Religion and Aspergers

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, and to clarify something about dogma: EVERYONE observes dogma in one form or another. That God is God and Jesus is the Son of God isn't something I CAN question, any more than an atheist can legitimately question that there is no God--and that's a whole other argument. For me, that's not up for debate. The Bible being the written word of God is not up for question. It's not the wholesale rejection of dogma that I think is the right way to go. Fnord picks on me for being a fan of Ayn Rand, who believed that any allowance of dogma or wishful thinking was a slippery slope to allowing all sorts of fanciful beliefs. One of her weaknesses was that in and of itself IS dogma. Everyone accepts something as dogmatic or axiomatic, like the scientific method, for instance (the scientific method is problematic for its reliance on circular reasoning and is thus absurd). You HAVE to accept the scientific method as self-evident despite the preferred standard being that nothing can be taken on faith but rather only on evidence. And then there's the null hypothesis. We set out to "prove" something with the scientific method, but who proves the method? With what tools do you prove it? So the only logical position you can have is that it's impossible to know anything. The method seems to work, so we go with it. It has become dogma, axiomatic, self-evident, and unquestionable. Dogma on that level is unavoidable.

But once you begin adding more and more conditions, the further you get from logical outcomes and truth. Most of what you hear regarding climate change isn't coming from scientists. The noise about climate change is coming from politicians and other interested parties. Maybe manmade climate change is real, maybe it's not. But when you have a government subsidy to sell me wind turbines, or when it gets close to the end of another election cycle, I'm going to have doubts as to how seriously I should take it. And that applies equally as well to religious dogma. Where is this teaching in scripture? Where did Jesus say this? Where did Moses give that law? So I think if you're a Christian, yes, you SHOULD question. If something has so many complex layers that you're not allowed to sort out, there might be an ulterior motive involved.

@AngelRho, stop drinking the koolaid, it's laced with cyanide put there by Jim Jones' henchman.

The previous statement is malformed and incorrect. I think what you were trying to say is everyone has a dogma that they follow. Using the word observe makes you sound like a Victorian Era Phrenologist, which, hey, why not? That can be fun. Looking up the definition of dogma

dogma n.
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

I "observe" no dogma. I came up with my own principles that I follow, so I did not get them from any trusted authority. Further, I don't consider my principles as being incontrovertibly true. To varying degrees I would be willing to give up on any of my ideas were any found defective. The twin pillars of my belief are

o Self-consistent repeating patterns are real
o Pain sucks, Pleasure is nice, so don't be a jerk, whatever you do

That is it. The above is not my Dogma. The better term for what I have is a Praxis for seeking after Goodness. Praxis and Dogma act very differently. The Scientific Method is a Praxis for seeking models of the world that are predictively correct. Speaking of which...



Seriously, wtf @AngelRho? It's one thing to go all kumbaya reverential about your own super-Cult, but now you drag in Science for a drubbing? No. I will not sit idly by while your unlettered critisms fester inside the noosphere.



What a hypocritical stance. The errant duplicity of the above statement shows why Christians are insane. So which is it, is it that science's reason d'etre is to be a circus of thought, or is it the case that science works so you begrudgingly and duplicitously use its proceeds for your benifit without taking on the excellency of it's thought patterns?

Seriously, I am confused... or, not really, because what you wrote obviously shows extreme cognitive disonance, so it's the latter option. I pity you for your delusions, but I pity the rest of the human race that you and your coreligionists currently are in the majority, such that everyone has to suffer due to your extant wills having any effect upon the material plane.

All Hail Shuma Gorath,
the All Seeing Tentacled Eye at the Center of Madness!

For what it's worth, there are different types of atheists. Hard atheists make the claim that no God or Gods exist. Soft atheists are not convinced by other people's arguments that various God or God's purported to exist do. Hard atheists are dogmatic, and are vulnerable to the argument that they must take their position based on faith. Soft atheists are no more dogmatic and faithful than those who reject the idea that unicorns exist, for example.

Yet soft atheists DO reject certain ideas. That in and of itself is never up for discussion. It’s dogmatic.

Again, there’s nothing inherently wrong with dogma. There are foundational assumptions EVERYONE must make. What happens is that people will call the actual truth of those assumptions into question and reject those assumptions on some basis or another. I don’t reject Catholicism whole-cloth, and I’m not exactly a Protestant because I’m not really protesting anything. I simply cannot buy into Marianism. I think that consuming human flesh and blood is cannibalism and explicitly prohibited, while Catholics teach the bread/wine literally become flesh and blood. I see that as contrary to scripture. I could never be Catholic because those are core beliefs, dogma, without which you cannot be Catholic. But there ARE statements that I hold to that are not up for debate. I just don’t have nearly as many as Catholics.

Dogma establishes identity, too. You can’t even be a “soft” atheist without some defining rejection of God’s existence on some level. Instead of saying “There is no God,” it’s “I do not believe there is a god.” If that core statement changes, the soft atheist cannot be a soft atheist. If you consider atheism as a spectrum, you still have individuals who unquestioningly adherent to SOMETHING.

I don't agree that soft atheism it has to be dogmatic. I can say, "I don't believe that this God you are claiming to exist exists, but I am open to talking about it and could change my mind if you had something convincing to say." That's not dogmatic at all.

