Why is dogma bad?

[Rick O'Shez]

I tend to associate "dogma" with a dogmatic attitude, being opinionated, not being open, not seeing clearly.

 

[Laika]

Some traditions within the major world religions have teachings that could be described as dogmas. For our purposes here, let us define "dogma" as follows:

A set of ideas or beliefs that are taught as (and proclaimed as) truths by an authoritative body within a tradition. Followers of that same tradition are expected to accept these teachings, and in some cases it is expected that people outside of the tradition should accept these truths as well. ​

"Dogma" is a term that has developed negative connotations in some circles. It has come to be regarded as something bad. What I'm curious to explore is why this perception exists. What is it about dogma that you feel is bad? What about dogma might be good?

If there is some other understanding of the term "dogma" that you prefer to use, please include it in your response so we don't misunderstand your angle. I'd encourage thinking about the above framing, though - I deliberately left out some of the more judgmental elements you sometimes see in definitions of dogma to make those of us who have a reflexive "eew... dogma" reaction rethink our conclusions a little bit (and yes, I tend to be one of those).

Voted, "no, there is nothing wrong with it". We start out with preconceptions of the world and fit discoveries round them. This is why the same evidence can be interpreted in different ways because of different preconceptions.

Generally, those who oppose dogma do so because they insist everyone should think the same way because it is the "correct" way of doing so as the single path to truth...

...but that view is itself built on proconceptions or "dogmas" about the nature of the world and knowledge. I have not been convinced that any ideology or belief is "dogma-free" so thats why I'm ok with it.

 

[YmirGF]

I am more of a Catma person myself.

;-j

This reminds me of something a dear friend used to say many years ago, "My karma ran over my dogma."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm running the the definition in the OP, and voting that it's bad with (almost) no redeeming qualities.

I had to unlearn a lot of cultural baggage, and learn to question, in order for any of the dogma passed to me to be meaningful anyway.

 

[Augustus]

A set of ideas or beliefs that are taught as (and proclaimed as) truths by an authoritative body within a tradition. Followers of that same tradition are expected to accept these teachings, and in some cases it is expected that people outside of the tradition should accept these truths as well.

I've recently been re-reading Rationalism in Politics, a collection of essays by the philosopher Michael Oakeshott which is 50 odd years old but is still very relevant to contemporary situation.

I'm going to define dogma in the loosest sense of that definition, closer to accepted tradition than a literal and reified truth that must be accepted as objective fact imperceptible to time or circumstance.

To believe that dogma in this sense is always bad, is to accept the Rationalist view of society, described by Oakeshott as follows:

He believes, of course, in the open mind, the mind free from prejudice and its relic, habit. He believes that the unhindered human 'reason' (if only it can be brought to bear) is an infallible guide in political activity. Further, he believes in argument as the technique and operation of 'reason'; the truth of an opinion and the 'rational' ground (not the use) of an institution is all that matters to him. Consequently, much of his political activity consists in bringing the social, political, legal and institutional inheritance of his society before the tribunal of his intellect; and the rest is rational administration, 'reason' exercising an uncontrolled jurisdiction over the circumstances of the case. To the Rationalist, nothing is of value merely because it exists (and certainly not because it has existed for many generations), familiarity has no worth, and nothing is to be left standing for want of scrutiny...

He does not recognize change unless it is a self-consciously induced change, and consequently he falls easily into the error of identifying the customary and the traditional with the changeless. This is aptly illustrated by the rationalist attitude towards a tradition of ideas. There is, of course, no question either of retaining or improving such a tradition, for both these involve an attitude of submission. It must be destroyed. And to fill its place the Rationalist puts something of his own making - an ideology, the formalized abridgment of the supposed substratum of rational truth contained in the tradition.

To consider dogma as always being bad is the rejection of tradition and experience as being a legitimate form of knowledge. Knowledge, in this sense, is that simply which can be formulated and explained through 'rational' analysis.

I feel that this is myopic, and ultimately harmful.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Generally, those who oppose dogma do so because they insist everyone should think the same way because it is the "correct" way of doing so as the single path to truth...
...but that view is itself built on proconceptions or "dogmas" about the nature of the world and knowledge. I have not been convinced that any ideology or belief is "dogma-free" so thats why I'm ok with it.

I prefer approaches that encourage minimal dogma, or at least those that recognise dogmatism as problematic.

I see a distinction between working assumptions and dogmatic beliefs.

 

[RedDragon94]

A set of ideas or beliefs that are taught as (and proclaimed as) truths by an authoritative body within a tradition. Followers of that same tradition are expected to accept these teachings, and in some cases it is expected that people outside of the tradition should accept these truths as well.

Based on this definition, dogma is a bad thing because it limits people's ability to think about things outside the box. Religious groups who don't think outside the box never discover what truth is because that's what they believe and they cannot question it. Now, can a person arrive at some dogma philosophically? Probably. It depends on which group and what doctrine. For instance, the goddess and the god in Wicca is understandably philosophical because nature is both spiritual and physical. How do I know this?- Some form of supernatural energy had to have caused all this and at no point in nature do we see separation from the spiritual.

 

[Revoltingest]

A set of ideas or beliefs that are taught as (and proclaimed as) truths by an authoritative body within a tradition. Followers of that same tradition are expected to accept these teachings, and in some cases it is expected that people outside of the tradition should accept these truths as well. ​

Independent of whether a particular dogma is good or bad,
this blind approach to knowledge & values is the mind killer.
So I voted <bad, with no redeeming qualities>.
Of course, this doesn't mean the person with dogma is bad.
I just say it's not the best path.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

In general dogma is necessary for CIVILISATION

If you take the OP's definition of a set of compulsory beliefs set by an authority, then the Greeks and the Chinese did well enough in the civilisation department without dogma.

 

[MD]

If you take the OP's definition of a set of compulsory beliefs set by an authority, then the Greeks and the Chinese did well enough in the civilisation department without dogma.

Didn't the Chinese have a belief that they were meant to be the heavenly kingdom, the center of the earth?

And the Greeks, if I remember correctly, had their own set of dogmas.

 

[MD]

How so?

The Islamic empire initially started in Arabia. They expanded to the Persians first, who were politically collapsing but starting their own sort of scientific renaissance. It was the belief that Islam unites the world under one banner, which allowed for better administrative exchange of information and ideas, which is why the Golden Age happened. Had their been no Islam, the exchange of information would have been far slower and the renaissance may have never occurred or occurred a lot more slowly.

Before Islam, most the Middle East is kind of like it is today, warring factions being held together by a slowly collapsing Persian dynasty called the Sassanians. The Islamic dogma, their belief that they were the truth to unite the world, helped create a network of information exchange and increasing mercantilism that basically allowed their power to expand rapidly in the world. This power led to scientific growth and a flourishing of civilization. Their dogma led to better administration.

I can use similar arguments for Christianity, the Bolsheviks or American Imperialists. The Cold War got us to the moon due to the competitive nature between those who believed that USA is better than the Soviets due to American exceptionalism. After the collapse of the USSR, that dogma in the American exceptionalism waned and now our space exploration is at a lull. The belief in a socialist utopia is what catapulted Russia from a mostly peasant nation into a superpower within 2 generations.

Dogma serves a purpose for a while, which is that it acts like a catalyst for growth when used within reason. However like all catalysts, once it's used up the reaction slows down and sputters to a halt finally giving way to entropy.

 

[Spiderman]

With Religion, Dogma can be bad because there is no way of proving that it is right. God chooses to be invisible and Sacred texts are often filled with contradictions, so I get a bit sickened when people start telling people what they have to accept and believe to be "saved".

Everyone is going to have their interpretation of what the truth is and what their higher power has revealed to them. Where Dogma gets disgusting to me is when people start condemning those who embrace other Dogmas as being unsaved.

Since God chooses to be invisible and those who seek him repeatedly wind up with opposite conclusions, opposite understandings, and opposite revelations, I expect God to be understanding and lenient on judgement day, and not condemn anyone to eternal punishment for not believing the right Dogma.

People need to respect where other seekers with other Dogma's are on their journey. If God so badly wants them to believe different Dogma, then it is his duty and His responsibility to reveal it to them, not ours.

 

[Vinayaka]

I view dogma as neither good nor bad, more in line with eastern thinking of less duality in the sense of pairs of opposites. Certainly I've been accused of being dogmatic, but generally the accuser is unaware of how much effort, as a seeker, myself and others have put into seeking out a system that works for us. So if there is dogma, we chose it, as it aligned with intuition common sense, or some other predisposed notion of how to live, what the world is about, how we perceive it, and more.

OTOH, I've met people who are so opposed to dogma, as a catch-all term and phrase, that they don't realise their own sense of what's right or wrong is just as limiting as anyone else's because they can't get past certain notions, often incorrect ones, at that.

My atheist brother figures I'm stuck in some rigid archaic system of thinking, and can't get so far to ask me anything at all about my religion, because religion is bad, and dogma is bad. I would like him just once to understand anything, anything at all, about my faith. But that won't happen, because isn't curious enough about the world to want to know.

