Why is this forum entitled Science/Math/Philosophy

[flipdeadshot22]

And yet, most of the posts are concerning religion? What is it about religion and religious debate in general that people find so captivating?
It seems that in a lot of these posts, people are wasting their time trying to use evidence to convince people who do not rely on evidence to form their understanding of the world; and vice versa, with the religious minded relying on faith based reasoning. These appear to be two completely orthogonal mindsets; how can constructive debate ever occur?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
And yet, most of the posts are concerning religion? What is it about religion and religious debate in general that people find so captivating?
It seems that in a lot of these posts, people are wasting their time trying to use evidence to convince people who do not rely on evidence to form their understanding of the world; and vice versa, with the religious minded relying on faith based reasoning. These appear to be two completely orthogonal mindsets; how can constructive debate ever occur?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because there is no "religion" forum. This is the only place that the self-proclaimed 2+2 missionaries can spread the word of the lord Jesus Christ without fear of being banned.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
And yet, most of the posts are concerning religion? What is it about religion and religious debate in general that people find so captivating?
It seems that in a lot of these posts, people are wasting their time trying to use evidence to convince people who do not rely on evidence to form their understanding of the world; and vice versa, with the religious minded relying on faith based reasoning. These appear to be two completely orthogonal mindsets; how can constructive debate ever occur?

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, it usually isn't constructive. But I'd guess there are numerous people in the gray area who read the threads and it helps them shape their opinions a little more clearly. I believe the real audience is the reader not active in the thread.

Also it's hard to sustain much discussion on a math or sci topic. OP: Who loves Laplace Transforms?

[flipdeadshot22]

Kaj,

I agree that discussion of a well defined concept, such as a Laplace Transform will fizzle out within a few posts, but there are still huge areas that aren't fully nailed down within the fields of physics (and bordering philosophy) such as differing interpretations of QM, problems with current theories, formation of new theories, etc. (and this is only within physics.)

As far as the discussion being for the sake of the audience reading these threads; do you really think that people are going out of their way; linking scripture pages, wikipedia entries, scientific data; as well as typing out page long rebuttals for the people not engaged in the discussion?

[Phil153]

It's fun to argue.

[bluesbassman]

Religion is, at best, a primitive subset of philosophy. So I think it is on topic, though we might ask why it's so ubiquitous.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj,

I agree that discussion of a well defined concept, such as a Laplace Transform will fizzle out within a few posts, but there are still huge areas that aren't fully nailed down within the fields of physics (and bordering philosophy) such as differing interpretations of QM, problems with current theories, formation of new theories, etc. (and this is only within physics.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree. The only problem is a real meaningful discussion of these topics is not well suited to a message board format, IMO. I think it would dissolve into a swap of links, which happens here -- finding a respected article online >>> Joe Schmo's opinion on these subjects.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the discussion being for the sake of the audience reading these threads; do you really think that people are going out of their way; linking scripture pages, wikipedia entries, scientific data; as well as typing out page long rebuttals for the people not engaged in the discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the thought is there to engage the poster directly, but knowing that many are set in their views anyway. I have read examples on this board and in Politics of people being affected by what they read to look at things differently. And that's why people engage in online debate -- to express ourselves, learn from each other, and maybe unconsciously to get people to see the world from our perspective?

Oh, and I think of it as target practice, too. Sharpening debate skills for future debates that might matter.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This is the only place that the self-proclaimed 2+2 missionaries can spread the word of the lord Jesus Christ without fear of being banned.


[/ QUOTE ]

99% of my posts are responses to other posts and I would guess 70% or more of those are in threads started by atheists or DS.

Like this one, for instance.

[soon2bepro]

You should state the difference between philosophical and scientifical discussion of religion.

The philosophical is most of what you see here, arguments for/against God or God's characteristics, desires, etc.

The scientifical kind is about the study of the cultural phenomenon of religion as a belief system and how it arised and evolved in every single human society.

I know you meant the philosophical, but I still think you should mention this just so people won't get it wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
What is it about religion and religious debate in general that people find so captivating?

[/ QUOTE ]

So many people are religious, that religion becomes an substantial portion of popular philosophy. If these shallower philosophy arguments disturb you, I suggest you find yourself a more elitist forum.


[ QUOTE ]
how can constructive debate ever occur?

[/ QUOTE ]

Debate usually doesn't progress much. Rational people are using rational arguments against people who can't/won't use proper rational thinking, at least on this issue. But every once in a while, we skeptics change the mind of a couple mild believers. So it does serve a purpose.

[Metric]

It's the mental equivalent of the hamster running on the wheel. People apparently enjoy boring, repetitive arguments that go nowhere.