Laurentius

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

Starboy

Calvan,

Forgive me. That comment was not directed at you.

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

Keith Russell

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.

Starboy

Hi Keith,

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

Calvan

Greetings Starboy and Keith Russell

Originally posted by starboy

I think I became too sensitized because I sensed my questioning was frustrating you. I therefore took your derogative remarks personally. Thank you for stopping the flow of blood from my ego.

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

Is it dogma if I �know� from the repeated evidence of nature that any given scientific principle is valid and true? Does something have to become dogma because of the overwhelming evidence from nature that it is valid and true? Is there no other description for such understanding and knowledge of the principle in question other than dogma?
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:

I suppose that I am clinging to the idea that dogma of any sort requires a state of mind or process of thinking that is inconsistent with the scientific method of thinking.

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

Calvan

I should have said, if there is a "yes" or "maybe"...

Calvan

I share the opinion that nothing is held to be above suspicion however much science has determined to validity of the scientific principle.

Calvan

Calvan

Starboy

Hi Calvan,

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>

Keith Russell

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.

Starboy

Keith,

I agree. It's just that Christianity has given dogma a bad name.

Starboy