Neil deGrasse Tyson
New York City
Flags of Our Fathers
Friday, December 7, 2012
New York Times
To the Editor:
For most of my life I’ve wondered if the December 7, 1941, Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, in which 2,400 Americans died, would ever fade emotionally—perhaps as the event became more of a distant memory, or as those who witnessed it passed away. On December 7, 1991, Pearl Harbor’s fiftieth anniversary, I figured that one remembers tragedy as long as a bigger, more recent tragedy does not arise to block your view through time. Indeed, ten years later, on December 7, 2001, a mere three months after three thousand Americans had died from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, hardly any attention was given to Pearl Harbor, except perhaps as a yardstick for how to take measure of September 11th. If sustained peace and tranquility prevails, that will be good, but will carry the necessary consequence that my view of 9/11 itself will remain unobstructed, for better or for worse.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
New York City
Heavy Metal
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Mr. Tyson,
It is a pleasure to be writing to you. I’ve become a big fan since I first saw you on The Daily Show (maybe The Colbert Report). My girlfriend and I very much appreciate your views, humor, and approach to such interesting subject matter. The reason I write you today is regarding some of the disputed science of the 9/11 events. I know you were there on the day and if this is in anyway inappropriate or a subject you wish not to touch on, I apologize and respect that.
My concern is the melting point of steel and if the 3 towers, including WTC-7 (the 3rd tower to collapse) could have been brought down the way they were without the use of controlled demolition. Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth, has a very interesting traveling show which he uses to try and open up people to the idea that the Trade Center towers were indeed brought down by controlled demolition. I encourage you to see his show in person or speak with him if you ever have the chance.
Please let me know your opinion, whatever it may be, at your convenience. A subject like this could really use the opinion of respected mind like yourself. I hope all is well and thank you so much for your time!
Simon Naylor
Dear Mr. Naylor,
For any unique event, there will always be elements that one cannot explain, since they occur without precedent.
But one must always recognize the difference between knowing that something is true, knowing that something is not true, and not knowing one way or another. It’s the not knowing part that leaves singular events susceptible to inventive accounts (especially from conspiracy theorists) of what may have happened.
And, of course, conspiracy theorists know the answers before they investigate, which contaminates their analysis—seducing them to accept what supports their thesis and reject or ignore or not notice that which conflicts with it. This psychological effect is well known in research communities, which is why peer-review is so important.
The controlled demolition hypothesis required that the towers collapse at a near gravitational free-fall. The rapid fall of the towers was widely cited by the 9/11 deniers as evidence of this. I found the claim intriguing and tested it. From video coverage of the event, I timed the collapse of each tower. They in fact took about twice as long to fall when compared with free fall. This can be established from equations you learn in freshman physics.
I told this to a 9/11 denier on an impassioned email chain and he quickly wrote back, with dozens of people cc’ed, that I was lying and that I was in collaboration with the government.
Meanwhile, the 9/11 deniers are not citing the much-slower-than-free-fall of the towers as strong evidence against their case.
What tends to feed them are unexplained aspects of the day’s events, stitching them together in ways that support their case. Forgetting of course that they are unexplained, and therefore support or deny nobody’s case.
Sincerely,
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Symbolism, Myth, and Ritual
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Dear Neil deGrasse Tyson,
I hope you won’t find the following questions too strange. What I am after is being able to answer, based on the research I’ve done into ancient and esoteric sources, whether there might be any merit to the idea that the attacks (as strange as this may sound) could have been coordinated with the movements of certain celestial bodies in mind. To be able to write about this possibility critically I need an accurate sense of just where these bodies were on the day of and, more particularly, during the attacks, which started (for the purposes of my research) at 8:46am and concluded at 10:28am.
I have a strong interest in symbolism, myth and ritual, and thought I would try to bring a degree of academic seriousness and integrity to the conversation on the ritual aspect of human violence, however it might be seen to manifest. I would be interested in any thoughts you might have to share.
Thank you for any time you might be able to give this.
Sincerely,
Tom Breidenbach
Dear Tom,
People perennially over-interpret celestial events. The urge to link terrestrial affairs to cosmic phenomena is strong and deep.
Consider that an event can be rare but uninteresting. This happens all the time in the cosmos and fools people into assigning meaning when none is there to be had. For example, the exact crescent moon/Venus combination in the sky that appeared a couple of months ago will not repeat for 5,000 years. But there are 5,000 other juxtapositions of the crescent moon/Venus that will also not repeat for 5,000 years. Which means you get some sort of a crescent moon/Venus combination every year.
So when an event is declared rare, absent the context of the frequency of similar rare events, then superstitious people tend to assign irrational significance when none is there. The numerology that followed September 11, 2001 (regarding the date and year) looked quite fertile, until you realize that practically any date and year, in the hands of a determined person, will generate troves of numerical coincidences, giving the illusion that the date under study bears special significance.
And just words of caution, as you look for otherwise unstated metaphysical significance of earthly events: Terrorist attacks often commemorate previous Earth-based events or attacks, without reference to the universe.
Neil
* A heavily forwarded email that became the subject of an article in the Wall Street Journal a week later on the widespread use of the World Wide Web to communicate the tragic news of the day.
† My worst fears for the death toll were much too high. I imagined at the time 25,000 deaths—the loss of two fully loaded, 110-story office buildings. But the Towers were far from full with people that early in the morning. The death toll from all three locations—NYC, DC, PA—came “only” to 2,998 people, with 2,606 of those dying in the World Trade Center itself.
Chapter 9
To Believe or Not to Believe
The capacity of the human mind to believe, in the absence of tangible evidence, knows no bounds. Those who wrote to me about their beliefs, in almost all cases, were trying to win me over to their side, but were also authentically curious. As an educator, I had no hesitation engaging them, but I’m also genuinely curious about all the ways a person’s mind can be wired for thought in our perennial attempt to make sense of the world.
The Eye of God
Friday, May 20, 2005
From the Internet . . .
God is looking back in the other end of the telescope?
NASA CALLS IT THE EYE OF GOD
This was entirely too cool not to share!
This is a real picture . . .
Could that be an actual photo?
Fond regards to you & your family,
Niki Branford*
Hi Niki,
Real photo. Real object in our Milky Way galaxy
called the “Helix Nebula,” a.k.a.ngc7293. Taken by the Hubble Space Telescope.
The urge to look up, see something beautiful, and call it God is strong. In the first century AD, the famous astronomer and mathematician Claudius Ptolemy felt that way as he studied the motions of the planets against the background stars and penned:
“When I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the Heavenly Bodies, I no longer touch earth with my feet. I stand in the presence of Zeus himself, and take my fill of ambrosia.”†
One of my favorite quotes of all time.
What has always intrigued me, however, are all the other things that go on in nature, in this same universe, yet people do not feel compelled to wax poetic about the majesty of God. Like rapid-growth cancer cells, fatal birth defects, killer tsunamis, killer earthquakes, killer volcanoes, killer hurricanes, killer asteroids, the Ebola virus, lethal parasites, malaria-carrying mosquitoes, plague-carrying rats, Lyme disease, heart disease, stroke, appendicitis, species extinction . . . the list is long—practically endless. And how about the equally long list of ghastly things to look at in nature? Such as a close-up image of the dust-mite, or a close-up view of the underbelly of a tarantula, or the sucking jaws of a leech, or the slimy trail of a banana slug, or the flea-infested underbelly of a dog . . . and so forth.
So when I see the Helix nebula, I simply see a strikingly beautiful part of our galaxy, but with no particular urge to credit or blame anybody for it.
Neil
Thinking for Yourself
In December 2011, on the internet chat universe of Reddit, I was asked what books should be read by every intelligent person on the planet. I replied with a ranked list of eight volumes, each accompanied by a short phrase explaining why. I ranked the Bible No. 1, but my comment irked many a believer. A few years later, catching up with the comments in the thread, I posted a response.
The list . . .
1.The Bible
“ . . . to learn that it’s easier to be told by others what to think and believe than it is to think for yourself”
2.The System of the World by Isaac Newton
“ . . . to learn that the universe is a knowable place.”
3.On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
“ . . . to learn of our kinship with all other life on Earth.”
4.Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift
“ . . . to learn, among other satirical lessons, that most of the time humans are Yahoos.”
5.The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine
“ . . . to learn how the power of rational thought is the primary source of freedom in the world.”
6.The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
“ . . . to learn that capitalism is an economy of greed, a force of nature unto itself.”
7.The Art of War by Sun Tzu
“ . . . to learn that the act of killing fellow humans can be raised to an art.”
8.The Prince by Machiavelli
“ . . . to learn that people not in power will do all they can to acquire it, and people in power will do all they can to keep it.”
Why is my comment on the Bible so non-complimentary?
1.The Judeo-Christian Bible is likely the greatest (single) source of tribalistic conflict the world has ever known. I have no problems with those who assert that people’s warped interpretations are what is reprehensible and not the Bible itself. But that does not absolve people who behave in these ways not from free thought but from Biblical passages asserted to be divine in origin. This conduct germinates hierarchies based on unassailable authority—dogma. When you are under the influence of dogma, you say, do, and think what others tell you to. And that’s always easier than thinking for yourself or resisting the powers that established the dogma in the first place.
2.Of course religion is not the sole source of dogma in the world. There’s political dogma, as well as cultural & ethnic dogma. There’s even, on occasion, scientific dogma. But science contains the methods and tools within itself to ferret it out, so dogma in science doesn’t last long when it arises. Consider also that scientists hardly ever wield power. So when science becomes dogma in a country, it’s usually because a political system that is itself dogma has adopted it. Nazi Germany and communist Lysenko Russia are, perhaps, the best example of this.
3.A reminder that the task I was given was to list books I felt that an educated person should read—books that would impart insight into the human condition and the trajectories of civilization that derive from it. The conduct of people who have tribalized after reading the Bible—people who have participated in a kind of “group-think”—are responsible for shaping large swaths of Western human history. All of which leads to my single sentence that “it is easier to be told by others what to think and believe than it is to think for yourself.”
For these reasons, I maintain the intent and significance of that sentence.
Respectfully Submitted
Neil deGrasse Tyson, New York City
God and the Afterlife
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Hello Dr. Tyson,
My question to you is (and I’m sure it will seem like a loaded one), do you believe in a supernatural being such as God and the prospects of an afterlife? If not, then what, or how, do you explain it (the concept of religion and why some believe) to your children?
As I have pondered this question for some time, I asked myself that if God and an afterlife is not real, then why has this concept become so fundamental to human societies from the beginning of their existence.
Your time and answers will be appreciated, but in the end, I will probably still say my prayers because the little investment of faith can’t hurt—just in case He’s up there and there is something more after my body has passed away.
Webster Baker
Dear Mr. Baker,
I’ve yet to be convinced by anything I see on Earth or in the universe that anyone or any intelligent entity is in charge.
I teach my children about all the world’s major religions. Not pejoratively but anthropologically, which is, I think, a sensible way to broach comparative religion. In this way, they know that while there are multiple belief systems in the world regarding God and gods, there is only one science, and that science is the same no matter your birthplace, on Earth or anywhere else in the cosmos.
I do not know whether God is real. I simply know that the people who cite evidence in favor of God have overlooked the preponderance of evidence against it.
Other widespread and timeless activities of human societies include war and infidelity and power struggles and slavery and exploitation. Just because something endures within and across cultures does not mean it is good or correct or the right thing to do for the future.
As for the urge to believe in an afterlife, note that for most of the history of life on Earth you did not exist. A condition that continued right up until your birth. That is not a hard thought to consider. Nor is it depressing. You simply had no existence or awareness of anything at all. It should therefore not be hard to consider the likelihood that the state of death is no different.
As for saying your prayers, just in case, it reminds me of a story about the horseshoe that hung in Niels Bohr’s office. This famous physicist was asked why he, a man of science, believed in such superstitious things. He’s rumored to have replied, “They tell me it works even if you don’t believe in it.”
Sincerely,
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Seeing Eye to Eye
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Dear Neil,
Hello. My name is Tom. I saw you on the PBS show Origins, where you discussed the beginning of the universe. From as far back as I can remember, I have been fascinated by space, stars, and the moon. I am an amateur radio operator, and currently work for a company that specializes in HAM radio amplifiers and equipment.
I do have to disagree with the whole theory of evolution of this universe and here is why:
&nbs
p; I am a Christian who believes that God created this universe and actually spoke it into being. I can believe that perhaps life could possibly exist elsewhere. I am open to this. The Bible does not mention it, but then again, it does not mention dinosaurs either. You see, Earth was very different in the time of Adam and Eve, before sin entered. There was no sickness or death. Animals did not attack or eat other animals. There were no hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and other things.
I know you think this is crazy. I was told by my professor that science and God could not mix, but science cannot happen without God.
I hope that you and I can possibly see eye to eye with our different viewpoints of origin, for we both love science and nature.
Sincerely,
Tom Rodenstock‡
Dear Tom,
Thank you for your comments. The subject of origins never fails to trigger all manner of reactions. In the end, people tend to place their own filter on it, in ways that best resonate with their personal worldview.
Your point of view derives, of course, from the Judeo-Christian Bible (the Old Testament). The problem here is that plenty of people in the world who are religious believe something else, expressing no less confidence than you do in their specific belief system. The Animists, Buddhists, Confucians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Shintoists, Voduns, etc. are each as certain as you that their beliefs are the moral, correct, and only ones to hold. Not to mention the countless sects within Christianity itself, whose beliefs and traditions all differ in important ways: Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Lutherans, Mormons, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists, and so forth. In the past (and even in the present) differences can drive adherents to commit murder against another sect in the name of their faith.
Letters from an Astrophysicist Page 11