Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the green-skinned-dancing-metaphors dept.

Alva Noë has an interesting piece on NPR about how some scientists, and cultural defenders of science, like to think of themselves as free of prejudice and superstition, as moved by reason alone and a clear-eyed commitment to fact and the scientific method. "I'm pro-science, but I'm against what I'll call "Spock-ism," after the character from the TV show Star Trek," writes Noë. "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."

According to Noë, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, Spockians give science a bad name because if you think of science as being in the business of figuring out how atoms spinning noiselessly in the void give rise to the illusion that there are such things as love, humor, sunsets and knuckleballs, then it isn't surprising that people might come to think that the inner life of a scientist would be barren. "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. What we need, then, is a Kirkian understanding of science and its place in our lives. The world, for Captain Kirk and his ontological followers, is a field of play, and science is a form of action."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday September 16 2014, @05:09AM

    by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday September 16 2014, @05:09AM (#93852) Journal
    First the promised SBMC [smbc-comics.com].

    Now to the article itself:

    The definition of the term "Spockism" is extremely beside the point when describing an atheists/scientists life style, and by that it's use in this context more accurate than the author is presumably able to comprehend. According to the StarTrek universe, vulcans have extremely deep running emotions - they just learned to control them instead of being controlled by them. It's non-empathic self-righteous half-wits like the article-author who don't grasp the concept that spread the word of unfeeling vulcans.

    Paradoxically, this comparison becomes quite accurate when considering that few (if any) current atheists usually fall into the category of "Spockism" as defined in the article. It takes some nerve to question all the indoctrination one receives from childhood on, to let go of all (imagined) safety-nets, and in case of some nerds, the last (imagined) friend they have in childhood. Also, to be a scientist requires a deep interest / inner drive for the surrounding.

    Yet many "believers" paint atheists as not empathic and cold, because they also often can't grasp the difference between not giving in to every emotion and not having any emotions. Just because they need an imagined warden to be good people, they automatically expect that people who do not have an imaginary warden are bad people, which probably tells more about the believers than about atheists.

    BTW: Personally, I'm not an atheist and find atheism nearly as arrogant as most religions. I'm an agnostic, as in I don't believe there is any god as proposed by most religions, but since science is afaik no step closer to understand the step from emerging self-organizing chemical structures to self-consciousness than it ever was, I see no reason to dismiss the idea of some spiritual aspects of our existence. The point is, it doesn't really make all the difference if there is a god or not. Unless you hear gods voice directly, it always comes down to either trust other people or your own judgement. Since humans are all sinners according to most religions, of course you'd have to follow your own judgement like a good atheist. (If you, on the other hand, do hear gods voice, it probably comes down to a thorough psychiatric examination...)

    For those of you who want to believe it might be interesting to hear that my Linux laptop crashed (as in got stuck and didn't react on anything except power-key) while I typed this blasphemous text, nearly before I finished typing it. For those of you who don't want to believe in god, when it started again, Iceweasle didn't only reload all previous tabs, it also kept the whole comment I previously typed, and it was the first time I saw such a good recovery in a browser :-)

    --
    Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday September 16 2014, @05:29AM

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 16 2014, @05:29AM (#93858)

    Minor tech miracle? or warning?

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 16 2014, @05:41AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday September 16 2014, @05:41AM (#93863) Journal

      Well, he wasn't running windows, so that rules out miracle. Just saying. . . .

  • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:00PM

    by metamonkey (3174) on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:00PM (#94040)

    Just because they need an imagined warden to be good people, they automatically expect that people who do not have an imaginary warden are bad people, which probably tells more about the believers than about atheists.

    I take exception to this as a strawman argument. Following Jesus is a higher responsibility than simply not being "bad" because of the threat of hell. I'm not going to get preachy at you, because I'm Catholic, and we don't really evangelize. But to me, following Jesus means each action I take and each thought I choose to harbor I do so considering the impact of my decisions on myself, on those around me, and on society as a whole, and act in accordance with His teachings, at all times. Of course I fail, constantly, as I am a sinner, but I keep trying.

    There's more to being good than not being bad. And you might also ask yourself where you got your enlightened ideas of what "good" and "bad" are. Don't put the cart before the horse. Western civilization's concepts of good and bad are built upon Judeo-Christian ideology.

    Following Jesus means taking positive actions, not just avoiding negative ones. It means turning the other cheek and loving your enemy. It means loving and not retaliating against Steve at work when he badmouths you to the boss to make himself look better. It means finding compassion for Dick Cheney, despite the whole wars on false pretenses, mass murder and torture thing. It means loving the atheists who will respond to this post to tell me how evil and stupid I am for believing the things I believe.

    It means looking at your actions in the larger context of their impact on society, even though no one will ever know, you won't get caught and you won't get punished. So it means not buying illegal drugs (even though there's nothing wrong or sinful in smoking pot) because the money winds up in the hands of people like the Zetas. It means not watching porn because that contributes to a system that exploits and degrades desperate men and women. It means not downloading the celebrity leaked nudes because they don't want you looking at their private pictures.

    It means actively caring for the poor and dispossessed, not just voting for politicians who say they'll tax somebody else and hand out money. So it means actually following through and giving to the food bank, showing up at the soup kitchen, mentoring disadvantaged kids.

