Religion isn't what I hate most, or even theism as such. Indeed, there are some forms of religion (specifically deism) with which I have very little problem at all.
So, what is my problem? My problem is with dogma. With the belief that it is acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without good evidence or without good reasons for believing those propositions to be true.
The forms those dogmatically believed propositions can take are potentially infinite. One might dogmatically believe in the historical inevitability of a communist utopia, under which the State will wither away, after a brief but necessary period of a dictatorship of the proletariat. One might dogmatically believe in the existence of something called the Aryan race, in its inherent superiority to all other races, and in the inherent inferiority and perfidy of the Jewish race. One might dogmatically believe that the Creator of the universe called one's religion to convert the world or take it by force through holy war, that death in the defence of (or attempt to reconquer) lands so acquired is the greatest of all actions, and that such martyrs will go to paradise after they die to be attended by 72 virgin brides and joined in due course be all their family and loved-ones. Or one might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe condemns contraception as a mortal sin.
What all four of these beliefs have in common is that there is very little or no evidence for them and that there is much good evidence against them. Yet all four beliefs have at times been passionately, ardently believed and acted upon by otherwise rational, sane and educated people, often resulting in those same people performing some of the most irrational, insane and barbaric acts imaginable.
Thankfully, fascist, Nazi and Communist dogmas have been so discredited that almost no one believes them any more. That is a development to be celebrated. But as the events of New York and Washington DC and Bali and Madrid and London demonstrate; as demonstrated by the genocidally stupid anti-contraceptive policies of the Catholic church in Africa and the homicidally stupid stem-cell policies of Christian churches here in the US ; religious dogmas are alive and kicking and at work in the world.
Reason and evidence and empiricism and science and liberal democracy, in short, the forces of the Enlightenment, have destroyed Communist and Fascist dogmas. Now it is time to do the same to the dogmas of religious faith.
Full Version: Dogma is bad for you
QUOTE (Wootloops @ Jun 19 2008, 07:09 PM) 
Religion isn't what I hate most, or even theism as such. Indeed, there are some forms of religion (specifically deism) with which I have very little problem at all.
So, what is my problem? My problem is with dogma. With the belief that it is acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without good evidence or without good reasons for believing those propositions to be true.
The forms those dogmatically believed propositions can take are potentially infinite. One might dogmatically believe in the historical inevitability of a communist utopia, under which the State will wither away, after a brief but necessary period of a dictatorship of the proletariat. One might dogmatically believe in the existence of something called the Aryan race, in its inherent superiority to all other races, and in the inherent inferiority and perfidy of the Jewish race. One might dogmatically believe that the Creator of the universe called one's religion to convert the world or take it by force through holy war, that death in the defence of (or attempt to reconquer) lands so acquired is the greatest of all actions, and that such martyrs will go to paradise after they die to be attended by 72 virgin brides and joined in due course be all their family and loved-ones. Or one might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe condemns contraception as a mortal sin.
What all four of these beliefs have in common is that there is very little or no evidence for them and that there is much good evidence against them. Yet all four beliefs have at times been passionately, ardently believed and acted upon by otherwise rational, sane and educated people, often resulting in those same people performing some of the most irrational, insane and barbaric acts imaginable.
Thankfully, fascist, Nazi and Communist dogmas have been so discredited that almost no one believes them any more. That is a development to be celebrated. But as the events of New York and Washington DC and Bali and Madrid and London demonstrate; as demonstrated by the genocidally stupid anti-contraceptive policies of the Catholic church in Africa and the homicidally stupid stem-cell policies of Christian churches here in the US ; religious dogmas are alive and kicking and at work in the world.
Reason and evidence and empiricism and science and liberal democracy, in short, the forces of the Enlightenment, have destroyed Communist and Fascist dogmas. Now it is time to do the same to the dogmas of religious faith.
So, what is my problem? My problem is with dogma. With the belief that it is acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without good evidence or without good reasons for believing those propositions to be true.
