Dogmatism in Religious Discourse

[wonkavision]

When discussing religion, many people seem to expect all discussion to come from a place of "this is just my opinion," rather than from a position of religious dogma. Now, does that make sense?

Is it reasonable to expect religious people to act as though they are not entirely convinced that the doctrines they hold are indisputable? And should they be left out of religious discussions?

It is my opinion that there is no point of a discussion on religion that does not allow the input of people who actually have a dogmatic stance on the topic at hand.

What do you think of that?

Do you think that people who are dogmatic about their religion should be included or excluded from discussions about religious topics?

I'd love to hear from you.

 

[Ren]

Is it reasonable to expect religious people to act as though they are not entirely convinced that the doctrines they hold are indisputable? And should they be left out of religious discussions?

No, they should certainly not be left out of discussions. But I think the dogmatism itself has to be explained, at least. If to you, dogmatism just means "I believe this and I will not be open to changing my mind because I'm dogmatic", does it not defeat the idea of a conversation? I genuinely wonder. Maybe this attitude would fit a conference or a sermon, but I'm not sure that it would allow a real conversation.

And definitely yes, I do think it is reasonable to expect of a religious person that they be open to doubting the doctrines they believe in, and doubting themselves. The most religious people I have met were full of doubt.

Remember Saint Augustine: "Doubt is but another element of faith." I strongly subscribe to that.

 

[wonkavision]

No, they should certainly not be left out of discussions. But I think the dogmatism itself has to be explained, at least. If to you, dogmatism just means "I believe this and I will not be open to changing my mind because I'm dogmatic", does it not defeat the idea of a conversation? I genuinely wonder. Maybe this attitude would fit a conference or a sermon, but I'm not sure that it would allow a real conversation.

And definitely yes, I do think it is reasonable to expect of a religious person that they be open to doubting the doctrines they believe in, and doubting themselves. The most religious people I have met were full of doubt.

Remember Saint Augustine: "Doubt is but another element of faith." I strongly subscribe to that.

Yes, but religion itself involves the conviction that certain things are true. You simply cannot have any discussion about religion without dogmatism!

Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." ---It's not about doubt. It's about belief!

Religion is "a particular system of faith and worship.: --- It's not something general!
There are particular things that the religious person believes and puts into practice!

Therefore, if you wish to discuss religion, you're simply going to have to accept that some people actually believe that certain propositions are true!---and dogmatically so!

If one can't handle that, and they just think it's rude, or presumptuous, or politically incorrect, then maybe they just shouldn't involve themselves in such OBVIOUSLY controversial subject matter.

 

[Wyote]

Now, does that make sense?

Yes.

Do you think that people who are dogmatic about their religion should be included or excluded from discussions about religious topics?

Excluded. They have their answers already. They have nothing to "discuss" but only things to assert.

If to you, dogmatism just means "I believe this and I will not be open to changing my mind because I'm dogmatic", does it not defeat the idea of a conversation?

Indeed

 

[dogman6126]

Yes, but religion itself involves the conviction that certain things are true. You simply cannot have any discussion about religion without dogmatism!

Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." ---It's not about doubt. It's about belief!

Religion is "a particular system of faith and worship.: --- It's not something general!
There are particular things that the religious person believes and puts into practice!

I don't think this is true. Dogmatism is a particular kind of belief. According to google definition, which I think is a good one, dogmatism is, "the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others." Notice the part about one takes their statements as incontrovertible truths. This makes doubt impossible. However, beliefs can be doubted, and we do so all the time. I believe that I am going to eat breakfast tomorrow, but I might doubt it because I can imagine where I would wake up sick tomorrow and stay in bed all day. Knowledge is more the sort of thing that you can doubt, depending on how you understand it.

Therefore, if you wish to discuss religion, you're simply going to have to accept that some people actually believe that certain propositions are true!---and dogmatically so!

If one can't handle that, and they just think it's rude, or presumptuous, or politically incorrect, then maybe they just shouldn't involve themselves in such OBVIOUSLY controversial subject matter.

