A great conversation topic from Kertook:

Religions espouse dogma (maybe that is what defines a 'religion' vs. a 'philosophy'). Does dogma make sense?

Why don't atheists and believers of different stripes first focus on agreeing on some core values that we should work towards before going down the road about arguing how many angels fit on the head of a pin?  It seems like we could make a lot of progress towards helping humanity if we started there.

Kertook, would you like to explain your position more fully?

Yes...as soon as RL lets up a tad I will be more specific. Thx

I will take a specific example before I try and write a master thesis.

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.[1] It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma]

Disclaimer: I have nothing specifically against Islam any more than other religions' with dogma.  It just happens that I have studied some of its history, and it makes a good, bright line xample.

One of the pillars of Islam is charity [concern for the needy] and the word http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Islam_mean) Islam, a name given by Allah to this religion (Quran 5:4), is an Arabic word which literally means submission, obedience and peace. [Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What...m_mean#ixzz1xk5jtDuy]

Now, as I understand it, the Sunnis and Shiites have fought primarily over who should have succeeded Muhammed as the leader of the religion.  How is this matter of dogma more important than peace?  Why kill for it? Why not say, You know, let's have some discussions on this and see if we can work it out some how, or agree to disagree, but in the meantime let's get into helping the poor, feeding the needy, etc...

But the dogma of "one's faith/group" is apparently worth killing and dying over to a big enough number of people that violence strikes again and again on an appalling scale. Mostly by ultra-religious folks (not just Islamic , other religions too, of course!).  That is an absurd and perverse course of action, and proves the point that religious folks who unquestioningly follow dogma would rather be right than loving or peaceful. Even if it violates a core tenet! Right makes might (acceptable). Therefore, dogma serves little purpose overall than to separate "us" and "them" and justify extreme action of the "us" group against the "them" group.

Ok it's pretty rough, but I think the kernel is solid.

Dogmas are bad, ideas are better you can change an idea faster than a dogma.

Like I have the idea "god is evil" okay fine its not a dogma you show me the idea "god is good" is better I will change to that idea. Its simple.

The major issue I have with dogmas is no one can be sure if the founder, spiritual master or prophet was supportive of these ideas for example take homosexuality. Jesus said ziltch about it and the rest of the Bible is pretty silent with Paul not being a disciple of Jesus was the sole person mentioning anything about it at all in a letter to a congregation. So is the dogma involving that justified with nothing tangible from Jesus if one is a Christian? Just one example.

That's a really good question, Kertook. However, I think intense intra-group conflict is disturbingly common through many communities. I don't think I'm alone in seeing 3rd vs. 4th edition 'wars', where people lambast each other based on the game they enjoy playing. Stepping back to comment on human nature, I just don't have an answer as to why we're wired like that.

RubySlippers -- Dogma does have its place. Your example is flawed -- you see a better idea, you recognize it as better, and you convert. People regularly adopt really stupid ideas, and multiple 'truths' ultimately can degrade the entire movement.

If I can pick on a group for a moment, compare the Catholic Church to the protestant churches. 90% of protestant churches are fine, although they have all sorts of disagreements. Baptists maybe believe the world was literally created in 7 days, Episcopaleans believe God is totally cool with homosexuals, and Anglicans think they're both crazy. I don't think we can say, absolutely, that active, unmarried homosexuals leading a church is a 'better idea' (or 'worse idea') and most people would agree with you. And on top of that, you get the 10% of protestant churches who are REALLY looney. Westboro is the obvious example, but there are plenty of others.

You just don't get that sort of thing with the RCC. The RCC is tied to a line of theology which hasn't seriously changed since 300AD. Even the Pope can't really change it now. You don't get crazy, fringe Catholic churches. You don't get people trying out wacky beliefs. Sure, you might disagree with why the RCC does something, but at least there's always a justifiable reason.

