Why are the religion and philosophy topics united?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Put it here to gain more attention.I object that philosophy and religion share the same forum. True, some philosophy is religious but the latest trends are ALL but about religion.

Philosophy should be either alone or tied with the science forum. Like this:

"Religion"

"Philosophy and Science"

"Mathematics, Medicine and Technology"

But then again, I believe that science and mathematics could be together, so another possibility:

Religion

Philosophy, Science and Mathematics

Medicine

Technology.

There, much better (IMO of course)

[fuelair]

Because both are primarily about subjects that use words to create the idea that what is real might not actually be so. That is, both use words to make nonsense sense. I have no problem with that as a game for the young but in the world of the real, it is a little childish.

[Darat]

It's one of the oldest sections of the Forum and when the decision was made it seemed like the best combination of topics.

Whilst we are happy to review the structure of the Forum from time to time, I really don't see any sense, and therefore value for the Members of the Forum or guest viewing the Forum, to your suggestion of combining "Philosophy" with "Science".

[Mobyseven]

I feel my proposed layout would be far superior:

Science
Mathematics
Medicine
Technology
Religion
Philosophy
General
Skepticism and the
Paranormal

The rest would remain the same.

[brodski]

I feel my proposed layout would be far superior:

Science
Mathematics
Medicine
Technology
Religion
Philosophy
General
Skepticism and the
Paranormal

The rest would remain the same.
I protest, both "and" and "the" must have entire sections to themselves.

[jmercer]

Science and philosophy don't belong together; science is concerned with the "how" of things, while philosophy is concerned with the meaning, morality and ethics of things.

Since religion is also concerned with the meaning, ethics and morality of things it makes sense for them to be in the same sub forum.

Or so I believe. :)

[Mobyseven]

I protest, both "and" and "the" must have entire sections to themselves.

Splitter.

[jmercer]

Hey, I'm a uniter, not a divider! Woooohoooo!

Oops.

That quote didn't work too well for the last guy who uttered it, did it?

:D

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Thanks for the answers. My objection comes, basically, from two very specific branches of philosophy that are NEEDED for science.

First, Analytic philosophy, the study of language and meanings. Science is based on postulates, and if we can't be sure about the very words we are using, and how we use them, we are lost in fantasies.

Second, Philosophy of science, the study of the structures of our theoretical frameworks. Science is a set of tools, and without theoretical frameworks, we would have a box of tools but will know anything about how to use them, or their utility, and completely unable of asking the right questions.

Ergo. Philosophy (and this two branches are what modern philosophy is about) have the same importance as science. BOTH ARE THE FOUNDATION OF IT.

A separation should be performed. I have found several people posting in the forum equating philosophy with religion, and this is simply woo.

[brodski]

Thanks for the answers. My objection comes, basically, from two very specific branches of philosophy that are NEEDED for science.

First, Analytic philosophy, the study of language and meanings. Science is based on postulates, and if we can't be sure about the very words we are using, and how we use them, we are lost in fantasies.

Second, Philosophy of science, the study of the structures of our theoretical frameworks. Science is a set of tools, and without theoretical frameworks, we would have a box of tools but will know anything about how to use them, or their utility, and completely unable of asking the right questions.



I take it then you would also wish for the politics section to be combined with science and philosophy?

[Darat]

Thanks for the answers. My objection comes, basically, from two very specific branches of philosophy that are NEEDED for science.

First, Analytic philosophy, the study of language and meanings. Science is based on postulates, and if we can't be sure about the very words we are using, and how we use them, we are lost in fantasies.

Second, Philosophy of science, the study of the structures of our theoretical frameworks. Science is a set of tools, and without theoretical frameworks, we would have a box of tools but will know anything about how to use them, or their utility, and completely unable of asking the right questions.

Ergo. Philosophy (and this two branches are what modern philosophy is about) have the same importance as science. BOTH ARE THE FOUNDATION OF IT.

A separation should be performed. I have found several people posting in the forum equating philosophy with religion, and this is simply woo.
If we followed your argument "philosophy" would not have a separate section at all and every section would have to have its remit expanded to include "philosophy of this section's topic(s)". That would in my opinion have a detrimental effect on the Forum as it would make it more difficult for readers and Members of the Forum to locate subjects of interest to them.

