Friday, March 7, 2014
Some " The Humanist.com" articles
Receive this in your inbox
TheHumanist.com
TheHumanist.com
Search for:
7
March
March / April 2014
News
Voices
Commentary
Features
Arts & Entertainment
The Magazine
March / April 2014
Multimedia
The End of Polite Conversation?
Part Two
Like
Tweet
by Marcy Campbell • 6 March 2014
Image credit: robeo / 123RF Stock Photo
Image credit: robeo / 123RF Stock Photo
This is the conclusion of a two-part series. Click here to read part one.
And then I came to my third visit, where he told me I should get an award for my eighteen-year marriage. Receiving no response from me aside from a wary, uncertain smile, he continued on: “I see so many patients in here, on their second or third marriages, or just living with somebody. I don’t want to hear about that. What I’m really mad about is the Supreme Court… what I’m really getting at here is the gays.”
My jaw started to clench, this being the current locus of my stress, which used to be part of my sleep troubles until I saw my new dentist who made me a fancy splint. My new dentist doesn’t mix politics with medicine. I like him.
The sleep doctor continued, more animated now, my sleep chart (on which I’d meticulously mapped out my nocturnal life) completely forgotten. “What I’m talking about,” he said, his voice rising, “is that if your kid goes to public school, he’ll have ‘gay day.’ What I’m talking about is how we live in a culture that celebrates what’s wrong.”
To be confronted with these inappropriate comments, by a virtual stranger and in such a private space, shook me. After all, a doctor’s office is a space reeking with vulnerability. The expectations of trust are high. You may very well be naked under a thin cotton gown, the backs of your legs sticking to a piece of crinkly white paper. Later, when telling this story to a friend, she recounted a recent visit to her male gynecologist during which he began ripping Obamacare—with his fingers firmly pressed against her cervix. Talk about vulnerability. “What was I supposed to say,” she lamented, “in that position?”
At the sleep doctor’s, I was dressed, but felt bare, as though he could read the level of disgust that must be on my face, and yet, he couldn’t. He didn’t, clearly. He thought I was just like him. He thought, simply because I seemed like a nice, heterosexual, long-time married woman with two kids that I simply must be just like him ideologically. I glanced toward the closed door, wondering how to navigate my escape.
“We’re not talking about this,” I heard myself say, not sure if it was in my head or out loud. It was out loud, I judged, by his quizzical expression. “Let’s talk about my sleep issues, okay? I’m here for help with my sleep problems.”
He took a deep breath and said, “Oh, yes, you’re right,” winking at what he inexplicably thought was my agreement with him, “because we could be here all day talking about this!” (“This” being the degradation of “our” culture, by homosexuals and the people who love them, know them, and consider them human beings.)
“No,” I said quietly, “because I disagree with you.”
His eyes clouded with confusion. He quickly looked back at my chart then conducted a terse summary of what we’d covered, and we discussed when I should come back for a follow-up. I wouldn’t be back, but I didn’t tell him that. He’d know when he saw the cancelled appointment.
Later, a friend said I’d been brave. I laughed loudly. I felt like a coward. When I replayed the scenario in my head, I wished I’d launched into a whole speech on equality, wished I’d grabbed him by the collar, pulled him out of his chair, and shook him, sending his little wire-rimmed glasses flying. (He’s a small guy, and I’d been lifting weights.)
It’s the assumptions that get to me. It’s the fact that I get a free pass in our homogenous town where I’m just one of many white, married, forty-ish women driving her two blonde-haired kids to art camp. No one questions my relationships. No one knows I’ve just finished writing, from within the bedroom closet that serves as my office, a rather subversive novel, as pro-gay rights a book as there ever was. I write in a figurative closet too, and the conservatives here in my politically red town in my deeply purple state would rather I, and all the other liberals, stay in it.
But things are changing, or maybe I’m just noticing them more. The conservative voices are suddenly growing louder. Were there always this many pick-up trucks in town with confederate flag decals? Or have they multiplied since Obama? Were there always this many letters to the editor of my daily paper about the evils of homosexuality, or have they increased in response to DOMA?
