Neil deGrasse Tyson tries to mock Christianity — but exposes his own ignorance instead



Neil deGrasse Tyson may know a lot about the stars. But he clearly doesn't know the one who created them.

Recently, Tyson went viral on X for posting a message that implicitly accused Christian athletes — those who thank God after victory — of a contradiction.

"Curious that talented athletes frequently credit God when they win, but we rarely see them blame God when they lose."

— (@)

The logic of Tyson's claim is simple: If God is responsible for victory, then he is also responsible for defeat. But if athletes who thank God for victory don't blame him for defeat, they are guilty of selective reasoning and are, therefore, inconsistent. The implicit accusation is that Christian athletes are disingenuous unless they vocally implicate God when defeated.

While Tyson may have thought he was being clever, his critique demonstrates that he fundamentally misunderstands basic Christian faith and theology.

Gratitude is core to Christian character

Clearly, Tyson misunderstands why Christian athletes thank God.

Christians athletes do not thank God because they believe he is handing out trophies from heaven. Instead, they give thanks to God because they know gratitude and humility are core Christian virtues.

The apostle Paul teaches Christians to "give thanks in everything" (1 Thessalonians 5:18). Why? Because living from a posture of gratitude is "God's will." Christians give thanks to God because we understand that "every good and perfect gift is from above" (James 1:17).

All blessing — everything that we have — is a gift from God.

Suffering is part of the journey

But the problem is deeper than Tyson's apparent confusion over why Christian athletes thank God: He also misunderstands the Christian perspective on suffering.

To blame God, as Tyson suggests Christians should do, would be a demonstration not in gratitude but entitlement. Winning isn't a divine right, and God's purposes are not limited to a scoreboard. God doesn't owe Christian athletes a victory, and defeat is not evidence of divine neglect. There is no reason, therefore, to blame God for defeat.

Despite what Tyson claims, Christian athletes do give thanks to God after losing, and it's easy to understand why.

God has a greater purpose for us beyond worldly achievement, and God often uses failure — or what appears to be "failure" — as a tool to cultivate good fruit within us that transcends results on a scoreboard.

Suffering and struggle — or in this context, defeat on the playing field — are part and parcel of the Christian life. When faced with it, Christians should "consider it pure joy" because when Christians remain faithful in the face of trials, it "produces perseverance." The apostle James adds, "Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything" (James 1:2-4).

Christians thank God in victory and defeat because we do not strive after mere earthly rewards or, in Paul's words, a "perishable crown." Rather, Christians seek the "imperishable crown."

Victories on the field are like perishable crowns: They're temporary, and in the grand scheme of life, they mean very little. But because Christians seek after eternity, it's easy to thank God for victory or loss because we know that he uses both for our good.

Victory? Defeat? In God's kingdom, it doesn't matter because "in all things God works for the good of those who love him" (Romans 8:28).

Faith is not science

Finally, Tyson's critique demonstrates the limits of secular reasoning.

Tyson accuses Christian athletes of inconsistency because they (allegedly) only thank God after winning. But his argument rests on a faulty assumption: that faith must conform to rational (and atheistic) standards of logic.

At the heart of Tyson's argument is an assumption that Christian faith should operate like science. But that is a secular framework — not a Christian one.

Christianity isn't a mathematical formula or a mere cause-and-effect system whereby one input always produces a predicable output. God is sovereign over all creation, yes, but he is not a divine puppet master. God does not micromanage every outcome using symmetrical reasoning. Thanking God in victory does not require blaming God in defeat.

Tyson, moreover, ignores the God-human relationship at the heart of Christian faith. His critique is a demand that attempts to force Christian faith — and God himself — into a transactional framework that is unknown to Christianity.

That Tyson would force his secular paradigm onto Christianity says more about him than it does God or Christian athletes.

Tyson thought he was exposing Christian hypocrisy, but, ironically, he only revealed his own ignorance about Christian faith. If he wants to critique Christianity, perhaps he should first attend a kindergarten theology class.

The Left’s Takeover Of ‘Science’ Is Obvious When It Comes To Sex Differences

Bill Maher’s exchange with popular science commentator Neil deGrasse Tyson underscores how extraordinarily unscientific scientists can be.

How loony leftists like Joy Reid and Neil deGrasse Tyson wokewash their past sins



Is Joy Reid okay?

From the look of things, obviously not. The MSNBC host has built a career on outrage and hyperbole, but her recent antics suggest something far more unhinged. In a bold attempt to deflect criticism over her apparent adoption of President Trump’s signature look, Reid chose to shave her head.

