My new meta-debate hammer, anti-dogmatism

[Jimmy]

No, you are nothing but physical stuff happening. That "I" is an illusion and not real. You and I are nothing but mindless stuff happening and it is all physical. Learn The Truth.

This makes no sense whatsoever

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This makes no sense whatsoever

Yeah, stay away from the weird variants of physicalism.

 

[Callisto]

Sam forgot rock, paper, scissors.

I think sorting religious dogma/philosophical axioms would make Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock apropos (in honor of Vulcan philosophy of IDIC). LOL

 

[icehorse]

This is an improvement. I am anti-dogmatist as well. But I do identify with Hindu religion. So I would suggest that the claim that religious folks by definition are dogmatic is not correct. But yes, dogmatism is encountered frequently within religious people.

We're mostly on the same page. But I'm curious, in your opinion, what are the most problematic ideas or behaviors associated with Hinduism? Maybe the idea of castes?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We're mostly on the same page. But I'm curious, in your opinion, what are the most problematic ideas or behaviors associated with Hinduism? Maybe the idea of castes?

Can you do the same for your worldview? If you ask other people to be critical of their worldview, then I can ask the same of you. And you can do the same with me.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, long story short, I think we should all call out the dogmatists wherever and whenever we see them

People do try, but a dogmatic poster will to just deny it or not see it. Some people post like lobbyists, and you can't get them to admit anything is not what they are paid to promote. Calling them out is also not very workable on RF, since the rules aren't set up to reward truth. They are set up to reward politeness.

People in politics try to get others to complain in their stead, because there is almost always a cost to complaining. You become a target, and you get scrutinized. If you wait long enough someone else will do the criticizing for you. This is ancient wisdom: "Let someone else complain about it. Don't be the point man."

Another (from Proverbs) is ironic and a bit funny:

• [Pro 26:4-5 NIV] 4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

 

[sayak83]

We're mostly on the same page. But I'm curious, in your opinion, what are the most problematic ideas or behaviors associated with Hinduism? Maybe the idea of castes?

The list will be too long to recount. Caste based identification and discrimination is certainly on the top.

Originally (I can provide sources if given time) the idea was not caste, but Varna which was defined as intrinsic psychological types. It was also not based on birth but profession/behavioral tendency. The differentiation primarily mattered for education (for example a person training to be a soldier will have a different education compared to a person training to be a merchant) and associated family rituals. Today these things are of little relevance and somehow birth based discrimination based on caste had gained prominence from the late Middle Age onwards. So we need to, and are, attempting to eliminate this caste idea from Hinduism completely.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People do try, but a dogmatic poster will to just deny it or not see it. Some people post like lobbyists, and you can't get them to admit anything is not what they are paid to promote. Calling them out is also not very workable on RF, since the rules aren't set up to reward truth. They are set up to reward politeness.

People in politics try to get others to complain in their stead, because there is almost always a cost to complaining. You become a target, and you get scrutinized. If you wait long enough someone else will do the criticizing for you. This is ancient wisdom: "Let someone else complain about it. Don't be the point man."

Another (from Proverbs) is ironic and a bit funny:

• [Pro 26:4-5 NIV] 4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Well, yes, but since I am a fool to some people, as I am neuro diverse, I just taunt them with the fact that I have life even as a fool.

 

[Zwing]

For years my RF avatar read "anti-theist". That's still true for me, but I think a broader perspective is "anti-dogmatist".

There's a blindingly obvious truism that I first heard from Sam Harris. (AFAIK he does NOT claim to be the creator of this truism.):

"Humans have come up with two basic ways to settle disputes; talking it out, or violence."

As a general rule, when a person is behaving dogmatically, they are shutting down the possibility of "talking it out". So I'll claim that dogmatism often leads to violence.

Sam Harris is a master of stating the obvious.

You make a needed point. I, for instance, don’t consider myself antitheist, but simply atheist, However, the ridiculous a priori statements made by theists on the site often rile me up to the point where I, the simple atheist, feel compelled to make antitheistic (“anti-dogmatic”) pronouncements to counter them. It is unnerving. Problem is, I notice that they stick to the “Interfaith Discussion” fora, where you cannot engage with them thusly, and they can indulge their delusions freely.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The list will be too long to recount. Caste based identification and discrimination is certainly on the top.

