4 ms·

It is a deep irony that the pantheon of scientistic atheism pop culture referents you talk about inspire exactly the kind of religious authority you describe. I

It is a deep irony that the pantheon of scientistic atheism pop culture referents you talk about inspire exactly the kind of religious authority you describe. I find this is often an unfortunate byproduct of folks who jump from a religious upbringing to atheism without doing the necessary self discovery in between. After all, what's most beautiful about science is not the people involved in its discovery, but the vast majesty of nature and reality. The people involved would always tell you that they themselves are merely vehicles. So I always end up wishing that these pop culture distillations of science would focus more on the nature side of the story and less on the people. Is it just the nature of the beast of pop culture to do just the opposite?

beaconstudios 6y ago
It's an interesting question. I suspect that the nature of media in general is to lend authoritative voice to individuals rather than promote perspectives or ideals, and thus the "voices of science" promoted in the media will themselves become pop-authorities. Plus the fact that the promotion of science in the media seems more for entertainment and ingroup-signalling (ie, politics) than genuine truth-seeking.
scrollaway 6y ago
> After all, what's most beautiful about science is not the people involved in its discovery, but the vast majesty of nature and reality. The people involved are sometimes exceptional on their own merits. Sagan for had an incredible personality and was an exceptionally good host, and as a celebrity it's not surprising to find a cult of personality building around him. Yeah, the people who worship them seldom have an actual interest in science. What of it? The people who worship Stacy Abrams seldom have a genuine interest in politics, and kids who worship teenage boy bands seldom have a genuine interest in their music. Celebrity culture is generally toxic, news at 11. Though I like what you're pointing out regarding people jumping ship from religion to atheism but still needing a "guiding voice" so to say. I guess it's a lack of self confidence.
- yowlingcat 6y ago
  > What of it? ... Celebrity culture is generally toxic, news at 11. Well, let's hang on a second, and think about that a little more because I think you've touched on an interesting wrinkle. I don't think that celebrities (by virtue of functioning in the original "thought leadership" role) must necessarily have this relationship with their followers. I am reminded of the critical tension in the dharmic religions between Buddhism and the hierarchical Vedism which came before it; Buddhism gained a significant amount of power as a referendum on Vedism. We can of course talk about what that means from an abstract sense versus concretely, and it's obviously not always so black and white. But celebrities as cultural leaders have agency. Can't they choose whether they are using their power to reinforce an egalitarian adept/novice apprenticeship structure rather than some sort of perpetually hierarchical one of divine providence? The latter is of course more common over the course of history but it is certainly not the only option. I suppose (to circle back to my original point) that the challenge here is that the cultural leaders do not exist in a vacuum; it is not just up to them but the society they exist within to determine their popular conception, which may not even be one to which they ascribe -- the tabloid example is evergreen. But is it then the vocation of celebrities to engage with these kinds of entities, and eventually emerge victorious -- being able to present their own views to society on their on frame, without being cowed or twisted or distorted by the rest of society at large, including its entrenched interests? I don't know. I'm still inclined to say yes, historically speaking.

beaconstudios 6y ago

It's an interesting question. I suspect that the nature of media in general is to lend authoritative voice to individuals rather than promote perspectives or ideals, and thus the "voices of science" promoted in the media will themselves become pop-authorities. Plus the fact that the promotion of science in the media seems more for entertainment and ingroup-signalling (ie, politics) than genuine truth-seeking.

scrollaway 6y ago

> After all, what's most beautiful about science is not the people involved in its discovery, but the vast majesty of nature and reality. The people involved are sometimes exceptional on their own merits. Sagan for had an incredible personality and was an exceptionally good host, and as a celebrity it's not surprising to find a cult of personality building around him. Yeah, the people who worship them seldom have an actual interest in science. What of it? The people who worship Stacy Abrams seldom have a genuine interest in politics, and kids who worship teenage boy bands seldom have a genuine interest in their music. Celebrity culture is generally toxic, news at 11. Though I like what you're pointing out regarding people jumping ship from religion to atheism but still needing a "guiding voice" so to say. I guess it's a lack of self confidence.

yowlingcat 6y ago
> What of it? ... Celebrity culture is generally toxic, news at 11. Well, let's hang on a second, and think about that a little more because I think you've touched on an interesting wrinkle. I don't think that celebrities (by virtue of functioning in the original "thought leadership" role) must necessarily have this relationship with their followers. I am reminded of the critical tension in the dharmic religions between Buddhism and the hierarchical Vedism which came before it; Buddhism gained a significant amount of power as a referendum on Vedism. We can of course talk about what that means from an abstract sense versus concretely, and it's obviously not always so black and white. But celebrities as cultural leaders have agency. Can't they choose whether they are using their power to reinforce an egalitarian adept/novice apprenticeship structure rather than some sort of perpetually hierarchical one of divine providence? The latter is of course more common over the course of history but it is certainly not the only option. I suppose (to circle back to my original point) that the challenge here is that the cultural leaders do not exist in a vacuum; it is not just up to them but the society they exist within to determine their popular conception, which may not even be one to which they ascribe -- the tabloid example is evergreen. But is it then the vocation of celebrities to engage with these kinds of entities, and eventually emerge victorious -- being able to present their own views to society on their on frame, without being cowed or twisted or distorted by the rest of society at large, including its entrenched interests? I don't know. I'm still inclined to say yes, historically speaking.