Neil deGrasse Tyson wrestled in college; he is intimately familiar with the profound physical differences between the two sexes.

She thought this move would silence her critics. Spoiler alert: It didn’t.

Instead, it sparked laughter, not at her critics but squarely at her. A middle-aged woman shaving her head in a fit of defiance doesn’t scream empowerment. It screams instability.

Turkey terror

More recently, Reid released a pre-Thanksgiving video warning that some Americans might not feel "safe" around their MAGA relatives. To bolster her point, she hosted an equally unhinged Yale psychiatrist who suggested that LGBTQ+ individuals should avoid conservative family members entirely. This is not reasonable advice. But reason and Reid are estranged bedfellows. They parted ways many moons ago.

The 55-year-old is a case study in what happens when someone builds her platform not on ideas but on the fragile foundation of identity politics and moral posturing. Reid's critics don’t need to discredit her; she does that all on her own. In trying to be everything to everyone on the left, she’s become a caricature of modern media: loud, hollow, and entirely insufferable.

Skeletons in her closet

Reid frequently lectures viewers on inclusion, tolerance, and justice, casting herself as a champion of the left’s ideals. But, I ask, are her views genuine or merely a theatrical performance?

Reid’s relentless grandstanding feels more like an elaborate deflection from her own controversial past — a past that is completely at odds with the persona she now projects.

In 2018, when homophobic blog posts from her early career resurfaced, she initially apologized, admitting to some of the commentary. But when more posts emerged, Reid’s story shifted dramatically.

Suddenly, she claimed her blog had been hacked years earlier, a defense that crumbled under scrutiny. The notion that a hacker planted posts in real time, matching her public commentary, defied logic. Even her cybersecurity consultant admitted that the evidence failed to support her claims. In other words, Reid was clearly lying.

Despite this troubling history, the pundit turned activist has positioned herself as a self-appointed arbiter of morality, eager to denounce others while her own record remains anything but spotless. Of course, it’s possible that she’s undergone a complete transformation and truly become the progressive warrior she now claims to be. But the sheer insanity of her rhetoric suggests something else: specifically, overcompensation.

Reid’s crusade against conservatives feels less like conviction and more like a desperate bid to rewrite her narrative, to drown out the sins of her past with louder, more righteous indignation.

Beam him up

Reid is not alone in her reinvention. Consider Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Once a respected figure in science and pop culture, Tyson has devolved into a farcical self-parody. He’s not just woke. He’s hyperwoke.

The astrophysicist’s shift from measured reason to full-throated wokeness didn’t happen by accident.

In 2019, four women accused him of sexual misconduct, a controversy that could have ended his career (four seems like a lot). Instead of addressing the allegations head-on, Tyson pivoted. Overnight, a man who once prided himself on logic became one of the loudest proponents of the woke agenda, particularly when it came to the most contentious of topics.

Yes, that’s right: trans athletes in women’s sports.

Tyson, supposedly a man of science, has publicly argued that it’s perfectly acceptable for biological men to compete against actual women.

One assumes he doesn’t actually believe this. Tyson wrestled in college; he is intimately familiar with the profound physical differences between the two sexes. The peddler of bad ideas and even worse ties may be many things, but stupid isn’t one of them — though you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

His recent appearance on "Real Time with Bill Maher" was a master class in self-sabotage. When Maher, who oscillates wildly between bouts of wokeness and moments of clarity, confronted him on the undeniable physical advantages men have over women in sports, Tyson played dumb. Rather than being honest, he leaned on smug quips and feeble attempts at humor.

The performance flopped, laying bare not just the weakness of his argument but the pathetic pandering driving it.

Spineless signaling

Reid and Tyson are two sides of the same coin, figures who have sacrificed authenticity to appease an audience hungry for performative contrition.

They are not champions of progress; they are cowards and phonies. Too afraid to stand by their own convictions, they embody the spinelessness that comes with prioritizing approval over integrity. They exemplify self-preservation, willing to say or do whatever it takes to sustain their increasingly meaningless careers.

When they look in the mirror, one wonders whether they smile or whether tears of shame silently stream down their cheeks. Only they can answer this.

What is indisputable, however, is the fact that both Reid and Tyson have traded integrity for applause, hoping that louder declarations of virtue will obscure their past controversies. It won’t. It can’t. We all see them for what they truly are.

Neil deGrasse Tyson FURIOUS as host destroys his pro-transgender athlete narrative



Neil deGrasse Tyson may be a 65-year-old famous astrophysicist, but that isn’t stopping him from behaving like a child when someone points out obvious facts about the difference between men and women.

“It is a little weird that we split people by male and female in this way. I’m imagining a hundred years from now, looking back and saying, ‘Do you know, back a hundred years ago they split boys and girls and they couldn’t compete?'” Tyson said on a podcast with Michael Shermer.

“I could imagine that too,” Shermer said, clearly trying to be nice before blowing up Tyson’s argument. “But the differences are so massive on average.”

Tyson then threw his arms up in the air and attempted to interrupt Shermer, while Shermer continued, “The average woman wrestler is not going to be able to take down you when you were in your peak.”

“You’re an old man on the porch in a rocking chair,” Tyson said. “You are criticizing something that is in need of modification.”

Dave Rubin can’t believe he’s seeing Tyson go “woke.”

“The only way in a hundred years we would look back and think it’s archaic to have boys and girls competing separately is if we’ve drugged all of the girls,” Rubin says.

“At this point, I’m fearful that somebody might think that’s a good idea,” Sage Steele adds.


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

‘South Park’ mocks Lizzo and body positivity movement; Lizzo takes it as a compliment



While most television shows now cater to the “woke” community, "South Park" is one of the few that have remained strong.

In its just-released “The End of Obesity'' episode, the creators mocked the new Ozempic weight-loss craze, as well as the face of the body positivity movement: Lizzo.

In one scene, Stan’s mother, Sharon Marsh, tells her friend that she had been feeling ashamed of herself because she’d been unable to secure Ozempic in order to lose weight.

“I’m telling you Sheila, these new drugs are pretty amazing. I was feeling so ashamed of myself, watching Randy go out and exercise all the time and not eating as much, but I just don’t have the same kind of willpower he has,” Sharon told her friend Sheila.

“There’s a whole new obesity drug for those of us who can’t afford Ozempic and Monjaro. I’ve controlled all my cravings to be thinner with Lizzo!” Sharon exclaims, before a pharmaceutical commercial for “Lizzo” begins.

“FDA approved ‘Lizzo’ makes you feel good about your weight, and it costs 90% less than Ozempic,” the commercial begins. “I've lowered my standards and my expectations,” Sharon exclaims happily.

“In case studies, 70% of patients on ‘Lizzo’ no longer cared how much they weigh. ‘Lizzo’ helps you eat everything you want and keep physical activity to a minimum. Some patients report constipation while listening to ‘Lizzo.’ Stop listening to ‘Lizzo’ if you experience suicidal thoughts,’” the commercial continues.

Lizzo responded to the show in a livestream. “I just feel like damn, I’m really that b*tch. I’m really that b*tch. I really showed the world how to love yourself and not give a f*** to the point where these men in Colorado know who I am and put it on their cartoon that’s been around for 25 years.”

Dave Rubin is thrilled, noting that "South Park" has been ahead on pretty much everything.

“Now, we have something going on with this body positivity movement and that somehow being fit is white supremacist or something like that,” Rubin says, telling athlete Riley Gaines that her generation now connects to the idea that “big is beautiful.”

“I think she took it as a compliment,” Gaines tells Rubin. “But yeah, we see the glorification daily of anything that is immoral, anything that is evil, anything that is unhealthy. We have seen this the past few years, but the mask is off now.”


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

D.C. Cherry Blossoms Aren’t Safe Around Climate Activists — And Neither Are We

The Borg is determined to control our lives through fear. This is why, in the eyes of the elites, beauty itself is too dangerous.

Watch Bill Maher's face when Neil deGrasse Tyson refuses to define a 'man'



Bill Maher’s “Club Random” podcast has certainly stayed true to its name by hosting an array of random characters.

One of the latest is Neil deGrasse Tyson, who believes so much in science that he can’t define what a man is.

“What is it that makes the man the man? Is it the hormones? OK, if it’s the hormones, and you decide to give yourself a different cocktail of hormones,” Tyson tells a laughing and then stunned Maher, “... maybe the track meets have hormone categories.”

Maher notes that giving yourself hormones can be harmful to your health, but Tyson has another “scientific answer.”

“You’re so deeply concerned about the health of the people who are trying to find their place on the gender spectrum? You care about their health so much that you don’t want them to go through that?” Tyson rants.

Maher admits, “It’s not something that keeps me up at night, but when the subject comes up, I care about them like I care about all people.”

Dave Rubin is impressed with Maher’s way of handling the conversation. When Tyson attempts to keep the fight going without making a point, Maher shuts it down.

“At that moment, he’s proving that the good liberal can still exist,” Rubin says. “Tyson is trying to dismiss him like you don’t really care about these gender-confused people.”


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.