Perhaps my doctor and others like him are feeling threatened by the national rise of voices that support equality, and so they’re reaching out, seeking to reassure themselves of the correctness of their beliefs by building consensus, one patient at a time. Maybe my doctor has the erroneous opinion that he’s the new minority in town. His outspoken arrogance could be a sign of something better to come, a sign that he feels the need to defend himself. And if indeed he feels that need, it starts with another voice, to defend himself against, even if it’s a small voice in his office. Maybe he went home and replayed the scenario with me in his head, wondering what he might have said differently or else feeling outraged that I challenged him. I wouldn’t feel too badly if he lost some sleep over it.
Click here to read part one of “The End of Polite Conversation”
Tags: The End of Polite Conversation
campbell_marcyMarcy Campbell has published essays in UUWorld, The Writer, Ohio Magazine and The Millions. Her short fiction has been published widely in literary journals (most recently The Rumpus and The Santa Fe Writers Project Journal) and nominated for a Pushcart Prize. She has recently completed her first novel and blogs as The Closet Creative.
+ Share
Most Popular
Image credit: robeo / 123RF Stock Photo
3 March 2014
The End of Polite Conversation?
5 March 2014
Why Remake Cosmos?
Photo by Jessie Eastland/WikimediaCommons
27 February 2014
Southern Atheist, Part 3
See More Popular Posts
Receive Email Updates
Editor's Picks
See All
by Meghan Hamilton • 28 February 2014
True Detective. True Atheist?
Read More
The 40-feet high "Peace Cross" in Bladensburg, MD.
by Monica Miller • 26 February 2014
Why We Sued Bladensburg, MD Over a 40-Foot Cross
Read More
The Humanist Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook
Search for:
News
Voices
Commentary
Features
The Magazine
Arts & Entertainment
Multimedia
The Humanist
Subscribe to Newsletter
©2014 The American Humanist Association About Us
About The Humanist Hour
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Site Map
http://thehumanist.com/features/articles/the-end-of-polite-conversation-2
Receive this in your inbox
TheHumanist.com
TheHumanist.com
Search for:
7
March
March / April 2014
News
Voices
Commentary
Features
Arts & Entertainment
The Magazine
March / April 2014
Multimedia
The End of Polite Conversation?
Part One
Like
Tweet
2
by Marcy Campbell • 3 March 2014
Image credit: robeo / 123RF Stock Photo
Image credit: robeo / 123RF Stock Photo
This is part one of a two-part series. Click here for the conclusion.
On February 26, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a bill that would have made it legal for businesses to discriminate against LGBT customers whose identity ran counter to the business owner’s religious views. Similar bills in other states are facing major opposition, as the majority of Americans increasingly see a person’s gender or sexual identity as that individual’s own private business, nothing else. But conservatives haven’t given up. And even if laws allowing businesses to deny services to LGBTs don’t come to pass, what’s stopping the butcher, the baker, or even worse, your doctor, from giving you an earful?
“You should get a medal,” my doctor said. He had just asked how long my husband and I had been married (eighteen years). “You should get reward stickers, like we give to our kids. Our culture should be rewarding your relationship, the right relationship.”
I felt my heartbeat quicken. Just minutes before, the nurse had clocked my blood pressure at a very desirable 110/70. I could feel those numbers shooting upwards with each breath. I wasn’t there to talk about my marriage, but my sleep habits—namely my insomnia—during my third, and hopefully last, visit.
Pulling into the parking lot for my first appointment, I’d been confronted with a huge shrine, complete with a towering statue of the Virgin Mary clutching baby Jesus to her breast and a lantern sitting at her feet with a flame lit in honor of unborn children. I sat and stared out my windshield at the sheer spectacle of it. There were benches around the statue where I suppose patients, or anyone else, could sit and pray, just a stone’s throw from our town’s tiny Planned Parenthood clinic (which does not provide abortions).
I wondered what the shrine might have cost, and assumed the medical practice was doing well; it had taken me awhile to get an appointment, and the parking lot was full. I was just so very, very tired. I attempted to blink away my morning headache, not yet relieved by my first dose of caffeine. I needed help sleeping, and this doctor was the only sleep specialist in town. And so I went in.
At that first visit, we discussed my insomnia at length. I learned a lot from the doctor about sleep cycles and what was considered “normal.” There was only one moment that made me feel uncomfortable. While going through my family history, the doctor had inappropriately asked why I’d “started so late” having children and why I had only two. He and his wife had eight. “She just finished breastfeeding, and she’s fifty,” he said proudly, as though he were the one producing the milk.
