Neil deGrasse Tyson Has Sex Allegations against Him

[MineralMan]

I suppose that's big news, although I wonder how many people even know who he is.

One group that does, however, is Creationist-oriented Christians. They know who he is, because he's a prominent atheist who regularly destroys their logic publicly. So, a scandal connected to him is somehow seen as a way to discredit the man, and therefore his ideas, i guess. Even on DU, the accusations are getting a great deal of coverage. There are two threads this morning regarding this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211527421
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211526989

If it interests you, you can see what people are saying. I don't follow Tyson, personally. I know of him, but don't pay much attention to prominent atheists. Others, of course, do. So, here's some info that is going around.

For whatever it's worth.

[marylandblue]

1. Tyson is an agnostic, but is popular in the atheist community

I know it's been said there is no atheist community, but that's still more than what agnostics have. Agnostics don't know if we have a community or not, and even if wanted one, we wouldn't know how to find it.

[MineralMan]

2. Whatever the "atheist community" might be, I'm not part of it.

I pay no more attention to prominent atheists than I do anyone else. I don't believe I've ever heard anything Tyson has said. I know there are videos around, but they're not really of interest to me.

My atheism requires no support from other atheists.

[Ferrets are Cool]

4. I didn't know he is an atheist...

I DO know he is a great scientific thinker and spokesman.

[MineralMan]

6. Well, I'm told he is an agnostic.

Either way, that's bad. Bad, I tell you. Can't have that. He's also black. Double whammy.

[Ferrets are Cool]

7. LOL

Love ya MM

[MineralMan]

8. From what I understand, he regularly makes hash of

creationists and Bible literalists. Good for him, although I pay no attention to such debates. They really just add to the noise. People trying to prove the unproveable are boring to me, mostly.

[Ferrets are Cool]

9. If it makes him happy, who am I to poopoo his

attempts to educate?

[Ferrets are Cool]

3. He has given his side of the story and I believe him...

not that my belief will change anything at all. Kinda like believing in a fictional god character, right?

[MineralMan]

5. It appears to me that nothing will ever be proven

either way, so it's sort of an ideal thing if one's goal is to attack Tyson. I don't believe either side, actually, and won't until more information is available.

[still_one]

14. Actually if the alleged victim told a friend or someone else at the time, it would build credibility

to more than he said/ she said

[MineralMan]

15. Maybe. I don't know.

I'll wait to see what transpires, but won't be watching for it while holding my breath.

Like I said, I've never seen Tyson speak, nor have I read any of his books. And I'm a follower of things like cosmology and physics. I just don't read popularizations any longer. I read more technical material. I'm an atheist, too, but I don't read books by prominent atheists any more, either. I do my own thinking these days.

[Pope George Ringo II]

10. He's not a great scientist

But he's definitely been a great science educator. A charming fellow with the ability to make the staggeringly arcane into something more comprehensible.

I hope the allegations turn out to be untrue, but that's about all I can really say. I'm sure Descartes has a proof where he must be innocent because that would be a good thing, but I can't quite go that far.

[MineralMan]

11. Science needs excellent educators more than almost anything.

We've had many, and the more the merrier, I say!

[Geechie]

12. Amen to that.

On another note, I wonder how many creationists & anti-science evangelists out there have been guilty of the same things Tyson is being accused of. Hypocrites, licking their chops ...

[MineralMan]

13. I don't know, frankly.

I don't like to think about it.

[LakeArenal]

16. Guilty of this or not....

His science is correct and that crazes some folks more than his indiscretions.

[guillaumeb]

17. Presumed innocent.

If it comes to it, allow the Courts to settle the matter.

[Nitram]

18. Ae his accusers directly linked to Creationists?

[Lordquinton]

19. Tyson is cool, did an update of cosmos that's pretty cool

As for the investigation, Fox is on the case so I'm sure a fair and balanced review is under way.

[edhopper]

20. His first accuser is

a New Age nutter. Who is speaking about "recovered memories"
https://tchiya.wordpress.com/.

The other tells the same story as Tyson. Thier perceptions of the event are different. I believe her when she says it made her feel uncomfortable. I believe him when he says it was an innocent encounter.

[MineralMan]

21. Interestingly enough, Tyson is married to

another graduate student he met at the same school. I remember grad school. I dated several people then, and married one of them, my ex-wife. We were married for 17 years. I didn't marry the other women I knew then, but there were any number of sexual encounters during that period. All consensual. There were also some awkward moments, as I recall.

Sounds like people in their 20s to me, somehow. I'm betting we all have different memories of those times.

Personal life
Tyson lives in Lower Manhattan with his wife, Alice Young. They have two children: Miranda and Travis.[120][121] Tyson met his wife in a physics class at the University of Texas at Austin. They married in 1988 and named their first child Miranda, after the smallest of Uranus' five major moons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Personal_life

[marylandblue]

24. Why did Miranda get named after an entire moon, and Travis just got a county?

[MineralMan]

25. Good question.

[Major Nikon]

22. Irrespective of her allegations, that's some crazy shit right there

[edhopper]

23. Yeah

Egyptian faith healing?!?

[Lithos]

26. This is a complicated situation

The person driving this current narrative is an ardent self-promoter who appears to have injected themselves into this. This person is not a Ronan Farrow. More akin to Avenatti with a mixture of Wohl.

There are currently 4 women with complaints against NDGT. The first is a rape complaint from the early/mid 80's. The others are possible situations of sexual misconduct within the past few years.

I believe the women from the past few years. One lady - the tattoo one I think was just NDGT being creepy. The other two share a consistent narrative. I think NDGT exhibited improper behavior. However, to his point, he did ask and did respect "no means no". I personally think he and his wife need to have a very long discussion as he seems to be seeking an extra-marital relationship.

The first lady seems to have other issues. This is not a case of not believing her. I do not quite get NDGT's comments about this being an implanted memory, though I see why he would say that, I think based on comments by her daughter and her husband, she has clearly had a break at some point.

The big takeaway, she is clearly affected by something or somethings which occurred during this time of her life. Whether it was NGDT, or something else seems to be very much in doubt. The fact she seems to have altered her story over the years is not helpful to her case against NDGT.

[Act_of_Reparation]

27. Because no Christian in the history of Christendom has ever been accused of rape...

...much less raped anyone.

Oh. wait.

[NeoGreen]

28. deGrass-Tyson has explicitly stated he is not an Atheist...

...and you can hear it in his own voice/statement here:

https://samharris.org/podcasts/thinking-in-public/

Between at the 00:38:00 and 00:39:10 marks (I've done the work for you).

If you require a label, then call him a Scientist.

[MineralMan]

29. OK, but that is not the point.

[Major Nikon]

30. That's not what he said

What he's saying is he doesn't use that label to describe himself. He has elaborated as to why in other interviews. That doesn't mean he doesn't fit the definition.

[NeoGreen]

31. Whether he "fits the definition" or not...

...as per your understanding, he explicitly stated that if you must label him, the closest word for him is Agnostic, and he would rather you call him a Scientist.

"There has got to be some other word for me, but not that word."

And to the point that Harris raises with regard to the word Atheist, it is philosophically empty.

[Major Nikon]

32. Many people don't like being called an omnivore

That doesn't make them any less of an omnivore.

I understand the problem both of them have with the label, but that doesn't change the definition. I suspect both of them understand that which is why neither claim they aren't an atheist.

[NeoGreen]

33. Your claim that he IS and Atheist...

...means you know what he believes.

He says the best word, the closest description, that describes what he IS, i.e. what he believes, is Agnostic and explicitly says it is NOT 'Atheist'.

Why can you not accept his definition of himself on this point?

Do you KNOW what he believes, better than he does?

What is the basis of this knowledge that leads you to contradict his own understanding of his own beliefs?

[Major Nikon]

34. That's not what I claimed either

My claim was he didn't say he isn't an atheist which is demonstrably true by the same podcast you posted. As I stated previously NGT is rejecting the label of atheist. That doesn't mean he isn't one. He's saying he identifies more closely as an agnostic (while rejecting that label also). Meanwhile those two terms aren't mutually exclusive. One can be both.

I don't know what NGT believes or doesn't believe. That's for him to decide and if he chooses not to identify with any labels it's pretty hard for anyone else to claim they know what he believes or doesn't believe.