Am I Dogmatic?
Definitions:
A "dogmatic" person has a (stubborn, opinionated, biased, arrogant) belief that he or she is right in his or her beliefs or opinions, and everyone else is wrong.
Am I, or other atheists, dogmatic?
No. I don't lay down any laws for you to live by. I don't say something is true, then threaten you with death by stoning or "ex-communication" if you don't accept what I say.
Instead, atheists generally hold to the scientific principle of looking for evidence. If you tell me there is a toothbrush in the room, and I look for it diligently for days and weeks, but no toothbrush is found - then I am entitled to say "I think you are mistaken. There is no evidence for a toothbrush here."
If you present me with a 2000 year old parchment describing a toothbrush that occasionally vanishes or appears - at will - in the room, then I am entitled to question it and ask for more reliable evidence. Particularly if the parchment contains a thousand contradictions within its own text, and other absurdities such as talking donkeys.
Truth does not require belief. It is backed by evidence. To quote Dan Barker: "Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, must come down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.And when a scientist describes something as a "theory", he is showing humility and honesty. Why? Well, it is a theory that the Earth goes around the Sun. Given new evidence to the contrary, scientists would be delighted, curious, intrigued! They wouldn't hold to the theory dogmatically, they would embrace the new evidence, and celebrate it like astounded children.
The essence of Science is this: it is spartan (marked by stern discipline, frugality, simplicity, it starts with a bare room). It starts with no pre-conceived ideas, no assumptions, no dogma. It makes tentative suggestions, forms hypotheses, tests the evidence, and gradually builds a theory that works. All of our modern convenience, leisure, medicine, understanding is down to this approach. It is a meritocracy of ideas. The idea has to have evidence and must be "falsifiable". (What does "falsifiable" mean? Well, the theory of the Earth going around the Sun is falsifiable, in principle. It could be falsified if we had dramatic new astronomical evidence and if our understanding of light and gravity were overturned and all our instruments were shown to be based on some massive misunderstanding. It is unlikely to happen, but in principle it could.)
The essence of Religion is this: it is baroque (extravagant, complex, flamboyant, and highly ornate). It starts with bucket-loads of pre-conceived ideas (god, devil, angels, demons, heaven, hell, creation, sin, invisibility, spirit etc etc) - these are dogmas.
The religious mind then tries to bend reality to fit with all these notions. The religious mind is numbingly certain about things. It doesn't respond to new evidence. It is not a meritocracy of ideas, it is a Monarchy. It proclaims itself to be true.
So the two worldviews are the Spartan Meritocracy and the Baroque Monarchy. One is marked by scientific/ethical progress - the other by stagnation, medieval superstitions and descent into Dark Ages.
The atheist mind is uncertain - in a beautifully honest sense. We await the evidence, we delight in the evidence, we crave new knowledge. Show me the evidence of God and I, for one, will jump up and down with joy - simply because it will be a glorious new piece of information about the Universe we live in.
Am I being intolerant in creating this website? Am I causing conflict? The answer is no.
I am simply pointing out the flaws and faults in a widely held idea. It is right to be critical of ideas - that is how science and ethics and reason proceeds. If the idea is true then it should be able to stand up for itself.
Where I am critical of religious people, it is out of frustration that they allow taboos to prevent them exploring the possibility that they may be wrong. Most religionists shy away from reading anything that will threaten their beliefs. They will not use critical thinking skills. But I am always conscious that I myself believed the same things for a long time, so I don't write with any feeling of superiority. I was lucky in that my interests lay in the area of Evolutionary Biology, where the difference between the religious mindset and the rational thinker is laid bare. In that area there is simply no contest - Christians have shot themselves in the foot by their insistence on sticking to Bronze Age beliefs against overwhelming evidence. (And I mean overwhelming).
Geoff Mather 2007
Ideas about Spartan Meritocracy vs. Baroque Monarchy - from Daniel Harbour "An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism".
Back to REASONS