Why is the subtopic "Comparative Religion" within the section "Science"...?

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Hesperado, Aug 6, 2011.

  1. Hesperado Don't immanentize the eschaton Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    177
    Seems odd. Why not put it under "Philosophy"?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    Because comparative religion is related to anthropology, history, sociology, which are social sciences.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Sounds reasonable. And do any of the threads in Comparative Religion actually comply? Doesn't look like it to me.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    You need to look at this differently. The discussions, replies and insults in the religion area, are live experiments of human nature, from both religious and atheist humans. As an analogy, it would be like setting up experiments in chemistry, with a beaker and mass spec that is generating live data, from which we draw conclusions as the experiment goes. It is less about a given experiment (topic) as the general trend of inferring from live data.

    In this case, we are dealing with broad based experiments in human nature, using the reaction of atheist and religious. The goal of religion is greater control and understanding of human nature. The atheists often lack this control in almost all discussions. It is not about content of these discussions, but about the reactions connected to human nature.

    The atheists tend to be place the most limits on the discussion/experiment and also tend to be the most hostile. The religious tend to be more self sufficient, with members often entering alone, but often have to face packs of atheist jackals repeating the same insults. Based on years of these human nature experiments, I would conclude that religion has a better way to regulate human nature. The atheist philosophy may be sounder in terms of science, but when it comes to human nature, atheist can't self regulate as well.
     
  8. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    The bold bits are absolutely right. Religion was always about crowd control, that's how it came about in the first place. Promise something you can't give and threaten them with something you can't inflict. Works every time.
     
  9. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    There already is a 'religion' forum inside the 'philosophy' category.

    I'm not sure why there are two religion fora. My speculation is that somebody at some point wanted to separate the more scholarly discussions of religion from the incessant atheist/theist battling.

    I don't think that it worked out as perhaps was originally intended, because few Sciforums participants have much formal academic exposure to the study of religion.

    Here on Sciforums, the word 'science' often seems to be used very broadly, to mean something like 'intellectually respectable'.

    In my own opinion, many interesting logical, ethical and epistemological ideas do arise naturally and freely in the course of the atheist/theist battling. What's kind of impressive to me is how laypeople on Sciforums often create ideas very similar to those published by the university professors, entirely on their own, while struggling with issues that less perceptive individuals simply dismiss as 'trollish'. So I don't think that the battling is a bad thing at all. It creates kind of a hook, a motivator that fires up people to post, creating a great opportunity for lots of intellectually respectable thinking to take place.
     

Share This Page