Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@jericson

jericson/Avoid truth assertions

Forked from cellio/Avoid truth assertions
Last active December 24, 2015 15:09
Show Gist options
  • Star 0 You must be signed in to star a gist
  • Fork 0 You must be signed in to fork a gist
  • Save jericson/6817854 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save jericson/6817854 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Download ZIP
Raw
Avoid truth assertions
Avoid truth assertions
----------------------
We want a site with broad appeal that welcomes diverse perspectives. This site focuses on the *text* and the process of interpreting it, using tools such as language, history, archaeology, and science. None of that is inherently religious, which is what *distinguishes* BH from other Internet sites about the Bible.
One of our core tenets is that hermeneutical process is (or ought to be) open to examination from all sides. Religious claims are often not open to examination. Not only that, but they're polarizing. Therefore, unqualified statements of religious truth are out of place here; this is a site about hermeneutics, not a site about Truth.<sup>1</sup>
Welcoming assertions of religious truth drives away some key groups of users, to the detriment of the site. This has been raised on meta by several users.<sup>2</sup> If the current trend continues we will lose the Hebrew-bible-based, rabbinic persepctive, since few Christian users here have any background there. **Allowing religious assertions of truth reduces the chances of getting the broad content we want.**
In theory we already welcome all perspectives, and that's true to the extent that "welcome" means "accept questions and answers from". But that's not really welcoming; it's just not barring the door. To be truly *welcoming* we should be striving to *not unnecessarily make people uncomfortable*. For instance, insisting on the truth of a divisive statement creates a hostile environment. Using qualified language instead just seems neighborly.
An important measure of site success is user participation: if users don't continue to supply new, quality content, then eventually traffic will drop off. Area 51 [lists](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1817?phase=beta&users=mostactive#tab-top) top users based on participation; of the top 10, four are mostly inactive and one more has a long record of low-quality posts. The next 10 don't fare much better; more than half of them contribute minimally or not at all now. *This trend should concern us.*
This is not about individuals. There is no outcome that will please everyone and we need to recognise that whatever we choose will suit some and alienate others. This is not the aim of course but we must persue the best long-term goal for the site.
<sup>1</sup> [This meta post from C.SE](http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/a/1380/4145) explains a similar philosophy
<sup>2</sup> [1](http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/730/208)
[2](http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/671/208)
[3](http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/677/208)
[4](http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/683/208)
[5](http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/594/208)
[6](http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/696/208)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment