Dogma is the great sin of the mind

[Aeschines]

There is no exact word in English for the concept I, but "dogma" comes close:

I believe everything my church/this religious leader/this political leader/this book/this person says. Further, even though I do not yet understand the total content of the religious/political belief system, I commit to believing everything that might be included therein.

We tend to associate this type of mental slavery with religion, but there are many communists/fascists/knee-jerk politicos who seem willing to defend anything every said or done by Marx/Reagan/etc.

Am I talking about faith--that is believing something without sufficient proof, or without proof at all? No, although faith can be problematic in its own right. What I really wish to excoriate is an unconditional committment to a set of beliefs, especially without really knowing what is in the set.

Those whose minds are infected with this virus seem foolish to those whose minds judge each thing separately. Especially religius fundamentalists, who have to justify each item of tripe in their books as though it were an indispensible piece of knowledge. You can find entire websites dedicated to demonstrating that there are no contradictions or mistakes in the Bible/Quran/Book of Mormon. What's even funnier is that they battle back and forth, oblivious to the fact that their fundamental position--rigid committment to a belief set--is the problem common to them all.

But before the skeptics on this board get cheeky, I like to point out that they are quickly becoming the fundamentalists of a new era, in which it just so happens that anything they consider "paranormal" just can't be--it mustn't be true!

[furt]

I don't disagree with the OP as such, but I'd argue that there is another here is another sin of the mind that's just as bad:

I am utterly qualified to understand all things by myself. I am an independant thinker and I believe everything I can find out, unaided, that which is utterly correct. Further, even though I do not yet understand the total content of all the related information on a given subject, I commit to believing that I am qualified to understand everything that might be included therein."

"He who learns but does not think is lost; he who thinks but does not learn is in also in great danger." --Confucius

[Polycarp]

Because "dogma" does in fact have a meaning -- the irreducible truths held by a given faith community, as opposed to commonly held beliefs within it but not mandatory on its members -- the word you want to rant against is dogmaticism.

For example, it is only fair to expect any Christian to agree to the proposition that Jesus was in fact "the Son of God" -- placing whatever interpretation they care to on what that term means, but accepting it as setting Him apart from the rest of humanity as Someone Whose teachings are worthy of being followed. Note that this is not a mandate on all people everywhere, but a distinguishing feature of Christianity.

It does not therefore follow, necessarily, that He opposed all abortions or gay marriages. Many Christians will infer from the Bible that this is so; some will infer the reverse. Who is right is something they can argue about.

My point here is that "the Son of God" constitutes dogma, and is a defining feature of the belief system. To insist that "any true Scotsman" must oppose gay marriages and legal abortion becomes dogmaticism -- the insistence that your system of belief is binding on everybody.

Note further that dogmaticism is not exclusively the province of the religious. An omnipotent God is perfectly capable of creating the Universe in six days, or whatever time period He chooses, or of having a virgin give birth to a male child. That the laws of science with which we are familiar suggest that neither of these are "possible" does not disprove the assertion; it merely means that either there are undiscovered aspects of the Universe that would make them quite possible, or that the beliefs in question are incorrect. But to insist that "science has proven the Virgin Birth to be impossible" means something quite different -- it's saying that an omnipotent God is limited by the rules of His own creation. I think the six-day Creation is disprovable on Christian principles -- it implies God to have characteristics not commensurate with the God defined by the Christian system, such as being a consummate practical joker -- but it is not "disproven by Science."

That said, it's a great OP, and one worthy of a lot of intelligent discussion.

[Aeschines]

Polycarp,

TY. I had thought that "dogmatism" would be the right word, but I looked it up and it meant something a little different.

Obviously, the worst combo is to believe that not only is your belief set true in every item, but it is binding upon all humanity also to adhere to it. Then you truly have a virulent meme to deal with.

But I want to emphasize that what I'm talking about is very, very common: the willingness to bite off a big chunk of belief at once and dedicate oneself to it. It's not just religious; it can also be political.

[PatriotX]

yeah, what Poly said.

[DSeid]

"Dogma is the great sin of the mind."

Exactly. I believe that as a doctrine, a central tenet. It is an established fact and no one could ever convince me otherwise. Anyone who doesn't see this as inherently true on its face is a fool!

;)

[Aldebaran]

Originally posted by Aeschines
Obviously, the worst combo is to believe that not only is your belief set true in every item, but it is binding upon all humanity also to adhere to it. Then you truly have a virulent meme to deal with.

If you refer here to religions: this definition you come up with doesn't match with the teachings of Al Qur'an.

You seem to look too much to the idea's defended by certain groups of people that follow a certain religion, instead of looking to the original teachings of the religions themselves.

And as already brought up here: atheists can be as misleaded-dogmatic as theists.

Salaam. A

[Aeschines]

Aldebaran,

Yes, I am not against religion or even faith, just against a willingness to believe without any thought whatsoever.

[Aldebaran]

Well, that is indeed an often very visible problem in societies all over the world.

It must be said however that this is very often linked to and intertwined with the traditions and socially accepted/imposed behaviour of and in societies.

But these can then on their turn come under the influence of certain groups who don't have other goals then politics and power. And then you have the condition for affecting people outside this group/society.
I guess it is that what you most of all refer to.


Salaam. A

[hypnoboth]

Unfortunately, what I hear in reaction to dogmatism is total skepticism. I believe nothing unless I can work it out myself, from a standing start, sitting here in the first lesson.

And what you mistake for dogmatism is often humility. "I do not understand this, but this person appears to me wise and intelligent, and what is more important, he has earned my trust. I know that it takes me a long time to absorb things. Although I know I don't understand this yet, and I haven't made the connections, but I am going to accept the whole, and work like hell to understand all the details and connections as I study and work it out, knowing that I can only do that by addressing the subject as a whole, not nibbling at it in its parts."

And then, when you try and question this person about his beliefs, he comes off as dogmatic, because all he can do is echo the basic beliefs. He hasn't made the connections. He doesn't know the details. And, frankly, he is uncertain in his heart because he knows this. It is the novice who is loud, who overemphasize, who tries too hard. They are excited about what they are learning, and try to share that excitement, without realizing that they cannot share excitement; they can only share learning that they do not yet completely have.

This is not to say that dogmatism doesn't exist by itself; those who never try to learn more than cant and slogans. But I suspect it is not as common as many people think.

[olanv]

Well stated hypnoboth.

Aeshines,

Obviously, the worst combo is to believe that not only is your belief set true in every item, but it is binding upon all humanity also to adhere to it. Then you truly have a virulent meme to deal with.

Every aspect of my life is bound by the belief that you must exist in order to have a thought. My entire life would not make sense if I assumed that this was not necessarily binding upon all of humanity. When I can detect a human stating an equivilent statement that denies this premise, I become interested in what is occuring... I assume that they must be lying somehow, for to assume otherwise is to negate every premise I use for some sense that something is occurring.

[Milum]

DSeid
"Dogma is the great sin of the mind."
Exactly. I believe that as a doctrine, a central tenet. It is an established fact and no one could ever convince me otherwise. Anyone who doesn't see this as inherently true on its face is a fool!

Nice punt return DSeid, but you stepped out of bounds back on the twenty. Your tongue-in-cheek comments only point out a very important truth about human evolution. Which is...

Dogmatic beliefs serve a very useful function by implementing cohesion in individuals whose opinions differ. Dogmatic thinking helps focus the beliefs and goals of diverse individuals into a more-or-less unitified cultural whole with which other cultural groups must reckon with and compete.

