Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Difference between religion and science fora
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 1 of 81 (228263)
07-31-2005 10:28 PM


I would like member discussion of the difference between the two types of fora, science and religion.
What is expected from each type of discussion? What kind of "evidence" is expected? Just what is allowable and what is a suspendable offense?
I would like opinions from both sides of the camp as well as administration, and maybe we can come to some kind of consensus.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 07-31-2005 10:46 PM AdminAsgara has not replied
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 4:51 AM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 81 (228267)
07-31-2005 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AdminAsgara
07-31-2005 10:28 PM


rigor in the Faith forums
I think it's perfectly reasonable to bring up science the the Faith Forums. However, in the faith forums someone should be free to simply say, "I don't believe that because it goes against my Faith" and have that accepted as sufficient answer.
If someone though wishes to argue the validity of their belief system, then it's certainly appropriate to bring up evidence that supports or refutes their assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AdminAsgara, posted 07-31-2005 10:28 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2005 11:17 PM AdminJar has replied
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 07-31-2005 11:38 PM AdminJar has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 81 (228268)
07-31-2005 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminJar
07-31-2005 10:46 PM


Re: rigor in the Faith forums
However, in the faith forums someone should be free to simply say, "I don't believe that because it goes against my Faith" and have that accepted as sufficient answer.
It's my understanding that that's an acceptable answer in the science forums, too - we talk about science here, we don't do science. How could we?
I'm not comfortable with the idea of differing standards of evidence for different forums. Trying to support a scientific proposition with assertions from religion is a no-no no matter where you are, and it's entirely possible to make science assertions in the religious forums and vice-versa.
Otherwise what I see happening is that the creationists can simply retreat to the religion forums and take potshots at evolution from there, beyond the reach of scientific rebuttals. And don't for a minute pretend that creationists won't walk all over you if you give them half a chance.
At any rate, I always thought it was a science forum, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 07-31-2005 10:46 PM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AdminJar, posted 08-01-2005 12:02 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 81 (228273)
07-31-2005 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminJar
07-31-2005 10:46 PM


Re: rigor in the Faith forums
quote:
However, in the faith forums someone should be free to simply say, "I don't believe that because it goes against my Faith" and have that accepted as sufficient answer.
Why should that ever be a sufficient answer? I thought that the field of apologetics developed because even Christians realize that cannot be an acceptable answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 07-31-2005 10:46 PM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AdminJar, posted 07-31-2005 11:54 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 6 by AdminAsgara, posted 07-31-2005 11:57 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 81 (228275)
07-31-2005 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chiroptera
07-31-2005 11:38 PM


Re: rigor in the Faith forums
Why should that ever be a sufficient answer?
Because we are talking about the Faith forums. They are not oriented towards truth, reality or rigor. They are Faith Based.
If someone wishes the simply ignore all the evidence and insist that they believe the universe was created 3000 years after Kenniwick Man lived on the west coast of North America, then that is their belief. They have decided for some reason to simply ignore the existence of the Kenniwick Man. If they wish to believe that the Universe was created 18,000 to 20,000 years after the Venus de Willendorf was created, then that's fine. They have decided for some reason to simply ignore the existence of the Venus de Willendorf.
Faith is based on belief, not fact. I believe in GOD. I cannot prove GOD's existence, I simply believe in Him. In the Faith forums you can certainly ask me why I hold such beliefs, but the simple fact that they ARE my beliefs is sufficient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 07-31-2005 11:38 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 08-01-2005 12:02 AM AdminJar has replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 6 of 81 (228276)
07-31-2005 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chiroptera
07-31-2005 11:38 PM


Re: rigor in the Faith forums
The field of apologetics attempts to use science to "prove" their belief. This type of discussion belongs in the science fora.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 07-31-2005 11:38 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 81 (228277)
08-01-2005 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
07-31-2005 11:17 PM


Re: rigor in the Faith forums
I believe that it is absolutely reasonable to present scientific evidence that might support or refute a religious belief. What I don't think is reasonable would be to suspend someone in the Faith forums who simply will not accept evidence based on their belief system.
If someone in the science forum said "The Universe is 6000 years old" they would be expected to provide evidence that supported such an assertion. If they failed to provide it when requested, it would be reasonable to suspend them. However, in the Faith forums such a statement could be supported by "Because that's what I believe!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2005 11:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2005 7:19 AM AdminJar has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 81 (228278)
08-01-2005 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by AdminJar
07-31-2005 11:54 PM


Re: rigor in the Faith forums
Agreed Jar, as long as we stay on issues of faith.
However, I think we have to keep the science discussions out of the faith side of the site.
If anyone wants to question evolutionary biology, geology, physics etc. on anything but pure "I just don't believe it." Then they must put that forward on the science side.
If they continue to drop little tidbits in the non-science side they should simply be suspended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AdminJar, posted 07-31-2005 11:54 PM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AdminJar, posted 08-01-2005 12:09 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 81 (228279)
08-01-2005 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by NosyNed
08-01-2005 12:02 AM


Re: rigor in the Faith forums
Well, suppose I said that the universe was 6000 years old and used Ussher's calculations (I never have understood why he bothered with the calculations. Why not just ask a Rabbi?) to support it in one of the Faith forums?
I believe that it would be perfectly reasonable, infact necessary, for someone to post the evidence that refutes Ussher's calculations. The original poster would be free to say, "Fine, I don't believe that" but the basis for the two beliefs would be out there for all to see.
On the science forum side though, I would find Ussher's calculations as totally off topic and of no worth at all. In the Faith Forums though they would stand as reason for someones belief system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 08-01-2005 12:02 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 10 of 81 (228335)
08-01-2005 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AdminAsgara
07-31-2005 10:28 PM


I don't believe that faith is just a matter of indefensible explicable irrationality as Jar puts it but I don't have a problem with defining the faith forums in those terms.
What I do have a problem with is what NosyNed suggests, his requirement that science may not be discussed in any terms whatever outside the science fora. Since he has restricted me from the science fora for some time already (for a violation of the science standards on a non-science forum just as he did last night), that means I am simply not allowed to express an opinion about scientific questions at all ever. If that is the rule, it prohibits altogether speculations about science that don't meet rigorous scientific criteria no matter where they are expressed -- which is what Chiroptera agrees should be the case. It's as good as putting a muzzle on some creationists, although it had been my impression that I was free to make nonscience comments outside the science fora.
The reason there is now a Theological Creationism forum in the religion section, was so that creationists could do exactly that, give creationist speculations including science comments, without threat of suspension, as I argued at the time, and even without a requirement to deal with scientific challenges in scientific terms. The idea was that scientific challenges would not be prohibited there, but that answers would not require the meeting of scientific criteria as the science forums do, could even be answered with a flat statement of belief, as Jar puts it, or no answer at all, with impunity.
If such comments are completely restricted to that one forum alone, maybe that would be an acceptable compromise to those who don't want to allow them at all?
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 04:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AdminAsgara, posted 07-31-2005 10:28 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2005 7:25 AM Faith has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 11 of 81 (228340)
08-01-2005 5:17 AM


inconsistent moderating
I just want to say, in my short time here, I don't see some of the moderating, particularly with Nosey's ban of Faith, as anything more than a tool to silence criticism of evolution.
For example, evolutionists here often continually make wild, unfounded statements. Robinroham and others, for example, openly state creationists reject evolution based on a desire for power.
Now, he offers no scientific studies for this, and I suspect normally the average creationist or IDer would not go to the mods to try to force him to provide evidence or retract the statement.
To do so would normally be asinine, stupid, etc, etc,....
I mean of course the statement is unfounded, but that should not mean one cannot speculate, and unlike many of the evolutonists here, the average critic of evolution is willing to let such unfounded stuff slide.
But somehow the evolutionists here behave differently.
For example, someone speculates that so many messages that evolution is true colors someone's perception prior to being able to examine the facts. Some evolutionists demand "evidence" or "retract" or something like that.
Why would they do that? They are adults, and know full well that the poster probably has not seen a study and maybe there never has been one, but all of us that went to public school and live in the US know full well that the message of ToE is very prevalent.
Why would someone be such a jerk and try to use the rules to silence an argument?
I think because that's what they are after, to silence a good argument with a bogus and hypocritical standard. it's not applied to themselves, is it?
Are evolutionists being banned for making claims such as creationists are power hungry? There are no peer reviewed studies showing that, are there?
But why is Faith banned, but the evolutionist posters are not?
It's a double-standard, imo. Using rules to enact basic unfairness and a lack of even-handedness is wrong.
My impression is not that creationists here don't back their claims up, but that some moderating is done in a manner to falsely silence those claims and their arguments. It's interesting that some call for banning using science data in the faith threads. It looks to me like more of an attempt to control what information can be posted, not a genuine attempt to keep the discussion within factual discourse.
Maybe if some YEC was a mod or something to maintain a balance, or at least an IDer, the forum could be proceed honestly, but when wild, unfounded statements of evolutionists are routinely not censured and even celebrated, but creationists are nitpicked in order to silence their ability to present facts, it seems to me something is seriously wrong.
But then again I am new here, and maybe this is just a hiccup in the process.
This message has been edited by randman, 08-01-2005 05:25 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 7:21 AM randman has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 12 of 81 (228341)
08-01-2005 5:20 AM


Social and religious issues
Why do we do with those folders? It seems to me at the moment that those occupy some strange middle group where people who don't want to argue proper science can take (As an example take faith's total "blank look" when it goes to the use of the word proof) potshots as they feel fit.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 81 (228348)
08-01-2005 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by AdminJar
08-01-2005 12:02 AM


Re: rigor in the Faith forums
What I don't think is reasonable would be to suspend someone in the Faith forums who simply will not accept evidence based on their belief system.
I'm not suggesting you should. I have no objection - its not possible to object - to someone who concedes that all the scietific evidence points to a proposition that they simply cannot accept for religious reasons. How can I argue with that? There's no law that says people have to be reasonable.
But the Faith forums are not faith-based; they're about faith. The rules are the same, as far as I know. I never heard of this idea that some forums had different evidentiary standards before Faith (the poster) showed up, and I rather suspect its all her idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AdminJar, posted 08-01-2005 12:02 AM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by CK, posted 08-01-2005 7:31 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 14 of 81 (228349)
08-01-2005 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
08-01-2005 5:17 AM


Re: inconsistent moderating
Maybe if some YEC was a mod or something to maintain a balance, or at least an IDer, the forum could be proceed honestly,
A number of mods/admins are creationists of one sort or another. I don't think there's a YEC among them, but Phatboy and Jar consider themselves creationists and I believe there are others who aren't around as often.
but when wild, unfounded statements of evolutionists are routinely not censured and even celebrated, but creationists are nitpicked in order to silence their ability to present facts, it seems to me something is seriously wrong.
But then again I am new here, and maybe this is just a hiccup in the process.
No hiccup, Randman, business as usual. Many creationists have protested, including me, but I've decided to back off and accept the status quo for the most part. Some accommodations have been made. The Theological Creationism forum was put up as an attempt to permit creationists to argue specifically scientific issues with more freedom than is permitted in the science fora.
I had been under the impression that the religion/social issues section did not have strict science standards already, though the topics were not to be scientific as such there anyway, yet twice now I've been surprised by a sudden suspension for not meeting science standards in these non-science fora, as AdminNosy apparently wants science standards applied wherever science comes up anywhere on the board. I'm grateful to AdminAsgara for recognizing the problem and rescinding this recent suspension.
It IS a double standard but I'm not sure there's much that can be done about it. I hope you will stick around. Maybe you would be a good mod. You could propose yourself for the job. I wouldn't want the job as I get too involved in the discussion and I'm afraid my judgments might be so different from the other admins that I couldn't make them stick anyway.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 07:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 5:17 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 1:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 81 (228350)
08-01-2005 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
08-01-2005 4:51 AM


The idea was that scientific challenges would not be prohibited there, but that answers would not require the meeting of scientific criteria as the science forums do, could even be answered with a flat statement of belief, as Jar puts it, or no answer at all, with impunity.
Oh, well then. Hey, here's an idea - why don't we have a forum where we can spout off literally any nonsense whatsoever, and if someone tries to call it nonsense, we can ban 'em for hurting our feelings?
This is why creationism will never be taken seriously, Faith. If it can't stand up to the cruel and pointed inquiry that every other scientific theory must withstand, if the only way it can be advanced is alongside a stacked deck of rules that say we can't criticize it, no one with any sense will ever take it, or you, seriously.
It's like you're showing up for the World Series and demanding that you be allowed to enter, only your side gets to play Tee-ball and the other side doesn't get to have shoes.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I don't see that mainstream science is under any obligation to tie one hand behind its back so that creationists aren't made to feel like idiots.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 4:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 08-01-2005 7:30 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024