I was wondering if we should have a science sub-forum. hypotetically we could put the "science and technology", "science and religion" and "evolution v creation" subforums together or in an umbrella science section/sub-forum. Maybe include the "Scholar DIR", "Historical Debates" and the threads "The material word" forum as well and put "consumer affiars" in the social world forum, but it depends how you define it (and how RF users end up using it). If you wanted to be subversive, you could put this lot into together with the philosophy sub-forum. it's up to the admins honestly.
Now, here comes the "why?"
I think this is as a way to promote a discussion on scientific topics and popular science. It might help a more philosophical attitude towards science and help encourage people to be informed a bit more. I think both theists and atheists would benifit from a more open and tacit admission that science can be debated as its a stumbling block for finding common ground.
I started the 'what is proof of god's existence for you?' thread and was really surprised at just how diverse the responses were. Not everyone has the same concept of proof, what can be proven/known and that is an area where some really crazy and intresting stuff can happen. the diversity of responses says theres a whole untapped reservior of crazy ideas waiting to be discovered.
On a bad day, Science is Atheism's sacred cow, an appeal to authority and a stick to beat theists with. its a way of dressing up ignorance as someone else's 'facts' rather than actually knowing what the science is, or accepting that science is not certian. its not just bad atheism but bad science too. I think a fair number of people would say science is not neutral and often favours naturalistic explanations. the idea that science is not up for debate has more to do with the belief that scientific explanations are self-evidently true, but that is the result of alot of philosophical conflicts over previous centuries. Science, philosophy and religion were not in conflict until very recently in historical time (particuarly after Darwin).
On a more personal level (here's where I get biased ), it be nice to have an area where we could debate the big bang and quantum mechanics, because as a materialist, I have philosophical objections to both of them- but without actually the background or understanding to do so. Certian forms of nihilism also affect the validity of science as well. In the USSR, alot of current scientific theories were rejected as "not atheist" enough. Whilst that's not a common view, it reflects the fact that science, philosophy and religion are intimately connected with one another. The inverse is that alot of theists equate science and materialism, thinking their religious beliefs can't be reconciled with science, when this isn't the case.
That may well be a similar position to how theists feel about evolution. The Big Bang does have theological interpretations as well and quantum mechanics can be used to defend religion on occassion. there is a conflict between the fact we don't know alot about things about the science that conflict with our belief systems. if it worked, it would be a complex two way process. The controversy over climate change also doesn't sit well with the idea that science is politically neutral.
What it boils down to is the idea that science can and should be debated and that doing so is a good way to learn about science and how they fit/conflict with people's beliefs. "Science says so" should not be an athiests 'get out of jail free' card. Being able to do so, might well shift the balance away from the atheists who dominate RF in terms of activity and give theists a chance to learn and maybe to shine.There are smart theists on RF, but I think they get backed into a corner with the "where's your proof" crowd. And maybe let a few sceptics out in the open. I mean how can we be sure the earth isn't flat?
Anyway, I'm rambling. I'm not sure if it is feasible, but I thought it might be a welcome suggestion as it might open the door to a cultural shift that gets activity up a bit. I add a poll to see whether people would want something like this or not.
Now, here comes the "why?"
I think this is as a way to promote a discussion on scientific topics and popular science. It might help a more philosophical attitude towards science and help encourage people to be informed a bit more. I think both theists and atheists would benifit from a more open and tacit admission that science can be debated as its a stumbling block for finding common ground.
I started the 'what is proof of god's existence for you?' thread and was really surprised at just how diverse the responses were. Not everyone has the same concept of proof, what can be proven/known and that is an area where some really crazy and intresting stuff can happen. the diversity of responses says theres a whole untapped reservior of crazy ideas waiting to be discovered.
On a bad day, Science is Atheism's sacred cow, an appeal to authority and a stick to beat theists with. its a way of dressing up ignorance as someone else's 'facts' rather than actually knowing what the science is, or accepting that science is not certian. its not just bad atheism but bad science too. I think a fair number of people would say science is not neutral and often favours naturalistic explanations. the idea that science is not up for debate has more to do with the belief that scientific explanations are self-evidently true, but that is the result of alot of philosophical conflicts over previous centuries. Science, philosophy and religion were not in conflict until very recently in historical time (particuarly after Darwin).
On a more personal level (here's where I get biased
), it be nice to have an area where we could debate the big bang and quantum mechanics, because as a materialist, I have philosophical objections to both of them- but without actually the background or understanding to do so. Certian forms of nihilism also affect the validity of science as well. In the USSR, alot of current scientific theories were rejected as "not atheist" enough. Whilst that's not a common view, it reflects the fact that science, philosophy and religion are intimately connected with one another. The inverse is that alot of theists equate science and materialism, thinking their religious beliefs can't be reconciled with science, when this isn't the case. That may well be a similar position to how theists feel about evolution. The Big Bang does have theological interpretations as well and quantum mechanics can be used to defend religion on occassion. there is a conflict between the fact we don't know alot about things about the science that conflict with our belief systems. if it worked, it would be a complex two way process. The controversy over climate change also doesn't sit well with the idea that science is politically neutral.
What it boils down to is the idea that science can and should be debated and that doing so is a good way to learn about science and how they fit/conflict with people's beliefs. "Science says so" should not be an athiests 'get out of jail free' card. Being able to do so, might well shift the balance away from the atheists who dominate RF in terms of activity and give theists a chance to learn and maybe to shine.There are smart theists on RF, but I think they get backed into a corner with the "where's your proof" crowd. And maybe let a few sceptics out in the open. I mean how can we be sure the earth isn't flat?
Anyway, I'm rambling. I'm not sure if it is feasible, but I thought it might be a welcome suggestion as it might open the door to a cultural shift that gets activity up a bit. I add a poll to see whether people would want something like this or not.
