Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk 937
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."
illogical captain (Score:5, Insightful)
appealing to emotions only prolongs the time taken to master them.
Re:illogical captain (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it does. Religion is a subject of Science, as Science can already explain it pretty well (and show that it has no validity). Of course, atheists do not need to be physicalists, as physicalists are basically denying all agency, self-awareness and free will. That is rather stupid, as there is good indication that these things do exist.
The solution, is, of course not the clutches of religion, which serves to manipulate, control and amass wealth and/or power for a few, but the different forms of dualism. (No, dualism is not religion. Its most basic form merely states that there seems to be more than physical reality and that human being seem to be not purely physical beings. That does not open the door for any "god" or such nonsense. It does open the door for some form of reincarnation or continued existence before birth and after death though, and that can and should serve to give some basis of personal ethics as a means of self-advancement. Yes, I know that is Spock talking here. But Spock is right.)
As to psychology: It is a real science. It deals with statistics and larger numbers, not really with individuals though. That is usually misunderstood.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh? So you say a scientific discipline cannot focus on characteristics of groups of subjects? Ever heard of statistics, meteorology, biology, chemistry, etc.?
Re:illogical captain (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
I find "distrust compassion" to be somewhat contradictory to "Never be a spectator of unfairness."
But I supposed Hitchens is aware of and is reasonably comfortable with the contradiction.
Re: illogical captain (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Science is not incomparable with religion. Never more than .01% of science will ever conflict with most religion. I'm not sure why you would even think otherwise unless it is a poor understanding of most religions.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you can ignore it. You see, the science in conflict doesn't say religion is incompatible, it says religion isn't needed and here is how this is processed.
As for the religios, if a supernatural being created everything, that being very much could have created it in ways it could be understood and usefull to our progress. So no conflict there either. And again, science does not say any religious conflict is wrong, just that it is not needed.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree on "most people don't think". They emulate convenient behavior patterns presented to them.
As to politicians not being scientists, well, at least formally that is untrue. For example, German Chancellor Merkel is also Dr. Merkel with a physics Ph.D. But in fact, when you look at the actual behavior of these people, you find that they have either never truly been scientists or stopped being scientists a long time ago. And a lot of what they do is not rational or well thought out. Just look at the laws
Re:illogical captain (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:illogical captain (Score:4, Informative)
Let's assume God does not exist. Therefore heaven does not exist. Therefore things like morals don't matter because you don't go to heaven or hell or are not judged regardless of what acts you commit.
For those who have ever wondered what a non-sequitur is, this is a prime example.
Re: illogical captain (Score:5, Insightful)
It never ceases to amaze me how many Christians suffer under the insanely moronic misconception that ethical values spring from religion and religion alone.
Re:illogical captain (Score:5, Informative)
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 [ted.com], 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 (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the point of the article, it's bullshit. The author of the article is saying that unless we start using science as a religion, in the same dogmatic, emotionally driven way, then it's useless. Complete and utter bullshit. Science that meets those standards isn't science, it is a religion.. and it doesn't reflect reality, only someones desires. The article is a thinly veiled attempt to say: science is bad, religion is good. Bullshit.
Re:illogical captain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:illogical captain (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Huh? Do you mean "most gnostics" perhaps? Otherwise your statement does not make much sense.
Actually the "god" question ("no god" is not a question, it is the default) is a question very much subject to science, and science has provided a few pretty good insights into it.
Re:illogical captain (Score:4, Interesting)
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. [youtube.com]
Re:illogical captain (Score:4, Informative)
You accurately point out: * Atheist: Without Belief in God ... .... hence they are called atheists. /. would have one less topic to spread idiotic ideas about.
Then you wrongly conclude: Atheists will be in for a rude awakening when they die as they will realize that their belief
Atheists have no believes
But if states, nations would agree to put a row and a checkbox in the "what is your religion" section which is called: [] none, we would gladly check that.
However then
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let me fix those general definitions for you..
* Theist: Gullible With Belief in God
* Atheist: 100% Without Belief in God,
* Agnostic: 99.999...% Without Knowledge in God because you can't prove something doesn;t exist,
* Gnostic: Gullible With Knowledge in God.
