A scientific study of religion? Researchers get their geek on at #SSSR14

[cbayer]

http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2014/10/30/scientific-study-religion/

Tobin Grant | Oct 30, 2014



Word cloud of words in paper titles at 2014 SSSR meeting (excluding “religion” and “religious”)

Hundreds of academics, pollsters, and other ne’er-do-wells are haunting Indianapolis this Halloween weekend. They’re gathering for the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR) and the Religious Research Association (RRA). This interdisciplinary confab brings together sociologists, political scientists, demographers, psychologists, and social scientists who research religion.

The name of the group sometimes gives people pause: how can religion be studied scientifically?

True—religion is something that by definition includes unverifiable, supernatural phenomena. The SSSR isn’t trying to prove or disprove the reality of religious beliefs. No one is trying to devise an experiment to prove the existence of God.

The focus is on religion, a human activity that can be studied. We can observe religious behavior, ask about religious beliefs, and run experiments to test religion’s effect on cognition. Just like we study economic choices, public opinion, and health risks, we can study how and why people do religion.

- See more at: http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2014/10/30/scientific-study-religion/#sthash.uoHSI6nl.dpuf

[Jim__]

1. Sounds interesting. I won't follow on twitter, but I hope some sort of summary report comes out. n/t

[cbayer]

7. I would like a summary as well.

I think it's mostly presentations and posters, but if I am ever near it, I think it would be great to spend a day.

[Cartoonist]

2. ne’er-do-wells

Academics
Pollsters
Sociologists
Political scientists
Demographers
Psychologists
Social scientists
-
Sounds like someone has their bias on.

The list doesn't include
Priests
Rabbis
Imams

[pinto]

3. I'm unfamiliar with the organization but it sounds interesting.

Studying religions from a variety of academic disciplines. The absence of religious leaders may well support a level of objectivity. Likely intentional, to take a guess.

[Cartoonist]

4. Yes, it does sound worthwhile

I just objected to the tone of the writer of the article. Sounded smarmy.

[pinto]

5. I think he was trying to be clever, engaging or conversational. Tongue in cheek, whatever.

Academics may look for ways to make research more popular and readable.

[okasha]

6. Toongue-in-cheek, definitely.

[cbayer]

8. Did you completely miss the point of the entire article?

First off, his "ne'er do well" statement was clearly tongue in cheek as he is one of them.

And this is a meeting of social scientists not clergy.

It sure does sound like someone has their bias on, and it ain't the author of this piece.

Oh look! The emperor has no clothes (again).