Dogma

Dogma: Noun

• a system of principles or tenets, as of a church
• a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
• prescribed doctrine: political dogma
• a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle

If there is a God, why are there so many religions, branches of religions and differences of opinion even within the same institution? How can the holy books have so many different translations, interpretations and incarnations? Why is it that we don't have a single definitive text which is immutable and accepted by all who experience it? Why is there nothing for the illiterate prior to the last century?

The answer is simple and refers back to the definition of God; Omnipotent, Omniscient and Perfect. We reviewed in the last segment that if a creator possessed these aspects then there would be no need for micromanagement. A holy book would constitute micromanagement. There simply is no way that method of communication can reach all of us through out all of time.

The only message that can be sent by God must be always and universally available to everyone. I submit that our intellect and reason are that message.

This cuts to the core of one of the most divisive issues we come across when discussing religion. "The book says this!" Someone declares, "Well it also says that, and that is contradictory to this!"

What are this and that? In Islam there is the unfortunate divide between the Sunni and the Shiite; primarily focusing on the ancestry of Muhammad. We see a similar rift in the wars in Europe with the Catholics and Protestants. These are people who's fundamental understanding of the divine is, at a minimum, very similar to that of their neighbor. Yet they are killing said neighbor over what amounts to minor details!

We also see this in the total lack of credible miracles in modern times despite there being a regular event in the scriptures. Miracles would also represent micromanagement and are therefore unacceptable. The universe designed by God would not need to be tweaked by supernatural means, it would occur as it should within the rules set defined for it.

Why then do we have Dogma? I attribute it to two factors which work together and amplify their degenerative effects over time. Ignorance and Manipulation.

First ignorance. As humans we often make the mistake of seeking simple solutions to complicated problems. You can see this in any political debate. At least one if not both candidates will attempt to reduce an issue into a sound bite. They will claim the problem is simple and present a straight forward approach for a 'resolution'. Most often these promises are pure smoke and mirrors and they are often contrary to the position the candidate takes when in office. Everyone seems to know and accept this yet it still works. The reason is that simple solutions are comfortable. They require little in the way of mental exercise. They do not challenge our state of ignorance.

In religion we see this often from authority figures questioned about a moral issue when they either don't know the complete rationale or do not believe that the asker will understand the complex nuances. Instead they resort to the Santa Clause argument, "Behave as I tell you or you will not receive the reward." When this is used on children they internalize the argument and pass it on. Over the generations people forget there was a proper answer and merely focus on the promised reward. A truly moral person understands that good behavior is it's own reward. The relationships and interactions built from a solid basis are far more lasting and stable than those created through manipulation and deceit.

That brings us nicely to Manipulation. Because many of us have been raised to expect unexplained pronouncements of what God wants we are susceptible to individuals who wrap themselves in the trappings of the religion but use those trappings to manipulate the believers. This can take many forms but is universally used for control. Control of people is power. It brings vast wealth and an army of fanatically devoted individuals eager to be aimed at the manipulator's cause. It is precisely to guard against this abuse that we should be strongly suspicious of anyone or anything advocating "Blind Faith".

Dogma builds over time as those manipulating the institution add unreasonable things to gain more control and those who do not recognize the control use ignorance to reinforce these notions with blind faith assertions of correctness. Because these assertions are inherently illogical they rub against the subconscious of the religious participants who can be shown to be leaving most major faiths at a greater rate than they are being recruited.

This is not to say that all organized religion is wrong or that the books we consider holy are entirely bad. It is to say that all the confusion stemming from the interpretations, inconsistencies and rewrites of these books is best explained by realizing that even if the individuals writing the books were inspired by their perception of the divine, through reason and intellect; they were only human and could not be expected to produce the kind of work we'd recognize as universally and inherently divine.

When viewing these works we need to understand the limited social understanding of the era, multiple thousands of years ago. The concepts of the value of human life and liberty were not in anyway widespread; nor was the idea of tolerance and large scale cooperation. In fact large scale cooperation is often discouraged in religious texts despite it's proven ability to elevate human endeavors. This is because it threatens authoritarian regimes. Exactly the kind likely to have manipulative leaders claiming a divine mandate. Statements from the texts in opposition to these moral concepts need to be understood as erroneous, not propped up by blind faith where they can be used to attack target groups by manipulative leaders.

Micromanagment

The universe is the way it is. Our understanding of the universe is incomplete. If we are atheistic then we say the universe is the way it is because that's how it is. If we are theistic but do not believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect deity then we may say that this is the intended universe or we may claim that somewhere something went wrong. If, however, we do believe in the aforementioned deity, God, then we can only state that the universe is currently functioning exactly as intended, has always done so and will continue to do so until the end of time.

You see if the universe was not designed then there is no designer and it functions according to the natural laws governing it and will continue to do so until the end of time. If it was designed, by God, then it functions according to the natural laws governing it and will continue to do so until the end of time.

Identical? You bet. Here is why. When you assign to God the ability to enact anything, the knowledge to compensate for everything and the inability to get it wrong in the process. Then, at the moment of creation, everything can only go right. All decisions would be locked in. All persons and events in all places would have been known and taken into account. All places objects trajectories and everything would have been known and allotted for, perfectly. Put simply at the moment of creation God's participation becomes nil. He has already done everything he needs to. Any further micromanagement, at all, flies in the face of the definition of the being.

What does this mean?

This realization hit me when I was thinking about a comic which articulately stated, "If the only prayer you ever said was, 'Thank you.' That would be enough."

It caused me to ask questions. What do I pray for? Should God have to respond? If he already knew what I wanted would he be insecure and need me to ask for it? More importantly if it needs to happen, would he risk his plan on the chance that I may not ask for it? Do I really think I have a better understanding of what should happen, in any situation, than the entity which set all situations into motion in the first place? If I do than I must not believe in the being I say I believe in. Nothing short of that definition is worthy of the title.

This line of reasoning leads to a disturbing conclusion. All requests for intervention are the very worst case of arrogance and metaphysical back seat driving. Imagine a batch of single cell organisms advising an astrophysicist on the best trajectory for his rocket and you still fall short of the level of arrogance needed to tell God what ought to happen next.

If we can't ask for intervention with out arrogance what is left? Ask for knowledge? Ask for certainty? It stands to reason that if we are meant to have these things than the mechanic to achieve them is already internal. After all, God knew we would go looking and built accordingly. He doesn't need to push the 'accept request' button or take any other action anywhere. All the mechanics of everything are inherent within the design. It can be no other way.

This concept runs in direct contradiction to every religious service I have participated in. By this logic prayer, outside of meditative centering, is arrogance. That is a tough pill to swallow in the face of most religious conditioning. However if you believe in God you must acknowledge it is the only rational perspective.

What do I mean by, "God"?

The first thing to a discussion about God is what do I mean when I use the term. In all honesty I prefer the Arabic word, Allah to the English god or even God. The reason for this is that the term Allah can not be used to describe anything but a supreme creator of the universe within which we live. The old Roman and Greek gods would not be applicable to the term Allah. Arabic speaking Christians, Muslims and Jews all use the term.

Having said that that I speak English and not Arabic. For the sake of consistency God shall be the word I use when describing the basis for this religious discussion. So, what is God? The only concept that I am willing to entertain, meaning that which I am comfortable professing faith in, requires the attributes listed below.

• Omnipotence
• Omniscience
  
• Perfection

You will notice that I stop at three. Anything else you want to add, for instance, benevolence or wisdom, necessarily subdivide these three aspects. It's also worth pointing out that these definitions are contradictory. Omnipotence, for instance, contradicts itself. After all if you are omnipotent you are capable of anything, even making a rock so big that you yourself can not lift it. However as an omnipotent entity you can lift all rocks. If you choose to use this contradiction as a proof that God can not exist I will be left with nothing to refute you. You can not prove God exists and to be able to would diminish the concept we are calling "God" into some lesser being. I believe that God can exist as the cause for the universe. Having said that my belief is just that, reasoned, personal faith. The universe seems to me to need an origin, that origin strikes me as God. If you don't believe a creator was necessary then I hope you'll read on for pleasure. This argument is designed to speak to other religious persons and persuade them from their dogma. Especially that which is self destructive or diminishes us as a species.

