Poll: The Scale O' Zealotry!

[IzisviAziria]

Recent post activity has got me thinking rather heavily about zealotry and its various forms. There is, of course, probably the most common form discussed on the internet, that being the religious zealot. Muslim, Christian, Jedi, they come in all shapes and sizes.

But it seems to me that there is a directly opposing form of zealotry, that being scientific. Science = Progress, seems to be a scientifically accepted mathematical truth, which to me seems just as zealous as someone telling me that I'll burn in hell for all of eternity unless I drink some juice to wash down a bland cracker.

Now, I'm not one to judge. It truly takes all kinds to make the earth go round, and I'm (almost) always interested to hear another persons take on a similar subject, especially (most of the time) when said person's take on the subject differs to mine. So I'd like to know, Escapist: Where do you fit on the Scale O' Zealotry?

I'll kick this off, with #4: Who am I to say? And expanding, I suppose you can say that I lack the faith to believe that singing loudly in a room full of other people singing loudly will change my afterlife, while simultaneously lacking the (apparent) intelligence necessary to believe that science is the only way forward.

*PS* Ya, you guys I was quoting with in the Life-extension pill thread, please feel free to bring the discussion back up here. I'm completely willing to discuss it out, so long as we're agreeing to keep it mature.

 

[b15h4m0n]

Not all religion must be about massive congregations singing loudly in some temple. I consider my spiritual pursuits by eclectic mysticism to be some kind of private religion. I'm not a zealot, but I do like to discuss things in sceptical/Socratical kind of way, often trying to see if the person I'm talking with have views that are his own or were just put there by tradition. I'd like to vote in this poll, but I'm no god-fearing christian nor progress-driven atheist.

 

[Shockolate]

MY LIFE FOR AIUR!

Sorry.

 

[vehystrix]

Science is absolute, worship the science!

queue south park references

 

[IzisviAziria]

Not all religion must be about massive congregations singing loudly in some temple. I consider my spiritual pursuits by eclectic mysticism to be some kind of private religion. I'm not a zealot, but I do like to discuss things in sceptical/Socratical kind of way, often trying to see if the person I'm talking with have views that are his own or were just put there by tradition. I'd like to vote in this poll, but I'm no god-fearing christian nor progress-driven atheist.

You know, I meant to phrase the poll better than that, I really didn't mean to narrow the religious band of it down to Christianity. Lemme see if I can do a little better...

 

[Calatar]

Science = Progress, seems to be a scientifically accepted mathematical truth, which to me seems just as zealous as someone telling me that I'll burn in hell for all of eternity unless I drink some juice to wash down a bland cracker.

What. How are those even comparable in zealotry.

It depends what you mean by "progress." People who think science is required for technological progress are absolutely correct and in no way zealous.

If you mean societal progress, well typically it goes something like this:
If people believe in science, they're less likely believe in religion.
If people don't believe in religion, they won't think that gays are an abomination, birth control is evil, etc.
Those results would be societal progress.
Therefore science education results in societal progress.

There may be other ways of achieving that same progress, but they all essentially involve the changing of ingrained religious dogma.

 

[IzisviAziria]

Science = Progress, seems to be a scientifically accepted mathematical truth, which to me seems just as zealous as someone telling me that I'll burn in hell for all of eternity unless I drink some juice to wash down a bland cracker.

What. How are those even comparable in zealotry.

It depends what you mean by "progress." People who think science is required for technological progress are absolutely correct and in no way zealous.

If you mean societal progress, well typically it goes something like this:
If people believe in science, they're less likely believe in religion.
If people don't believe in religion, they won't think that gays are an abomination, birth control is evil, etc.
Those results would be societal progress.
Therefore science education results in societal progress.

There may be other ways of achieving that same progress, but they all essentially involve the changing of ingrained religious dogma.

While I'm a firm believer that scientific progress CAN be beneficial, I'm also a firm believer that not all scientific progress IS beneficial. The amount of scientific research devoted to learning how to more efficiently kill other human beings, for example. As humans, we now hold in our hands the potential to completely obliterate our own existence. And the Cold War taught us that we are dangerously ill-prepared for such responsibilities. This is a societal thing, a collective maturity that we have not really reached yet. It's on par with things like slavery and suffrage, that we had to grow into as a people.

It's my belief that technological and societal growth need to happen TOGETHER, and I think we're rather tragically behind in societal growth. Yet there are people that will argue tooth-and-nail with you that scientific progress should never be slowed, for any reason. This is where I get the zealotry from. These people are scientific zealots, believing just as fervently in the progress of science as the most fervent Christian believes in the progress of Christ.

 

[HuntrRose]

Science = Progress, seems to be a scientifically accepted mathematical truth, which to me seems just as zealous as someone telling me that I'll burn in hell for all of eternity unless I drink some juice to wash down a bland cracker.

What. How are those even comparable in zealotry.

It depends what you mean by "progress." People who think science is required for technological progress are absolutely correct and in no way zealous.

If you mean societal progress, well typically it goes something like this:
If people believe in science, they're less likely believe in religion.
If people don't believe in religion, they won't think that gays are an abomination, birth control is evil, etc.
Those results would be societal progress.
Therefore science education results in societal progress.

There may be other ways of achieving that same progress, but they all essentially involve the changing of ingrained religious dogma.

But this all comes down to your point of view. Now say your point of view is that homosexuality is bad for society for some reason or other. Seeing homosexuality protected by law, legalized, heralded as a good thing or whatever, would then be a sign of societal decline.

What is right and what is wrong all comes down to points of view and differing moral values. To be honest, I'm pretty sure Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. And is it then possible to call him evil? Truly? When all actions can be said to be evil by someone with a differing point of view...

And who can be really sure that "OUR" point of view is the right one? Maybe the the muslim value system is the right one? Maybe something else entirely? We can't know, all we can do is fight for what we believe to be right. Still it is just as much as beliefe as any religion, no matter what we call it.

 

[IzisviAziria]

Without science there is no progress... Well, I can agree with that. If its the right kind of progress, now thats an entirely different subject.

It wasn't a scientific breakthrough that ended slavery, nor a laboratory experiment that brought women the right to vote. Without science, there is no technological progress. But there most certainly is still progress.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Let me put it this way. I believe in God, but I also believe that blind faith is not a good enough answer or explaination.

So, 50%-50% I guess.

 

[Calatar]

But this all comes down to your point of view. Now say your point of view is that homosexuality is bad for society for some reason or other. Seeing homosexuality protected by law, legalized, heralded as a good thing or whatever, would then be a sign of societal decline.

What is right and what is wrong all comes down to points of view and differing moral values. To be honest, I'm pretty sure Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. And is it then possible to call him evil? Truly? When all actions can be said to be evil by someone with a differing point of view...

And who can be really sure that "OUR" point of view is the right one? Maybe the the muslim value system is the right one? Maybe something else entirely? We can't know, all we can do is fight for what we believe to be right. Still it is just as much as beliefe as any religion, no matter what we call it.

There is no single "right one," but there are things we should be able to agree on. At a minimum, the golden rule should be universally agreed upon, and we should acknowledge that it's a BAD thing to persecute people for their sexual orientation, ethnicity etc.

While we each have slightly different moral positions, recognizing human rights does not require suspension of disbelief, as in religion. Saying that "you know, I don't think I'd like to be treated that way, so we shouldn't treat other people that way."

Executing women for daring to get an education= bad.
Killing women for the crime of being raped= bad.
Stoning homosexuals for existing= bad.
Assassinating people to gain power= bad.
Ordering the deaths of millions of people= bad.

These are things we should all be able to agree on. Civilization wouldn't function if we didn't have some level of instinctive morality. Morality is relative, but only to an extent.

 

[Calatar]

While I'm a firm believer that scientific progress CAN be beneficial, I'm also a firm believer that not all scientific progress IS beneficial.

True, and true.

It's my belief that technological and societal growth need to happen TOGETHER, and I think we're rather tragically behind in societal growth.

Not all kinds of technology require a mature public. Improving an iPhone's wireless capability has little to no effect on humanity at large. Some technology, perhaps requires a more mature public. But it's folly to say that we need to halt scientific progress while we wait for an arbitrary amount of societal progress to happen.

Yet there are people that will argue tooth-and-nail with you that scientific progress should never be slowed, for any reason. This is where I get the zealotry from. These people are scientific zealots, believing just as fervently in the progress of science as the most fervent Christian believes in the progress of Christ.

This sounds made up. I just don't think you have good enough reasons to halt scientific advance. If you're talking about weapons, there are plenty of people who wish to reduce the amount of funding we offer to arms research, yet otherwise support scientific progress.

If you've got GOOD reasons to halt scientific research not pertaining to weapons, lets hear them.

 

[HuntrRose]

But this all comes down to your point of view. Now say your point of view is that homosexuality is bad for society for some reason or other. Seeing homosexuality protected by law, legalized, heralded as a good thing or whatever, would then be a sign of societal decline.

What is right and what is wrong all comes down to points of view and differing moral values. To be honest, I'm pretty sure Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. And is it then possible to call him evil? Truly? When all actions can be said to be evil by someone with a differing point of view...

And who can be really sure that "OUR" point of view is the right one? Maybe the the muslim value system is the right one? Maybe something else entirely? We can't know, all we can do is fight for what we believe to be right. Still it is just as much as beliefe as any religion, no matter what we call it.

There is no single "right one," but there are things we should be able to agree on. At a minimum, the golden rule should be universally agreed upon, and we should acknowledge that it's a BAD thing to persecute people for their sexual orientation, ethnicity etc.

While we each have slightly different moral positions, recognizing human rights does not require suspension of disbelief, as in religion. Saying that "you know, I don't think I'd like to be treated that way, so we shouldn't treat other people that way."

Executing women for daring to get an education= bad.
Killing women for the crime of being raped= bad.
Stoning homosexuals for existing= bad.
Assassinating people to gain power= bad.
Ordering the deaths of millions of people= bad.

These are things we should all be able to agree on. Civilization wouldn't function if we didn't have some level of instinctive morality. Morality is relative, but only to an extent.

Agree, and I may have put it a bit too bluntly. But my point still stands. and I can add, that if you want to turn anyone to your point of view, you can only coax and hope. the second you even start thinking about using any kind of force you have failed.

 

[_Janny_]

"Well, God never connected me to the internet." I don't know why, but that phrase would really make a great T-shirt.

I think I'm gonna go with 50-50 on this issue. I love science, but I'm not really one to say there can't be anything out there we can't understand and/or see (and I'm hoping God looks like a badass alien or something else more mindblowing).

 

[LandoCristo]

I don't believe in a soul, seeing as nothing lasts, why would some manifestation of our being survive past our mortal bodies? That said, I think that God may exist, but as some sort of weird housekeeper, if that makes sense.

 

[CheeseSandwichCake]

All hail the almighty Bacon for he protects us with his rough pink exterior!