Death by Dogma

[Sees]

But, I can do all those things and have which basically boil down to being social without organized religion.

"Why celebrate alone"?


I could say, are you alone when its just you and God?

“You don't get harmony when everybody sings the same note.”

"In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep."
Albert Einstein

You wouldn't be alone but it would be a twosome

What type of religious get togethers have you done?

 

[suzy smith]

Organised religion also reinforces the faith of its followers. Meeting regularly with fellow believers keeps an individuals faith strong. It also discourages members looking at other religions. The members socialize with each other and the friendships that develop are within there own religious community.
Fore example the Jehovah’s witnesses have set meetings at there ‘kingdom halls’ and you are expected to attend all of them or an Elder will be around to find out why!

I am an atheist but if I had to recommend a good way to be religious it would be your way straw Dog.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Alot of times, it seems like this can be the case. It seems like most religions, if not all, attempt to keep one trapped within it's own bounds of what it considers 'truth', and does not let one attempt to discern the truth for themselves. While this can be a bit restricting, it's to be expected. If one simply allows one to travel whatever path one finds most logical, what's the point of having a name to the religion, or sets of beliefs and practices? On the surface, only religions like New Age, or Unitarian Universalism, tries to get around this. However, I'll try to answer your three questions from the Buddhist perspective.

all religions are dogmatic. All of them prescribe a certain set of doctrines that an individual must conform their thinking to. This is a problem because it greatly restricts genuine, critical, and independent thinking.

Buddhism tends to be less dogmatic than most religions. Some would say that the only true dogmatic beliefs in Buddhism are karma and rebirth. I would disagree, at least mostly. Karma is simply the law of cause and effect applied morally and spiritually, and these can be seen at work. As far as restricting general, critical, and independent thinking, I think Buddhism doesn't really do that, as the teachings are described as a "finger pointing at the moon", where one uses the teachings as a guide, but ultimately one has to make their own way.

most religions and many theological beliefs shift personal responsibility away from individuals. This includes giving any god or religious leaders authority over one's behavior rather than owning up to it personally. Many terrible acts of violence and bigotry are committed and justified via the shifting of responsibility.

The moral code and the law of karma in Buddhism would be the opposite of this. The Buddha was big on people taking responsibility for their own actions. There's no god in Buddhism who gives laws, makes commands, or any other such things normally associated with a deity.

all religions create an artificial interface between the individual and reality itself. Every person has direct access to and a personal relationship with reality that is unquely their own. A religious interface just distorts and confuses this organic process. There is no need for an intermediary. It almost seems like a flight from reality.

One of the main thrusts of the Buddha's teaching is that he encouraged people to experience reality-as-is on one's own. There are no intermediaries in Buddhism. In some schools, the student/teacher relationship is important, but the teacher only acts as a guide, not a mid-way point between the student and reality, or the student and truth. The dharma is something that each person has to experience on their own, through their own effort.

Of course, while Buddhism tends to have ways around your concerns, this is only relevant if you accept what Buddhism teaches. And I'll also say that, as far as I know, Taoism also has ways around these.

 

[Tumah]

Greetings,

I've recently realized on a more profound level that I am incapable of identifying with any organized religion in the world. In the past, this bothered me because I felt like I was missing out on something important. I once thought that if I could just narrow down the right religion or religions or find the right pattern between them that reality would gain much greater coherence and meaning. I experimented with many different faiths, but always ended up feeling uncomfortably trapped. For a while, I felt that there was something wrong with me. Why can't I just settle down with a loyal and attractive belief system? Why does my heart and mind still wander? Over time, I started listening to my intuition instead and realized that the major flaws resided within the structure of organized religion itself.

There are three major dealbreakers that prevent me from ever seriously adopting a religious belief system. The first is that all religions are dogmatic. All of them prescribe a certain set of doctrines that an individual must conform their thinking to. This is a problem because it greatly restricts genuine, critical, and independent thinking.

The second dealbreaker is that most religions and many theological beliefs shift personal responsibility away from individuals. This includes giving any god or religious leaders authority over one's behavior rather than owning up to it personally. Many terrible acts of violence and bigotry are committed and justified via the shifting of responsibility.

The last major problem is that all religions create an artificial interface between the individual and reality itself. Every person has direct access to and a personal relationship with reality that is unquely their own. A religious interface just distorts and confuses this organic process. There is no need for an intermediary. It almost seems like a flight from reality.

So I see now that I can never strongly identify with any organized religion because I value critical thinking, personal responsibility, and direct experience over dogmatic thinking, shifting responsibility, and an artificial interface. Of course, this is just my honest opinion on things, but what do the lovely people of RFs think?

Are all religions dogmatic to a certain degree? Do many religious and theological beliefs shift personal responsibility? Are religions as interfaces for reality necessary or even desirable?

Thanks,

~SD

Well my religion doesn't want you to join it anyway! I will just deal with the last three questions, rather than the rest of your post.

Dogma
Your problem with dogma strikes as being similar to someone who wants to program in Python (programming language) without learning the language. You might be able to use some C++, but for the most part, you're just going to return a lot of errors. That doesn't mean that learning the language means you turn off your brain. It means that you can use your brain to figuring out ways to create short commands that perform many functions.

I think that's the same thing over here. Objectively speaking, I don't think dogma is inherently wrong. The dogma of a given religion ostensibly is meant to teach you the "language" of the world, so that you can navigate with minimal errors. Abstaining from learning dogma of your religion, would be akin to not learning Python when you're working in IDLE.

Responsibility
It could be hard to tell when someone is shifting the blame or honestly acting out of allegiance. Meaning, how do you know that Tom Cruisador would still go running to Jerusalem to hack up some semites if it wasn't a requirement of his religion? Maybe he'd rather stay at home reading sci-fi? So when he does get on his high horse and charges into Jerusalem, he may be acting out of religious responsibility rather than masqueraded blood-lust.

I'm not making a statement on whether he is wrong or right for doing so. Only that we can't say for sure that when he does, he acting out of displaced responsibility.

Interface
As you've pointed out, people naturally create their own interfaces with reality. However, we understand, that not all such interfaces reflect a factual perception of reality, be it because of hallucinations, or other mental issues. On the other hand, if a given religion truly is reflecting the spiritual reality it claims exist, then the interface that it provides with reality would also reflect that reality. In a matter of degrees, we might say that the person hallucinating can only interface with 50% of reality, the average person 75% and the given religion, 99% or higher. So what seems like a flight from reality, might really be (assuming the religion is actually the religion) perceiving someone who is observing the world from a higher degree of reality or reliability.

That's my take.

 

[Straw Dog]

Funny, my religion has none of those issues.

What about the dogmatic need to be adversarial and in opposition to RHP religion?

 

[Straw Dog]

You don't have to 'identify' with any religion at all, but when one worships God(s) of a certain religion, adopts practices of a certain religion, believes in the aims and ideals of a certain religion, that 'identification' soon follows, *if it hasn't already preceded it.

Religion is only God's 'Fan/Social Club'. Let's just put it that way for ease of debate.

Having said that, a lot of people identify with nature, or pets, or nothing to find 'inner peace'... whatever floats their boat.

Personally, I choose to be 'semi-religious'. lol

As far as I know, God is just an ill-defined notion in our minds. You learn about it through religion, ergo through an artificial interface, rather than through direct experience. I'm free to develop my own practices, aims, and ideals instead of just taking an establishment's word on everything.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What about the dogmatic need to be adversarial and in opposition to RHP religion?

Now you're making it sound like you don't understand why religions believe or stand for anything. Opposition to mainstream religions is par for the course when you're seeking to be your own authority in life and to break free from herd thinking.

 

[Straw Dog]

Organized/exoteric religion is all about relationships, community, expressions, bonding, sharing, etc. You could benefit or be it's puppet depending on specific groups, traditions, and you individually.

I'm a big fan of dogmatism and truth-claims remaining a personal matter where as with the group and family you are united under broad, shared values without tight constriction - general consensus on some beliefs and/or practices.

People could always choose to copy another's exact beliefs if they want or try to mimic them as much as possible. It doesn't need to be the standard or foundation though.

There will always be a more esoteric aspect where the people with more time, energy, desire, etc. can get into more specifics and narrow the focus.

Perhaps the social bonding and community mechanisms are the main attraction of religions in modern mass society. Most people feel safer in large groups, especially whenever they share an ethos.

I think that people who just copy another person's exact beliefs are making a big mistake and selling their potential short. I also think that many 'esoteric' elements are just more involved distractions and flights from reality.

 

[George-ananda]

Greetings,

Are all religions dogmatic to a certain degree?

I like what my Eastern spiritual teachers say; Don't just accept what someone (even we) tell you. Investigate for yourself and judge the truth.

At first we only need to accept what they say as a 'hypothesis'. When Self-Realization dawns you will have knowledge/experience/certainty of the truth. As they say Self-Realization can not be had in 15 minutes, they offer a path for those who wish to explore their hypothesis. Along the path you will experience more of the peace/bliss they are talking about.

This is better than looking at things as dogma thrown at you.

 

[Jainarayan]

The notion of Dogma is strictly confined to the Catholic Church and has something to do with angels, heaven, hell and all that. I mean, that movie was awesome!

So, we'll leave this whole 'Dogma' thing to the Catholics and move on...

Not necessarily. Dogma is defined thus: Dogma - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, etc. all have their dogmas. A dogma of Hinduism is unquestioning belief in the Vedas; a dogma of Buddhism is that of anatman and sunyata (though there is a lot of wiggle room there).

 

[Straw Dog]

Buddhism tends to be less dogmatic than most religions. Some would say that the only true dogmatic beliefs in Buddhism are karma and rebirth. I would disagree, at least mostly. Karma is simply the law of cause and effect applied morally and spiritually, and these can be seen at work. As far as restricting general, critical, and independent thinking, I think Buddhism doesn't really do that, as the teachings are described as a "finger pointing at the moon", where one uses the teachings as a guide, but ultimately one has to make their own way.

I agree that core Buddhism is kind of a different animal and tends to be less dogmatic. However, many official organized forms do still tend to grasp at unsubstantiated beliefs in metaphysical karma and rebirth. A certain prescribed form of meditation also becomes compulsatory for some practitioners as the only means to true "enlightenment". The teacher to student transmission is also dogmatic in certain schools, which I don't understand since the Buddha apparently figured it out on his own. I also have an issue with taking one person's word on everything.

The moral code and the law of karma in Buddhism would be the opposite of this. The Buddha was big on people taking responsibility for their own actions. There's no god in Buddhism who gives laws, makes commands, or any other such things normally associated with a deity.

One of the main thrusts of the Buddha's teaching is that he encouraged people to experience reality-as-is on one's own. There are no intermediaries in Buddhism. In some schools, the student/teacher relationship is important, but the teacher only acts as a guide, not a mid-way point between the student and reality, or the student and truth. The dharma is something that each person has to experience on their own, through their own effort.

Of course, while Buddhism tends to have ways around your concerns, this is only relevant if you accept what Buddhism teaches. And I'll also say that, as far as I know, Taoism also has ways around these.

So I can think critically, take total responsibility, and experience reality directly through mindfulness and meditation without ever identifying as a Buddhist?

 

[Straw Dog]

Well my religion doesn't want you to join it anyway! I will just deal with the last three questions, rather than the rest of your post.

Oh, good. No pressure then.

Dogma
Your problem with dogma strikes as being similar to someone who wants to program in Python (programming language) without learning the language. You might be able to use some C++, but for the most part, you're just going to return a lot of errors. That doesn't mean that learning the language means you turn off your brain. It means that you can use your brain to figuring out ways to create short commands that perform many functions.

