Slashdot Mirror
Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk
New submitter anlashok writes: Atheism and science face a real challenge: To frame an account of science, or nature, that leaves room for meaning. According to this article, atheists have pinned their flag to Mr. Spock's mast. But they need Captain Kirk. Quoting: "I'm pro-science, but I'm against what I'll call "Spock-ism," after the character from the TV show Star Trek. I reject the idea that science is logical, purely rational, that it is detached and value-free, and that it is, for all these reasons, morally superior. Spock-ism gives us a false picture of science. It gives us a false picture of humankind's situation. We are not disinterested knowers. The natural world is not a puzzle. ... The big challenge for atheism is not God; it is that of providing an alternative to Spock-ism. We need an account of our place in the world that leaves room for value."
appealing to emotions only prolongs the time taken to master them.
You can catch up on all the bull sessions you missed right here.
Opinion shot to pieces by the best comment in the thread on the NPR link, the one with 477+ up votes and only 432 total comments, as of this post. Basically, show me who these Spokists are? [crickets]
Seems some atheists are smoking some very potent stuff.
As well as some slashdot editors.
twaddle
Atheism has been around forever. The problem is that for most people ( and I know some will argue with "Most"), it is so damn dreary and unappealing. Making it more "Kirk-ish" won't help the fundamental message
Our Holy Trinity?
Our Captain, His Spock, and the Holy Bones.
It's a holographic universe, so if we play the game with sincerity but not seriously, we'll be fine. Or not.
Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
I've been deistic for decades. It discounts the idea that god is an old man on the mountain, but maintains the idea that there is purpose and meaning to everything, not just man.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
This argument has been around at least since the Victorian era. Basically, when you give up the certainty of Romanticism and Religion, you need to fill the void with something in order to give life meaning and direction, or else there'll be this big empty spot where your heart used to be.
Seriously, just read through the Norton Anthology from the era. Doesn't take that long.
Science is agnostic. It makes no statements about God, gods or Non-gods. Science doesn't need to place value on anything. Atheists don't own science and science is not a religion. By trying to make it the Atheists' religious thing, Science becomes weakened and non-credible.
I'm *not* saying Atheism is weak and non-credible. However, trying to make Science into a religious icon will certain cause all of humanity to suffer.
Spockism isn't value free, it just tries to maintain complete view of the relationships of values. Rationality does not exclude emotion or value, obviously it needs a 'do' and a 'don't' endpoint, or true and false, which basically dictate a decision that is intended to be live preserving..But never underestimate the ability of the pro-religious to misunderstand anything, after all they believe in things that can be reliably proven to be untrue..
I feel the basic sentiment--of course to be reasonable and rational does not require us to be cold or non-human.
But actual science IS logical and purely rational. That doesn't mean we aren't warm people with skin the the game. It means that rationality INCLUDES that we are warm people with skin the game.
Science IS solving a puzzle. That's not the only thing it is, but it's one of the coolest things about it.
Well, this nicely wraps-up my 16 years of involvement with /.
See you on SoylentNews.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Is it strange if you base your beliefs on rational foundations, but base your actions on other concepts? I don't believe in god because I see no evidence. I sometimes play golf, which makes no rational sense, but I enjoy it. I'm not sure what values I apply to either of these things.
I think we need Jean-luc
Science needs no Captain Kirk to parade it like some goofy religion. It needs people to stop trying to trying so hard to keep their faith static, and sweep reality aside for what's more emotionally pleasing. Just recognize what science is and what faith and belief are, and don't try to mix and conflate the two.
It's terrible when otherwise good people have to rationalize science as something it isn't just because they're too timid to grow their faith with the reality they see. Faith isn't meant to be static any more than science is, and you shouldn't try to fit the two together - they can't fit together, they can only coexist, with faith and belief filling in the bits that science doesn't answer for you.
Whether you turn that into some curious hodge-podge "god of the gaps" thing is up to you, just like your faith is something personal to you. Trying to tell others to adopt "your" faith is what has caused so many of the emotional problems we have as a people. Who is telling everyone to be ultra-rational and inhuman? Simply asking you to be MORE rational and accepting of reality isn't the same thing.
To religious theists, do you remember when you choose to be religious? If so, at what age did you decide to become a religious person who believes in a god?
One thing that bothers me is, whenever people say, "oh, you are an atheist, so you don't believe there is anything after death?" That has NOTHING to do with being an atheist, all atheism is, is not thinking there is a great creator, you can be atheist and fully believe in an afterlife, ghosts or even praying.
There is already value without God. Kant derived moral judgements on purely secular bases 200 years ago. The "deontology" he ushered in is now the single most common ethical view held by philosophers today (25.9% according to Bourget & Chalmers 2013), and Kant scholars are at pains to teach it to students and anyone else who would listen.
The problem for many people is they suppose that determining what is wrong and what is right must be easy. Why think this? Why should it be easy? Do you fully understand Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem? Probably not, but he gave it. Do you fully understand Kant's deduction of the categorical imperative in particular and his deduction of the possibility of synthetic a priory judgements in general? Probably not, but he gave them.
Atheism and science face a real challenge: To frame an account of science, or nature, that leaves room for meaning.
Atheism faces no such challenge. Atheism has nothing to do with science. Atheism simply says:"I don't believe in your god[s]". Nothing more.
One can be an atheist with zero scientific knowledge or understanding. For some atheists, The Bible is the only document needed to completely debunk that entire religion.
Nor does atheism need to provide an alternative to religion, To be an Atheist one only has to say: "I don't buy that shit". The expectation that an atheist should be required to provide an alternative to religion is simply a logical fallacy.
People say that Atheism is the disbelief of god, but that is not correct. Atheism is the disbelief of people. By being an Atheist, you are in fact saying; "I dont believe anything that anyone has -ever- said in support of the existence of god'. You are saying: "Those people have been misled or deceived in some way and I dont believe them no matter their opinion, credibility, or station in life."
Atheism will never be popular or accepted. Because that acceptance would not be reciprocated. Atheists don't believe in people.
What shit do you smoke?
Author is arguing against a strawman (or at least a minority view) form of atheism which claims to be above value judgements. Of course one brings value judgements to the table, with philosophy. People've been doing that for a very, very long time. So what?
Author also seems to not understand Star Trek that well - while they're a planet of hat, more-or-less, Vulcans were known to live by a philosophy, and presumably like all systems of logic, the Vulcan one sits ultimately on a philosophical foundation, not some bs "a priori" claims that the author wants to warn us against.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
A combination of both sides rather than a polarized either or.
And that's the problem; it's impossible to justify a value system purely from an atheist perspective; you've got to add some value such as 'the good of society', 'the utility of the individual', 'the success of the species'. In practice atheists tend to absorb the dominant values of their society; thus often 'love your neighbour', usually defining 'neighbour' in the extensive way that Jesus offers in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. But actually there's not a terribly good reason for doing so, and it's been a minority view down the centuries.
And of course the excesses of the church pale into insignificance compared with the horrors of Stalin and Mao - which is not to argue we Christians haven't committed some appalling crimes, but that all need to be given the right to condemn some of those flying the same flag.
[Full disclosure - I'm a traditional Christian from a Christian background. I have one particular friend who had ended up a Christian from an atheist background, not least because it offers no value system]
...by presuming that all atheists are alike.
It's like when atheists are dumb enough to treat all Christians alike, or Muslims, <Insert Religious Stereotype Here>...
Loading...
No, we need Spock and a good puzzle.
Immorality is much easier to excuse when you believe there is a divine order to things. When someone is poor, or suffering or has had a bad run of luck, belief in a divine plan makes it easy to see that as deserved, instead of unfortunate. When someone is rich, powerful and/or fortunate, you're more likely to see them as superior and deserving of their good fortune if you are religious.
Every time you hear someone thank god that for answering their prayers and blessing them with something, keep in mind that intrinsically behind that statement is the idea that god has made a judgement call and found them deserving of having their prayers answered. It's a round about way of saying "God chose this for me, because he thinks I deserve it." It always rubs me as subtly arrogant to imply that whatever good fortune you are enjoying isn't simply good fortune, but it's a reward you earned because god found you deserving of it, and thusly found everyone else who doesn't receive that same thing, undeserving.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
Star trek is bloated with treknobabble buzzzzzzwodrs. If I need buzzwords I read religious texts. Or even better: interpretations of religious texts. In fact, religious texts make even sense sometimes. Does star trek? Never. Of course there is stuff ike Daniel 3,33 but mostly the bible is buzz-prise free.
anlashok, which is phonetically anal-shock, is obviously just another dumb-mother-fucker.
"Spock-ism" is really a Straw Vulcan where logic is forcefully neutered.
For example, Counceller Troi beats Lieutenant Data in a game of chess, claiming that it's a game of intuition. This ignores that computers can consistently win games of chess against anyone relying on intuition, and where intuition needs to be first built up on logic. (Really, just play chess intuitively against modern AIs on their maximum setting.)
I'm going to have to post as an AC or people will think I'm a Trekkie. (Nothing wrong with being a Trekkie, but I'm not one.)