I laughed nervously and changed the subject. I’d gotten somewhat used to inappropriate comments, often of the conservative religious variety, since moving to my rural Ohio town ten years before. But the comments were often ones I simply overheard. Being confronted personally was something new.
At a recent visit to a different doctor, I noted the only reading material in the waiting room was the Bible. Furthermore, on the mirror above the coat rack, a collage had been created with quotes from Billy Graham overlapping ones from Abraham Lincoln. The unifying theme amongst the quotes, which took me some time to discern, was that God wanted people to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. I never would have put Lincoln and Graham together, there on the same mirror (which no one could actually use since the glass had been completely obscured) but my podiatrist apparently thought the two men were suitable bedfellows. My former dentist dispensed with any second-guessing concerning his motives. His only waiting room reading material was a stack of pamphlets on how to be born again.
After my second visit to the sleep specialist (during which we analyzed the results of an actigraph test that recorded my rest/activity cycles round the clock), I felt much more confident that I was on the path to sleeping better. The man had, in fact, helped me. And the only other annoying comment he’d made was: “If you wake up too early, just get out of bed and catch up on your Scriptures.” I wasn’t sure if he meant reading Scriptures would help me fall back to sleep, but I didn’t ask.
I had learned to sidestep the shrine on my way into his office. People are entitled to their opinions, I thought. I’ll just ignore it. Plus, I’d been taught as a kid to respect authority, such as that of the priest and deacons in our church, of my father, of anyone in uniform, including police officers, and, certainly, doctors. I tried to imagine the shoe on the other foot. What if I was a deeply conservative, religious woman visiting an openly gay sleep specialist? What if he commented on how lucky I was to have two children when he and his partner were having trouble adopting? I couldn’t hold the idea in my head for long; it was too absurd to imagine where I live.
Yes, it bothers me when professional people, of any profession, feel the need to broach topics such as religion completely out of context. Still, I’m not someone who enjoys confrontation; I wasn’t going to challenge the sleep specialist about it, as long as he didn’t take it too far. He’d stepped up to the imaginary line I’d drawn in my head, but he hadn’t stepped over it, not yet.
Check back on Thursday for part two of “The End of Polite Conversation?”
Tags: The End of Polite Conversation
campbell_marcyMarcy Campbell has published essays in UUWorld, The Writer, Ohio Magazine and The Millions. Her short fiction has been published widely in literary journals (most recently The Rumpus and The Santa Fe Writers Project Journal) and nominated for a Pushcart Prize. She has recently completed her first novel and blogs as The Closet Creative.
+ Share
Most Popular
Image credit: robeo / 123RF Stock Photo
3 March 2014
The End of Polite Conversation?
5 March 2014
Why Remake Cosmos?
Photo by Jessie Eastland/WikimediaCommons
27 February 2014
Southern Atheist, Part 3
See More Popular Posts
Receive Email Updates
Editor's Picks
See All
by Meghan Hamilton • 28 February 2014
True Detective. True Atheist?
Read More
The 40-feet high "Peace Cross" in Bladensburg, MD.
by Monica Miller • 26 February 2014
Why We Sued Bladensburg, MD Over a 40-Foot Cross
Read More
The Humanist Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook
Search for:
News
Voices
Commentary
Features
The Magazine
Arts & Entertainment
Multimedia
The Humanist
Subscribe to Newsletter
©2014 The American Humanist Association About Us
About The Humanist Hour
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Site Map
http://thehumanist.com/features/articles/the-end-of-polite-conversation
Receive this in your inbox
TheHumanist.com
TheHumanist.com
Search for:
7
March
March / April 2014
News
Voices
Commentary
Features
Arts & Entertainment
The Magazine
March / April 2014
Multimedia
The HUMANIST Interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson
Like
Tweet
by Jennifer Bardi • 14 August 2009
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ahead of this Sunday’s premiere of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, TheHumanist.com revisits our 2009 interview with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, winner of that year’s Isaac Asimov Science Award at the American Humanist Association’s 68th Annual Conference.
