Blind ignorance

[ldsoftwaresteve]

There is much truth in what Uncle Al says.

 

When dogma creates blindness, when it brings you to choose insanity over observation, then whatever good it was originally meant to induce becomes a travesty. But such is the nature of dogma.

 

In the sense of dogma being the measure of religion, there are many instances of religion without a name out there.

 

Fools do not have a monopoly on self-induced blindness.

[BEAKER]

Fools do not have a monopoly on self-induced blindness.

The religion of atheism is a perfect example of this. Although those who fill this credo would cringe at the very idea that what they have done is simply create another form of religion; the truth speaks for itself to those who are not as blind nor ignorant as some would suggest.

 

Atheism is like a man with a puzzle missing many of the larger pieces; but he thinks that the pieces must be there somewhere and is convinced that it really doesn't matter if he doesnt have all the pieces. He's satisied that what he has is enough of the puzzle to be sufficient. All the while he mocks the man next to him who also has a puzzle with pieces missing as though that man was such a fool to continue to build a puzzle without all the pieces.

[bumab]

Good analogy, beaker.

[Biochemist]

When dogma creates blindness, ...whatever good it was originally meant to induce becomes a travesty. But such is the nature of dogma.

 

In the sense of dogma being the measure of religion, there are many instances of religion without a name out there.

Do keep in mind that the phrase "Central Dogma" is commonly applied to the transcription of DNA to RNA to create proteins. Dogma, per se, does not imply lack of truth. Dogma is merely an established opinion (or set of opinions) irrespective of the underlying foundation for the opinion.

 

Those that contend that their thinking ought to be constrained only to those items that are provable via the Scientific Method have postulated that pillar in their personal dogma.

 

Others believe that elements of our world that are not provable via the Scientific Method have value as well. Merely a different postulate/pillar in their personal dogma.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Thank you BIO for the feedback. ;)

 

I agree. I was contemplating that when I got your response. Perhaps I'm as dogmatic as the next guy.

 

Then I can see how science is considered a religion because it has many of the same characteristics.

 

It would have one hopefully significant difference, however. It should never ask you to accept a belief without proof. Because to build an entire structure, an entire life and career on a foundation of straw would be rather discomfiting.

 

One would tend to be resistant to anything that threatened that foundation. This is the blindness of which I speak.

[Biochemist]

...Perhaps I'm as dogmatic as the next guy....I can see how science is considered a religion because it has many of the same characteristics...It {science} should never ask you to accept a belief without proof....

Nothing wrong (or right) with dogma. Personally, I have alway thought that internal consistency was the most important component of dogma. That is just my opinion, however. Those that hew to the Scientific Method as the principal foundation for dogma are not bound to internal consistency, just consistency with observed data.

 

I should note that there are other valid evidenciary models than the Scientific Method. In American law we use either the "preponderance of eviidence" for civil law or "beyond reasonable doubt" for criminal law. Neither of those standards require falsifiability of hypotheses for acceptance of an evidenciary outcome. Some would contend that hewing to the Scientific Method for issues that are 1) important and 2) unlikely ever to be demonstrated by the Scientific Method is unreasonable. Identifying the purpose of mankind (or an individual) may fall into that set of issues.

[BEAKER]

Then I can see how science is considered a religion because it has many of the same characteristics...It would have one hopefully significant difference, however. It should never ask you to accept a belief without proof. Because to build an entire structure, an entire life and career on a foundation of straw would be rather discomfiting...This is the blindness of which I speak.

The question then becomes, for those who dare to ask; exactly how much "proof" is required to establish any idea as an unquestionable absolute - on par with Newtons laws of gravity and motion, or Kepler's Heliocentricity of the solar system?

 

You would say that a person has no proof whose faith is in an invisible God who supposedly created everything that exists; while others would say any other view is insane.

 

You might say that all this miscelaneous evidence, and libraries filled with books and data and yadda, yadda, yada...is "proof" that evolution occured. - But of course it cannot be tested, nor duplicated, nor observed - just like creation.

 

Of course the statistical improbabiliy of evolution - or should I say- life from no life, actually happening is mind boggleing. But that doesn't stop people from being so "dogmatic" about their view on the subject that they become blinded to any other possibility.

 

So just how much proof will you accept as enough?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Beaker, that was a very thoughtful response. Thank you.

 

If God exists, He/She certainly doesn't require my recognition for His/Her happiness. So I don't consider that aspect of this discussion to be a driving force in its direction. In other words, God can get along just fine without my homage. No disrespect intended here. Homer Simpson's line, "You're not the boss of me!" to God keeps coming to mind. If you haven't seen that episode, please do. His response was a chuckle. That would be my image of God and pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

 

If I was created by design, then it would follow that I have a certain nature and certain properties and being a life-form I have a particular way of surviving. Assuming the identification of truth is a value, if certain truths were unavailable to me without accepting the existence of God, then it would be necessary for me to accept it or continue on without those truths.

