That
gives us a problem --- because the motto of our community is "QUESTION EVERYTHING." This is seldom noticed by contributors who seem
to equate
religion with philosophy of religion. In fact they are diametrically
different. While religion needs dogma and belief,
philosophy thrives on the opposite –- free thinking, reasoning,
encouraging healthy skepticism. Anything unfalsifiable and not amenable to reason and logic is unsuitable as a philosophical topic.
Ideally, when we participate in discussions at philosophy of religion, we must change our attitudes and way of thinking. We need to temporarily cast outside all our cherished beliefs. While we wear our surgeon's gloves, we should
assume an attitude of cold, rational detachment. This can be painful to a believer. Subjecting his dogma to
be debated, probed and incised is likely to put him in the unenviable position of a surgeon
operating on a loved one. That's why those who do not wish to have their unfalsifiable holy books questioned, better not submit these to scrutiny of our community.
Unaware of the above requirement, members continue to make dogmatic posts. They assume that the tags "Religion" and
"Philosophy" are invitations to propagate their
own religious beliefs, rather than examining them. We then tell them politely why their posts cannot be
accepted. Many understand, withdraw, and later make a second
attempt in a more acceptable way. A few cannot even grasp that their statements are
religious dogmas because for them, those are rational, scientific, proven truth, "because our
holy book, which is God's word, says so clearly." It is difficult to reason with such members without hurting their feelings. Nor can we
retain such topics (OPs) because they trigger flaming wars. For every dogma there is an equal and opposite
dogma. Sometimes we reach too late after discussion has progressed. Once dogma starts fighting dogma, ad hominem
(personal attacks) follow. We first warn the flamer, then block his offending post, then the flamer himself, or if the OP is one of the perpetrators, remove the
entire topic with its squirming and writhing mass of flamers attached. (Fortunately it gets that bad only rarely.)
Of the posts that remain, we do allow a reasonable number of dogmatic comments. After all, sometimes it does some good to know exactly what proponents of each religion considers holy and why. Some dogmas can be true eye openers --- like a recent discussion which brought out the monozygotic resemblance between Pentacostalism and ISKCON. In the final analysis all dogmas exact the same emotional toll from believers. As the discussion heats up, the believers naturally become hurt and angry and are unable to listen to the voice of reason. "Now I know who/what you stand for!" "You'll burn in hell for this!" are among the saner protests I have heard.
Of the posts that remain, we do allow a reasonable number of dogmatic comments. After all, sometimes it does some good to know exactly what proponents of each religion considers holy and why. Some dogmas can be true eye openers --- like a recent discussion which brought out the monozygotic resemblance between Pentacostalism and ISKCON. In the final analysis all dogmas exact the same emotional toll from believers. As the discussion heats up, the believers naturally become hurt and angry and are unable to listen to the voice of reason. "Now I know who/what you stand for!" "You'll burn in hell for this!" are among the saner protests I have heard.
Suppose
a religiously dogmatic OP gets through our initial screening and
an animated discussion follows. Philosophers among us
commence their rational procedure -- turn the statement inside
out and upside down, and attempt dissection and comparison. For pious believers, all this are unbearable.
Dissection of one's religious axioms are often like our
family, gender or personal integrity being questioned. Why
does that hurt? In religions, we either believe or disbelieve in
toto. And
what we believe passionately becomes us. When our
belief is subjected to an invasive procedure we feel that we
ourselves are being denuded, violated. But few of us realize that we are reacting to our ego being hurt, not our God or religion. Knowing this crucial difference can be a great forward leap in self awareness.
Can atheism become a dogma and a religion?
Yes, it is equally vulnerable as traditional religions. Atheism implies a lack of belief in any supreme deity. However, many atheists are "believers" --- they are passionately convinced there is no God and some of the angrier ones dogmatically believe that
religion is the source of all evil. [One remembers Karl
Marx's belief that capitalism was the root of all
evil. We know how it all ended.] Overzealous academics such as Richard Dawkins have
spawned "Militant Atheism" which does little harm in academic
circles but has spilled over into the Internet and a lot of
idle youngsters have taken it as an excuse to hit at something or someone. I had some conversations with some of them and I know how they think, if they think at all. Recently there was a case
in US where a young zealous atheist beating up a clergyman who had to
be hospitalized. The impending dangers of such uncontrolled atheistic dogmatism should be understood by its well meaning perpetrators, who have the responsibility to rein it in.
Is science a dogma? Are scientists dogmatic?
Science
itself can never be dogmatic. It is simply a method of inquiry. Science
does not consider itself or its scientists, however great and
respected, as infallible. Science by nature is self correcting,
willing to discard previous theories on the basis of new evidence.
Some scientists can even hold back the progress of science as they achieve seniority. There are several reasons for this. One, they would have benefited from older technologies, and received research grants, promotions and peer recognition. An example is how LENR (low energy nuclear reaction) research is being sidelined for grants. Two, senior scientists are likely to be promoted to positions of administrative control, where they take advantage of their old boy network to maintain teh status quo. Three, older minds [like mine!] are at risk of becoming too pattern oriented to appreciate radically new ideas. (To be fair to the older generation, they also possess the wisdom of experience and know that only a small percentage of new ideas lead to any breakthrough.) In any case, older scientists in positions of power sometimes do block radically new research --- knowingly or unknowingly. Such interference from those in power may have caused science to progress slower than it should have.
Often
in discussions in our community, we do come across clashes between
religion and science, which is actually a clash between scientists
and believers. Both have their own dogmas and both refuse to see the
other side of the argument. Each side feel they are superior, which
results in no effective dialog.
Scientists' dogma and herd behavior: A test case
Last week I had the audacity to disturb some scientists who were quietly browsing in their pasture. I said something positive about homeopathy --- partly because of my positive personal experience with it, and partly as a test for dogmatic thinking in a scientific community. It was a formidable Evidence Based Medicine community, for whom the word "homeopathy" is akin to red flag to a bull. The good doctors charged, first at the red flag, then at me. True to form, they glossed over my explanations, put words into my mouth and kept goring those. I was both upset and elated because I was experiencing in real-time how scientists are as subject to tribalism as any religious group. Here's the entire thread:
QED, I hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment