> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Julia Thompson > Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:14 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs > > Nick Arnett wrote: > > On 5/7/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be "fundamentalist", > >> there's no scripture or dogma. I > > > > > > Eh? Insistence on the non-existence of God *is* dogma. Any > > insistence on the non-existence of something is dogma. It has to be, > > since it cannot be logically proved. > > There's no scripture, though, which I think is an important part of the > definition of "fundamentalism".
Teri's just finishing a semester course on fundamentalism....and as you alluded a "literal" reading of scripture is an important part of it. It's an attempt to get back to the fundamental understanding of revealed truth. Now, in fact, no one really takes all of scripture literally....but that's another topic. > I think "militant" is a more useful adjective when describing some > atheists. See my previous post on the subject. While that does describe some atheists in my view, I also think the reference to dogma by Alberto is valid. One way to look at dogmatism is that it is over-certainty in a metaphysical viewpoint. It sees proofs and certainty where there are none. The Catholic church has never had fundamentalist tendencies, for example. But, it surely has had dogmatic ones. Dogmatism is not the sole province of the religious. People can insist that a number of metaphysical issues are well settled, shown, or the obvious conclusion for even the most casual observer. We have examples both large and small of this. Marxism is one of the first to come to mind. As recently as 25 years ago, Marxist thought predominated in European, South American, and South Asian universities (in things like econ, liberal arts, sociology) and was common in the US. It is now considered fairly well discredited. Marxist thought was considered "scientific", the application of the sciences of sociology, political science, and economics. Objectivism is another example. Ayn Rand's books are still quite popular....and one's on the local high school required reading list. I've had discussions with many dogmatic objectivists who claim numerous things are well proven...and "scientifically" at that. There are smaller examples too. I remember someone arguing on this list that a person who stayed in a burning, smoke-filled building, knocking on his neighbors doors, because that increased the likelihood of them rescuing him some time in the future. He argued hard against my assertions that the probability of dying then and there far outweighed the probability of him being in a position where they could save his life. IMHO, this was a dogmatic argument that enlightened self-interest could be used to explain all altruistic behavior. There are other "scientific" or "clearly proven from observation" arguments that do not hold up to skepticism. Now, some of the positions, like the value of taking care of others, I agree are valid. They just aren't empirically based/proven concepts. One tendency I've seen in most dogmatists I've known is a dislike of personal uncertainty. There is a certain path, things are known, etc. This dogmatism certainly presents itself as religious belief...but it also presents itself in many other forms. The strong British belief that the Irish were inherently inferior (blood tells) that existed in early centuries is an example of this. So, I'd argue that dogmatism is a weakness/tendency that humans have. It is a form of faulty thinking that is not limited to one group or another. People who are very open and analytical in one area can be closed and dogmatic in another. Atheism isn't dogmatic any more than theism is. But, both atheists and theists can tend towards dogmatism. Finally, the problems with beliefs might lead to the argument that both societies and individuals are better off with a minimal set of beliefs. I'd argue that running with an absolute minimal set of beliefs limits actions...not just harmful actions. But, that discussion is long enough to require a separate post to start. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
