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.