Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
/thread
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
We're all (mostly) dogmatic... Only few admit it while others call it faith or science.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
S'why we need to learn what Truth is. Yes, people can believe what they want and whatever makes them fee good. But if it doesn't match with the Truth, it's wrong, even if you and billions all believe it for all their lives. "Even if you are a minority of one (or none), the truth is the truth."--Gandhi
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Agree...
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes dogma belongs to those who are afraid, they are not truly sure if their beliefs are right or wrong, so by clinging to their beliefs they feel better, but don't ever tell them their wrong, or all hell breaks out lol.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
But it was started to generate fear in others by demagogues.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Mmm, don't quite understand what your getting at, sorry.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Dogma was invented to instill that fear by religious control freaks. It's the oldest and most primitive source of power.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I see, and so true, I think the early Christians were called the Rabble, that being the ignorant that believed in whatever told to them, just the way they wanted it.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Ah. I read the entire thread...and I still haven't quite figured out what the point is. I'm not certain, but the OP SEEMED to be saying that scientists who base their beliefs and perceptions about the world can be as dogmatic about those ideas as anybody else.
I may be wrong about the idea of the OP, but heck, I haven't been able to pin down anything IN this thread since I opened it up, so I'm going to make my own observations about what I think might be the basic idea. Or maybe it isn't.
Whatever.
IF that is what the OP is going for, I agree. If not, he'll have to explain further. However, it seems pretty obvious to me that human beings, being cantankerous and obstinate, get ideas in their heads and hold to them come hell or high water, and it doesn't make any difference what those ideas are based upon.
On one hand, none of us KNOW much of anything. I, for instance, don't know if the sun is shining right now. I know that it was shining eight minutes ago, but it COULD have begun expanding into a red giant four minutes ago and none of us will know anything about it for another four minutes. Knowledge and belief are two very different things.
So it seems to me that the argument here is being conflated; The OP (or at least I am, if I have the OP wrong) is arguing human response to evidence, and everybody else is arguing about the quality of the evidence.
In my rambling way, I guess I'm attempting to say that dogmatism is not the sole purview of the religious, and I'm sorry, but most of us learn about science and other things exactly the same way we learn about our religions and cultures: someone we trusts tells us stuff. WE, personally, don't generally go out and 'validate' the information, whether objectively scientific or subjectively religious. We trust our teachers, and accept what they tell us is true.
For instance: I have never personally verified that lava coming from Mt. Kilauea is hot and will burn me. However, my aunt has done precisely that and I believe her. I have never personally verified that men landed on the moon, but I've met most of the astronauts and seen more stuff surrounding that mission than most people have, and I believe it. I have never personally verified the height of Mt. Everest, the depth of the Marianas deep, or seen a sperm cell combine with an ovum to conceive a baby anything. However, I trust the information about these things given to me by those I trust.
I believe a great deal of my religion for the same reason.
"Evidence" is all very nice...for those of us who actually LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. The rest of us end up believing stuff because people we trust tell us.
.................................and sometimes they are wrong.
.................................and sometimes they become so wedded to their own pet ideas that they won't look at opposing evidence.
OK, 'nuff rambling.
My two cents:
The opposite of dogmatic is agnostic. I'm not using the term here in a religious context.
Science is by definition agnostic. It posits that we cannot with ANY confidence say that something is true or fact without evidence... One of the synonyms for dogmatic is "unyielding". That is the exact polar opposite of what science is all about.
Since agnosticism is defined: And it never "yields" from this said definition, a seriously semantic minded person could say that agnosticism(again, not using the term in a religious context) is dogmatic because it does conform to a definition...
But this is such semantics that it has no bearing on any intelligent discussion. Because it would mean the opposite of dogmatic is still dogmatic; therefore everything is dogmatic.
In the end: This whole thing is ONLY a matter of language: Therefore completely and utterly pointless.
/E: This might be of interest to people here: Language itself is dogmatic. When we use it, we use rigid rules accepted by common consensus... A definition is... By definition... Dogmatic. It would do well for people to understand that when you claim that "science is dogmatic", the ONLY points you could bring up to defend the claim are about language... Which should point out to you how shaky your foundations REALLY are.
But like i said, this discussion is completely pointless. Using semantics to argue a non-semantic point NEVER works. Never ever.
The opposite of dogmatic is agnostic. I'm not using the term here in a religious context.
