wolf560 wrote:Perhaps a philosophical discussion of a topic such as Faeries is not meant to be discussed here in any form or fashion...
There are 879 other subforums here.....just one click up, in Discuss Druidry
, they state:
The discussion here is general and far-ranging but should have something to do with Druidry. Threads of a general spiritual nature are appropriate if the discussion relates them to Druid spirituality and beliefs.
I guess it would depend on how attached you are to your fairies. I think if you came here with "proof" of some sort that your fairies existed to other people...maybe some grainy film from the 1980's or something...it would be a good starting point for a discussion.
What don't you post a thread on fairies here and see what happens? I, for one, would like an open and honest fairy debate.
(and if you use the two fairy points you made above, I would suggest that they are proof of a change in fairies in literature.....sort of like saying the Green Lantrine stopped using a rocket pack in Issue#37...true and interesting in a literary discussion, but not proof that the Green Latrine exists.)
Perhaps what you are talking about is "Non-overlapping magisteria"
In an 1997 essay "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" for "Natural History" magazine, and later in his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion." He draws the term magisterium from Pope Pius XII's encyclical, Humani Generis (1950), and defines it as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution", and describes the NOMA principle as "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."
In a speech before the American Institute of Biological Sciences Gould stressed the diplomatic reasons for adopting NOMA as well, stating "the reason why we support that position is that it happens to be right, logically. But we should also be aware that it is very practical as well if we want to prevail." Gould argued that if indeed the polling data was correct—and that 80 to 90% of Americans believe in a supreme being, and such a belief is misunderstood to be at odds with evolution—then "we have to keep stressing that religion is a different matter, and science is not in any sense opposed to it," otherwise "we're not going to get very far." However, he did not consider this diplomatic aspect to be paramount, writing in 1997: "NOMA represents a principled position on moral and intellectual grounds, not a mere diplomatic stance."
I think I am on Dawkins side in rejecting this and thinking that "ultimate meaning and moral value" is hamstrung, poisoned, pulverized and burned to ashes by Religion....but it might work if you said "philosophy" instead of religion....I think this board, especially over the last couple of years, has done a good job facilitating the co-existence of different philosopies and making "safe rooms" for everyone.