That's the thing; the basic constructs I don't have a problem
with; conceptually, when properly applied with the "spirit of"
(so to speak) they can work. Most mainstream religions (that I'm
aware of) have useful components that, when applied correctly,
could result in a decent understanding of the Universe and fine
basis for dealing with ourselves and the rest of humanity and
the planet, etc etc.
At its best, it can work, and has worked and does work for many
but again, when properly applied.
Same is true for science. When properly applied, properly used,
when the "spirit of" it (as exemplified by the Scientific Method
- which really isn't anything *new*; it's just a rewording of a
very basic set of concepts that reasonable humans have been
following _already_ for thousands of years.
Bits of it are even encoded in Judeo Christian texts, as you
showed above.
But when its misapplied, misused, bows to political pressures,
follows fads, uses various form of coersion and pursuation to
gain adherents, in short, tries to become dominant... well...
that's when I step back and go... "come on now... you have a
good idea here and it's pretty useful when done right. Don't
screw it up, please".
Like you mentioned in the Lev. example (a good one by the way):
sticking to the good principles and being reasonable is
important. I can't say logically why it's important; it's just a
value of mine. But many bad things are committed under the guise
of a "good idea" and that's why you see me critical of some of
the trends I've been seeing. I don't want science culture to
follow in the footsteps of the religious cultures they attempt
to distance themselves from.
Ideal vs Ideal. Culture vs Culture. It's easy to pick out
examples of abuses but cooperation by finding commonality is
extraordinarily difficult. I guess that's my personal
fanaticism; when ideals start to strip people of their humanity.