Tyson’s reboot of Cosmos follows Carl Sagan’s wildly popular original. Watch the premiere on Sunday, March 9 at 9:00pm on FOX or Monday, March 10 at 10:00pm on National Geographic Channel.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, where he was born and raised. He graduated from the Bronx High School of Science, and earned his BA in physics from Harvard and his PhD in astrophysics from Columbia. His research interests include star formation, exploding stars, dwarf galaxies, and the structure of the Milky Way. In 2001 Tyson was appointed by George W. Bush to a commission to study the future of the U.S. aerospace industry, and another on space exploration policy, for which he received the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal. He is currently the president of the Planetary Society. Tyson regularly contributes to a number of publications, including Natural History magazine, and he is the author of nine books, including Death by Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandries and The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet. In 2004 he hosted a special NOVA miniseries titled “Origins,” and he currently hosts the PBS program NOVA scienceNOW, which continues to bring intelligent discussions of cutting-edge scientific and technological advances into millions of homes. Tyson is also a regular on the History Channel and makes occasional appearances on Jeopardy, the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report. His contributions to the public appreciation of the cosmos have been recognized by the International Astronomical Union in their official naming of asteroid 13123 Tyson. And in 2000 People magazine named him the Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive.
The Humanist: Dr. deGrasse Tyson, it’s great to be with you here at the 68th Annual American Humanist Association Conference in Phoenix, Arizona. Is this your first humanist conference?
Neil deGrasse Tyson: My very first. I didn’t even know they existed. I guess I’m a little out of it, being a scientist all my life.
The Humanist: Well, we’re really glad you’re here and that you’ve discovered us, in a sense. What are your impressions so far?
Tyson: Everybody is friendly, the topics are all very interesting, and it’s clear that there is quite a lot of work to be done to make sure we have the country that we all thought we were given 230 years ago when it was founded.
The Humanist: Do you consider yourself a humanist?
Tyson: I’ve never identified with any movement. I just am what I am and occasionally a movement claims me because there is resonance between my writings and speeches and what they do, and that’s fine; I don’t mind that. But no, I have never been politically or organizationally active in that way. Astrophysics—that’s what I identify with.
The Humanist: And as an astrophysicist, do you find it a challenge that people may be less interested in the actual science that you’re doing and want to hear more about your position on science in our culture?
Tyson: The relationship of science to our culture is of fundamental importance in the twenty-first century, where whether or not we embrace science as a nation will play directly into our ability to compete economically with other nations that already value what it is to invest in science and technology. Whatever people feel the need to explore with me, I’m happy to go there with them. I spend enough of my life as an expositor of the frontier of science; I don’t need to do that every time I’m in front of an audience. Clearly this [AHA conference] audience has an important mission ahead of it and I would be very happy to share my life experiences with regard to that mission, compare notes, and look for best and worst practices.
In the category of worst practices, there are occasions where people—either humanist or atheist—are just completely obnoxious in a conversation with others. I even had a tussle with Richard Dawkins (I think it’s my most viewed YouTube clip) in which I accused him of being completely ineffective because he is so sharp of wit in the service of his point of view, and he is so well educated that he may fail to fulfill the directive of his title, which at the time was Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. That implies that your conversation with another person is an act of persuasion in some ways, not hitting them over the head. You want to understand what is going on in another person’s mind and meet them there. Otherwise, you’re not as effective as you could be. Dawkins has been hugely popular with his books and his speeches, so it’s not as though he’s ineffective, but I’m convinced he could be much more effective than he’s been.
My goal is to get people to be scientifically literate and to observe the world as something to investigate and not something to either fear or be mysteriously befuddled by to the point where they’re driven to supernatural explanations. The history of our investigation of the universe is one where supernatural explanations fall in the face of naturalist explanations, so there is no reason to presume that going forward we would need to change that approach to our knowing.
The Humanist: People argue that Dawkins and Hitchens and others are raising the profile of nontheism in general. But human beings are complex and even conflicted at times, so it’s reasonable to think about re-tailoring your approach once you have the spotlight. Certainly in science you want to ask questions and then go in search of the answers. I do think scientists working as scientists and touching on these issues are really the best spokespeople that we could hope for. So thank you so much for doing what you do.
Tyson: You just put an even greater burden on my shoulders saying that scientists have to first figure out how the universe works, then we’ve got to get it out there to the public!
The Humanist: Speaking of the public understanding of science, you’ve talked about getting letters from kids and so forth. Do you do much in science education with children?
