sysdharma's phlogged recently about dogma[1]. To have some
context, I looked up two definitions of dogma:
Webster 1928 Dictionary
DOGMA, noun [Gr., to think; Latin ] A settled opinion; a
principle, maxim or tenet; a doctrinal notion,
particularly in matters of faith and philosophy; as the
dogmas of the church; the dogmas of Plato.
Webster 2018 Online
Definition of dogma
1 a : something held as an established opinion;
especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets pedagogical dogma
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as
authoritative without adequate grounds
2 a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or
morals formally stated and authoritatively
proclaimed by a church
(I was particularly pleased that the definition had not
changed much over the years, this is not always the
case.)
sysdharma said in his post, "One of my big problems with
dogmas is the emptiness of their authoritative nature -
they are true by authoritarian order, not by logic."
I have to agree- and I would note that I feel exactly the
same about non-religious dogmas as well, though that may
be a different subject. Dogmas in science, education,
marketing, banking, relationships, housing, government,
living, etc.- they all exist, and they are all just as
flawed as the dogmas in religion.
The one thing that I might change about sysdharma's quote
if I were to create my own version of it is the end point
of logic. Instead, I think I'd incorporate the term
"absolute truth."
(Maybe I'm parsing the whole thing too much; perhaps
absolute truth and logic are really two ways of describing
the same thing, I don't know.)
Dogma as I understand it is not concerned with truth, but
rather with control. If a subject of thought or study
doesn't have sufficient evidenced truth, dogmas are created
to settle disputes, cohere groups of people, and manipulate
behavior. Dogma is also precipitous; if absolute truth isn't
available, dogma is substituted so that action can be taken
without patiently waiting and searching for truth. Finally,
dogma is condescending, pitting classes of humans against
other classes of humans, the latter often willingly giving
up their claim to knowing and operating under truth in favor
of whatever the former has to offer: comfort, security,
excuse for wrong behavior, etc.
I don't believe for a minute that arguing against something
means that a person has to have the alternative solution. I
certainly don't have the ideal alternative to dogma, if one
wants to accomplish what dogma accomplishes. But, If dogma
is about impatience in waiting for truth, and a desire to
control others, then perhaps the more correct alternative
to dogma would be patiently waiting and searching for truth,
taking responsibility for oneself, and allowing others to do
the same.
None of this answers the question of spiritual authority,
nor does it really address the methods of obtaining
spiritual truth. There may well be things that some
consider dogma that are actually spiritually or meta-
physically correct (truth.) For me, the issue becomes one of
understanding spiritual things, or finding spiritual
absolute truths, and who is permitted to participate fully
in that process. In some religions, only the leadership
is "allowed" to discover absolute truths, which they pass
down to the lay people. In others, a particular book or
books are considered the only absolute source. In still
others, the individual is responsible for finding and
recognizing absolute truth for themselves; they might
even find truth that others have never realized, expanding
the canon of spiritual truths in their own understanding.
Personally, I can't accept any religious notion that
requires that I "take someone elses word for it." To have
spiritual leaders, spiritual books, forerunners of thought,
traditions, and even spiritual authority, is all fine
with me, but I don't believe in the idea that any human
being is absolutely dependent on any of those things for
spiritual truth. I believe that if there is spiritual
truth, then everyone can discover it, personally, for
themselves.
To that end, I haven't ever felt the need to discount all
dogma wholesale; like I said, some of it might actually be
true. But I have felt the need to discount the concept of
dogma, and the idea that opinion and tradition are
inherently valuable or correct, electing instead to
determine through my own patient experimenting, study,
prayer, and discovery, what is truth. Those who sell the
idea of dogma are selling a crippled sort of spirituality,
I think. At best, it might be a stepping stone toward a
more truth-based discovery; at worst, it's a huge
stumbling block.
[1]
gopher://sdf.org:70/1/users/sysdharma/phlog/./2018.01.18