* Mystic: Gullible that uses any of the 4 about to suit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The distinction between an Agnostic and an Atheist does not serve any real purpose. Except, perhaps that the Agnostic is scared to admit their belief.
Instead of God, consider Bigfoot.
Atheist: Does not believe that Bigfoot exists. (reason: no proof)
Agnostic: Does not know if Bigfoot exists (though has no proof)
Theist: Believes Bigfoot exist (though has no proof)
Gnostic: Knows that Bigfoot exists (though has no proof)
The above list is ordered from most logical to least logical.
If there is actual scientific pr
Re:illogical captain (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The second option is the most logical, because no evidence either way is just that: no evidence
Only if we have evidence that Bigfoot does not exist, will the first option be the most logical.
That is different from what is most likely. It is still most likely that Bigfoot does not exist. (Which is why not believing in Big Foot is still a fair call.)
For example: It is suggested that Yeti might be a type of bear [independent.co.uk]. Had we accepted that Yeti don't exist due to lack of evidence, then we'd never make the effort to make such a discovery. In fact, often we even reject any supposed evidence. But by accepting option 2, then the case is not closed until we have some evidence, one way or another.
Who knows what other "woo-woo" ideas might have some truth in them. I like to give the example of St Elmo's Fire [wikipedia.org]. Of course angels don't dance on masts, but by at least looking into it, we found there was some truth behind the stories after all, and so we learnt something.
Disclaimer: I'm not a God believer, because there are so many easy logic traps that God simply doesn't make sense, at least not in any way I've ever heard of.
No, no. Let's not go there. Please. (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:No, no. Let's not go there. Please. (Score:5, Funny)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
What you describe is called "physicalism" and many of its followers indeed misuse it are religion, not as a model-of-thought as it is intended to be. I have to say that I do not like physicalists very much, as they routinely distort what science can do and what not (for example, science has absolutely no claim to be able to explain "everything", in fact Incompleteness states very clearly that science cannot explain everything and Incompleteness is one of the very foundations of the modern theory of science)
Re: (Score:3)
So whilst it is correct to say "atheists lack a belief in a god or gods" it is incorrect to say "atheism is a lack of beli
Re: (Score:3)
Agnostics that hold no belief are atheists.
Agnostics that entertain any measure of belief are theists.
Agnosticism is a position taken with regard to knowledge.
Theism and atheism are positions based upon belief, faith. The one does not replace the other.
Re:No, no. Let's not go there. Please. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Ahh total bullshit. I am as atheist as they come and I don't feel the need to join an 'atheist club' or bore people to death with my atheistness. That would just be carrying on the worst habits of religious nutters in my opinion. Incidentally, I reckon most religious people would shit themselves if they realised just how many people were atheist beyond those who insist on turning atheism into a quasi religion.
Re:No, no. Let's not go there. Please. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: No, no. Let's not go there. Please. (Score:4, Insightful)
A religious person says: There is a God.
An atheist says: Prove it.
Until the religious person can prove it, or even show a shred of evidence for it, it's nothing more than some bullshit delusional fantasy.... which is exactly where religion has remained since it's inception by the human species.. in all forms. There has never, ever, in an instance, been a single shred of evidence for a God, or many Gods. Period.
I don't give a shit what a religious person believes, until they start forcing their delusion onto me or other people.. then, if they don't bring some evidence or proof, they're just some fucked in the head delusional asshat who should be heavily medicated in a rubber room somewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
A religious person says: There is a God.
An atheist says: Prove it.
In practice it often goes like this:
A religious person says: I believe in God.
An atheist says: You shouldn't because you can't prove it
Until the religious person can prove it, or even show a shred of evidence for it, it's nothing more than some bullshit delusional fantasy
No. Until the religious person can prove it, it remains unproven, like most things in life.
I don't give a shit what a religious person believes, until they start forcing their delusion onto me or other people
What about non-religious people forcing their views onto you or other people? Is this actually about religion or just about your desire for personal freedom?
Fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
Re:Fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Any references why/where/when Atheists flock to science and religious peolple not? As far as I know many top scientists proclaim to believe in god ... so do less believers flock to science? Or is this just some idiotic argument? What exactly do you mean anyway with "flock to science"?
Now in a time where atheists no longer need to fear to be surpressed, you suddenly realize that they are perhpas a little more pro science than "bible belt people"?
Sorry this whole story is some attempt to fill a noring summer void.
There is nothing 'special' about atheists, they are just irdinary people.
Re: (Score:3)
Any references why/where/when Atheists flock to science and religious peolple not?
I didn't say religious people didn't, actually, only that atheists as a whole do, so perhaps you are reading into it a bit. But, I can't say I've ever hear an atheist denouncing evolution... Just saying.
As far as I know many top scientists proclaim to believe in god ... so do less believers flock to science?
Here's a quote, that I believe to be reasonably accurate, from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: "Among the members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7% believed in God, 72.2% did not, and 20.8% were agnostic or had doubts" I don't really need to elaborate any more on that one, do I?
Sorry this whole story is some attempt to fill a noring summer void. There is nothing 'special' about atheists, they are just irdinary people.
Agreed, and I certainly never said otherwi
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry this whole story is some attempt to fill a boring summer void.
The pedant in me desperately wants to point out that Spock is half human and feels emotions too.
Re: (Score:3)
Many religious people depart from science the moment it begins to conflict with their own insane views of how the world (and the universe) works. Some religious people feel that there is no contradiction between science and religion, and rationalize it as science discovering God's rules. Honestly I don't have a problem with this, since we don't really know who (if anyone) made the rules.
Atheists tend to like science because it's grounded in fact, and isn't bound to blind faith which I find is also reasona
Re: (Score:3)
And yet it is a common misunderstanding about the scientific method, namely:
"If it can't be proven by the scientific method, it must not be true."
This misunderstanding is false because there are things that are true that we know from outside the scientific method, namely by reason (e.g. Calculus and other philosophy of math) and by faith (religion).
The grandparent comment asks "show me the Spockists". T
Re: (Score:3)
Let's just link it: http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/... [npr.org]
Ultimately I think the article writer needs to define what he even means by science. Saying that you reject the idea that science is logical is like saying you reject the idea that scissors are logical. It implies that he's using a synecdoche and expecting everybody to follow. Maybe you can reject the idea that scissors are logical choices of weapons to equip on Roman soldiers. Similarly, he probably rejects the logic of science...something...I'm not
Waaa? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems some atheists are smoking some very potent stuff.
As well as some slashdot editors.
Re:Waaa? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Bones was the canonical antagonist for Spock, not Kirk.
twaddle (Score:2)
twaddle
Our Holy Trinity? (Score:5, Funny)
Our Holy Trinity?
Our Captain, His Spock, and the Holy Bones.
Deism (Score:2)
I've been deistic for decades. It discounts the idea that god is an old man on the mountain, but maintains the idea that there is purpose and meaning to everything, not just man.
Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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.
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". People don't want to think about what "good" is -- they want someone to *tell* them so they can follow some leade
Re:Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
ITYM "Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!"
Re:Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Insightful)
> The problem is even atheists still feel a need to believe in *something*
Nope.
> with varying details of what they consider "good".
By that you mean: bigotry, misogyny, blood sacrifice, slavery, and war. Also severe punishment for free speech, not worshiping as told. And of course, must give loads of money to those humans who claim to have a direct connection to "god." Finally, do not use reason, do not think critically, just accept everything on faith - that is the ultimate good.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 peopl
Re:Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more! (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more! (Score:5, Insightful)
If bigot Yankees wouldn't have started to teach Creationism at school, or open the Creation Museum, or all the bizarre stuff I periodically read about religion in the US, maybe atheists would not have felt the need to "fight back" in that way...
Re:Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more! (Score:5, Funny)
Man, you Red Sox fans are too much!
Re:Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more! (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is a compendium of human knowledge. It doesn't answer all possible questions, only those we happen to have figured out by now. Except it doesn't do so by a humongous Q+A list, that would be inefficient. It does so by stating a small number of facts and theories, and then you can try to see if your particular Q has an A that's derived from those facts and theories. So you actually have to do some work instead of being told everything. And you need some education to even be able to do the work.
There's no free lunch. If you want that, go check out the Hare Krishna in your neighbourhood.
Re: (Score:3)
I maintain that our puny little brains aren't even close to capable of "reasoning out" the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.
The problem isn't our brain's inability to discover the meaning of the universe. The problem is too many people think there could be meaning to the universe. It is difficult for humans to turn off their deep desire to anthropomorphize everything around them. Just because a human can have intent does not mean that a rock, an apple, or a universe can. When you can tell me why my shirt wants to be blue (convincingly), I will concede it is possible for there to be meaning to the universe.
Asking "why does the un
Re: (Score:3)
Bah Reason! Humans aren't capable of it. Seriously, as a race we just recently wandered in off the Sahara. Before we start down the path of reason we have to work on TRUTH and SHARING. When Mr. Reason Dawkins himself can't even tell the truth, there is no hope for reason. All of our systems are currently optimized for extraction of resources and not efficient distribution or sharing. Without TRUTH and SHARING we will not have trust, and without TRUST there can be no reason. See the endless emotional deb
Golf logic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
IMHO, everything that people do can be explained by the ultimate goal of enjoying. If you do something because it makes rational sense, then perhaps you're the kind of person that enjoys rationality. I certainly get a kick out of doing math and science, and I try not to make the excuse that I'm doing it for some obscure higher purpose. People also tend to feel good when they help others, it's just what has kept mankind alive. If you say you exercise to keep yourself fit for work, then perhaps it's the work
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe in god because I see no evidence.
If you need evidence, then it isn't belief, it's research. Most people that believe in god don't claim to have any evidence, just faith.
We need Picard (Score:3)
200 years ago. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Arguing against a strawman (Score:3)
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.
Picard would be a better choice. (Score:2)
Atheism offers no values - you have to add them (Score:2)
Re:Atheism offers no values - you have to add them (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Atheism offers no values - you have to add them (Score:5, Informative)
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... [newscientist.com]
Re:Atheism offers no values - you have to add them (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Tsk, you don't understand the bible or christians. This was old testament. This is not valid anymore... unless it is. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
As for the implication that Stalin and Mao acted the way they did because they were driv
Maybe first you can stop pigeon-holing people... (Score:2)
...by presuming that all atheists are alike.
It's like when atheists are dumb enough to treat all Christians alike, or Muslims, <Insert Religious Stereotype Here>...
Re:Maybe first you can stop pigeon-holing people.. (Score:4, Insightful)
> 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.
Theism breeds entitlement and apathy (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Hollywood Logic (Score:5, Informative)
"Spock-ism" is really a Straw Vulcan [tvtropes.org] 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 is science. (Score:5, Insightful)
What you want is an ideology... a belief system. Science is not a belief system.
Fred Brooks (Score:2)
Spock is awesome (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Poor understanding (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Worship (Score:3)
You need both, I think. (Score:5, Funny)
Spock for his logic and dedication to the scientific principle. Kirk so we can nail the occasional hot alien babe.
According to Spock . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
> “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/
Yes, Humans can culture too.... (Score:3)
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.
A secular morality that once was popular in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
Business used to have a completely secular moral compass. Rotary International [rotary.org] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey!
Who turned out the lights?!
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should ask an Atheist, what atheism is imstead of spreading your bullshit ideas.
I'm an atheist. I'm convinced there are no gods.
Wow, shocked? There is nothing more about it. You can still go to church, we don't mind.
Atheism is popular. Nothing to accept. In germany most people are only Christians on paper, because the parents put them to be baptized. In truth 50% or more are Atheists, they simply don't bother to "leave the church".
So why do you fear atheists, what is you rational to spread such
How did I come to this idea? (Score:2)
By thinking it through. There is a lot of time to do that when you are an Atheist.
Re:Old News (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
This argument has been around at least since the time of Socrates.
Re: (Score:3)
I keep an open mind about nearly everything, but nothing that organized religion has produced even passes the laugh test.