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.
