"Why not believe, what have you got to lose?" they say..
I find the question rather distasteful, as it heavily devalues the life we have now. We have EVERYTHING to lose, our very freedom of thought; through which we experience what is likely to be the only existence we will ever get.
Historically, there have been thousands of possible faiths to pick from. Even if one of the religions is the "correct" one, your odds are still astronomically low that you both pick correctly and qualify for the happy ending.
We can guarantee what we have today. Life is astounding, we have a magnificent opportunity right here, right now, and to limit our experience with dogma is a tragic waste.
Posts
[quote]...and to limit our experience with dogma is a tragic waste.[/quote]
ReplyDeleteIsn't that the truth. To the atheist who thinks along your lines, free thought is boundless when released from the confines of dogma. However, implied in that thought is the conclusion that dogma is restrictive. I offer this alternative - dogma as a guiding force as opposed to a restrictive one. Where restriction comes in is either misuse/misunderstanding of the dogma or by reasonable self-imposition (read: choosing to do so because it's good to do so).
For example, health can be considered restrictive to diet. If I have true freedom, I can eat whatever I want. However, if I want good health, I restrict my diet to meet the condition of good health and do so without accusing good health in a negative fashion of restricting my diet. In kind, dogma can be considered restrictive to free thought but restricting free thought for the value that the dogma is bringing may be in one's better interest.
Just some thoughts rolling around in my head in reaction to your post, a post I thank you for by the way.
respectfully,
Cornelius
For dogma to be a guiding force, it needs to have the most authority on a topic. For that to be the case, a higher power must have supplied it, an assumption that your whole argument hinges on but you fail to mention.
ReplyDeleteI'm not blaming a healthy mind for being restrictive, I'm blaming dogma, because it leads to an unhealthy mind.
Would you appeal to dogma or science when trying to eat healthily?
Thank you for the reply.
Actually, that is not entirely true. Dogma is simply an established opinion, belief or principle. Often used in context of the church, it can be found in other contexts as well, ie. political. Arguably, the person holding the belief could be the "authority" you speak of. Hence, I didn't fail to mention a higher power as being the supplier because it was not an assumption I was basing my response on.
ReplyDeleteTake the view of the atheist. Some (not necessarily yourself) are quite dogmatic about the point of belief in God being a belief unreasonable to a sound mind. By what authority do they uphold such dogma? Certainly not God's.
Perhaps by my example I am lending further support to your statement "I'm not blaming a healthy mind for being restrictive, I'm blaming dogma, because it leads to an unhealthy mind." At face value, I fully agree with you.
Would I appeal to dogma or science when trying to eat healthily? Sometimes the two are quite complementary so I might qualifyingly answer "both".
Enjoying the dialogue,
Cornelius
I'm going to pick on your word "established" when describing dogma. How it's established is key, and dogma is established for its source or its acceptance, not through its truthfulness. That's why I assert it needs to come from God, otherwise Dogma is never preferable to tested and proven scientific fact. Since by all likelihood God doesn't exist, then dogma is never preferable.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of an atheist believing belief in God is unreasonable to a sound mind, they likely didn't learn that from dogma, they reasoned it to be true, on their own authority - which is very much the opposite of dogma. I think dogmatic is a description too often falsely used to describe those adamant about there opinions. The source of those opinions is the deciding factor.
Sometimes dogma and health do complement each other, I'll give you that, but what about when dogma is wrong? The problem is extracting the truth from dogma, and the only way to do that is through science and reason. Why bother with dogma in the first place when there's so much room to go wrong?
From Terry Pratchett’s Hogfather:
ReplyDelete“…the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, ‘Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So, why not believe in them in any case? If it’s all true you’ll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn’t then you’ve lost nothing right?’ When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, ‘We’re going to show you what we think of Mr. Clever Dick in these parts…’”
My response to the Pascal's wager dialogue is always based on the mathematical underpinnings of the statement. The likelihood of choosing the correct "god" approaches zero as the number of possible "gods" approaches infinite. It's very simple. 1/n = probability of correctness where n = number of "gods".
ReplyDeleteInfidel,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I'd agree that it needs to come from God just because it's source is not through the preferred means of tested and proven fact. Obviously the critical point is the truthfulness of a dogma, not necessarily its source or even its acceptance. If something is true, it matters little whether I believe it or not - it's still true. That's where I see science being important - the search for truth - although even in science we find errors in conclusions. What I mean is that conclusions are reached by the interpretation of the facts, conclusions denied or at least altered by a different interpretation of the facts. I suppose we could arguably conclude that much of what passes as truth is done so by assuming ourselves as the ultimate authority.
I think we'd be hard-pressed to remove dogma altogether. I mean, I suspect even you would agree that you're dogmatic about your current position. Dogma is what it is .... our responsibility is to be certain of the truth of that which we are dogmatic about. In doing so, we need to set aside the principle of dogma long enough to properly, objectively, scientifically, reasonably seek out that truth.
~ C ~
Infidel,
ReplyDeleteI hope you don't mind me filling up this thread with comments. I read others' comments and get into a reflective thought mode which I like to express openly. It's my way of sorting it out. :) Now for my latest reflection ....
Pascal's Wager - fear of the after-life? That's one interpretation. Another one is acceptance of eternal existence and desire to answer for it.
Atheism - fear of nothing? That's one interpretation. Another one is denial of eternal existence because to consider it means having to think toward and reach potentially undesireable conclusions.
Just some thoughts, not intended to be treated as right or wrong.
~ C ~
TO use Pascal's wager is to admit that there is no evidence or reason to believe in g0d.
ReplyDeleteBut Danny Boy, the reason is in the wager. Perhaps you missed it? Don't get me wrong - I don't mean it is a valid reason but it is a reason nonetheless. As to evidence, well, that's a whole other matter altogether. Perhaps it is not so much admitting there is no evidence but rather that one hasn't the knowledge or capacity to speak on it.
ReplyDelete~C~
Would you appeal to dogma or science when trying to eat healthily?
ReplyDelete- - - - - - - -
Would you appeal to science or dogma on how to best love your wife?
Since by all likelihood God doesn't exist, then dogma is never preferable.
ReplyDelete- - - - - -
This is wrong. You can't prove this.
The problem is extracting the truth from dogma, and the only way to do that is through science and reason.
ReplyDelete- - - - -
Use science and reason to extract truth from the following dogma:
Love your neighbor as yourself.
TO use Pascal's wager is to admit that there is no evidence or reason to believe in g0d.
ReplyDelete- - - - -
You may be right on that one, that's why I didn't need Pascal's Wager to believe in God. Plus, Pascal was a scientific genius and religious at the same time...imagine that!
Scientists can believe in Gods just as virologists can catch colds.
ReplyDeleteScientists can believe in Gods just as virologists can catch colds.
ReplyDelete- - - - - -
You mean it's kind of like when an atheist says, "Oh my gawd"?
....after watching his buddy take a really good bong hit?
ReplyDeleteYeah totally we can be our own god's right here on earth! We are capable infinite possibilties, but we delude it by Beleiving that anything is possible! I am such a dumb Christian, why did it take so long? nothing is more important than Rationlism, getting Phds, and being smug to Sheeple. Thank you so much, Elitists, for guiding the way.
ReplyDelete