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."

Comments

illogical captain

[Anonymous Coward]

appealing to emotions only prolongs the time taken to master them.

Re:illogical captain

[JMJimmy]

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.

Re:illogical captain

[Sad Loser]

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.”

Re:illogical captain

[DexterIsADog]

Atheists will be in for a rude awakening when they die as they will realize that their belief was incomplete

And there you go, claiming knowledge where you cannot have any. Your position is just as absolute as an atheist's, the main difference is that people in your group tend to tell other people what to do, and atheists tend not to tell people what to do.

Also, atheists are more fun.

Re:illogical captain

[Jane Q. Public]

Atheists will be in for a rude awakening when they die as they will realize that their belief was incomplete. Regardless, they can be just as good, (or as bad) as theists if they practice the golden rule.

Why would they be in for a "rude" awakening, when one would think that any awakening at all should be a pleasant surprise?

Further, as Sam Harris argues quite well, one need not be a theist to have moral values. Science + secular society are perfectly capable of agreeing upon ethical and moral rules, without resorting to theism.

Re:illogical captain

[gweihir]

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.

Re:illogical captain

[Karmashock]

Its really quite simple. They want to politicize, ideologue, and factionalize science.

Science has clout. Scientists carry weight when they say something. That is valuable to community organizers, politicians, opinion makers, etc. The problem is that scientists often refuse to cooperate. And its often hard to claim your political position is backed by science when there are just as many scientists that disagree with your political position as agree with it.

To that end, they must make science less "spock-like". Spock isn't going to take sides in your petty political battles. He doesn't care. And you can't use his words to undermine your opponent because if you read between the lines there tends to be so many qualifiers that it isn't worth anything.

So... they want to make science more about emotion... opinion... feelings.

The dead give away is that he's saying "atheists need X"... atheists are not a faction like Catholics or Muslims or Hindus. Simply being an atheist doesn't mean you actually share many values with other atheists. Its not a complete ideology. Its just a a rejection of theism. Nothing more. Its like trying to build a political coalition around people that don't like hamburgers. Sure... you all don't like hamburgers, but do you have anything else in common? Not really.

Yet he's attempting to build something around and advocate for anti-theism and to do so he suggests that science should be emotionalized. Effectively, to turn atheism into a viable ideology or religion in its own right they have to all believe things. Rather then simply concluding that god is illogical... they have to have a common culture. And from there you might build a political coalition and cultural core. The objective being to turn atheists into a viable political force which will be used by the politicians to fight their stupid wars amongst each other.

Which is really all this about... the tools and minions of those political machines fishing for cannon fodder for their campaigns.

They'll pervert anything to get just one more meat shield for the grind.

Looks like this particular article failed hilariously... While appealing to trek nerds is always amusing... they seem to have forgotten that those same nerds are going to respond to it in their own way... which is to take this pathetic article seriously and rip it to splinters.

Re:illogical captain

[Jane Q. Public]

Well, I didn't interpret the article the same way you did. I thought the article was saying that you can be logical and still feel wonder. It wasn't saying that science-oriented people need to be religious, but rather that religious people should stop seeing them as somehow inhuman and unfeeling without a belief in their God.

Re:illogical captain

[sabri]

the main difference is that people in your group tend to tell other people what to do, and atheists tend not to tell people what to do.

I guess this hits the nail with the hammer

In the end, religion is like having a penis. It's ok to have one, and it's ok to be proud of it. But if you're going to take it out and attempt to shove it down my throat, we are going to have a bit of a problem.

Fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

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]

Our Holy Trinity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our Holy Trinity?

Our Captain, His Spock, and the Holy Bones.

Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more!

[Cabriel]

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.

Re:Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more!

[Ol Olsoc]

The problem is even atheists still feel a need to believe in *something*. Which is silly. Planting Science as your God still means you have a God and are not an atheist.

Nonsense. I mean, that tired old argument merely shows the utter lack of ability to think in the manner of anyone else.

God? Faith? Religion?

Do atheists kneel down every evening and pray - to science?

Do atheists go to the holy Church of nothing every Sunday and pray - to nothing?

Do atheists have radio stations that other atheists preach to them from some book and ask for money? For nothing?

Do athiests go on missions from their atheist church to convert people - to nothing?

Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't willing to accept the simple credo of "do good". Which really is all that most religions were ever telling people in the first place, with varying details of what they consider "good".

Having read the Bible, i find there is a whole lot of immoral activity going on, most of which is blessed or performed by da big guy. So I guess that must be a really big part of the religion. "Doing good" in many cases apparently means killing Gays, non virgin wives, rebellious teenagers, witches, blasphemers, and people who work on the sabbath.

Re:Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more!

[Ol Olsoc]

The problem is even atheists still feel a need to believe in *something*. Which is silly. Planting Science as your God still means you have a God and are not an atheist.

Because people like you cannot comprehend the difference between faith and belief. You might have faith that Jesus Christ died for our sins. You might believe that also, but the important thing is that you have faith, not to be shaken, no need of proof, just faith.

I believe that there will be a sunrise tomorrow morning. I do not need faith for that belief. I have celestial mechanics to tell me that will happen, which can be proven beyond a doubt.

My belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, does not make it my religion.

Re:Waaa?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

200 years ago.

[a whoabot]

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.

Re:Old News

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

No, no. Let's not go there. Please.

[fyngyrz]

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."

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.

Re:No, no. Let's not go there. Please.

[quenda]

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.

Re:No, no. Let's not go there. Please.

[DaveAtFraud]

Exactly. I get so tired of being asked "Then what *do* you believe?" ...

I usually go with the W.C. Fields line, "Everyone should believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink."

Cheers,
Dave

Re:No, no. Let's not go there. Please.

[Vanders]

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.

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.