Celebrities, Pseudo-Spiritualism, and Religion

Great Debates
21

Then there was Russell’s Rejoinder to Pascal’s Wager: English philosopher Bertrand Russell’s retort that the French mathematician/philosopher deserved to go to hell for his intellectual cynicism.

You guys are a tad harsh on the OP’er, who raises the interesting, if perennial question: why are so many celebrities a bit flaky with regards to their religion or spirituality?

My WAG is that it has something to do with the fact that entertainers in general, and I’m including athletes in this too, have such uncertainties to grapple with in their quest for fame, fortune, or just to make a journeyman’s wages… something along the lines of that the typical actor is actually employed less than 10% of the time. First they struggle to get work; then they fear (usually rightly) that they’re being typecast, and fear the ambivalent effect that has on their career; then, if they remain in high demand (a luxury often denied in particular to actors who are “ethnic,” aging female, or with a “character’s” face or body), there’s often the pressure to arrange development deals, to develop one’s career with an eye to garnering the big prizes, to move into production or directing, to winning total creative control… the treadmill never ends. So, it’s lots of pressure, lots of anxiety, cliques and political machinations to no end, no guarantees of ever working again, and quite possibly losing out on work because of what roles you’ve played before, or what you look like – in short, an insufficient measure of autonomous control over their careers.

So an awful lot of them have a lot of excess anxiety or nervous energy they have to dispel, somehow… be it by drink, drugs, promiscuity, religion/spirituality, or even by establishing sound, nurturing relationships through family and friends (for the well-adjusted minority, anyway).

Plus, both southern California and NYC were never exactly middle America to begin with.

Given the prevailing sway that non-traditional religion has in Hollywood, the really radical thing there is probably to be traditional/conservative/orthodox. And only in Hollywood would that be the spectacle of Madonna studying Kabbala for the mystical numerology!

22

I’m not convinced that asking a random selection of non-famous Americans that question would produce different answers. Your responses aren’t the most eloquent cynicism I’ve ever seen either, to be honest. As the contention on this board about the phrase “magical sky pixie” demonstrates, it’s a trifle to make pretty much any religious belief sound silly.

You also realize, RexDart, that we’re all waiting to hear your answer to this question?

-fh

23

Huerta88, jump to outrageously unfounded conclusions about people you’ve never even met much?

You could talk to your friends and get more “new-agey” answers than the ones provided in that Onion compilation.

24

Okay, I hate to do this to you guys, but…

http://www.melaniegriffith.com/

25

I’d also have to say I don’t think those celebrities produced a set of answers which are much worse or much better (in the sense of coherent, articulate, well-thought) than, say, a random selection of Californians and New Yorkers. Now, a random group of people from Atlanta would probably have a higher percentage of people talking about their personal relationship with Jesus; nonetheless, generalized forms of spiritualism and personalized religion are pretty common in 21st Century America, even within the memberships of traditional religious denominations.

Really, you could pretty much change the thread title to “Modern Americans, Pseudo-Spiritualism, and Religion” and it would probably be about as justified.

26

Question:

Is there a difference between Pseudo-Spiritualism, and regular spiritualism?

27

What’s your point, Sam?

28

Credibility.

29

Or maybe The Onion got a whole bunch of responses, 99% of which were mainstream religion, and mostly included the ones they thought were flaky.

Or the people interviewed gave answers that they thought would be non-offensive to the largest number of people, and this is the sort of thing that is common in their circles.

Or maybe the celebrities involved had become famous for something other than the clarity of their thoughts. I still don’t understand why being successful in entertainment makes you an authority in unrelated fields. I don’t vote based on the politics of performers I admire, and I don’t see why I should take their word for it on religion either.

Or most likely of all, they just haven’t thought very much about the subject. It is easy to sound bizarre on subjects you are speaking about off the cuff.

Witness 75% of my posts.

Regards,
Shodan

30

As a Catholic, part of me wanted to laugh at David Byrne’s response, but really, what did he say that was so ridiculous?

I can state categorically that I believe God is real, that Jesus was divine, and that there is a Heaven. People may agree or disagree with me on any of those points, but so far, I haven’t said anything laughably inarticulate. But if you pressed me just a LITTLE on what I’ve stated so far, if you asked me WHAT God is, or WHAT Heaven is, I’m afraid I’d be reduced to a feeble “Ummm, well, I don’t know exactly. Right now, whatever God is, is beyond my understanding. As for what Heaven is… uh, I haven’t a clue. I assume it’s something wonderful, but the details are a complete mystery to me.” All in all, I don’t know MUCH more about the God I profess to believe in than Ani diFranco does about the many gods she sort-of believes in.

31

But ** Maeglin, ** who decides which is which?

With the exception of Scientology, which is horrible prank that L. Ron Hubbard played on the world, who is to say, and how, what qualifies as spiritual experience vs. “pseudo”? Credible to whom? Using what criteria?

32

There’s no metric, stoid. It’s the same common whim that decides that the Dalai Lama is the real thing and a crystal-waving bourgeous hippie isn’t. Sure, there’s plenty of room for dissent, but at the end of the day, tradition and aggregate opinion tend to determine spiritual legitimacy.

33

Maybe to you…

34

Maybe to you…

35

Common whim? Knowledge, familiarity, faith, trust, experience, what is common whim?

A good press agent can make a crook into a hero, or vice versa.
Is it we just believe what we hear the most?
History shows it is not always truth that prevails, at least in the beginning, but truth does have a way of sticking around for the finals.

36

One exception, namely that the power crystal effect is falsifiable. Not necessarily false (though I’m sure they’ve studied it and found that it is) but falsifiable. Power crystals, pyramid power, magnet bracelets…all this new age pot luck mysticism can actually be tested because it predicts results. Poor move on their part, since they can indeed be discredited.

I’d also say that the ability to encapsulate a coherent metaphysical and/or ethical philsophy is a strong determinant of legitimacy. The Dalia Lama has one, the power crystal followers don’t.

37

I thought the Scientologists were lawyer happy defenders of the faith. So how come I’ve never seen a Scientologist defend their religion against slander or attack the way thinking Christians (and sometimes myself) do? Where can I go to find this?

38

Spirituality may not always mean an organized group or philsophy. I think it is measured by the actions of the group or individual. By what sort of behaviour they exhibit.

Kindness, compassion, non-judgemental attitude, quickness to forgive, willingness to help others, these are some of the characteristics of real spirituality.