 

[Katzpur]

To me, dogma = doctrines = teachings = beliefs. It's just that the word "dogma" has the most rigid feel of the four words, while "beliefs" has the most relaxed feel. All of the Abrahamic religions have their dogmas. I see no problem with that unless they infringe on the rights of others.

Yeah, I'm intentionally quoting my own post here. I would be interested in hearing those posters who voted, "Yes, and it has no redeeming qualities at all," explain exactly what they think "dogma" means. Do you also believe the following have no redeeming qualities at all...

1. doctrines
2. teachings
3. beliefs

To me, these are all essentially the same, and the difference is just a matter of degree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some traditions within the major world religions have teachings that could be described as dogmas. For our purposes here, let us define "dogma" as follows:

A set of ideas or beliefs that are taught as (and proclaimed as) truths by an authoritative body within a tradition. Followers of that same tradition are expected to accept these teachings, and in some cases it is expected that people outside of the tradition should accept these truths as well. ​

"Dogma" is a term that has developed negative connotations in some circles. It has come to be regarded as something bad. What I'm curious to explore is why this perception exists. What is it about dogma that you feel is bad? What about dogma might be good?

IMO, dogma is generally bad because it's put forward as something that should be accepted as true based on the authority of the body teaching it, not necessarily because there's good reason to believe it.

This approach is problematic, even if some specific piece of dogma happens to be true, because it's teaching a faulty process: people who believe good things for bad reasons can be made to believe bad things for bad reasons, too.

Short version: dogma is bad because it bypasses a person's baloney detector.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, I'm intentionally quoting my own post here. I would be interested in hearing those posters who voted, "Yes, and it has no redeeming qualities at all," explain exactly what they think "dogma" means. Do you also believe the following have no redeeming qualities at all...

1. doctrines
2. teachings
3. beliefs

To me, these are all essentially the same, and the difference is just a matter of degree.

The difference for me:

- beliefs: something that you accept as true.
- teachings: something that was presented you by someone else for you to accept as true.
- doctrines: something that was presented you by someone else for you to accept as true on the strength of some authority or as a condition to belong to a group (usually a religious group).

 

[Tabu]

IMO, dogma is generally bad because it's put forward as something that should be accepted as true based on the authority of the body teaching it, not necessarily because there's good reason to believe it.

Like , for example, parents make certain rules for their children, and if children cannot find any good reason to believe in that , do you think it should be discarded as an authoritative dogma.

 

[Katzpur]

The difference for me:

- beliefs: something that you accept as true.
- teachings: something that was presented you by someone else for you to accept as true.
- doctrines: something that was presented you by someone else for you to accept as true on the strength of some authority or as a condition to belong to a group (usually a religious group).

Thanks. I should have included "dogma" in my list. Could you define it, too, please?

I basically agree with you, but I think that, to a certain extent -- and depending upon the context -- the words can be interchangeable. I guess that's why I don't understand the outright dislike of the concept of dogmas. (Maybe it's that we associate them with the word that has the same root: dogmatic.)

 

[savagewind]

Some traditions within the major world religions have teachings that could be described as dogmas. For our purposes here, let us define "dogma" as follows:

A set of ideas or beliefs that are taught as (and proclaimed as) truths by an authoritative body within a tradition. Followers of that same tradition are expected to accept these teachings, and in some cases it is expected that people outside of the tradition should accept these truths as well. ​

"Dogma" is a term that has developed negative connotations in some circles. It has come to be regarded as something bad. What I'm curious to explore is why this perception exists. What is it about dogma that you feel is bad? What about dogma might be good?

If there is some other understanding of the term "dogma" that you prefer to use, please include it in your response so we don't misunderstand your angle. I'd encourage thinking about the above framing, though - I deliberately left out some of the more judgmental elements you sometimes see in definitions of dogma to make those of us who have a reflexive "eew... dogma" reaction rethink our conclusions a little bit (and yes, I tend to be one of those).

I think that as a set of ideas dogma is not a bad thing, but as a set of beliefs, it is very bad.
I have observed people with their beliefs and it seems to me that the only way that some dogma can be refused by proving it wrong is by the person who has the belief. I think that their god or gods can't even do it. I trust that Proverbs 3:5 is a warning about dogmas.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Hope in Lord Jehovah from your whole heart and do not trust upon the wisdom of your soul.
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8172.htm

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like , for example, parents make certain rules for their children, and if children cannot find any good reason to believe in that , do you think it should be discarded as an authoritative dogma.

Weird inference from what I said, but if a parent's only reason to get their kids to do what they say is "because I said so", then they aren't teaching the kid to make good decisions on their own.