(April 12, 2015 at 5:05 pm)Free Buddhist Wrote: Neil Degrasse Tyson does not believe in any organized Religion and does not believe that there is a personal God who answers prayers. But as to the question of whether there is a Supreme Being whose nature is unknowable or whether the Universe came into existence through 'Spontaneous Creation' - Professor Tyson is decidely Agnostic. This has brought down hatred, vitriol, and rage from Atheists who cannot stand the thought of a Scientist with his stature not agreeing with them. You Tube is full of 'Ad Hominum' attacks against him by religiously fanactical Atheists. As a Buddhist, I believe in a 'Supreme Consciousness'. But the fact that Neil Degrasse Tyson is a free-thinker and is not intimidated by either Fundamentalists or Atheists makes him my Hero. Kudo's to you Professor Tyson. Michio Kaku has stated: "The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has settled the Free Will-Determinism debate in favor of Free Will". This has brought condemnation down upon him from Atheists who feel that Free Will implys a God who passes judgement on people who acted in accordance with their Free Will. But Professor Kaku never stated that there is a Supreme Being who passes Judgement. He simply stated that we have Introspection and Free Will. Fortunently, Professor Kaku does not change his rationalism or logic to appease militant Atheists. Kudo's to you Professor Kaku.
Both of these scientists are among my favorite among modern science popularizes.
I do not care one bit if they claim that is unknown or unknowable whether there is a "Supreme being" that is responsible for the existence of the universe.
Hey wait! That's my position too, and I am still an atheist. What gives?
Maybe not knowing if there is a supreme being, but yet not being convinced there is one, are not mutually exclusive? But that would take the OP an order of thinking a bit higher above his current thinking.
So tell us Free Buddhist, just which gods do Tyson and Kaku believe exist?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
