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.
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.
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.
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.
So if we don't feel a void, what do we do then? The idea that if you aren't a "believer", then you are lacking something is just more of the bullshit that people try to pile on atheists, like we are immoral, and that Atheism is a religion.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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 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.
> 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.
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'.
What? Are you trying to say that without a belif in some God, that it is not possible to understand what is good for a society, or an individual, or a collection of individuals?
That is so severely fucked up that I almost hink you might be trolling here. The idea that I cannot have a concept that a social construct is good or bad is just plin wrong. In fact, I can find many many things that are religion based that are very bad for society.
I know quite a few fundamentalists. Just as an example, many of them follow the idea of dominion of man. They also believe that the end of days is upon us. And in conversations with them, they have no intention of conservation, or environmental concerns. As one put it when asked about what future generations will do for fuel - "Fuck future generations" Odd he'd use that language, but that self serving attitude is not that uncommon.
To me, that is completely immoral, self centered, and religion based.
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.
One does not need to know Jesus to understand that there is a way that people would prefer to be treated, so it does not take God to let me know that if I don't want my neighbor busting a cap in my ass, or running off with my wife or flat screen TV, that I might treat him in a respectful manner. It doesn't take a biblical outlook to understand that society in general needs people to act in a civilized manner.
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.
While you are trying to head off one of the standard arguments here, You have to admit that Mao and Stalin didn't have a multi millennia aged book telling them to commit their crimes against humanity.
No, one of the worst things is for a basically moral person to come up against some of the immoral and evil stories in the holy Bible.
Just as an example, I use this one a lot because it is so incredibly evil, is In Sodom, where Lot offers his daughters to be gang raped by men of the town - the evil aside from the horrific act of his pimping out his daughters to their possible death, he was condemning them to being stoned to death if they ever married. Then when he and his family left Sodom, God Killed his wife because she looked back at the town. Umm, exactly why? Then just to cap off this sordid little tale, Lot's daughters got him drunk, and fucked him. Both of them on separate occasions. Then they had his inbred children.
And yet, there was no condemnation of either Lot trying to let his daughters get gang raped, or of his little incestuous act. This same God, who in the old testament apparently loved to kill people for seemingly minor stuff, killed Lot's wife over almost nothing.
Just one abysmal and immoral story among many.
So my good Christian person, don't even stoop to lecture me or any atheists on your moral superiority. Because you don't have any legitimate claim to it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Exactly. I get so tired of being asked "Then what *do* you believe?" with the emphasis on the do. My usual response is "Concerning what?" And there the questioner typically falters because they simply cannot wrap their minds around divorcing that question from some supernatural belief.
By all means, not all religious people are like that. My ex's father was a prof emeritus with five friggin' degrees in theological studies and we got along and understood each other just fine. He was, however, exceptional.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or god. Nothing else.
Ideally, yes, but we all know that that's not all there is to it these days.
It's not about science, it's not about ethics, it's not about morals, it's not about values.
Then why, when I visit atheist websites sites, atheist discussion forums, and talk with local atheists, that's all they want to talk about?
There's no dogma, no book, no set of "therefore we believe these here other thingamajigs", nothing.
Like hell there isn't! To belong to any atheist community, you need to align with their dogma, have read and agree with their favorite authors, and "other thingamajigs" or you'll be ousted as a troll or worse.
You've probably noticed that there's more than one schism dividing atheists. With various atheist groups at each others throats over things not even remotely related to the existence of god. You'd have to be blind not to see that.
To say that atheism, to most/every atheist (as we're talking about the broader atheist community), is merely "the lack of belief in a god" is either delusional or deliberately dishonest.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or god. Nothing else.
Ideally, yes, but we all know that that's not all there is to it these days.
Only because theists have done everything in their power to change the common meaning of the word "atheist". It's so much easier to persecute someone if you can twist their stance into being the exact opposite of your own because this allows you to set up "us versus them" and "attack on our way of life" straw men.
It doesn't help that for many people (in English anyway), the phrase "I do not believe X" has come to be equal to "I believe against X". Declaration of a lack of a thing does not, in any way, declare that you hold to its antithesis. It's this crucial point that theists miss -- some due to ignorance, but most due to an explicit intent to mislead.
Of course, this applies to topics other than (a)theism, and is pretty much the standard MO of most conservative pundits. Why have a rational discussion when you can fabricate a one-sided fight instead?
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Then why, when I visit atheist websites sites, atheist discussion forums, and talk with local atheists, that's all they want to talk about?
Yes, just like when you visit the websites devoted to "white people", and discover that all white people are racists obsessed with Hitler?
Mmmm... I do not think you have a representative sample.
It sounds like a religion to you because you don't have a basic understanding of what's being said, most likely because you are religious.
A religious person says: There is a God.
An atheist says: Prove it.
Until the religious person can prove it, or even show a shred of evidence for it, it's nothing more than some bullshit delusional fantasy.... which is exactly where religion has remained since it's inception by the human species.. in all forms. There has never, ever, in an instance, been a single shred of evidence for a God, or many Gods. Period.
I don't give a shit what a religious person believes, until they start forcing their delusion onto me or other people.. then, if they don't bring some evidence or proof, they're just some fucked in the head delusional asshat who should be heavily medicated in a rubber room somewhere.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Can I make a guess? You're American, aren't you?
Can I just point out that American Atheists are, uh, weird? They are not representative of 99% of the worlds Atheists.
I once met a nice girl, who had just moved to the UK from America. She told me that on her first few weeks here she wondered where all the atheists were, and it took her to little while to figure out that unlike the states, atheists did not seek out other atheists, congregate into groups, and spend all their free time discussing atheism. In fact it was quite a relief to her when she realised that atheists were everywhere but as nobody a) gave a shit b) talked about religion or lack thereof, she could just relax and go about her day without interference or having to form Atheist Defence Leagues.
For the record. Myself, personally, as a life long atheist, have never read Dawkins (because that's who you meant, isn't it?) and think he's actually a gigantic cock. I've never knowingly been a member of an "atheist community" (do they build Yurts?) and I really don't care if other atheists can agree on anything, or even if they're having pitched battles in the fucking streets. The only "dogma" I'm aware of is the rather good Kevin Smith film.
You are right about one thing: as an atheist it's not just "lack of belief in God". It's also a lack of giving a shit what you or other people think, or caring when you project your own biases and religious frameworks in a desperate attempt to make sense of it. You're wrong and I simply don't care.
Syllable : It's an Operating System