[Tricky]

For my own part, I reserver the SMM&T forum for things that Science has found. If I wanted to talk about the philosophy of science, I'd put it in the R&P section. Others disagree, and the moderators, who for the most part have actual lives, are lothe to exert their god-like powers for such trivial matters.

[Doubt]

It could be worse. For a short time we had a "Sports and Humor" section. That did not last long, fortunately.

[Complexity]

BDZ - What many mean by 'philosophy' and what I mean by 'science' have nothing to do with each other.

If I want drivel on philosophy, I know where to find it. There are good things to read on philosophy, but they are very rare on these fora.

I already have plenty of garbage to skip over or Ignore on the MST forum, I do NOT want your suggestion to be carried out.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Thanks to all for sharing your feelings about the subject. At very least, I would like to have different forums for philosophy and religion. I guess this is not difficult to implement. Is it?

[Jackalgirl]

Thanks to all for sharing your feelings about the subject. At very least, I would like to have different forums for philosophy and religion. I guess this is not difficult to implement. Is it?

You might want to look at post #3 for Darat's (current) take. Perhaps, should it become obvious later that such a split would be useful, the Forum administration would consider it.

My recommendation is that if you have some ideas for quality discussions about philosophy, that you start them. My guess is that something about the philosophy of science should go in the science section, and that other "philosophy of" threads should go in the forum that addresses what they are philosophies of. Whereas topics about philosophy in general, or philosophical world-views in general, should go into the philosophy and science forum. If it turns out that all of these quality threads that you either start or inspire others to start obviously need their own home, that will make the PTB much more amenable to the idea of giving philosophy its own section.

[Mobyseven]

Thanks for the answers. My objection comes, basically, from two very specific branches of philosophy that are NEEDED for science.

First, Analytic philosophy, the study of language and meanings. Science is based on postulates, and if we can't be sure about the very words we are using, and how we use them, we are lost in fantasies.

Second, Philosophy of science, the study of the structures of our theoretical frameworks. Science is a set of tools, and without theoretical frameworks, we would have a box of tools but will know anything about how to use them, or their utility, and completely unable of asking the right questions.

Ergo. Philosophy (and this two branches are what modern philosophy is about) have the same importance as science. BOTH ARE THE FOUNDATION OF IT.

A separation should be performed. I have found several people posting in the forum equating philosophy with religion, and this is simply woo.

What about any of the numerous other branches of philosophy? Ethics, aesthetics, philosophy of language, political philosophy, classical and non-classical logic, etc.?

[dglas]

I agree with Bodhi Dharma Zen on this one. Religion and philosophy need to be separated.

Otherwise, it looks like a general determination to slander analytic and meta- philosophy by equating it with the dogmatic affirmation that is religion. Even the religious wouldn't buy that equating.

Why do skeptics, of all people? Is not the eschewing of certainty, the very core of science and definition of skepticism, a philosophical epistemological matter? You bet it is. It is a radical departure, in kind, from the vapid metaphysical affirmation that is religion.

Too bad we don't have an admin with even a passing familiarity with philosophy.

But, don't let reasoned argument get in the way of rampant bias...


Just...

Win Powerball!!!

[jmercer]

At very least, I would like to have different forums for philosophy and religion.
[quote=dglas;3445472]I agree with Bodhi Dharma Zen on this one. Religion and philosophy need to be separated.


I don't view them as the same, although they certainly attempt to address the same questions by using disparate approaches. It's the fact that they are effectively competing for identical recognition in the same "space" - the "why, morality and ethics" of the world - that bring them together.

:)

[dglas]

At very least, I would like to have different forums for philosophy and religion.


I don't view them as the same, although they certainly attempt to address the same questions by using disparate approaches. It's the fact that they are effectively competing for identical recognition in the same "space" - the "why, morality and ethics" of the world - that bring them together.

:)

Time for Science and Religion to be merged then.

How do we class the statement: "Chimpanzees exhibit moral behaviour." My "philosophical" view of morality covers it, religious views do not and are determined not to.
C'mon. Cut the crap... :rolleyes:

Sometimes the distinctions are not trivial; sometimes they DO matter.


Just...

Win powerball!!!

...already.

[dglas]

Here's why I think philosophy and religion should be separated.