The point is that there are always foundational axioms for what we choose to believe or how we choose to argue. Those are things that don't easily change, and in a debate you use those to defeat your opponent. "I am open to talking about it and could change my mind" is exactly that. Dogma in and of itself is not evil. If you look closely, you'll likely find you hold to more dogma than you'd like to admit.

The point is that there are always foundational axioms for what we choose to believe or how we choose to argue. Those are things that don't easily change, and in a debate you use those to defeat your opponent. "I am open to talking about it and could change my mind" is exactly that. Dogma in and of itself is not evil. If you look closely, you'll likely find you hold to more dogma than you'd like to admit.


Dogma is a problem. Dogma is a belief in something because a group says so, not because it makes sense.
The problem I have with you saying that even Scientists have a dogma is that it paints them as being just another priesthood, which they are not.

Everyone has a philosophy, yes, maybe that is part of what you are trying to imply. The pronouncements of scientists are not dogmatic. Science comes with error bars. Science has a method, not a dogma. The praxis of doubt that scientists use is towards a convergent truth. This is not "revealed" truth from on high from some crazed prophet, it comes from grubby hard work and exacting reasoning.

To say science comes with its own dogma is disgustingly insulting to people who know better.

It depends on your definition of dogma. According to Wikipedia, dogma used to mean something that seems true, but that now, in English, it means something that is more absolute.

Another definition describes dogma as something that is unquestionable. Science and scientific research are not unquestionable and therefore are not dogmatic by the latter definition.

I think the question the OP asked is how can Christians justify their beliefs and hold to the logic and realism of their autistic minds.

Some Christian sects are very dogmatic. Others less so.

I'm not really religious but I think that religion is necessary because it's a set of rules that you have to follow to be a good person. Not everyone needs those rules of course but some people are more predisposed to evil. I've always thought of myself like that for example. And when i tried to be a good person i didn't know what to do. Concepts like being kind and helping other people are fine but a t too vague. So i decided to research religions. I think religion can sometimes be a guide to lead a good life at least for some people.
But of course it's true a lot of people committed horrible acts in the name of religion.

^^You have a good take on religion, I feel.

Thanks, my parents don't care much for religion but i've always wondered about it. Since humans are not wholly good they do need a set of rules to prevent them from doing bad things i think. At least the concept of religions is that and i don't think it's wrong.

Freud sort of had a similar concept of religion.

He was an atheist....but believed in the justification of religious belief.

It depends on your definition of dogma. According to Wikipedia, dogma used to mean something that seems true, but that now, in English, it means something that is more absolute.

Your statements intellectually resonate with my brain. It is true, words change in meaning, both denotationally and connotationally, over time. In "Morals and Dogma" -- which is a famous document, look it up if you haven't heard of it because, I am not making it up, and I am not going to give out a link -- the KKK founder and person with Monumental display in Washington D.C., even to this day, described dogma as a kind of accumulated philosophy.

Religion comes from religare, or to rebind. Using the same logic scientists who go to the same confenences year after year are in the practice of some kind of religion, if only socially so. I am sure many of them would not like to even have a hint of such an association with such a word. I don't blame them.


Another definition describes dogma as something that is unquestionable. Science and scientific research are not unquestionable and therefore are not dogmatic by the latter definition.


Bingo!


I think the question the OP asked is how can Christians justify their beliefs and hold to the logic and realism of their autistic minds.


Compartmentalization.


Some Christian sects are very dogmatic. Others less so.


All of them use cult indoctrination techniques just like the rest of the Cults. They use to be a lot more bad ass though back in the day when they were called the Nazari, or, "The Watchers". In that time they kept to the Gnostic Egypto-Syriac religion developed by King Izates (Izas, or Jesus) Immanuel Monobazus Pa Atenre Agbar the fifth and his brother King Izates Monobazus Pa Atenre Abgar the sixth (James); who was his twin brother(?, or Thomas, or both, not clear), and who died on the Temple Mount by being thrown down by Paul (who is Josephus, which is clear).

The "Christians", or Jews revolting and causing a Jewish Civil War back, then got together and tried for the throne of Rome. They were unsuccesful, losing to General Vespasian. There was so much hope put in this King at the time, for he was the King that was supposed to usher in a new golden age, at least according to some well-placed high Jewish Priests. The failure of this King to gain the Roman Emperor position caused it's own political vacuum. To combat this problem, Josephus was ordered to create propaganda to use against what scholars now describe as "Jewish Christians". These documents ended up becoming the New Testament, The Vita, The Jewish War, etc...

There is so much more I can write, but...

I get all of these ideas on Christian material from Ralph Ellis. His research is fascinating, but I guess I will leave it at that. I should just recommend him and let you look into his work on your own, if that is your desire.

Honestly though, if you want to know what is the best guess of what happened in the Bible as based on an Atheistic thinker who wants to solve the Bible like it is a puzzle, he is your guy. I should check if Wrong Planet has had a thread on him before.

Fine Day To You All!

If 7 billion people read the Bible, there will be 7 billion interpretations of its meaning and its applicability to a belief in its God and Jesus.