ANSWERS: 9
  • Nope. They are exactly alike (with one small difference). One, has faith and sees it as indisputeable fact. The other has theory and sees it as indisputeable fact.
  • yes i would say there are enermies of progress in general.
  • Hmm can't really say so. There are religious and scientific fanatics too. Like me :P
  • ------ (ADDED: INTRODUCTION) ------- Fanatics, religious or not, are not always enemies of scientific progress. The enemy of scientific progress is obscurantism. "There is currently no constant academic standard for what defines a fanatical religious position." "'Obscurantism' refers to practices that favor limits on the extension and dissemination of knowledge." "Though often associated with religious fundamentalism, obscurantism is a distinct strain of thought: Fundamentalism presupposes a sincere belief in religion, while obscurantism rests on the deliberate manipulation of faith by an enlightened few." "We should not lump all religious believers together." ------ (END OF ADDED INTRODUCTION) ------- 1) "Religious fanaticism can be defined as fanaticism related to a person's, or a group's, devotion to a religion. However, Religious Fanaticism is a subjective evaluation defined by the culture context that is performing the evaluation. What constitutes fanaticism in another's behavior or belief is determined by the core assumptions of the one doing the evaluation. As such, there is currently no constant academic standard for what defines a fanatical religious position. In his book, Holy War, Just War, Lloyd Steffen says, "[Religious] fanaticism . . . invokes the idea of ultimacy, and its presence in religious life is undeniable." He goes on to say, "[Religious] fanatics are persons who attach to some object an ultimate valuation and then attend to that overvalued object with what is recognizable as a kind of religious devotion."" Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_fanaticism 2) "The first and older sense of the term 'obscurantism' refers to practices that favor limits on the extension and dissemination of knowledge. It can be seen as Plato’s “noble lie.” This is the lie that the ruler, (Plato’s philosopher king), would transmit to the people for their own good. The notion that rulers or leaders know what is best for the people can be found in all forms of totalitarianism; as Bergen Evans warned, “obscurantism and tyranny go together." Obscurantism in this sense is both anti-intellectual and elitist, as well as fundamentally anti-democratic, as it considers the people unworthy of truth. The Marquis de Condorcet wrote extensively on the phenomenon during the period of the French Revolution, when obscurantism was widespread among the aristocracy. Later, William Kingdon Clifford, an early proponent of Darwinism, devoted some writings to rooting out obscurantism in England after hearing clerics who privately agreed with him publicly denounce evolution. Though often associated with religious fundamentalism, obscurantism is a distinct strain of thought: Fundamentalism presupposes a sincere belief in religion, while obscurantism rests on the deliberate manipulation of faith by an enlightened few. Obscurantists may be atheists or agnostics themselves, but believe that some form of religion or superstition among the masses is necessary for a stable society, and thus seek to limit to a select few the awareness of evidence that counters common belief. The term is used in this sense by modern-day skeptics, such as H.L. Mencken, in their critiques of religion, and by reformers within religious movements who are also pro-science." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism 3) "What kick-started the New Atheism was, of course, the attack on the Twin Towers. That event, and subsequent acts of Islamist-inspired terrorism, reminded the world of the terrible deeds that can be performed in the name of religious fanaticism, especially if it is reinforced by dreams of immediate rewards in paradise. How to combat Islamist fanaticism is obviously a pressing question. At the same time, it would be foolish to let our attitudes to all religions and all religious believers be coloured by a small set of specific outrages. A second development which no doubt reinforced the New Atheism was the resurgence of creationism, on a small scale in the UK and on a scarily large scale in the US. In the States it’s linked with the religious right and the malign influence of Christian fundamentalists on politics and government. Unsurprisingly, it’s in the US that the New Atheism seems to be taking shape as a cultural movement, not just a publishing success. Dawkins has launched the “Out” campaign, encouraging American atheists to “come out”. The success of these developments is sufficient evidence that they respond to a real need, and they reflect the extent to which American atheists have felt beleaguered. In some parts of the US it takes courage to come out as an atheist. But let’s be honest – in Britain today, for most of us, it’s a doddle." "Dawkins also thinks that it is blind faith that leads to crazy acts of religious fanaticism. “Even mild and moderate religion,” he says, “helps to provide the climate of faith in which extremism naturally flourishes.” He’s thinking, obviously, of suicide bombers and Islamist terrorists, not to mention Christian extremists who murder abortionists, Hindus who slaughter Muslims, and all the rest of the fanatics. It was the killing of 3,000 people in the World Trade Centre that was the initial spur for the New Atheism, and for Dawkins it demonstrated that it is not extremism, but religion as such, that is the problem." "But it's a selective list, and it’s not enough to justify the generalisation, since it invites the response: “What about all the good things done in the name of religion? What about all the religious believers who have stood up against political repression, who have worked for peace and tolerance, who have campaigned for justice and against slavery and poverty, and have devoted themselves to improving the lot of their fellow human beings?” Hitchens’s answer is that if people do these things, it’s not really their religion that motivates them – “this is a compliment to humanism, not to religion”." "For Dawkins and for Hitchens that is part of the problem. Religious believers cannot avoid cherry-picking. They select from their sacred texts whatever fits their prior agenda. The homophobes pick out the texts from Leviticus or the Koran which order the killing of gays; their opponents say that this is incompatible with the idea of a god of compassion and tolerance. The warmongers and jihadists pick out the injunctions to slaughter; the peacemakers appeal to the contrary texts. Religions are deeply contradictory, and the application of them will always be selective. But that is precisely why we should not lump all religious believers together. Humanism is more than atheism, it is about putting humanist beliefs and values into practice and trying to make the world a better place. And that is impossible unless we’re prepared to cooperate with others who share those values, including those for whom the values are inseparable from a religious commitment. It goes deeper than that. For many humanists, religious believers are also friends, lovers, colleagues, neighbours, spouses and partners. The attitude that religion poisons everything is unlikely to be an auspicious basis for such relationships. We really do need something a bit more nuanced. And this brings me to my practical conclusion. If we are serious about our humanist values, we should look for all those who share them, and work with them." Source and further information: http://newhumanist.org.uk/1623
  • Yes yes and yes....they are the enemies of freedom in every way. Freedom of thought, freedom of choice and they will try to stop anything they do not agree with or believe in, that is especially true with science. A person like Sarah Palin actually believes the earth is 6000 years old and there was a Noah's ark. For me a person like that actually being in political power makes me very nervous.
  • Not currently. With the exception of stem cell research I can't think of any research that the religious have blocked. And for that matter the only blocking they did was for FEDERAL funds to go to such research. States and private donors could fund such research if they wished. . There are some who believe things that are inconsistent with science as we understand it, but the failure of some individuals to accept some scientific theories, principles or even facts doesn't in itself affect science.
  • YES i would say so, they always have been unless they control it the information that is and can present it as they see fit with in the doctrines that they follow and can claim it as theirs and make money from it , and to prove their point of power they have had people imprisoned, tortured and murdered, even assinatted of course they don't call it that they will call it anything else but but what it is, any "truth" as they see it to justify their violent actions against another if they wont convert to one or the other and YES it is still going on especially in the USA .. ~Nemo~
  • Yes, this is a byproduct of any patalogic belief system.
  • Did you forget Galileo's story?!

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy