These three are nothing like each other. Stephen Hawking was a first rate genius on the order of Einstein. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a decent scientist who's a good communicator. And Bill Nye is a funny TV host with an engineering degree.

None of that is relevant to the fact that they are treated like science priests by their audiences.

They are science priests. As such, people value the remarkably reliable information they get from them.

As such, people immediately trust the information they get from them, whether it's reliable or not.

Science is a process, not an end - treating current theory as the final truth (to the extent that science priests even relay current theory rather than just provide fun accessible notions for entertainment purposes) is a fool's errand.

How many people have learned about Shannon's information theory from their deep understanding of Hawking radiation, thanks to Hawking appearing on Big Bang Theory?

There's a huge divide between actually having any understanding of science and science-worship, and science-worship actively detracts from understanding science.

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?

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.

> 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.

> 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.

Yes, some people regard science with dogmatic devotion, but there's very obviously a qualitative difference between the "sermon" of a celebrity scientist and that of a religious leader.

It's hard to comment on the qualitative difference of a speech from a celebrity scientist vs a religious leader. Do I want to know the latest and greatest on why Interstellar's depiction of black holes was interesting? I'll listen to Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Do I want to know the latest and greatest on how philosophers or theologians interpret reality and meaning? Then I'll listen to any number of my favorites on these subjects.

There are world-class experts in both areas and they address different needs.

In theory they should address different needs, however many celebrity scientists have proclaimed that "philosophy is useless", as if the scientific method is the only path to knowledge and anything else is hearsay. It's silly that they think they have any authority on this, really.

https://qz.com/627989/why-are-so-many-smart-people-such-idio...

This was my first reaction to this as well. I grew up in a very religious family. The "Science is another religion" take is as problematic as "The republicans/democrats are the all the same".

The #1 thing that strikes me is that any characteristics shared by religion and science only exist because of human behavior, while the fundamentals could not be more different.

Science isn't a religion. Scientism, basically is - they're not the same thing. I used that word specifically.

Scientism is the fetishisation of science.

While I appreciate the distinction, the point still stands: fetishization is something that humans do, and science, while imperfect, stands on a foundation that is entirely unlike that of religion.

The definition and history of scientism is also more complex than "basically a religion".

Meanwhile, a large and growing group of people truly believe that science is religion in a very literal sense, and they're using that belief to reject the reality of climate change, peddle anti-vaccine viewpoints, etc, and that has nothing to do with scientism.

Yeah, the religious leader does a lot less harm.

If you're going to worship something at an altar, it's better if that thing isn't real.

> Yeah, the religious leader does a lot less harm

This is not a good take.

It is hard to estimate the magnitude of the harm done by even a single religious leader who preaches a message of hate and fear. A leader who deeply instils into his congregation a belief system that has undertones of racism, misogyny, homophobia, and authoritarianism.

I don't personally believe in the god my parents did, and while you're right that it doesn't really matter if who they believe in is real, it does matter that they choose to follow the teachings of the church in the name of that god.

The atrocities of the 20th century, which make everything earlier seem like child's play, are a result of secularization. Modern-style racism was invented by Enlightenment thinkers. Eugenics is the result of genetics and Darwin. Dialectical materialism inspired many mass murderers.

Religion reminds people of their fallibility. When you forget your own limitations, you deify yourself, and nothing good comes of that.

The atrocities of the 20th century are well-documented and popularised in movies and documentaries. There were extraordinary horrors in the past - genocides of entire peoples, forceful religious conversion through slaughter of the entire adult male population of dozens of cities and bringing up children and women according to the winner's religious doctrine - that don't get a single iota of attention today except from historians.

> The atrocities of the 20th century, which make everything earlier seem like child's play, are a result of secularization. Modern-style racism was invented by Enlightenment thinkers. Eugenics is the result of genetics and Darwin. Dialectical materialism inspired many mass murderers.

Mind pointing to some citations? Genuinely curious.

> Religion reminds people of their fallibility.

I don't need religion to remind me of my fallibility. I'm reminded of that on a daily basis when I screw simple things up.

> When you forget your own limitations, you deify yourself...

First, it's a huge stretch to claim that forgetting limitations leads to deification. But secondly, when I forget my own limitations, I'm quickly reminded again by screwing up again.

Religion is not necessary to stay grounded. And not every religion is focused on the fallibility of humans. Do some people find that religion helps them stay grounded? Sure. If that works for you, great.

You're describing something that some religions may do.

If Hawking can be one despite being dead then Carl Sagan deserves a spot maybe? Four horsemen to ride!

Surely we should add Mr Feynman to that list

Well I think the gist was more along science communicators/celebrities for the public. Feynman - and many others - while quite brilliant, haven't had the same general layman appeal.

I can't tell if this comment is a self-parody or not. In my experience, people complaining of "scientism" or Bill Nye seldom have a better grasp of the scientific procedure than those they criticize. They usually sound like they read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions once and decided to roll with it.

do you have an argument to make, or just some vague hypotheses about whether I'm joking?

I understand the scientific process as well as any non-scientist could expect to (ie, in theory if not in practice). I studied physics in college (not that that's some big credential, but I do have some exposure to the idea).

My issue with scientism is it aims to credit "the pop scientists" as an authority rather than encouraging scientific skepticism and scientific literacy. It also promotes science as the only way to glimpse truth, but that's a separate and more complex issue.

Hero worship of scientists as a class (let alone individual scientists, or TV presenters in some cases) as being the holders of truth is not a good thing, but I'm excited to hear your arguments for why it is.

I think pop scientists become successful because they're good scientists but also great communicators with a knack for making complex topics approachable. I've never heard someone insist on Neal DeGrasse Tyson (for example) as any kind of unquestionable authority, and I feel that if some surprising breakthrough upended his field (idk, an elegant explanation for dark matter) he'd cheerfully go on TV and announce his delight at having been proven wrong.

Scientism is a real thing but I think you're being unfair in blaming this on people who happen to be good ambassadors for science.

I don't blame the scientists/entertainers themselves (though I think they certainly don't mind, or even take advantage of, the celebrity). The problem is the culture.

Sure, if you frame something as "Hero worship of scientists as a class as being the holders of truth" then it sounds really bad.

In reality, it means stuff like "You should not buy homeopathic cures because it's exactly the same as water."

I'm OK with science being the arbiter of truth when it has evidences.

Edit: Also, in my opinion, Hawking's A Brief History of Time is one of the best books that explained basic ideas of cosmology (and how it is worked on) in terms that laypeople can understand. If that makes him worthy of a special mention of criticism, I don't know what to say.

The bad part of scientism is when people immediately believe every headline that starts with "new study shows" without ever having heard of a meta analysis or having seen the study itself. A lot of bullshit gets pushed out under the umbrella of "science" because it passes by so uncritically.

It was a "scientific fact" that smoking didn't cause lung cancer, for far too long.

Both believing in homeopathy and believing junk science can be avoided with the application of critical thinking and some basic scientific literacy. Because in reality, science is a human endeavour and is as full (if not more) of shady dealings as any other human endeavour. The process gets us further from untruth (as opposed to closer to truth) as it is applied honestly and diligently, but plenty of conducted science is neither, and science reporting doubly so.

But if people are encouraged to cargo-cult "believe scientists always", they're just as gullible as ever.

Huh. I would have picked Richard Feynman, Brian Greene, and Don Herbert. I guess I should start a rival Facebook group.

I'm of the view that certain celebrity atheists or skeptics exist just to poison the well for the benefit of the billionaire class. Poison religions by forcing a bigger debate between atheism and religions than anyone would otherwise care about, and you can stunt class consciousness and worker solidarity. Take a wild guess where class consciousness blossomed most throughout history!

I'm more of the opinion that in circles where it's looked down upon to be religious, some of those instincts pop up in other areas. Very-atheist people end up worshipping at the altar of the science priests instead.

Not everything is a bourgeois conspiracy to oppress the proletariat.