The forms those dogmatically believed propositions can take are potentially infinite. One might dogmatically believe in the historical inevitability of a communist utopia, under which the State will wither away, after a brief but necessary period of a dictatorship of the proletariat. One might dogmatically believe in the existence of something called the Aryan race, in its inherent superiority to all other races, and in the inherent inferiority and perfidy of the Jewish race. One might dogmatically believe that the Creator of the universe called one's religion to convert the world or take it by force through holy war, that death in the defence of (or attempt to reconquer) lands so acquired is the greatest of all actions, and that such martyrs will go to paradise after they die to be attended by 72 virgin brides and joined in due course be all their family and loved-ones. Or one might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe condemns contraception as a mortal sin.
What all four of these beliefs have in common is that there is very little or no evidence for them and that there is much good evidence against them. Yet all four beliefs have at times been passionately, ardently believed and acted upon by otherwise rational, sane and educated people, often resulting in those same people performing some of the most irrational, insane and barbaric acts imaginable.
Thankfully, fascist, Nazi and Communist dogmas have been so discredited that almost no one believes them any more. That is a development to be celebrated. But as the events of New York and Washington DC and Bali and Madrid and London demonstrate; as demonstrated by the genocidally stupid anti-contraceptive policies of the Catholic church in Africa and the homicidally stupid stem-cell policies of Christian churches here in the US ; religious dogmas are alive and kicking and at work in the world.
Reason and evidence and empiricism and science and liberal democracy, in short, the forces of the Enlightenment, have destroyed Communist and Fascist dogmas. Now it is time to do the same to the dogmas of religious faith.
Salaam (Peace)
As a practicing Muslim, I have always considered myself dogmatic, but I do not identify with what you are denouncing. To me what you are describing is extremism, and radicalism. "Reason" ('Aql) and "Evidence" (Daleel) are both essential elements of Islam, which is why we don't have over 1 billion suicide bombers in the world. Islam has been of great benefit to me and my family, and I'm sure many other people of "dogmatic" faiths would say the same, all without being unreasonable extremists set upon world domination.
One could also say that some people dogmatically believe that Science can answer everything in life and that nothing exists that science won't eventually find a scientific explanation for.
One mans dogma may be another mans sincerely held belief. Personally I'm torn on the stem cell research, Obviously, embryonic stem cell research has the potential for great things. Our societies kill a very high percentage of unborn children and flush them away. Given that, why not make good use of the embryos for research.
And yet the ethical proposition i hold, perhaps most strongly of all my ethical positions, is that every child conceived, has the right to live out a full life, except where it puts its mothers life at risk, or where it is too abnormal to be able to exist independently.
In the end, i have to go with that fundamental ethical position, because i believe that true good cannot come from something basically wrong.
We will have to to the best we can with adult stem cells, which looks like being a pretty good job, anyway.
That may seem like dogma to you. To me its a very carefully thought through, and well debated, proposition/belief not easily, or simply, arrived at.
And yet the ethical proposition i hold, perhaps most strongly of all my ethical positions, is that every child conceived, has the right to live out a full life, except where it puts its mothers life at risk, or where it is too abnormal to be able to exist independently.
In the end, i have to go with that fundamental ethical position, because i believe that true good cannot come from something basically wrong.
We will have to to the best we can with adult stem cells, which looks like being a pretty good job, anyway.
That may seem like dogma to you. To me its a very carefully thought through, and well debated, proposition/belief not easily, or simply, arrived at.
QUOTE (Mr Walker @ Jun 21 2008, 03:41 AM)
One mans dogma may be another mans sincerely held belief. Personally I'm torn on the stem cell research, Obviously, embryonic stem cell research has the potential for great things. Our societies kill a very high percentage of unborn children and flush them away. Given that, why not make good use of the embryos for research.
And yet the ethical proposition i hold, perhaps most strongly of all my ethical positions, is that every child conceived, has the right to live out a full life, except where it puts its mothers life at risk, or where it is too abnormal to be able to exist independently.
In the end, i have to go with that fundamental ethical position, because i believe that true good cannot come from something basically wrong.
We will have to to the best we can with adult stem cells, which looks like being a pretty good job, anyway.
That may seem like dogma to you. To me its a very carefully thought through, and well debated, proposition/belief not easily, or simply, arrived at.
And yet the ethical proposition i hold, perhaps most strongly of all my ethical positions, is that every child conceived, has the right to live out a full life, except where it puts its mothers life at risk, or where it is too abnormal to be able to exist independently.
In the end, i have to go with that fundamental ethical position, because i believe that true good cannot come from something basically wrong.
We will have to to the best we can with adult stem cells, which looks like being a pretty good job, anyway.
That may seem like dogma to you. To me its a very carefully thought through, and well debated, proposition/belief not easily, or simply, arrived at.
I agree
Well Communism was highly against religion so it would seem one if its goals was eradicating religious dogma. I guess wootloops has in mind a perfect system to eradicate religious dogma that not only would one up communism but would be acceptable to Western sensibilities since our ideological belief that capitalism is best, even though all Western societies have in place mixed-market economies which blend both capitalism and socialism to certain degrees, or maybe wootloops has nothing in mind since what he posted seems to be, I could be wrong, but it seems to be plagiarized from one of these other posts online from which he might not have even bothered to give credit:
This post by Atticus_of_Amber on richarddawkins.net dated October 23, 2007 (link)
This post by Atticus_of_Amber on richarddawkins.net dated October 24, 2007 (link)
This post by Atticus_of_Amber on richarddawkins.net dated December 10, 2007 (link)
It would seem Atticus_of_Amber is the original poster since they even claim on the October 24th post that they are reposting it from their October 23rd post. A simple google search would show that the tag Atticus_of_Amber has been in use since at least 2002. Maybe though Atticus_of_Amber is wootloops in which case the material is properly theirs and they have every right to repost it here without properly crediting the source. It is a popular post reprinted in at least on blog later, mentioned on several other forums, and even read out loud on youtube.
Well back to the post...
The belief in the Aryan race was highly based in eugenics which was the product of a nation putting all their faith in science even if eugenics was a social philosophy and was not an ideal science it was highly scientific in the minds of those using it and considered legitimate science to them. Whoever has watched documentaries of the era how can they ever forget the teacher measuring all the students heads, circumferences, ratios, and then comparing them to a chart which had cartoonish heads drawn but there was nothing amusing about it.
Even America had its own proponents of eugenics in the person of the atheist Margaret Sanger and others. Her vision was of aborting the unwanted babies of inferior races or putting the mothers on birth control. She was one of the people who helped bring legalized abortion to America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
Richard Dawkins himself seems to favor bringing back some form of eugenics as he writes this short piece entitled "Eugenics May Not Be Bad" in the Sunday Herald.
http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/di..._not_be_bad.php
Well let us not stray to far and return to the post. Holy war and 72 wide-eyed virgins for martyrs...well this is more a product of Western media propaganda than any hard core belief that is held by Muslims though one can get easily confused. It all began with one interview from a Hamas spokesman who not only had the number wrong of virgins wrong, he stated 70, but failed to mention that all Muslims who go to heaven, whether they die as martyrs or not, in their traditions will find the same reward. In fact other Muslims believe the passage which states this, not found in any version of the Qur'an, is a mistranslation and it actually means 72 white grapes or raisins. (link) (link)
As far as contraception and God believing it is a sin I am not sure if every religious person agrees with such just as I am not sure every person who supports birth control also has in mind wicked designs of racial eugenics but without those wicked designs it is almost guaranteed that birth control would not be as widespread as it is in America. Either way I am not against contraception...
...but as we can see dogma is just not the monopoly of the religious extremists but of political ideologues of all stripe and shade.
