h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Dogma has a highly perjorative meaning. Why?

In any belief system, there are axioms, or dogma. Those who subscribe to the belief system must accept them, because the body of beliefs is derived from these axioms. If you don't accept the basis (dogma), then the derived reasoning won't be valid for you either.

If you don't accept that parallel lines never meet, then Euclidean geometry won't work for you. If you don't accept that Jesus is the son of God, then Christianity won't make much sense to you.

There is no reason why anyone *must* accept dogma for its own sake (or for any other reason). But, if you embrace any belief system, you must accept its dogma. If you can't do that, that belief system isn't for you.

So why the perjorative interpretation of the word 'dogma'?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

It's interesting to note that at least one scholar of ancient Greek mathematics claims that for Euclid and co, the term 'axiom' meant something like 'a proposition which we must accept because we cannot prove it, an unfortunate but necessary element of doubt' instead of the more modern meaning 'a certain proposition from which to deduce others with certainty'. I think the latter is dogma and the former is the more proper use of the term axiom. The reason that dogma has a pejorative sense is that it implies that you cannot and must not question the foundations, whereas in an axiomatic system you accept the axioms only to see where accepting them will take you. What do you reckon?

'a certain proposition from which to deduce others with certainty'

I'd not heard that one. Now *that* would encourage a perjorative response from me. Did you find that in a dictionary, , or did you just formulate it now?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:dogma

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

so many definitions -- so little time

I would venture to ask, 'what is right with dogma?'

Well, as I initially defined it - nothing at all. Nothing wrong, either. If you don't accept the assumptions that underlie my belief system, then the rest of it, resting on that basis, just won't work. Is that wrong or mistaken? I can't see how. It looks like common sense to me. Now that 'certainty' stuff Noggin came up with, well I needn't continue, need I?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Exactly

Perhaps the perjorative connotation of the word, 'dogma', is due to a long association with various authoritarian religious organizations using their particular belief systems as an excuse to run roughshod over human rights.

Your definition of dogma may be somewhat tautolgical, but it is not in itself offensive, or 'wrong'

The believer says, 'I believe in something beause I have faith', and it really does not matter upon what particular set of assumptions that faith is based.

What is 'wrong' with dogma is what is 'wrong' with any set of assumptions, when those who believe them do so without question.

The question, 'what is right about dogma?' stands the original 'on its head', meaning to suggest any belief, religious or otherwise, based upon 'certainty' is fundamentally flawed, simply because there are no 'things' of which to be certain

In that sense, dogma is neither wrong nor right. It is merely erroneous

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

No argument from me there. Surprised?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Did someone call?

That "certainty stuff" largely revolves around the idea that doubt sometimes makes no sense, or is irresolvable in principle. Doubts about the existence of the external world or the Law of non-contradiction, for instance, make no sense.

It is not possible to doubt everything at once without undermining the grounds for doubt in a way that renders them meaningless.

Any individual proposition may be at one time a test for the truth of other propositions, and at another something to be tested by other propositions.

Dogma has gained a pejorative sense because it is forbidden to the believer to change its status as a proposition for testing other propositions. Axioms may be so questioned (parallel lines, mentioned earlier, and n-dimensional geometries are a good example).

Noggin

There is another difference between religious and scientific dogma.

Scientific dogma normally (no counter examples spring to mind) takes the form of a reference to first principles: parallel lines never meet, some quantity is conserved, physical laws are universal and invariable etc.

Religious dogma usually, aside from the basic 'there is a god', is some form of derivation: "god says" treat women as chattels, kill anyone who disagrees, be nice to each other etc.

First principles are usually pretty apparent to the intelligent observer, although some may be counterintuitive initially, but religious principles are derived from the particular religion and frequently do not form any logical group.

I can see why parallel lines would never meet and I can accept that the phenomenon is unprovable. I can also, just about, accept that there might be a god (though I seriously doubt it) and I can accept that that too is unprovable but I cannot see how 'do not work on Sunday' or 'do not eat pork' is in any way axiomatic. Nor do I see how these rules may be logically derived from other, more basic, religious principles; however sensible they may prove to be.

F

I completely agree. I would not have characterised either of those things as dogma. If they are, then 'what is wrong with dogma' becomes a lot clearer!

'Jesus died, and was resurrected'. That's the sort of thing I would refer to as religious dogma. Maybe 'dogma' has too many apparent meanings to tease them all apart?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I wonder if that's a general trait of words which come to be pejorative? That their definition or usage becomes blurred from their original meaning?

Axiom: a basic truth or assumption from which other 'truths' can be deduced.

Dogma: anything not supported by evidence and which I disagree with.



F