Excessive thread closure in the Religion forum.

[kojax]

I'm seeing some of my favorite threads getting locked. I can kind of understand if Harold14370 has fears that if he doesn't go locking the particularly negative threads, the bias of the forum may shift too strongly toward Atheism, and maybe that's the demographic tendency of posters on this forum. However, it doesn't help anything for a crusading moderator to go around making brute force adjustments to shift things the other way.

Both of these threads were posted with an obvious anti-religious bent, and clearly a few posters made uninformative or silly comments here and there, but neither of the threads were really allowed to run long enough to see if that was going to be the overall direction.

Does religion subtract from knowledge?
Is Jesus as genocidal as his maniac Father?


I'm a former Mormon who actually served a 2 year Mormon mission at one point in my life, who now leans toward atheism, and I find these threads to be very useful in analyzing my own religious experience. I can quite assure you none of my criticisms of religion are ignorant or being made in a vacuum. I used to eat, drink, and breathe this stuff. Maybe I actually benefit from being able to look at religion from the perspective of someone who was always atheist, so I can see what I missed all those years while I was busy trying to appease an invisible man in the sky (who may yet be real for all I know).

Is mine a scientific investigation into the supernatural? I like to hope so. Is it being helped by these thread closures? Certainly not.

[Harold14370]

I have no objection to a scientific discussion of religion. That's not what was going on in those threads. Go ahead and start another thread called "does religion subtract from knowledge." If you do, though, somebody has to present some evidence, not just spew their distaste for religion.

[Prometheus]

Some of the atheism on that forum is as dogmatic as creationist claims.

Since most religious peoples' interpretation of god is such that it is outside scientific inquiry maybe it is time to drop the 'scientific discussion of religion' forum into a more generic religion forum.

[Halliday]

Since most religious peoples' interpretation of god is such that it is outside scientific inquiry maybe it is time to drop the 'scientific discussion of religion' forum into a more generic religion forum.

I'm inclined to agree with the above statement and, in fact, I think I posted, ages ago, saying much the same thing.
I believe TSF lost a valuable member, who was the Moderator of the Religion sub forum, over this issue.
I'm an atheist but I don't believe conflict, between those who believe and agnostics/atheists, is inevitable or necessary
Having said that, I have no doubt that the views of those individuals, who because of their religious beliefs feel they have the right to rubbish well established scientific theories, should be attacked without showing any mercy!
Just to add, the Moderator's name was mitchellmckain.

[KALSTER]

Just to add, the Moderator's name was mitchellmckain.

Yeah, the loss of mitchellmckain was as big a loss as that of anyone else. He had the perfect middle ground mentality of being a Christian, while also subscribing to the tenets of the scientific method and being a Masters Degree physicist to boot. If we could get him back, it would be a huge addition to the forum.

I pretty much agree with the rest of you post as well.

If I am not mistaken, the Religion forum was changed to its current format when it became a flaming subforum and because of people like archaeologist just about pissing everyone off with his irrational and aggressive nonsense. I do think it is possible to run a respectable forum though.

Having said that though, I stand behind what Harold has been doing.

[Lynx_Fox]

How long should a tread run without any science in a science forum?

Since most religious peoples' interpretation of god is such that it is outside scientific inquiry maybe it is time to drop the 'scientific discussion of religion' forum into a more generic religion forum.

While I understand the point, the discussions "outside scientific inquiry", aren't intended to be, nor should be part of the "scientific discussion of religion," anyhow. Many of them, as it turns out, fit better in philosophy anyhow.

[Prometheus]

Many of them, as it turns out, fit better in philosophy anyhow.

While this is true there are already enough 'if God is the beginning and Jesus a message then why is the sky blue' discussions on the philosophy forum. At the moment people use the religion sub-forum for anything connected to religion, which is intuitive especially for new members. Why not just make it official, and give the already burdened philosophy sub-forum some space? I agree with Halliday about showing no mercy though, no matter which forum.

[Lynx_Fox]

Also see point about philosophy forum.

