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.
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.
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.