Why is Comparative Religion in the Science Section?

Comparative religion is not a science. It should be under the philosophy area.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe this forum is for looking rationally (not emotionally) on the subject:
comparative religion ............

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

comparative religion is a science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That article does not support or deny your viewpoint, so I fail to see why you present such a link.

 

Comparative religion is a science. It belongs to this category.

I will later post some guidelines for posting in this forum with additional explanation.

 

That's like saying Anthropolgy is not a science.
Comparative Religion is simply Anthropology by means of studying religion.

 

Well, I think this forum is turning out just fine, a welcome difference from the Religion forum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

exactly.

 

This forum does not belong in the Science area; Prince_James is correct in saying that it belongs under the Philosophy aegis.


The problem surrounding the proper organization here is two-fold:

Firstly, the Religion forum itself is inappropriately placed within the Philosophy fold; the philosophy of religion would certainly fit there, but Religion per se would more properly be placed within the domain of Psychology or something akin to that.

Secondly:

Serious discussion of Religion can and indeed does happen, but only within the strictures of rational thought.

To that end, there are two solutions: either religious discussion is not bound to the strictures of rational thought, and is thereby required to either be moved to Free Thoughts or to remain where it is with the required aggressive Moderation or it is to be bound to the strictures of rational thought and thereby should be moved to a Psychology, or Behavioural Science section.

Regardless of what is done, all too often potentially serious discussion regarding religion falls prey to the inane baying of the believer who fails to make use of, or recognize rational thought.

And this is a shame.

 

please do not preach here. this forum is for the objective study of religion.

 

lol


Nicely said.

 

thank you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I fail to see why this is in the science section. Even business and economics are not in the science section. Economics is a science, many people get bachelaurate science degrees in business, I can understand that, but even that is not in the science section because its regarded as "soft science". Topics like these belong in the religion section. Since when did spirituality become something so quantifiable and analytical?

 

Take a look at the site and let me know what section you find these subjects.


Anthropology is most certainly a science, therefore Comparative Religion is a science.

 

???

My objection is that it shouldn't be a unique forum of its own; it should be subsumed exactly where you're pointing me to look....

Not that this is the logic forum but,

non sequitor

 

my thought is that this is to be what the religion forum should be.....
a place to discuss religions and how they are related to eachother in a civilized, objective fashion.

atheism has no place here, for example.

 

Now with that, I am in complete agreement.
Nicely said.

However.....

With this, I disagree.
I think that it's essential to a discussion on religion to be able to discuss atheistic points of view. When we can compare and contrast the various approaches of theistic and atheistic positions, not only is bias minimized, but the two can also stimulate each other's position in potentially novel ways.

 

Are there any child subforums on thsi site?

I disagree.

 

???

Irrelevant.

Logic is clear, and not a matter of opinion.

 

Are there any forums on this site with nested subforums?

Wrong.

Unfortunately whether or not it is valid or appropriate to compare Comparative Religion as a field to Anthroplogy as a field isn't a simple matter of logic - it is absolutlely a matter open to discussion and debate. If you don't think it is open to debate, that proves nothing but your own arrogance.

Whether or not the fields are comparable is most certainly of direct relevance to what I was saying.
In fact, nothing could be more relevant to what I was saying than that.