On the other hand, wouldn't making it a generic forum about religion combined with showing no mercy towards the preacher types, flamers and trolls, just make things worse? At least now we have the option of reminding folks to steer it towards objective evidence because it's under the guise of science. Regardless of what we do we'll reserve the right to come down on misbehavior as we do quite frequently.

I like your comment about new users. Perhaps there's a better way to phrase the title, or sticked description with examples to explain the difference between "scientific discussions about religion," as compared to "discussions about religion."
(e.g., an "archaeological study about the distribution of 2d CE century Mithra religious artifacts in roman homes," versus "was Mary really a virgin?"....etc)

Is the difference really that hard to distinguish? One of my easy litmus tests is if the opening post in a thread doesn't contain a link to a scientific reviewed article, or asks an open general question without soliciting one of the science (e.g., psychology, archeology etc) it's probably not about science and should be somewhere else. I'll lurk for a while--I'm just one opinion.

[Harold14370]

The old religion forum was by far the most popular, with physics running a distant second. I didn't like it, rarely visited it, and thought it was not really in line with a science forum. But if that's what people want, and admin is okay with it then I'll have to live with it.

There is no real need for a "scientific study of religion" forum, in my opinion, if you are truly discussing it in a scientific way. A psychological study of religion could be posted under psychology, a historical study could be posted under history, etc.

As long as it is designated as a science forum, and religious proselytizing is prohibited, then I don't think it is fair to let people rant from an anti-theistic point of view, either.

It is my opinion that if someone identifies himself as an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim, etc. in the scientific study of religion section, then the discussion that follows is not likely to be a scientific one. An anthropological study of the religious beliefs in some hunting gathering society does not begin with the anthropologist declaring: "I used to be a Mormon but now I'm and atheist." No one cares what you believe, or if you approve or disapprove. Just present some facts and logical arguments.

[Bunbury]

I agree with Harold. The only value for a religion subforum within a science forum is to prevent religious or anti-religious proselytizing from leaking into actual science discussions.

[Halliday]

I have no objection to a scientific discussion of religion. That's not what was going on in those threads. Go ahead and start another thread called "does religion subtract from knowledge." If you do, though, somebody has to present some evidence, not just spew their distaste for religion.

I'm not a big fan of religion altho' I know many of my opinions have been influenced by Christianity.
You talk about individuals who "just spew their distaste for religion" and people who "rant from an anti-theistic point of view".
I believe the existence of a "Scientific Study of Religion" sub forum encourages such behaviour. It is not difficult, of course, to argue against religion in a civilised manner, but I do not believe an atheist has much chance of changing opinions by introducing scientific arguments dealing with the importance of evidence as opposed to faith.

[Harold14370]

I do not believe an atheist has much chance of changing opinions by introducing scientific arguments dealing with the importance of evidence as opposed to faith.

No they don't. That's why those discussions go on interminably with no prospect of resolution. Nor do I think it is necessarily the function of a science forum to change opinions.

[PumaMan]

Even in "real life" (you know, two or more people, face-to-face) discussions about religion and politics sometimes spiral downwards. On the internet, which allows anonymous knuckleheads a voice, these discussions go straight down to the gutter -- no spiraling. This is why some science forums don't allow these two subjects. My hat is off to you for allowing these discussions -- it's bound to be more work for the moderation team.

[inow]

I do not believe an atheist has much chance of changing opinions by introducing scientific arguments dealing with the importance of evidence as opposed to faith.

No they don't. That's why those discussions go on interminably with no prospect of resolution.

Actually, they do. The ONLY thing which will change opinions is the open discussion of them, and education about the underlying premises. You honestly couldn't be more wrong here, and you obviously have NO IDEA how many people read those discussions, get inspired to ask questions, and have existing questions addressed which leads them ultimately to alter their views.

I find it completely inaccurate and ignorant for you to suggest that opinions cannot and will not be changed through these discussions (See also: Converts Corner as evidence of this point). Frankly, I also find it rather insulting and telling for you to suggest that discussions won't change minds, especially given the underlying purpose of science forum discussion sites.

Nor do I think it is necessarily the function of a science forum to change opinions.