Having been a very-atheist person in the past, I'd argue that the cult of personality of the new-atheist horsemen like Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, etc, was more of a draw than science itself. Because at the end of the day, science doesn't make claims that are relevant to any educated or experienced theist's worldview. I would have wanted science to be on my side because it'd justify hatred of people's religions, which is a really immature worldview in retrospect but definitely an outcome from immersing myself in new-atheist drivel. Whereas these days I fully accept the contention that science and religions really do coexist.

Where the bourgeois and proletariat come into play, is when I look at the stark differences between someone like MLK and Kenneth Copeland. I'd not expect any MLK type to emerge from a theology like Kenneth Copeland's. And we know that the billionaire class does attempt to distort information on all kinds of things if those things are giving them immense power.

I'm reminded of how they did that with climate change for 50 years and various nutritional debates over the years. And many other things. The intention being to poison the public discourse long enough that they can exploit more.

Does this mean there was a concentrated effort to poison atheist v religion discussion as well? I've never been privy to conversations at that echelon of wealth so I can only point out that the results speak for themselves even if the results were never the goal. But personally if I hated humanity and wanted to keep my power to exploit, I'd do whatever it takes to make sure there's other interpretations of Christianity besides MLK's for example.

This is hilarious and I love it.

I'll put on a serious face: Marx would say that religion reduces the psychological pain of capitalist alienation, so it is bad, because it reduces the impetus for revolution. Whereas scientism would generally help to advance dialectical materialism -- the definition of good and bad in terms of material class interests. So your argument that religion helps class consciousness, while not without precedent (Christianity, notably from Quakers, helping to end slavery; certain parts of American Christianity in the Civil Rights movement; monotheism as a source of universalism more broadly...), is 180 degrees from Marx himself.

Probably religion is better for building solidarity across classes than it is at cultivating one class' resentment of another. You get some voluntary redistribution instead of violent revolutionary redistribution. You get a kind of "we are all children of God" classless consciousness, instead of a class consciousness.

And, in reality, I think you'll find billionaires of varying degrees of religiosity.

But, nice post.

[Edit: Later, I see that you are serious, and not just doing a highbrow kind of joking-around. Well -- then I think you'll see that I basically agree with your point. The only quibble is about the idea of "class consciousness" (or "race consciousness", or whatever "subgroup consciousness" is relevant). Religion creates something other than class consciousness. Rather than dividing people along existing sociological lines, it unifies across them. This isn't free: It can create new conflicts with those outside the religion. But when we consider fault lines of class or race, I would say that monotheism tends to unify rather than to divide. You could call this "solidarity", but not "class consciousness". It's a bigger solidarity than class.]

Marx would say that religion is the opiate of the masses, but so would Jesus say that. In fact, Jesus predominately preached to religious leaders called Pharisees. Are you familiar with the common atheist adage "Jesus would have been a Marxist" or things to that effect? I'd argued it a lot in the past because it's funny and great for challenging capitalist Christians who believe in Supply Side Jesus (courtesy of Kenneth Copeland and Joel Olsteen and people like them).

Well, I would flip that adage and say that "Marx was a follower of Jesus." They overlap enough that it's not uncommon to go on r/atheist and see people saying "Jesus would have been a Marxist" so I think it's fine to flip it this way.

It's possible Marx was just targeting the Pharisees of his time. Or he liked what Jesus' had to say on matters of cooperation and economics enough to base a secular worldview on it. :)

I don't see how serious study of history would lead one to think religions reduce the impetus for "revolution" or social improvements. The printing press was a revolution and it was primarily driven by the desire to mass-print Bibles so that the clergy couldn't just interpret reality for everyone. (Look up the Gutenberg Revolution).

In any case, I'm not sure what the difference is between "we are all children of God" classless consciousness and the idea of "class consciousness." Because on Marx's worldview, things should trend towards a classless society. You may be interested in Acts 4:32-35 which is the economic model followed by the first church.

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

While you were replying I edited my previous post (grandparent of this one) with some text ("[Edit: ... ]") at the bottom, but I'll also reply here.

I think you would find many in agreement with your interpretation of Marxism and of Christianity -- ranging from "social gospel" Catholics, to progressive/activist Episcopalians in the US and UK, to Thomasite Christians in Kerala voting for the local honest-to-goodness Communist party complete with hammer-and-sickle flags.

To your Acts 4:32-35 quote, you could also add the end of Galatians 3, or the miracle of the loaves and the fishes (say, Mark 6:31-44).

That said, your interpretation is a departure from Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy, and it sands off some sharp edges.

Mainly, I think you discount violent revolution too much. Historical Marxism wasn't only about a "spiritual revolution" that would lead to voluntary sharing like that described in Acts 4:32-35. It was about classifying people socioeconomically and dealing with them accordingly -- using violence.

I actually agree that religion often spurs social "revolution" and material improvement. But I don't think that's what Marx thought, or how either Soviet or Maoist Communism has worked. You say that Marx' "opiate of the masses" quote refers only to "Pharisees", but, in light of the whole development of dialectical materialism (a system of morality that actively rejects the spirit), the dismissal of "sentimental bourgeois morality" in favor of class-interest calculations, and the dogmatic enforcement of state-sponsored atheism, I disagree. Granted, you might blame Lenin rather than Marx for the worst of this stuff. But the fact that there's some overlap with Christianity doesn't mean they're the same thing.

I definitely oppose Maoism, Stalinism, Leninism, etc. I also 100% oppose violence except in self-defense. Marx did support violence earlier on in his life, but didn't he also argue that peaceful revolution was possible? And on the subject of peace versus violence, I would side with what Jesus said over what Marx said.

But yeah, I'd definitely ask how much of a role Marx's writing had in what happened in the Soviet Union or Maoist China. Was it Marx's fault, or could those people have adopted MLK's approach instead and seen much more success rather than collapse? I honestly am not equipped to know the answer to this question, but as I study MLK and Malcom X post-Mecca I think the entire discussion around Marxism (at least in the fundie parts of the world I've lived in) conflates Marxism with the Soviet Union and Maoist China too much. MLK and Bernie Sanders and AOCs borrow from the Marxian framework. Even America did - we've already implemented many of Marx's list items in his manifesto, after all. :) Would anyone say MLK or Bernie advocate for violence? Or that they're any less Marxian if they don't?

You definitely know more about the depth of Marxism than I do - I've never gotten into dialectical materialism or the Hegel/Marx beef. Primarily because the Manifesto is tiny and has enough of the vision in it that it is sufficient for my purposes. And also because as an engineer and a technologist I see that material needs will be obviated by technology soon. Does that eliminate the need for that deep dive into dialectic materialism?

But to address your point and the edit that you brought to my attention since I missed it: It does sound like we do agree! I'm limiting myself too much by calling it "class consciousness" rather than "solidarity." I realize now that the vernacular has to be updated to reflect exactly what you said about post-class schisms like race and culture. My view on this is that when understood at their most charitable, religions do accomplish exactly this. A "bigger solidarity than class" like you said. I'm reminded of what Paul wrote when he described the blanket with all kinds of meat on it.

I do like calling it solidarity instead of class consciousness and I will change my approach. Thank you so much, this is immensely valuable and you are a brilliant mind.

I'm note sure if I have completely misunderstood your comment, but are you saying that scientists exist "just to poison the well for the benefit of the billionaire class"???

No, not scientists. Scientists are wonderful. I'm particularly talking about celebrity scientists, especially those who ran with the new-atheist horsemen back in the 2000s and early 2010s when they were more popular. Thanks for the comment, I went ahead and edited the original one to be clearer about who I am talking about.

Also in fairness to Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson (I don't know about Bill Nye), I don't think they were adversarial toward religion. Certainly not like Dawkins.

Hawking I'm skeptical of for other reasons:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/18/private-jets...

I will not discuss his capabilities as a scientist since I'm not qualified to speak on hard physics at all - but this relationship between these people has me very skeptical of their truest intentions.

But you're right that Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson were not in the same class as Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss in particular. I'd include Sam Harris in this group too.