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."
lol - I want to know what any of these subjects have to do with each other. Science has nothing to do with religion or lack there of. Emotion can inspire science, provide motivation, and excitement for the results but it has no place in the application or interpretation otherwise it's just opinion. That's why psychology will never be a real science and will eventually be replaced by neurology.
Why should atheists feel the need to believe in something?
That is a bold statement of yours, nelieving in live itself, or your own goals or your children is by far enough.
Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion. I know no atheist who is seeking a replacement 'believe', we are simply not wired to "beleive" in something or have "faith".
It is more the opposite around: obviously there is a brain region that is particular active in religious believers, oops that was science.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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
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
I think the point is that Kirk presents the human-acceptable side of hard science.
We are different Myers-Briggs types, and most people don't think, and that is why all our politicians are non-scientists. There are a lot of sheep out there who just want a quiet life and if going to Church on Sundays is part of that, well so be it.
Is this about looking for a moral framework or at least some reference points, if not a full 10 commandments.
A lot more peole than atheists tacitly know that God doesn't exist, but they want something to believe in.
I reckon Christopher Hitchens made a pretty good job in his own way:
“Beware the irrational, however seductive.
Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself.
Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others.
Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish.
Picture all experts as if they were mammals.
Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity.
Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence.
Suspect your own motives, and all excuses.
Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.”
Humorous signatures are over-rated.
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.
Don't anthropomorphize science. It hates that.
You're absolutely right that science doesn't need to place value on anything. Science is a process, a methodology and, to a lesser extent, a culture. It doesn't have needs. And yet besides being completely right, you also completely miss the point.
Science doesn't need anything, atheism doesn't need anything... but people do need something. People find the emotionless, purely rational "Spock" view of science deeply unfulfilling (ignoring for the moment that spock wasn't wholly rational or emotionless, and neither was Data, even without his emotion chip), and therefore they seek something else, something more, something, in fact, bigger than themselves which (somewhat paradoxically) gives value to them and makes them more than just "chemical scum on the surface of a typical planet", as Hawking put it. Otherwise, what's the point? Different people feel this need in varying degrees, and atheists tend to be people who are towards the less "needy" end of that particular spectrum (which doesn't make them superior or inferior).
Atheists who see religion as a problem to be solved, and wish to convince people to stop seeking gods find this need for something in their religious fellows to be an obstacle... because the atheists have nothing to offer to fill that human need. At least, that's the argument.
I recently read a book which I think has an excellent answer to this. The book is "The Beginning of Infinity", by David Deutsch, and in it Deutsch makes a compelling argument that, rather than being irrelevant chemical scum, people (a term which Deutsch defines, and of which humans are the only example we know) are objectively the single most significant phenomenon in the universe (actually, the multiverse, since Deuetsch is a proponent of the many-worlds hypothesis). The reason we're so incredibly important not only provides value but also purpose, and I think that value and purpose can fill the need.
Deutsch argues that the reason humans have become people and therefore important is because we've made "the jump to universality", by which Deutsch means that we have become "universal explainers", capable of developing an infinite stream of ever-better and ever-more-detailed explanations of how the universe works, and therefore also "universal constructors", capable ultimately (given the necessary knowledge, which we have the capacity to obtain) of constructing anything which is not physically impossible (note that universal construction also implies the ability to overcome any inherent deficits in our brains that might impose limits on our capacity as universal explainers).
As to how those characteristics make us the most important phenomena in the universe, Deutsch provides several examples. I'll relate two of them. First, he points out that we believe -- with reason -- that if there are other people in the universe it is highly likely that we will be able to detect them, even if they're hundreds, thousands or millions of light years away. This belief is the rationale for the SETI project, and it is based on the simple observation that people, when they become radio engineers, produce signals which are distinguishable from any phenomenon that exists in a universe without people. More succinctly, people are one of few phenomena which can be detected over interstellar distances. This puts people in a class of cosmic significance that at least rivals that of stars.
Second, he points out that as universal constructors, who can ultimately create any arrangement of matter and energy which is not prohibited by the laws of physics, once we learn how, that we're actually more significant than stars, supe
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I think part of what you're pointing out is that atheism is not a belief system, and so people shouldn't expect atheists to all think the same way or believe the same things.
