Brian Cox

[BashfulAnthony]

Interesting quote from the professor, discussing his new tv series.  Asked about his views on God, he replied, "There is naivety in just saying there’s no God; it’s b------s,” he says. “People have thought about this. People like Leibniz and Kant. They’re not idiots."

[Shaker]

Argument from authority, that's called.

Shame; you'd think he'd know better.

P.S. That quote is an old one - nothing to do with any "new" TV series which I think you'll find is now rather old.

[Maeght]

The full quote is “Philosophers would rightly point out that physicists making bland and sweeping statements is naive. There is naivety in just saying there’s no God; it’s b------s. People have thought about this. People like Leibniz and Kant. They’re not idiots. So you’ve got to at least address that.” So he's saying not really saying that to say there is no God is b-------s but to just say there is no God is b-------s.

[Shaker]

Cox is an atheist so the most likely explanation for his comment is the oldest: diplomacy when dealing with the general public (and especially when dealing with journalists, who twist, distort, slant and misrepresent more easily than they breathe). Darwin, much more critical of religion in private than usually supposed, took this to a fairly extreme degree. The first accomodationist, as it were.

[SusanDoris]

To try and invoke Prof Brian Cox as in any way at all a supporter of religious belief is really clutching at straws, I think.

[Bubbles]

There is an article about him here, with an interview

http://www.avclub.com/article/professor-brian-cox-59892

He describes himself as: (below is part of the interview with the question he was asked to give it context.)

AVC: The series opens with your visit to Shiva’s temple in Kathmandu. You start there with this notion from the Hindu religion that from destruction comes life. It is why they have an elaborate cremation ceremony, to feed into this notion of the cycle of life, to return the body and the soul to earth in order for it to be reborn, in a way. You then say, in passing, that this ancient belief “touches on a deeper truth about how the universe works.” This is an extremely roundabout way to get to a simple question: Do you believe in God?

BC: No. [Laughs.] But I’m not an atheist in the form of Richard Dawkins. And I know Richard and I like him a lot. But there’s kind of an antagonistic atheism, which I don’t support, although I don’t believe in God at all. Sagan wrote a very famous essay called “Religion And Science: An Alliance,” where he pointed out that really what you want in the world is a coalition of people of goodwill to move things forward. He was thinking, at the time, about nuclear disarmament, because in the ’70s that was the great threat. Now, you’ve got threats to the climate, you’ve got threats with conflicts, which are in part driven by clashes of civilizations and clashes of extremist religions. So I think you can be quite pragmatic about it and say, “Even if I thought it was a good idea, I’m not going to convince everybody in the world that they should give up religion.” It’s not going to happen.

I have a good friend who is a Dean of Guildford Cathedral—that’s kind of the highest religious position in the U.K. I don’t share his particular beliefs, but we do share a vision that sensible people could come together to make progress, to build a more tolerant world. So that’s my view.

Whilst I’m not religious at all, I do not have an issue what I will call “moderate religion.” I do have a big issue with things like Young Earth creationism, because it’s shit. I have no patience at all for people who think the world is 6,000 years old. It isn’t. The universe is 13.73 plus or minus 0.12 billion years old, given our data at the moment and our understanding of the way it evolved. And that’s it! But the thing is, in Britain anyway, most—what I will call “sensible” religious people—don’t think that their particular religion has anything to say about the age of the Earth. I’ve pointed to some writing by St. Augustine, a venerated Christian theologian from many years ago, he pointed out that once you begin to read the Bible literally then you open it to ridicule and ultimately that’s the path to the downfall of the religion. It is. Because it’s not a textbook. St. Augustine knew that. It’s not as if this is new thinking. It is a statement of the obvious. 

👍

[Hope]

To try and invoke Prof Brian Cox as in any way at all a supporter of religious belief is really clutching at straws, I think.

I find the reactions that have come so far on this thread to be pretty moronic.  Susan, your suggestion that BA is invoking 'Prof Brian Cox as in any way at all a supporter of religious belief' is perhaps even more crass than what you are accusing BA of. 

Shaker's

Argument from authority, that's called.

Shame; you'd think he'd know better.

seems to forget that if this is an argument from anything, its an argument from breadth, as opposed to 'from authority' (something that he himself seems to rely on, despite appearing to criticise here).

From my point of view, its nice to hear an eminintly sensible scientist, albeit an atheist, actually backing up what most scientists who are Christians say - that the Young Earth Creationist position has no validity - and using Christian documentation as well as scientific documentation to support that view.

[Nearly Sane]

His position is not a million love songs away from mine though I would add in evolution to the whole statement against YECs

[Shaker]

Shaker's ... seems to forget that if this is an argument from anything, its an argument from breadth, as opposed to 'from authority' (something that he himself seems to rely on, despite appearing to criticise here).

Wrong. An argument from authority is lazily throwing in some big names and expecting the spectator to be impressed not with the strength of the arguments - the clarity and logical rigour of the thinking - but the mere fact that they're big names.

