The most obvious appeal of Star Trek lies in its anticipation of human technological advancement and in its ability to entertain the dream that along with phasers and transporter beams, we may eventually acquire the secrets of our universe.

And yet the real seductiveness of Star Trek is tied up not with technology, but with its ability to predict the direction in which a new human ethic might eventually evolve: For on board the star ship Enterprise, the crew have conquered not only science but also their darkest fears, banishing feeble-mindedness, superstition and the politics of difference, in favor of logic, common sense and solidarity.

In our fictional future, human integrity has finally caught up with human technology. And although humans, at the dawn of the twenty-first century have already begun to boldly go where no one has gone before, one thing is painfully clear: while our future aboard some warp-capable star ship is almost certainly assured, our destiny as emotionally competent and worthy crew members is far less certain.

With this in mind, the question that should be occupying the minds of both “Trekkies” and philosophers alike in the second Millennium is this:

Will the Human Race succeed in closing the gap between its technological and its ethical development in time for the two to meet seamlessly, as Captain Kirk would have it?

Right now, things don’t look so good.

In his recent devastating indictment on American society, author Chris Hedges notes that a massive chunk of this country has slipped so far into mediocrity that it has literally lost the ability to tell the difference between lies and truth.

“The core values of our open society, the ability to think for oneself, to draw independent conclusions, to express dissent when judgment and common sense indicate something is wrong, to be self-critical, to challenge authority, to understand historical facts, to separate truth from lies, to advocate for change and to acknowledge that there are other views, different ways of being, that are morally and socially acceptable”, are dying, he says.(1)

On almost every subject from global warming to sexual orientation and religion, we are informed by simplistic, childish narratives and cliches that are thrown into confusion by subtelty or the invasion of alternate viewpoints. What’s worse is that even when we recognize the truth, we dare not speak it. We have become an entire nation of people dressed in the Emperor’s New Clothes.

Without clear thinking, the human race is doomed to failure – and the movie Idiocracy hints comically at where our collective future might lay – and it’s not on board the Enterprise.

(1) TruthDig.com – America the Illiterate

Related posts:

1. The Skeptrack Experience at DragonCon – Part 2

Stereotypes provide great fodder for comedy. They can also obstruct social progress.

Consider the stereotypes in this Onion news parody:

Why is the medicinal use of marijuana illegal in most states?  Blame a stupid stereotype.

It just happens that I am for both the legalization of marijuana and for the legalization of atheism.  But wait a minute, atheism is legal.  It is only human collective efforts that ban the overt expressions of it from some arenas of society.

If atheists wore neckties, said  sir and m’am and helped old ladies across the street, would the stupid stereotype that portrays us as sharp-toothed subversives go away?

Here’s the problem: We DO help old ladies across the street.  We just don’t link that to our lack of belief.  “Yah, Joe is such a good non-believer; he helps old ladies cross the street.” Kind of weird, isn’t it?

How do you combat a stupid stereotype?  I think the first step is for more people to openly identify themselves as members of an unfairly maligned group.  I taught psychology for a number of years and remember a landmark study.  The researchers found that the best way to combat racism was to get individuals from different groups to work together on a common goal.  If we don’t first identify ourselves as atheists or non-believers, how are intolerant believers to outgrow their prejudice?

No related posts.

Is killing a god a crime?  If it is, I hope habeas corpus rights demand that the body be presented before I am convicted.

As an atheist I could be accused of killing God.  But that’s impossible.  For there is not one god, but millions, perhaps billions.  There is one god, or more, in every mind of a believer.  I could only kill the single god in my own mind.  The human imagination, not heaven, is the abode of gods.

To those that insist there is but one god, please provide a specific address.  I’ll MapQuest it and go knocking on that god’s door.  I welcome any real evidence of deities.

As for “my” god, I didn’t really kill him.  I merely pulled the plug on the artificial life-support.  Without it he died, as all gods do, a natural death.

If it were a killing–which it wasn’t–you could call it a mercy killing.  All gods have a terminal illness.  As human knowledge progresses, the abilities-of and need-for gods atrophies.  No, they don’t bring rain, nor cause volcanoes to erupt.  They aren’t responsible for disease or the remission of disease.  What is left for gods to do?  Blow on the silver ball at the roulette table to answer one gambler’s prayer and deny another’s?  It is only a matter of time, whether decades, centuries, or millennia, before all gods will be useless.  They’ll be brain-dead relics of a primitive era in human physical and cultural evolution.  Why not say bye-bye sooner rather than later?  I think it’s the humane thing to do.

Related posts:

1. Scientific Conclusion: Prayer Doesn’t Work – Part 2