Why is "Comparative Religion" under the Science subforum?
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
Plazma-inferno
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/posting-guidelines-for-comparative-religion-forum.64634/
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/posting-guidelines-for-comparative-religion-forum.64634/
My god, I just had a funny thought, is Tiassa a sock of plazma or vice versa??
However over the subforum title on the home page and it says "mythology, comparison of religious tradition, history of world religions".
It's for fact-based discussion of religion, as compared to the sorts of statements/discussions of personal belief that we see in the Religion forum.
I think, also, that the focus is wider. Comparative religion is about looking at what different religions have in common, or about comparing and contrasting. It's not for talking about, say, a particular doctrinal point in Catholicism, or whatever.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I know what Comparative Religion is but it should be in the same group as philosophy or history and not with Chemistry, Physics, etc.
Could it be that god does not like being moved?
Comparative Religion, in that context, was an idea instead of a Theology subforum. While, once upon a time, Plazma wanted some sort of science board—(funny story, there, but never mind)—it has long been a bridge too far to expect rational, supportable discourse in the Religion subforum. What has never been clear is why, but it's kind of long been apparent that we have exceptionally low expectations of certain discourse. Religion is not the only subforum given over to emotionalism.
(Try looking at it like an obscure prejudice: This scientific fact is a fact because the math says yes; but this historical "fact" cannot be proven with math, therefore it is not a fact. As a matter of effect, if most of our discussions about religion seem like political↗ arguments↗ about religion, we can at least perceive the need, the market demand, for emotionally-driven discourse not constrained by obligation to fact, evidence, consistency, or even basic integrity. There is certain irony about capricious relativsm with no stable framework or even reference point, but we can leave that for another day.)
Part of the question, at the time, was why a science board has a Religion subforum at all. And the answer is that the subject eventually comes up unless we limit the range of our scientific consideration. Imagine excluding archaeology because it is too subjective, or applied neurology because then we would have to include psychology and behavioral economics, and those aren't scientific enough. More toward reality, clearly we have never aimed for confining discourse to clinical and laboratory standards. And the Religion subforum had been our most prominent section, so it was easy to hesitate before tinkering with it. But I always thought Comparative Religion was strangely specific.
Still, what has shown through over time is not simply that reasonable argument is unnecessary to, but, rather, that it offends certain emotional aesthetics. There is a threshold at which the objection to religion being fundamentally irrational finds the pretense of making rational sense offensive and unfair, and it will probably remain perpetually mysterious for being subject to the caprices of any given moment.
But if the point is to carve out a pretense by which certain discourse is taken seriously, we might also wonder why. Some part of it, though, is just the way it worked out. A psychoanalytical meaning of history is one thing, but no, it wasn't really so predictable; hindsight suggests and even appeals, but even now I hesitate to presuppose certain particulars. Even the question of a more emotional approach has a particular context, and if I think latter-day emotionalism disappoints even that fifteen year-old expectation, then yes, it ought to be difficult to accept a presupposition that Plazma somehow intended certain outcomes. If we did not wish to bleed political discourse of its passions, we allowed for certain pretenses of uncertainty; without allowing for emotion and some irrationality, discussion of religion and politics, main drivers of site traffic, might fall off. And if something seems off about that formulation, no, it never really did make sense even amongst ourselves without Plazma's advice: There is actually a range between preclusive scientific rigor and such unbound emotionalism; it ought not be so dualistic a proposition.
Anyway, that's why.
It is one of the obvious analogs, isn't it?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
To the one, "yes", to the other, "yes". 'Twas just that easy, ya know? 1
1 From the collected writings of "Tiassa: internet wordsmith"
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Don't bother clicking: The joke isn't worth it.
Should I have written, is it not?
I know a guy who asks a question that he knows the answer to. Of course, I may be paranoid and he may actually not know the answer to this question but come on, OK, ya know. But anyway, whether he knows the answer or not he knows that everyone will not always share every opinion that he has as, you know, Laurel and Hardy, while simpaticos, were not always on the same page, and that's OK too.
It begs the question though, does he not know the answer, is he feigning to not know the answer as a cover for his political and cultural affiliations or is it deeper than that? Is this a cover for antisocial behavior and even, dare I say, racism under the guise of some grammatical conundrum?
It's fair to say that some, of a certain ilk, obfuscate true, deeply held prejudices via overly wordy and obscure writings. Is that the case here, to be fair, maybe not. Maybe it is just a true question, "should I have written is it not" but come on, ya know, is this really a question, a statement, an obfuscation?
In a forum long ago and far away there was an environment where the moderators were intolerant, overly active and there were no participants, to speak of, that weren't moderators. To which the question obviously arises, is one a moderator when there are only moderators to moderate? This derives from the old saw, "how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"
My feeling is that this question can't and shouldn't be answered as the "woodchuck" in question is obviously a racial metaphor, or am I being paranoid? I don't think so. I have a neighbor who is a woodchuck, not an actual woodchuck, but you know, a woodchuck in manner. He doesn't acknowledge this but it's obvious to me and the question is "What should I do?"
He cannot actually chuck wood but he thinks that he can and it's upsetting to me. I've spoken to him about it for years. His privileged behavior is offensive, he isn't accepting my critics even though I've carefully worded them all.
Should I engage in fisticuffs with him, I would employ the Queens rules, I'm complained to all my neighbors, the police and I've written letters to the literati and all I've received is their derision.
In a word, "Dear Abby, what should I do"?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
My impression is that the word 'Science' means something like 'intelligent and scholarly' in Sciforums-speak. So 'comparative religion' was intended as a place for more scholarly discussion of religion.
I commend the intention but note that it hasn't really worked out that way.