Clearly there are some occasions in life when not authority but expertise is a perfectly right, proper and valid thing to invoke - the former flows from the latter, not vice versa. In "debating" with a creationist the knowledge of an evolutionary biologist is what you need; when trying to make the perfect sponge cake you'd be better off with Mary Berry than Steve Jones. That's not relying on authority because the worth of such people isn't predicated on eminence but on expertise - people who achieve eminence in their respective fields do so on the basis of that expertise and not vice versa, which is precisely where the argument from authority gets it arse-backwards. Nobody, no matter how eminent, has any expertise in gods. Certainly there are some forlorn individuals who have expertise in the non-subject known as theology (currently being discussed on another thread), but that's merely "expertise" in other people's beliefs and opinions about gods ... a fatuous and forlorn endeavour indeed.

From my point of view, its nice to hear an eminintly sensible scientist, albeit an atheist

That's the vast majority of them by a long way, then

[Bubbles]

His position is not a million love songs away from mine though I would add in evolution to the whole statement against YECs

Yes he strikes me as being very sensible.

I like the way he says he isn't into "antagonistic atheism".

I think it is why I'm not keen on the BHS and the NSS. ( my perception is they are, very much so)

I wish they came across as well as Prof Brian Cox, I think they would get more support and would be more representative of what they claim to support.

[Shaker]

Yes he strikes me as being very sensible.

I like the way he says he isn't into "antagonistic atheism".

Amazing how low the bar is set for "antagonism" (see also: militancy) when it comes to criticising baseless beliefs, isn't it?

[Gordon]

I'd have to say that for as long as even relatively moderate religious people would really like to have direct access to our young, impressionable and easily influenced children during their education so as to proselytise then I've no problem with robust atheism.

I don't see why, when encountering say those of the YEC variety, I should need to diplomatically dance around their intransigent and ill-informed idiocy.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes he strikes me as being very sensible.

I like the way he says he isn't into "antagonistic atheism".

I think it is why I'm not keen on the BHS and the NSS. ( my perception is they are, very much so)

I wish they came across as well as Prof Brian Cox, I think they would get more support and would be more representative of what they claim to support.

I am not really sure what antagonistic atheism is. As Shaker refers to the word militant gets thrown about very easily. There is a poisoning of the well here

[Shaker]

I am not really sure what antagonistic atheism is.

I think it's when somebody is an atheist and says so and explains why 

[Bubbles]

I'd have to say that for as long as even relatively moderate religious people would really like to have direct access to our young, impressionable and easily influenced children during their education so as to proselytise then I've no problem with robust atheism.

I don't see why, when encountering say those of the YEC variety, I should need to diplomatically dance around their intransigent and ill-informed idiocy.

I don't see the YEC variety as being moderate, do you?

Relatively moderate religious people seem to be more concerned about being given some say in what their children are taught in school and that they have the opportunity to pass on their own values, rather than those of anti religious antagonists.

[Bubbles]

I think it's when somebody is an atheist and says so and explains why 

No it's a form of aggressive evangelical Atheism.

[Shaker]

... which in practice amounts to precisely what I've already said.

[Gordon]

I don't see the YEC variety as being moderate, do you?

Relatively moderate religious people seem to be more concerned about being given some say in what their children are taught in school and that they have the opportunity to pass on their own values, rather than those of anti religious antagonists.

They can do so as regards their own children of course, but unless they opt for private education then they can do so in their own time. It took intervention to keep them away from mine while my kids were in primary school.

If acts of religious observance were on an opt-in basis then fine; but that wasn't the case. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Me,

I am not really sure what antagonistic atheism is. As Shaker refers to the word militant gets thrown about very easily. There is a poisoning of the well here

I think it's when somebody is an atheist and says so and explains why

No it's a form of aggressive evangelical Atheism.

... which in practice amounts to precisely what I've already said.

 

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To try and invoke Prof Brian Cox as in any way at all a supporter of religious belief is really clutching at straws, I think.

Yes but he has been invoked and your brand of outraged atheism has been exposed for what it is.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Santa, ( bah humbug )

Angry atheist.

Arrogant atheist.

Antagonistic atheist.

Aggressive atheist.

And that's only the A's.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cox is an atheist so the most likely explanation for his comment is the oldest:

Yes Dawkins had the ear of the public and a post to promote the reasonableness of science. He fucked it up by banging on about God and religion and queered the pitch for others in the public awareness of science business.

That's what you really meant to say, isn't it Shaker?

[Shaker]

No. I find that generally what I mean to say is what I actually say, being fortunate enough not to suffer any interruptions between cognition and motor skills.

[BashfulAnthony]

To try and invoke Prof Brian Cox as in any way at all a supporter of religious belief is really clutching at straws, I think.

If you are referring to me, then kindly quote where I said any such thing.  I simply quoted what I heard him say, about the Big Bang.  So, don't put words and meanings into what I say:  it's scurrilous.

[Shaker]

If you are referring to me, then kindly quote where I said any such thing.  I simply quoted what I heard him say, about the Big Bang.  So, don't put words and meanings into what I say:  it's scurrilous.

What indicates that he was talking about the Big Bang?

If he was doing so, why did you post a quote of his which included God, Leibniz (he of the nice biscuits, presumably) and Kant, instead of something like the cosmic microwave background or the Hubble constant?