However, it's a nice little piece of irony that, since people who claim to be "atheists" can believe different things, they can also disagree on what it means to be an atheist. I've talked to quite a few people who identify themselves as atheists, for whom it does seem to be a belief system. For them, being an atheist includes a deep respect for science, a belief in empiricism, a responsibility to proselytize. It's not uncommon for there to be a rejection of morality outside of utilitarianism. There's usually a general belief that there's nothing to this world beyond physics, the math behind the physics, and the application of physics to build up the physical world around us. There's often an associated desire to find awe and reverence in science and physics, and to treat that as a sort of pseudo-spirituality, while talking about how stupid religion is.
I find whenever you start talking about atheism, you actually end up with a fair amount of disagreement from all sides about what atheism actually is. You're confidently saying one thing, and someone else will say something else with just as much confidence. It's pretty much impossible to have a meaningful conversation unless we can agree on our terms somehow.
Congratulations, msobkow, your point went over a bunch of heads.
To the four or five people that posted "Nuh uh" in reply, he isn't saying that atheists "should" feel a need to believe, and he's not saying that "you" feel a need to believe.
The human experience gives a clear indication that faith is a near-universal drive. Even if you are really immune rather than delusional, the bulk of your peers do not seem to share your immunity.
G.K. Chesterton may have been engaging in hyperbole when he said "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything." but he doesn't seem to be far off in my experience. Virtually everyone I've met that believes in conspiracy theories, UFOs or sociology papers (to pick some examples of gullibility) are atheists.
While you personally may have high evidentiary standards, and you may have chosen atheism after careful consideration of the options, your peers, by and large, have not and did not.
See that "Preview" button?
> “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/
Nice collection of propaganda BS. What actually happens when you approach this scientifically, is that the zero-hypothesis is of course "no god", as the existence of a god would be a complicated, complex thing and hence by Occam's Razor "no god" is the far more likely thing to be true. This then causes a need for strong proof to the contrary to overturn the zero-hypothesis. No such proof has been forthcoming, and hence the zero-hypothesis is very likely valid and accepted as such by Science.
There is also a ton of evidence that supports the zero-hypothesis, like the observation from psychology that many people want somebody to tell them what to do and what to think and get terribly confused when they have to decide about these things by themselves. Hence they become easy mark for scams of the religious type, which amply explains the existence of religion: It is simply a control mechanism based on spiritual manipulation. So, zero evidence for "god exists" and ample and plausible explanation for why people would believe that even if wrong. That situation is called "conclusive" in Science.
So, Atheism is not "belief" at all. That claim is favorite of theists as most people are not intellectually capable of refuting the fallacy. It is however terribly rude and insulting to claim that Atheism is a belief. My guess is that this insulting nature is well known to the people using it and the insult is intended.
Side note: "No god" does not mean physicalism, as so many US Atheists seem to believe. It really just means "no god". There is rather strong evidence that existence comprises more than physical existence (there is still zero physical explanation for Consciousness and Intelligence, yet both clearly exist, albeit as far as we know, not separately) and dualism offers a non-religious model for that. Incidentally, this makes physicalism a belief, as it ignores clear evidence. Yet another sin (sin = unethical action) of the religious is that they muddle this debate as they perceive dualism as competition for their own tribe.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I don't believe that the universe was created ...
So you reject the scientific theory which so far seems to have by far the best track record in explaining the universe, the "Big Bang" theory? Is that because it was proposed by a Catholic priest?
On another topic, what do you think is the explanation for the Jews? How do you think they managed to survive for more than 4,000 years as a people with a common identity despite multiple deportations to far off foreign lands, pogroms, and even attempted genocide, only to reassemble in their native land and reform the country of Israel after being nonexistent for 2,000 years? Are there other examples of a similar nature that you can think of? How do you suppose that is?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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.
Why can't "god" be the default?
Because every phenomenon has the same effect when it doesn't exist, and only differentiates itself from other things when it does exist. So to explain lightning, you start from a default position that encompasses all possible explanations - "One or more phenomena exist and are causing this, and all others do not exist, or do not create lightning", and then try to narrow down which of the infinite imaginable phenomena are the ones causing lightning.
If "no X" weren't the default position (not just gods), then to be fair we'd have to assume that everything imaginable exists. And...well...Louis CK puts it far better than I could.
Last post!