    Do not think that the faithful are merely cowering in superstitious fear of hell. Although that said, hell is pretty awful. It would be best to avoid that place all the same.

    --
    Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @06:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @06:21PM (#94144)

      > I take exception to this as a strawman argument.

      I think it is far less of strawman argument than you may realize. Hellfire and brimstone are very easy to understand and most people's understanding of their faith isn't very nuanced.

      > It means loving the atheists who will respond to this post to tell me how evil and stupid I am for believing the things I believe.

      It seems you've got more than a bit of that strawman thing going on too.

      • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Tuesday September 16 2014, @07:51PM

        by metamonkey (3174) on Tuesday September 16 2014, @07:51PM (#94187)

        It seems you've got more than a bit of that strawman thing going on too.

        But they're so easy to beat up on!

        --
        Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
    • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday September 17 2014, @07:01AM

      by q.kontinuum (532) on Wednesday September 17 2014, @07:01AM (#94417) Journal

      Just because they need an imagined warden to be good people, they automatically expect that people who do not have an imaginary warden are bad people, which probably tells more about the believers than about atheists.

      I take exception to this as a strawman argument. Following Jesus is a higher responsibility than simply not being "bad" because of the threat of hell.

      Ok, maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I don't think this was a strawman argument, I heard it a couple of times. But not from all believers, probably even by a minority of them. Of course, the conclusions drawn from these kind of arguments should only be applied to those believers as well. I don't consider the church generally a bad thing. Believe can be a source of strength in times of need, and it can be a crystallization point for good people to get organized to help others. I think that religion developed through evolution on society-level. An individual might not gain any big evolutionary advantage from religion, but imagining multiple societies, one with religion, many others without, I would expect that the religious society is much stronger bonded and will therefore fight stronger and with less fear for individual physical survival. Basically I think, this makes religion a good thing.

      The drawback (from the point of view of an agnostic or atheist) is, it also helps people to organize to discriminate others. As in, you know someone from church and therefore help him to get a good free position. Or you are biased in witness-hearings etc. to believe those who pray to the same god. If religion makes it into laws, you get the situation where good, honest people can't get some of the government jobs because they are not able to truthfully end an oath on "so help me god". Atheists/agnostics just lack this crystallization point. This is also one of the key arguments Charles Dawkins makes to try to convince agnostics to become active atheists and to rally together with other atheists.

      I was raised catholic and prayed and believed for > 20 years, and since even retrospectively I don't consider myself dumb, I also wouldn't call believers dumb now. Also I know that many (good) things I did were not because of fear of hell or in expectation of reward, and also the fear did not very successfully keep me from doing more questionable things. I think that everyone in the end creates his/her own heaven/hell, through a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron>mirror neurons. Rationally, we have philosophy to "justify" helping others instead of pushing for our own survival, but in the end, helping others will make a healthy person feel better for himself, just as treating other people bad makes a healthy person feel bad himself as well. Especially when we get old, lonely and demented, we will re-live the most intense moments over and over again in our heads, without being able to change or even to fully understand it still. People who treated others badly will live through "hell" at that time of life. Some more sensitive types start this kind of heaven/hell even earlier through vivid recollections, trauma etc.

      The only point which makes me hate some believers of some religions is when religion is used as an excuse to treat others badly[*], or those few black sheep who find so much relieve in their confessions that they forget working on their personality instead of confessing afterwards. Unfortunately I know several cases of very religious people who run to church on a very regular base, consider themselves on the moral high-ground because of that, and still behave like dickheads towards others. Because, well, god forgave them everytime, so it's not too bad afterall. Again, this is not meant as a generalization.

      [*] I know most Christians will associate this sentence with Islam/sharia. It's not meant that way. I know lots of decent and tolerant Moslem, living modern and tolerant lives in modern societies, interpreting the rules from the Koran as a set of rules belonging to that time which must be adjusted an developed to match modern times. The catholic church did terrible things in its past, and there are some really nasty passages about Onan (killed for masturbation), Abraham (willing to kill his own son) and others in the old testament which the catholic church will never renounce. Still, most Christians nowadays would consider it inappropriate to consider killing their child because a voice told them to.

      • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday September 17 2014, @07:50AM

        by q.kontinuum (532) on Wednesday September 17 2014, @07:50AM (#94437) Journal

        Oh hell, give be an edit button... Richard Dawkins of course, not Charles. That was Darwin.

        --
        Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @04:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @04:28PM (#94104)

    on wanting or not wanting believe...

    you've got that backwards. satan asked God if he could test you by making your computer crash mid-post. God said, 'Sure!', with an inner smirk. satan crashed your computer mid-post and jumped up and down with glee as you became frustrated. God, with a wink and a smile, restored your computer's memory contents and whispered, 'Jesus saves.' - but you weren't listening and didn't hear it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @05:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @05:34PM (#94123)

      satan asked God if he could test you

      Anyone who's read the Bible knows this is fact. The Book of Job explicitly spells out that everything Satan does, he does only with adonai's permission. People who think Satan is just as asshole rather than a loyal servant of adonai are just demonstrating their ignorance of their own Holy Book.