Spock talked about God like he believed in Him (Her? It?) in 'The Ultimate Computer' episode. It's possible he was merely saying what Dr Daystrom believed without actually believing it himself, and maybe the writers and producers deliberately wanted to leave it somewhat ambiguous.
You need Captain Kirk, you dumb-muther-fucker.
You like presumptuous asshole, you presume the ass-ume that you or anybody can speak for atheists, or even atheism is a philosophy.
All fucking doing with this bullshit need for Captain Kirk, is replacing one fantasy with another.
... nor religion it seems. More simplified:
- You believe in "God" (A) or you do not believe in "God" (B)
- You can be rooted firmly enough in reality that you realize science (for the most part) reflects the reality that exists (1), or you can be so absorbed in a dream-world that you don't realize that. (2)
(I have encountered people that were A1, A2, B1 and B2 in my life. Although A1 and B1 more often than A2 and B2.)
Totally *unrelated* to those two facts are other aspects of your personality, like if you are friendly to your neighbours and family, or a raving madman that likes to shoot people, etc, etc, etc......
But that B1 and B2 people "need to compensate the lack of a God-figure with some other quasi-god-figure" is pretty much the greatest nonsense I have heard all day. (And I hear a lot of crazy stuff each day) Nature ITSELF is so absolutely mind-boggling that you can spent ages being just enthralled by the basic facts of it. Just listen to the "Fun to Imagine" Series by Feynman on YouTube to see how a person can be excited about basic scientific facts without needing some sort of "God-Figure" or personalized "Mascot"
What you want is an ideology... a belief system. Science is not a belief system.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I think you're talking about the purpose of life, though I'm not really sure from your rambling. Science does not describe the meaning of anything at all, it is purely descriptive not normative. You can accept everything science offers and still think God (or gods, if that's how you roll) put you on Earth for a reason or you might think there's no higher purpose to life. Which is not the same as saying there's no prupose at all, only the one you can find for yourself and what you are to everyone around you.
Science makes no statement about good or bad, right or wrong. Science tell us that if you punch me in the face my head will go backwards by Newton's "laws" of momentum, which are not really laws but observations of reality. It doesn't say if I should punch you back for "an eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek" or just wipe out your entire clan or family. Even more to the point, it doesn't provide answer to any of your choices - only the deterministic chain of events your choices will make.
amen.
I thought they were completely self-contained and did not need illusory morality. They should reject this argument as a meager attempt to instantiate a new, albeit unconvincing, deity.
By thinking it through. There is a lot of time to do that when you are an Atheist.
He's a moral sociopath. An excellent example of a kid without regular feelings of empathy and love raised with good principles that allowed him to be a benefit to society and those around him.
Unlike Dexter where they had to cop-out and fall back on the typical "people can't change who they are" crap.
As crazy as it sounds, Spock is a role model for some of us less emotionally endowed.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
A strawman argument, that Godwins itself within the first few paragraphs? This is worthy of slashdot now?
Really?
Any Scientist will tell you that it is impossible for man to create what God has.
Granted there are a lot of people out there that don't believe in the practices of Religion. Every religion that has been bastardized by man has resulted in some people normally leaders of kingdoms or politicians using religion for reasons that would not comply with TRUE FAITH.
Today it is ISIS saying they are slaughtering the infidels to do God's Bidding but the fact is no religion condones murder of the innocent.. with the exception of maybe Satanic Religions. And Satanism in of its self is a losing religion. To be a Satanist is to say God Created Satan and understand that in the end God will destroy Satan.
If people who are Narcissistic want to believe that they or humans are the most intelligent form of life and negate God completely I have no respect for them because Many of the people behind the best Scientific advancements have been Believers in God.
Let there be light.. light is also matter.. God's Energy created the matter that makes up everything in this Universe....
You don't have to spin around three times and bow to the northwest .. ..
you just have to realize
The Universe was not bought at Walmart
God Exists.. whether you believe or not
>atheists have pinned their flag to Mr. Spock's mast. But they need Captain Kirk.
No, we have not. Most atheist are atheist because they are think scientifically and the existence of a god or gods is unlikely. Science is guided by experiments, when the theory disagrees with the experiments, the theory loose every single time.
>I reject the idea that science is logical, purely rational, that it is detached and value-free, and that it is, for all these reasons, morally superior.
You do not describe science. You are rejecting something else I don't know what but not science. Science may be a method to achieve superior morality because it's about discussion and improving based on reality tested by experiments. If an experiment contradict the actual morality, let's change it !
>We need an account of our place in the world that leaves room for value."
You are not pro-science. I don't need your morality or values.
College sophomores tend to get all messed up on what they think is logic. Many atheists do as well. Because there is a limit to the depths that can be reached in science there is always an element of faith or trust that creates a condition similar to a worshiper in church. Science is able to shift beliefs a bit faster than most religions and set sail on a slightly different course. Religions are usually slower to adopt the latest beliefs. But in the end neither science nor religion is free of the irrational. Philosophy students are easily sucked into this as well. They would be well served to remember the quote that philosophy begins where language ends. Make note of philosophies that must create special words or alter the meanings of existing words or strangle the very nature of language in order to maintain an absurd belief system. Scientology leaps to mind.
From the article:
> "To which one might reply: Science is all those things. Between holocausts!"
My understanding is: without religion, there would have been no holocaust.
German Christians hated Jews. Hitler was a product of his strongly Christian upbringing. At the time, in Germany, Jew hatred was taught in public schools.
Why on earth would you blame science, and not religion, for the holocaust?
ISIL scholars or pro-GOP scholars?
I can't figure out which one Alva Noë has less understanding of - atheism, science, or Star Trek.
Apparently Noë's conclusion is that science does not make a very good religion. Since science is not a religion at all, that is unsurprising.
Atheism is not a religion. People who are atheists do not believe the same thing, they are people who lack a certain kind of belief. And they are certainly not people who have adopted science as their religion.
Atheism is a belief that there are no supernatural deities. Some atheists are fine with religious metaphors, they simply accept them as metaphors with no supernatural reality behind them. Atheism is not a rejection of values. In fact, atheists embrace the challenge of living lives that they must make meaningful on their own without having a religion tell them what that meaning is supposed to be ahead of time.
Spock is a fictional character.
One of the arguments for the existence of God is that we are inclined to worship. It is argued that we would not have this god-directed faculty if there were no object upon which to exercise this faculty. Apparently this article urges that hero worship be substituted. Charisma over reason....
Captain Kirk Cameron will straighten these darn atheists out with one mighty bible thump!
Science requires all the things that religions purport to be interested in: honesty, trust, humility, even a measure of self sacrifice, but it does it better than religions because of interpersonal accountability.
My response that atheists needs something to believe in: believe in the future of humanity.
It doesn't actually exist. It has psychotic tendencies. It may reward or punish us on a whim, but we can hope that it will work out okay.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Its not much different at all. A "Hard Atheist" may be just as religious and biggoted as any other kind of person devout to their beliefs.
The real question is: Is there a word for people who "Could care less if there is a god",
I think the pasta people might be closest to that ideal, but I could never embrace it.
Captain Kirk Cameron will straighten out these darn atheists with one mighty bible thump!
Science is a process of discovery: using observations, measurements, and thought to attempt to answer questions about the physical world. Religion attempts to define values, principles, rules, and ideas that enable our lives to be lived as our creator God desires. The only way that science and religion intersect is when people attempt to use science to prove or disprove the existence of God...which is obviously a question that science can not, and never will, resolve. If atheists need spockism, it is only because it gives them the comfort of a world with all questions 'logically' answered and with no messy philosophical entrails.
Spock for his logic and dedication to the scientific principle. Kirk so we can nail the occasional hot alien babe.
Have gnu, will travel.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or god. Nothing else. It's not about science, it's not about ethics, it's not about morals, it's not about values. When you say you're atheist, you're saying you do not hold any belief there is a god or gods. That's all. There's no dogma, no book, no set of "therefore we believe these here other thingamajigs", nothing.
If you want to know what an atheist thinks about something other than belief in a god or gods, you really must ask them, or you're simply letting your imagination paint a false picture of the world.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
> It's like when atheists are dumb enough to treat all Christians alike, or Muslims, ...
No it's not like that at all.
When you join an organization that espouses certain values, then you must agree with those values. Otherwise why would you join?
For example, if somebody joins the KKK, it would hardly be wrong to think that person is a racist. And if somebody joined NAMBLA, then it is fair to believe that person believes it is okay to molest children.
Atheists have no set ideology. For that matter, theists may not either - unless they belong to some organization that has some specified sort of ideology.
But if you are Christian, Muslim, whatever; then you are claiming that you ascribe to those values.
If I told my family and coworkers I was an atheist, they would disown me. I wouldn't be invited home again.
There are many backwards people in the world still. My boss is one too.
Where I live, being gay is much more acceptable than being an atheist.
TFA has nothing useful to add, sadly.
Is this an idea you came up with all on your own? Or did a bunch of people get together to try to convince you of these beings? Did they write books, build temples,and hold ceremonies to convince you of the existence and benevolence of these creatures?
Are you disbelieving the idea, or the people who told you the idea? The problem is, the people who told you didn't claim credit for the idea. They told you it was the TRUTH.
