Philosophy & Religion

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think the best example of the problems we had were post reports. The vast majority of reported posts used to come from the religion forums, and it caused a lot of problems among the staff, too.

 

We are actively considering bringing the forums back, on the condition that (a) we can ban people specifically from the religion forum and (b) people can opt not to see the religion forum. Both of those goals are feasible. The question is, will people still get insulted and offended by the forums if we allow them to opt out? I don't know.

[Reaper]

We are actively considering bringing the forums back, on the condition that (a) we can ban people specifically from the religion forum and (b) people can opt not to see the religion forum. Both of those goals are feasible. The question is, will people still get insulted and offended by the forums if we allow them to opt out? I don't know.

 

a. I'm not tech savvy at all, so I don't know how to help you with that one, though I have a feeling that it is possible to make a code that will allow you to ban people from specific subforums.

 

b. For this I would say, in all honesty, who cares?

I say this because everyone cannot be pleased and most of the time I find its more or less an issue with their ego or their (often erroneous) view of reality. If they cannot handle their beliefs being criticized then they should go somewhere else. This is, after all, a discussion forum and people are free to present their views and criticisms as long as they can back them up.

 

Obviously, we should keep an eye out for posts that are clearly intended for the sole purpose of bashing a set of religious beliefs and people who consistently use ad hominem attacks.

 

I think the best example of the problems we had were post reports. The vast majority of reported posts used to come from the religion forums' date=' and it caused a lot of problems among the staff, too.

[/quote']

 

In some forums, there are moderators that are tasked to deal with a specific subsection. I would say that for this, you should probably consider getting a few mods that are tasked with moderating this subsection. This may lessen the burden on the staff. Also, you wouldn't have to deal with more than 1 website.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

In fact, we were considering a specific set of staff for the religion forum, or at least a set of our current staff that accepts responsibilities there. Several of our staff members have said that they'd want nothing to do with a religion forum.

 

We can try it as an experiment sometime.

[bascule]

We can try it as an experiment sometime.

 

Hooray!

[timo]

[@Would opting out visibility of the new forum still make ppl pissed off]: For this I would say, in all honesty, who cares?

I say this because everyone cannot be pleased ...

I seriously hope that SFN doesn't try to please everyone (e.g. astrologers, witches,...). The site is targeted at people interested in science. To what extent which non-scientific topics (and let's face it, assuming discussions in a religious forum would be even remotely scientific -theology or religious science- is illusionary) add to the overall pleasure of those people is the big question. Personally, I'd favor to also cut out the politics section (no need to cry out, it seems pretty clear that the sfn staff has a different attitude towards that and I can/do accept that). Initially, I have a similar attitude towards a religious forum. However, there's two potential problems I have (others might have some others or none):

(1) A religious forum is a breeding pool for antipathies that might swap over to the scientific fora if people participate in both sections.

(2) I don't want people posting in the scientific sections with a religious background (note that this is not the same as people with a religious background posting in the scientific sections). If there's no religious debate on the site at all, the chance of this happening seems smaller to me.

 

and most of the time I find its more or less an issue with their ego ...

I'd say that's not the right attitude to start participating in a religious subforum.

... or their (often erroneous) view of reality.

This is, after all, a discussion forum and people are free to present their views and criticisms as long as they can back them up.

Considering religious and moral issues I do not believe in verificable objective truth and hence not in any possible backup more solid than "I think..." or "I feel that...". Though it might well be my erroneous view of reality, that statement is not up for debate with strangers on the internet.

 

If they cannot handle their beliefs being criticized then they should go somewhere else.

... like a purely scientific forum?

 

Obviously, we should keep an eye out for posts that are clearly intended for the sole purpose of bashing a set of religious beliefs and people who consistently use ad hominem attacks.

Yep. Problems: The large grey-zone and that the ultimate reason for mod-interference being "we mods feel that..." . Luckily, that's the problem of the admins and moderators, not ours (and especially not mine).

