[wideawake]

They were similar to Inquisition era Catholics in that there was an orthodoxy and those who didn't follow it were dealt with harshly.

I would argue that they were far worse for two reasons: dissension from orthodoxy in Inqusition Spain was not illegal - dissension was accompanied by unconscionable disabilities (being forbidden to own real property except in certain restricted areas, ineligibility for various offices and honors, disqualification from numerous professions, exile, etc.) but torture and death were circumscribed to dissenters who concealed their dissent.

And of those accused, more than 75% were acquitted by Inquisition courts and freed by their own recognizance.

A disgustingly brutal and immoral system - but enlightened compared to Stalinist Russia, where the very fact of dissent was fatal and every trial ended in an execution.

Their religion just didn't have a theology.

At this point we're begging the question - since professing, as Element187 does, a "belief in science" is a religious profession as well by the vaguest definition.

But your larger point is well taken.

[Borges]

I define religious beliefs as those taken purely on faith. So ideally, scientific beliefs should not be religious...in that sense anyway. Of course this is shaky territory these days. Thanks for info about the Inquisition. No one expects the...oh never mind.

But have you read a lot about Calvin's Geneva? Martin Seymour Smith in his '100 Most Influential Books of all time' refers to it as a blueprint for the Third Reich. Ironically, the Calvinists were quite welcoming to the Jews, compared to the way they were treated by the established Church at the time anyway.