Bill Nye on ... Pantheism? Hegelianism?

Creation vs. Evolution : Bill Nye Incompetent in Debate · somewhere else : Bill Nye on Historic Science · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Bill Nye on Japanese Tradition · somewhere else : Bill Nye on ... Pantheism? Hegelianism? · Creation vs. Evolution : Bill Nye and Space Rocks

Up to 36:51:

"It's astonishing! So, you and I are made of the same material, as exploded stars. So you and I are at least one of the ways in which the universe knows itself."

If atheism is true, individuals may know the universe, but neither the universe nor anyone speaking more for the universe than individuals (on earth, possibly on other planets) can know it.

On atheistic terms, the universe cannot know anything and on atheistic terms there is no either creator or world soul or universal ruler who can speak on its behalf either. An individual knowing the universe is not the universe knowing itself.

On pantheistic terms, on terms of Hegelianism of a kind C. S. Lewis once believed and then turned his back on, yes, on those terms the universe can know itself, both directly and through individuals.

But - that's not science. It is bad theology, not good natural science. It can hardly even qualify as bad natural science, unless anything blurted out from a scientist's mouth is natural science.

It has nothing to do with how one classifies or mundanely explains phenomena in the universe. It has everything to do with a type of world view which science data as such, with no further processing like philosophy, cannot pronounce itself on.

One of the reasons some have said "if it's a miracle, it isn't science" is, a miracle is possible only on some world views and not others, and science is not supposed to take sides between world views.

Obviously, Bill Nye doesn't share that sentiment, he has no problem championing one world view against another which he thinks scientifically refuted, but also, he doesn't play by it. He blurts out a world view and is still supposed to be a science guy, not required to discuss world views.

Tactic, since his world view is philosophically refuted, for instance by ex-adherent C. S. Lewis, in the book Miracles./HGL

Bill Nye on Historic Science

Creation vs. Evolution : Bill Nye Incompetent in Debate · somewhere else : Bill Nye on Historic Science · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Bill Nye on Japanese Tradition · somewhere else : Bill Nye on ... Pantheism? Hegelianism? · Creation vs. Evolution : Bill Nye and Space Rocks

Here he is:

"As soon as you go back in time, as soon as you have any process of reasoning, that requires a miracle - then it's not science."

Like up to 29:34 from a little before in AiG's full length video of the Ark tour he got with Ken Ham.

In answer : the past is studied by record, not by science, primarily. And science can record miracles, or events requiring one, like medical doctors surrounding Lourdes have recorded so and so arriving with such and such a diagnosis and leaving with no longer that diagnosis.

His idea about how to evaluate what happened in the past is very like Khaldoun's and very like Hume's (neither of them being a scientist), but also it mixes up the question what is the primary discipline, namely history, not science, he considers it as being science, not history./HGL

PS Later on, seconds up to 36:25

"You went back to a miracle"

He finds it so evident to everyone once he has said it that he thinks he can invoke it in the rest of the discussion. Yes, we know he thinks science is the proper study of the past and we know he thinks science cannot register miracles. He doesn't seem to know we know and we disagree, on both points.

I think there is such a word or phrase as "being dense" .../HGL