![]() |
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
![]() |
#51 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz
Posts: 5,645
|
![]()
As I said, everything seems to boil down to gnoseology:
What can be atested as knowledge and how can it be aquired? To what degree can one rely on acknoledged facts without giving in to dogmatism? AVE |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
|
![]()
Calvan,
Quote:
Sorry to beat a dead horse into horse burgers but requiring nature to be the final authority of science IS science dogma. Even so, dogma is not IMO what is at the center of the battle between science and religion. If you use this idea that it is a battle of authority then it sheds a new light on the Christian posts in the science and evolution forums. Starboy |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#53 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 1,336
|
![]()
Greetings:
How are we defining 'dogma' here? If it is 'science dogma' that nature is reliable, consistent, and the final authority, I think that is a great deal different than 'religious dogma', where what is considered reliable, consistent, and 'true' is simply claims made in books. 'Science dogma' (for lack of a better term) refers to something other than science; science studies reality. 'Religious dogma' relies only on its own authrority. I fail to see how these two different 'dogmas' could be considered similar in any significant manner. Keith. |
![]() |
![]() |
#54 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
|
![]() Quote:
I am using a weak definition, but a valid one nonetheless: 1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet And in particular I state the following as science dogma: Nature is the final authority for all scientific disputes. That this is established opinion and a definite authoritative tenet there is no doubt. Thus the statement: science - authority of nature This may be one of the few items of dogma in science, but there it is. People do not see this as dogma because it is well accepted that nature exists. This acceptance is well founded by the great success science has had. Now take religion. One could start off with a simple religion and begin with the following dogma: religion - authority of god Now if god existed then I would expect that religion would stay simple. If you need to know something, ask god and then you would know it. If there were one god, everyone would know how to behave and act to good agreement. Knowledge of god would be in good agreement. Great mountains of religious dogma would be unnecessary. That is not the reality of religion, as it exists today. The religious dogma you refer to is a thinly veiled attempt for man to fill in for the authority of god. Thus if god does not exists he is at least irrelevant. Power grubbing people who like to think that they speak for him are the creators of dogma. It started with Paul/Saul and it has been downhill ever since. Nothing has changed since the time of Paul. The Christian argument is the same � authority of god over everything else. That is the intent of creationism and ID. Starboy |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#55 | |||
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Abbotsford, B.C., Canada
Posts: 77
|
![]()
Greetings Starboy and Keith Russell
Originally posted by starboy Quote:
I did not at any time suggest that my question about dogma is central to any controversy concerning whether or not there is a God or whether or not science is the instrument by which �reality� may best be perceived. The only issue I sought to clarify is whether or not there was any agreement concerning the nature of dogma and its effects upon thinking. Originally posted by Keith Russell Quote:
The reason I originally asked the question is: Religionists IMO are seeking to legitimize their use of dogma by asking scientists to argue for and against one issue or another while employing the accusation that scientists employ dogma. I think that it is unfaithful to the scientific process to transform the knowledge gained through the employment of science into the state of dogma either in word or deed. To do so is to degrade the scientific thinking process to the level of thinking employed by religionists. Starboy provides an excellent example of such thinking: Quote:
Is there no significant difference in the connotation of each of the following sentences indicating a difference in the thinking processes each employs? �Sorry to beat a dead horse into horse burgers but requiring nature to be the final authority of science IS science dogma.� and Science has determined that nature is the only reliable and consistent authority�. If all answers are �no�, then the debate is closed. If there is a �yes�, then�. Calvan |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#56 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Abbotsford, B.C., Canada
Posts: 77
|
![]()
I should have said, if there is a "yes" or "maybe"...
|
![]() |
![]() |
#57 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Abbotsford, B.C., Canada
Posts: 77
|
![]() Quote:
Calvan Calvan |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#58 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
|
![]() Quote:
Your statement: Science has determined that nature is the only reliable and consistent authority. Is correct but science has determined this by persisting in the claim that nature IS the final authority. Prior to what we currently know as science, other authorities were allowed to decide matters of science. The experience of this time made it clear that using nature, as the final arbiter was more than a matter of pragmatism it was necessity if there was to be any progress. Today in this time of Christian skullduggery, the insistence that nature is the final authority in matters of science is the only way to counteract their backhanded insistence that god is the final authority by presenting such gems of Christian thought as creationism and ID. As a final argument as to why it must be practiced dogmatically I submit this post: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=57&t=000574" target="_blank">Topic: "Why don't protons repel each other?" </a> You be the judge as to the necessity of science dogma. Starboy [ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p> |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#59 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 1,336
|
![]()
Calvin:
I agree. To me, 'dogma' would be an unquestioning adherence to an idea, thought, philosophy, or belief-system. As long as one recognizes that the final authority is reality itself, and not what someone else (or even one's own self) has thought, believed, written, or claimed about reality, I think one will be OK. Keith. |
![]() |
![]() |
#60 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
|
![]()
Keith,
I agree. It's just that Christianity has given dogma a bad name. Starboy |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|