You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Confused Athiest
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
stance as in "implicit" assumptions?
Not necessarily implicit and not necessarily assumptions.
A stance can be a matter of knowledge or of conviction.
any discourse would require a common ground
Yes.
dogma however, is an entirely different matter
It is. But dogma does not preclude discussion.
Not necessarily implicit and not necessarily assumptions.
A stance can be a matter of knowledge or of conviction.
hardly a distinction of note
But dogma does not preclude discussion.
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
tell me why it does not
the rule rather than exceptions please
tell me why it does not
the rule rather than exceptions please
Why dogma does not preclude discussion:
Dogmatic discussion is possible if only one party holds a dogmatic stance, while the other one doesn't.
For example, the math teacher holds a dogmatic stance when teaching math; no matter what the students say, the math teacher will not budge from the body of knowledge that is called math.
Yet plenty of discussion is possible on the topic of math between the math teacher and his students.
But when both parties hold dogmatic stances, discussion isn't really possible or meaningful - but the two can certainly still talk for hours on end.
Elementary school and high-school math, as taught in elementary schools and high-schools (but even at the college level) is dogmatic. Like the alphabet, it is considered a given, an axiom, not something yet to be discovered or discussed about and agreed upon by all involved.
When Dawkins says that he's agnostic about God to the same extent that he's agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden, don't you think that he's asserting a belief in the non-existence of God?
No, Dawkins is confident to a very high degree of probability there are no gods. But, as any good scientist will tell you, one cannot be absolutely certain, in the same manner that a theory must be considered falsifiable.
Yes, and that's why I'm ignorant.How does belief imply ignorance?
Don't you believe there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden?
the term exists to distinguish a pov from other pov's
it is a misnomer when used in 1-a, the quoted dic def
Dogma does not consider itself a point of view.
Dogma will say that others are merely points of view, but that it -dogma- is not merely a point of view, but truth, something which is beyond the relativism of the notion of point of view.
Calling dogma a point of view is extraneous to dogma; calling dogma a point of view is to claim that some other reality (namely the one of calling dogma a point of view) is absolutely true, ie. dogma.
One cannot beat down one dogma other by using another dogma. And even then, neither of the dogmatic parties will admit defeat.
"Belief" doesn't imply certainty.
It does if the claimant claims certainty based on belief.