Omnipotence
The entity which possesses this is capable of anything. Literally anything. Not just the ability to defy natural laws at whim, the ability to create a system of natural laws that sustain a functioning universe where every subatomic particle does exactly what it's supposed to, all the time.

Omniscience
Knowing everything, literally everything. The level of minutiae in this kind of understanding is mind boggling. A complete understanding of how many nanometers of hair have been grown on the left arms of all right handed people in Germany between 1812 and 2041. How many electrons are currently spinning left and what the leftward spin is in relationship to. Put simply knowing the big things, the little things and everything in between.

Perfection
The inability to make mistakes. Alternately the ability to execute all actions without error. I call this an inability first because if you posses perfection and choose to include a mistake into your actions it can't actually be a mistake as it was done intentionally.

That's right, #1 contradicts itself, #2 contradicts #1, with absolute understanding you can not learn and #3 contradicts #1, and #2. After all if you are perfect you can't error but if you are all knowing and all powerful then you have the knowledge and ability to make a mistake.

How did I come to this definition? I think if you ask most mono-theists if God possesses these qualities they will agree. Unfortunately they then often suffer a disconnect because they will tell you part of their dogma wherein the above agreed tenants are shown not to apply to the being they worship. My belief stems from long hours of pondering what would such an entity do if it chose to set a universe into motion.

A note on free will.

It is obvious to me that we have free will. Having said that part of the definition of "Omniscience" is that the being possessing it knows exactly how we will choose each time we are offered a choice. Some people believe that if someone knows what you will choose that means you did not actually have a choice. To rebut this argument I apply the following situations. You and your most cherished friend are riding in a car. Your friend is driving and at speed. They are conscious, and clear of mind. The road bends to the left. You see the turn and you know your friend will guide the car to the left. The decision to turn left is a choice. Your friend can turn, or not turn, or even choose to stop altogether. Since you know your friend wishes no harm to you or the car, you know they will choose the option most likely to maintain the lack of harm, namely staying on the road. The choice is nearly subconscious but it is there.

Need another one? What if you were offered the following choice? You may either endure six years of conscious, gratuitous, awful torture, or you can have some cake. I do not know you, but I do know that when faced with horrible suffering or cake, you will choose the cake. Some of you might say you'd pick the torture just to be contrary but we both know that faced with the reality of torture you would rather have cake.

For a being which is omniscient all choices are this obvious. They are still choices and they still imply free will.

The Premise

Philosophy: (n) the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

Hello there,

I'd like to thank you for visiting. This page shall house my thoughts on religion. Namely that belief in a higher power and actions based on that belief should be identical to the character and actions of a moral secular humanist. That's right; if you really believe in God and subscribe to good behavior your actions and demeanor should be identical to other good an moral people regardless of what they believe.

Why the mention of Philosophy? That's all that this discussion can be. We can not apply science to religious practice, unless we decide to worship scientific rationalism. However I believe that religious practice, when applied properly, should extort us to press for greater scientific understanding of the universe we live in. Recently a scientific adherent whom I have found to be a wondrous breath of fresh air into a stale debate between fundamentalist religious types and the scientific community disparaged philosophy as a waste of time. In this I must disagree. Philosophy leads to rationalism, critical thinking and a move against the sort of mental atrophy that blinds so many fundamentalists. Can philosophy be taken too far? Absolutely, however there is very little which is good that is not also bad in sufficient quantity. To that end, please join me in a line of reasoning that has occupied me the last several years. If it catches your attention as a religious person I ask that you remember this. I am not here to challenge your faith. Faith in a higher power can be a wondrous thing and it strikes me that we'd be hollower without one. Having said that I am here to challenge your dogma. I want to talk about what a God is, and if this is a universe created by such a being what can we infer about said being based on the world around us.