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."
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.
And that's the problem; it's impossible to justify a value system purely from an atheist perspective;
And there you go wrong from the very start. There is no "atheist perspective". Being an atheist just means that you don't fall for that nonsense about gods above us that Christians, Muslims and many others claim to believe. That's it. There is no "atheist perspective", just like there is no "people who had their appendix removed" perspective.
"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.)
That's incorrect. Rational philosophies and even evolution provide non-theistic justifications for altruism.
It in fact looks now that altruism is a survival trait that is hard wired in the human brain through natural selection.
http://www.newscientist.com/ar...
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.
Atheists will be in for a rude awakening when they die as they will realize that their belief was incomplete. Regardless, they can be just as good, (or as bad) as theists if they practice the golden rule.
Why would they be in for a "rude" awakening, when one would think that any awakening at all should be a pleasant surprise?
Further, as Sam Harris argues quite well, one need not be a theist to have moral values. Science + secular society are perfectly capable of agreeing upon ethical and moral rules, without resorting to theism.
Actually, it does. Religion is a subject of Science, as Science can already explain it pretty well (and show that it has no validity). Of course, atheists do not need to be physicalists, as physicalists are basically denying all agency, self-awareness and free will. That is rather stupid, as there is good indication that these things do exist.
The solution, is, of course not the clutches of religion, which serves to manipulate, control and amass wealth and/or power for a few, but the different forms of dualism. (No, dualism is not religion. Its most basic form merely states that there seems to be more than physical reality and that human being seem to be not purely physical beings. That does not open the door for any "god" or such nonsense. It does open the door for some form of reincarnation or continued existence before birth and after death though, and that can and should serve to give some basis of personal ethics as a means of self-advancement. Yes, I know that is Spock talking here. But Spock is right.)
As to psychology: It is a real science. It deals with statistics and larger numbers, not really with individuals though. That is usually misunderstood.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You accurately point out: * Atheist: Without Belief in God ... .... hence they are called atheists. /. would have one less topic to spread idiotic ideas about.
Then you wrongly conclude: Atheists will be in for a rude awakening when they die as they will realize that their belief
Atheists have no believes
But if states, nations would agree to put a row and a checkbox in the "what is your religion" section which is called: [] none, we would gladly check that.
However then
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"Atheists will be in for a rude awakening when they die as they will realize that their belief was incomplete. " - i see you've taken the gullible arrogance route
Let me fix those general definitions for you..
* Theist: Gullible With Belief in God
* Atheist: 100% Without Belief in God,
* Agnostic: 99.999...% Without Knowledge in God because you can't prove something doesn;t exist,
* Gnostic: Gullible With Knowledge in God.
* Mystic: Gullible that uses any of the 4 about to suit
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Let's assume God does not exist. Therefore heaven does not exist. Therefore things like morals don't matter because you don't go to heaven or hell or are not judged regardless of what acts you commit.
For those who have ever wondered what a non-sequitur is, this is a prime example.