Dogmatism
May 26, 2004 | 28 Comments
One dogma I’ve never understood is “the cover-up is worse than the crime.” Usually it’s uttered by some self-righteous, finger-wagging journalist who is trying to convince us that the American public is “smart enough” not to care about a politician’s hotel sexcapades so long as he doesn’t try to “hide something” by resisting the newspaper’s subpoena for the videotapes. However, if the tapes show something we don’t care about, then I see nothing wrong at all with a cover-up to keep our noses out of where they don’t belong anyway; and if the tapes show a dead prostitute the crime is obviously worse. So the cover-up is almost never worse than the crime.
Julian Baggini promotes a similar dogma about dogma in Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (previously discussed here):
I am opposed to dogmatic atheism as anyone, and I am also opposed to dogmatic theism. Indeed, it is my personal view that dogmatic views of any kind are in general more dangerous than the views themselves. Intelligent atheists often have much more in common with undogmatic theist than one might suppose.
Baggini doesn’t provide a single example of a dogmatic view that’s more dangerous than the view itself, much less any support for the proposition that dogmatically-held views are “in general” more dangerous. Dogmatically-held false views are generally dangerous, but it’s their falsity that creates most of the danger. A dogmatically-held true view isn’t harmful at all, and its truth is all the more reason to hold it dogmatically. I really don’t see any advantage that an undogmatic believer in an all-present but undetectable cannibal-God has over a dogmatic non-believer.
Baggini’s nevertheless purports to rest his case on the concept of defeasilibity. He notes that analytic truths, such as those of logic or math, are general considered indefeasible because they are true as a matter of definition. One plus one always equals two, and all bachelors are unmarried men. In contrast, he explains, factual, empirical claims are defeasible because one can at least conceive of a contrary state of affairs –however unlikely, one can imagine the sun not rising tomorrow in a way that one cannot imagine one plus one equaling three. I agree with him up to here, but then he makes the following misstep:
However, several philosophers, notably W.V.O. Quine, have held that even basic truths of mathematics are defeasible. We can’t rule out the possibility that we might find reasons to say that 1 + 1 does not always equal 2.
Fortunately, we do not need to enter these deep waters here. All we need do is borrow the idea of defeasibility to explain the difference between dogmatism and firmly held belief. To be dogmatic is basically to hold that one’s beliefs are indefeasible when such a refusal to countenance the possibility of being wrong is not justified. A dogmatic atheist is therefore someone who believes that God does not exist and that there is no way that they could possibly be wrong to hold that belief. A dogmatic theist is similarly someone who believes that God exists and that there is no way that they could possibly be wrong to hold that belief. It would be fair to object to both these dogmatists that their beliefs are unjustified, since there is no way either can be so sure that they are right.
But my disbelief is God is founded heavily on the logical, analytical disproofs that show that God is no more possible than a square circle, or than 1 + 1 turning out to be 2. I do rule out such possibilities, and there are not any conceivable reasons I might find to conclude otherwise. In reality, Baginni’s thesis rests entirely on Quine’s notion that being dogmatic about logical truths is unjustified. But he never shows why it is unjustified, how it could be otherwise than that 1 + 1 equals 2. Instead, he pretends that we need not resolve the question, while basing the remainder of his argument on the implicit premise that the question has been resolved in favor of the defeasibility of math and logic.
Moreover, even as to the defeasible factual truths, I don’t see the what the great harm is in being dogmatic, or what the great benefit is in acknowledging the possibility of error. Yes, the moon may have a tootsie-roll center and yes, my office may be crowded with hippopotamuses that I never see because they quickly dodge under the furniture whenever I turn around to look, and yes, sugar water may cure cancer. Baginni’s theory is in reality a defense of an extreme for of agnosticism — not just about God but about everything — although he denies the charge with this eminently defeasible argument:
But this does not mean that they should become agnostics. All it means is that they should allow for the defeasibility of their beliefs: they just need to admit it is possible that they could be wrong. This is not agnosticism. Indeed, one can have very strongly held beliefs and still admit their defeasibility. For instance, an atheist who says that they believe there are no good reasons for being anything other than an atheist and they themselves cannot imagine a situation arising in which they would give up their beliefs is still not being dogmatic, just as long as they acknowledge the possibility that they could be wrong. Of course, one is not truly undogmatic unless one sincerely acknowledges this possibility and doesn’t just gesture towards it. As long as that sincerity is there, there is no reason why one cannot have firmly held atheist beliefs and thus follow the middle path between unwarranted agnosticism and dogmatism.