It's purpose is to have discussions, and those discussions foster understanding. If someone were to post that 2+2 = 6.2, we'd try to change their opinion. That's what we do, and there is truly no valid reason that a more philosophical discussion should not follow the exact same approach.

You discuss. You educate. Opinions are changed, even if it's not always the opinions of the person responding to you. The changing of opinions may not be the forum's primary function, but it is most certainly a very important output of said forum. To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality.

[Harold14370]

If someone were to post that 2+2 = 6.2, we'd try to change their opinion.

That question has an answer That can be addressed by science. Big difference.

[dedo]

If there are examples where people have changed their opinions from discussions in the "Scientific Study of Religion", then I must have missed them.

This is not an easy area to moderate, and the moderation is much better than it was in the past (post-Mitchell). The "knowledge thread" was a tough call. It was clearly an atheist rant thread. Unfortunately, the original premise of the thread did not get much attention. The idea of the effect of religion on creativity in particular is worth discussing since there was an article several years ago in Scientific American that suggested that most people lose their creativity in the first grade because of social conformity. Thus, does religion hurt creativity because it promotes conformity, or does religion improve creativity because religion is liberating from other sources of social conformity (vice, materialism, etc.)?

The answer to this question is unknown. One day perhaps we will learn to find away to explore areas like this together.

Mitchell was an amazingly talented moderator, and I do not subscribe to many of his religious beliefs. Maybe someone who knows him can get him to return.

What I would find most interesting is if people were to ever work together to solve a problem, any problem.

The religious forum may not be the best place for this. Also, that would likely require cooperation of someone to moderate, or lead the discussion.

I would think that the moderators who remain here are all talented enough to have a reasonable chance of doing this.

The endless arguments seem almost pointless.

However, some of the teaching, especially in the physics, astronomy, and climate areas has been amazing, at least to me.

[Halliday]

You discuss. You educate. Opinions are changed, even if it's not always the opinions of the person responding to you. The changing of opinions may not be the forum's primary function, but it is most certainly a very important output of said forum. To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality.

Altho' I stand by what I have said earlier I agree with what you say here.
The point I was trying to make was that, for me, it is far more important to use scientific facts to undermine the arguments of, for example, a creationist rather than simply debate with the creationist whether God exists or not.

[Harold14370]

You discuss. You educate. Opinions are changed, even if it's not always the opinions of the person responding to you. The changing of opinions may not be the forum's primary function, but it is most certainly a very important output of said forum. To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality.

Altho' I stand by what I have said earlier I agree with what you say here.
The point I was trying to make was that, for me, it is far more important to use scientific facts to undermine the arguments of, for example, a creationist rather than simply debate with the creationist whether God exists or not.

I want to add that religious preachers also "discuss" and "change opinions" and they gain converts. They can also be incredibly annoying when they continue to press their opinions on people willy-nilly. That's why proselytization was prohibited in the first place.

[dedo]

If there was a single case where a "religious preacher" gained a convert, I missed that thread also.

What I have seen is endless argument until some parties correctly realize that the argument itself serves no purpose and in fact may be harmful to those who continue to engage in it.
People who become so enlightened prudently depart, leaving the area to the domain of whoever remains.

In the religion forum, that has been generally the atheists who have remained.

In the absence of any real dialogue in an area where the answer is unknown, it is reasonable to think that people post for a reason other than learning, teaching, or problem solving.

For example, in an area where one person's knowledge is superior to another then the more educated person may be able to successfully mock or ridicule the beliefs of another. The mocker then tries to call this "science" or "debunking".

All this reveals is that some people like to use their knowledge to intimidate people, as opposed to any of the above three goals. That is why they post.

[inow]

If someone were to post that 2+2 = 6.2, we'd try to change their opinion.

That question has an answer That can be addressed by science. Big difference.

That's just an opinion.

[Harold14370]

If someone were to post that 2+2 = 6.2, we'd try to change their opinion.

That question has an answer That can be addressed by science. Big difference.

That's just an opinion.

What is just an opinion?