This post by Atticus_of_Amber on richarddawkins.net dated October 23, 2007 (link)
This post by Atticus_of_Amber on richarddawkins.net dated October 24, 2007 (link)
This post by Atticus_of_Amber on richarddawkins.net dated December 10, 2007 (link)
It would seem Atticus_of_Amber is the original poster since they even claim on the October 24th post that they are reposting it from their October 23rd post. A simple google search would show that the tag Atticus_of_Amber has been in use since at least 2002. Maybe though Atticus_of_Amber is wootloops in which case the material is properly theirs and they have every right to repost it here without properly crediting the source. It is a popular post reprinted in at least on blog later, mentioned on several other forums, and even read out loud on youtube.
Well back to the post...
The belief in the Aryan race was highly based in eugenics which was the product of a nation putting all their faith in science even if eugenics was a social philosophy and was not an ideal science it was highly scientific in the minds of those using it and considered legitimate science to them. Whoever has watched documentaries of the era how can they ever forget the teacher measuring all the students heads, circumferences, ratios, and then comparing them to a chart which had cartoonish heads drawn but there was nothing amusing about it.
Even America had its own proponents of eugenics in the person of the atheist Margaret Sanger and others. Her vision was of aborting the unwanted babies of inferior races or putting the mothers on birth control. She was one of the people who helped bring legalized abortion to America.
QUOTE
In September 1930, she received at home the Nazi anthropologist Eugen Fischer.
QUOTE
Her thoughts on human development were also laden with racism:
It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.
It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.
QUOTE
Eugenics and euthanasia
Sanger was a proponent of eugenics, a social philosophy that gained strong support in the United States in the early 20th century. The philosophy claimed that human hereditary traits can be improved through social intervention. Methods of social intervention (targeted at those seen as "genetically unfit") advocated by eugenists have included selective breeding, sterilization and euthanasia. In "A Plan for Peace" (1932), for example, Sanger argued for:
A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.[13]
Her first pamphlet read:
It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge.[14]
Sanger promoted the idea of "race hygiene" through "negative eugenics," an attempt to reduce the fertility of "dysgenic" groups. Sanger considered the unchecked multiplication of the "unfit" to be "the greatest present menace to civilization."[15] She suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a "Parliament of Population." One of the main objectives of the "Population Congress" would be "to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population."[16]
Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. Edwin Black writes:
In [William] Robinson's book, Eugenics, Marriage and Birth Control (Practical Eugenics), he advocated gassing the children of the unfit. In plain words, Robinson insisted: 'The best thing would be to gently chloroform these children or give them a dose of potassium cyanide.' Margaret Sanger was well aware that her fellow birth control advocates were promoting lethal chambers, but she herself rejected the idea completely. 'Nor do we believe,' wrote Sanger in Pivot of Civilization, 'that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.'[17]
When Nazi Germany adopted the principles of eugenics to create a Germanic "master race," Sanger did not publicly denounce the racist and anti-Semitic program of the Nazis. However, in a letter she wrote:
"All the news from Germany is sad & horrible, and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria.."[8]
About placing the responsibility for eugenic control in the hands of individual parents rather than the state, she wrote:
"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.... We are convinced that racial regeneration, like individual regeneration, must come 'from within.' That is, it must be autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without."[18]
We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother... Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment[19]
She nevertheless advocated certain instances of coercion, in cases where she considered the parents unfit to decide whether they should bear children:
"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."[20]
Sanger was a proponent of eugenics, a social philosophy that gained strong support in the United States in the early 20th century. The philosophy claimed that human hereditary traits can be improved through social intervention. Methods of social intervention (targeted at those seen as "genetically unfit") advocated by eugenists have included selective breeding, sterilization and euthanasia. In "A Plan for Peace" (1932), for example, Sanger argued for:
A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.[13]
Her first pamphlet read:
It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge.[14]
Sanger promoted the idea of "race hygiene" through "negative eugenics," an attempt to reduce the fertility of "dysgenic" groups. Sanger considered the unchecked multiplication of the "unfit" to be "the greatest present menace to civilization."[15] She suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a "Parliament of Population." One of the main objectives of the "Population Congress" would be "to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population."[16]
Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. Edwin Black writes:
In [William] Robinson's book, Eugenics, Marriage and Birth Control (Practical Eugenics), he advocated gassing the children of the unfit. In plain words, Robinson insisted: 'The best thing would be to gently chloroform these children or give them a dose of potassium cyanide.' Margaret Sanger was well aware that her fellow birth control advocates were promoting lethal chambers, but she herself rejected the idea completely. 'Nor do we believe,' wrote Sanger in Pivot of Civilization, 'that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.'[17]
When Nazi Germany adopted the principles of eugenics to create a Germanic "master race," Sanger did not publicly denounce the racist and anti-Semitic program of the Nazis. However, in a letter she wrote:
"All the news from Germany is sad & horrible, and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria.."[8]
About placing the responsibility for eugenic control in the hands of individual parents rather than the state, she wrote:
"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.... We are convinced that racial regeneration, like individual regeneration, must come 'from within.' That is, it must be autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without."[18]
We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother... Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment[19]
She nevertheless advocated certain instances of coercion, in cases where she considered the parents unfit to decide whether they should bear children:
"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
Richard Dawkins himself seems to favor bringing back some form of eugenics as he writes this short piece entitled "Eugenics May Not Be Bad" in the Sunday Herald.
QUOTE
From the Afterword
By Richard Dawkins
IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.
Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.
I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?
By Richard Dawkins
IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.
Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.
I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?
http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/di..._not_be_bad.php
Well let us not stray to far and return to the post. Holy war and 72 wide-eyed virgins for martyrs...well this is more a product of Western media propaganda than any hard core belief that is held by Muslims though one can get easily confused. It all began with one interview from a Hamas spokesman who not only had the number wrong of virgins wrong, he stated 70, but failed to mention that all Muslims who go to heaven, whether they die as martyrs or not, in their traditions will find the same reward. In fact other Muslims believe the passage which states this, not found in any version of the Qur'an, is a mistranslation and it actually means 72 white grapes or raisins. (link) (link)
As far as contraception and God believing it is a sin I am not sure if every religious person agrees with such just as I am not sure every person who supports birth control also has in mind wicked designs of racial eugenics but without those wicked designs it is almost guaranteed that birth control would not be as widespread as it is in America. Either way I am not against contraception...
...but as we can see dogma is just not the monopoly of the religious extremists but of political ideologues of all stripe and shade.
I am amazed Clovis!
You guys live in the forum.
anyway
A Dogma is a believesystem that is not to be questioned.
Please correct me on this definition, becuse i think we should define Dogma.
Wiki:
"Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation—referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument."
Nature is a system that can be questioned but not proven ad absurdum - religions can.
Religions live solely through the acceptance of their followers.
Dogmas are present in any religion aswell as in science.
Dogmas seems to be a part of human experience.
Due to the great diversity in human opinions, attitudes, experience and grade of wisdom,
there is a diversity in believesystems/religion/gnosticism.etc.
Primarily this should not be judged.
The judgement come allmost allways fom inside such believesystem if one or more members are looking for alternatives becuse they became content with what the dogma has in storage, or became restless becuse their inner voise has not been answered.
ah
You guys live in the forum.
anyway
A Dogma is a believesystem that is not to be questioned.
Please correct me on this definition, becuse i think we should define Dogma.
Wiki:
"Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation—referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument."
Nature is a system that can be questioned but not proven ad absurdum - religions can.
Religions live solely through the acceptance of their followers.
Dogmas are present in any religion aswell as in science.
Dogmas seems to be a part of human experience.
Due to the great diversity in human opinions, attitudes, experience and grade of wisdom,
there is a diversity in believesystems/religion/gnosticism.etc.
Primarily this should not be judged.
The judgement come allmost allways fom inside such believesystem if one or more members are looking for alternatives becuse they became content with what the dogma has in storage, or became restless becuse their inner voise has not been answered.
ah
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.