On the other hand, dogmas have their drawbacks too. :)

[The Asbestos Mango]

Aeschines, I think I understand what you're trying to say. What you're describing is characteristic of Fund'ist Protestants, who have this tactic of "get 'em to convert, then we'll explain the doctrines to 'em", and of "cradle Catholics", who are notoriously (and shockingly) ignorant of the teachings of their own faith, but insist that they believe all of them anyway. It is also a defining characteristic of managers at Wal-Mart (the corporate office says that the ratio of payroll to sales revenue is too high, which means we're overstaffed, and therefore it must be so. What? We're losing business because customers can't find help on the sales floor? That means less sales revenue? Surely the corporate office has taken ths into account. Lay off some more sales people).

Dogmaticisim frightens me. It's one thing to have a shared set of beliefs which creates cohesiveness in a culture, or to understnd what your particular religion teaches and why it teaches what it does and decide that, yes you really do believe that around 4 BC or so a virgin gave birth to a son who was God Incarnate. It's quite another to say, I believe this because it's in the Bible and the Bible is the Word of God (and on into the circular reasoning), or, I believe this because my parents taught it to me. This sort of thinking, carried to extremes, is just cuckoo. In most cases, however, no visible harm is done, except to the mind of the believer who must continuously short-circuit his or her own mental processes in order to sustain the belief system. Taken to an extreme, however, you get situations such as the mass burnings/drownings/other assorted forms of execution of witches, Catholics, or heretics that were carried out in in the wake of the Protesant Reformation.

In the case of a corporation, to believe layoffs are necessary in spite of immediate, visible evidence that a particular establishment is short-staffed, and is losing business as a direct result of not having sufficient staff to meet the needs of the customers because some bean counter in Bentonville crunched some numbers and arrived at this conclusion without any first hand evaluation of the needs of the store has real, tangible consequences. Workers who are already receiving poverty-level wages find themselves thrown out of jobs and onto the unemployment and welfare rolls, and in a tight job market, may not be able to find new employmet for several months. Customers are inconvenienced to a intolerable degree and eventually take their business elsewhere. The corporation itself is harmed because of the loss of sales revenue from the store. But most big corporations don't draw their managers from intelligent, thnking folks with the ability to evaluate the needs of their individual store, and entrust them to make hiring/firing decisions based on the staffing needs of each department in order to keep the customers happy and the money flowing into the cash registers.

Any belief system that demands unquestioned obedience harms itself as much as its adherents. The student in religion class who asks what makes Christianity better or more worthy of belief than any other randomly selected religion and is sent to sit in the hallway is probably harmed less than the religious institution that is not prepared to answer such qestions. The rebuffed student simply decides not to believe anymore, and spends his Sundays watching football instead of in the pews. The Church loses a valuable community member, any offerings that person may have contributed, a pair of hands that might have helped in charitable works.

The corporation that expects its edicts from on high to be obeyed without question will probably not go bankrupt in a week, a month, or even a year, but will eventually suffer the fate of K-Mart. Demands to cut labor costs with no respect for the effects it will have on customer service will gradually drive away business until stores that have become unprofitable are forced to close, directly impacting the economy of the community. The corporation gradually begins losing revenue and is forced to close up shop while the accoutants and executive stand, slack-jawed, wondering why they are losing money when they did everything they could to cut costs.

Either way, everybody loses.

[DSeid]

Milum, I really do agree with you and am glad that you saw the point. What is dogmatic to one is axiomatic to another. Western secularism is founded on some basic dogmas ... freedom of speech, all men are created equal, freedom of religion ... you know the drill ... and we have a difficult time understanding that anyone could question their obvious truth. You are absolutely correct: societies all exist by accepting some basic axioms/dogmas and building upon them - whether they be religious or secular. From tribal religions to religions well suited for the needs of a geographically diverse Roman Empire past its peak. The difference is that Western secular dogmas usually do not prohibit members from holding other dogmas at the same time. This non-prohibitive basis allows for multiple cultures to co-exist, to cross-pollinate, and strengthens the society as a whole. I whole-heartedly believe that the dominance of American society in the world today originates in the breadth of cutures subsumed within its society, parts of the whole but maintaining their individual identities and dogmas at the same time. The "sin" referenced in the op, a disrespect and disregard for the dogma of others, is not evil; it is just self-defeating in today's world.

[Bryan Ekers]

Not only that, it keeps chasing my karma!

[Aeschines]

DSeid,

I tried to be clear in the OP, but I am NOT against having axioms. I am against people committing themselves to large belief sets now and forever.

[DSeid]

Aeschines, what do you think axioms are?

They are what we accept as self-evident truths in any particular system. I hold to my belief in the basics of human rights dogmatically, now and forever.

You really aren't against dogma per se. You are against people being closed to what you feel they should be open to.

[Polycarp]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Not only that, it keeps chasing my karma!

It takes a stigma to beat a dogma! :)

Now that we've gotten those puns out of the way....

(BTW, in view of my recent Pit thread, I was greatly amused by the fact that a topic with a religious basis ended up using Wal-Mart as a parallel!) :eek:

I hold to a surprisingly large proportions of the tenets of Episcopalian Christianity, including all the "mandatory" ones and several of the "common assumption" ones -- but I arrived there by questioning and integrating the answers available into my own worldview, based on my own experiences, my study of available authorities, and the use of reason.

[BrotherCadfael]

I forget who came up with these but...

"Faith is believin' what you know ain't so."

and

"The problem is that when a person stops believing in God he will instead believe in anything" -- which may explain the rise in New Age mysticism, crystals, homoepathy, astrologyetc., etc...

[Aeschines]

DSeid,

Not so. "It's wrong to hurt people" is an axiom that people all over the world hold--to good effect.

I'm talking about committing to believing everything a religion or political system holds true. Choking down the whole belief system unquestioningly.

[Aldebaran]

Aeschines,

Most people do exactly that with their view on how political systems and societies should be and function.

And especially those in the West are very convinced about that at this stage in human history. (See the post of DSeid as example).

Salaam. A

[DSeid]

Alde,

I'd like to re-emphasize how we agree. Western secularism is as much based on dogma as any Islamic theocracy. You either accept these truths as self-evident or you do not. Part of the dogma of secularism is, however, allowing parts of the society wide berth to maintain their own individual dogmata so long as they do not infringe upon those of others. As we have discussed in another thread this allows for a creative mixing of cultures and intellectual advances occur. Islamic cultures have had periods in the past where such tolerance of the dogmata of others was the rule and such times often correlated with periods where Islamic intellectualism flourished far above anything that was occuring in the West of the time, but such is currently more of the exception. This is to the Arab world's detriment IMHO.

[Aldebaran]

Islamic cultures have had periods in the past where such tolerance of the dogmata of others was the rule and such times often correlated with periods where Islamic intellectualism flourished far above anything that was occuring in the West of the time, but such is currently more of the exception. This is to the Arab world's detriment IMHO.

It often correlated with periods of flourishing intellectualism/culture, yet it wasn't a condition for this nor was it always the case.

But it is indeed something that should become the norm again. And for those countries where it is not the case these days it is a factor to be taken in account when looking for reasons why they don't advance. Or came to stagnate in the first place. (By the way: What happened to that thread)

And this is also not something "Islamic nations only".

Salaam. A



Salaam. A

[Jojo]

DSeid said:

Aeschines, what do you think axioms are?

They are what we accept as self-evident truths in any particular system. I hold to my belief in the basics of human rights dogmatically, now and forever.

and Aeschines replied:

DSeid,

Not so. "It's wrong to hurt people" is an axiom that people all over the world hold--to good effect.

You're both wrong. Human rights are not an axiom, not hurting people is not an axiom.

From this site: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Index.html?http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Axiom.html

An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction.

There are only three axioms: Existence Exists; The Law of Identity and Consciousness. Belief in these axioms cannot be compared to belief in a religious or political system because these axioms are truly self-evident and cannot be wrong.