How does one sincerely acknowledge the possibility that one is wrong about something one cannot even imagine one being wrong about? This plea for non-dogmatism is at best a demand for false modesty and hypocrisy. And a man who was sincerely modest in the way suggested by Baginni could best be described by Churchill’s famous put-down: “He is a modest little man who has a good deal to be modest about.”
Towards the end of his book, Baginni acknowledges that there “is evidence that religious believers have effectively opted out of the usual standards of truth or false.” He concedes that “[t]heir refusal to be bothered by seeming contradictions shows that they are essentially irrational in their beliefs” and that “[r]eligion is by all ordinary standards demonstrably false, and this can only be refuted by rejecting the standards of proof and evidence that intelligent discourse relies upon.” But he still refuses to say he’s right:
I have a great deal of sympathy with [the] militant view, but am held back from embracing it by a simple methodological principle I described earlier: avoid dogmatism, meaning always leave open the possibility that one is wrong. I think that the arguments do all point to the falsity of religion. But because there are no standards for judging these questions shared by atheists and believers, I think that simply asserting that one’s own standards must be right is dogmatic. It is enough for me that the arguments and evidence, to my mind, all point to the falsity of religion. I also think that all rational people should agree on this, but a good deal do not, and I think it healthier to at least admit the possibility that there is something in what they believe than to simply stamp my foot and curse their stupidity.
What, exactly, is “healthy” about “rejecting the standards of proof and evidence that intelligent discourse relies upon”? It may be true that religious people don’t share such standards, but that’s only because they are “rejecting the standards of proof and evidence that intelligent discourse relies upon.” In other words, they’re blithering idiots. And even if one accepts Baginni’s thesis
May 26th, 2004 @ 2:37 pm
The points by Baginni only serve to discredit the profession of philosopher. Sure, lots of things may be possible, such as your example of your office being overrun with large African aquatic mammals, but based on overwhelming evidence to the contrary, AND NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT, it is nonsense to take any other view than your dogmatic one. However, should you return to your office and find large wet footprints characteristic of Hippopotamus Amphibius then you should at least consider the possibility, as I’m sure you would.
And there is Edmund Burke’s insight “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Sometimes a dogmatic approach is necessary against the religious fundamentalist. You just can’t give these bastards an inch quarter or we’ll suffer the appalling consequences of a cleric-ridden state. Many may think this an unnecessarily aggressive approach, but look at society through the ages, contemporary Islamic states, Ireland until a few years ago and you will see what happens if the religious are not vigorously opposed.
Taking Baginni’s view he would not dogmatically support the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools … because there are still some gaps in the fossil record and it may be that all these bones were placed there by the devil to trick us to stray from Jesus. This doesn’t improve the science of evolution, it just opens the doors for fundies to bully school boards into getting creationism on the curriculum.
May 26th, 2004 @ 3:11 pm
dogma a settled opinion : a principle or tenet : a doctrine laid down with authority
[Greek dogma, an opinion -- dokein, to think, seem] [Chambers English]
Hmmm. It’s not the most consistently used word. Best stick to understanding and cognition and principles, and to teaching that.
May 26th, 2004 @ 3:47 pm
Not many people seem to recognize that any individual
view of the world is limited.
Try as we might, with the information we can gather,
individuals cannot predict future behavior of inanimate
objects to arbitrary precision, much less the behavior
of animals including humans.
That makes “exercising rational behavior” an approximation,
by necessity, don’t you think?
So…..
Using dogma is convenient and attractive, because it requires
so little input and processing power to arrive at decisions.
Of course, if the dogma is wrong, then the actor only gets
_some_ of the benefits compared to acting rationally on
inputs and reason alone. (Not to mention that applying
incorrect dogma or dogma incorrectly often results in
someone else’s suffering.)
Just because purely rational decisions are intractable,
we are not excused from making some attempt at reason
before (and all-the-while) we act on dogma.