I think that's the same thing over here. Objectively speaking, I don't think dogma is inherently wrong. The dogma of a given religion ostensibly is meant to teach you the "language" of the world, so that you can navigate with minimal errors. Abstaining from learning dogma of your religion, would be akin to not learning Python when you're working in IDLE.

Perhaps, but in my experience, dogmatic language tends to not be very technical at all. Instead it tends to justify itself through overly abstract, vague, and circular notions.

Responsibility
It could be hard to tell when someone is shifting the blame or honestly acting out of allegiance. Meaning, how do you know that Tom Cruisador would still go running to Jerusalem to hack up some semites if it wasn't a requirement of his religion? Maybe he'd rather stay at home reading sci-fi? So when he does get on his high horse and charges into Jerusalem, he may be acting out of religious responsibility rather than masqueraded blood-lust.

I'm not making a statement on whether he is wrong or right for doing so. Only that we can't say for sure that when he does, he acting out of displaced responsibility.

It is displaced. He should be held directly responsible for his actions rather than permitted to justify it via religious allegiance.

Interface
As you've pointed out, people naturally create their own interfaces with reality. However, we understand, that not all such interfaces reflect a factual perception of reality, be it because of hallucinations, or other mental issues. On the other hand, if a given religion truly is reflecting the spiritual reality it claims exist, then the interface that it provides with reality would also reflect that reality. In a matter of degrees, we might say that the person hallucinating can only interface with 50% of reality, the average person 75% and the given religion, 99% or higher. So what seems like a flight from reality, might really be (assuming the religion is actually the religion) perceiving someone who is observing the world from a higher degree of reality or reliability.

A religion is not a person. It cannot interface directly nor reflect reality reliably for others. Religious dogmas sustain themselves through artificial and circular internal trappings, which is hardly conducive to an open relationship with reality.

Whenever somebody believes that their religion gives them a higher perspective over others, they'll often start making absolutist judgments, because they made a commitment that binds them to all later responses. So they pass through life going from a position of open-minded curiosity to learning, to comfortable knowledge, to fixed certainty, to prejudice, and, eventually to mental death. Death by dogma.

 

[Straw Dog]

Now you're making it sound like you don't understand why religions believe or stand for anything. Opposition to mainstream religions is par for the course when you're seeking to be your own authority in life and to break free from herd thinking.

Fair enough, but I don't see how grasping at a Theistic Satanist identity helps with total independence. Your thinking must still conform to theology and Satanism.

 

[Straw Dog]

I like what my Eastern spiritual teachers say; Don't just accept what someone (even we) tell you. Investigate for yourself and judge the truth.

At first we only need to accept what they say as a 'hypothesis'. When Self-Realization dawns you will have knowledge/experience/certainty of the truth. As they say Self-Realization can not be had in 15 minutes, they offer a path for those who wish to explore their hypothesis. Along the path you will experience more of the peace/bliss they are talking about.

This is better than looking at things as dogma thrown at you.

My problem with many spiritual teachers is that they'll define your experiences before you even have them. So your mind is actually already made up and prepared to interpret in a certain manner just as you've been prompted to interpret them. They're just offering an attractive interpretation posing as an hypothesis that be can independently verified.

I follow my own path and have found more peace and joy than I've ever experienced before. What use do I have for a spiritual teacher?

 

[Tumah]

Oh, good. No pressure then.

Nope!

Perhaps, but in my experience, dogmatic language tends to not be very technical at all. Instead it tends to justify itself through overly abstract, vague, and circular notions.

I wonder if that's just a generalization. I imagine you are coming from a Christian pov and I'm not overly familiar with Christian doctrine outside what is commonly repeated over and over again on the threads here.

To me dogma refers to the core set of beliefs of a religion. So for instance:
G-d exists
does not seem abstract, vague or circular to me. In fact it seems a pretty straightforward statement. Maybe you mean how one concludes the dogma?

It is displaced. He should be held directly responsible for his actions rather than permitted to justify it via religious allegiance.

I am coming from the perspective that the individual's religion is actually a true representation of a god's will. Meaning as an insider, not an outsider. If you don't have a problem believing in a god and that he would somehow transmit the idea that he wanted a crusade (belief in god and transmission or revelation were not included on your list, so I assume you don't have a problem with those), then when an individual does go out on a crusade, we can determine that he is doing it for one of the two reasons I mentioned.

But you are looking at it from the perspective of an outsider. Even if Tom hated killing and threw up after every stab, you would still hold him responsible. But I think, the reason is not that you think killing is wrong, but that you think his (reason for doing it) religion is wrong. And because you think his religion is wrong, you think he should be held responsible.

A religion is not a person. It cannot interface directly nor reflect reality reliably for others. Religious dogmas sustain themselves through artificial and circular internal trappings, which is hardly conducive to an open relationship with reality.

Whenever somebody believes that their religion gives them a higher perspective over others, they'll often start making absolutist judgments, because they made a commitment that binds them to all later responses. So they pass through life going from a position of open-minded curiosity to learning, to comfortable knowledge, to fixed certainty, to prejudice, and, eventually to mental death. Death by dogma.

I'm not really sure what you meant by interface. I'm assuming something like a world-view. You're making a lot of generalizations here, that I'm not really sure what they are in response to.

So I'll put myself out on the table to get a clearer picture of what you're saying. I'm an ultra-Orthodox Jew. The whole nine yards. I don't see how my dogma is interrupting our conversation or twisting my interpretation of your words in such a way as to distort my reality. When I see a tree, it has a brown trunk, green leaves. I assume that when you see a tree, it has a brown trunk and green leaves. I'm not going to purposely run into it because I know it will hurt. I won't light it on fire, because I know it will burn. I assume that all these things are true for you too.

When I see a tree, I might also make a blessing on it, depending on the time of year and type of tree. I might try to think of parallels between man and trees. I might use its wood to build me a Booth (Tabernacle? I'm not sure what you guys call it in English). None of these things are distorting my perception of the tree. I still see a tree, but I also see a divine purpose that the tree might play. But those additions do not come at the expense of my natural perception of reality.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I agree that core Buddhism is kind of a different animal and tends to be less dogmatic. However, many official organized forms do still tend to grasp at unsubstantiated beliefs in metaphysical karma and rebirth. A certain prescribed form of meditation also becomes compulsatory for some practitioners as the only means to true "enlightenment". The teacher to student transmission is also dogmatic in certain schools, which I don't understand since the Buddha apparently figured it out on his own. I also have an issue with taking one person's word on everything.

Unfortunately, these are true. There is, however, the idea in both Theravada and Zen of practitioners attaining enlightenment on one's own.

So I can think critically, take total responsibility, and experience reality directly through mindfulness and meditation without ever identifying as a Buddhist?

Yeah, at least from my understanding.

 

[Straw Dog]

I wonder if that's just a generalization. I imagine you are coming from a Christian pov and I'm not overly familiar with Christian doctrine outside what is commonly repeated over and over again on the threads here.

Christianity has a more apparent dogma, but most religious dogmas have the same subtle issues and lack technical description in my experience.

To me dogma refers to the core set of beliefs of a religion. So for instance:
G-d exists
does not seem abstract, vague or circular to me. In fact it seems a pretty straightforward statement. Maybe you mean how one concludes the dogma?

There seems to be no way to critically analyze this belief statement. It's incredibly abstract and vague. What is a technical description of God? How can such an existence be falsified? Dogmatic thinking just accepts the statement as straightforward. It seems to be more poetic than technical.

I am coming from the perspective that the individual's religion is actually a true representation of a god's will. Meaning as an insider, not an outsider. If you don't have a problem believing in a god and that he would somehow transmit the idea that he wanted a crusade (belief in god and transmission or revelation were not included on your list, so I assume you don't have a problem with those), then when an individual does go out on a crusade, we can determine that he is doing it for one of the two reasons I mentioned.

But you are looking at it from the perspective of an outsider. Even if Tom hated killing and threw up after every stab, you would still hold him responsible. But I think, the reason is not that you think killing is wrong, but that you think his (reason for doing it) religion is wrong. And because you think his religion is wrong, you think he should be held responsible.

I also have issues with justification via revelation and god-beliefs, but it still mostly ties into the top three. Where did you first learn about your notion of god? Of course, it was from your religion and, surprise, your religion is also a representation of that god's will. It's a circular justification.

As for Tom, I just believe that he should bare self-responsibility rather than being dogmatically obligated to an external authority. Yes, his reasons are poor and unjustified. I would encourage him to think for himself and stop being such a tool.

I'm not really sure what you meant by interface. I'm assuming something like a world-view. You're making a lot of generalizations here, that I'm not really sure what they are in response to.

So I'll put myself out on the table to get a clearer picture of what you're saying. I'm an ultra-Orthodox Jew. The whole nine yards. I don't see how my dogma is interrupting our conversation or twisting my interpretation of your words in such a way as to distort my reality. When I see a tree, it has a brown trunk, green leaves. I assume that when you see a tree, it has a brown trunk and green leaves. I'm not going to purposely run into it because I know it will hurt. I won't light it on fire, because I know it will burn. I assume that all these things are true for you too.

When I see a tree, I might also make a blessing on it, depending on the time of year and type of tree. I might try to think of parallels between man and trees. I might use its wood to build me a Booth (Tabernacle? I'm not sure what you guys call it in English). None of these things are distorting my perception of the tree. I still see a tree, but I also see a divine purpose that the tree might play. But those additions do not come at the expense of my natural perception of reality.

Fair enough. Let's get down to cases.

I'm not saying it disrupts immediate experience, but a god-believer may look at the tree and interpret it as being directly created by their deity rather than critically investigating and experimenting to learn more about how the tree naturally arose. Many ancients believed that lightning was directly created by their gods and their dogma prevented them from thinking about it any further to gain greater understanding. In this manner, dogmatic thinkers just assume that reality fits neatly inside their little religious/theological box rather than being much more complex, beyond all boxes, and worthy of in-depth exploration.

 

[Creature]

Dogma is about unthinkingly obeying orders instead of using one's critical faculties. To claim being dogmatic is somehow virtuous is to claim that the very essence of thinking - that is, using one's own mind - is a bad thing. This implicitly reinforces the idea that the individual's mind is somehow inferior to the 'mind' of the belief system issuing the dogma. Again, it puts the people adhering to the dogma in a position where they are disempowered and reactive, instead of empowered and creative.

 

[Straw Dog]

Dogma is about unthinkingly obeying orders instead of using one's critical faculties. To claim being dogmatic is somehow virtuous is to claim that the very essence of thinking - that is, using one's own mind - is a bad thing. This implicitly reinforces the idea that the individual's mind is somehow inferior to the 'mind' of the belief system issuing the dogma. Again, it puts the people adhering to the dogma in a position where they are disempowered and reactive, instead of empowered and creative.

Exactly, and it's not just religious beliefs, but many secular and political ideologies become dogmatic as well. The individual can be empowered with their own sense of self-responsibility, critical thinking, and direct experience. Instead, many give their personal power away to impersonal establishments.

My practice involves maintaining mindful curiosity and a love for learning. Of course, some knowledge becomes comfortable as it demonstrates its utility. However, I like to avoid becoming too fixed in my certainty as this opens the door for prejudice, which then leads to mental death. Some might say I'm being dogmatic about dogma, but I still think the criticisms put forth are justified. I can't maintain open-minded curiosity if I don't protect myself with an anti-dogma policy.

 

[George-ananda]

What use do I have for a spiritual teacher?

Well, I don't think I would know much about any subject if I had to invent the wheel from scratch.

You would be exceptional in my eyes, which is possible. What have you figured out on your own regarding spirituality?