Ultimately, dogma reduces change, but also reduces STUPID change and failures. If you're looking for a creative enterprise, limited dogma is good, but expect failure as well. But if your religion is based off of what a guy said a super long time ago, having mechanisms which keep you close to what that guy originally said would seem to be desirable.

So you're envisioning a religion as a group, with dogma defining the boundary between the religion and other groups? I think that's a workable model, though I have a quibble with your definition.

I think it fine to say that dogma is that which members must believe/follow. The addition of the terms dispute and doubt is what I find problematic. Sometimes dogma is decided by disputation between members, and there the disputation is revisited and changed; a key point here is that while one member cannot change dogma, the leadership or a consensus can. I can't say this for all religions, but in some doubting is tolerated with concern rather than rejection. A Christian who finds himself doubting the existence of God can find compassion and advise from his minister, rather than condemnation and expulsion. I would instead say "It is authoritative and not to be rejected or diverged from by the practitioners or believers."

So would you say Shia and Sunni are separate religions, each with their own dogma? Or that together they are a religion, and are still disputing (violently) towards a dogma of succession?

Another specific question about how you define dogma is the following: is non-violence Christian dogma? The first Christians were non-violent, but since then many Christians over many centuries have lived lives dedicated to violence, without being forced out of Christianity. It appears to fail your test of dogma, yet many would see it still as a tenet, even a commandment, of Christianity. Perhaps dogma is a less-strict group boundary than you envision, or perhaps dogma is an ideal for members of the religion to emulate imperfectly.

Maybe doubting dogma is ok with the Authorities, as long as you come around to the "truth" eventually :)

I'm not sure if Sunni/Shiits are separate religions or not, as an outsider they seem to be more like one religion under the general umbrella of Islam, but with very different view on some of the specific rules and "truths" of the religion--which as you say they are trying to "settle" by brute force.

I think the question about Chrisitanity and non-violence as a dogma is too general. There are many types of Christians, as mentioned in other places here, such as Catholics, Presbytarians, Quakers, LDS, etc... Each one has its own particular dogma (though the dogmas certainly overlap to greater or lesser degrees.)

Quakers are non-violent Christians to my understanding, but I don't know if they consider non-violence a  a "test" for being a Quaker... Anyone? True irony would be a stout beating of Quaker A by Quaker B who judged A as a too violent member who needed to be expelled from the group... Ok I digress.

My statement as to how strict the dogma boundary is depends on the level of fervor towards dogma (fundamentalism or literalness?) of the religion in question.  For example, Unitarians seem to not have any hard dogma--in other words you could be a Buddhist or Jew and go and worship there.  There is no "test" for being a "true believer". I would consider them an example more of a more spiritual philosophy and approach to life rather than a religion because of the lack of testable dogma. There also isn't much in the way of a Unitarian authority to hand down rules as law.

[As an aside, most dogmatically fervent religions tend to look down on such liberal philosophies because the fundamentalists claim the more open minded approaches don't believe in "anything." For example, a conservative Christian relative of mine said something about Buddhism like "all they have is a kind of psychotherapy path.  They don't have a real God like we do..." (Sounds like 'mine is bigger than yours').]

The Sunni/Shiite groups I'm aware of are more literal in their reading of religious texts/teachings and "fundamental" therefore their dogmatic tests are fairly simple and bright line. You either believe this and are one of us, or you don't and....well you are not.

My greater point is that having the hard core test of dogma allows and often encourages people to treat other people who disagree with them as less than human.  They even defy some of the apparently basic tenets of the religion they claim to believe in. Another easy (and well-trod) example-- Catholic Church and the Inquisition.  Practice witchcraft--torture and death for you, because you disagree with the Authorities.

I believe a basic spiritual philosophy of kindness, while harder to follow and quantify, would not result in such heinous treatment of people if followed with an open heart and kind intent at the forefront.  Something very simple, like following the so-called "Golden Rule" (which is I think a tenet of many actual religions) simply treat others as you would have them treat you.  You know, "love thy neighbor."  Yeah it leaves a lot open to interpretation, but if people actually practiced that I think the world would be much, much better place.

