Adherence To Dogma And Reluctance To Think

[Boojatta]

If formulations of dogma are very short (such as only a few pages), then lots of outsiders will probably laugh at the lack of bulk. The dogma will seem too trivial. So traditional formulations of dogma are likely to be at least, shall we say, a hundred pages long. However, in a hundred pages there is likely to be at least some imperfection.

If it is forbidden for people to change the traditional text, then people might instead try to change the meaning of words. However, a systematic change of meaning is unlikely to work unless an imperfect part of the text includes a word that plays a major role in the meaning and that appears nowhere else in the text. The only thing that is likely to work is some kind of very complicated code-like language.

Note that we are no longer talking about mere belief. We are now talking about a desire that something be accepted as true, a recognition that it is not true, and resolution of this conflict by means of language games.

In a community of believers, does one gain an advantage if others think that one believes? Does one risk punishment if others think that one disbelieves? A community of believers might, without intending to, reward insincere profession of belief. Actually, that might be inevitable. Perhaps the true test of loyalty is not belief, but desire for the dogma to be true. From the point of view of the high authorities associated with a given system of dogma, a simple believer might be a mere fool.

Consider an attempt to construct a proof of part of the dogma. Some members of the community might take that as evidence of lack of belief. They might ask, "Aren't you already convinced that the statement is true? Would you spend your time trying to proving that X equals X?" However, maybe it would be acceptable to try to prove part of the dogma for the benefit of outsiders who are to be converted.

If those who are trying to construct proofs are not permitted to write down any statement outside of the dogma, then their options are severely restricted. They can't begin by sketching an outline of the overall structure of a proof. Such an outline would include statements in the middle that will support statements near the end. However, one is not permitted to write the middle statements until after they have been supported by the dogma.

To impede exploration of outlines for potential proofs is to impede thought. If a person does a lot of thinking about traditional formulations of some dogma, then the person might see major imperfections in the formulations. The person might see major imperfections in the dogma itself. If a dogma impedes thought, then it might prevent an adherent from abandoning the dogma.

Note: I recognize that this message is not in the usual Boojatta style. It's a test of an alternative style.

[xchrom]

1. consider that a community of ''thoughtless'' believers are

prey.

rather than breed insincere beliefs{they certainly do but...} they offer themselves up like herd animals for predators.

[Boojatta]

3. What predators eat thoughtless believers?

offer themselves up like herd animals for predators.

Aren't herd animals protected by the herd at least in the sense that other animals in the herd signal when predators are nearby?

[xchrom]

4. well there are a variety of predators that make their

living off of herd animals.

hide and wait sorts -- pack predators -- stalk and leap -- and run them down.

i'm a christian -- but i don't adhere to dogma -- but christians who do offer themselves up for sacrifice to phony faith healers -- promoters of hate -- power hungry freaks etc.

[Warpy]

2. First, this style is preferable to your usual

Second, to cope with the operative paragraph:

"In a community of believers, does one gain an advantage if others think that one believes?" Of course. Misery may love company, but belief demands it.

"Does one risk punishment if others think that one disbelieves?" You bet. The least you an expect is an intervention by well meaning believers to help you solidify your faith. Stoning, the ducking stool and the stake have waited for other unbelievers at other times.

"A community of believers might, without intending to, reward insincere profession of belief. Actually, that might be inevitable." It is in my experience. I discovered hypocrisy as a means of survival in Catholic school by the time I was out of second grade.

"Perhaps the true test of loyalty is not belief, but desire for the dogma to be true. From the point of view of the high authorities associated with a given system of dogma, a simple believer might be a mere fool." "Fools for Christ" wear the label proudly, and wishful thinking is a huge component of a lot of faith, IMO. People are simply terrified to question, to consider alternatives because they are frightened. Certainty is a powerful motivator for a lot of people.

Finally, if matters of faith could be proven, there would be no need for faith. God would disappear in a puff of logic as he did when confronted with the Babel fish in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

[hunter]

5. The number of heretics & hypocrites in the Catholic Church is remarkable.

Sometimes I cynically think that's the purpose of it. If you could maximize the production of heretics while minimizing the number of hypocrites without diminishing the overall capacity of the Church, you could much improve the Church's positive influences on society.

:evilgrin:

Overall I think the heretic-to-hypocrite ratio of the Catholic Church is pretty good compared to many other religions. (I am especially wary of businessmen who put fish on their advertisements, especially car mechanics.)

I myself am a heretic, as evidenced by my rainbow flag avatar and various other assertions here.