Do Vulcans have God/gods in their modern-day culture?
But then I found the undeniable proof for god's existence. It is an indirect proof. The existence of the devil makes only sense when there is a god. And for a proof that the devil exists and is real, the existence of the USA is more than enough.
As an atheist I can assure you we don't fucking need Star Trek. There just isn't some big bearded dude in the sky pulling strings down here and watching us when we sleep.
Author is a philosopher (i.e. bullshit artist), "a contributor to the NPR blog 13.7: Cosmos and Culture" and currently working on "a book about art and human nature".
Ergo, space+art+culture = Star Trek.
And as he is reaching for the lowest common denominator to hang his foregone conclusion on (and then wail on it until that straw flies out of that argument) - so Kirk as an imaginary opposite to an imaginary "Spockian" atheist.
Because that's what's recognizable to most people through cultural osmosis.
Who ever heard of Sybok as an opposite to Spock, right?
Oh... wait... That's the story where Kirk is the logical atheist and a Vulcan is a religious fanatic... oh...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
as Capt Kirk, trying to take their hero away will lead to violence. That is the way of their kind. Kirk killed entire planets of people as is the main goal of the Republicans. At the very least, even their most moderate leaders only want to kill entire races. Again, that is the way of their kind. ; Just last night one of their thugs in blue beat a friend. The Republican doctor in the ER refused to treat him so he went to jail without having his nose reset. Again, that is the type of things Republicans live for. They love their hero Kirk that shits on the rules and shits on all of us when doing it.
Fuck the OP for deamding we become like the Republicans.
Picard has stronger morality, of controlled action, and better speeches than Kirk. Picard is the man they want. Kirk is more fun to watch on TV though.
Its pretty funny actually. Ya might want to backtrack and re-read the conversation. Pay special attention to the capitalization if that helps.
Silly rabbit.
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma -- a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." Umberto Eco
It confuses human hunger for understanding as need for an easy and simple answer.
So, it supposes a hole which needs to be plugged up by something.
Ignoring the possibility that the hole is there for ingesting, digesting, absorbing and rejecting information - and not to be plugged up.
Human body is full of holes that need to stay open for us to function normally. Plug em up... and we die.
Same goes with our minds. Starve them of new information and they wither and suffocate.
Plug them up with dogma and they drown in their own excrement.
On another note, the "argument" ignores even the possibility of no religion to begin with, and thus nothing to reject.
Thus, according to that logic, a born atheist would be an impossibility.
Or a very wile man, whose life has no "meaning and direction" and with a "big empty spot where heart used to be".
What was that called again... Oh right... Bullshit.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Spock is merely a personification of logic and the scientific process.
The economic rulers need the majority of the voters to sign off on the use of any means possible to control the economic world. Since the majority are Christians, the rulers need to subvert or bribe the preachers to convince the flock that the bible will be fulfilled by the activities being undertaken by the rulers. So the Christian understanding of the bible's meaning is provided by lobbyist propaganda.
TFA is an argument against scientism using a Star Trek metaphor. Summary of TFA: Which is better Kirk or Spock? No, Kirk and Spock! Why stop there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Atheism means that you believe it's more probable for the universe then create itself then it is for a pedophile, misogynistic, sadomasochist, asshole, to create the universe 6000 years ago and you exist now thanks to incest, murder, killing, abuse and rape. If you want to believe in the literal bible then please go ahead, but you don't look intelligent, rational, mature or even like an adult. The same goes for Islam, Judaism and any other religion which claims to have the answers.
When you join an organization that espouses certain values, then you must agree with those values. Otherwise why would you join?
That is no true, sometimes there are circumstances that forces people to join some groups even if the people despise the group.
Do not conflate atheism with science. I'm an atheist and as I get older I have come to trust science less and less, esp. theoretical physics.
> “We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”
The harmonious living with the universe espoused by the Jedi (and based on real world atheistic religions such as Taoism, Buddhism, or Thelema) leaves plenty of room for meaning without requiring you leap to the notion of supernatural phenomena (though naturally, supernatural phenomena did make for more interesting movies). Compassion, acceptance, mutual liberty...all to the ultimate end of a more harmonious co-existence with the universe.
This is simply an arena in which Star Wars is a better guide than Star Trek.
> “If this is your God, he’s not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he’s so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He’s a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being.” — Spock, The God Thing, by Gene Roddenberry
This quote was recently making the rounds on Facebook. It’s taken from a newly discovered script, what The Complete Star Trek Library is calling “Gene Roddenberry’s Last Star Trek Novel.” Roddenberry was an ardent atheist and it appears he was constantly working his critique of religion into the series. The God Thing is a testimony to Roddenberry’s atheistic aims.
http://mikeduran.com/2012/08/star-treks-loopy-deity/
Spock: I wish we could've examined that belief of his more closely. It seems illogical for a sun worshiper to develop a philosophy of total brotherhood. Sun worship is usually a primitive superstition religion.
Uhura: I'm afraid you have it all wrong, Mister Spock, all of you. I've been monitoring some of their old-style radio waves, the empire spokesman trying to ridicule their religion. But he couldn't. Don't you understand? It's not the sun up in the sky. It's the Son of God.
Capt. Kirk: Caesar - and Christ. They had them both. And the word is spreading... only now.
Dr. McCoy: A philosophy of total love and total brotherhood.
Spock: It will replace their imperial Rome; but it will happen in their twentieth century.
Capt. Kirk: Wouldn't it be something to watch, to be a part of? To see it happen all over again? Mister Chekov, take us out of orbit. Ahead warp factor one.
Chekov: Aye, sir.
To which premise do you refer? I did not make the comment with the expectation of making friends, but rather to incite debate. Anyone who talks about religion and Atheism should expect debate.
That said. Religion is a fundamental construct of western civilization. To claim disagreement with what so many people have born, lived, killed, and died to believe is a very serious thing.
Premise: Atheism is a refutation or dismissal of ALL stories, anecdotes, eyewitness accounts, and historical records that claim the "for real" corporeal or non-corporeal existence of divine beings .
Premise: The refutation or dismissal of the existence of divine beings is incompatible with the belief, first-hand accounts, and historical record of said divine beings.
Premise: A Atheist, by virtue of the first premise, holds that the stories, anecdotes, and first-hand accounts of divine beings are wrong due to error or deception.
Spock, like all Vulcans, is a ball of superhumanly intense ball of base impulses only kept in check by a veneer of mental and psychic discipline that borders on masochism. When that control disappears, Spock dissolved into hysterical emotion and violence. He is not a role-model for atheism or science.
Enough said.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Sure, we'll do all your preacher daughters and all green space babes encountered.
Table-ized A.I.
I can produce evidence of that.
Particularly since the opening of a mosque in my neighborhood.
And since they've figured out how not to blow out the speakers every other day.
Luckily, rubber foam administered into one's ears beats praying 10 times out of 10.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Dear Alva Noë, the word you're looking for is "modernism", or rather, a caricature thereof. You're basically railing against a strawman on whom you put the label "Spock". I'm a scientists and I'm surrounded by scientists and atheists, yet I know few people who fit your description. Admittedly, some of the folks here on /. come close, but /. is a bit of a freak show in that respect. Either way, it sounds like you're trying very hard to paint modernists, atheists and adherents of science as sticks-in-the mud, which would make you part of the problem.
Atheism simply means that one does not believe in the existence of God. You can be religious and an atheist: there are many atheistic religions. And you don't need science to see through the self-serving web of lies preached by corrupt Christian churches, or to reject the evil morality that theism is based on.
The contradictions between theism and science are probably the least important argument against theism, both because science tends to be careful in its pronouncements, and because contradictions with reality are not convinced to theistic worshipers, and they are easily addressed by saying that whatever aspects of theism are contradictory are simply metaphor.
Richard Dawkins would have torn this to shreds. What we have here is a non-believing atheist. As in they utilize the forms and language of religion without explicitly expecting belief in some sky god. Atheists don't have a problem with meaning, it's the believers that have a problem with people who don't believe. And no, it isn't possible to prove that pink unicorns don't live at the end of your garden. And there is no problem in explaining consciousness, consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. I see where Deepak Chopra does an interview with Alva Noe. Sorry, but anyone who engages with any form of woo-ism is not worthy of serious consideration. To paraphrase, something is moral/immoral because the Sky God says so? Why is something moral/immoral, because the Sky God says so. How does believing in some Sky God give your morals any more validity - answer is -- it doesn't.
"Atheists, in so far as they are followers of Spock, have an explanatory burden that religionists don't carry — that of explaining how you get meaning and value out of particles"
This is dishonest bullshit, meaning doesn't reside in particles, and no self respecting atheist ever said so.
Atheism has no objective standard for ANYTHING. Evolution can offer no objective standard for ANYTHING... even "more evolved" and "less evolved" are debatable as there is no objective standard for where evolution is headed (given that it is an un-guided mechanism with no goal).