If you wouldn't want certain treatment applied to you, why do it to others? Well, because the Authorities say that it is. Just like eating pork is BAD. It is known. It's abstractly and vaguely 'immoral' even though I can't put my finger on it or demonstrate it it any way, it just is PERIOD, and if I believe strongly enough and am willing to back up that belief with bold action, I can kill you for being an outsider (infidel, heathen, etc...) who disagrees with me. That's what happens when dogma is taken to its "logical" extreme.  And it has been again and again. Now, maybe the dogma is an ideal to follow for the adherents of the religions in question, but how is the outcome for the world "ideal" when people latch on to dogma and "go to the mat" (or guillotine) for it?

Ok, waiting for the incoming fire from dogmatic folks....

I am a Quaker, and part of our belief is that we reject the whole concept of dogma. Each persons relationship with God is personal and direct, and what god demes right for person A may not be what is right for person B. I mean, one of the testimonies we believe is right for us is that of non-violence, but it was a Quaker who founded the USMC, on the theory that since war was inevitable the only moral course of action was to make sure it was over as fast as humanly possible. Yes, they read him out of his meeting for it, but he later joined a different meeting and was buried in a quaker cemetery... (Which pisses off the Marines no end, cause we wont let them bring their guns onto the property.)

I would say this is the only part to disagree with, and only because it's apples and audis. Yes, 'being kind' is vague and non-dogmatic, but so is 'being mean'. That doesn't mean that the issue is with dogma. A dogmatic version of 'be kind' would, I think, be also quite effective at enforcing kindness.

I think this feeds back into another issue; you seem to blame the violence on the dogma. The violence isn't an issue with the dogma. It's an issue with the people. People have been evil to each other for a million reasons. We don't need dogma in order to kill one another.

The thing about dogma is it helps encourage a particular behavior or belief. For instance, basically every Abrahamic religion beliefs that adultery is wrong. I'd argue it's effective dogmatic. And sure enough, if you look at members of Abrahamic religions versus non-religious people (so dogmatic vs. non), the rate of adultery is about 5% compared to 14%. Dogma here is encouraging this behavior. If the behavior is good ("don't kill people!"), the dogma will encourage good behavior. If the behavior is bad ("... except those people over there") the dogma will encourage bad behavior.

We do use dogma in our day-to-day lives. I think all of us, regardless of background, were taught that stealing and murder are wrong. I think we are still working on establishing a universal dogma that rape is wrong. If I asked you right now to justify why stealing is wrong, it would probably take you a while to figure out an answer (and you being an educated person who has thought about it!) If I asked Joe off the street, he'd probably really struggle with it. Most of us come up with an answer later, to justify what we already believe. And honestly, I'm okay with that.

So dogma is just a tool. Like any tool, it's only as good or bad as the people using it.

Let us try to come to some agreement as I was hoping for initially.

kat--Is Islamic domga just as valid and helpful a tool as Christian, in your mind?

How about LDS, or Jewish or Wicccan dogma [if it exists]?  Do those various dogma's just encourage specific behavior, some of which is "bad" and some of which is "good"?

Bad or good behavior by whose standards? Is any individual the judge of which behavior is "bad" or "good"? Is eating pork bad (Muslim dogma) and therefore following that dogma just encourages "good" behavior because you're not eating pork? Ditto lobster [Jewish, if I understand the rules correctly] or not working on a Sunday [Christian, Baptist, I think, for example].

Simple isn't it, just follow the prescription and you are acting "good" or "bad" until the dogmas collide, and then what?

Does Revolutionary or another atheist or another anti-dogma person want to propose a sysmtem of "universal" beliefs or principals that both atheists and true-believers can say "yeah I don't disagree with any thing there..." ? Is that possible so that we can all sing kum-by-ya?

I would start with the Golden Rule, but I will hold off more thoughts until someone else chimes in.

Generally speaking these are considered unacceptable by everyone:
1: Murdering someone who has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the culture judgeing the murder.
2: Stealing: unless the person stolen from did not obtain their goods justly or was not useing them justly.
3: Harming children without good reason acording to the judgeing culture: I.e. "spare the rod and spoil the child."
4: Harming pregnant women, ever.
5: Doing to others what you wouldn't want done to you: unless they have 'earned' it by their own missdeeds.

That is the whole of the universal human code.

You know why I know this isn't true?

Africa.

Please be more specific, because Africa was what I used to whittle down the list to those five.

I would disagree on your first line and your last.

Samurai code permitted samurai to kill peasants just because of the difference in rank, for instance. And many cultures blur the line of murder with human sacrifice. So while I would agree that these five are more or less universal, there are exceptions.

I would also argue this list is not inclusive. For instance, most cultures require some sort of honoring or obedience of authority, special times where honesty is required (such as during judgment), retribution as recompense for criminal acts, etc. I'm sure you could write a comprehensive list of items which are obeyed by 100%, 90%, or 80% of cultures, but it would be a doctoral project, not a twenty line Internet post.

I don't think this question is valid. It's like asking if a bank robber's car is as valid a tool as a taxi driver's car. Cars are cars, they aren't 'valid' or 'not-valid'.

Plus, it's extremely broad, since Islam and Christianity are both made up of a huge range of sub-groups, which use dogma in a myriad of ways.

For example, to focus just on the Catholic Church (which is handy because they have a single, well-documented dogma) ...

Their dogma includes things such as:
Jesus is the spiritual savior of mankind
Mary was assumed into heaven as a virgin
Murder is wrong
Priests must be male.

But what makes a dogma 'valid'?



I would say if you went through the entirety of the RCC dogma, yes, most of it supports good behavior. Much of it that doesn't directly supports the framework which supports good behavior (Jesus was spiritual savior. Jesus said to do good works. Ergo dogmatic statement 1 still supports good behavior.)

A few perhaps do not (for example, limitations on birth control). But those decisions are results of debate and study; they aren't arbitrary. So you can disagree with them (I do), but even if you do disagree with them, at least you can recognize that the intent is for good behavior.



It's a mix, and it depends, of course.



This is a very tough question, and really deserves its own thread. 'What defines 'good' is a cornerstone of philosophy, and probably not something we can adequately answered tucked in as a side argument here.



Also a very tough question. Is doing good because you are told it is good sufficient? What is the moral 'weight' of doing bad when told it is good? (Dealing with a conflict between what you are told, I think, is much less of an issue, at least on the individual level).
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:25, Sat 16 June 2012.

[yay got the quote feature working]

Ok so what is "good behavior" and "bad behavior", please?

If the behavior is irrational, it will also encourage it, right?

Well ... that's a huge issue deserving a thread of it's own :) I would say that worshiping God is good behavior, but the source for that would be religious texts, which perhaps you don't accept. I would say that 'live and let live' is good behavior, but the source for that is a recognition of abstract values such as liberty and self-determination, which perhaps you don't recognize. I'd say that murder is wrong, but the source of that is the recognition that other people have the same rights that I have, and I think everyone believes they have a right to not be personally murdered, but perhaps you don't share those assumptions.



Yes, dogma can encourage irrational behavior. However, irrational behavior is not necessarily harmful (case in point, I would argue that a modern ban on pork is, while not irrational, misguided. But not eating pork doesn't do harm, and per the compelling arguments of many vegetarians and animal-rights philosophers, doing some good.)

Your statement is so illogical in the context of our discussion/debate, I had to laugh. I am not insulting you as a person, just the reasonableness of your assertion that my positions could be such based on the evidence available. Do you really wonder if I share those assumptions? Or are we actually in the “second grade”?