Religion is a dogmatic affirmation machine. It is in no sense critical except with respect to stuff outside its territory, in which case its primary critique is that it is "other." At no time does religion ever engage in meta-analysis. Religion denies alternatives on the basis of itself.

Philosophy is a meta-analysis tool. It is not merely a single method of inquiry; it is inquiry itself and accepts no bounds. Philosophy questions alternatives AND itself. This is rather important.

The two are radically different subject matters using different methods and different bases for their efforts. I am beginning to think that people really just do not get how insidious, how domineering, religion is in the history of human thought.

The problem is that philosophy is not going to mature until it is brought out from under the oppressive shadow of mysticism and religion. Some of us are trying to expedite this, which, in my view as a skeptic, would benefit skeptical thought. Skepticism was brutally murdered at birth by mysticism. Now, some of us are trying to develop philosophies that are non-mystical and those organizations that claim to support scientific, non-mystical thinking are holding us back.

I personally am trying to develop a view of skepticism such that it does not suffer the illusion of falling apart on skeptical inquiry. Unfortunately, the religious definitions equate doubt with denial, leaving little room for alternatives. As a result people like Shermer are turning skepticism into religion and are being quite properly laughed at because of it.

Why are you helping the religious hobble us?


Why are you helping them...

Win Powerball!!!

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What dglas said (much better than I could) ;)

Please separate "religion" and "philosophy" topics, both deserve their own forums.

[rjh01]

I think this thread should be moved to religion and philosophy sub forum. That way people who lurk there will see it and have a chance to comment on it. Not many people are in forum management.

If the mods do not like this idea, how about creating a sticky thread there that points to this thread? The sticky would be closed so no comments there. It would only contain the OP of this thread. It could be deleted after a week or so.

[Darat]

...snip..

Too bad we don't have an admin with even a passing familiarity with philosophy.


...snip...

But we do - i.e. me (I actually don't know whether Lisa does or not so it could be two). I certainly have far more than "even a passing familiarity with philosophy" and at least one of our previous Admins has had an academic background that included philosophy, yet they never saw this need to split the two sections.

I am however now left trying to square your next statement with your statement above:

...But, don't let reasoned argument get in the way of rampant bias......

There is no reason at all why anyone would think we wouldn't split the section or indeed any section or create a new section and so on if it would be of benefit for the Forum bar of course their own "rampant bias"....

The Forum structure is a matter of pragmatism (non-philosophical use of the word) not an academic exercise and if you think splitting the two sections will benefit the readership and Membership of the Forum put that case forward.

[dglas]

The Forum structure is a matter of pragmatism (non-philosophical use of the word) not an academic exercise and if you think splitting the two sections will benefit the readership and Membership of the Forum put that case forward.

So, it takes significantly more or less storage space to have two sub-forums instead of one cobbled-together forum? See? I'm trying to understand...

Not an academic exercise? And the word "educational" means...?

Put...
(See post #21 above)
...forward.

Well, I might be tempted to suggest that if philosophy were presented as different from religion, the casual onlooker might be tempted to think the standards for argument might be different. This could have significant benefit for clarity and actual progress in discussions, as opposed to the stagnation that is the retreat into mysticism and loudly-shouted chapter and verse.

...or off-topic distraction tactics about bloodlines. :boggled:

Speaking of standards, why is it that kittening or recipe-ing a thread is unacceptable, but spamming with chapter and verse is acceptable?

Win Powerball!!!

[Darat]

So, it takes significantly more or less storage space to have two sub-forums instead of one cobbled-together forum? See? I'm trying to understand...



I think you must be addressing your "rampant bias" again since I can't see anyone that has said anything like that in this thread - certainly not me. All I have said is that if you wish to see a change to the Forum structure you'll need to put forward a convincing argument regarding why it would be beneficial to the Forum.

Just recently we made several changes to the structure of the Forum based primarily from the suggestions made by Members. These included new sections such as the "Business Skepticism" section, a split of one section (the old "Politics, Current Events and Social Issues" into two sections) and so on.

So if you do want a change to the Forum the best way to convince the Mod Team (and probably other Members) is to argue for the changes based on it being benificial to the Forum.





Not an academic exercise? And the word "educational" means...?

...snip...

What I said was that the structure of the Forum was not an academic exercise so again your comment does not actually seem related to what I've posted.

...snip...
Put...
(See post #21 above)
...forward.

Well, I might be tempted to suggest that if philosophy were presented as different from religion, the casual onlooker might be tempted to think the standards for argument might be different.

...snip...

I don't see how this would follow?

...snip...
This could have significant benefit for clarity and actual progress in discussions, as opposed to the stagnation that is the retreat into mysticism and loudly-shouted chapter and verse.

...or off-topic distraction tactics about bloodlines. :boggled:



We have a rule that deals with derailing (Rule 11)- if you think someone is derailing a thread you can report the derail and if it is a derail (as opposed to thread drift) the Mod Team will take the appropriate action, which often is to split the derail to its own thread.


...snip...

Speaking of standards, why is it that kittening or recipe-ing a thread is unacceptable, but spamming with chapter and verse is acceptable?

...snip...

Spamming is not acceptable however for information regarding "kittening" see this post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2869273&postcount=4

[jmercer]

Time for Science and Religion to be merged then.

How do we class the statement: "Chimpanzees exhibit moral behaviour." My "philosophical" view of morality covers it, religious views do not and are determined not to.

I would class it as "poorly worded and unscientific". "Chimpanzees exhibit social behavior" would be appropriate; to assign morality to their actions would be sloppy thinking unless you can also communicate with them to determine their reasons for such behavior.

Since that's not the case, such a statement is unscientific. Philosophy may speculate that the chimp's are demonstrating morality; science would merely state that social behavior has been observed, and categorize such behavior using social sciences, comparing them to other information gathered about species - including that of homo sapiens.

Some religions would not attempt to address the question - notably Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Others, such as Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism would have no problem with it, btw. :)


C'mon. Cut the crap... :rolleyes:


I just did. :)


Sometimes the distinctions are not trivial; sometimes they DO matter.


True. That's when they overlap, but that's the exception - not the norm.



Just...

Win powerball!!!

...already.

I'm TRYING! :D

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well, the arguments are here. How can we make other users to read them? Maybe putting this thread on the R&P as rjh01 said?

And we don't even need large, obscure arguments. IMO, all we need is this:

Religion and philosophy are to very big branches on their own. If they are together people will tend to asume that both are, more or less, the same thing, but as dglas have argued (more eloquently than me) this is a mistake, religion is about dogmas and no personal opinions... while philosophy is exactly the opposite (anyone can have their own philosophy, and they also need to prove it is consistent with facts, no dogmas).

Anyway. These are the facts. They should be separated, this represents no more work for the servers, will improve clarity for new comers and state clearly that the JREF is aware about their inherent differences.

[dglas]

I think you must be addressing your "rampant bias" again since I can't see anyone that has said anything like that in this thread - certainly not me. All I have said is that if you wish to see a change to the Forum structure you'll need to put forward a convincing argument regarding why it would be beneficial to the Forum.

I have a point of view. If you want to deride that as "rampant bias," then you are certainly free to do so. It does not speak well of you, because by that definition, everyone has a "rampant bias." I wonder how one can put forward a "convincing argument" without exhibiting a "rampant bias" by your usage?

I see you do not in any way address the reasons I gave you.


Just recently we made several changes to the structure of the Forum based primarily from the suggestions made by Members. These included new sections such as the "Business Skepticism" section, a split of one section (the old "Politics, Current Events and Social Issues" into two sections) and so on.

While these are not meaningful changes from my perspective, I did not fight them in any way, nor did I critique them. All this seems to suggest is that precedents have been set for revising forum structure in a way that recognizes differences in subject matter. A precedent which, it seems, you have decided to dig your heels in to deny in this case - for reasons unknown.


So if you do want a change to the Forum the best way to convince the Mod Team (and probably other Members) is to argue for the changes based on it being benificial to the Forum.

And if you try, you get derided. Sorry, that was incorrect. If *I* try, *I* get derided.

Okay, so it's not a matter of disk space. It's not a matter of helping the readers understand the radical difference in thinking. It's not a matter of categorizing radically different subject matters. At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if your phrase "benefit the forum" has any meaning whatsoever. Can you offer any enlightenment on what "benefit the forum" means, if anything?

Since you brought them up, how does creating a business skepticism sub-forum "benefit the forum?" Please, do tell.

Take #4: A distinction between radically different modes of thinking is a benefit, both to the reader and to a forum that promotes itself as "educational."


What I said was that the structure of the Forum was not an academic exercise so again your comment does not actually seem related to what I've posted.

Woah! Look at them goalposts shift. Librarians throughout history might beg to differ with the idea that organizing information into different topics not being an academic exercise.

Organizing information in an accessible manner is not part of the structure of the forum? Organizing information is not an academic exercise? Organizing information is not a benefit to anyone?


I don't see how this would follow?

Then move it to Forum Community ... or Sports. That's what you do, right?
Wait a minute! Why is a thread about "forum structure" in R&P?
Wow! Just Wow!
I don't see any method at all, sir.


We have a rule that deals with derailing (Rule 11)- if you think someone is derailing a thread you can report the derail and if it is a derail (as opposed to thread drift) the Mod Team will take the appropriate action, which often is to split the derail to its own thread.

Cool. If you will check, you will see that I did do so, last evening. I will await the results. Again, why are we discussing "forum policy" on derails in R&P? Just asking...


Spamming is not acceptable however for information regarding "kittening" see this post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2869273&postcount=4


Now, let's see if someone being, quite incorrectly, categorized as religious can...

Win Powerball!!!
I doubt it. Heels are dug in already. The question is: "Why?"

[Darat]

I have a point of view. If you want to deride that as "rampant bias," then you are certainly free to do so. It does not speak well of you, because by that definition, everyone has a "rampant bias." I wonder how one can put forward a "convincing argument" without exhibiting a "rampant bias" by your usage?



It is you that brought "rampant bias" into the thread (it is even your phrase). Yet so far the only evidence of bias has been from you.



I see you do not in any way address the reasons I gave you.


Why should I address any reasons given by anyone? I am not arguing to not change the structure or to change the structure - again I think your "rampant bias" is peeping through.



While these are not meaningful changes from my perspective, I did not fight them in any way, nor did I critique them. All this seems to suggest is that precedents have been set for revising forum structure in a way that recognizes differences in subject matter. A precedent which, it seems, you have decided to dig your heels in to deny in this case - for reasons unknown.



You are reading into my posts something that I have not put in there after all I have not argued for or against a split of the "R&P" into "R" and "P".





And if you try, you get derided. Sorry, that was incorrect. If *I* try, *I* get derided.

...snip...

Can't see anyone deriding you in this thread - indeed the only person seemingly deriding anyone in this thread is you deriding the "admins" of this Forum.



Okay, so it's not a matter of disk space. It's not a matter of helping the readers understand the radical difference in thinking. It's not a matter of categorizing radically different subject matters. At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if your phrase "benefit the forum" has any meaning whatsoever. Can you offer any enlightenment on what "benefit the forum" means, if anything?



I am using benefit in the usual sense of the word e.g. something like "advantage: something that has a good effect or promotes wellbeing
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved."


Since you brought them up, how does creating a business skepticism sub-forum "benefit the forum?" Please, do tell.

...snip...

I would suggest you go and look in the Forum Management section of the Forum for the threads Members started about having such a section and see how they presented their views and opinions.


Take #4: A distinction between radically different modes of thinking is a benefit, both to the reader and to a forum that promotes itself as "educational."


And where have I argued it isn't?



Woah! Look at them goalposts shift. Librarians throughout history might beg to differ with the idea that organizing information into different topics not being an academic exercise.



Goal post shift? You need to go back a few posts and actually re-read what I posted not what you seem to think I posted.



Organizing information in an accessible manner is not part of the structure of the forum? Organizing information is not an academic exercise? Organizing information is not a benefit to anyone?

...snip...

Again you will not find me arguing against anything like that.



Then move it to Forum Community ... or Sports. That's what you do, right?
Wait a minute! Why is a thread about "forum structure" in R&P?
Wow! Just Wow!
I don't see any method at all, sir.



It is in this section because of feedback from Members such as rjh01 and Bodhi Dharma Zen and their suggestions in this thread, suggestions that I thought had merit so I implemented them i.e. moved the thread to here.


Cool. If you will check, you will see that I did do so, last evening. I will await the results. Again, why are we discussing "forum policy" on derails in R&P? Just asking...

...snip...

