16Likes
April 21st, 2014, 07:44 AM
Scientific study of religion is not possible. Any Science put forward would be ridiculed by the scientists on this Form. Believers and agnostic atheists will always talk past each other. I propose that we rename the "Scientific Study of Religion" thread to merely "Religion". Or to remove the "Scientific Study of Religion" altogether and allow these discussions under "Philosophy".
This would be a patently false claim.Originally Posted by jimmythesaint
"Religion is a set of variously organized beliefs about the relationship between natural and supernatural aspects of reality, and the role of humans in this relationship."
Are you saying that we can't study those beliefs? Or how they affect people? We can't study the organisation?
Or are you thinking that it the topic is intended to be the scientific study of the subject(s) of those beliefs?
In which case:
There isn't any science.Any Science put forward would be ridiculed by the scientists on this Form.
Given the general level of argument put forward by theists Philosophy would be a bad place, (i.e the philosophical content of the majority of "discussion" on the subject - especially from the "pro" side - is close to zero).Believers and agnostic atheists will always talk past each other. I propose that we rename the "Scientific Study of Religion" thread to merely "Religion". Or to remove the "Scientific Study of Religion" altogether and allow these discussions under "Philosophy".
This forum is deeply seeded in USA culture as can be blatantly seen by the Religion and the Military categories, they need to talk about God and War, invisible fairies and large scale mass murder are part of their civilization's ethos and narrative, they think its normal and cant help it. See this as an anthropological opportunity to observe barbaric tribes in their natural element while pretending its normal to blend in as I do.
(oops I blew my cover)
Count yourself lucky there's not "Scientific Study of Tea Bag Reading and Astrology" and "The torture technology, latest techniques in maximizing human suffering" categories.
You're doing it wrong.See this as an anthropological opportunity to observe barbaric tribes in their natural element while pretending its normal to blend in as I do.
(oops I blew my cover)
I am in favor of removing(*) the Scientific Study of Religion sub-forum and relocating the threads to either the Behaviour and Psychology sub-forum or the Philosophy sub-forum. A few months ago, I stated that that sub-forum is infamous for its number of closed and relocated threads (cf. post #224), something that has, sadly, not changed up to now.
(*) Based on the responses I received from private messages whilst designing this poll, I am not the only one that supports this suggestion.
Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; May 2nd, 2014 at 02:36 PM.
Absolutely not. The big issue is how to handle the fact that a lot of people want to raise religion/ religious interpretations as discussions. So we need some sort of place for them to go rather than to be forever shifting inappropriate threads out of the hard science forums.
And no. There is no place here for sub-forum with a title of unqualified "Religion".
That would be an open invitation to all those people turning up here thinking it's OK to preach. We have to tolerate - to a limited extent - the fact that most OPs in the SSoR sub-forum are either atheists winding believers up/ criticising religions or, otoh, believers trying to worm religion into open discussion, rather than a dispassionate discussion of religions or mythologies. Some of these discussions might do better being closed sooner than they are, but that's a case by case judgment call.
It's often a bit of a trial for moderators but this compromise is the one we've decided to live with.
I have to admit I don't see much point to it, every thread tends to deteriorate rapidly into someone making unsupported assertions and dodgy arguments which get laughed at, this process is then repeated until it is no longer funny. How many religion forums have a science sub-forum? I'm guessing not many (if any) and I don't see why a science forum should have an area specifically for the discussion of religion. Any science based discussion of this subject should fit in Behaviour and psychology or anthropology. If it doesn't trash it.
From what I've observed, the problem with that idea is that some/most of the threads that currently reside in SSoR aren't intended to be a discussion or inquiry from those two angles.
From what I've observed, the problem with that idea is that some/most of the threads that currently reside in SSoR aren't intended to be a discussion or inquiry from those two angles.
Where would you put the majority of those threads? In the Trash Can as member PhDemon noted?
Of course it is. What makes you think it isn't?