Tyson: Hardly any of my professional activities directly target children. At the American Museum of Natural History there is an entire education department made up of people who are trained in K-12 cognitive processes and curriculum. Occasionally I come in and make a presentation for the kids. That being said, the books I’ve written are very readable by kids, and the TV show that I host, NOVA scienceNOW, has a playful spirit that kids can enjoy and that resonates with them.
But I can tell you that the urge to stimulate science literacy in children is sometimes done at the expense of raising science literacy among adults. Adults far outnumber children, adults vote, they run the country, they run the world. There is nothing scarier than a scientifically illiterate adult with a finger on the button. So much of my efforts have been to stimulate and re-stimulate a level of scientific curiosity in adults that we all had as children. Only then do we get the whole society to participate in the enterprise.
The Humanist: Your ability to communicate science and your ideas is so sharp. As a writer, as well as a presenter, do you find that you have a very specific technique for communicating?
Tyson: Technique implies that one invokes a method. And you repeat that method because it has shown to be successful. What I’ve found, however, is that one should not have any method at all because everyone is different, and so you come prepared for any audience at any time—any age, any demographic, any political leaning, tolerance for humor, religious sentiment, and so forth. All these factors influence the ability of a person to receive the message you are giving them.
So, no, it’s not a technique. You have to be much more fluid than that. And part of what empowers fluidity when speaking to the public is your exposure to pop culture. You have to know what the hit TV shows are, and have at least seen a few of them; you have to know what Paris Hilton is up to; yes, you have to have seen some sporting events. These are what matter to the general public in their casual conversations at a cocktail party or at the bar or at the laundromat. And if you speak to a group as an educator in any discipline and you’re not prepared to engage what interests them as a stepping stone or as metaphor or as a means of fleshing out a conversation in ways that have the emotional, intellectual, and cultural relevance to that audience, then you are not communicating.
I hold it as my highest priority to understand the audience I’m about to speak with so that the words I use, the rhythm of my sentences, and the references I make are all tuned for that audience at that time. That’s why the modern day posting of videos on YouTube is a bit more difficult for me because I’ll give a speech or a talk to a specific audience, it gets lifted on to YouTube, and then anybody can watch it. So all I can guarantee you is that if you were there in the room, the talk would have felt much more real than anything you would have seen online because I am reacting to the room.
So, I challenge my fellow educators and scientists and others who have a mission of enlightenment for the public to spend some time engaging the public in these ways. You can only be more effective rather than less after you have done so.
The Humanist: Have you shared this imperative with teacher groups?
Tyson: I gave a talk to the National Science Teachers Association. That is an important group of people, K-12 educators in science. I asked by show of hands how many people—because I knew it would get an interesting reply—didn’t own a television. Half of the hands went up. Of those who owned a television, I asked how many only occasionally used it to watch a movie, and half of the hands went up. So fully three quarters of that audience whose job it is to teach the next generation science don’t watch television, yet the average American watches thirty or forty hours of television a week. That disconnect is pedagogically fatal.
You can get on your high horse and say TV is just the undermining of all that is good in society; it doesn’t change the fact that it is the most influential force out there. And if you don’t know the magnitude of that force and what direction it’s pointing, then you will be correspondingly less effective standing up in front of a room. I told the teachers, don’t come up to me and say, oh they just don’t want to learn; it’s not a good class; they don’t want to listen. Excuse me, it’s your job to get them interested enough to want to listen. Otherwise, do not count yourself amongst the rest of educators; take up another field of work.
The Humanist: I imagine that was a little controversial.
Tyson: Yes, and when I say pop culture I don’t mean only the TV shows that are kind of cool and interesting. I also mean the hit shows. I’m talking about Dancing with the Stars. I’m talking about the reality shows most educators thumb their noses at as being of no educational or intellectual value. Yet clearly millions of people watch them every week so there is a disconnect. Once there is a disconnect, you’re not communicating.
The Humanist: The message I’m getting from you is of an unending need to understand human beings as both complex and able to be stimulated with the right approach. Thank you so much for communicating it to us so effectively!
Published in the September / October 2009 Humanist
Tags: neil degrasse tyson
Jennifer Bardi is the editor-in-chief of the Humanist magazine and a senior editor at TheHumanist.com.
+ Share
Most Popular
Image credit: robeo / 123RF Stock Photo
3 March 2014
The End of Polite Conversation?
5 March 2014
Why Remake Cosmos?