I have to laugh at the pathetic modern assertion that there IS some basis for morals/standards/ethics/values etc in some biological-mandate or evolutionary imperatives built-into biological systems to help further advance evolution... This is a desperate claim that an undirected system CAN establish such irrational mechanisms (unproven, other than by the pseudo-religious answer: "we're here, so our claims MUST be true") and worse that such biological trickery (hard-wired delusions?) are "good"
If you are an atheist and you live your life as anything other than a completely self-centered criminal psychopath then you clearly are not a true atheist - you are behaving as though there IS a God (or there ARE some Gods, or the universe is God, or whatever). You are behaving as if there are rules backed by some authority "above your pay grade". If you are male, why do you not rape every female in sight if you think you can get away with it? Spread your seed man! The poor all over the planet have proven that your descendents are more likely to survive and pass-on your genes if you have LOTS of kids by many women (20? 30?) never staying around to raise them than if you have one or two and waste all your evergy raising them. If you are female, you ought to start young and have as many as possible by as many rich, powerful, or athletic men as possible - and use the public social services to provide for them and raise them. One kid could easily die-off in an accident or from illness - a dozen means several are likely to live long enough to reproduce. Whether you are male or female, if you are an atheist you ought to steal everything you can get away with stealing. If you are not going to get caught, then there is no reason NOT to steal (making other biological entities work harder so you and your offspring can spend more of your superior energy reproducing. There's no reason for an atheist to not murder anybody who gets in his way, as long as he can "get away with it" and it is easier than the alternatives (like working for a paycheck). There is no reason to do anything to "advance" society since there is no standard for what "more advanced" IS... a pan-galactic virus could be the apex of all evolution.
Oh, and DON'T bother responding by the mis-direction of talking about the negatives of any or all other belief systems or institutions - NONE of what I posted here argues ANY of those matters. THIS post is only about the delusions that atheists and would-be atheists offer as fig-leaves in these discussions, while never actually TRYING to live like they believe what they insist they believe - AND the laughability of their idea that their system biologically tricks them into "behaving" in tha name of some nebulous "greater good" (in a system that lacks any objective definition for "good" and therefore cannot, by definition, have a "greater good")
Anyone who thinks Vulcans are logical is an idiot.
Oh, and anyone who's studied Game Theory knows that emotional responses are extremely logical in many circumstances. For example, if you can prove you are committed to self-sacrifice for nothing more than to damage your opponent who has angered you, you limit what is logical for an opponent to do to you. Thus, people cannot safely screw you whenever you would earn no material profit in harming them, because you will "illogically" get angry and punch them in the face.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
In the Avengers.
People say that Atheism is the disbelief of god, but that is not correct.
Actually they are correct, from dictionary.com: "atheist - noun - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
Agnostics doubt, atheists deny. Atheists have drawn a conclusion despite a lack of evidence, just like the theists.
It just screams like a post someone made without any philosophical background.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
You rule-out an infinite number of possibilities (ANY God or Gods or Goddesses, etc of ANY belief system including presumably the belief systems of all alien civilizations, and even the actual God, Gods, Goddesses that DO exists if he/they/she do/does exist) based on personal preference and ideology (NOT based on any scientific endeavour proving the non-existence of the afore-mentioned) and then go-on to proclaim that you have an "open mind" about everything else. It's funny, in part because you have clearly swallowed two logical fallacies without even noticing:
1. There's no need or ability to "prove a negative"; This has always been a fallacy as proven all over the world on a daily basis: People are being proven NOT to be guilty of various things, containers are proven NOT to contain things, various theories are proven NOT not be true, etc. all over the world all the time. The sun was proven NOT to orbit the Earth, which was proven NOT to be flat. In this spirit, if you want to assert that there is no God/Gods/Goddess you CAN assert it as a firm "belief", but it's NOT a fact unless proven. Admittedly, it would be impossible for a puny human to disprove, but that means it is an unproven assertion.
2. Showing evidence, or even proof, that something is POSSIBLE does not prove that it happened; Simply proving that it was possible for Thomas Jefferson to be the second American president (it WAS possible) does "not make it so" (he was NOT). In this light, showing that it is possible for mutation to occur in biological reproduction, showing that mutations can sometimes be "good" and can sometimes be passed-on, does not prove that this is the explanation for all life in the universe, including its origin and thereby prove the non-existence of any diety. It's possible a bunch of Gods cooked-up life, and then left it to evolution before killing each-other over a pangalactic poker game. It's possible One God created everything, including higher life forms, leaving an evolutionary mechanism for maintenence. An infinite number of other God-related and non-God-related possibilities could be imagined with evolution as a supporting element or as a mechanism that exists but was not used. Indeed there are many circumstances where more than one explanation for something exist, and multiple parallel things did indeed happen using multiple parallel causes. Evidence FOR evolution is simply NOT evidence against other possibilities.
A faux-open-mind is NOT an open mind, it's just a subborn, ornery mask for mental rigidity.
I'm telling you, there is no moral system on atheism and no one has provided evidence that it is accurate and correct. Atheists basically don't believe in anything. They are walking vassals of immortality and their elitism is very off putting.
We must NOT question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful Gene Roddenberry, who creates faulty plotlines, and then has to plug-in "tranporters" (and then "faulty transporters"), unemotional aliens (who then MUST be hyper-emotional) Godless-value-neutrality (which gets replaced with a "prime directive" "highest law" that must be frequently violated) in a money-free socialist utopian future (where people gamble with money, there is no explanation for the allocation of resources and CLEARLY everybody cannot have his own gleaming new starship) to try to cover for for his own selft-inconsistent beliefs and the resulting mistakes.
People get into trouble when they try to see the universe through the lens of a "prophet" who was just a TV guy who convinced a network to air a couple seasons of his take on a Western ("Wagon Train to the Stars"). They guy was a dude trying to make a good living in cheap entertainment! When he did the original Trek, he was not even able to do it on the "big screen" yet people treat him like a religious figure. Star Trek is just entertainment! - Just the modern version of guys on stage in tights yelling "To be, or not to be..." just people doing for a living what all the rest of us did when we were between 5 and 9 years old: dressing-up, playing make-believe, and telling stories. You would do just as well to glom onto Lucas, or Spielberg, or dramas like "Law and Order" or sitcoms like "Friends" for your life lessons.
Were there some good Trek stories? Yes. Were there some good performers and sets and props? Sure. Many other TV shows and movies have had better. Get over it and leave the spock ears and toy phasers on the shelf.
He is an angry man on a desperate mission to convince disaffected college kids to follow him down a path of hostility and bitterness littered with the wreckage of his anti-intellectual drivel. The only reason the idiot looks "good" to those already inclined to follow him is that he spends his time dissecting the arguments of a bunch of religious and/or "spiritual" people who base their beliefs on warm fuzzy feelings and "sacred" writings rather than arguing with seriously intellectual people who disagree with him on purely logical and rational grounds (the sort he will NEVER debate).
I'd challenge the jerk to prove he believes what he claims to believe by living as close as he possibly can to the system he claims to believe in - but I won't bother because he cannot and will not. Rather than live as a "true believer" in the purely mechanical version of life he claims to believe in, he will do what many of his pals do: dream-up irrational arguments for not doing so and ascribe some absolutely unproven biological or evolutionary basis for his "escape clause". A Chimpanzee is more intellectually honest and consistent than Mr. Dawkins. His arguments for where he derives any form of values morals or meaning or purpose are absolute tripe when you take them apart with the same methods and enthusiasm he uses those "relious people" he hates. Indeed, most of what he believes to be true is based upon a combination of assumptions, theories (and, yes, I mean "theory" in both the proper scientific sense and also in the vernacular as he is tangled-up in BOTH), and projections.
Dawkins is a typical "angry atheist" - he wants to live HIS life as though there is nobody above him who can tell him what to do... while wanting everybody else around him to live as though THEY are being limited by somebody above THEM (he wants his radical freedom, but with the societal safety and stability that was provided by the influence of 2K+ years of Christianity on everybody else). After-all, what good is absolute freedom for yourself if you are not a superman and you live in a "Mad Max" world of purely secular, pure evolutionists who would sooner grab your wife and daughters (the better to spread THEIR genetic superiority) take your stuff (to better their survival odds), and kill you (because it was fun or you were in the way) than barter? Being a world-famous iconoclast is Dawkins' schtick - his gimmick. I helps him, a mediocre man with few actual skills and an ill-temper, be rich and famous. Tearing-down has, historically, always been easier than building-up, and he takes the easy path.
Seems silly to point out but, if you don't believe some god created the universe, life, etc. then you need some explanation for the universe around us and us as observers of that universe. The flying spaghetti monster is one alternative but it sort of makes sense that quite a few atheists will just say that the scientific explanation of the universe works for them; no more, no less. It's not something to be carried on your sleeve. I'd hardly call that "flocking to science." I haven't heard of too many militant atheists picketing some religious get together with signs saying, "Believe in string theory!" or "Quantum Gravity has the Answer!"
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
off of slashdot. what the fuck is this shit?
Japan is an entire country of mostly atheists, and they aren't grasping for something to fill some presumed void. Neither is anyone I know. People who actually have that particular weakness already worship this or that deity.