Beyond these axioms, nothing is sacred or certain. Some things can be inferred from these axioms such as the laws of physics. The currently known laws of physics seem to be true but they may not be. Democracy may be the best form of government or it may not be. There may be a God or there may not be. Respect for human rights may be the best direction for society to take or it may not be.

Nothing is knowable except the axioms. Beyond the axioms we have to use human intuition and logic and stumble along as best we can.

In other words, beyond the axioms we have human ideas (memes). All human ideas could be wrong. Therefore you can judge how trustworthy an idea is by how much it is open to change in the event of new information coming to hand. The main human ideas are science, politics and religion. And their trustworthiness comes on a sliding scale with science at the top and religion at the bottom.

At the top we have scientific knowledge - it is dangerous to assume that anything scientific is true because it may be wrong but science has a safety valve in that it is eminently adaptable in the face of new information.

Next we have politics - politics can become overly dogmatic (such as in the case of fascism or communism) but in general it is reasonably open to new ideas. Democracy evolved from out of the meme pool but it's not the end of political evolution. Politics is constantly evolving.

Finally we have religion - religion is fairly resistant to change because it has already set out it's stall (Jesus is the son of God, Mohammed was a prophet etc).

While religions reside in the private sphere - between an individual and God - it doesn't much matter that they are dogmatic. The problem that religions have is that they have already decided on the best way to run society and on the best way for individuals to behave. They are putting the cart before the horse.

There is no way to know what is "best" because what is "best" is constantly evolving.

When Aldebaran said:

Most people do exactly that with their view on how political systems and societies should be and function.

And especially those in the West are very convinced about that at this stage in human history. (See the post of DSeid as example).

What he is saying is that the West's notions of a good way to run society are unwelcome in certain arab countries because those arab countries have already decided on the "best" way to run society. They decided on it 1400 years ago. So religion (in this case, islam) is acting as a barrier to natural political evolution.

Remember what I said above about how the trustworthiness of a system can be judged by it's ability to change. This means that religion is the least trustworthy of all human ideas and islam is the least trustworthy of all the religions since it's the most rigid.

If there is a God then He endowed us with brains and the ability to develop knowledge and ideas. Why did He do this if He was going to set down rigid religious rules which would curtail our natural ability to develop ideas?

He should have EITHER given us religion and made us all into robots so we wouldn't evolve new ideas

OR

NOT given us religion and endowed us with the ability to develop and improve upon our ideas as we go along.

When I look around me at the world I find myself in I see that we are not all robots. I see that we are continually developing new ideas. Therefore I'm inclined towards the second of the above choices based on the evidence I see around me.

[Jojo]

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Index.html?[url]http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Axiom.html

[Jojo]

Hmm...can't get that link to work properly but you can get into the site from the links I gave. Look for "axioms" under the site map.

[Aldebaran]

Jo Jo,

Would you be so kind to refrain of inventing things that I "am saying" in my posts? Thank you.

Salaam. A

[DSeid]

JoJo,

I am so happy that you can find a source that claims that Euclid and others all used the word "axiom" incorrectly and that axiom really means a statement that has to invoke itself to prove itself, and claims that only three true axioms have been identified. Unfortunately for the authors of that site such is not the definition in most other dictionaries or usages. I stand by my usage as correct. But if it makes it more comprehensible to you feel free to substitute "postulate" for "axiom" in my post. No matter.

Alde was quite comprensible without interpretation, and I doubt that you have the expertise to declare Islam as "least trustworthy of all the religions since it's the most rigid." In fact, such is false on its face. There are many different interpretations of Islam extant today and the the religion has certainly evolved in practice. Islamic theocracies have had many different faces and manifestations, some tolerant, some oppressive. This bespeaks for a fair degree of "flexibility". I think that you are reacting to a perception of fundamentalist extremists who certainly are over-represented in both certain power structures and in the press, and are using those perceptions to formulate some very ugly stereotypes.