Originally (I can provide sources if given time) the idea was not caste, but Varna which was defined as intrinsic psychological types. It was also not based on birth but profession/behavioral tendency. The differentiation primarily mattered for education (for example a person training to be a soldier will have a different education compared to a person training to be a merchant) and associated family rituals. Today these things are of little relevance and somehow birth based discrimination based on caste had gained prominence from the late Middle Age onwards. So we need to, and are, attempting to eliminate this caste idea from Hinduism completely.

The same can be said of rationality, critical thinking and skepticism as marks of a certain education in Western culture. They tend to have lost their original use in the common usage and have become in effect markers of: I am right and you are not.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well, yes, but since I am a fool to some people, as I am neuro diverse, I just taunt them with the fact that I have life even as a fool.

I don't consider you to be a fool. It is delicate to describe what is meant by 'Fool' in this passage, due to cultural differences. I suggest that in the context of Judaism morality is seen first of all as a balance, then as other things. It recognizes good and bad, but some ideals are unreachable. A wise person compromises to the degree necessary while trying to find ways to get closer to the ideal. Some people don't have any ideals at all, so they also are unwise in a different direction. Therefore you can be unwise and fall left (lack of character) or unwise and fall right (striving for ideals). An idealist might be a fool, or a wretch might be a fool. The problem with the fool is that they are out of balance and therefore vulnerable to catastrophe: a person who cannot be reached with wise words. A fool also is unable to change, so they cannot correct to gain the balance or learn from falling. It is like someone who is hooked on heroin or who can't stop lying or who won't believe that trickle down economics has failed. A buddhist might say it is someone who is stuck in Samsara. A wise person, on the other hand, is like a self-righting ship. If a storm knocks them over, they flip back up eventually. At least that is what I think the proverb refers to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't consider you to be a fool. It is delicate to describe what is meant by 'Fool' in this passage, due to cultural differences. I suggest that in the context of Judaism morality is seen first of all as a balance, then as other things. It recognizes good and bad, but some ideals are unreachable. A wise person compromises to the degree necessary while trying to find ways to get closer to the ideal. Some people don't have any ideals at all, so they also are unwise in a different direction. Therefore you can be unwise and fall left (lack of character) or unwise and fall right (striving for ideals). An idealist might be a fool, or a wretch might be a fool. The problem with the fool is that they are out of balance and therefore vulnerable to catastrophe: a person who cannot be reached with wise words. A fool also is unable to change, so they cannot correct to gain the balance or learn from falling. It is like someone who is hooked on heroin or who can't stop lying or who won't believe that trickle down economics has failed. A buddhist might say it is someone who is stuck in Samsara. A wise person, on the other hand, is like a self-righting ship. If a storm knocks them over, they flip back up eventually. At least that is what I think the proverb refers to.

Good post. Well written.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A fool also is unable to change, so they cannot correct to gain the balance or learn from falling.

That's a good definition of foolishness.

It's also characteristic of dogmatic thought, which is refractory to evidence. The words wisdom and foolishness are bandied about by the faithful who don't seem to have a clear idea of what makes one idea wisdom and another foolishness better than wisdom is whatever is found in holy books and foolishness whatever contradicts them. My definitions of those words are based in what harm or benefit such ideas lead to.

Learning begins with how the world works, how to anticipate it, and in so doing, how to modulate the palette of affective experiences in a way that maximizes the euphoric colors (pleasant experiences) and minimizes the dysphoric ones. The rules that we discover that accomplish that, which come after a period of trial-and-error - can be called wisdom. And the ideas that do the opposite but are retained anyway, as your comment suggests, can becalled foolishness.

My only point in this thread was to say Scientism/Materialism (or whatever imperfect term) can be held dogmatically by some and is something to resist.

Materialism in these discussions is usually a euphemism for empiricism without soft or magical thinking, and scientism is a euphemism for that being myopic. These are words that people who wish to freely speculate and call their musings truth use to attempt to marginalize those who reject unfalsifiable claims as answers, knowledge, or truth.

Translation of "You respect science too much" is "You don't respect faith enough."

It is impossible to make a mistake trusting only empirical "truth," and there is no harm in believing that science will answer all questions eventually even if that belief is incorrect as it almost surely is. The trouble begins if one accepts these criticisms and begins believing without sufficient empiric support. Let's call that attitude religionism ("You trust faith too much"), or the belief that faith can answer any questions at all.

Science types like to hold religions as being dogmatic, but I think sometimes they cannot see it in themselves.

Science is not dogmatic. Religion is.

Scientific "truths" are demonstrably correct ideas belief in which is commensurate with the quantity and quality of relevant evidence and is tentative, that is, amenable to revision following the identification of new evidence suggesting that a belief is more or less likely to be correct than before.

Religious "truths" are unfalsifiable claims ("not even wrong") that are presented as certain truth beyond questioning, which is what dogma is. Where science adjusts its views based on what's observed, faith bypasses the evidence part and is uninterested in contradictory evidence.

You've probably seen this: "Science asks questions that may never be answered. Religion insists on answers that may never be questioned."

 

[George-ananda]

Materialism in these discussions is usually a euphemism for empiricism without soft or magical thinking, and scientism is a euphemism for that being myopic. These are words that people who wish to freely speculate and call their musings truth use to attempt to marginalize those who reject unfalsifiable claims as answers, knowledge, or truth.

Translation of "You respect science too much" is "You don't respect faith enough."

It is impossible to make a mistake trusting only empirical "truth," and there is no harm in believing that science will answer all questions eventually even if that belief is incorrect as it almost surely is. The trouble begins if one accepts these criticisms and begins believing without sufficient empiric support. Let's call that attitude religionism ("You trust faith too much"), or the belief that faith can answer any questions at all.

Science is not dogmatic. Religion is.

Scientific "truths" are demonstrably correct ideas belief in which is commensurate with the quantity and quality of relevant evidence and is tentative, that is, amenable to revision following the identification of new evidence suggesting that a belief is more or less likely to be correct than before.

Religious "truths" are unfalsifiable claims ("not even wrong") that are presented as certain truth beyond questioning, which is what dogma is. Where science adjusts its views based on what's observed, faith bypasses the evidence part and is uninterested in contradictory evidence.

You've probably seen this: "Science asks questions that may never be answered. Religion insists on answers that may never be questioned."

Science people can be seen as dogmatic then in their adherence to 'empiricism'. Other psychic/clairvoyant ways of getting knowledge are not respected. Now, you might personally argue that dogmatic adherence to 'empiricism' is a good thing while I might argue it impoverishes us as to what can be known (as I believe such powers in the more advanced are real and to be given due consideration).

If your only interest is in science, then 'empiricism' may be fine for you. I am interested in what is 'all things considered most reasonable' to believe also.

 

[icehorse]

The list will be too long to recount. Caste based identification and discrimination is certainly on the top.

Originally (I can provide sources if given time) the idea was not caste, but Varna which was defined as intrinsic psychological types. It was also not based on birth but profession/behavioral tendency. The differentiation primarily mattered for education (for example a person training to be a soldier will have a different education compared to a person training to be a merchant) and associated family rituals. Today these things are of little relevance and somehow birth based discrimination based on caste had gained prominence from the late Middle Age onwards. So we need to, and are, attempting to eliminate this caste idea from Hinduism completely.

I might be mis-recalling, but I thought I'd earlier inferred from your post that perhaps Hinduism was relatively dogma-free? This last post of yours seems to indicate that there might well be some dogmatism in Hinduism that could be weeded out?

 

[sayak83]

I might be mis-recalling, but I thought I'd earlier inferred from your post that perhaps Hinduism was relatively dogma-free? This last post of yours seems to indicate that there might well be some dogmatism in Hinduism that could be weeded out?

I said that myself, and many Hindus (and many people of other faiths too no doubt) legitimately pursue their religion undogmatically. Hence religion is not necessarily dogmatic. But many people do pursue Hinduism dogmatically as well.

 

[wellwisher]

"Humans have come up with two basic ways to settle disputes; talking it out, or violence."

There is a several new ways that Liberalism has developed, to end discussions. The first is to feign emotional distress and melt down to anything that contradicts its dogma or orthodoxy, so the discussion has to end, or you will be called hateful, phobic or heartless. If that does not work, they will hound Big Mama, who will step in and end the discussion.