Here are two examples of research papers that demonstrate your assertion is wrong. Will you now retract it?Francis, L.J et al, "The Psychology of Gender Differences in Religion: A Review of Empirical Research" , Religion Vol. 27, Issue 1, 1997
This paper presents, discusses and evaluates empirical studies concerned with gender differences in religion. Within the psychology of religion two main groups of theories have been advanced to account for gender differences in religiosity. The first group of theories concentrates on social or contextual influences which shape different responses to religion among men and women. This group may be divided into two categories: gender role socialisation theories and structural location theories. The second group of theories concentrates on personal or individual psychological characteristics which differentiate between men and women. This group may be divided into three categories: depth psychology theories, personality theories and gender orientation theories. It is concluded that gender orientation theories provide the most fruitful source for further research.
Robert A. Hinde, `Review of In Gods we Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion,'Ars Disputandi[http://www.ArsDisputandi.org] 3 (2003).
Scientists ridicule science at their peril. What makes you think that properly documented, peer reviewed science, would be ridiculed by those members who are scientists, or have received scientific training, or have a profound interest in scientific methodology?Any Science put forward would be ridiculed by the scientists on this Form.
This may be true, but that has little or nothing to do with the proper content of this sub-forum. The sub-forum is for - pay attention, the clue is in the title - the scientific study of religion. If any believer, or atheist, wishes to discuss religion from some other viewpoint, then they are posting in the wrong place. If they wish to discuss the scientific study of religion, then it does not make any difference whether they are a believer or an atheist.Believers and agnostic atheists will always talk past each other.
If it were up to me, I would remove the SSoR entirely. If "religion" related threads of salvageable quality are present and coming from the angles of an academically Anthropological, Historical, Psychological, or Philosophical angle, I would move them there. If there is no "Science" academically in them, and threads made are attempts to attack, promote, preach, etc.; I would trash them to keep in line with the Theme of the site; Science.
But that's just me.
Sure it is. It's called mythology. Simply because your personal bias doesn't allow you to accept that doesn't change it for everyone else.
Religion is a natural phenomena and thus can and should be a subject of science.
It is however the worse thread to moderate and most OP and discussion post there don't encourage scientific discussions.
It also tends to be a magnet for much of the trash that might otherwise be in other subforums.
I'm against a pure religion thread and don't think it fits the forum.
I'd be for more discipline in the OPs, better discussions, and perhaps more mod involvement in sorting out and removing the trash. And I'm not sure the mod team is in agreement anyhow....we've been round and round about that subforum several times over the past four or five years because it's such a PITA.
I'm very interested in what the membership has to say.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; April 21st, 2014 at 02:38 PM.
I don't really think you can reconcile religion and science. If we have a subforum dedicated to "Mythology" you will offend people who think their modern religion is somehow better than ancient world religions and deserves to be treated differently.
I love Greek mythology and if we could treat Christianity the same way in terms of analyzing the practice, I think that would be interesting. Unfortunately, I don't think that is realistic.
The Study of Religion subforum has become synonymous with the Trash Can at this point.
I maintain my position as elucidated in post #5.
Thank you.
I maintain my position as elucidated in post #5.
My concern is that's perhaps too narrow. There's also archeology and sociology and economics and many other effects by religion. I think you are right that most religious science topics would fit into another forum...the question is do we want all the crap that gets posted in the science study of religion scattered across the others? Would that really be better?
I'd love to get rid of it, because as it stands, it is mainly a soapbox for people to air their opinions about religion, mostly negative. The material posted there is redundantly repeated repetitiously many times over again, very frequently being the same material that was posted often before. How many different ways can you say religion is like fairy tales, Santa Claus, the spaghetti monster, Greek gods and goddesses, a flying teapot, unicorns, magic tooth fairies, and so forth. But people never tire of it. It's the most popular forum we have, by a substantial margin. If there isn't a thread about it running currently, somebody is sure to start one real soon. So, if that's what people want to discuss, who am I to say otherwise.
Having said that, I think there is such a thing as scientific study of religion. Look up Robert Sapolsky's Stanford lectures on biology of human behavior. One of the lectures is on religion.
In hindsight, I concur that the options listed in my suggestion were too narrow. Archaeology and other sub-fora are also possible candidates where threads can be relocated to. As for the threads that have no place on this forum, they should be relocated to the Trash Can (and perhaps locked or deleted all together).
Sometimes it's nice to troll through the zoo and see animalistic behavior.
The topic of religion will not go away, even if the sub-forum didn't exist.
I think this is the prime argument for keeping it.
You're going to have to deal with this crap anyways, so you might as well have a subforum where it can collect.
God does not appear possible to study empirically, but people's perceptions of such an idea and their sentiments towards it are. We can for instance, observe the psychology of religious believers, discuss the relationship between biology and religion, and discuss the various attitudes towards religion expressed in different cultures. The question really is whether this warrants a section in its own right, or whether it should be merged with another (for example psychology). Discussions about the existence of God can fall easily under the category of philosophy. The general discussion of religion, if there is to be a branch at all (and i'd say since this is a science forum the position of excluding the category entirely certainly shouldn't be ruled out), could be established in a seperate branch for believers and non-believers to discuss particular aspects and interpreations of religion (without reference to the actual philosophical issue of the existence of God).
Last edited by Trivium; April 21st, 2014 at 07:08 PM.
So then Philosophy (or Psychology or Archaeology or Sociology or whatever) is crushed under the weight of the stuff that is, currently, nicely stacked out of the way in the SSoR sub-forum.Discussions about the existence of God can fall easily under the category of philosophy.
There really is no way out of this. As moderators we might choose to get as tough on all those the-idea-of-gods-is-stupid OPs from atheists as we are on all the slabs of text from the Bible or the Koran that some believers "post". But, in the end, people have to work through the discrepancies and problems they face in sorting out how they can or should deal with science when they've been raised in a particular religion that claims factual correctness for religious texts.
Just saying There, there, dear. Don't worry. Lots of scientists belong to and believe in a religion. is no help at all to someone who's been raised with the idea that it's one or the other.
I'm with all the others who have cited necessary evil. If the poop don't go down a hole, then it's up in the yard.
Maybe it's (SSoR) position in the list should be lower?
It is mainly a place for atheists to vent.
From time to time, some people are genuinely curious about why others have a different belief system.
So, in this section, the curious can have their questions answered.
I have no opinion about how to improve it.
Selective reading on your part, there are just as many posts/threads of theists posting illogical arguments, sloppy thinking woo and outright bullshit in support of their beliefs. Neither venting or bullshit about religion has any place on a science forum IMO but I can see the arguments for having a sub forum to quarantine the crap.It is mainly a place for atheists to vent
FIFY.
Since YOU mentioned "atheists" then "belief system" is incorrect in this context.
When you compare the two, science and religion, is there anything better to promote the value of good science than listening to the religious? Religions do themselves in by coming here, they are their own worst enemy.
When I first saw the title of "scientific study of religion" I thought it might have something to do with applying scientific methods to the history of religion, eg When was this written, who wrote it, why? Or perhaps the sociology of religious practices and beliefs. But most of the posts seem to be about differences between religious beliefs and scientific views, which is more of a philosophical debate. So, I agree the name is misleading.
To be frank, I've been observing the posting style and wondering whether there is the possibility of a prevalent cognitive bias of selective perception and/or comprehension taking place here. In that some members when creating threads and posting in there may have omitted the words "Scientific Study of..." and going straight to the "Religion" when choosing the platform.
If the verdict is to retain that subforum, I wonder if it would make any difference to change the name to "Scientific Study of Culture" instead, but then again, we may as well merge that withthe Behaviour and Psychologyother subforums.
Only if it was labeled "Religion, Strange Superstitions, and other oddly Primitive Customs" would I think it was a good idea.
Last edited by dan hunter; April 22nd, 2014 at 05:45 AM.
To be frank, I've been observing the posting style and wondering whether there is the possibility of a prevalent cognitive bias of selective perception and/or comprehension taking place here. In that some members when creating threads and posting in there may have omitted the words "Scientific Study of..." and going straight to the "Religion" when choosing the platform.
If the verdict is to retain that subforum, I wonder if it would make any difference to change the name to "Scientific Study of Culture" instead, but then again, we may as well merge that withthe Behaviour and Psychologyother subforums.
Everybody
... notices that.
The big issue is whether we want this stuff cluttering up every sub-forum instead of staying in its fenced off area. We need a signal of some kind that this is where your religious preference or criticism should go. The Scientific Study of ... wording is also a signal that preaching / nagging / proselytising is not appropriate. It's also handy for pointing out to people that their OP or comment is out of order - even if some have honestly or disingenuously overlooked it themselves.
It's a problem we have to live with and to manage in some way. There is no known way to solve it or eliminate it.
I'm not saying that it was ever intended to be one, but wouldn't it's mere presence appear to be an invitation?
If I were to visit a Computer Enthusiast forum, and do not find a place to discuss or raise questions of perhaps about the long distance migratory patterns of some species of birds, I would probably not create a thread there.
But this is a science forum. Like it or not, that includes biology and physics and astronomy.I'm not saying that it was ever intended to be one, but wouldn't it's mere presence appear to be an invitation?
If I were to visit a Computer Enthusiast forum, and do not find a place to discuss or raise questions of perhaps about the long distance migratory patterns of some species of birds, I would probably not create a thread there.
Given how many people on sites like this are American which has a sizable fundamentalist religious population, and that the site also "attracts" contributions from other fundamentalists of Muslim and Hindu backgrounds, this is always going to come up.
What about calling it the scientific study of religious thought, or of belief systems, or some such?
I could say the same about atheists if I based the conclusion on posts in the "scientific study of religion" forum.
Few atheists engage in any discussions in this section on how to apply the scientific method to investigate anything that is religious.
However, I don't know how to improve the discussions.
Apart from the multiple posts explaining exactly how science is applied to religion, you mean?
Apparently, given your ridiculous claim above.However, I don't know how to improve the discussions.
I must have missed those in the plethora of Flying Pasta Monster analogies.Apart from the multiple posts explaining exactly how science is applied to religion, you mean?
According to Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh
"Classical science, as seen in Newton’s theories, is built upon a framework reflecting everyday experience, in which material objects have an individual existence, and can be located in time and space. Quantum physics provides a framework for understanding how nature operates on subatomic scales, but differs from classical science, because in this framework, there is no such thing as empty space, and the position of an object and its momentum cannot simultaneously be precisely determined. Elementary particles fluctuate in and out of existence, and do not really exist but have only a “tendency to exist”.
Classical science seems to reflect the conventional truth and quantum physics seems to be on its way to discover the absolute truth, trying very hard to discard notions such as being and non-being, inside and outside, sameness and otherness, etc.… At the same time, scientists are trying to find out the relationship between the two kinds of truth represented by the two kinds of science, because both can be tested and applied in life.
In science, a theory should be tested in several ways before it can be accepted by the scientific community. The Buddha also recommended, in the Kālāma Sūtra1, that any teaching and insight given by any teacher should be tested by our own experience before it can be accepted as the truth. Real insight, or right view, has the capacity to liberate, and to bring peace and happiness. The findings of science are also insight; they can be applied in technology, but can be applied also to our daily behavior to improve the quality of our life and happiness. Buddhists and scientists can share with each other their ways of studying and practice and can profit from each other’s insights and experience.
The practice of mindfulness and concentration always brings insight. It can help both Buddhists and scientists. Insights transmitted by realized practitioners like the Buddhas and bodhisattvas can be a source of inspiration and support for both Buddhist practitioners and scientists, and scientific tests can help Buddhist practitioners understand better and have more confidence in the insight they receive from their ancestral teachers. It is our belief that in this 21st Century, Buddhism and science can go hand in hand to promote more insight for us all and bring more liberation, reducing discrimination, separation, fear, anger, and despair in the world."
Niels Bohr "For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory...[we must turn] to those kinds of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like the Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence."
Bertrand Russell "Buddhism is a combination of both speculative and scientific philosophy. It advocates the scientific method and pursues that to a finality that may be called Rationalistic. In it are to be found answers to such questions of interest as: 'What is mind and matter? Of them, which is of greater importance? Is the universe moving towards a goal? What is man's position? Is there living that is noble?' It takes up where science cannot lead because of the limitations of the latter's instruments. Its conquests are those of the mind"
J. Robert Oppenheimer "If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the electron's position changes with time, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say 'no.' The Buddha has given such answers when interrogated as to the conditions of man's self after his death; but they are not familiar answers for the tradition of seventeenth and eighteenth-century science."
Albert Einstein ".there is found a third level of religious experience, even if it is seldom found in a pure form. I will call it the cosmic religious sense. This is hard to make clear to those who do not experience it, since it does not involve an anthropomorphic idea of God; the individual feels the vanity of human desires and aims, and the nobility and marvelous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought. He feels the individual destiny as an imprisonment and seeks to experience the totality of existence as a unity full of significance. Indications of this cosmic religious sense can be found even on earlier levels of development—for example, in the Psalms of David and in the Prophets. The cosmic element is much stronger in Buddhism, as, in particular, Schopenhauer's magnificent essays have shown us. The religious geniuses of all times have been distinguished by this cosmic religious sense, which recognizes neither dogmas nor God made in man's image. Consequently there cannot be a church whose chief doctrines are based on the cosmic religious experience. It comes about, therefore, that we find precisely among the heretics of all ages men who were inspired by this highest religious experience; often they appeared to their contemporaries as atheists, but sometimes also as saints."
And your point?
Maybe it's normal to have only one in every hundred threads to be of any seriousness?
Ergo, the SSoR sub-forum is like Purgatory;
preachers and the like are relocated to the Trash Can, other threads (with higher quality) can stay or are allowed in other sub-fora.
Incorrect.
SSoR is one of the lower planes of Hell. Just above Trash Can
My point was I thought this subforum was to be a place of discussion of relationships between religions and science? So that is what I did, and connecting certain people well known from both areas, and they were agreeing with each other I do believe. I did toss in quotes by a couple of well known philosophers, as well.
Last edited by Mayflow; April 22nd, 2014 at 04:52 PM.
It is, but some people are unable to separate their personal beliefs from scientific analysis.
I don't care what you end up calling it, just as long as it doesn't go away. I like reading all of the smack downs.
.
Sorry I got bored for a while. What was the topic again?
The scientific study of religion is only something a scientist could dream up.
Oh that was the topic. I don't understand though, why men would want to create a god in their own image?
Why do men create a science to talk about religion?Oh that was the topic. I don't understand though, why men would want to create a god in their own image?
Given it's directly connects to the worst, most benevolent, and more creative aspects of human social behavior and for the most part based on ignorance and mythology it should get much much more scientific examination. There is a tremendous amount to learn that would translate and be applicable to a wide range of things, including how to teach science and make it more interesting.
--
Recanting above post; I posted not realizing this was in the site feedback thread.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; June 9th, 2014 at 08:30 AM.
Hey grumpy looking guy - I not even going to translate your name, but can you translate whatever the Lyn Fox said?
The Urban Dictionary gives this definition:
A Zinjanthropos or Zin for short, is a Canadian person who has no life.
OMG he's a zombie?!
Ya, I noticed that was there a while ago. I helped the guy write it. I dissected the poor bastard on an internet forum once and he never forgot. It's an honor to be in the Urban Dictionary. That troll didn't know he was talking to two of us at the time. I've mellowed over time and am no longer plural. Actually that guy proves everything I've ever said about the internet and anonymity. I can't or won't be embarrassed on the faceless internet and it's no use trying. But he's about as close as anyone will ever get to knowing who I am. He knows me like a theist knows his god and I wouldn't want it any other way.
for the non compos mentis, "Zinj" is the original scientific name of nutcracker man
as far as i'm aware there's nothing canadian in his pedigree
hence the urban dictionary lives up to its name by peddling urban myths
So... is our Zinj a fan of the ballet?
I can and have appreciated art all my life. If it's good I'll take a look. Like, "holy shit, look at the Arabesques on that chick". Zinj was a branch on the evolutionary tree that unfortunately broke off way before its time. Actually Dr. Leaky was a favorite read of mine and hence the username.So... is our Zinj a fan of the ballet?
Drifting off topic. Enough about me.
And here I thought you were a Tchaikovsky fanboy...
We may not have a swan (swan lake) but... we do have a duck.
I can do ballet, Unfortunately I fall down sometimes though. Most of the gentlemen don't seem to mind, but there seem to be few gentlemen or women on this board. So - I will probably get banned again here. i get used to abuse after a while.
Dishing it out or taking it?i get used to abuse after a while
Thread locked. Not much site feedback happening here.
| « Unable to edit new posts, duplicate posts appearing, and unable to use all forum features. | Personal Theories and Alternate Ideas » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