[Jojo]

ok sorry Aldebaran. What I should have said was that the above was my interpretation of what you were saying. Although if you weren't saying that then what were you saying? My interpretation seems like the most reasonable one.

DSeid,

I know that islam has many different interpretations and that it can change. Tamerlane has explained this to me a thousand times. I didn't say that it was completely unalterable, I said it was very rigid.

Let's say there are 100 different islams. Each one of those is rigid within itself. And when it changes (which happens rarely) it only changes because someone comes up with a different interpretation of the holy book, it doesn't change as a result of an external idea.

And there are certain concepts that run across the board in islam (such as the brotherhood concept, the apostacy is wrong concept etc). And I'm not talking about the fundamentalist extremists, I'm talking about mainstream islam (or any religion).

Anyway this thread isn't about islam, I was only using it as an example. Maybe islam can change occasionally but it's not as open to change as, say, science. Therefore religion is less trustworthy.

That's my point.

[IWLN]

Originally posted by Jojo
Anyway this thread isn't about islam, I was only using it as an example. Maybe islam can change occasionally but it's not as open to change as, say, science. Therefore religion is less trustworthy.

That's my point.It does seem to me that a religion that is supposed to represent the word and essence of G-d, should not be changed by cultural influences. That would be a perversion of G-d's word, not an improvement of an established religion. If a religion is correct, it should be rigid, as far as external changes.

[the first supraliminal]

Dogma isn't the culprit, just spending a lot of one's time fussing over guessing or predicting what's to come is the real evil.
Why waste life on earth to guess or expound on what comes later?
Surely that's a denial of this life, this earth, this reality.

Reminds me of the movie The Black Robe where a French missionary to North America is confounded by Indian beliefs that dreams must be obeyed in things like deciding when to die.
His denial of the Indian belief in dreams over reality also reveals faith as a close contender in denying reality.

[Jojo]

Beeruser said:

Dogma isn't the culprit, just spending a lot of one's time fussing over guessing or predicting what's to come is the real evil.
Why waste life on earth to guess or expound on what comes later?
Surely that's a denial of this life, this earth, this reality.

Reminds me of the movie The Black Robe where a French missionary to North America is confounded by Indian beliefs that dreams must be obeyed in things like deciding when to die.
His denial of the Indian belief in dreams over reality also reveals faith as a close contender in denying reality.

Yes. The way I see it is it's like we're on a small island surrounded by a vast sea. The island is the things we actually know - the axioms, the sea is everything else.

I watch people set sail off into the sea in order to search for land that they swear is out there and I'm always interested in what they discover but, me, I'm a bit of a landlubber. I prefer to stay on the island - Axiom Island.

I may do a bit of fishing now and then off some of the rockier coasts but, in general, I prefer to stay on the Island of Things We Actually Know.

Hey, it's small and things can get a bit boring round here but it's home and I like it.

IWLN said:

It does seem to me that a religion that is supposed to represent the word and essence of G-d, should not be changed by cultural influences. That would be a perversion of G-d's word, not an improvement of an established religion. If a religion is correct, it should be rigid, as far as external changes.

Yes, a religion that changes every time the wind blows is not much use. But then maybe religions should be flexible rather than rigid since God is the God of ALL the world not just those parts that happen to believe in him correctly. He created a world with many different belief systems, cultures etc. If he'd wanted us all the same he would have made us that way.

Suppose the Jewish viewpoint is right and God is Jewish, I'm still going to have to face a Jewish God when I die so he's just as much my God as the jewish God. Likewise if God is a muslim God - I'm not a muslim but, when I die, I've got to face him anyway.

Since God created a world with many different belief systems, cultures etc maybe God's wisdom can still be found in them even if they're slightly wrong about the nature of God.