 

But that's the nature of life. Choices. We all choose what to believe, what to make dogma and what our mantras are. And we move on. For the poor choices we pay and for the good choices we rejoice. Our choices don't have an impact on the nature of existence, just the nature of our happiness.

 

You know Beaker, just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I don't believe in morality and in the goodness of life. Loving ones life is outside the realm of religion and it's from that seed that the tree of morality springs.

[paultrr]

Lots of non-believers have morality. Its rather a part of human nature to have such. What we all base that morality on varies from person to person. I'd also agree that God's happiness, if he or she does exist does not depend upon by belief in him or her. If anything, the choices are mine to make as is the responcability of such choices mine to live with. Besides, even the Bible does not say what we sow is what God reaps. It says what we sow is what we reap.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I agree. And every rational moral code would need to connect my effort with my rewards or it won't last very long.

 

Unfortunately, I don't know of any codified moral code outside of a religion.

 

You know, perhaps it's the lack of a clear cut code in religions that gives rise to some of the abberations of which Uncle Al spoke (and which are still taking place).

 

Perhaps it's just an example of poor design and maybe that could be changed.

 

The bottom line is that we apparently need a guideline (dogma) for systematically dealing with each other as well as the rest of existence. Instead of attacking the concept of religion, perhaps it would make sense to help the religions clearly define their moral code.

 

In the final analysis, it doesn't make any difference what God one believes in, it just matters how one behaves. It's your actions that are judged. First by your self, then by your God - if you have one.

[Buffy]

Unfortunately, I don't know of any codified moral code outside of a religion.

Hammurabi's Code. The problem is that in the early development of human society, social power was inextricably linked to the ability to "predict the future"--the guy who was best at predicting where to hunt, where and when to plant usually ends up being chief--and once society got more sophisticated, religious and political structures had an intertwined and symbiotic relationship. Religions continue to try to maintain power today by claiming that they "own" morality, when the development of "laws" like "don't hit your neighbor because he'll hit you back and it escalates into a situation that is bad for the social group" can easily evolve without some guy being given a couple of bricks on top of Mt Sinai as shown by game theory and much anthropological studies of other species social interactions.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[paultrr]

Personally, considering the rest of the troups, so to speak, where down partying below that mountain one can also wonder if Moses just didn't get bored pick up some rocks and carve out his own set of laws or perhaps he too had been partying up on that mountain. With all the goat and sheep dung around there had to have been some you know what around in that area.

[Buffy]

You'd think that after years of being immersed in the most sophisticated society on Earth at that point with very complicated religious entities and strictures, that just being out in the desert for a while wouldn't have caused them to degrade into paganistic animal worship huh? I think ol' Moses was desperate and had to do something to keep the troops from degrading in to anarchy. Who cares where the bricks came from?

 

Moses, the first Machiavelli...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

Lots of non-believers have morality. Its rather a part of human nature to have such.

Lots of folks (all?)have a conscience, and a personal code of conduct. I don't think that makes it morality. It is just a personal preference. Ther is no way to compare the "good" in one set of personal preferences against any other without an external standard of some sort. If there is no relative good, then, by definition, there is no morality.

[Biochemist]

Hammurabi's Code. ...

I don't think Hammurabi established a basis for morality. He wrote a basis for law. He essentially listed a set of infractions, and established a set of penalties for the infractions. One could presume that Hammurabi based his list of infractions on some preexisting set of perceived values, but that is not evident. There is nothing, for example, in Hammurabi's code about personal behavior or personal attitidues except where it impacts someone else via a behavior. This does not strike me as a moral framework.

[Buffy]

Its true that Hammurabi did not codify *manners* which some call morals, but this becomes a side argument since the primary issue that people try to invoke here is that all our laws are based on the Bible, or that we would only have them if God somehow gave them to us. The argument I make above is that laws *and* manners together are social conventions whose evolution can easily be explained by mechanisms other than a divine force having to forcibly taught humanity about them. That and the fact that the historical association of these laws and manners with what we call religion is easily explainable but is not proof of divine intervention.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

Its true that Hammurabi did not codify *manners* which some call morals..

Manners are not morals either. Manners are still behaviors. Morals are sets of attitudes that reflect themselves in behaviors, but the attitudes are the morals, not the behaviors. "Love your neighbor" is not a behavior, it is an attitude. It may reflect itself into a number of behaviors, but it is supposed to pervade a relationship even when no behaviors are present.

...the primary issue that people try to invoke here is that all our laws are based on the Bible, or that we would only have them if God somehow gave them to us.

The argument is that morals are based on an external standard. It would not have to be the Bible, but it would have to be "external". I agree you could still have "conscience" and "manners" without an external reference. Conscience is a personal framework, and manners are a social norm. Neither has a basis in morality.

 

The point was NOT that existence of morality is a proof of divine intervention. The point is that there is no such thing as morality without divine intervention.