If you want to talk to someone who believes certain propositions are true and are unwilling to consider alternatives, then your conversation will be relatively one sided. However, I think it can still be productive to talk to a dogmatic person. They might help you to understand their position even if they refuse to consider other positions. Dogmatism does not mean one has unfounded beliefs. Rather, it means one has a bad approach to avoid unfounded beliefs. They might have formed that first belief well, and just ran with it. It would be luck, haha.

 

[wonkavision]

Wow, just unbelievable. Don't people understand that religion is not like science or philosophy? It's not a mere matter of opinion or just speculation. It's a matter of conviction!

In this day and age, because of the mass brainwashing of people, from childhood, by postmodernists, it is almost impossible for anyone to conceive of an absolute, objective truth.

 

[dogman6126]

Wow, just unbelievable. Don't people understand that religion is not like science or philosophy? It's not a mere matter of opinion or just speculation. It's a matter of conviction!

A person can be entirely convinced about the teachings of philosophy or science, just as one might be about faith. Dogmatism is not faith specific. If you want to talk about objective truth, we can do that, but so far you've only asked about subjective belief about perceived objective truths. Conviction is just a particular kind of subjective belief.

In this day and age, because of the mass brainwashing of people, from childhood, by postmodernists, it is almost impossible for anyone to conceive of an absolute, objective truth.

Actually, I defend several objectivity philosophies. I am objectivist about ethics, metaphysics, and naturalism, just to name a few. In case you aren't familiar with the termenology, I'm saying that I believe there are objective truths about morality, about the mechanical world, and about the physical nature of the world.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

dogman6126tism

 

[dogman6126]

dogman6126tism

:wyotethumb:

 

[Wyote]

It's a matter of conviction!

 

[Deleted member 10171]

Remember Saint Augustine: "Doubt is but another element of faith." I strongly subscribe to that.

I like the quote and what you wrote here - could you elaborate a little more? Would like to get a sense of what you're trying to say when you wrote (bold bit above). Thanks

 

[Ren]

I am objectivist about ethics, metaphysics, and naturalism, just to name a few.

@dogman6126 ...

 

[dogman6126]

@dogman6126 ...

 

[pzl2lxie81mc]

By your tone, I think the issue is you don’t respect other people’s perspective. You are trying to prove your point is right by asserting something as truth that is in no way, truth. Was man or animal created first? If you take the Bible at its word, they were both created first and the other, second, because one part says one thing and another part, the other. So, which is it? Buddhism would say that religion is both dogmatic and not dogmatic.

Maybe stop hiding behind religion and just deal with the hurt feeling you have from being excluded. Then maybe you can come to accept that dogmatism, as pointed out to you so many times, oftentime does not lead to a two-way conversation, but a one-way sermon. Accept that as truth. Perhaps being dogmatic limits your company to those who hold the exact same view as you. Accept that as well. Because you can’t expect to be included if you cannot respect differing views. No one likes being talked down to.

 

[wonkavision]

By your tone, I think the issue is you don’t respect other people’s perspective. You are trying to prove your point is right by asserting something as truth that is in no way, truth. Was man or animal created first? If you take the Bible at its word, they were both created first and the other, second, because one part says one thing and another part, the other. So, which is it? Buddhism would say that religion is both dogmatic and not dogmatic.

Maybe stop hiding behind religion and just deal with the hurt feeling you have from being excluded. Then maybe you can come to accept that dogmatism, as pointed out to you so many times, does not lead to a two-way conversation, but a one-way sermon. Accept that as truth. Perhaps being dogmatic limits your company to those who hold the exact same view as you. Accept that as well. Because you can’t expect to be included if you cannot respect differing views. No one likes being talked down to.

I would agree that it would be rude, unwise, and uncalled-for to just go up to people and start preaching to them --- and dogmatically -- but I'm talking about when the TOPIC is RELIGION.

Such as in a forum thread about religion. For example, a thread about "Original Sin," where the OP asks, "How do you feel about Original Sin?" -- That's what I'm talking about.