One of the things I hated about TOS, TNG, etc was while the other species have centuries of culture, humans had none. Maybe it was Shatner's vision: Earth had a cultures 'reset.' Humanity became largely docile. Starfleet seems to be for those who didn't quite fit in, but even those humans abandoned history as abhorrent. Most enjoyments were alien in origin. Pets were imports from another planet. No one played basketball or soccer, two games that should be easy to export to starships with artificial gravity. TOS used history for morality plays but never tied it to their present day beyond "oh there was a nuclear war.' Yes TNG had poker. Riker was into jazz, but who else? Secular Humanism as depicted in Star Trek was pretty sterile, and civilizations are never that clean.
As for this view on atheism, it's the same sterility mistake. Being Atheist doesn't mean you worship science. Being a scientist doesn't eliminate your ability to appreciate spectacle, beauty, art, or music.
Being an Atheist doesn't protect you from false beliefs. There are Atheists who prefer anecdotal evidence over rigorous scientific testing. They follow politicians as if they held the keys to enlightenment. They may look the other way when a professional athlete slaps his wife around or destroys a drive through window because he didn't get his hot sauce.
Even Spock required regular pon farr.
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
Of how they are the devil's mouthpiece. Satan uses their articles and the commenters here to promote fornication, homosexual relations, and worst of all atheistic philosophy. This article is further proof of this. Unabashedly promoting atheism and Captain Kirk (who was basically a communist) on a site with young impressionable readership. I would be ashamed to work for them honestly. They are the lowest vermin in existence today, aside from Obama and his black minions.
Business used to have a completely secular moral compass. Rotary International has their The Four-Way Test, a "nonpartisan and nonsectarian ethical guide for Rotarians to use for their personal and professional relationships." Rotarians recite it at club meetings.
Of the things we think, say or do
This is a morality for business. That's a concept that sounds archaic today. It was mainstream from about 1940 to 1975. Many small business owners used to belong to Rotary, especially in small towns. What went wrong? That's a long story, and has to do with the decline in the political power of small business.
Anyway, that's a completely non-religious moral system which is still around and once was mainstream.
That is for the most part not true at least for Christians. The modern Christian "should" understand that God condemns them as a sinner and that anything they receive is of grace and mercy not entitlement or some result born of their own "goodness".
Eph 2:8-9:
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
But ignore me and the facts and just tell me what a selfish entitled bad bad man I am.
Do you even believe in grammar?
Understanding is a feeling based on a set of internal mental processes. For anyone who wants to think about anything, they require their feelings as much as any other aspect of their mental expression.
Spock then is a terrible role model for a human to attempt to emulate, as to be successful is to lose the ability to think properly.
Kirk is a seat of the pants creative responder to situations. That kind of activity doesn't lend itself to solve every kind of problem.
The problem with the ideas of god are multifaceted. and cannot be simply dismissed with a poster child for science. This simplifies the problem and to a degree that makes the solution unobtainable.
Quite interesting. They are the main characters, but don't count out Scotty.
When you have all four personalities then you also have something that can be found in some successful companies.
Kirk - the leader, emotional and active.
Spock - the cool logic mediator.
Bones - the humanistic perspective.
Scotty - the fixer geek.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
no wonder you are an AC. all your verbal diarrhea needs to be flushed away quickly
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
In practice the term 'agnostic' has come to mean 'doesn't have a belief about God', not what it means strictly. However, to confuse the point further, it can be argued that the person who claims not to have a belief about God proves by how he lives that he doesn't believe in God, at least on some definitions of God.
But that's what science is. Science is just knowledge gathered with a method that guaranties objectivity. That's logical, purely rational, detached and has attached no value whatsoever.
Science has no morals and says nothing about morality. Science is about physical reality. Something is true, though: if your morality is based in facts that go against science, your morality is based on lies.
Know, about atheism. Atheism is not science and science is not atheism. People of science tend to be more atheist than people of myth, that doesn't make science atheism. You'll find plenty of scientists who believe in some sort of deity, and people absolutely ignorant of the ways of science who don't believe in gods. Atheism doesn't have any challenge in front of it, atheism is just an answer to a very simple question: do you believe god exists? It is not an organized religion, it is not organized in any way, it's just a lack of believe. It doesn't come with a set of morals attached to it and I don't think it is a good a idea to define one. If I, as an atheist, wanted for others to tell me how to behave and what to live for, I would choose a religion and stick with it.
What I said did not claim that there was an atheist perspective, what I said claimed that it provides no basis for a value system. You argue there is no atheist perspective. We therefore agree that it provides no basis for a value system! However I guess I might have expressed the point more tightly...
Quite possibly true, but to do so requires an additional presupposition that 'rational systems' or evolution should provide a basis for morality. Why should they?
Sure fight your strawman all you want. But you are rejecting an non existant science. Science is about self correcting process , reasonable, to discover more about our universe and its quirk. Science is not morallly superior, or moral at all. Science USER are the one which bring moral in. As for the spock image, well it is a movie. DUH. We atheist already threw away the old gods, we do not need new gods especially idols from movie and tv serie about an utopia.
Repeat slowly after me: atheism is not about sicence, atheism is not about anything whatsoever as value or morality. atheism is solely about the belief of absence of gods.
Some atheist are religious. Some do not care about evidence and are simply atheist out of lazyness. Some do ask themselves question and introspect. Some are terrible evil asshole some are good. Basically atheist are (tada!) human. All that link them is the absence of belief in gods nothing more nothing less.
Now you may be as me an agnostic atheist (null hypothesis is that there is no god, and the clan pretending there are gods have not brought any evidence to stop the null.... Still I am not gnostic atheist I do not know for SURE there is no gods, only no evidence of it). And you might as me try to use the rational process of science for many reason (self correcting, try to remove bias etc...) but that still does not make us less human. We are still bound by morals and emotions.
My final word : spock is not 100% rational ! you misunderstood the character of spock. Spock *ATTEMPT* to be 100% rational. But he is a mere half human and is sometiems driven by emotions. We saw him relieved for example that kirk was safe in movie/tv serie. We saw him getting angry. We saw him having emotions. Your diatribe would have been better put with a true 100% vulcan. So you even fail at common knowledge.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
My wife and I (both engineers) give religion a place in our lifes as much as we reckon the inaccuracy of human observation.
It gives us an opportunity to step back and think about our limits.
Why is it so important for people to believe in god?
Given my need to live cooperatively, then it makes rational sense to live by these standards. However this doesn't offer any insight into the role or otherwise of Atheism in this debate.
go educate yourself you ignorant fools!
..ignore everything the retarded hippy that wrote this article said, because hippies are absolutely not worth listening to in any situation.
Science is purely logical, purely rational and morality free!
Atheism is a much more general and also a much more loaded philosophical concept, that has absolutely nothing to do with science. Many atheists are very passionate about the fact that humans are moral, and, in fact, God, is not!
Stop trying to conflate the two.
SPOILER ALERT (from 1979)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The point of this movie (and my favorite Star Trek movie) is that Spock learns to expand his mind beyond Spock-ism!
So atheist's don't believe the bullshit the theists are spewing.
The quickest way to becoming an atheist is to realize that they are a compassionate human being, and the god of the Christians presented in the bible is a childish, genocidal psychopath, who is good only because he claims be.
we have no idea what is outside our universe. we can only test theories inside the universe.
making testable predictions is the realm of science.
making untestable predictions is the realm of religion.
the hypothesis that there is no god/higher force outside the universe is as untestable as the hypothesis that ther is any kind of god outside the universe.
as a physicist I therefore am agnostic, buy I expect religions not to make any conclusions which affect my life by conclusions from unproven fairytales
WTF is this? Religious people not just claiming a factually facist souverenity of all things moral but now also claiming the same about passion, poetry and emotion? WTF, dudes?
Just because I believe in science and reason, in the scientific method and in moral values by what Dawkins calls "intelligent design" - i.e. debating, weighing and reasoning - doesn't mean I'm not passionate. I have a diploma in performing arts, love poetry and music, am pratically addicted to dancing tango (i.e. holding hot cuties in my arms while moving to passionate music ... you'd get addicted too, trust me ...) and indulge in stoic philosophy and mysticisim and enjoy studiing and debating religious philosophy and architecture.
I just don't like some religious facist telling me - or anybody else for that matter - what they are supposed to believe, think, advocate, pray, meditate, celebrate or otherwise do due to some invisible dictator in the sky or some ancient bronce-age myth written in a book most people are to dumb to interpret correctly anyway! Or telling others that they will burn in hell if they don't chop of certain parts of their penis or will go to heaven if they wear certain clothes of blow themselves up with some unbelievers!
If anything I'd say that my likes - I like to call them 'free thinkers' - are *more* passionate about most things than 'religious' people, who simply have found a sad and sorry reason to turn off their brains when it comes to difficult questions.
I'm starting to believe we need a more outspoken movement for reason and gotta go out into the street standing right next to the Salafist handing out free Qurans and the J-Wittnesses with their watchtowers and hand out free copies of Hitchens' 'God is not great' and copies of Seneca and Spinoza.
Religious factions made up of losers are starting to claim to much space in public attention, imho. This is getting out of hand and needs a little counter-action, don't you think?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
What you need is to grow up! What a childish life you have basing your thoughts on a fantasy.
Dawkins has been challenged on this point. He knows what scientism is enough to refute the charges. Dawkins does not use scientism in every argument but he often resorts to it when he is in a corner and refutes the charges later. This is a massive failing on his part and weakens his argument. Because Dawkins in a corner relies entirely on what is known science fact. The end result is that Dawkins appears to have no confidence in moral reasoning and cannot concede that science can only ever be a contributing science officer on the bridge of human reason. Spock is well aware of the limitations of his training and does not seek executive control of the bridge. Not so Dawkins. For more details on Dawkins occasional resort to scientism under pressure see: http://www.rightreason.org/201.... Btw, Bones is a kind of moral philosopher and also a theist. Agnostic atheist speaking ; ). The basic problem with Dawkins is that he cannot find a way to acknowledge that science is only a contributor to human enterprise and cannot yet be trusted with the position of first executive. Further he cannot understand there are good reasons for this.
Oops, should be:
In other words, religious people feel threatened by science, so they will adopt the fantasy that science is, or should be, more like just another religion, thereby putting science and their religion on an equal footing.
Ill stick with Seven of Nine thanks.
the hypothesis that there is no god/higher force outside the universe is as untestable as the hypothesis that ther is any kind of god outside the universe.
Here is the fundamental difference: The obvious response to the statement "The universe was created by God/The Big Bang" is "OK, so who created God/what caused the Big Bang?" Religion forbids asking that question and insists that you accept the existence of one particular interpretation of God as an article of faith. Science*/atheism recognises it as an unanswered question, and accepts the possibility that it could be answered in the future.
To cut a long story short, go and read up on Russell's Teapot.
For me, atheism is not believing in any of the various gods on offer by the world's religions, which, falsifiable or not, are so blatantly anthropomorphic that the "null hypothesis" is obviously that they are products of the human imagination. The possibility of some non-anthropomorphic "higher force" lurking before the big bang is so ill-defined that its existence isn't even non-falsifiable (how can you prove that you can't disprove something that isn't defined?) and doesn't justify calling yourself "agnostic" - its just a variation on "God moves in mysterious ways".
(NB: Disclaimer: sufficiently bad science is indistinguishable from religion.)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Do you seriously imply that people who do not beleave in god, beleve in god?
Like wtf?!
This is one of the stupidest slashdot post ever I came across. Any way its funny.
If you want to be awe inspired: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXEiKPxCSdA
This is not the sig you're looking for.
Great comment :)
If I could mod you up I would.
sure, but wouldn't that make you an idiot?
So, in other words. God. Atheists need God.
Where did the vacuum and quantum fluctuations come from that supposedly started all of this.
Scientists answer is not ex nihilo , it is always from a vacuum and quantum fluctuations.
I am sorry but that is not ex nihilo.
Where did THAT come from?
The problem is that value is not intrinsic, so it necessarily ends up varying from person to person in a largely arbitrary way. Attempts by atheists to universalize value invariably end up just creating a new god like "humanity" or "progress" that serves the exact same function as a traditional religion, merely in a more subtle fashion.
... the last refuge of belief, for the professed non-believer.
It's like when atheists are dumb enough to treat all Christians alike, or Muslims, ...
No it's not like that at all.
When you join an organization that espouses certain values, then you must agree with those values.
So what "values" do Christians per se have? Not Roman Catholics, Mormons, Greek Orthodox, or Lutherns of the Reformed Eastern Minnesota Synod, but "Christians" as an indistinguished whole?
Likewise with Muslims - the only definititve charachteristic for Muslims is the belief that "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his Prophet." Certainly the Quran, supposedly being the accounts of the Prophet, are a knock-on addendnum to the second clause, but there is oh so much room for disagreement and interpretation.
I believe you'll find that the "values" you assign to Christians, Muslims, etc. are the values of the particular set of vocal followers and sects you have been exposed to, rather than the values of "Christians" or "Muslims" as an undivided whole. I can almost guarantee you that if you started opining about "Muslim values", you'll find some Muslim who would pipe up and say "No it's not like that at all. Not *all* Muslims believe that. If you believe that there is no god but God, and Muhammad is his Prophet, you're a Muslim. There isn't a single group or organization that Muslims share a membership in."
That's a greatn justification to be able to sterotype others and not yourself
kirk and spock, both jewish, sandler said it all
You dont' need Captain Kirk you need Existentialism. Existentialism is a philosophy concerned with finding self and the meaning of life through free will, choice, and personal responsibility. The belief is that people are searching to find out who and what they are throughout life as they make choices based on their experiences, beliefs, and outlook. And personal choices become unique without the necessity of an objective form of truth. An existentialist believes that a person should be forced to choose and be responsible without the help of laws, ethnic rules, or traditions.
RODENBERRY? j00!
Athiest? You been fooled by the J00z!
Kirk? Spock? Metaphor?
Atheists do not believe in God, because there is no sound evidence for God and atheists do not believe in things without evidence. Scientists tend not to believe in things without evidence, God is a thing one could believe in, so absent evidence many scientists are atheists. But so are plenty of non-scientists. This point is simple, and is utterly disconnected from morality. Santa Claus might illustrate some sort of imperfect morality as metaphor (not that I think that this is the case) but that that doesn't mean Santa exists, or that the argument for Santa depends in some way on whether or not the Tooth Fairy is needed to fill in moral gaps in pure Santaism.
Many atheists, like many theists, have an admirable personal moral system. Indeed, since they act in morally good way without any hope or expectation of postmortem supernatural reward or punishment, one could argue that a good atheist is a much better person than a good theist whose good acts are in any part motivated by hope of reward or to avoid punishment. Atheists tend to recognize that if heaven or hell exist, they exist right here, right now, on Earth and human action is the only thing that can increase the prevalence of the one and decrease the prevalence of the other. An observation that was reportedly made several thousand years ago by the non-supernatural empirical social philosopher atheist, Siddhartha, a.k.a. Buddha.
Atheists often try to live a life that minimizes both their suffering and the suffering of those around them, and to work for a better world for all because that's the only safe and secure way to maximize a better world for themselves and those they care about. A rational morality is actually quite possible without an imaginary source of supposedly perfect magical justice in a world that is quite obviously lacking any such thing.
rgb
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
[O]ne must begin by asking: What are values? Why does man need them?
“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.
...
:unquote
...
It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”
The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man. Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life.
Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. To the extent to which a man is rational, life is the premise directing his actions. To the extent to which he is irrational, the premise directing his actions is death. A rational process is a moral process.
...
Values are the motivating power of man’s actions and a necessity of his survival, psychologically as well as physically.
Man’s values control his subconscious emotional mechanism that functions like a computer adding up his desires, his experiences, his fulfillments and frustrations—like a sensitive guardian watching and constantly assessing his relationship to reality. The key question which this computer is programmed to answer, is: What is possible to me?
...
An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man’s reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind....Emotions are not tools of cognition.
...
The Objectivist ethics holds that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.
--The Objectivist Ethics, Ayn Rand
Science actually has done a good job of explaining how love, humor, sunsets and knuckleballs come about. Presuming they don't is most illogical.
You're projecting. You're trying to conflate what YOU would do with what some "other" would do. You are engaging in a common fundie tactic of pretending your own fault is that of your "enemy". You assume that atheists "give a fuck".
From one simple observation you claim to know how I behave and what I believe, and you accuse me of projecting?!
> What about non-religious people forcing their views onto you or other people?
This only manifests in preventing theocrats from running around like members of ISIS forcing their views on everyone else.
The facts do not support your argument, for example the situation in Ukraine is clearly not about theocrats. And the same is true of many (and arguably most) of the recent major conflicts in the world.
We have certain laws and founding ideals that are contrary to the theocrat mentality.
You do realise that those "laws and founding ideals" are an example of the government forcing their views onto other people?
"I reject the idea that science is logical, purely rational, that it is detached and value-free, and that it is, for all these reasons, morally superior. Spock-ism gives us a false picture of science."
Reject it all you want, but the scientific method IS logical, purely rational, detached, and value-free. In fact, that's only THE WHOLE POINT and why it's useful. An irrational science that accounts for values is no longer science; it's just more un- or anti-scientific blathering.
But then, it's exactly for this reason that science is not "morally superior." Since science is value-free it cannot possibly declare itself to have such a value.
In the end it sounds like what this author really wants is for people to consider values in addition to science, but he doesn't realize that there are other, value-considering approaches out there. He's hijacking science unnecessarily.
Science should be conducted in a "Spockian" manner, however difficult it may be to do that. That is the only way to get to truth. But it's absurd to say we don't find meaning in these truths. Knowing the true vastness of the universe is so much more inspiring than imagining God walking around above our heads in the heavens, with Earth as the center of focus. Imagining the evolution of life over vast eons is way more mind-blowing than imagining God, like a cheap magician, poofing things into existence. That some people are too small-minded to see it, doesn't make that the fault of how science is, and must, be done.
It is a Spockian universe. There is no intrinsic "meaning" to it, except that which we as individuals ascribe to it. Allow me to quote, (or paraphrase, if my memory doesn't serve me), the great philosopher, Robert Crumb:
Flaky Foont: "What does it all mean?
