Is religious writing a suitable subject for discussion at scienceforums?

[CraigD]

Is religious writing a suitable subject for discussion at scienceforums?

There’s been considerable recent discussion of the appropriateness of religious documents, such as the Holy Bible, as subject matter sources for discussions within this forum. Opinions range from those expressed dduckwessel in Biblical evidence that birds came 'from water'., which suggest that there are specific rules for reading religious documents in a formal, scientific manner, to rebuttals of such claims, like those of Fishteacher73, in This is a SCIENCE site!.

The central debate over the relationship between Relegion and science is long and old, and has produced libraries of thoughtful writing from people holding many different positions. While it’s unlikely to come to an world-shaking conclusion here, scienceforums embraces an interesting and dynamic community of “x-theists” (mono-theists, pan-theists, a-thiests, etc.), who surely can provide valuable insight into both the larger debate (Relegion vs. Science = LD), and the smaller one (Is religious writing a suitable subject for discussion at scienceforums? = SD).

Here is a by-no-means exhaustive list of some popular relevant positions, along with my interpretation of them:

• Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA). Proposed by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould around 1997, but arguably going back for centuries in theological writings, this position holds that Science and Relegion, properly understood, can never be in serious conflict. It answers the LD “what debate?”, the SD “No, Relegion should not be discussed scientifically.”
  
• Bible codes. Popularised by Michael Drosnin in a 1997 Bestselling book, this position holds that religious documents, specifically the first five books of the Bible, when written in Hebrew, contains extraordinary and undiscovered information encoded there in ancient times by a high intelligence, most likely God. This position is controversial and extensively rebutted. It answers the LD “Relegion can be an alternative to Science”, the SD “Yes, religious documents are a treasure trove of scientific knowledge.”
  
• Practical moral theory. This position is, I believe, the most popular among all human beings. It holds that religious documents are practical guides to human and social behavior, possibly scientific, possibly not. Like the population that embraces this position, it encompasses so many sub-positions that it provides no single answer to either the LD or the SD

Several posts several threads have recommended moving the discussion to its own thread, so here one is. Have at it.

[rockytriton]

no

[sanctus]

Well yes, it is a suitable subject to discuss at scienceforums. This because how can we say that it is non-science or science if we don't analyze it? I don't believe in any principe which says something like "it's religious therefore non-scientific", rather I believe in a principe like "it's from religious writings/backgrounds and claims to be scientific therefore we have to see if it is really scientific".

And sometimes parabolas of divine intervention can be interpreted scientifically, for example the ten plagues of egypt...

[saidevo]

Originally Posted by sanctus

Well yes, it is a suitable subject to discuss at scienceforums. This because how can we say that it is non-science or science if we don't analyze it? I don't believe in any principe which says something like "it's religious therefore non-scientific", rather I believe in a principe like "it's from religious writings/backgrounds and claims to be scientific therefore we have to see if it is really scientific".

And sometimes parabolas of divine intervention can be interpreted scientifically, for example the ten plagues of egypt...

The origins of science can be traced to religious faiths. When every other subject including language and literature and philosophy is included in science forums why not religious writings? Writings on comparative religion can definitely be included in science forums.

Regards,
saidevo

[rockytriton]

I'm sure there are plenty of bible study forums on the 'net. Let's keep the self-righteous bible thumping out of the science forums. It sure seems like a waste of database space and CPU to keep this kind of stuff here.

[Theophilus]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Is religious writing a suitable subject for discussion at scienceforums?

There’s been considerable recent discussion of the appropriateness of religious documents, such as the Holy Bible, as subject matter sources for discussions within this forum. Opinions range from those expressed dduckwessel in Biblical evidence that birds came 'from water'., which suggest that there are specific rules for reading religious documents in a formal, scientific manner, to rebuttals of such claims, like those of Fishteacher73, in This is a SCIENCE site!.

The central debate over the relationship between Relegion and science is long and old, and has produced libraries of thoughtful writing from people holding many different positions. While it’s unlikely to come to an world-shaking conclusion here, scienceforums embraces an interesting and dynamic community of “x-theists” (mono-theists, pan-theists, a-thiests, etc.), who surely can provide valuable insight into both the larger debate (Relegion vs. Science = LD), and the smaller one (Is religious writing a suitable subject for discussion at scienceforums? = SD).

Here is a by-no-means exhaustive list of some popular relevant positions, along with my interpretation of them:

• Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA). Proposed by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould around 1997, but arguably going back for centuries in theological writings, this position holds that Science and Relegion, properly understood, can never be in serious conflict. It answers the LD “what debate?”, the SD “No, Relegion should not be discussed scientifically.”
  
• Bible codes. Popularised by Michael Drosnin in a 1997 Bestselling book, this position holds that religious documents, specifically the first five books of the Bible, when written in Hebrew, contains extraordinary and undiscovered information encoded there in ancient times by a high intelligence, most likely God. This position is controversial and extensively rebutted. It answers the LD “Relegion can be an alternative to Science”, the SD “Yes, religious documents are a treasure trove of scientific knowledge.”
  
• Practical moral theory. This position is, I believe, the most popular among all human beings. It holds that religious documents are practical guides to human and social behavior, possibly scientific, possibly not. Like the population that embraces this position, it encompasses so many sub-positions that it provides no single answer to either the LD or the SD

Several posts several threads have recommended moving the discussion to its own thread, so here one is. Have at it.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. By "writings" do you mean the actual books. If you mean the contents, i.e., can the bible claims be tested scientifically, then we must first determine the adequacy/authority of science to undertake such a task.
If you mean can we discuss what the bible means, I would point out that there is already a science which deals with that, i.e., Theology, specifically the discipline of hermeneutics.

This last points out one of the problems we have with contemporary language. In ancient usage, the term science applied to all areas of knowledge. It has rather recently come to its more restricted usage, i.e., the "natural" sciences or physical sciences.

So, I suppose it is the nature of the discussion in which you wish to engage and whether the limits of this forum can be stretched to accommodate Theology as a science.

[sanctus]

Originally Posted by Theophilus

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. By "writings" do you mean the actual books. If you mean the contents, i.e., can the bible claims be tested scientifically, then we must first determine the adequacy/authority of science to undertake such a task.

There is a kind of paradox in your phrase, you ask "can the bibles claims be tested scientifically" which implies that science is able to undertake that task. But after you question it.
I mean whatever you can test scientifically is equivalent to say that science can do it.

Now, I agree with you in the sense that one can discuss if the result of a scientific analysis of a religious book are the right way to approach such a book.

[Boerseun]

Science discounting religion stirs up emotional responses from religious people.

However, religious science-oriented folks should understand this.

Religion is not testable, doesn't supply any repeatable experiments, can't be observed or dissected under a microscope, and is therefore not science. If I bump my head and lose consciousness, and the last thing I saw was the cup of coffee in my left hand, I might make the claim that carrying a cup of coffee (2 sugars, cream) in your left hand produces bruises on your forehead. This is testable, and can be shown by science to be a false hypothesis. The fact that it is falsifiable, testable, and repeatble in any lab, drags my accident into the realm of science. Doesn't matter how ludicrious the premise sounds at first. Science can bother itself with stuff like coffee mugs and bruised foreheads. Religion supplies none of the above.

But I think we should keep the theology forum alive, seeing as religion has a big impact on society. But then posters here should understand that religion is treated here objectively, from a sociological point of view. We should give equal weight to any religion under discussion here, and posters should understand that this isn't the place to even attempt missionary work. We're not interested in your beliefs as an individual - what should be discussed here is the technicalities of religion, its impact on society, etc. Don't try to convert an atheist to your point of view and then complain when a Muslim tries to convince you that Mohammed was right. There's no absolutes - and that's why science and religion shouldn't even attempt to play in the same league.

[alexander]

would this be the wrong place to mention that i have many times now to a certain extent proven that bibical text can not be taken seriously for the main reason that it was written and edited by people, for a society that is 3000 years old?

And no, i think that discussion of the biblical scripture as if it is the absolute truth is propostorous, simply because, if you beleive that you are right, but cant prove yourself right or anyone else wrong, except for on the basis of a religious scripture, which someone proves to not be all that accurate and be quite plagiristic in nature, do you have a right to flame people for saying stuff that contradicts what you've come to beleive?

If someone says that roses are really not red, but some book says that roses are red, you have no real "proof" of your statement, but you say that the book piece was written for the reason that has nothing to do with science, therefore it can not be taken literaly, well are roses really red all of the sudden or are they not? (philosophically spealking not scientiffically)

[sanctus]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Religion is not testable, doesn't supply any repeatable experiments, can't be observed or dissected under a microscope, and is therefore not science.

Therefore following your definition archeology is also not science. One can deduce (eg a use of relict) something and say it is so because it is most plausible. Repeatable? Testabel?

So, I still say yes to the question in the thread title, because one can discuss scientifically if this miracles ffor example are scientifically possible or close to something possible. Yet it won't be testabel, generally at least. Just like archeology...