The other way is to commandeer language and then use the induced language ambiguity to define and defend the dogmatic orthodoxy, making it easier to censor anything that can be used by the opponent. Twitter used this strategy until recently. If this does not work, use the emotional meltdown strategy to disarm opponents. These are all tells for dogma, since there is no rational defense, only irrational or gaming tactics. Freedom of speech and dogma do not go together. Freedom of speech is mobile while dogma is stuck in a circle, like on a leash.

Dogma are not always bad, since some dogma are like bottom line approaches to knowledge. Dogma may have been previously analyzed and reasoned by you or others, and then reduced to something easy to remember; memory peg.

When I first entered college, I would try to prove things that I learned, rather than just take the word of others; Professors. This was very time consuming and in the end it often led me to where I was being led by the professors. I saw the pattern and changed strategy, to save time. I learned to accept things based on what I felt was the careful analysis by others who knew their subject. Bottom line dogmatic memory pegs, once had good arguments, and I figured I may not always remember them. However, from the peg, I could re-develop or improvise as I needed since it was mapped out before.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is a several new ways that Liberalism has developed, to end discussions. The first is to feign emotional distress and melt down to anything that contradicts its dogma or orthodoxy, so the discussion has to end, or you will be called hateful, phobic or heartless. If that does not work, they will hound Big Mama, who will step in and end the discussion.

The other way is to commandeer language and then use the induced language ambiguity to define and defend the dogmatic orthodoxy, making it easier to censor anything that can be used by the opponent. Twitter used this strategy until recently. If this does not work, use the emotional meltdown strategy to disarm opponents. These are all tells for dogma, since there is no rational defense, only irrational or gaming tactics. Freedom of speech and dogma do not go together. Freedom of speech is mobile while dogma is stuck in a circle, like on a leash.

Dogma are not always bad, since some dogma are like bottom line approaches to knowledge. Dogma may have been previously analyzed and reasoned by you or others, and then reduced to something easy to remember; memory peg.

When I first entered college, I would try to prove things that I learned, rather than just take the word of others; Professors. This was very time consuming and in the end it often led me to where I was being led by the professors. I saw the pattern and changed strategy, to save time. I learned to accept things based on what I felt was the careful analysis by others who knew their subject. Bottom line dogmatic memory pegs, once had good arguments, and I figured I may not always remember them. However, from the peg, I could re-develop or improvise as I needed since it was mapped out before.

Yeah, now learn to do that on your own position and you will become a centrist. But, no, there is only Right and Wrong, right?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There is a several new ways that Liberalism has developed, to end discussions. The first is to feign emotional distress and melt down to anything that contradicts its dogma or orthodoxy, so the discussion has to end, or you will be called hateful, phobic or heartless. If that does not work, they will hound Big Mama, who will step in and end the discussion.

The other way is to commandeer language and then use the induced language ambiguity to define and defend the dogmatic orthodoxy, making it easier to censor anything that can be used by the opponent. Twitter used this strategy until recently. If this does not work, use the emotional meltdown strategy to disarm opponents. These are all tells for dogma, since there is no rational defense, only irrational or gaming tactics. Freedom of speech and dogma do not go together. Freedom of speech is mobile while dogma is stuck in a circle, like on a leash.

Dogma are not always bad, since some dogma are like bottom line approaches to knowledge. Dogma may have been previously analyzed and reasoned by you or others, and then reduced to something easy to remember; memory peg.

When I first entered college, I would try to prove things that I learned, rather than just take the word of others; Professors. This was very time consuming and in the end it often led me to where I was being led by the professors. I saw the pattern and changed strategy, to save time. I learned to accept things based on what I felt was the careful analysis by others who knew their subject. Bottom line dogmatic memory pegs, once had good arguments, and I figured I may not always remember them. However, from the peg, I could re-develop or improvise as I needed since it was mapped out before.

I agree with you about the worst aspects of modern leftism (I struggle to think of it as 'Liberalism').
I'm just not sure why that particular line of thought wouldn't lead you to more disappointment with the modern American right.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree with you about the worst aspects of modern leftism (I struggle to think of it as 'Liberalism').
I'm just not sure why that particular line of thought wouldn't lead you to more disappointment with the modern American right.

As an over-reduction the Left is freedom is that society is responsible for how my life is versus the Right as there is no society and I need to be left alone for how I do my life as that is freedom.
They then both want norms and laws that support that view. And yeah, that is too simple yet a part of it.