Mr. Natural: "It don't mean shit."
Those profound words have stuck with me since I first read them, as a child, back in the late sixties/early seventies. Nihilism is not a philosophy of despair. It merely shows us we have to derive our own meanings.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
"What does God need with a starship?"
(Posting as Anonymous Coward because I actually LIKED Star Trek V... and I don't want anyone to know who I am.)
The Kirk, Spock, McCoy triumverate is loosley based on Freud's version of what he saw as the main parts of the human psyche: the Id, Ego and the SuperEgo.
The Id: passion, drive, sex, ambition, forward movement, drive. That's Kirk.
The Ego: the computer, logic. That's Spock.
The SuperEgo: the conscience. That's McCoy. "Dammit Spock... [guilt trip, guilt trip, guilt trip, nagging conscience, etc.]"
It doesn't make sense to be just 1/3 of a person. It takes all parts even though you may want to maximize the logical attributes.
As an interesting aside, the original Enterprise Captain, Captain Pike, played by Jeffrey Hunter, said in a TVGuide interview about 1966 that it was the RAND Corporation's (military thinktank) vision of the future that was driving the series.
So if you go to America, you're endorsing an overinflated military-industrial complex and a surveillance state?
If you move to France, you must be in favor of subsidies for local culture and outdated subsistence farming?
"Christian", "Muslim" etc. are much, much broader categories than you seem to give them credit for. They're not single-issue groups, like the KKK or NAMBLA, they're very broad, if you'll pardon the pun, churches full of people with a huge range of views. For about 500 years of European history - spilling over into early American history, in fact - intellectuals didn't even realize it was possible for an educated person to be anything but a Christian, but it didn't stop them from arguing passionately with one another about - well, just about everything we argue about now.
I wish I had understood this better as a teenager. Bertrand Russel said that every philosopher makes at least one assumption, usually not acknowledged, and builds from there. As Albert Einstein said: ..."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ao...
"It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way.
For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.
As I see currently it, sets of assumptions ("meme complexes"?) are almost like living beings...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
You have not developed anything "moral" or anything one might think of as "values" or "ethics" in your caveguy example; your imagined "new insights" are really nothing more than the "discovery" of self-importance and self-centeredness (base human behavior that feed the worst in humanity). The early man in your thought experiments has simply adopted behaviors that are less likely to get him killed (it's all about HIM). All creatures with brains do this, and there is no particular "virtue" in it beyond the selfish.
What most people consider to be the truly "good" values are the selfless ones, the firefighter running into thte burning building, the thirsty man who gives his water to somebody else, the hungry woman who givers her food to somebody else's child, etc. (the acts that have NO benefit to the one performing them)
The problem with the purely mechanical view of everything that the atheist ends up with is that there is not even an objective source of definitions like "good" or "bad", "better" or "worse" since there is not and goal or design to the overall system. One can say that a dolphin is more complex than an ant, but one cannot say that this is good or bad because nothing says that complexity is a valid measure of progress... the obvious question becomes: "progress towards WHAT?" and with no goals there can be no answer, thus there is no valid way to measure progress or even know that it IS progress rather than regression.
I'm sorry, but the post-WWII Darwinist claim that the NAZIS "improperly" interpreted Darwinisim is just political crap driven by the mad desire to prevent the general public from being repulsed. It's no different from that other "progressive" rant that every communist empire was bad because the "wrong people" tried it or the people who tried it "did it wrong".
The NAZIs claimed that Jews and NAZIs were less-evolved "sub humans" and sought to wipe them out - prefectly consistent with Darwin. In coldly analytical terms, they could have been seen as "right" given how easily they eliminated so many who were apparently "less suited to survive". Embrace your full Darwin! Be proud of him! Get out of the closet! ... (or be civilized and reject this evil bile... it's your choice but try to be consistent and intellectually honest)
Darwin simply argued that living creatures better equipped to survive do survive (in whatever situation they are in), and in doing so they are more-likely to pass-on to their offspring ANY genetic traits (including mutations) which they had which may have helped them survive... with the long-tem result that traits that enable survival are more-likely to be passed-on. NOTHING in Darwin says that somehow, if humans intentionally select the "surviviors" (no different from lions "selecting" the fastest zebras for survival by failing to kill them) the whole scheme is invalidated. What the NAZIs did was what the founder of Planned Parenthood (eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who wanted to wipe-out the "brown people") wanted to do: speed-up the advancement of the human race by wiping out the "less desirable". Nothing about that violated Darwinism - people who could not escape Margaret Sanger were clearly less-equipped to survive this predator's attack. Clearly any human killed by the NAZIs was somebody less-equipped to survive, and the average NAZI was better uquipped to survive than his victims... no matter how POLITICALLY toxic this is, it is entirely compatible with Darwinism. Darwinism does not contain an escape clause with an asterisk for distasteful things. Personally, I find it repugnant, but then I am not a person insisting that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for everything.
I get it. Darwinists do not want to be identified with a man who by all rights should be their hero; Adolph Hitler. This is like all the modern commies who do not want to be tarred with Stalin or Pol Pot or Chairman Mao.... it's POLITICALLY embarrassing.
If you embrace Darwin but then run away in embarrasment when somebody points to NAZI eugenics or Southeastern American slave owners breeding their black slaves for things like strength, then you are being political rather than bluntly logical. These things go together like peas in a pod and there is NO honest way to deny it; either lifeforms are enhanced through selective breeding and elimination of their lesser peers (naturally or otherwise) or they are not. Make no mistake: "selective breeding" is the same as being hunted and killed in a Darwinian system - in both instances some creature's survival and reproduction is regulated by some other creature or circumstance and a "more evolved" creature would have better odds. If Darwinism is the basis for everything and atheism rules the day, then the eugenics freaks were on a perfectly valid right track that we should all embrace. If not, then Darwinism is toxic.... unless, of course you want to go all theistic and start moralizing that the mechanisms of genetics and reproduction are just that (mechanisms), but that some forms of human meddling with them might be "bad" and have "moral" implications...
The end of the "Wrath of Kahn" when Spock is being "buried" in space...
As the crew observes Spock's coffin riding the rails into the torpedo tube, the VERY Christian anti-slavery song "Amazing Grace" is being played on bagpipes...
Rodenberry was, indeed, an ardent atheist; his "prime directive" was in reality a rant against Christian missionaries - a bigoted assertion that primitive little brown people are better-off left to wallow in their illiterate stone-age state than join the rest of us in the modern world that Jews and Christians built. Having created his utopian "prime directive", he then found that he could not write many stories (that a civilized audience would like) in which the "prime directive" was actually obeyed so his main hero characters routinely break it.
Albeit he says so, Mr. Spock is not at all "logical, purely rational, that it is detached and value-free," as the OP says. On the other hand, "official" religions have not endeavored into intellectually challenging arguments for several centuries now. They are becoming tedious, to the point that many scientists, even if they are not atheists, consider their religious commitment detached from their work.
". . . I reject the idea that science is logical, purely rational, that it is detached and value-free, and that it is, for all these reasons, morally superior. Spock-ism gives us a false picture of science. It gives us a false picture of humankind's situation. We are not disinterested knowers. The natural world is not a puzzle. ... The big challenge for atheism is not God; it is that of providing an alternative to Spock-ism. We need an account of our place in the world that leaves room for value." "
But true science at its heart must be truly rational or it is not really science at all.
If you don't see natural world as a puzzle then you are not seeing it scientifically.
If we are choosing archetypes for science then I would choose Spock as a pretty good one.
The real truth should be on the other foot - far more can be achieved by analysing emotions and religion and empathy using 'cold' empirical logic.
Human thought and emotion are extremely logical, love is a beautiful example of object driven logic.
Religion on the other hand, to much logic and it crumbles to dust and blows away in the wind.
Another thing that logic highlights is that religion has almost nothing to do with God, it is really all about total social control, ie the enslavement of the simple minded heard, the sheeple (baaa baaa...).
Ultimately science and logic reaches the Anthropic Question and this basically proves that God exists - however the real thing isn't anything like the God/Gods of religion. - This real scientific 'God' doesn't care about good or evil, humans and the Earth are pretty irrelevant to it, it doesn't have a mind in the way we understand it, you cant talk to it. In fact it is dead, it only existed during the moment of the big bang - a mindless force (a quantum order seeking force), a wave of expanding energy, physics....
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
Sorry for beeing late but there is just no evidence for that claim:
Many of the people behind the best Scientific advancements have been Believers in God.
I suspect that some of those 'believers in god' took the easy way and didn't want to destroy their scince with an argument about god. You know that such an argument was deadly most of the time.
You can only count those who did have that argument, like Gallileo.
I suspect that many of the people behind the best scientific advancements couldn't care less about god.
