What if we divided Religion into to two subset groups... [View all]

[cleanhippie]

Hear me out, please, I may have found a way for the incessant shit-slinging to stop and the meaningful conversations to begin.


In my time at DU, it seems to me that in this forum, we argue two from two mutually exclusive POV's simultaneously. This is why it seems we are always talking past each other, instead of to each other. Let's divide the argument between these two points-of-view; the Philosophical and the Empirical.

The Empirical argument is one of proof. Here in the real, physical world, we reply on empirical proof to determine what is real and true. When one makes a claim, the one making the claim bears the responsibility of supplying empirical evidence to support the claim. This is not my assertion, this is simply just how our world works. Yes, I simplified it, but only so that my point is clear.

The Philosophical argument is about subjective ideas. One is free to propose a whole range of ideas and arguments where the ideas and/or arguments themselves are discussed, and perhaps the probability of those ideas being true. IOW, the question of what may be. Again, simplified, for only for clarity.

Perhaps by dividing Religion into these sub-groups, the OP's automatically have the benefit of letting the readers know up front, from what point of view they are coming from. For example, were I to post a story about a water/blood/oil/(insert own choice here) dripping (insert religious artifact here) in the Empirical Religion sub-group, I would expect the conversation to be about the empirical view of the topic. Responses would need to also be from the empirical realm. Yet were I to post the same story in the Philosophical Religion sub-group, I would expect the conversation to be of the philosophical implications of such an event. Responses would be free from objective, empirically based arguments, and subjective ideas/anecdotal evidence would be the norm. In both sub-groups, we all know just what it is we are talking about. The result: meaningful conversation.

By doing this, we have alleviated the usual and expected cross-talk and nonsense we have all come to know and love. I urge you to just give it a moment of thought, and see just how the next OP you post, or argument you make in response could be strengthened or weakened if constrained to an empirical or philosophical POV, for the purposes of meaningful conversation.

Or at the least, simply note in your next OP, up front, about which POV you are coming from.


Your thoughts?

On edit: If you disagree, kindly reply with why, and include an alternative that may get us past the usual nonsense.

4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Sounds like a good idea.
	2 (50%)
	No sir, I don't like it.
	2 (50%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll