrubs, Parks and Rec.
These days, it’s required a more conscious effort to select something on Netflix or Hulu or Prime when I’ve plopped down for TV time. And it’s not just a quarantine thing.
For months, my preference has leaned heavier on watching content on YouTube. Maybe it’s because I’m gathering data and observing the parasocial dynamics of content creators and their audiences.
Maybe it’s because there are more long-form videos to digest.
Either way, if I am not careful, I will cross the threshold of late night into early morning, so I need to pick something I can listen to, but I don’t necessarily need to watch.
Ahh, yes, a new episode of StarTalk with Neil deGrasse Tyson is on my feed. It’s about conspiracy theories and the coronavirus. Perfect.
Star Talk is a podcast hosted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and comedian Chuck Nice. In this particular episode, they are joined by science writer Michael Shermer. Awesome.
I love a good conversation around critical thinking and understanding how and why we communicate the way we do.
I subscribed to the StarTalk channel after a collaboration with The Film Theorists on the science behind Rick and Morty’s Portal Gun back in May.
Since then, I have tuned in to a few episodes where Neil and Chuck answer questions about quantum physics and black holes. All of which is just right up my alley.
However, there is something I have noticed about Neil, and I’ve suspected it before. Whenever the subject of religion or God is brought up, it is very obvious and not all that surprising that the scientist is very much a scientist.
On occasion, his tone has verged on the brink of utter mockery and dismissiveness of the generalized beliefs of religious or spiritual folk.
It hasn’t bothered me all that much, until 3 a.m. as I hear Neil say, “Isn’t God the ultimate…conspiracy [theory]?”
He asks Michael Shermer, are religious people more susceptible to conspiracy theories?
And this…is where…I almost turned the damn video off.
Scientists and High Power
I have long admired and been a fan of Neil deGrasse Tyson, just as I have been a fan of Bill Nye, Carl Sagan, even Hank Green.
It’s not that obscure to infer Neil’s stance on religion and God. Frankly, I get the impression he thinks the idea of God and believing in God is sillier than believing in Santa Claus. He is entitled to that belief.
And I do call it a belief.
A belief is a thought you think over and over.
Faith is a belief, and science is a belief, and they do not have to conflict with each other, but we do choose to believe they do.
Faith doesn’t require evidence for someone to believe in it or not. Science is evidence-based, yet some don’t believe in it because of the very evidence provided.
This isn’t about convincing someone of something. This isn’t about who is right and wrong. We would be dull, uninteresting humans if we all agreed on every belief ever.
That is not what I am arguing for, and while I acknowledge the offense I took by Neil’s remarks, it’s not the point I want to make.
It’s about so much more.
Many hardcore scientists do not believe in the concept of God. According to a 2009 Pew survey, scientists are about half as likely to believe in God/a higher power than the general public.
It is well-known that Carl Sagan was an atheist, but I was surprised to come across this quote last year:
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passages of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual…The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.” — Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
I came across this sentiment when I was fact-checking another Sagan quote I wanted to share on Facebook but paused before mindlessly clicking a button. I wrote a piece reflecting on the experience and how I was surprised by this quote.
Arguing in My Head
It’s going on 3:30 in the morning, and I’m mentally sitting at the intersection of my personal beliefs and perspectives.
On one hand, I have a background in literature, film, writing, and consider myself a scholar. On the other hand, I consider myself an unorthodox woman of faith, deeply spiritual, and definitely intuitive. I have a relationship with God/Source/The Universe (all interchangeable for me), but I am not a Christian.
I believe I foster a good, but growing, practice of discernment and critical thinking, but I hold no pedigree in the hard sciences or studies. I pursued a second bachelors to rebel against the idea of grad school only to be turned on to the possibility and desire in the future.
Of all the sciences, the one I have been drawn to and loved the longest is astronomy.
Since I was a little kid, I would sit fixated in front of the television by the cosmos explorations on Discovery Channel.
I knew who Mishio Kaku was before Facebook and Blu-Ray.
I say all this to lay the ground-work for the context of where I am as I listen to this episode of StarTalk on YouTube, and I hear the tone and potential direction in Neil’s voice as he brings up the subject of God relating to conspiracy theories.
And in my head, I imagine my own conversation with him, interrogating him on his beliefs about people with beliefs, picking apart the generalized sentiments and extremist, extraneous examples that don’t mix in the box of the logical, clean truth of science.
Often, the theater of my mind is to tell someone how it is or to rewrite the script of an already passed or imagined encounter.
So, I play out the defensive tone of my position with Neil to let out the steam.
I almost want to click off the video, but I resist because the reason is merely that the beliefs don’t fit my narrative.
I do feel defensive.
Because the God he’s referring to is the notion that God is some almighty dude with a beard on a puffy white cloud making decisions about the universe.
Personally, my “God” is the Universe. I don’t define or believe God to be like a person at all, but the energy and fabric of the Universe around us, the source which our souls, consciousness, whatever comes from.
But I also believe in science. I believe the Earth is round. I look up at the stars in awe of our place in this mysterious universe. I love learning about theoretical physics, quantum physics, string theory, cosmology, and on and on.
As I continue to listen to the podcast, a question forms in my mind.
Why am I really upset by this? What about this is fundamentally bothering me?
Holding multiple perspectives: No one size fits all.
Here’s another thing I believe: It doesn’t matter if I don’t agree with everything any one person believes or advocates for; life and people would be so damn dull if I did, if we all did.
I remembered a thought I worked out for myself a while back. Of all my beliefs, it is one of my favorites, and it all boils down to perspective.
Religion is a perspective. Different denominations of Christianity, for example, have different perspectives on the basis of their shared beliefs.
Science is a perspective. Different branches of science have differing perspectives grounded in the context of their respective hermeneutics.
Love is a perspective. Romantic, familial, platonic, communal.
Spirituality and atheism and everything in between are all perspectives.
Some perspectives can complement each other in a person’s mind. And there are those that seem to be taboo to one another.
An individual’s point of view can be informed by overlapping perspectives. We can hold opposing perspectives within ourselves, and thanks to cognitive dissonance, we live with it whether or not we feel comfort by it.
I am bothered by Neil’s perspective of religious and spiritual people (which is informed by his perspective of science) for the same (if not at least extremely similar) reasons he is bothered by the perspective of such people.
It is a common challenge for us humans to continually imagine and hold mental space for the fact that each one of the 8 billion of us on this rock in flying through cold space has a rich, textured, complex life just as we do.
No singular perspective can cover the entirety of everything in our reality. It just can’t.
But we pretend there is.
There are mysteries in science. We don’t know where eels come from. We can’t explain how supermassive black holes grow to their enormous size.
A religious person might say, “It’s God’s work.”
A scientist would say, “We don’t know, but we have a few theories based on what we do know.”
I, personally, don’t see anything untrue or wrong with either perspective.
Because for both of them, that is what is true where they stand.
And I believe so long as one is not impeding on the other, threatening that perspectives very existence, let it be.
Here’s another thing to consider.
I’ve explained myself a bit here. I’m spiritual and a bit woo-woo. But I love science and critical thinking.
Depending on the context of the conversation or the topic at hand, I may dawn my spiritual perspective or my scholarly perspective or my business perspective or my relationship perspective.
And sometimes, like at 3 something-in-the-morning, I have a little trouble shuffling between my perspectives.
What I’ve come to learn, or at least decide for myself, is that it’s okay to consider my different perspectives. There will be times when one is more appropriate for context than the other.
Shifting internally in my point of view doesn’t negate or neglect what else is true for me.
And entertaining multiple perspectives allows me the openness to hear someone else and not shut down completely when I brush up against a belief that doesn’t match mine.
Is Believing in a Higher Power the Same as Believing a Conspiracy Theory?
Michael Shermer takes a moment before answering Neil’s question. The conversation focuses more on whether there is a correlation between religious beliefs and being susceptible to extreme conspiracy theories.
I get the impression that Neil equates belief in a higher power or faith in wild conspiracy theories with an individual being gullible.
Considering the context of the podcast, the emerging narratives and conspiracy theories in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic is much louder and alarming than in the past.
Maybe we have always been collectively a bit unhinged, but communities are united globally and instantaneously thanks to the internet. Perhaps enough people got so incredibly bored they fell down a few rabbit holes.
This comparison of God and conspiracy is unfair and borders on inappropriate.
My perspective on a relationship with a higher power and my belief in that higher power doesn’t quite apply to my perspective on conspiracy theories and why some believe them.
Here’s the thing about these recent conspiracy theories coming into vogue. Over the past few months, I’ve seen old friends and previous co-workers sharing links on Facebook and posts on Instagram about a few of these topics.
I think one strong thread to follow was the “documentary” series shared on YouTube called Fall Cabal or Fall of the Cabal. It can be found out there on the interwebs if you care enough to watch or read about it.
Frankly, the information shared is overwhelming, seemingly unrelated, crescendoing in an implied grand reveal of what is truly behind the COVID-19 outbreak.
I’ve always been into conspiracy theories, with the caveat of the suspense of disbelief, entertainment value, and playful skepticism of “well, what if?” but not taking it as fact.
Basically, this isn’t new to me. A lot of the “information” shared in the Fall Cabal videos I had already heard.
But now, it seems like everyone’s mother has boarded the QAnon train.
So, I can see where Neil has connected the dots between the current conspiracy climate and the intense energy of evangelical or extreme religious belief.
I don’t appreciate the generalization, but I can understand where he’s coming from. Still, there is a sprawling spectrum of beliefs — the religious and spiritual intersecting with the skeptical and conspiratorial.
Outside of the context of the episode’s topic, I think it’s fair to say his position is close-minded.
While I admire and respect his work, and continue to be a fan of his content, it’s okay to be critical, especially when examining my own position on these matters.
This is the point of critical thinking: to recognize the discomfort, examine it, check-in with yourself, consider what you are being told, and look at the conclusions you land on.
I hold no space to believe or give any credit to the notion that just because you believe in God or a higher power means you are destined to fall for “lies,” which I think is what Neil was leaning towards.
Simply because you don’t believe in something, doesn’t mean that experience of such a belief isn’t vibrantly real for someone else.
I’m much more willing to make an argument that religious institutions are a part of some conspiracy rather than the idea of God. One thing I would like for Neil to understand is the distinction between faith and religion.
His initial question was poorly constructed, and maybe — just maybe — he saw an opportunity to bring the concept of God under the microscope of spotting a conspiracy.
Ultimately, I feel kind of bad for Neil because if I were to have an opportunity to have a one-on-one dialogue with him on the subject, I think I would get bored. There wouldn’t be space in the room to entertain the multitude of perspectives to enrich the conversation fodder.
Instead of turning off the podcast in defiance, I let it play out before I finally drifted off. More or less undisturbed and reaching a deeper understanding at least with myself.
I consider that a win.
This article also appears on Medium.