Religion forum

[Tormod]

Religion is too important to many of the sciences to forbid it from the other sections. I'd say that it would be a place to debate the different interpretations of different religions.

 

The problem is that often religion (ie, the Christian version of it) is brought into a discussion as an attempt of some sort of anti-proof, which causes the topic to derail. This is what we need to work against. When someone says (for example) "But the Earth must be 6,000 years old because the Bible says so, and everything else is crank science" then it does not help our discussion in any way.

 

A theology forum would be for discussions *about* religion, yes.

 

Hmm, come to think of it, maybe this type of stuff doesn't belong here. I guess I don't know then

 

Some of it does, some of it does not. We will never find the perfect balance. But this is an attempt to meeet the wishes of our members and find out what kind of solutions we can work out.

[Tormod]

We might address the theology issue by changing the philospopy title to philosophy and theology, since they are often inextricable.

 

No. This is a different interpretation of theology than I have.

 

For the sake of argument, let us look at theology as a forum *about* religion and it's many aspects.

 

I am not saying we cannot *also* discuss religious aspects in philosophy in that forum. This is not the problem we have. The problem is the endless "evolution vs creationism" and the "scientific proof of God" topics, not to mention the tiresome injection of religion into completely non-religious threads.

 

And before someone starts to send me hate mail, this is also an attempt to get rid of all the "stop dragging religion into every topic" posts that I and others make. :)

[Tormod]

ID: Usually is a debate about philosophy of science or evolution or cosmology. To disagree with Tormod, its seems like ID'ers go out of their way to say that they are not imposing a religion (which puts their theories in to direct conflict with Creationism: I've been waiting for an "ID vs. Creationism" thread...)

 

We are not in disagreement here, Buffy, which should be apparent from one of my posts above.

 

I voted don't know, but I think the bigger hole in the forum list is the History/Archeology/Paleontology one....

 

Yes, true to an extent.

 

I think the result of this very thread will be a reorganization of our forum list into groups: physical/natural sciences, arts and humanities, social sciences, technology (ie, information sciences), and "other sciences" (bah) and then place the relevant old and new forums into these groups.

 

Technically philosophy belongs under humanities, which I also believe theology would do. I agree that theology may be a subset of philosophy but let us avoid sub-categories because they are not easy to locate for our members.

[Stargazer]

ID: Usually is a debate about philosophy of science or evolution or cosmology. To disagree with Tormod, its seems like ID'ers go out of their way to say that they are not imposing a religion (which puts their theories in to direct conflict with Creationism: I've been waiting for an "ID vs. Creationism" thread...)

 

Creationism: Like ID, but usually has the short time-scale, miraculous occurence bent, and so tends to go into history and archeology.

 

I suppose you're talking about creationism as the Genesis creationism, but really there are many more. And indeed ID is a form of creationism, and therefor a version of a religious mythology. The funny thing is of course that they're trying hard to strip off the religious cover. That leaves them with absolutely nothing left. There's no ID theory, not even a hypothesis.

[Tormod]

I suppose you're talking about creationism as the Genesis creationism, but really there are many more. And indeed ID is a form of creationism, and therefor a version of a religious mythology. The funny thing is of course that they're trying hard to strip off the religious cover. That leaves them with absolutely nothing left. There's no ID theory, not even a hypothesis.

 

Let's stay on topic - what is your take on how religion should be covered at Hypography, SG.

[Stargazer]

Let's stay on topic - what is your take on how religion should be covered at Hypography, SG.

I did vote no at first, but now when I think of it, maybe having a dedicated forum on religion would clean the Evolution forum from the irrelevant debates on creationism and ID and such. But on the other hand it feels like a recognition of religion as something relevant. I guess I'm guilty of paying attention to it as well, since I've been giving my opinion of it now and then.

 

I don't really know what would be the best solution. I mean, we already have a Strange claims forum, right?

[C1ay]

But on the other hand it feels like a recognition of religion as something relevant.

It is relevant. Even if most of us here don't have religious beliefs there are many that do, and for them, religion is a steering vector in how they see and do things. As scientists we must consider all of the variables and religion is one of them, even if religion itself is not science. There are some tangents where some will base their science on religion and that really is junk science but, it is not the totality of the science-religion consideration.

[Tormod]

I agree. Religion is also relevant to any non-religious person because it has an impact on our daily lives through the opinions of many politicians, lawmakers, journalists. Discussing the impact of religion on different things is not only relevant, it is also interesting (= my personal opinion, of course).

[gubba]

G'day folks,

 

g'day boss (Tormod) I suppose labeling religion "theology" makes sense, but don't you think "mythology" sounds kinda more cuddly an' fuzzy? Please don't let them talk you into shoving it into philosophy, I beg of you?

 

As an ex history major I'm a bit dubious about recognising a greater role for the humanities than Hypography already allows for, but that's probably sour grapes on my part. The history of science is quite fascinating all the same. If we run some sort of religious forum would it be possible to explore the various roles religious beliefs play in various cultures? As an Aussie I feel close to my cousins in the States but I simply cannot get an emotional grip on this religious obession my transpacific brethren seem to almost breathe. I again hope my attempt at levity has not been offensive, for I truely find this difference in our basically anglo-saxon cultures as fascinating as I find it bewildering and I'd be interested to find out how other non- americans see these ongoing religious threads and how our american friends see their ongoing debate themselves.cheers gub.

[Tormod]

Excellent post, gub.

 

Yes, I admit that this action is being taken because we sometimes are overwhelmed by the tendency of American citizens to pull religion into everything. But the fact remains that they constitute about 75% of our site audience and we can't ignore that. We can, however, try to funnel the discussions into the channels where they make most sense (if that's a useful term here).

 

My point being - some of our members seem to hang around mostly to post religious stuff. They are not being taken seriously and are a nuisance (to be completely honest) - but kicking them out is not the solution. On the other hand, members like biochem and Irisheyes have an openly religious stance and are able to separate between their religious beliefs and the discussion at hand (well, most of the time :) ).

 

It is these members I want to meet halfway and say, yes, religion must be catered for, and if so, we need to do it in a way that does not make it crash with the overall ideals of Hypography as a *science* site for everyone. At the same time it must not be an invitation to others to start endless topics about deep faith and crank science. It is a dilemma that we can solve by trying to find out what people would like and why.

[Tormod]

And I did not mean to imply that all of our American members are religious...

[rockytriton]

Maybe if there was a way to limit certain users to only post in the religion forum, that would cut back on some of the "The Bible says ****** so you are all wrong, you scientists think you know everything, but you can't prove anything, blah blah blah blah blah.....", maybe you could call it the "Religion Sandbox"

[C1ay]

I suppose labeling religion "theology" makes sense, but don't you think "mythology" sounds kinda more cuddly an' fuzzy? Please don't let them talk you into shoving it into philosophy, I beg of you?

Yes but, religion is a valid piece of the social science pie no matter how you slice it.

[Biochemist]

It is relevant. Even if most of us here don't have religious beliefs there are many that do, and for them, religion is a steering vector in how they see and do things. As scientists we must consider all of the variables and religion is one of them, even if religion itself is not science. ..

I agree with C1ay on this. I am certainly a theist, and I am usually in the same camp as agnostics (as opposed to the atheists) in most of the debates that are pure science. Frequently, debates surface (e.g., free will vs determinism, free will vs the scientific method, holes in evolution, etc) where the atheists and the agnostics part company. These are very useful distinctions in that the debates surface our biases in any underlying postulates. Where we elect to address the underlying postulates directly, discussion of religion and philosopy is directly applicable to higher-level conclusions of "science".

 

I think it would be illegitimate to exclude discussion of religion, since so much of science (even among atheists) is based on these fundamental postulates.

[Stargazer]

It is relevant. Even if most of us here don't have religious beliefs there are many that do, and for them, religion is a steering vector in how they see and do things. As scientists we must consider all of the variables and religion is one of them, even if religion itself is not science. There are some tangents where some will base their science on religion and that really is junk science but, it is not the totality of the science-religion consideration.

I agree that science based on religion is junk science. I also would like to say that the existence of religion is not irrelevant, since it's had quite an impact for many millenia. However, I don't see the beliefs themselves as relevant other than to be part of someone's personal philosophy. Compare with science and its results, both theoretical and practical, and there you have something that really matters.

[UncleAl]

Horrible idea. Tell Uncle Al why Catholics and Protestants kill each other in Northern Ireland despite worshipping the same god, three gods, whatever. How can anybody espouse that stuff and keep a straight face while doing it?

 

Let's have a forum devoted to elves, too, and journeyman intergalactic proctologists who have a fondess for abducting rural bumpkins, and ethnic histories, and Wymyns' issues, and the supernatural, and...

[Biochemist]

Horrible idea. Tell Uncle Al why Catholics and Protestants kill each other in Northern Ireland despite worshipping the same god, three gods, whatever. ....

For the benefit of folks like Uncel Al, who seem constitutionally unable to separate religion from politics, I suggest we NOT have a forum on politics.

 

I also think it might be safe to stay several hundred feet from Uncle Al, in the event of unexpected lightening strikes.