And in some ways, not using some amount of decisions
based on dogma is irrational. I mean, what kind of
burden would life be if we did trust our own opinions
(dogma!) already formed…. “Uh, waiter, I have
no way of deciding what I want until I’ve tasted
one of everything. I was allergic to clams yesterday,
but be sure to bring those for tasting also.”
May 27th, 2004 @ 12:16 am
err…just a nitpick in your otherwise sterling-as-usual effort, RA.
1+1 does not necessarily always equal 2.
It does depend on your sheaf of postulates ie the algebraic system you are using.
Call me pedantic,but I’ve just had this argument with another fellow-traveller.
May 27th, 2004 @ 8:10 am
W.V.O. Quine must not know much about mathematics. 1+1=2 follows inevitably from the normal definitions of “1″, “2″ and addition.
However, the assertion that this applies to counting real-world objects is defeasible, although it’s worked extremely well so far as long as the objects are stable, inanimate, and commensurable. “Commensurable” means you don’t add apples and oranges. “Stable” means that a count of water droplets in a hot frying pan is invalid because some of them evaporated before you got done counting. And 1 female praying mantis + 1 male praying mantis = 2 praying mantisses – no wait, it’s 1 satisfied and well-fed female praying mantis – and now it’s a whole lot of little praying mantisses.
Anyhow, RA is about half right when you say “God is no more possible than a square circle, or than 1 + 1 [not] turning out to be 2.” The God that Christians worship certainly is a logical impossibility. That doesn’t mean that all possible God-concepts are self-contradictory. Christian theologians from Aquinas on have been able to define a nebulous but logically consistent deity – it’s their reasons we for identifying that God-concept with the God of the Bible, worshipping it, or even caring about it that are illogical.
Another example would be a non-omnipotent and non-omniscient god or family of gods, like the families of gods of the Greeks and most other pre-christian cultures. You can tell ridiculous and logically inconsistent stories about such gods, or you can tell logically consistent and really boring stories about them. If they existed, most likely they couldn’t survive a nuclear strike, so worshipping them seems pointless…
May 27th, 2004 @ 9:17 am
“Quine must not know much about mathematics” Hahaha, oh my, what tripe you find on the internet.
Oh and Debbie, I think Baggini agrees with you regarding evidence of absence/vice-versa (you should read the book!). By saying “should you return to your office and find large wet footprints…”. well. you pretty much say the same thing as him : you describe a refutable theory. He’s as “dogmatic” as you are.
The rest is only nit-picking about how probable you consider each side to be.
You say “there is no god”, he says “I don’t think there’s a god BUT IF I saw some good argument/evidence I would reconsider this”.
May 27th, 2004 @ 9:20 am
For your education mark: http://www.wvquine.org/
May 27th, 2004 @ 1:03 pm
I think you guys are being unfair with Baggini’s book. He’s as much an atheist as anybody else here. The measured tone of his book can actually sway many intelligent but undecided readers towards embracing the cause of atheism. And no, Debbie, Baggini actually would endorse the teaching of evolution in public schools (although not dogmatically, I think that’s a term he abhors) because he believes the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelmingly more numerous that the supposed “evidence” against it.
May 27th, 2004 @ 1:03 pm
I think you guys are being unfair with Baggini’s book. He’s as much an atheist as anybody else here. The measured tone of his book can actually sway many intelligent but undecided readers towards embracing the cause of atheism. And no, Debbie, Baggini actually would endorse the teaching of evolution in public schools (although not dogmatically, I think that’s a term he abhors) because he believes the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelmingly more numerous that the supposed “evidence” against it.
May 27th, 2004 @ 1:03 pm
I think you guys are being unfair with Baggini’s book. He’s as much an atheist as anybody else here. The measured tone of his book can actually sway many intelligent but undecided readers towards embracing the cause of atheism. And no, Debbie, Baggini actually would endorse the teaching of evolution in public schools (although not dogmatically, I think that’s a term he abhors) because he believes the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelmingly more numerous that the supposed “evidence” against it.
May 27th, 2004 @ 1:03 pm
I think you guys are being unfair with Baggini’s book. He’s as much an atheist as anybody else here. The measured tone of his book can actually sway many intelligent but undecided readers towards embracing the cause of atheism. And no, Debbie, Baggini actually would endorse the teaching of evolution in public schools (although not dogmatically, I think that’s a term he abhors) because he believes the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelmingly more numerous that the supposed “evidence” against it.
May 27th, 2004 @ 1:03 pm
I think you guys are being unfair with Baggini’s book. He’s as much an atheist as anybody else here. The measured tone of his book can actually sway many intelligent but undecided readers towards embracing the cause of atheism. And no, Debbie, Baggini actually would endorse the teaching of evolution in public schools (although not dogmatically, I think that’s a term he abhors) because he believes the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelmingly more numerous that the supposed “evidence” against it.
May 27th, 2004 @ 1:03 pm
I think you guys are being unfair with Baggini’s book. He’s as much an atheist as anybody else here. The measured tone of his book can actually sway many intelligent but undecided readers towards embracing the cause of atheism. And no, Debbie, Baggini actually would endorse the teaching of evolution in public schools (although not dogmatically, I think that’s a term he abhors) because he believes the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelmingly more numerous that the supposed “evidence” against it.
May 27th, 2004 @ 4:35 pm
My comments were entirely based on RA’s blog – never read Baggini – and so I take no repsonsibility for the fairness of my babbling
Of course, as a scientist I am always open to the idea that new evidence could fundamentally change current understanding. However, I vehemently oppose the argument that we should take a reasonable, fair or non-dogmatic tone with religious fundies. Knowledge developed using the scientific method and peer reviewed is 100% right until they provide extraordinary evidence to disprove it. Admitting to have an open mind to these nutcases only allows them to persuade others who lack a decent scientific education that science doesn’t know for sure and so their biblical interpretation is an alternative that deserves consideration.
May 27th, 2004 @ 11:02 pm
“The cover-up is worse than the crime”
means
“Politicians get in trouble when they get caught covering up things, not when they do bad things in the first place.” See Nixon, Watergate. Or Clinton — he got impeached for lying about Monica.
It is not a moral judgment.
It is also misleading, since it sounds that if politicians were honest and didn’t cover things up they’d be fine, while it ignores the fact that the cover-up is successful 99 percent of the time, and that without the cover-ups there’d be a lot more problems.
May 28th, 2004 @ 7:17 am
Debbie wrote >>
“I vehemently oppose the argument that we should take a reasonable, fair or non-dogmatic tone with religious fundies.”
Crackers!!!!
May 28th, 2004 @ 8:38 am
dogma a settled opinion : a principle or tenet : a doctrine laid down with authority
If “laying down with authority” means presenting the teaching with a full display of every necessary element of axioms, evidence, and reason enabling anyone to see/check it’s validity, then that would be okay!
And if “dogmatic” means acting veraciously on principles that are veraciously established, then that’d be okay too!
Is that what you mean by “true dogmatism”?
Perhaps you could change your web-site once a week, into a word re-clamation pad!
I don’t think I have time for words with such bad connotations as “dogma”
I just want to be winningly veracious, in the best way that I can!
May 28th, 2004 @ 8:46 am
Stephen,
>> Crackers … Would you like to elaborate?
My point is as follows … religious fundies are dishonest, ignorant fanaticals with an agenda to impose their belief system over others. If you concede them any ground in an argument based on your being open minded and fair they’ll abuse your fairness. But I am talking here about religious fundies. If you can find a theist who will have a reasoned, intellectually honest argument on an issue without falling back to reliance on “god’s mysterious ways” or the universe being “beyond our human understanding”, then perhaps you can have success with different approach. But as Annie Banno and her friends have shown here recently, a theist who can discuss these issues in a rational way is certainly hard to find.
May 28th, 2004 @ 9:11 am
“In fact, the law should be governed by a militantly rationalistic and atheistic presumption that discourages all forms of irrational and superstitious conduct to the extent it conflicts, as it frequently does, with the general welfare or individual rights.” [Raving Atheist in Basic Assumptions]
presume to take as true without examination or proof
militant fighting : engaged in warfare : actively contending : combatative : using violence : militaristic
We desperately need to be rid of the decisive practice of anti-sanity. That means we can’t be practising it, if we want to suceed!
