Religion forum

[Tormod]

We have a lot of discussion about religious topics which fall outside of the science domain. Yet it is obvious that a lot of our members want to discuss religion in various contexts.

 

The moderators propose that we start a "Religion forum" for discussions about creationism, Intelligent Design and other related topics.

 

This forum will not be placed in the "Science Forums" category, but under "Other forums".

 

Let us know what you think.

[sanctus]

I like the separtion between science and religion that would be there.

[C1ay]

This forum will not be placed in the "Science Forums" category, but under "Other forums".

 

Let us know what you think.

Me thinks some of these threads will probably fit under "Junk Science".... :)

[bumab]

Sounds like a great idea (and thanks for not putting it in junk science :))

[Queso]

yes!

[Biochemist]

We have a lot of discussion about religious topics which fall outside of the science domain. Yet it is obvious that a lot of our members want to discuss religion in various contexts.

 

The moderators propose that we start a "Religion forum" for discussions about creationism, Intelligent Design and other related topics.

 

This forum will not be placed in the "Science Forums" category, but under "Other forums".

 

Let us know what you think.

Tormod-

 

In this population of folks, I would put a religion as a subcategory under philosophy. I think that a substantial fraction of folks here (probably a majority) are either agnostic or atheist. They would tend to treat religions as branches of philosophy.

 

I really don't think Intelligent Design would usually fall within a religion discussion, although Creationism probably would. Assuming you keep the "evolution" forum in place, ID will unavoidably pop up there.

 

Religion would handle theism versus non-theism, religious history, contrasts of major religions, views of particular religious canon, etc. I think some of the free will discussion would have been launched under the religion topic as well.

 

Your suggestuon about having a history category is interesting as well. I am not sure where to put that one.

[Tormod]

Good input, biochem.

 

Maybe a "theology" forum is what we need to cover religion as a serious topic. I just worry that the people who usually start religious discussions around here are not really interested in discussing it in any scientific way, which is what we need to try to achieve, at least if religion is to get it's own forum under the science forums group.

 

I agree that ID has no place within a religion forum, but the problem is that ID-ers mostly don't see it that way. I guess we are attempting to sort out the kinds of discussion that have nothing to do with science and only concern fundamentalistic religious views.

 

As for the subcategory suggestion, it is our (the mods') experience that subforums disappear among the other forums.

[Biochemist]

Maybe a "theology" forum is what we need to cover religion as a serious topic.

That is a really good idea. I think the point is to keep the discussion thoughtful in thiese forums (just like the philosophy threads) and the "theology" label is a good framework for that.

I just worry that the people who usually start religious discussions around here are not really interested in discussing it in any scientific way, which is what we need to try to achieve, at least if religion is to get it's own forum under the science forums group.

I suspect the notion of "scientific" is a little less applicable to history/philosophy/theology than "academic" might be. Historians/theologians etc usually do not base thoughts on the scientific method. It is usually a more "preponderance of evidence" model than the "falsifiability" model. You could start a new forum category for Humanities, and separate them based on the evidenciary model. That might retain the academic flavor, and yet loosen the scientific method implications.

[Tormod]

I suspect the notion of "scientific" is a little less applicable to history/philosophy/theology than "academic" might be.

 

I partially agree - having studied history and the history of ideas (as part of my music performance and English literature degrees) I am quite sure the scientific method does apply, but I agree that is may be more loosely applied and the demand for scientific evidence slightly different. If anyone is pertinent about intepretation of data and about having the right ideas it is indeed historians... :)

 

It is important for all parties involved here to realize that "theology" is the study of *religion* and not only of Christianity. We need to keep those "My religion vs yours" out of Hypography.

[Dark Mind]

It is important for all parties involved here to realize that "theology" is the study of *religion* and not only of Christianity. We need to keep those "My religion vs yours" out of Hypography.

 

THERE!!!:) That's what I was looking for, I can now cast my "Yes." vote with no qualms.

[bumab]

It is important for all parties involved here to realize that "theology" is the study of *religion* and not only of Christianity. We need to keep those "My religion vs yours" out of Hypography.

 

I think we've been doing pretty well at that, for the most part. Do you have concerns?

[Buffy]

I've been mulling this today. I've decided that as long as it really is just the theology aspect, then its probably okay. When I look at the majority of threads that include religious themes here though, it seems like the vast majority do fall into the science forums:

• ID: Usually is a debate about philosophy of science or evolution or cosmology. To disagree with Tormod, its seems like ID'ers go out of their way to say that they are not imposing a religion (which puts their theories in to direct conflict with Creationism: I've been waiting for an "ID vs. Creationism" thread...)
  
• Creationism: Like ID, but usually has the short time-scale, miraculous occurence bent, and so tends to go into history and archeology.
  
• Morality (e.g. homosexual thread): Falls either into Social Sciences or Philosophy depending on the exact issue. Driven by morals which some argue must be associated with religion, although many of us don't buy it.
  
• (non)-determinism/free will: religious, but all sides take all positions (some of the most interesting threads) and is unquestionably "philosophy"
  
• History: Bible as history. We don't have a history forum and should.
  
• Archeology/Paleontology: Possibly the Evolution forum should be renamed this, but it would be nice to have this as a separate forum to keep away the flamewars.
  
• Math: Are certain numbers sacrosanct? Sounds like a religious issue to me, but should be left in Math.
  

I voted don't know, but I think the bigger hole in the forum list is the History/Archeology/Paleontology one....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Dark Mind]

No concerns really, bumab.

 

Agreed, Buffy. We do need to get *those* (not that) Forum in here.

[Buffy]

Oh, jeez...before I get into trouble with linda, (non)-determinism can also fall into physics...mea maxima culpa

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[rockytriton]

I totally agree that a religion forum would be a good idea. I don't think that it would be a good idea to say "take this to the religion forum" whenever someone brings up religion in another thread though. Religion is too important to many of the sciences to forbid it from the other sections. I'd say that it would be a place to debate the different interpretations of different religions. Hmm, come to think of it, maybe this type of stuff doesn't belong here. I guess I don't know then

[Biochemist]

I voted don't know, but I think the bigger hole in the forum list is the History/Archeology/Paleontology one

I agree with Buff that most of the items already fit into other categories, but we do have some outliers.

 

I would not put history with paleontology. I might combine it with archaeology, but I think the combination with paleontology is a little too broad.

 

We might address the theology issue by changing the philospopy title to philosophy and theology, since they are often inextricable.

[Tormod]

I think we've been doing pretty well at that, for the most part. Do you have concerns?

 

Yes. There are (and have been) too many ID-based discussions here which are based on thinly veiled anti-scientific Christian creationism arguments. There have also been attempts at preaching anti-science in the name of Islam. If we can successfully manage to get the religious aspects of any discussion to be less fundamentalist then we are getting on the right track.