Photo by Jessie Eastland/WikimediaCommons
27 February 2014
Southern Atheist, Part 3
See More Popular Posts
Receive Email Updates
Editor's Picks
See All
by Meghan Hamilton • 28 February 2014
True Detective. True Atheist?
Read More
The 40-feet high "Peace Cross" in Bladensburg, MD.
by Monica Miller • 26 February 2014
Why We Sued Bladensburg, MD Over a 40-Foot Cross
Read More
The Humanist Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook
Search for:
News
Voices
Commentary
Features
The Magazine
Arts & Entertainment
Multimedia
The Humanist
Subscribe to Newsletter
©2014 The American Humanist Association About Us
About The Humanist Hour
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Site Map
http://thehumanist.com/magazine/september-october-2009/features/the-humanist-interview-with-neil-degrasse-tyson
Receive this in your inbox
TheHumanist.com
TheHumanist.com
Search for:
7
March
March / April 2014
News
Voices
Commentary
Features
Arts & Entertainment
The Magazine
March / April 2014
Multimedia
True Detective. True Atheist?
Like
Tweet
2
by Meghan Hamilton • 28 February 2014
The level of suspense in HBO’s new series True Detective starts high in the pilot episode and continues throughout. It’s a great crime drama that takes place in the Deep South where Christianity masks a more sinister reality, showing viewers the raw cruelty of humankind.
Based loosely on the book The King in Yellow by Robert Chambers, Detectives Rust Cohle and Martin Hart solve the brutal murder case of a young woman—or so they think. While investigating several missing persons reports around the area, Detective Cohle realizes an all-too familiar trend similar to the murder case they assumed closed. As time goes by it is apparent this “evil” person they call “The Yellow King” is on the loose and continuing to commit heinous acts.
As someone who loves a good crime mystery, I was naturally hooked. The series is harsh, direct, and not for viewers weak to uncomfortable and ruthless situations. The show displays strong female characters while some scenes demonstrate the victimization of women. And one of the main characters, Detective Rustin “Rust” Cohle (played by Matthew McConaughey), is an atheist—and loud about it. Who wouldn’t love that?
With the over-saturation of religion in everyday life, it’s refreshing to see a main character in a hit series identify as a nonbeliever. But my compliments of Cohle end there. Although a visionary detective who successfully cracks cases and saves victimized children, Cohle is a decidedly negative character. He’s a man who has lost a great deal in his life, including his family. His opinions are not appreciated in his community, and he has no intention of following the belief systems of high religion and propriety that surround him.
We commonly see significant character flaws when it comes to atheist characters portrayed in movies and on television. In shows like House, Family Guy, Dexter, the Big Bang Theory, or The Good Wife characters who eschew God or religion are confrontational or mentally unsound. They’re often pretentious and at the very least annoying.
Sure, Rust Cohle has lost all confidence in the human race and believes we’re doomed to nonexistence. He’s introverted, slightly narcissistic, secretive, overly critical, and unnecessarily honest, especially in response to religious practices and human morality. But when I think about the show and each character, they all seem to have a deep, depressing, selfish side, and no one has proven to be innocent by any standard.
And so, as True Detective progresses Cohle turns out to be no better or worse than the believers. Take his partner, Detective Martin Hart (played by Woody Harrelson)—a Christian churchgoer who’s incapable of fidelity or selflessness. He’s said he was “working late” when in reality he engaged in an affair with a younger woman or getting caught up in an affair with yet another women he bumps into while running an errand for his wife and two daughters. We can appreciate the message that bad people will be bad people regardless of their belief or lack of belief.
As a nonbeliever, I’m glad for the presence of such a glaring atheist from such a grand media outlet such as HBO. But, it would be preferable to see a main character as a kind and positive nonbeliever. The media and the arts are platforms for introducing alternative ideas of social standards that are in need of a change. The commonly held vision of atheism is due for a makeover.
Tags: TV
Meghan Hamilton is the executive assistant for the American Humanist Association.
+ Share
Most Popular
Image credit: robeo / 123RF Stock Photo
3 March 2014
The End of Polite Conversation?
5 March 2014
Why Remake Cosmos?
Photo by Jessie Eastland/WikimediaCommons
27 February 2014
Southern Atheist, Part 3
See More Popular Posts
Receive Email Updates
Editor's Picks
See All
by Meghan Hamilton • 28 February 2014
True Detective. True Atheist?
