- Feb 5, 2002
- 167,433
- 56,728
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Whatever “dogma” is, Sam Harris certainly doesn’t like it. In his recent conversation with Jordan Peterson, Harris repeatedly condemns dogma, and Peterson repeatedly tries to moderate this condemnation. Harris notes correctly that dogma is “a Catholic term.” But what exactly is being condemned? The target is moving.
First, Harris defines dogma as “a belief that is held in spite of the fact that there’s no good evidence for it.” According to this definition, belief in God is not a dogma. If Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Liebniz, Plantinga or William Lane Craig are right, there is good evidence to believe that God exists. Indeed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that, “By natural reason man can know God with certainty.”
But belief in God is not only a dogma, but is the fundamental dogma of the Catholic creed. So, Harris’ definition of dogma must differ radically from Catholic understandings of the term. In which case, his critique of “dogma” is a straw man of his own invention.
Harris offers a second understanding of dogma, “If I say to you, listen, I believe X and there’s nothing you can say to convince me otherwise, and no matter how good your evidence gets, no matter how good your arguments get, I’m not gonna want to hear it. And if you press the case, I’m gonna get angrier and angrier until the possibility of having a conversation about anything fully erodes.” “Dogma” in this sense means close-mindedness.
Yet close-mindedness is a characteristic that can afflict a believer or a skeptic, an atheist or a theist. As woke mobs show us, you could reject all “dogma” in the religious sense of the term and yet be utterly certain of your beliefs and closed off from learning from others. Moreover, you could believe in a dogma (let’s say, “God exists”) and also not get angry and indeed (as I do) even enjoy talking to people who see things differently. So, “close-mindedness” is a sloppy definition of dogma.
Continued below.
www.wordonfire.org
First, Harris defines dogma as “a belief that is held in spite of the fact that there’s no good evidence for it.” According to this definition, belief in God is not a dogma. If Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Liebniz, Plantinga or William Lane Craig are right, there is good evidence to believe that God exists. Indeed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that, “By natural reason man can know God with certainty.”
But belief in God is not only a dogma, but is the fundamental dogma of the Catholic creed. So, Harris’ definition of dogma must differ radically from Catholic understandings of the term. In which case, his critique of “dogma” is a straw man of his own invention.
Harris offers a second understanding of dogma, “If I say to you, listen, I believe X and there’s nothing you can say to convince me otherwise, and no matter how good your evidence gets, no matter how good your arguments get, I’m not gonna want to hear it. And if you press the case, I’m gonna get angrier and angrier until the possibility of having a conversation about anything fully erodes.” “Dogma” in this sense means close-mindedness.
Yet close-mindedness is a characteristic that can afflict a believer or a skeptic, an atheist or a theist. As woke mobs show us, you could reject all “dogma” in the religious sense of the term and yet be utterly certain of your beliefs and closed off from learning from others. Moreover, you could believe in a dogma (let’s say, “God exists”) and also not get angry and indeed (as I do) even enjoy talking to people who see things differently. So, “close-mindedness” is a sloppy definition of dogma.
Continued below.
Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson on Dogma - Word on Fire
Rather than understand the meaning of "dogma," Sam Harris gives his own idiosyncratic meanings, then criticizes figments of his imagination.
www.wordonfire.org