So I guess you’re being crazy and funny, and I’ve been having a major sense of humour failure!
Crazy, crazy, crazy guy!
You’re daft man! Totally and utterly daft!
May 28th, 2004 @ 9:21 am
Stephen,
Guy … man …??
Dogma does seem to be used inconsistently although ‘doctrine’ and ‘belief without proof’ seem to central to its meaning.
We’re probably agreeing here without realising it – but from my perspective trying to have a civilized and rational argument with religious fundies makes as much sense as letting a convicted child molester watch my kids. Of course we should defend our position through rational arguments and proof, but only with people who are prepared to play by the same rules.
May 28th, 2004 @ 11:24 am
Debbie, sure! Just add butter and cheese!
Yes, Yes, Yes – I agree with you muchly in #13! And I’ve let my guard down very recently in just this way!
However, methinks you meant “reasonable” and “fair” (both in weak-minded silly “liberal” and derivative ways), rather that really reasonable and fair. And yet I reacted as though these words represented what they actually stand for! And yes, I do think it is crackers to dispense with real reason-ability and real fairness! Especially when contending with people who are spasming with nonsense! Aren’t these principles by which we work?
[fair : bright : clear : clean : free from blemish ...]
Fairness? Who are we going to be fair too? To all of us? Aint that what it means? Fair to everybody – fair to everything – fair in judgement every proposal that is presented to us! Not so? How else can it be?
I tried not to “give an inch” to Heather’s and Annie’s silly insanity. And so I responded with Heather and Annie on the deduction that they were being outrageously reckless and insane: – about being Christian. A deduction that strikes me as fair, and reasonable, and open-minded! A great many people would have given them a mile by treating them really as believers, when they are, I reckon, really reckless.
Their insanity would have began when they first left-reason-to-follow that-which-is-beyond-their-ken (with this action’s built-in dis-respect of their own consciences).
Their reason will have had to have reared its ugly head
over and over again, repeatedly interupting this process, and they will have been recklessly discarding it, again and again and again.
They submit to the other (that which is beyond their ken) and their reason-ability is just cast aside.
Everyone needs to be reasonable!
Dogmaticism has a dangerous sense to it. Words are about communication. Using them for bravado is risky!
Debbie, pardon me, it has taken me ages to get my reply together! I feared as much! Hence the one initial word retort!! As I said then:-
“Crackers!”
May 28th, 2004 @ 11:42 am
Debbie >> crossed wires and all that! I saw your posts #13 and #15 AFTER I respectively wrote and dispatched my#14 and #16.
And of course #14 was to RA, not you!
RA has witnessed to being a man, but, then, again, perhaps she is crazier, crazier, crazier than I’ve even begun to suspect!
She has closed her comments on ~Basic Assumptions~ so I have raised my reply to that here, as it also related to dogma.
Raving Atheista >> I note you ain’t so forward with your basic assumptions now! Perhaps a return to the basics is in order! Possibly you have learnt new things in your blog-eprise and want to share your new basic perspectives! How about opening up a competition on who can come up with the best new ~Basic Assumptions~
May 30th, 2004 @ 3:11 pm
Raver >> Hearty thanks for the link to quotes of Winston Churchill. They are awesome !
May 30th, 2004 @ 4:26 pm
Debbie >>
I think I do pretty much agree with you. Reading what you wrote has been a wake up call to me!
The bite I swiped upon, you were talking “tone” – and I missed that!
Thanks to just having clashed with Heather and Annie, I was rather sensitive!
We do have to take every care to be right in what we say in science, as well as pay attention to exactly what is said or written!
May 30th, 2004 @ 9:23 pm
Stephen,
The sword is mightier than the pen when you’re dealing with religious fundies.
May 31st, 2004 @ 1:22 pm
And sharper words are better than blunter ones!
Debbie, I have been misunderstood, probably due to my poor self-expression. If you can write that to me, you have entirely mistaken me!
May 31st, 2004 @ 10:38 pm
I’ve seen those hippos, too.
I’m glad I’m not the only one.
June 3rd, 2004 @ 11:42 am
I’ve always thought dogmatism to be the denial of the right to disagree and find it confusing when it’s bandied about with any other meaning – more often as a swearword.