Read More
The 40-feet high "Peace Cross" in Bladensburg, MD.
by Monica Miller • 26 February 2014
Why We Sued Bladensburg, MD Over a 40-Foot Cross
Read More
The Humanist Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook
Search for:
News
Voices
Commentary
Features
The Magazine
Arts & Entertainment
Multimedia
The Humanist
Subscribe to Newsletter
©2014 The American Humanist Association About Us
About The Humanist Hour
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Site Map
http://thehumanist.com/arts_entertainment/culture/true-detective-true-atheist
Receive this in your inbox
TheHumanist.com
TheHumanist.com
Search for:
7
March
March / April 2014
News
Voices
Commentary
Features
Arts & Entertainment
The Magazine
March / April 2014
Multimedia
Voices
Marty Klein, Sexual Intelligence
klein_sqMarty Klein examines the sexual implications of current events, politics, technology, popular culture, and the media.
Greta Christina, Fierce Humanism
christina_sqGreta Christina brings forthright and illuminating wisdom–call it her fierceness–to important issues affecting humanists, and offers solid ideas for living a happy, productive, godless life.
Rob Boston, Church & State
boston_sqRob Boston’s been staking out the intersection of church and state for close to thirty years, ticketing Establishment Clause violators with biting aplomb.
Andy Norman, Brainstormin’
norman_sqBrainstormin‘ waxes philosophical on issues where theists and nontheists collide.
Joan Reisman-Brill, The Ethical Dilemma
reismanbrill_sqExperiencing an ethical dilemma? Need advice from a humanist perspective? Joan Reisman-Brill is here to answer your queries!
Matthew Bulger, On the Hill
bulger_sqThe American Humanist Association’s Legislative Associate offers in-depth analysis on the latest happenings in Washington, DC and potential effects to the humanist community.
David Niose, Court Watch
niose_sqDavid Niose examines legal challenges across the country and how their decisions can impact the separation of church and state.
Luis Granados, Rules Are For Schmucks
granados_sqRules Are for Schmucks explores the many ways in which God experts get away with ignoring the legal rules and societal norms that apply to the rest of us.
Clay Farris Naff, The Humanevangelist
Sowing Science, Reason, & HopeClay Farris Naff
+ Share
Most Popular
Image credit: robeo / 123RF Stock Photo
3 March 2014
The End of Polite Conversation?
5 March 2014
Why Remake Cosmos?
Photo by Jessie Eastland/WikimediaCommons
27 February 2014
Southern Atheist, Part 3
See More Popular Posts
Receive Email Updates
Editor's Picks
See All
by Meghan Hamilton • 28 February 2014
True Detective. True Atheist?
Read More
The 40-feet high "Peace Cross" in Bladensburg, MD.
by Monica Miller • 26 February 2014
Why We Sued Bladensburg, MD Over a 40-Foot Cross
Read More
The Humanist Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook
Search for:
News
Voices
Commentary
Features
The Magazine
Arts & Entertainment
Multimedia
The Humanist
Subscribe to Newsletter
©2014 The American Humanist Association About Us
About The Humanist Hour
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Site Map
http://thehumanist.com/voices/
Receive this in your inbox
TheHumanist.com
TheHumanist.com
Search for:
7
March
March / April 2014
News
Voices
Commentary
Features
Arts & Entertainment
The Magazine
March / April 2014
Multimedia
Why Remake Cosmos?
Like
Tweet
8
by Clay Farris Naff • 5 March 2014
Image credit: kirschner / 123RF Stock Photo
Generally, I’m not big on reboots. For example, compared with the 1947 original, the 1994 version of Miracle on 34th Street is just sad. At least, I assume it is since I would never watch anything but the original. How could anyone out-twinkle Ed Gwenn as Kris Kringle? And how can you even think of replacing darling Natalie Wood?
But Cosmos? After watching the Q & A livestream, held at the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles Tuesday night after a preview screening of the first episode of Fox’s “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey,” I’m ready to make an exception.
Like so many of my generation, I revere Carl Sagan’s original series. It’s as close as we humanists come to worship. When Cosmos: A Personal Voyage aired in 1980, I along with millions of others, found my childhood wonder for science reawakened. Sagan became famous, perhaps as much for the PBS series as for its parodies; Johnny Carson’s gentle mockery only amplified the impact of Cosmos .
