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.