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.
Our Holy Trinity?
Our Captain, His Spock, and the Holy Bones.
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.
Is it strange if you base your beliefs on rational foundations, but base your actions on other concepts? I don't believe in god because I see no evidence. I sometimes play golf, which makes no rational sense, but I enjoy it. I'm not sure what values I apply to either of these things.
I think we need Jean-luc
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.
Author is arguing against a strawman (or at least a minority view) form of atheism which claims to be above value judgements. Of course one brings value judgements to the table, with philosophy. People've been doing that for a very, very long time. So what?
Author also seems to not understand Star Trek that well - while they're a planet of hat, more-or-less, Vulcans were known to live by a philosophy, and presumably like all systems of logic, the Vulcan one sits ultimately on a philosophical foundation, not some bs "a priori" claims that the author wants to warn us against.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
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.
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
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...
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.
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 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.
One of the arguments for the existence of God is that we are inclined to worship. It is argued that we would not have this god-directed faculty if there were no object upon which to exercise this faculty. Apparently this article urges that hero worship be substituted. Charisma over reason....
Spock for his logic and dedication to the scientific principle. Kirk so we can nail the occasional hot alien babe.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
> 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.
Tsk, you don't understand the bible or christians. This was old testament. This is not valid anymore... unless it is. ;-)
...and that Atheism is a religion.
Good point. To often people who believe that life has some 'ultimate backdrop with their favorite color' (religion), and they expect that whatever you say is you describing what you think the backdrop is (this is how most/all religious conversations go). Atheists are pointing out that there is no backdrop, and religious people are forced to straw man the conflict, as that's all religion, by nature, can do.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
I interpret it as suggesting that even after you've described all particles, forces, fields and laws, there will still be something left to explain. Also known as "some things transcend Human understanding". You can be an atheist and believe this, by the way.
> “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/
I consider myself an atheist. I believe there is no god, such as the one from the three Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, just in the same way I don't believe that the universe was created and is watched over by an infinite number of tiny, invisible fairies. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for either of those - none.
I keep an open mind about nearly everything, but nothing that organized religion has produced even passes the laugh test.
You're making the mistake of conflating "religion" and "value system." Those two things are NOT the same. Everyone has a value system, not everyone is religious. There are many religious people out there who do despicable things every day purely because they're not decent people to start with, and your God scaring them, or giving them the promise of heaven if they're good, isn't enough to break them of their nature.
As for the implication that Stalin and Mao acted the way they did because they were driven by some atheist agenda, you're a fucking idiot. Mao was an anti-imperialist, while Stalin went from being a Greek Orthodox priest in training to common criminal. Your implication is the same fucked in the head bullshit that "christians" who want to attempt to show they're superior to others (while being either stupid or liars) trot out quite often. The difference is, you didn't mention Hitler, which some of the more stupid try to suggest wasn't christian.
The atheistic perspective is: you claim there's a God.. prove it. If you can't even show a single shred of evidence (and there never ever has been a single shred of evidence), then you're nothing more than delusional, and believe in fairy tales. I would suggest that the value system of someone that is delusional is what should be in question.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
One of the things I hated about TOS, TNG, etc was while the other species have centuries of culture, humans had none. Maybe it was Shatner's vision: Earth had a cultures 'reset.' Humanity became largely docile. Starfleet seems to be for those who didn't quite fit in, but even those humans abandoned history as abhorrent. Most enjoyments were alien in origin. Pets were imports from another planet. No one played basketball or soccer, two games that should be easy to export to starships with artificial gravity. TOS used history for morality plays but never tied it to their present day beyond "oh there was a nuclear war.' Yes TNG had poker. Riker was into jazz, but who else? Secular Humanism as depicted in Star Trek was pretty sterile, and civilizations are never that clean.
As for this view on atheism, it's the same sterility mistake. Being Atheist doesn't mean you worship science. Being a scientist doesn't eliminate your ability to appreciate spectacle, beauty, art, or music.
Being an Atheist doesn't protect you from false beliefs. There are Atheists who prefer anecdotal evidence over rigorous scientific testing. They follow politicians as if they held the keys to enlightenment. They may look the other way when a professional athlete slaps his wife around or destroys a drive through window because he didn't get his hot sauce.
Even Spock required regular pon farr.
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
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.
Bollocks.
Imagine we live in the stone age, (major) religion not having been invented yet. The two of us are out in the wild.
You have found an apple and think, that would be nice for breakfast. In the morning, you wake up, and the apple is gone. You feel hungry, but I don't.
The next night you wake me up and say, let's go hunting. I notice that the firestone axe I worked on for over 2 weeks is in your belt. When I ask you for it, you won't give it back.
I develop a new insight: Taking stuff from another person isn't a good thing.
Back at the tribe, someone irks me. I plant my (spare) axe deeply into that person's body and toss him outside the camp to avoid stench. Problem solved. I'm the last one to go to sleep. When I go to my fur rug, I hit someone's foot. That person wakes up grumpily, grabs his axe and tries to kill me.
I develop a new insight: Arbitrarily killing another person is not a good thing. It could happen to me.
This suggests that morals develop as soon as brain functions develop, possible future consequences can be understood, and future actions of others can be predicted and controlled. Religion isn't the source of those morals. Religion certainly helps to maintain them. If I'm strong and you're weak, religion gives you some control over me: Don't kill me, or the god Faket will punish you for it. Hmmm, I could easily crush you, and while I don't mind crushing you, I don't want to be crushed by Faket. So, I leave you alone and you get to reproduce.
Here's a fairness study for monkeys ... ext?c=upw1
http://www.upworthy.com/2-monk...
Here's another article on altruistic behaviour in monkeys
http://www.madisonmonkeys.com/...
starting with this; "Previous work in our laboratory(1) had demonstrat- ed that most rhesus monkeys refrained form operating a device for securing food if this caused another monkey to suffer an electric shock.".
Morals are not a feature exclusive to humans, and with the above stone age scenarios, the 'god-tells-human(s) about what is moral and what is not' hypothesis remains unsubstantiated speculation. And if your source is a religious book that says that people should be stoned for wearing cloth made of two types of fiber, how much time do you need to realise that book (and that god) is a human fabrication?
Bert