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]
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.
Also, Bones was the canonical antagonist for Spock, not Kirk.
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.
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.
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.
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