As a mathematician I find that I am struck by the boundary between what mathematics and research tell me and what ethicists (religious and otherwise) tell me. The best example of the conundrum we rationalists face is how to claim that a behavior is moral when the underlying systems model tells us it is not. Consider the classic question of which is "better", the old testament (admittedly an arbitrary source, but bear with me) rule of "an eye for an eye" compared with the new testament rule to "turn the other cheek". Extensive exploration of the long term consequences of these two strategies for life are conducted under the guise of game theory, most specifically, the extensive simulations of the prisoner's dilemma (made famous by the book of the same name). The massive hoops and artificial framing necessary to make simulated evolution favor turning the other cheek are strong indications of the strength of the simpler, eye for an eye strategy. Perhaps what makes us most human (whatever that is) is when we embrace, for our own illogical reasons, turning the other cheek in the face of the systems models that tell us to exact an eye for an eye. But the price we pay is the price of the person who leaps from a bridge hoping to fly like a bird when the systems analysis says it won't work. Because evolution operating on memes will punish the society that follows the gentler turn the other cheek in the face of a society that exacts the eye for an eye. Is extinction the price we pay for the more "moral" and gentler turning the other cheek? I hope not, but keep the eye I have left wide open just in case.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
“Values, life meanings, purposes, and qualities slip through science like a sea slips through the nets of fishermen. Yet man swims in this sea, so he cannot exclude it from his purview. This is what was meant when we noted earlier that a scientific world view is in principle impossible. Taken in its entirety, the world is not as science says it is; it is as science, philosophy, religion, the arts, and everyday speech say it is. Not science but the sum of man's symbol systems, of which science is but one, is the measure of things.
With science itself, there can be no quarrel. Scientism is another matter. Whereas science is positive, contenting itself with reporting what it discovers, scientism is negative. It goes beyond the actual findings of science to deny that other approaches to knowledge are valid and other truths true. In doing so it deserts science in favor of metaphysics-- bad metaphysics as it happens, for as contention that there are no truths save those of science is not itself a scientific truth, in affirming it scientism contradicts itself. It also carries marks of a religion-- a secular religion, resulting from overextrapolation from science, that has seldom numbered great scientists among its votaries.”
Huston Smith, Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the World's Religions
Wow, almost 800 comments and NO ONE even mentions the word "mythology" when speaking of religion. Atheists, like myself, reject mythoogy as "Truth". All religion is mythology. The Romans believed as hard about their Gods as modern Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wickens, Satanists, etc. do about their current God or Gods. So did the Greeks, the Phoenicians, the Aztecs, the Egyptians, and all the societies that had religions before them. What do we call all those completely valid at the time beliefs today? Mythology. Why? Because it was replaced by a new more accepted one? Nope. Sorry. Don't buy it. Anything involving the supernatural is mythology, including all current religious texts. Sorry. They are books of parables.
Another thing that a lot of atheists exhibit is a lack of trust in "blind faith", the "because I said so" schtick. Again, no.
The morality argument is tired. If religion was so great at instilling morality then all criminals would be atheists. Enough said. STFU about religion and morality. More atrocious things have been done in the name of religion than for any other reason in human history since religions came about. Especially, the current Abrahamic sorts. We've got more than a few live demonstrations of this lunacy going on right now! Hypocrites, the lot of them.
I am also not missing anything by not having religion or some "higher belief" in my life. Meaning to life comes from inside you. The joy you take from what you do everyday. Knowing that we all live in a wonderful universe that is full of mystery. That there might be no limit to the things we still need to learn about our universe in order to understand it. Everyone has the capacity to find meaning in their own life no matter what their beliefs are. If the only meaning you derive from life comes from religion, then I am sad. There's plenty more places it can come from. The proof is all around.
P.S. To limit confusion I put the links in to definitions of words that may have different meanings to different people. I don't care what you think the word means I am going by what it means. When you invent your own language you decide what words mean. If we're using English we go by the definitions. I have also read most modern religious texts (for analysis and comprehension, not just skimmed and put down) including, Torah, Bible, Qu'ran, many Hindu texts and Buddhist texts. I have attended many denominations of services and rituals and enjoy learning above all. I am not closed minded and tend to make deliberate, educated decisions while keeping in mind that new information may change things in the future.
The only question I..
Ever thought was hard...
Was do I like Kirk?
Or do I like Picard?
And no, it isn't deep, nor profound. But it is funny.
I like that quote, even though it was a bit difficult to digest. The English language has evolved in the past century in a way that demands much less of the reader and conveys much less complexity and accuracy.
I wanted to add, somewhere, my $.02 about "faith." I'm told that early (1st century) Christians used what-we-translate-as-faith to be a kind of radical trust. More verb than noun. A trust in an idea, not fully understood or rationalized, that allowed them to lead lives that were unselfish, bold/foolhardy, non-violent extremists, anti-establishment, share-the-wealth sorts of people. The idea is that for them, faith was incompatible with certainty. Conviction deletes the possibility of faith. They did not have proof of deity, a consistent doctrine, etc. Reason was encouraged and appealed to, but knowledge was known to be incomplete.
What most people think about religion is that it is a doctrine (teaching or authority-based knowledge) that requires unwavering belief without question or reason. (My perspective here is Christianity rather than all religion, but I suspect that most major world religions are similar in this way.) Yet this is probably not a genuine or original form of any given religion but instead what human nature and politics have deformed religions into over time. People want to be told what to believe, and people who desire power cannot help but use fear and shame to great effect. I think modern-day Christianity is more about manipulating people and in most respects is the exact opposite of its earliest incarnations.
Science today has some of the same struggles. Science itself is an art, since the more precisely one tries to define it, the more inaccurate that definition becomes. Scientific knowledge is a little bit of an oxymoron since science can be described as a tool for disproving what is not true more than it is a means of proving what is true. This is true on all scales of complexity, but it's most evident at the reductionist frontier of particle physics and cosmology. The standard model is not logically consistent with general relativity, yet both theories are spectacularly successful. And there are problems of naturalness, etc. It is not tenable, not reasonable or scientific, to think that our most successful scientific theories are set to last. Modifications need to be made, and probably in big, fundamental, philosophically-challenging ways. The history of the development of physics is full of cases like this and physics is by no means "done." But people are eager to philosophize based on "what scientists know", and they are eager for answers from authority.
Authentic science, like authentic religion, is not authority-based. I'm not saying anything negative about consensus, just that there is always room for new theories and new experiments regardless of credentials. Data does not respect authority. And I don't believe there needs to be any contradiction between the two approaches of religion and science, as long as we are referring to religion as a searching process not a placating drug. Both science and religion address the basic problem of doing the best we can today with what little we know. Good scientists know that good questions are better than "right" answers, and good ... what, "religious" folk ??? (atheists included) ... know that it's better to be loving than right.
I suppose most of these ideas come from two books that might seem diametrically-opposed: The Underground Church, and Dreams of a Final Theory.
atheism is not a religion.
The rest of your post is 3rd grade tripe.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In an ideal world, human beings could be motivated by appeals to great ideals. Some people are: I have to admire the 'red martyrs' of communism who accept death for their beliefs with no hope of resurrection, unlike the 'black martyrs' of the Church. However in reality most people will rapidly drift back to being selfish. Therefore the prospect of eternal reward and punishment provide an external goad that, within the religious worldview, is a reality that will encourage people to stay on the strait and narrow. Of course it may not be true - but if it is, it is a reality for the believers.
Atheism offers no such goad. It has to construct a vision for the future, and depend on politicians to evangelise for it. This has not gone well...
Darwin asserts NOTHING about the cause of the death of a creature. In that light, the only valid definition of "fit to survive" is that a particular creature does indeed survive (anything else is a pure human construct overlayed onto an incident (a death) where it does not actually apply). Therefore, it does not matter if the death is caused by a "typical" predator (like a lion or wolf) or a human predator (like a NAZI or a Planned Parenthood employee). Hitler's mass exterminations were no less consistent with Darwin than the near extinction of any other population of living organisms by any other predator that "over-hunts" its prey. This is all highly politically-toxic and I personally think the whole mess if highly objectionable - but we must be coldly intellectual here and face the facts whether we like them or not.
There is simply no rational and honest way to separate the early 20th century progressive movement's eugenics ideas (which Hitler borrowed - right down to the idea of using a gas to eliminate "undesirables" (google Gearge Bernanrd Shaw)) from Darwin, who was THE inspiration for them. The early 20th century progressives were very open and honest about all of this, it's too bad their (intellectual and political) great grand kids are so embarrassed and so desperate to bury the links while keeping all the beliefs. Even our new healthcare law contains the traditional "progressive" idea that old people's lives are worth less becauser they are past their reproductive and parenting years; this is part of a system that assigns a dollar value to a person at each point in his life (children and the elderly being less valuable, the first because society has not yet invested much in them and they are easily replaced, the latter because they are no longer fertile or productive) which is champoined by several of the designers of the ACA (google Zeke Emmanuel, Rahm's brother).
It is when it tells people what [not] to believe.
Fundamental atheists have zero respect for tolerating other people's different belief -- they arrogantly assume theirs is the "correct" one.
Define the beneficiary of rotary's "all concerned". If you does not mean everyone than it's a club or a church.
Odd. You're careful about the "claiming" caveat when discussing religions, but not those other groups. Consider Jerry Thompson: http://dlib.nyu.edu/undercover...
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
See the Soviet Union and the Killing Fields of Burma to find out how that worked out...
lol Your comment could be construed to mean that some atheists are smoking some slashdot editors.