Popular Tyson quote isn't profound, but is convenient

Bible Brian
Aug 11
10 min read

What's the difference between Christianity and all other religions? The simplest and most obvious answer is "it's true". But if a Christian is sloppy enough to grab that particular low hanging fruit, an atheist will immediately point out that a Muslim will say the same about Islam, a Hindu will say it about Hinduism, a Buddhist will say it about Buddhism, and so on and so forth. There is not a single thing a person can believe in that they will not affirm is true. At least, not if they have any conviction.

So of course, it's easy to shut down, and atheists are quick to do so. It is quite surprising, then, that one of the most popular quotes on the internet is atheist Neil DeGrasse Tyson saying "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." This single quote has spawned hundreds of memes, including the AZ Quotes meme shown in the header image. It is treated as if it is some profound, poetic revelation. Or even, as kids these days would say, a "sick burn".

The reason atheists love this quote, which can be said by any other person about any other thing they believe in, is because atheists are like any other people, and it is being said about something they believe in. Thus, while they would ordinarily mock anyone else for acting this way, they happily do it themselves.

But Christians can afford to respond differently. While we could mock them into hiding, pointing out that anyone - including us - can say the exact same thing about their views, we can instead affirm Tyson's quote, both the specific application, and the broader implications, simply because Tyson is affirming our common ground.

See, contrary to the common false dichotomy, Christians believe in science. In fact, historically speaking, we invented it. We actually see it as an act of worship, honoring the Creator by studying His creation. Of course, within the ethical guidelines He has put in place. Things like lying, torture, and murder, are obviously unacceptable.

But there is a distinction between "science" (the field of study dealing with the natural world) and "scientists" (the real human beings who engage in such study). A scientist, and even a group of scientists, can err. Thus, even the most sincerely formulated and presented scientific theory can be wrong. However, the reason a scientific theory can be wrong is because there are objective laws by which even the most stubborn scientist is bound.

This is why Tyson's own beliefs about the origins, nature, and purpose of the universe (collectively, his "religion") are wrong, regardless of his level of faith. When Tyson speaks about "science" being true whether you believe it or not, he is not speaking of these natural laws that bind all living beings. Rather, he is speaking about Naturalism (the belief that only natural laws and forces operate within the universe), Scientism (the belief that science is the only valid method of determining truth), and the myriad of silly stories produced by men who hold those philosophies.

To give an example of this, let's take the question "how old is the Earth?" Already, this is a historical claim, not a scientific one. But it is a question of objective truth. The Earth cannot have multiple ages. If, as current religious thought has it, it is 4.5 billion years old, it cannot be 6,000 years old. Similarly, if it is only 6,000 years old, it cannot be 4.5 billion years old.

These, of course, aren't the only possibilities. A maximum of one of them can be right, but they can both be wrong. "Science", or more accurately scientists, have proposed a number of uneducated guesses over the years. Originally, even Charles Lyell didn't dare exceed a few hundred thousand years old, he just wanted it to be more than 6,000. As recently as 125 years ago, 500 million years was the "best" guess. If we illogically assume the inerrancy of science, the Earth has aged approximately 75,000 years a day since 1860. That's a lot of birthdays... Maybe the sun is actually just the candles on the Earth's birthday cakes?

If, however, we acknowledge the difference between "science says" and "scientists say", we understand that science can be true whether you believe in it or not, but not everything you are told about science is necessarily true, and it is certainly not beyond question.

So, going back to our example, is the Earth 4.5 billion years, whether you believe it or not? Neil DeGrasse Tyson would likely answer "yes". It is currently a part of his Evolutionist religion, which he equivocates with "science". But as previously shown, this religion frequently changes its narrative. Had he been born in a different era, he might have seen his current beliefs the way he sees Creationism. And if he lives long enough, the story may change again, and he will affirm a different claim as stubbornly as he affirms the current. That is, what he once said was "true whether you believe it or not", he will then say is "false, whether you believe it or not", and expect you to believe the new claim is "true, whether you believe it or not". He will not see the irony.

In the meantime, there are actually scientists who reject Naturalism, Scientism, and the myths based upon it. There are scientists who believe the Earth is around 6,000 years old. There are scientists who believe humans are descended from Adam and Eve. There are scientists who believe abiogenesis is impossible, that man co-existed with dinosaurs, and that the global flood is a far better explanation for marine fossils being found on top of mountains. In short, there are Creationist scientists. Why is this? Simply because there is a distinction between science (the study of the natural world), history (the study of that which happened in the past), and philosophy (the study of questions about reality).

See, science is actually a very limited field. To illustrate this, imagine a human skeleton. Scientifically, you can determine certain facts with relative certainty. Was it male or female? If the skeleton is sufficiently complete, this can be determined scientifically. What was its name? This is something that cannot be determined scientifically. You would need some kind of record to match the body to. How old is the skeleton? There are certain markers which might help here, but scientifically, this is going to get foggy. No reliable dating methods exist. Even radiometric dating, such as Carbon 14 dating, has been known to give disparate ages for the same body. Not to mention it has dated dinosaurs to within a few 10s of thousands of years old, meaning the method, the narrative, or both must be doubted.

Notice how even a single hypothetical skeleton has multiple attributes with which science will interact very differently. Some things can be proven beyond reasonable doubt using science. Other things, science can't even begin to study.

But there are other fields in existence. Fields such as history. There is some overlap, limited though it is, but the two fields are mostly separate. Science cannot tell you what your birth certificate can, nor can your birth certificate tell you what science can. Similarly, science can't tell you who won the Battle of Hastings, or even when it took place. For that, you look to the history books.

The good thing about history is that it's true, whether or not you believe in it. And the Christian faith actually has a lot more to do with history than with science. Not that there is no overlap whatsoever, but Christianity involves far more history than science. In fact, our chief claim is a central historical event: The resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Very few historians would doubt that Christ was crucified. The Gospels even give details which, from a scientific perspective, give us more reason to believe it happened. The "blood and water" coming from His spear wound, for example, would be how a 1st century witness described serous fluid, which would have built up in His chest cavity due to severe trauma and asphyxiation.

The same witnesses who described Jesus' death went to (or, at the very least, risked) their own deaths proclaiming His resurrection in the same way. It was, by no means, a profitable endeavor. The only way for these men to gain from proselytising this faith is if it's true. One can hardly imagine Neil DeGrasse Tyson willingly enduring what the disciples endured for his nonsense. Most people will not die, or even suffer, for what they believe is true. Why, then, would we assume the Apostles would give their lives for something they knew they made up?

For men like Tyson, the answer is Naturalism. In fact, Tyson is known for another quote: "If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem." In Tyson's mind, and in the minds of men like him, the only reason to "invoke" God is when science doesn't have an answer. That is, the famous "God of the gaps" argument.

But this logic has its own flaw in that it assumes for "science" what it accuses Christians of assuming for God. While atheists will laugh if a Theist looks at an unexplained natural phenomenon and invoke God, Naturalism requires them to look at an unexplained supernatural event and invoke nature!

Let's look at the resurrection as our example. Current Naturalistic thought would contend that Jesus never rose. Therefore, however asinine their alternative theories become - the women went to the wrong tomb, the disciples stole the body, swoon theory etc. - they are seen as preferable to the resurrection because they are naturalistic. Naturally, death is permanent, and so when Jesus died, a Naturalist would assume He stayed dead, however that happened.

But now let's imagine they somehow invent time travel. They go back in time, they watch Jesus die, they observe Him from cross to tomb, they verify His death from within the tomb, they monitor His vitals, and finally, against all expectations, on the third day, His heart starts to beat again. In absolute awe, they watch as this previously broken corpse walks out of His tomb as a healthy, happy man. The resurrection is confirmed, but... you're invoking the "God of the gaps" if you dare say "God did it".

This is the epistemological flaw of Naturalism. It is a philosophy that allows one to go as far as acknowledging Jesus rose from the dead, but utterly bars them from attributing this to a supernatural cause. They may simply say there is a natural cause we do not yet understand.

Of course, time travel is pure sci-fi. There will never be a functioning time machine, or even a timeoscope. The past will always be unobservable, irreversible, and eternally settled. Thus, atheists can afford to continue making up increasingly unhinged conspiracy theories that allow them to deny He ever rose. But we needn't look at something as grandiose as the resurrection. If the supernatural exists in any capacity, even if it's as simple as the existence of the soul, Naturalism rules out that conclusion a priori. This is why atheists like Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, and others, flat out admit that nothing could convince them to believe, simply because they can always interpret a supernatural experience as having a naturalistic explanation they just don't understand yet.

So what does that mean for Tyson's original claim, that science is true whether or not you believe in it? It means he is simultaneously indisputably correct, while also being completely and utterly beyond necessary correction! Science is true because there are laws to which we genuinely are bound, because, as Loren Eilsley puts it, we are "...dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation...". When God makes a clock, you can be sure it'll tick once per second, and if you follow it, you'll never be late for work.

But there's a difference between the watch and the watchmaker. Science can tell us about the former, but only one thing can tell us about the latter: The Creator Himself. Whether you believe His word or not, rest assured it is true. But you would be better to believe it, because this faith alone spares us the consequences of the alternative.

See, atheism is a symptom of a much larger problem: Sin. This is yet another of those things science cannot study. It can tell you what is, it can't tell you what should be. But we are all the things we shouldn't be. We, as human beings, are liars, thieves, adulterers, murderers, and of course, the source of all of these things, we are blasphemers. When God says "thou shalt not", we do. When God says "thou shalt", we don't. And so we cling to absurdities like Evolution, all to enable us to remain in the sins that earn His wrath. And as a God of justice, He is utterly required, by His own nature, to execute it.

But while justice would see us burn for eternity, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Rather, He prefers all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Therefore, He made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we may become the righteousness of God in Him. The criteria to receive this gift is faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. But if we confess the Lord Jesus, and believe in our hearts that God, not nature, raised Him from the dead, we shall be saved.

To me, the choice seems obvious. If Naturalism is true, your death is inevitable, and your eternal fate is identical whatever you do. This inevitably leads the logically consistent man to Nihilism. But being logically incoherent in and of itself, it seems to be a duff choice. It is based on nothing, and it leads to nothing.

But the resurrection is as sure as the crucifixion. Nothing short of cognitive dissonance would allow us to believe the same men who testified to the former would give their lives for the latter, if indeed the latter was a story. Jesus rose, and He rose for you. It is a gift, and one you should certainly wish to receive. And it is free to do so.