By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
highwaystar101 on 04 August 2010
Edit Thread
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:

I see your point, there are pressures that society place on people and I know that society can make one feel as though they are outcasts for not accepting the norm. But I would argue a few of the examples you gave.

A dogma is a doctrine that should never be challenged from within. Some of your points don't fit this definition.

For example some things can oscillate between views over time as accepted by the general population. A dogma wouldn't allow for people to accept it one decade and not the next. Your point about immigration is a classic one. Whole populations have often swung from accepting immigration to condemning it and vice versa. Whilst right now it may seem as though you are alone in opposing immigration the population there will come times when anti-immigration feelings are high.

Because of this oscillation from one extreme to another I don't see it as fitting the definition of dogma. You can also see a similar trend with Climate change scepticism right now, which is clearly changing from the general population accepting climate change to becoming more sceptical about it. 

Another example is where the idea itself is ever changing, and this can be seen in the theory of evolution. A dogma doesn't change over time, it remains a static unquestioned belief. The theory of evolution is very open to valid scepticism in order to change and better define the model. The theory has become dramatically better defined since the days of Darwin. Evolution and other theories will always be open to change from scientific scepticism. Further to this point you will always find that as the theory becomes better defined as evidence is discovered more people will start to accept it (in general), until those that don't become the minority.

As for being against drugs, I think that's just generally a 50/50 thing, abortion too. You tend to find a find a mix of opinions.

But for your points about things like environmentalism, I can see your point that there are dogmas that societies do have. We have always had people applying environmental pressure to get other people to "clean up their act". I think that things like that are just generally part of human nature though.

I dunno. That point was only semi-serious anyway.

Wether or not it fullfills the definition of dogma is for me irrelevant. Call it mini-dogma then if you like, but it's certainly has the same effect on people's lives.

Those oscillations don't do me any good. I live here and now and I am affected by all these mini-dogmas. It doesn't comfort me one bit if the climate fools finally will have been proven wrong in 20 years when I'm already old and the people in charge are so old that they don't even have to pay for their crimes.

Your analysis of what's gonna happen to evolution theory is flawed. The more we learn about evo the more dogmatized it will become. There just happens to be an appearance of flexibility today because we've only come so far in actual scientific studies.

Drugs. No. In Sweden it's simply a big no. It's illegal and everyone is against it and you will pay the consequences if you argue for it or use it.

Abortion. No. In Sweden it's legal, it's going on, it's very prevalent and everyone who opposes it is seen as a nutcase.

As for your (near) last paragraph. Exactly. People always want to control each other, and to do that they create dogmas and restrict freethinking.


How can you have a mini dogma? A dogma is an absolute state, for example you must accept and not question the existence of God if you want to be a Christian, ever. What you call mini dogmas is in reality you not having the same opinion as the majority. They aren't dogmas. Face it, we all hold opinions that the majority don't, but it doesn't restrict our thinking. It can't be called a dogma, mini or otherwise.

The oscillations don't do you any good? That point is completely irrelevant. I proved that they aren't dogmas by showing that the stance a population takes on it changes fairly frequently. If they oscillate, then they can't be dogmas, simple as. You don't find generations of Christians who don't believe in God sandwiched between generations that do.

As for my analysis of evolution, it isn't flawed. The more we learn, the most compelling the theory becomes, it's not dogmatised. For what it's worth you might as well say gravity or germ theory is dogmatised. It's not a dogma, it's just that there's so much compelling evidence that the majority accept it, and all can challenge it.

As for drugs and abortion, the debate is pretty raging on in most places. I know Sweden is pretty liberal, so the opinion may be more extended there, but here on the internet you will find people wanting to support either side. In the real world a more politically balanced country like the USA is certainly more evenly split on the subjects.

To be honest as well, I think I have come across more anti-drug legalisation supporters in my time than pro-drug legalisation supporters.

My last paragraph wasn't intended to read like that. Although I do think that environmentalism has become dogmatised, I also think that it's just a product of human nature to want to protect the environment we live in. Furthermore, nobody is going to force you to recycle against your will or anything. The most they can really ever do is try and debate your viewpoint (unless you're going to dump nuclear waste in a lake or something, in which case I think they should stop you).