It should be expected that some people would come and say, "I believe in it. I believe what the Bible says about it." -- One should not be surprised, much less offended, when that takes place.

And for people to whine and complain that the person is being too dogmatic, it just seems to me that they are the ones who should leave the conversation. You cannot discuss religion without religious dogma.

Otherwise, what's the point? A bunch of people discussing their bizarre points of view with absolutely no reference to any religious text? How is that going to be a useful conversation about religious topics?

Please tell me why, in the context of a thread which is about religion, and religious topics, one should refrain from expressing their conviction about the topic at hand, if they choose to do so?

 

[dogman6126]

I would agree that it would be rude, unwise, and uncalled-for to just go up to people and start preaching to them --- and dogmatically -- but I'm talking about when the TOPIC is RELIGION.

Such as in a forum thread about religion. For example, a thread about "Original Sin," where the OP asks, "How do you feel about Original Sin?" -- That's what I'm talking about.

It should be expected that some people would come and say, "I believe in it. I believe what the Bible says about it." -- One should not be surprised, much less offended, when that takes place.

And for people to whine and complain that the person is being too dogmatic, it just seems to me that they are the ones who should leave the conversation. You cannot discuss religion without religious dogma.

I think the problem was you were being insulting when you would share your views. That's what was offensive. You can discuss something you strongly take to be true without being offensive and still accepting challenges to your view.

I also strongly disagree with the bolded part. I have often had religion and philosophy of religion debates without assuming a point of view. I have my religious views, and I take them to be true, but I understand I could misunderstand something, or have made an illogical leap. I also understand that I'm limited in my perspective, and certainly don't know everything about my belief. I could never pretend to understand God's intentions. That is far to arrogant.

Otherwise, what's the point? A bunch of people discussing their bizarre points of view with absolutely no reference to any religious text? How is that going to be a useful conversation about religious topics?

Please tell me why, in the context of a thread which is about religion, and religious topics, one should refrain from expressing their conviction about the topic at hand, if they choose to do so?

You shouldn't refrain from expressing conviction, just be willing to accept when others do the same. Further, everyone should do so while respecting each other, especially on a thread that is about exploring an idea that is not immediately obvious.

The point is we all need to grow, intellectually, spiritually, and physically. We can do this by sharing and challenging each other's ideas. Even someone who takes a position dogmatically can play a role in a functioning conversation. I think it is more personality that stops the conversation from being productive.

 

[pzl2lxie81mc]

I see you’re posting this in addition to the one about original sin. I’ve only read a few of those posts, but what I’m seeing is you seem to believe that everyone else is going to hell, but you’re going to be saved. I mean...

Honestly, think about it. Recognize that a lot of people don’t think they’re going to hell, or that other people are going to hell, or even live life with that kind of mindset. I don’t know, I just don’t walk around thinking, oooh you’re a sinner, you’re going to hell. Oooh, you too, and you, and you and you and you - you’re all going to hell. Mwahahahaha.

Anyway, it has been my observation that Calvinism can often lead to a sense of entitlement - the comfort and security of knowing that there are a select few. Because really, which Calvinist doesn’t believe or strive, to be one of the select few? But the other side of that is everyone else, the masses, and it’s ok if they suffer, right? They’re going to hell anyway. Who cares about them. Apparently, not god.

Skakerow has a very wide perspective, you might do yourself a favor and learn a little more from him.

 

[Ren]

I like the quote and what you wrote here - could you elaborate a little more? Would like to get a sense of what you're trying to say when you wrote (bold bit above). Thanks

I think what I meant was that, since belief in God cannot be established as an absolute truth by humans, it requires a certain kind of commitment to keep it alive. The fact that 2+2=4 is something that (although some might differ) we may safely declare a universal truth and then stop thinking about it, but the question of God's existence is different. Faith is a commitment to what cannot be rationally established as self-evident; but if so, then faith itself cannot be considered as given. It has to be kept alive - but to be kept alive, it should never be taken for granted. If we're not accepting the possibility that we may doubt our faith, we're taking it for granted. But if we're taking it for granted, we're taking the existence of God as a self-evident universal truth, which it is not; or at least humans do not have the cognitive powers to establish that it is. So doubt must remain a part of faith.

 

[charlatan]

And for people to whine and complain that the person is being too dogmatic, it just seems to me that they are the ones who should leave the conversation. You cannot discuss religion without religious dogma.

Well let's clear some things up. First, belief doesn't necessarily equal dogmatic belief, so the question is whether there EXISTS something such as dogmatic belief in a meaningful sense (if it's just a belief+ a stubborn personality psychology, well, that's just a regular belief subject to doubt + a stubborn personality...that's just silly). Belief without the "dogmatic" qualifier is more like "I'm pretty convinced this is true -- I'm living my life as if it's true, and I can't see a plausible circumstance that would falsify it." This still leaves things open, but it doesn't have to be serious doubt.

Second, many Christian (reputed) philosophers wouldn't say they can't imagine being wrong, just they're damn confident they're right. Would this qualify as dogmatic, or fall short of it, by the way you're conceiving of it? It hardly qualifies as dogmatic to me, but you could call it very-high-certainty belief. Such is perfectly acceptable in a discussion, though it requires giving reasons (as such philosophers would tend to do -- where they don't entertain serious doubts, but are willing to discuss the reasons with someone who does doubt).


I'd say there may in fact be such things as properly basic beliefs, but not ones that are above question, not in the sense that we can really get outside them enough to give them up, but we can question what the beliefs really are, even if we're sure there is some belief. Maybe our consciousness is something like this. Hard-to-perhaps-inconceivable to get out of, but certainly something we can question our knowledge about.

It's possible for someone to live like there's a God as a properly basic belief, perhaps. That might be a dogmatic belief of the sort you're looking for. But what makes it 'dogmatic' if that even the word...is that, by virtue of its non-intellectual form, it isn't easy to make claims about it of an intellectual nature. After all, intellectual claims are subject to rational skepticism, yet the properly basic belief, were there such a thing, wouldn't be.

Making an intellectual claim that one claims to be certain of doesn't make sense, on the other hand. We can't even be certain of the rules of mathematics -- we've only till now not found an inconsistency in them, and essentially our way of knowing if there is one or not seems hopelessly error-prone.

 

[wonkavision]

I see you’re posting this in addition to the one about original sin. I’ve only read a few of those posts, but what I’m seeing is you seem to believe that everyone else is going to hell, but you’re going to be saved. I mean...

Honestly, think about it. Recognize that a lot of people don’t think they’re going to hell, or that other people are going to hell, or even live life with that kind of mindset. I don’t know, I just don’t walk around thinking, oooh you’re a sinner, you’re going to hell. Oooh, you too, and you, and you and you and you - you’re all going to hell. Mwahahahaha.

Anyway, it has been my observation that Calvinism can often lead to a sense of entitlement - the comfort and security of knowing that there are a select few. Because really, which Calvinist doesn’t believe or strive, to be one of the select few? But the other side of that is everyone else, the masses, and it’s ok if they suffer, right? They’re going to hell anyway. Who cares about them. Apparently, not god.

Skakerow has a very wide perspective, you might do yourself a favor and learn a little more from him.

That is a gross misunderstanding/misrepresentation of all that I've said.

I never said that anyone here is going to hell. I said that if God doesn't save them, they're going to hell.

I've said that the Bible declares this. I never said that because people don't believe me, they're lost. I've said that if they don't believe what the Bible says, then they're lost. -- Don't you see the difference?

I've never claimed that I am better than anyone, or that I did anything to contribute to my salvation. I've said from the beginning that I am nothing but a sinner saved by grace.

I've never denied that I'm still a sinner, in need of God's grace. The only difference between me and those who do not believe, is that God has not opened their eyes yet.

He may indeed do that if he's pleased to do so. But the instrument that God uses to do that is the proclamation of man's utter ruin by sin, and their need of the Lord Jesus Christ.