Still, that was a long time ago. Jimmy Carter was president, I owned a black-and-white TV, and more than a quarter of today’s Americans had yet to be born. So, a remake? Maybe not a bad idea.
cosmos_saganThe first confidence-builder is the realization that Ann Druyan, Sagan’s widow and cowriter of the original series, has been the driving force behind the remake. She was first out of the gates on a panel of a half-dozen luminaries who joined Fox host Joe Early last night for an hour of jaw-boning about the new series, premiering Sunday evening on the Fox network and a variety of cable channels and online outlets.
Now in her sixties, Druyan hasn’t lost a drop of passion for science. Of the new series, she gushed, “My wildest dream is that it will awaken us from our stupor and move us to preserve and protect this tiny world.” That’s the stuff!
Carl Sagan, who died much too early in 1996, was most concerned that the Cold War would erupt in a missile exchange, followed by a nuclear winter. Three decades later, Druyan sees global warming as the chief danger of our time. Though the threats may change, the solution that Cosmos proffers is the same: a grasp of science and a global perspective. “If Cosmos were to inspire those … in enough people around the planet,” Druyan said, “I can’t imagine how gratifying that would be.”
The second confidence-builder is knowing that Neil deGrasse Tyson, the most articulate, competent, and charming science advocate since Sagan, will host the new series. As a member of the livecast panel, those qualities were on full display, as when he objected to a remark about the purported difficulty of making science entertaining.
“Science versus entertainment? I’m entertained by the universe every day!” Tyson roared, adding, “It’s a very natural marriage.”
Slightly discombobulating yet not quite deal-breaking was this surprise: the Hollywood powerhouse behind the production is Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane. Even though in the Q & A he said the universe was once “infinitely small” (how small is that, Seth?), we forgive him, because he has introduced something to the remake that the original lacked: original and reportedly high-quality animation. Thanks to MacFarlane, the new series will sport something called “The Imagination Ship.” All aboard!
A caution: For those who regularly lap up Nova, browse Scientific American in the john, and are nerdy enough to consume YouTube science videos with their morning fruit-and-kale extract, the new Cosmos probably won’t convey new knowledge. Sorry, poindexters, it’s not aimed at you.
Brandon Braga, a Star Trek producer who oversaw some sci-fi howlers, is among the executive producers. Alan Silvestri, whose music graced the Sagan film Contact and the Back to the Future movies, is the series composer. No question about it: this is an effort at science popularization. But I trust its leading lights will keep the content honest.
So, yes, as Tyson quipped, this is science for the Kardashians. But before you knit your brow in a knot, consider: what better way to pay tribute to Sagan than by giving science a Saturn V-style boost? Humanists should rejoice at the prospect that a series about science may prove more popular than sports or the supernatural.
Can it deliver? The producers claim that its global audience may reach half a billion. In honor of Carl, let’s make that a “BILL-yun.” Tune in or log on, and see for yourself.
Tags: Carl Sagan, COSMOS, neil degrasse tyson, TV
Clay Farris Naff is a science and religion writer based in Lincoln, Nebraska. He has been a Tokyo correspondent for United Press International, a freelance contributor to National Public Radio, a science-and-religion essayist for the Huffington Post, and is the author or editor of numerous books, including most recently Free God Now! Clay writes the Humanevangelist column for TheHumanist.com.
+ Share
Most Popular
Image credit: robeo / 123RF Stock Photo
3 March 2014
The End of Polite Conversation?
5 March 2014
Why Remake Cosmos?
Photo by Jessie Eastland/WikimediaCommons
27 February 2014
Southern Atheist, Part 3
See More Popular Posts
Receive Email Updates
Editor's Picks
See All
by Meghan Hamilton • 28 February 2014
True Detective. True Atheist?
Read More
The 40-feet high "Peace Cross" in Bladensburg, MD.
by Monica Miller • 26 February 2014
Why We Sued Bladensburg, MD Over a 40-Foot Cross
Read More
The Humanist Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook
Search for:
News
Voices
Commentary
Features
The Magazine
Arts & Entertainment
Multimedia
The Humanist
Subscribe to Newsletter
©2014 The American Humanist Association About Us
About The Humanist Hour
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Site Map
http://thehumanist.com/arts_entertainment/culture/why-remake-cosmos
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment