What do you want from this sub forum?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Kittamaru, Sep 3, 2015.

  1. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    As the title says - what do you, the members, want to see of this sub forum?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    No proselytizing or Sunday school lessons, that's for sure. Like other science forums, it should be scientific or philosophical discussions of religion
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,320
    Assuming that the title refers to more than just increasing the diversity of religions and their elements that have been scrutinized here in the past (dominated by Abrahamic ones, perhaps)...

    A good part of the nature of Sciforums is surely a priori or conceived and set beforehand, regardless of whether the place has officially been defined to great depth somewhere or its tenets and properties extensively described. That is, the strict basic theme / idea / principle of Sciforums could output such or an analysis of the concept "Sciforums" would expose an internal structure that is largely inevitable / determined (much as if it had existed in advance).

    So any study of religious texts that transpired here would have to be restricted to either a secular, detached approach (a neutral hermeneutics, literary criticism, etc) or regulated by a philosophical naturalism bias that could never result in conclusions that certain entities / affairs (espoused by the manuscripts) could be treated as factual. Such systematically or methodologically governed studies seem already subsumed in the two general categories which Oystein mentioned.

    Thus there's perhaps little point in the possible suggestion by this topic that there can be other options available beyond what has been the case in the past (like the common, believer-biased research interests and discussions that members of a faith would conduct in their gatherings concerning sacred texts, taking place without violating rules or going unchallenged).
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    No complaints with how it has been going so far.
     
  8. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    You're lucky you're here on a very lenient science forum (and I'm not complaining about that). BS preaching is grounds for suspension on other science forums.
     
  9. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    True. I just had an itch to preach last night. That would have been the first time.
     
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    To be honest, proclaiming your personal live like that isn't, in my opinion, preaching - it is a simple declaration of what you believe. Preaching implies trying to show that others are wrong, convert them, or other such... well... preachy actions. Simply stating your own belief is just fine.

    Now, if you wanted to state your belief was a fact you would have to be able to back said statement with evidence capable of supporting the argument... which is the reason worldwide religious clashes have accomplished so little (almost all the evidence is entirely here say or otherwise third party)
     
  11. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,320
    Reflecting on this a bit more, I suppose there could be more discussion about the cultural and living side of just being an adherent of religion _X_. Such interests could range from being merely descriptive to detouring around any deeper supernatural justifications for:

    "The significance and importance of the volunteer efforts and charitable donations we contribute to local community and abroad."

    "Our pastor / clergy / temple spokesperson and fellow members helped us immensely to get through that time of trouble."

    "The wearing of this type of clothing and cherishing these sacred symbols."

    "The benefits and disadvantages of our being permitted to have multiple spouses."

    "Our family performing these daily rituals (bowing toward the sunrise, chanting this litany, gathering botanical substances necessary for achieving the Great Bliss, clutching hands to form a circle around the Exalted Icon...)."

    "We can participate in certain popular Holy Days holidays but not others."

    "This behavior is okay for us but not that; and we can never utter such impure words..."

    "Our children must be home-schooled to limit their exposure to the extra-doctrinal influences of the Gogaharian Conspiracy infesting most public institutions."

    etc.
     
  12. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    seems sensible to me - one cannot learn about that which is not discussed or observed after all
     
  13. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    I don't have any complaints with how this forum has been moderated. The moderators (primarily Kittamaru I think) have been doing a good job. The forum could definitely be better than it currently is, but I don't think that a moderator could make those improvements.

    Like other fora on Sciforums, what 'Religion' really needs is a better class of participant. Right now, it seems to be dominated by one or two theists who seem to argue simply to get all the atheists excited and to be the center of everyone else's attention, and a group of militant atheists with more attitude than brains. (There are some notable exceptions like Sarkus, who I find smart, interesting and well worth reading.)

    I don't know what a moderator can do about that. (I certainly don't advocate banning anyone.)

    My own interests are in philosophy and what I enjoy the most are the philosophical discussions of religious epistemology. What is it that you think that you know? Why are you convinced that it's true? How can human beings possibly know those kind of things?

    Most of the atheist/'religionist' arguments do address those kind of issues but don't develop very well because the participants seem too eager to treat the forum as a video-game, where the goal is simply to blast enemies. Too many people seem to think that any argument is a good argument, provided that it's directed against opponents.

    Given the nature of Sciforums, there are inevitably going to be a lot of atheists swarming around this forum. I don't think that science is necessarily incompatible with religion, but laypeople out on the street often assume that it is. I was at a local bookstore yesterday and noticed several recent popular titles trying to make that rather dated argument. So atheists love to rally to the authoritative banner of 'science', imagining that science unequivocably justifies their own atheist faith and discredits any kind of religiosity.

    So what do I want? I'd like to see Sciforums populated by a better quality of atheist. It needs people who know something about religion, about the diversity of religious ideas that have arisen in different cultures and historical periods, and who don't just automatically equate 'religion' with Christianity, and Christianity with the most extreme forms of Protestant fundamentalism. It needs people willing to acknowledge the best aspects of religion and not just the worst. It needs people who don't just use words like 'reason' and 'logic' as if they are magical fetishes to shake in the face of opponents, but are able to reason well and use logic appropriately. And above all, it needs people who don't conceive of all this as good-guys vs. bad-guys. It needs people who can perceive the abstract philosophical issues that arise in the course of these disputes and who are willing and capable of addressing them.

    And obviously, I'd like to see the atheists' opponents rise to the same level. They need to do more than preach their faith and play rhetorical games in hopes of getting all the atheists barking. Religious people need to understand their own tradition and its wider context, and need to be able to represent it well.

    If the 'Religion' forum is ever going to have any interest, if it is ever going to be something more than the self-appointed voices of 'reason' agreeing with each other and patting each other on the back, then it will need to attract some smart and well-spoken people who are willing to question the certainties (and willing to take the consequent abuse). If the forum is going to flourish, it needs drama to motivate people to read it and to post their ideas. It needs to be an intelligent dialogue and not just a single-minded monologue.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2015
  14. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Unfortunately Yazata, I just don't see that happening - general membership seems to be in a decline but, more importantly, general member quality has taken a serious nosedive in the last few years (primarily, in my opinion, because we excused racist, bigoted, and a host of other generally unpleasant behavior rather than dealing with it at the source). I'm really not sure at this point how we can attract more intellectual posters, given that so much of our "new content" anymore is... well, for lack of a better explanation, a bunch of pseudo-scientific trash, interspersed with the occasional interesting article that tends to get few, if any, responses.

    And I don't mean just the religion forum

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Religion in a valid area of study. People can get PhD's in religion and religious studies. Some of the doctors become professors who teach in University and who publish in journals. Religion may be one of the oldest areas of study, with clergy among the most educated people since ancient times.

    What does not make any sense, is the idea that nothing of religion substance can be discussed in a forum titled, religion. This would be like a chemistry forum that does not allow any discussion of chemicals. All you can do is insult the subject and anyone who tries to do what the title implies.

    This gives me the impression of a PC style inquisition, irrationally afraid words will disorientate the minions. The discussion is stuck at first grade Sunday School level; fairly tails, so it is easy to make look bad. If the subject could reach high school level it was be more interesting.
     
  16. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    What I would like to see as a discussion in this forum that defines religion in a scientific way, so it does not depend on politics or self serving definitions. This is not as clear cut as you think. Buddhism is considered a major religion, but Buddhism does not believe in deities. Believing in God is not the singular litmus test for religion.

    This implies there should be other human behavior that are non-deity based, that should be called religions, but are not, for political reasons. Environmentalist treat nature like it is personified. This is not exactly a fairly tale or deity religion, beyond mother nature, but it is still between that and Buddhism.

    The question is how do you define religion, via science, so political spin is neutralized. What is common? Is everyone objective enough to do some science investigation?
     
  17. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Is politics a form of religion? Like in Buddhism, it is not about gods and deities, although the leaders of the movement may be worshipped like a god.

    Statues of Buddha are used as religious artifacts. How many scientists have pictures of Darwin or Einstein in their office? Instead of thinking of them as men, many will prefer inflate them in their minds, for better worship pleasure. The more prestige they have, the more we feel good about worshiping them.

    What about the PC movement who worships sounds and noises? These sounds and noises (words) are like ethereal spirits, that are given a magical prestige, which allows them to hurt or sooth. This religion preaches that this drama religion has nothing to do with the psychology of the vulnerable; sticks and stones. This religion contradicts the tenets of psychology. Many religions have special words like "ohm! There are other religions where some words taboo less they awaken evil spirits. The PC religion uses this model for its religion. How many people in these forums worship noises and can I run a test to help make people conscious of this religion. I will evoke all the evil spites of this religion and then see who runs for cover and who feels a need to fight he who open the evil door.

    If a religion is not objective enough to know it is a religion, does that make it an irrational religion? Is this a distinction in terms of religion? Say you practice a religion, but are not aware of this? Will one behave in ways that are similar to those who consciously practice a religion, and/or will there also be differences due to a higher level of unconsciousness?
     
  18. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I think the problem is just that WellWisher - people make Religion into a form of Politics, and vice-versa. Sincerely, I believe Religion needs to be about the spiritual experience - leave the baggage out of it
     
  19. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    Less proselytism. I'd like to see more discussion of religion from historical and anthropological perspectives. Which, yeah, I know can be found in the Comparative Religion subforum. But so much of this subforum is filled with pointless preaching, with little to no actual exchange or discussion of ideas.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.

Share This Page