As the saying goes you can't please all the people all the time.




Now, let's see if someone being, quite incorrectly, categorized as religious can...

Win Powerball!!!
I doubt it. Heels are dug in already. The question is: "Why?"

Where is there any evidence that I have dug my heels in about a split of the "R&P" section into "R" and "P".

[dglas]

I would class it as "poorly worded and unscientific". "Chimpanzees exhibit social behavior" would be appropriate; to assign morality to their actions would be sloppy thinking unless you can also communicate with them to determine their reasons for such behavior.

Fair enough. That's one way of looking at it. The question is, where does that discussion get put? You know, just to bring it back on topic; I am told there are rules about this sort of thing...

Focus, my friend. Focus.


Since that's not the case, such a statement is unscientific. Philosophy may speculate that the chimp's are demonstrating morality; science would merely state that social behavior has been observed, and categorize such behavior using social sciences, comparing them to other information gathered about species - including that of homo sapiens.

Some religions would not attempt to address the question - notably Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Others, such as Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism would have no problem with it, btw. :)

Actually the trinity of monotheisms do address the question, but that's a topic for another time.

[facetious mode]
New forum suggestion, based on jmercer's information above:
"Science & Religion".
[/facetious mode]

For that matter why are science and religion separated on these forums. I mean, that the subject matters and methods of inquiry are radically different seems not to be interesting from a "forum benefit" perspective, whatever that means...

I just did. :)

Yeh-uh-huh! :)


True. That's when they overlap, but that's the exception - not the norm.


Well now, that's the point at issue, now isn't it? Or, at least, the public perception of that presumed overlap. A perception some "educational" forums perpetuate.


I'm TRYING! :D[/QUOTE]

Hehehe! Winning Powerball is a dictatorial requirement for advancement. Don't blame me. Wasn't my doing... ;)
Win Powerball!!!

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You are reading into my posts something that I have not put in there after all I have not argued for or against a split of the "R&P" into "R" and "P".

Should I launch a poll or you can do it (I would have to put a new thread I believe).

[rjh01]

dglas
I do not know if splitting the sub forum is a good idea. I do not go there often, so I cannot give an opinion one way or another. However a few words of caution. If you want the idea to succeed, it is critical to get Darat, the other mods and several members on your side. I suggest you avoid criticising anyone or their thoughts. If they say something you do not like or understand please ask questions. Let them work out that your ideas are good and their ideas need modifying to be the same as yours. Do not do anything that might get someone off side, especially Darat and the mods.

Darat mentioned the split of politics and Current Events and Social Issues. That took months and several threads from the time the idea was first floated until it was done. So please remember this things take time.

[Silentknight]

Yeah but--

What first got me interested in philosophy was the fact that it's one of the most useful tools for crowbarring religion off the lofty perch where it doesn't belong. For the centuries during the medieval era, philosophy was practically hijacked by theologians who only saw it acceptable to use reason as a means of pursuing faith. In other words, there's a lot of damage to be undone, the way I see it.

Whenever religion and philosophy get together, religion falls flat on its face. Therefore I'm all for keeping the two together. Including them in the same section is not tantamount to equating them; in a way, it's acknowledging the means for which they may be used.

[rjh01]

In August last year Darat created a business sub forum. Before he did that there were a number of threads on the subject. Here they are. Please read them. It will show how it was done.

Add a Business/Finance/Careers forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2366797#post2366797)

Its time for a Business issues section on JREF (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88398)

Business "Pseudoscience"? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52255)


This thread was started by Darat to discuss the split of politics.
[Moderated Thread] Re-Organizing the Forum Sections? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81918)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

For the centuries during the medieval era, philosophy was practically hijacked by theologians who only saw it acceptable to use reason as a means of pursuing faith. In other words, there's a lot of damage to be undone, the way I see it.

So, then again, why on earth would you want them to go together, it is like admitting (for me) that they are both still deeply tied together, which is of course wrong.

Furthermore, philosophy was right there when dark ages start to become a thing of the past, pushing science out of the uterus. Science without philosophy is blind and religion is everything but philosophy!

[Morrigan]

Wow, this guy doesn't take no for an answer, does he.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

:D Well, what should I? Darat himself have expressed that it is not a dogma, things can change if there are enough reasons to change them.