 

 

For my own opinion: I am against reopening the religious and the philosophy (other reasons there) forum. I'm not gonna cry out loud or even bother too much if it happens. But I think it'll do sfn more harm than good.

[Daecon]

What about just a philosophy forum without the religion?

[doG]

What about just a philosophy forum without the religion?

 

That could get tricky though. Someone like me might ask something like, "Is faith a virus or maybe a mental disorder?" and I could be talking about faith in general, not just religious faith. Why would I do that? Because I think conclusions leapt to in faith obstruct the objective search for truth. For example, just look at what Mike Difong's faith did to those 3 Duke Lacrosse players. He had all the faith in the world that they were guilty and failed to see any evidence that contradicted that faith.

 

Theology is a difficult social science to cover though in a forum that is primarily focused on physical sciences....

[YT2095]

I'd favor to also cut out the politics section (no need to cry out, it seems pretty clear that the sfn staff has a different attitude towards that and I can/do accept that).

 

not ALL the Staff, I could live happily without it also.

see post #20

[Phi for All]

The purpose of a new P&R subforum is not to attract new members interested only in those topics. We'll have a 50 post minimum before your'e even eligible to post there. Its purpose is not to expand our coverage of interests. Its purpose is not to drag out all your biblical error bits or your "proof" that the Flood actually happened.

 

Its purpose is to provide a place for discussions many of us seem to gravitate to anyway, a place where science is not thrown out the door and it's not used to try to measure something for which it's unsuitable. Its a place where, because you happen to be an SFN member, you can discuss these subjects using the same methodology we use in the rest of the forums, with the understanding that science and religion don't cancel each other out unless they're used against one another.

 

Seriously, if you've done a lot of research into religion and think you're going to be able to change people's mind one way or the other about it, you should go to a more formal religion site whose aim is primarily religion. The SFN P&R forum will just not be your cup of tea.

 

Many on Staff feel that a science-only approach to SFN isn't well-balanced. We hate to see gag-orders on such major topics as Philosophy & Religion but we also know they are more sensitive than the sciencey ones because there is no supporting evidence for powers we can't measure. If you feel you could discuss the possibilities fairly and without resorting to the same old "approach the brick wall" strategies, I think we can have some lively, civil discussions. If you can't, and if a vast majority can't, then we pull the final plug on our efforts and those who never wanted it to succeed can say, "I told you so".

[Reaper]

 

However, there's two potential problems I have (others might have some others or none):

(1) A religious forum is a breeding pool for antipathies that might swap over to the scientific fora if people participate in both sections.

(2) I don't want people posting in the scientific sections with a religious background (note that this is not the same as people with a religious background posting in the scientific sections). If there's no religious debate on the site at all, the chance of this happening seems smaller to me.

 

1. There is really not much you can do about that. Most people who are like that would usually only come to troll.

 

2. Well, again, most people who are looking for religious discussions and not scientific ones will usually ignore this site and go to a religious forum. However, there are plenty of people here who come because they are interested in science but would also like to engage in philosophical and religious discussions, among other things. Just take a look at the general discussion and psychology forum for example. And besides, you really can't stop some wacko creationist from coming here and trolling in any case, with people like that it doesn't matter if there is a religious forum or not.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that people here aren't necessarily robots. Humans are quite curious creatures and scientific discussion does invite or lead to discussions in regards to philosophy, morality, religion, etc.

 

At least with a religion or philosophy forum it is much easier to keep those type of threads out of the other subsections and put them into one place, if that makes you happy.

 

Considering religious and moral issues I do not believe in verificable objective truth and hence not in any possible backup more solid than "I think..." or "I feel that...". Though it might well be my erroneous view of reality, that statement is not up for debate with strangers on the internet.

 

And I will be difficult with you and say that

 

1. religion and morality aren't interchangeable and

 

2. There is an objective truth with regards to morality and I can actually prove it. But I'm not going to go there because that is off topic.

 

One of the things that you have to remember is that it is possible to prove something without having to appeal to scientific methods (such as proving that science is indeed getting us closer to the correct answers). That doesn't not mean that you should ignore scientific evidence, but there are other methods of determining the truth of the matter, especially with regards to things that cannot be proven with science.

 

 

... like a purely scientific forum?

 

Well, a "purely" scientific forum does not really exist because humans are social creatures. In most forums, you will inevitably run into topics that have nothing to do with what the purpose of the forum is. This is, after all, an online community, not a text book.

 

Yep. Problems: The large grey-zone and that the ultimate reason for mod-interference being "we mods feel that..." . Luckily, that's the problem of the admins and moderators, not ours (and especially not mine).

 

Well, I really don't see much of a problem. Most of the mods here seem quite reasonable and they can apply what they do in other subsections (such as warning against consistent use of fallacies) to the P&R forum. As a matter of fact, true philosophical or even true religious discussions are quite similar to the way that SFN discusses science here, especially with regards to speculation.

 

For my own opinion: I am against reopening the religious and the philosophy (other reasons there) forum. I'm not gonna cry out loud or even bother too much if it happens. But I think it'll do sfn more harm than good.

 

Well then, I guess its a good thing that its not up to you. I don't see a problem with it, as most other science forums have a philosophy and/or a religion subsection. Even the Physics Forums has a philosophy section. And of course you don't have to participate in any of the discussions in that subsection. So it all works out .

[YT2095]

we Had a Theology forum especially for this, were you active there Lockheed?

 

I think perhaps you weren`t, in fact the place Died because of lack in Interest, seems pointless crying about it now, don`t ya think?

[Reaper]

Its purpose is to provide a place for discussions many of us seem to gravitate to anyway, a place where science is not thrown out the door and it's not used to try to measure something for which it's unsuitable. Its a place where, because you happen to be an SFN member, you can discuss these subjects using the same methodology we use in the rest of the forums, with the understanding that science and religion don't cancel each other out unless they're used against one another.

 

 

I agree.

 

we Had a Theology forum especially for this, were you active there Lockheed?

 

no, I wasn't. But I saw you guys mention it in a couple of threads and in the archives.

 

I think perhaps you weren`t, in fact the place Died because of lack in Interest, seems pointless crying about it now, don`t ya think?

 

 

I don't know about that, I've noticed here that threads that are philosophical, religious, or political in nature tend to draw in a lot of interest. It depends on what exactly is being discussed.

 

Maybe the lack of interest was because of the difficulty of having to keep track of multiple sites?

[Phi for All]

we Had a Theology forum especially for this, were you active there Lockheed?

 

I think perhaps you weren`t, in fact the place Died because of lack in Interest, seems pointless crying about it now, don`t ya think?

Actually, when we separated it from SFN, it attracted those we never really wanted to attract, namely those who *only* wanted to talk about theology, and mostly those who had very strong stances pro or con. No matter how much we stressed that we wanted to use SFN methodology at Theology Forums we lost that indefinable "SFN mental shielding" the moment we went offsite.

 

We tried to split and it didn't work. We've tried to have it here with a "nothing's too sacred to talk about, let's remember free speech" attitude and it bogged down with circular logic and vehement ad hominems. I like learning from past mistakes and I don't quit just because I got a little dirty, but I think it's insane to keep doing things the same way hoping for different results. This time it'll be different or it won;t be at all.

[YT2095]

well it is true, that if you want to achieve something different, you must be prepared to do something you`ve never done before.

[Dak]

(1) A religious forum is a breeding pool for antipathies that might swap over to the scientific fora if people participate in both sections.

 

that's up to the individual posters to deal with maturely.

 

to put it bluntly, if they're immature enough to get pissed off over what's said in one forum, and bear a grudge which allows it to flow over into another forum, they can **** off. we don't want immature childeren on this site.

 

otoh, we'd be able to ban people from just the P&R subforum, so we should be able to nip that in the butt.

 

(2) I don't want people posting in the scientific sections with a religious background

 

I suspect that all the mods would come down heavily on people who post religion stuff outside of the P&R forums

 

For my own opinion: I am against reopening the religious and the philosophy (other reasons there) forum. I'm not gonna cry out loud or even bother too much if it happens.

 

as long as everyone who's against it takes this attitude, then there shouldn't be too much of a problem (that's why we'd make it easy to filter out the P&R postings)

 

we Had a Theology forum especially for this, were you active there Lockheed?

 

I think perhaps you weren`t, in fact the place Died because of lack in Interest, seems pointless crying about it now, don`t ya think?

 

the place died due to lack of moderator interest, which allowed the standard of conversation to degenerate towards the end.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I suspect that all the mods would come down heavily on people who post religion stuff outside of the P&R forums

I hear YT has a flamethrower out in his shed.

[the tree]

The purpose of a new P&R subforum is not to attract new members interested only in those topics. We'll have a 50 post minimum before your'e even eligible to post there. Its purpose is not to expand our coverage of interests. Its purpose is not to drag out all your biblical error bits or your "proof" that the Flood actually happened.

Minimum post count, great idea. Could the same idea also be applied to the other Other Topics?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

In theory, yes.

[Phi for All]

Minimum post count, great idea. Could the same idea also be applied to the other Other Topics?

You mean like Politics, Biomedical Ethics and General Discussion? I suppose so.

 

We've had a lot of people that started out posting in these "Other Topics" until they felt stronger in the sciences and they are great members now. Shutting everyone out of GD until they have 50 sciencey posts may pose a problem.

[Sayonara]

I just looked at the Philosophy and Religion forum that is now in the archives, and I have to say that most of the subjects are reasonable.

You have to take into account that we only archived the reasonable threads.

 

All the **** that made us close the forum in the first place is sealed in a concrete bunker two miles beneath the surface of the planet.

[Royston]

Hmmm, the only point I can see for bringing back P&R is due to popularity, which may at face value seem a good reason, but it really isn't. I actually posted in the 'how many posters here are athiest' just because I felt a little left out.

 

It was a perfectly standard question, (and all due respect to those involved) but it went on and on with a load of inconclusive semantic (yawn inducing) and sometimes heated discussion...as though people were trying to come to some conclusion...the OP was just asking what belief category you fell into, that's all. This is the problem with talk on God et.c I want to use logic in debate, the discussion goes somewhere, and you learn as you go...you can't apply logic when the subject matter is pure 'belief', and when a scientific approach just isn't applicable.

 

I can see myself posting in the P&R section if it's reintroduced, for the same reason as when I have a drunken discussion with my friends on the subject...it's like we can't help wanting to discuss the subject, even though 9 times out of 10 it ends up in an argument...THAT DOESN'T GET ANYWHERE. Perhaps that's why it's popular, a seemingly endless discussion point. OTOH, I'd like to be proven wrong, but I would be suprised if calm, mature discussion is maintained throughout. I personally don't think such discussion should be promoted by having a dedicated section for it, but obviously allowing it in GD for example, means it can't be moderated seperately.

 

Pfft, I guess the proof is in the pudding, and maybe it will work out this time round (with the new regulations et.c)...if it's brought back.

[Daecon]

"Philosophy and Religion" seems like it could maybe be a bit too general.

 

Would refining the categories lead to less chance of abuse? Things like "Philosophy of Science" "Philosophy of Religion" "Organised religions (inc. doctrines)" etc.

[Phi for All]

Hmmm, the only point I can see for bringing back P&R is due to popularity, which may at face value seem a good reason, but it really isn't. I actually posted in the 'how many posters here are athiest' just because I felt a little left out.

 

It was a perfectly standard question, (and all due respect to those involved) but it went on and on with a load of inconclusive semantic (yawn inducing) and sometimes heated discussion...as though people were trying to come to some conclusion...the OP was just asking what belief category you fell into, that's all. This is the problem with talk on God et.c I want to use logic in debate, the discussion goes somewhere, and you learn as you go...you can't apply logic when the subject matter is pure 'belief', and when a scientific approach just isn't applicable.

Unfortunately that thread suddenly became the outpouring of tons of suppressed postings, like a burst dam of religion arguments.

 

But you've hit the nail on the head with this last sentence, Snail, you *can't* apply logic to religion, just as believers *can't* try to use the failures of science to support their conclusions. Neither will work and I'd really like a chance to see if we can have some good discussions, even arguments, without all the bickering that goes nowhere.

[YT2095]

I think you MAY get at least 2 of your wishes granted

[pioneer]

A way to discuss P&R and science, in a scientific way is to correlate these to the two hemispheres of the brain. Science is more left hemisphere. Religion and faith is more right hemisphere. While philosophy tries to build a bridge between both sides of the brain.

 

Let me better illustrate how the two hemisphere differ. The left is more differential while the right is more spatial or integral. As an example, say we came across a new type of yellow we never saw before, the right side of the brain would allow us to know it is a type of yellow. The left side would have noticed this new yellow because of its difference but the right side will be the first to lump it into some type of common catagory.

 

The spatial nature of the right side puts similar memories is the same piles such that the new yellow will end up in the yellow pile allowing us to see similarity. The left may then decide to give it a name, like lemon yellow. This will help store the memory in the left side's differential data base. The next time we see that lemon yellow, one will be able to access it with either side of the brain.

 

One can see the difference between science and religion. Science works hard to differentiate data but doesn't like nebulous theory. The nebulous theory is an unknown yellow that doesn't yet have a name. Religion works with nebulous concepts that are hard to pin down in a differential way. At the level of the right hemisphere, religious people know it is a yellow but that is too nebulous for science who prefer it be more differential.

 

If you look at the evolution of computers, computers can do anything the differential or left side of the brain can do such as memorizing and logic. But computers can't do the creative things the right side can do. This side of the brain uses a different approach to get its results. It uses a very fast language that is not easy to translate using regular language since the yellow pile may have hundreds of different but similar data points all with one name, yellow. A religious person may equate all of creation with God, with a wide range of differential data all combined in this memory. It is pregnant with meaning but just too 3-D and fast for translation.

 

For example, if we recorded 10 mins of audio and then played it back in 1 min, all the data will be there, but it will be too fast to get more than bits and pieces. If ten different people listen to it, they may each get something enitrely different with none getting the gist. That is the problem with the right side of the brain, it is too fast. Typically it works best when a bit or piece just pops into consciousness so it can be stored in the left and then subject to further differential analysis. If we take our audio tape and play it slower it gets easier for everyone to create a consensus of thought. The left side plays slower making it easier. The right is too fast and tends to get stuck in nebulous. Religion is a area of knowledge that allows some conscious access to the right.

 

If you compare evolution to creationism, one can get an idea of the relative memory speed going on in either side. The slower differential left side of the brain will tend to stretch things out so it can see more details. The right side is fast, dense and compact and will tend to compress. Many religious people can sense the fast memories playing, but it is too fast to translate easily and it often associated with above human. It tends to gain collective left hemisphere translation through traditions.

 

The way I look at it, the right side of the brain is more powerful than the left side, but it is too fast to use affectively making it less functional. It is like having a Corvette on ice. A golf cart might work better on ice. Language is much better suited to the functioning of the left hemisphere.

 

The paradox is someone with a high level of left differential will have loads of good data automatically placed into many 3-D piles in the right side. The right side has already integrated complex ideas for them, which if they could access could be very benefisical. But by specializing they have very little conscious functionality in the right to gain access. On the other hand, the religious person may develop a strong awareness of many of the 3-D piles in the right side, but because they don't use the left enough to extend the differential data base, the piles are skimpy and may not be progressed enough to be very useful for extended adaptation.

 

The debate between science and religion is between the two hemispheres of the brain with each seeing the world differently due to functionality.