But never mind. Let us see if we can make forwards progress. Before I attempt to give my thoughts on some of the “bigger picture” so we can see if there is some resolution on dogma, I am curious if you can clarify something:

in the lesbian wedding dress example in the homosexual marriage thread, there are teachings of Jesus that would allow you to come down on the side of selling the dress to her, right?

But you decide it is better not to.  Are those statements you would agree with?

1. The murder one I'd need to think on.
2. Stealing seems to be an almost unanimously fine thing to do.  Music downloading and file sharing is basically culturally accepted now despite the fact that it's theft.
3. Children are used and abused by cultures and are historically viewed as objects to be exploited.  The treatment of children in many African countries as child fighters and sex slaves stems from a view of them as objects and not as people.  This isn't limited to Africa obviously, but seems to be much more rampant there due to where those countries are at financially etc.
4. There are countless stories of pregnant women having their children hacked out of them during the course of a war.  Horrific but people don't seem to have issues doing it.
5. The entire planet is basically insanely selfish, so I don't see this happening at all.

Truth be told saying Africa is really a lousy answer.  I should have just said Earth.  People on this planet are, in general, horrific pieces of selfish animalism.  Treating one another with even a shred of dignity and respect seems to be the exception, not the norm.

Not you personally. But 'you' in the general sense. I've met people who are fine with stealing from other people, just not with themselves, or who struggle with abstract concepts like 'liberty'. Some of those people are in positions of power. How do we come to an agreement about what is good?

More specifically, I've seen a very large number of people SAY they support concepts like liberty or privacy, but then act to the contrary when given the first opportunity.



I'm not sure. I honestly can't think of any off the top of my head. There are people much better versed in the bible than I though, so perhaps they can supply one.

(And before anyone comes up with 'treat others as you would have them treat you', remember that Jesus did not exempt anyone from following God's law. The golden rule isn't 'you're okay, I'm okay'.)


re: Duolos -- 2. file-sharing isn't theft, it's violation of intellectual property rights. That probably doesn't mean anything to you, but as someone who works in the industry, I can tell you it's a pretty big difference.

3. You can cut this either way. Yes, there are child sex-slavery rings in Africa, but I don't think that implies Africans think it's okay, any more than the fact that there are sex-slavery rings in the Americas implies Americans think they're okay. HOWEVER, many African countries support involuntary marriage of children, which could be (but not necessarily is) a method of child abuse, in some cases. I'm not familiar enough with the cultures to say which, if any, view abusive child marriages as sinful.

4. Acts of war I also don't think are indicative of the moral beliefs of a culture.

As far as I am concerned there is no difference.  That music/movie/tvshow does not belong to us and we take it anyways.



If people are doing it then they must think there is some justifiable reason for it, thus, in that particular context - ok.



I think it's exactly the moral beliefs of a culture.  It's just that those moral beliefs only exist within a certain set of conditions that arise during war time.  If people wel and truly did not believe in those acts - ever - then they would never do them.  They do perform them, therefore they must beieve that it is justified.

That's fine, just be aware that you are technically wrong, and therefore can't be used as evidence in a debate/discussion :)



This goes back to something I struggled with initially. Alexei's original post said 'universal', which seems to imply 100% of people. But yes, one sociopath is enough to disprove the 100%. I assumed he was referring to 95% people, so we can discount that minority who run child sex slave rings. Alexei can clarify this for us.



I understand that war is a funny issue. However, every study I've read on the subject indicates that people active in war tend to enter into a more 'primal', survival-oriented state. War fighters are psychologically changed by the experience. I suppose I would assume that individuals who have been violently shifted from their natural mental state shouldn't be counted as representatives of that cultural group for the purpose of studying morality, but I can understand that perhaps that's cherry-picking.

Ah, but note the proviso: the accepted norm has become that media and so called 'intilectual property' should be freely shared for the benefit of the society: thus those who are trying to restrict its use are not "useing thier wealth justly", and are valid targets.

There is a difference between what is done and what is considered 'right', I know of no existing culture that considers doing any of these things right, but they will often turn a blind eye during war or a period of anarchy.
For example: Children may be veiwed as objects, but all parents which are not mentaly ill will seak to protect them. It is once they are taken from thier parents that the trouble begins.

I guess I just looked at that list and mentally checked them all off as things that people in large numbers have had no issues carrying out at various times.

Anyways, carry on the discussion.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 24):

Understood, and it is true that many individuals will not have issues with some or all of the things on the list, but taken as a group over time all societies will conform to the list or cease to exist as a society. It is on that basis I consider the list universal.
In a final note: the last item on the list is in various phraseings and translations the core of every major religion on earth: this cannot be coincidence.

Do unto others ... unless they are of a lower caste and the screw em. ;)

Actually I think the provision is, 'unless they are from a different society'. The rules Alexei outlined are, as he himself said, necessary for a society to function. But that doesn't apply when dealing with people from other societies.

I was speaking of Hinduism, but no matter.  The main point of this thread has been lost and should probably be restored.

If the forum moderators are listening perhaps this side topic of universal codes of human behavior warents its own thread?

(hakootoko returns from a long weekend of wine festing, poor, tired, and sunburned, to find this thread has wandered off track)



I guess I misunderstood your definition of dogma, and I now disagree with it. I thought it meant "dogma is established precedent" not "dogma is commands from the present church leaders". You now seem to be using the latter. I think a religion where the leadership can give arbitrary orders to the membership without the authority of tradition behind those orders has crossed the line into a cult (another difficult term to define).

The spiritual philosophy of kindness in the Golden Rule is an example of what I man by dogma. Some religions have it and say members should follow it, even if (as is always the case in human affairs) the members frequently fail at it.

I would tend to agree with hakootoko on that point. I don't think 'dogma' is specifically 'obedience to temporal authority'(although it can be, in some cases).

So the Catholic Church running the Spanish Inquisition circa the 15th c+ was a "cult" ?

Yes, I see your point. I don't think there was much in there about compassion, not shunning others, or treating people with dignity...

So in your opinion, the bible says I should never tell a person 'no' or 'I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable participating in that', because it might hurt their dignity?
This message was last edited by the GM at 11:09, Wed 20 June 2012.

Not really. What I'm saying is that there is plenty of counter-argument available, in the basis for your own moral code, (just a few off the top of my non Bible-scholar head: judge not, do not cast the first stone... )
and yet you seem very certain that the lesbian is "wrong" and you are "right." What is that certainty based on, exactly?

A few things. It's based off of the line in the bible, "a man shall not lay with a man", suggesting pretty heavily that homosexuality is sinful. This is tempered with referencing my catechism, which explains that homosexual behavior is disordered, because it is not open to procreation, which is a primary purpose of a sexual relationship. I can reference my priest (although I've never talked with him on this particular topic). In this particular instance, the issue is more complicated, in part because the question isn't 'should we deny', but 'do people have the right to deny'. So I reference concepts like individual freedom and self-determination, which are in turn supported by documents upon which our country (which I personally support) are founded upon. This is tempered by concepts of least-harm, where the harm to the one party must be weighed against the harm to the other.

I take all of this data, then attempt to sort out the other side. In this case, I could find no biblical, philosophical, authoritative, least-harm, or personal evidence that suggests a person has a right to purchase things where she pleases. In this case, the issue was also opened to other people to comment on it, who failed to provide convincing evidence.

Given this process, I feel reasonably comfortable saying that the sales-woman was not acting unethically by declining the sale. I can also show my reasoning, so any other person can follow and reproduce it, if she or he wished to. And should errors be discovered in the future, the fact that my reasoning is recorded like this permits easy reconsiderations and corrections.