SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday September 17 2014, @07:01AM
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.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday September 17 2014, @07:50AM
Oh hell, give be an edit button... Richard Dawkins of course, not Charles. That was Darwin.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum