Vanilla is a product of Lussumo:Documentation and Support.
101 to 120 of 292
But again, the point is Extremism, be it Faith or Science, is a bad thing.
Having read the last page and a half at a stretch, I think it would be productive if everyone take a couple points as a given before we progress:1) Both science and religion, like all human pursuits, are capable of and have done both great good and horrible evil, and to attempt quantification of either's is a waste of time.
2) Neither science, nor religion, nor good, nor evil, will ever disappear completely from human civilization, therefore speculating on why one or the other would be better is masturbation.
The amount of cyclical posting in here to the tune of "I'm not saying all _______ is bad, just that _______" or "if the world didn't have _______, _______ would never happen" is crippling the real conversation, and Rachael's original topic, IMHO.
I think it's safe to assume that no one here genuinely believes that either science or religion is fundamentally evil and capable of no positive influence, and if someone does, they're a moron and should be ignored anyway.
Would it be too rude to ask for actual examples of scientific extremism? That is, extremism explicitly motivated by passion for science?
explicitly motivated by passion for science?I don't think he does. Mengele was a sick fuck but his extremism was not motivated by his love for science.
Also: that's a Godwin jump.
how do you balance atheism versus spiritual/weird/etc.? Unless of course we consider the fact that we are sort of "enacting" the struggle here and providing many different approaches/opinions/indignations...
Also, I would echo SteadyUP's general idea that we have creeped pretty far away from the original question of basically: how do you balance atheism versus spiritual/weird/etc.
Eugenics in general is an example of science gone wrong.
Mengele was a good example of what we're referring to
@Andre - well, it is invoking Godwin to use a Nazi scientist to make a point about atheism. I don't understand what you mean by the flying brick stuff.
I can accept that definition of extremism too and still ask for a single example of where such "scientific extremists" with their pro-science agenda actually represent a threat to individuals or societies in the way that religious extremists so clearly do.
I think trying to establish any equivalence of authority between the two is just plain wishful thinking.
Mengele was a monster, his crimes were commited in the name of science, maybe, but science doesn't mandate the things he did. That's why it's a Godwin to bring him up. The causal link between faith and extremism is in contrast, undeniable.
You could argue science is driven by fear too, but that's not really true. It's driven by relentless, insatiable, demanding curiosity that is only intolerant of bad information and refuses to be swayed by special pleading.
@Andre - I'll clarify - the things I mentioned are irrelevant and self-defeating as far as the intent of this thread is concerned. Under the right circumstances, they can be very interesting to pore over and I'd be the first to jump in. But they don't get anyone anywhere here. Rachael, of course, is welcome to rebut, in which case I'll be quiet.