Science is by definition agnostic. It posits that we cannot with ANY confidence say that something is true or fact without evidence... One of the synonyms for dogmatic is "unyielding". That is the exact polar opposite of what science is all about.
Since agnosticism is defined: And it never "yields" from this said definition, a seriously semantic minded person could say that agnosticism(again, not using the term in a religious context) is dogmatic because it does conform to a definition...
But this is such semantics that it has no bearing on any intelligent discussion. Because it would mean the opposite of dogmatic is still dogmatic; therefore everything is dogmatic.
In the end: This whole thing is ONLY a matter of language: Therefore completely and utterly pointless.
/E: This might be of interest to people here: Language itself is dogmatic. When we use it, we use rigid rules accepted by common consensus... A definition is... By definition... Dogmatic. It would do well for people to understand that when you claim that "science is dogmatic", the ONLY points you could bring up to defend the claim are about language... Which should point out to you how shaky your foundations REALLY are.
But like i said, this discussion is completely pointless. Using semantics to argue a non-semantic point NEVER works. Never ever.
Last edited:
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes interesting, I myself think that if something is a fact, then it cannot really be dogmatic, because its a fact of life, its when we believe we have a fact that cannot be proven, that we get tied up in dogma. Much of science can be proven so therefore how can it be a dogma ?.
Dogmatic
adjective
1.
relating to or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas or any strong set of principles concerning faith, morals, etc., as those laid down by a church; doctrinal:
We hear dogmatic arguments from both sides of the political spectrum.
2.
asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated:
I refuse to argue with someone so dogmatic that he won't listen to reason.
Dogma is for the spiritual truths religions can't agree upon, that comes from authorities not to be questioned. Truths that are pretty much agreed upon yet can change, like the majority of science would not be considered dogma. The term is really for matters of opinion not testable things.
Science is an ally for LGBT fighting a world of superstition.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Facts are not dogma. Facts (supposing that they ARE 'facts;' it's amazing how many 'proven facts' out there aren't. Proven, that is) are items of evidence upon which theories are founded. A scientific theory is an explanation that explains facts and other items in evidence in a (hopefully) coherent, usable and reasonable way. Theories are not dogmatic. Only people can be. "Dogmatic' is about how someone views evidence and theories, not the evidence itself.
.............and I've met more than one dogmatic scientist in my time.
I mean....look at your own definition:
Scientific theories are only dogma if the believers in them refuse to accept any more evidence that might alter their thinking. That's a characteristic of the scientist, not the science.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
With all due respect, what the heck has LGBT got to do with anything?
.........except that among the folks I've met who are about as dogmatic as possible, I would include a few lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender folks in there. Whew. There's this one guy I remember, who couldn't talk about training a puppy not to pee on the carpet without inserting gay rights rants.
The puppy didn't give a hoot, and neither did I.
Adding my 2 cents, for the fun of it.
And evidence is based ultimately on faith.
So, instead of 5, we have more. But the original point was:
The senses connected with the mind are our wires of perception.
Where is the evidence that the physical senses exist independent of the mind?
This in response to:
in most cases, our sensory organs makes up our version of truth.
Mathematics or history (or most other mental constructs) would be outside of "most cases."
Without perception of a physical world/self, of what use is mathematics, or history (to the sciences)?
And yet, with (some/much of) science, self-limit the use of logic and rationality to what is observable via perception, which again rests on a hypothesis that the physical world exists, but is based on a) circular reasoning or b) faith (that what the senses sense is independent of the mind).
IMO, this sentence here is getting at heart of this thread, as I understand it.
The recommendation to 'look' into research, means using physical perception to observe the research. That's a seemingly small step, but is relying on evidence that ultimately rests on faith (or circular reasoning). So, there's that.
Then, there's the idea of accepting what research is saying as 'evidence' or 'factual' without doing the same steps as researchers did. In all instances where that is done, it is taking research findings on trust/faith. If then espousing that these things are true for any/all others, without a) having done the research / steps one's self and/or b) others having done this, but assuming it has to be true for them - that amounts to dogmatic rhetoric.
Faith is complete trust or confidence in something, according to primary definition in the dictionary.
But going with the other version, one wonders what is the exact evidence that a physical world exists, that is actually utilizing logic, and not relying on circular reasoning (assumption) to establish the probability that it exists (objectively)?
I submit it rests on faith - of the primary definition variety, and the secondary definition - belief without (actual) evidence.
All this just substantiated the point that was raised. That being:
Years of experience is a plus point in scientific researches but not if that person speaks something that isn't accepted in the norms of majority.
"Research and review" would be the 'experience' part that is a plus point. Darwin saying it, while presumably knowing it, is not enough for scientists - thus isn't accepted in the norms of the majority.
Yet, anyone who comes after Darwin, and does not take same steps (of experimentation), but presumes to 'know / understand it' would not have the experience (Darwin had). They instead would rely on inference to arrive at position of (maintained) skepticism or agreement. If in agreement, and espousing it as factual evidence, that would be the stuff dogma is made of.
But if going with experience of steps Darwin took (even by Darwin himself), then some assumptions need to be accepted. Those deal with the existential considerations that are brought up in OP, and are again, resting on faith (full confidence that something is true - i.e. that what physical senses perceive, exists, objectively).
Sounds pretty when you say it. But would translate into saying unless you have yourself done the experimentation, you ought not to put faith in science, and maintain doubt/skepticism. All of you, without exception.
And even if you have done the experimentation, you might want to be abundantly clear on what your 'evidence' is founded on. Does it rest at all on physical senses/perception. If it does, at all, you might wish to check such assertions at the door of existential faith before proceeding into the domain of factual considerations.
And evidence is based ultimately on faith.
So, instead of 5, we have more. But the original point was:
The senses connected with the mind are our wires of perception.
Where is the evidence that the physical senses exist independent of the mind?
This in response to:
in most cases, our sensory organs makes up our version of truth.
Mathematics or history (or most other mental constructs) would be outside of "most cases."
Without perception of a physical world/self, of what use is mathematics, or history (to the sciences)?
And yet, with (some/much of) science, self-limit the use of logic and rationality to what is observable via perception, which again rests on a hypothesis that the physical world exists, but is based on a) circular reasoning or b) faith (that what the senses sense is independent of the mind).
IMO, this sentence here is getting at heart of this thread, as I understand it.
The recommendation to 'look' into research, means using physical perception to observe the research. That's a seemingly small step, but is relying on evidence that ultimately rests on faith (or circular reasoning). So, there's that.
Then, there's the idea of accepting what research is saying as 'evidence' or 'factual' without doing the same steps as researchers did. In all instances where that is done, it is taking research findings on trust/faith. If then espousing that these things are true for any/all others, without a) having done the research / steps one's self and/or b) others having done this, but assuming it has to be true for them - that amounts to dogmatic rhetoric.
Faith is complete trust or confidence in something, according to primary definition in the dictionary.
But going with the other version, one wonders what is the exact evidence that a physical world exists, that is actually utilizing logic, and not relying on circular reasoning (assumption) to establish the probability that it exists (objectively)?
I submit it rests on faith - of the primary definition variety, and the secondary definition - belief without (actual) evidence.
All this just substantiated the point that was raised. That being:
Years of experience is a plus point in scientific researches but not if that person speaks something that isn't accepted in the norms of majority.
"Research and review" would be the 'experience' part that is a plus point. Darwin saying it, while presumably knowing it, is not enough for scientists - thus isn't accepted in the norms of the majority.
Yet, anyone who comes after Darwin, and does not take same steps (of experimentation), but presumes to 'know / understand it' would not have the experience (Darwin had). They instead would rely on inference to arrive at position of (maintained) skepticism or agreement. If in agreement, and espousing it as factual evidence, that would be the stuff dogma is made of.
But if going with experience of steps Darwin took (even by Darwin himself), then some assumptions need to be accepted. Those deal with the existential considerations that are brought up in OP, and are again, resting on faith (full confidence that something is true - i.e. that what physical senses perceive, exists, objectively).
Sounds pretty when you say it. But would translate into saying unless you have yourself done the experimentation, you ought not to put faith in science, and maintain doubt/skepticism. All of you, without exception.
And even if you have done the experimentation, you might want to be abundantly clear on what your 'evidence' is founded on. Does it rest at all on physical senses/perception. If it does, at all, you might wish to check such assertions at the door of existential faith before proceeding into the domain of factual considerations.
gnostic
The Lost One
You are trying to redefine what is "faith" and what is "evidence" and trying to mix them together.
Faith is no better than one's biased opinion, opinion that's unsubstantiated. It doesn't required a person to be educated or intelligent to have strong faith, because faith is blind and very subjective.
Luckiest you said later, acim, that faith is having "complete trust or confidence in something", which required no evidence; acceptance through faith just based on someone's judgement call.
But how does one judge that what he has complete faith in, is right and not wrong, without verification (evidence).
