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
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.
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
DSeid said:
and Aeschines replied:
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
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:
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.
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.
Jo Jo,
Would you be so kind to refrain of inventing things that I “am saying” in my posts? Thank you.
Salaam. A
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.
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.
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.
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.
Beeruser said:
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:
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.
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.
I don’t think G-d has a religious preference. He’s G-d, he doesn’t need religion. We do. 
I think that’s true. All religions are just different cultural interpretations of the same G-d.
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.
None. I agree.
I’m not going to hold my breath. I don’t think a “true religion” is possible as long as man is involved.
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.
Um, you are talking about metaphysics (IMO a lot of bunk) here, not philosophy in general.
That certainly is untrue. There are things called facts.
“True” is not a word used to describe laws of physics. “Accurate” is.
You mean I don’t know that it was sunny yesterday?
FWIW, logical systems have their own laws (axioms)…
(Don’t have the time or inclination to respond to the rest)
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.)____