... should science and scientific ideas stir excitement. To me this is the wrong approach, the right approach is describing science as basically amoral. But really I was making a tongue-in-cheek comment that the idea of people getting excited about science is kind of funny, and shows a bit of unrealistic optimism about people and their motives.
You wonder if scientific ideas should stir excitement in anyone? Um, yeah, if some people want to feel excited about it then why not?
We seem to be talking past each other, maybe because of different motives in carrying on this conversation?
If people are excited about science that's great. What I'm addressing is the idea that people at large need to be fed science like it's a pill that's good for them. When we're moving away from extremely superstitious ideas, venerating science and reason may seem like the logical next step, but I'm arguing that it's not. Real progress away from superstitious ideas is the recognition that the world is ambiguous, complicated, and needs careful solutions.
People should be made aware of science, and scientific implications, and if they get great joy from this awareness that's great! But I don't think we should be conveying the idea that science is a
solution to our problems - we should be conveying the idea that science is a tool of engineering that can be used for any given aim, and that it won't by necessity make our lives better.
What's the connection between science being amoral and people's response to it? Let's say that someone (like me) decides that how he's a "created-by-nature" being and not a "created by-God" being is of moral significance. What's that got to do with whether science is amoral?
What I'm saying is that it's important that we don't push the idea that science is some kind of savior that will pave the way for our future. If any given person gets great joy by the understanding that they are created by nature, that's great. But what I actually see from so many people who consider themselves atheist is an unrealistic and unhealthy respect for 'reason', and an ill-informed view of the
good that science has actually done for our species.
It's ok to venerate nature and our understanding of nature, but healthy skepticism about how we got there should remain.
You said "[most people would] probably be happy that some smart, nerd somewhere is quietly figuring out difficult problems" in your previous post. That's irrelevant too. It doesn't take indepth knowledge of science, but just knowing the general outlines and knowing they're significant to our lives. The notion it's "a small subset of atheists" who are interested is contradicted by a lot of evidence. Go look at the numerous popular titles in nature and science books. Notice the nature documentaries.
These examples don't really contradict the point that most of us aren't interested in science or scientific implications beyond a superficial level. Of course people love nature documentaries, who wouldn't? But are any of these people researching the animals in these documentaries? Are they thinking about neurophysiology? Are they examining their own free will? Are they elevating science writers to the status of hero?
But I'm certainly not claiming that people have no right to get excited about these things, I'm making the point that few people are actually interested in hard ideas or concepts, and that's ok. And I think it's more realistic to accept that this is how our species works, than thinking everyone needs a rationalist agenda pushed on them. Maybe to the extent that we minimize organized religion, but don't expect a wholesale love of or interest in science.
