Sagan was a humanist. Dawkins is an atheist. There is a big difference between that, even if there shouldn’t be. There is.

I still can’t put Dawkin’s and Sagan in the same category. He was EQUALLY critical of quack science as he was of poor political funding decisions and quack religions.

He had *no problem* with mainstream religions.

None.

*That’s* what sets Sagan apart. He wasn’t on a campaign to eliminate religion like Dawkins. Can you see the difference? Sagan saw what was good about religions and religiousity. He INSPIRED a religious devotion to Science in the people that listened to him. He did for me as well.

But he wasn’t *anti* religion. He was anti-quackery.

That’s a much broader field which *includes* Science. No one group is singled out as “This one is 100% ok”. There’s problems everywhere that need resolution.

Sagan was a *humanist*. Dawkins is an Atheist.

There is a big difference between the two. There shouldn’t be, but there is, which is why I could never be Atheist. I am agnostic, but I could never be Atheist. It’s too religious for my taste.

Scientism would be fine *if* it was humanist in nature. But it’s not. In practice, Scientism, which appears to be your religious leanings, and that’s ok by me – _tends_ to see itself as THE ONE TRUE WAY.. … _THE PATH_ to enlightenment.

Let’s see… One True Church.

It’s ironic because as the majority of mainstream religions have been moving _away_ from the “ONE TRUE [X]” way of thinking, Scientism has been taking its place.

That’s the trend that disturbs me, especially that it has a Southern Baptist Christian mannerism about it, at least among the New Atheist group. Of _all_ the Christian groups to pattern itself with, the southern baptist christian is about the *worst* template to use.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× nine = 36

Leave a Reply