[inow]

I'm not going to further explore this tangent with you, Harold. You seem content to derail the conversation by attacking my example, all the while ignoring the content of my point.

The ONLY thing which will change opinions is the open discussion of them, and education about the underlying premises. You honestly couldn't be more wrong here, and you obviously have NO IDEA how many people read those discussions, get inspired to ask questions, and have existing questions addressed which leads them ultimately to alter their views.

I find it completely inaccurate and ignorant for you to suggest that opinions cannot and will not be changed through these discussions (See also: Converts Corner as evidence of this point). Frankly, I also find it rather insulting and telling for you to suggest that discussions won't change minds, especially given the underlying purpose of science forum discussion sites.

Nor do I think it is necessarily the function of a science forum to change opinions.

It's purpose is to have discussions, and those discussions foster understanding. If someone were to post that 2+2 = 6.2, we'd try to change their opinion. That's what we do, and there is truly no valid reason that a more philosophical discussion should not follow the exact same approach.

You discuss. You educate. Opinions are changed, even if it's not always the opinions of the person responding to you. The changing of opinions may not be the forum's primary function, but it is most certainly a very important output of said forum. To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality.

[PumaMan]

This is slightly off topic. I am apprehensive when a moderator (or admin) enters into the fray of a thread, spouting their opinions in the same mean-spirited way as the forum members contributing to that thread. I feel like I can't (or shouldn't) contradict them because of the possible retaliation that may occur. Sort of like arguing with a police officer -- you can't win and you usually end up making the situation worse. I think that once a person becomes a moderator, they must be "better" than the rest of us -- they can't sit in the bar and drink and argue with us. I'm not saying that they can't contribute their knowledge -- they just can't join the brawl.

Just my opinion.

[Harold14370]

Inow - It was a serious question. Did you mean 2+2=6.2 might not have a scientific answer, or did you mean there is no big difference between that question and the question of whether God exists?

If the former, then you are just nitpicking. If the latter, then I think you are wrong. It is different.

In order to have a scientific discussion with someone, they have to accept the premise that the question is open to inquiry within the sphere of science. If they do not, there is nowhere to go with the discussion, except to get mad at the fact that they are taking that position. Most of these threads we are talking about do not even have a religious believer on the other side of the issue. They are just atheists, getting together to rail against the fact that there are religious people in the world.

Pumaman - We don't get paid. Why shouldn't we have just as much fun as anybody else?

[Lynx_Fox]

It's purpose is to have discussions, and those discussions foster understanding. If someone were to post that 2+2 = 6.2, we'd try to change their opinion.

I rather like the example because many of the examples in recent threads.

1) So we have threads like 2+2 = 6.2, which take place in all forums.

2) Than we have threads like "anecdotal examples talking to dead relatives" = "god." From a scientific point of view, it's wrong and the participating scientist should try to change their opinion. That's not preaching their "faith," it's just pointing out how science works.
3) Most are often mixed, "a ancient story says 2+2 = 6.2, but modern science says it's 4, which is right?" Again science would be obligated to point out that the story is wrong.

My question is do we let threads like this go on and just monitor for personal attacks and other clear rules violations, or do we shut them down if they that don't get into science--including those that don't have anything to do with science--talks like the proverbial discussions the number of angels on heads of pins--something for which science is mute except for the simple statement that scientific opinion squarely says there aren't angels.

--
Do discussions in the religious forums change minds? I doubt it. On other hand, taking an example from religiosity towards non-religiousness, most of today's atheist came from religious families --often a long hard row after reading, participating and processing things like these discussions.

[PumaMan]

Pumaman - We don't get paid. Why shouldn't we have just as much fun as anybody else?

I wasn't singling anyone out and I have nothing against fun. Call me an idealist, but I want my politicians, judges, police officers, and moderators to be better than me.

[inow]

In order to have a scientific discussion with someone, they have to accept the premise that the question is open to inquiry within the sphere of science.

I guess this is the premise with which I disagree most. While science rests at the core of this site, it's the shared interest in science among its members which binds it, and IMO truly it's the discussion among these members which takes priority over the purity of the science within those discussions.

We come together to have interesting conversations, even if those conversations are sometimes not based entirely on science. So what? It's this approach which is at the core of the new thescienceforum site with a dot org at the end that a few of us recently opened up. While an interest in science is what brings us together, that's not all we discuss. We're a group of virtual friends who share common appreciation of science, like to have engaging discussions with intelligent people, and appreciate reading and responding to interesting posts and observations. We're a community, not a website.

I would have thought that the same applies here... that the purity of science is not the driver, but instead the discussion. I would have thought this given your History forum, your General Discussion forum, your Philosophy forum, your Politics forum, and a few others. Clearly, those aren't science, but they're still allowed, and I think they're allowed for good reason. You, however, are singling out the Religion forum, and you appear to have double standards... Looking for some sort of unearned deference for the concept of religion. Your soapbox about science in the religion forum would be a lot more believable if you were equally looking for it the GD, Philosophy, Politics, Education, Art and culture, and other forums.

Maybe I'm wrong, though. That's simply how we structured the new dot org site we setup. It's a community. It's a group of interesting folks who have interesting conversations and who share a common appreciation of science. We don't limit ourselves only to pure science discussions, it's working out rather well, and if you decide to do otherwise here at the dot com site, then folks are welcome to come join us over there.

My question is do we let threads like this go on and just monitor for personal attacks and other clear rules violations, or do we shut them down if they that don't get into science

Where I do agree with Harold is in the fact that there really is no science in religion which isn't better suited for the Psychology or History or similar forums. However, since you asked, I'd propose you just monitor for personal attacks and try to knock out obvious logical fallacies and let the rest ride. That's proven effective for us, and I'd be surprised if you had a different experience here.

Again, though. That's just me. I was a part of creating the new dot org site, so of course I'm biased to prefer our setup over yours.

[dedo]

It's purpose is to have discussions, and those discussions foster understanding. If someone were to post that 2+2 = 6.2, we'd try to change their opinion.

I rather like the example because many of the examples in recent threads.

1) So we have threads like 2+2 = 6.2, which take place in all forums.

2) Than we have threads like "anecdotal examples talking to dead relatives" = "god." From a scientific point of view, it's wrong and the participating scientist should try to change their opinion. That's not preaching their "faith," it's just pointing out how science works.
3) Most are often mixed, "a ancient story says 2+2 = 6.2, but modern science says it's 4, which is right?" Again science would be obligated to point out that the story is wrong.

My question is do we let threads like this go on and just monitor for personal attacks and other clear rules violations, or do we shut them down if they that don't get into science--including those that don't have anything to do with science--talks like the proverbial discussions the number of angels on heads of pins--something for which science is mute except for the simple statement that scientific opinion squarely says there aren't angels.

--
Do discussions in the religious forums change minds? I doubt it. On other hand, taking an example from religiosity towards non-religiousness, most of today's atheist came from religious families --often a long hard row after reading, participating and processing things like these discussions.

Lynx:

No one claimed to talk to dead relatives. We tried to create an instrument for investigating the topic of the thread which was "afterlife".

That is all. I have not conducted social science research; however, it seems to me that the use of interview instruments to look for patterns is a common technique.

Thus, it was a reasonable basis for discussion of possible ways to investigate "afterlife".

If you want every discussion to begin with the premise that God does not exist then the "Church of atheism" is the appropriate name for this section.

Then you can have rules like:

1. "If you are an atheist, and you know nothing about mental health, in this forum you are promoted to a psychiatrist and you can tell people who see the world differently than you that they are disturbed."

2. "If you are an atheist, and you know nothing about foreign policy, in this forum you are promoted to a diplomat and you can tell people that religion is the cause of war."

I will agree with you on one point. Many atheists have a common beginning with theists in that they start out in the practice of some religion.

We really don't know why some go one way and other people go in the opposite direction. However, interviewing people is the way to find out.

From what I have seen in the emotional responses from many / most atheists, this is not something they want to participate in.
My preliminary conclusion is that there is some emotional trauma associated with religion in the atheist camp.

[Lynx_Fox]

Lynx:

No one claimed to talk to dead relatives. We tried to create an instrument for investigating the topic of the thread which was "afterlife".

That is all. I have not conducted social science research; however, it seems to me that the use of interview instruments to look for patterns is a common technique.

Thus, it was a reasonable basis for discussion of possible ways to investigate "afterlife".

If you want every discussion to begin with the premise that God does not exist then the "Church of atheism" is the appropriate name for this section.

That example, has nothing do with atheism, it has everything to do with the methods of science. Creating a survey to explore some phenomena that's not only not-considered credible evidence, but is already explained by other known possibilities is not reasonable from a scientific perspective in the least. It's pseudoscience at best-not even worth applying inductive scientific reasoning methods (the least preferred).

--

Then you can have rules like:

1. "If you are an atheist, and you know nothing about mental health, in this forum you are promoted to a psychiatrist and you can tell people who see the world differently than you that they are disturbed."

2. "If you are an atheist, and you know nothing about foreign policy, in this forum you are promoted to a diplomat and you can tell people that religion is the cause of war."

That's precisely what will happen and DID happen before that forum was changed to specify the "scientific study of religion." If it was running well, nearly every other post would site a study which brings in that level of expertise from a science in the form of articles and peer-review papers, a question which might be reasonably answered by science, or simple observation. Instead, few of of the current threads have a scientific opening and its become mostly a general forum, bereft of science. And yes that's more like the general, history and other sub-forums, except it's far more prone to flaming.

Taking a nod and lurking on our tiny splinter group's forum, most of their opening religious threads are specifically tailored to science. It's only working as more general conversation because its membership is tiny and still heavily based on scientist. We have hundreds here, if not more, and a good share are not only learning about science, but its methods.

Thanks for everyone's contributions. (back to lurking).

[Harold14370]

We come together to have interesting conversations, even if those conversations are sometimes not based entirely on science. So what? .

When someone is banned for religious preaching, isn't it because they are they are engaging in a non-scientific discussion, and isn't it because they are trying to convert people's religious beliefs, in an annoying kind of way? Well, that's what Ox and others were doing in the threads I locked.

[Prometheus]

If someone were to post that 2+2 = 6.2, we'd try to change their opinion.

That question has an answer That can be addressed by science. Big difference.

At the risk of being pedantic, the answer is based on deductive reasoning. 2+2=6.2 is false by the definition of its own terms - no science needed. But we'd still still try to convince someone its untrue. This distinction is relevent because many religious claims delve into deductive reasoning. This does not make them immune being wrong - quite the opposite, logical reasoning can become quite complex (to me anyway) so requires just as much scrutiny.

I think this is one of the things which annoys the 'atheist camp', the appeal to immunity from reason some religious people seek.

In order to have a scientific discussion with someone, they have to accept the premise that the question is open to inquiry within the sphere of science.

I guess this is the premise with which I disagree most. While science rests at the core of this site, it's the shared interest in science among its members which binds it, and IMO truly it's the discussion among these members which takes priority over the purity of the science within those discussions.

If a god is defined is such a way to be outside scientific enquiry there is no discussion to be had. As soon as conjecture about the nature or qualities of such a being are made then verifiable claims can be discussed. If the qualities themselves are also outside scientific enquiry then we're back to no discussion to be had. To my mind that would shut off half the topics in the forum at the moment. However, religiosity does not equate to belief in god(s).

When someone is banned for religious preaching, isn't it because they are they are engaging in a non-scientific discussion, and isn't it because they are trying to convert people's religious beliefs, in an annoying kind of way? Well, that's what Ox and others were doing in the threads I locked.

Ox epitomises dogma. If his threads were inversed so that he were arguing for religion i'm sure he would have been warned many times, if not banned by now. This does seem to be a double standard.

[inow]

For the record, I find Ox' posts irritating and ridiculous, too.

[GiantEvil]

For the record, I find Ox' posts irritating and ridiculous, too.

Ditto that. Dude needs a shower, and I would rather that he weren't hanging out in "our" camp.