Also, since the world's major religions were given to us, we have made significant progress in the fields of philosophy, science, government etc. We have done this by using our god-given intelligence and ability to develop and improve new ideas.

Since our intelligence is god-given then a true religion would be able to accomodate this. It would be able to accomodate our ever-evolving ideas.

What use is a religion that has to try and suppress one of our greatest god-given talents?

So maybe when the true religion comes it will be noted for it's flexibility rather than for it's rigidity.

[IWLN]

Yes, a religion that changes every time the wind blows is not much use. But then maybe religions should be flexible rather than rigid since God is the God of ALL the world not just those parts that happen to believe in him correctly. He created a world with many different belief systems, cultures etc. If he'd wanted us all the same he would have made us that way.I agree G-d intended for there to be multiple religions. If you truly believe that your religious doctrine came directly from G-d though, it seems that changing it would be wrong.

Suppose the Jewish viewpoint is right and God is Jewish, I'm still going to have to face a Jewish God when I die so he's just as much my God as the jewish God. Likewise if God is a muslim God - I'm not a muslim but, when I die, I've got to face him anyway.I don't think G-d has a religious preference. He's G-d, he doesn't need religion. We do. :)

Since God created a world with many different belief systems, cultures etc maybe God's wisdom can still be found in them even if they're slightly wrong about the nature of God.I think that's true. All religions are just different cultural interpretations of the same G-d.

Also, since the world's major religions were given to us, we have made significant progress in the fields of philosophy, science, government etc. We have done this by using our god-given intelligence and ability to develop and improve new ideas.
Since our intelligence is god-given then a true religion would be able to accomodate this. It would be able to accomodate our ever-evolving ideas.Well we obviously haven't developed that true religion yet. Science and intelligence have actually been pretty hard on a lot of the current religious beliefs, not necessarily without cause, though.

What use is a religion that has to try and suppress one of our greatest god-given talents?None. I agree.

So maybe when the true religion comes it will be noted for it's flexibility rather than for it's rigidity.I'm not going to hold my breath. I don't think a "true religion" is possible as long as man is involved.

[Urban Ranger]

Aeschines, what do you think axioms are?

They are what we accept as self-evident truths in any particular system. I hold to my belief in the basics of human rights dogmatically, now and forever.

I submit that dogma and axioms are different.

In any given system, axioms are the the assumptions, taken as true without proof, as the basis for argument and inference.

Dogma serves no such function.

[Urban Ranger]

There are only three axioms: Existence Exists; The Law of Identity and Consciousness.

Um, you are talking about metaphysics (IMO a lot of bunk) here, not philosophy in general.


Beyond these axioms, nothing is sacred or certain.

That certainly is untrue. There are things called facts.


The currently known laws of physics seem to be true but they may not be.

"True" is not a word used to describe laws of physics. "Accurate" is.


Nothing is knowable except the axioms.

:confused:

You mean I don't know that it was sunny yesterday?


Beyond the axioms we have to use human intuition and logic and stumble along as best we can.

FWIW, logical systems have their own laws (axioms)...

(Don't have the time or inclination to respond to the rest)

[Milum]

Oh oh, now we've all done it. We have become quite serious in our words and thoughts. Sadly we have been reduced to gleaning our "meanings" from the same words that we have written and read. But deep down inside all of us a dark and dirty secret hides, which says...

a "dogma" grades into a "axiom" into a "blueberry pie".

In other words all words are "fuzzy" and indefinite, and all words have little wings that flitter their fuzzy meanings to and fro so that each and every word has a somewhat different meaning at different times and in different spaces.

No wonder we argue, it is but a happy coincidence that we ever agree on anything at all. And don't you all think it ironic and a bit funny that it is the very indefinite quality of "fuzzyness" that allows us to think that we "understand" anything at all. Strange.

(Thank you for allowing this interruption of the Dogma v. Axiom discussion of this thread and for allowing me to practice using the new fonts and colors of the new formating of the Straight Dope board.)____ :)