For instance, say you are a Christian (I am not saying that you are a Christian, this is just an example about faith) at a park, and that you have strong faith in Jesus' teachings in the gospels and other teachings in the NT (epistles, Acts, Revelation).
You meet another guy, who have strong faith in the Tanakh, but don't believe in Jesus, his miracles or claim of being a "messiah", the gospels and resurrection.
Then you and the Jew meet a Hindu at the park, who have strong faith in Vishu, and the teachings of dharma from Krishna. And then a 4th guy turn up at the park, and he worshipped Zeus, Apollo and Athena.
So you have 4 guys with strong faith, and each person worship their own deity or deities. But each person don't believe in the other person's religion or god(s).
So how would anyone determine which God or religion is right, and everyone else are wrong?
You being a Christian (again, the example or hypothetical "you"), would naturally believe that yours is in the right. Your faith is actually governed by what you have being taught to believe, so you would think others are wrong. That would be your "defence mechanism", your "bias" and your "ego" talking, and it very subjective, and the others will feel the same as you do.
There is no way to determine whose faith is the right, because it is all based on personal belief and faith and on self-justification. That's why faith is blind.
Faith is like opinion, anyone can have an opinion, but that can only by justified through one's conviction, requiring no evidences to support his decision of acceptance. Faith is based on what one "wishes" to be true.
Evidences, on the other hand, is used to determine what is real or not real, what is right or not right, independent of one's personal belief, bias or ego.
Last edited:
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes there is truth in what you said, but when it comes to religion, then there is no truth, no facts. nothing.Facts are not dogma. Facts (supposing that they ARE 'facts;' it's amazing how many 'proven facts' out there aren't. Proven, that is) are items of evidence upon which theories are founded. A scientific theory is an explanation that explains facts and other items in evidence in a (hopefully) coherent, usable and reasonable way. Theories are not dogmatic. Only people can be. "Dogmatic' is about how someone views evidence and theories, not the evidence itself.
.............and I've met more than one dogmatic scientist in my time.
I mean....look at your own definition:
Scientific theories are only dogma if the believers in them refuse to accept any more evidence that might alter their thinking. That's a characteristic of the scientist, not the science.
You are speaking as if I'm making up a definition of faith. I'm using primary definition of faith from the dictionary. As I type this post to you, I have high degree of confidence in the physical existence of my physical self and keyboard (plus about 9000 other corresponding phenomenon). I don't hide that confidence. But I also don't see the rationale that says I have objective evidence in showing myself (or anyone) that it is existing outside of my perception. Perception (coupled with existential assumptions) equates to the fundamental faith (for physical existence).
Doesn't mean reason / logic ceases to exist.
This is setting up a whole bunch of straw men. Glad to go through and present options within the hypothetical that reason might allow into a debate regarding "how might a theist handle this particular point within the overall situation."
Going with soundbite version, I wouldn't usually or generally assume that another's understanding and beliefs about a deity are wrong. Given the way hypothetical is written, I don't even get how I'd deduce that the other 3 are theistic.
I don't really see faith as being about righteousness. At some level of debate, I'm sure that would come up. At the fundamental level (dealing with existential considerations), I don't see it as 'right' or 'wrong.' More like 'works' and 'doesn't work so well - but still works in a sense.' Like I can have complete trust/confidence in the physical phenomenon that sure as heck appears to be real within my night dreams. And where faith does very much work in a sense. But from a more wakeful (more aware) mindset, I would say it doesn't work so well. When I was agnostic, I found what I had faith in worked, just not so well.
Yep. Best wishes in establishing that as actually existing/real without using mental constructs or perception (influenced by personal belief, bias and ego).
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Uh....hmmn. How can I write this...
Your opinion regarding what the religious find to be compelling evidence is certainly your opinion and you have a right to it. However you don't get to declare your opinion as if it were established fact and have the rest of us accept it as such.
Now me, being a theist and all, find that there is plenty of truth, facts and 'something' upon which to base my belief and prompt the exercise of faith. YOU might not accept that evidence and truth, but that's...er...not my problem.
(grin) On the other hand, I certainly don't expect you to accept my pronouncement that there's not only a God, but that He is what I believe Him to be with any more acceptance than I give your statement that there isn't.
Fair is fair.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes my opinion does seem to be a fact, but there is no proof of a god, so why isn't it a fact at this moment in life, when a god can be proven, then my fact is no longer a fact, can you see that ?.