Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

For example, the way you wrote it makes it seem like the NT would not qualify as “intense scrutiny of multiple examinations being performed by different teams of qualified individuals”. As SteveII has abundantly demonstrated to willfully ignorant ears, nothing could be further from the truth. The NT is not a single source; the bible is a summary collection of accounts and letters by various authors from disparate populations. Asking for sources outside the NT is like saying various reference materials don’t count if they come from the same library! Even then there actually are extra-biblical written records, even if like everything from the ancient world, there are only a handful. These illuminate cultural practices of the NT era, like customs for criminal burials, that support the biblical narrative. Archaeology has located everything from inscriptions mentioning Pilate to the pool of Bethesda, these too support the biblical narratives. [1] It is one thing to say that none of that evidence supports (proves) the Resurrection, [2] it is a completely different thing to say there is no evidence at all.

From my observations, regarding the NT, the posters here are saying that it does not provide any evidence for [1] along with claims for the existence of a god; thus, [2] is the conclusion in regards to [1]. Do you see thing differently?

My position is that people are justified in believing that things are as they appear to be until shown otherwise, i.e. that some ideas are properly basic and one of those ideas is that some divine agency is operative in the world. Nature appears teleological. People instinctively sense a transcendent moral order.  Synchronicities abound. Uncanny personal experiences are ubiquitous. The list goes on and on. To all appearances the world does seem saturated with the divine. Now, maybe it isn’t. Maybe that is only how things appear but not how they actually are. Of course that is possible, but one needs sound reasons for denying what seems to be the case.

Out of curiosity, is "the idea that some divine agency is operative in the world" actually properly basic to humanity, or is it a particular way of thinking that certain groups of people have cultivated over the years, which has resulted in it being labeled as properly basic (especially by people who think that way)?  Does this properly basic idea of divine agency only apply to those individuals who choose to think in a theistic way? Can't secular approaches to interpreting reality also be seen as properly basic, especially to those individuals who do not think in a theistic manner?