Does adding items to a doctrine increase points of failure?

[cloudyday2]

Typically new religions evolve from earlier religions and usually the new religion claims to ADD to the old religion. Earlier Christians were Jews with some extra beliefs about Jesus.

Imagine a case where Doctrine-A is a subset of Doctrine-B. Doesn't it seem that if each item of dogma is uncertain then a person who believes in Doctrine-A is less likely to be wrong?

Of course it is often the case that the added beliefs in the new religion REINTERPRET the old beliefs. For example, Christians understand the Old Testament different from Jews sometimes.

Also there is the issue of what counts as a belief (if we are going to count them and use that to declare that one dogmas is a subset of another dogma). For example, maybe a decision to remain agnostic on a question is actually taking a position on that question, so it might count as a belief just as surely as guessing true or false would.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: More thoughts on agnosticism: if I haven't evaluated an issue, then that is not the same as if I have evaluated an issue and reached no verdict. Saying 50/50 (agnostic) is really no different than saying 100/0 (believer) or 0/100 (disbeliever). They are all evaluations of an issue, and they can all be wrong.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Let me ask you though: Does Relativity Theory have more points of failure than Newtonian Mechanics? I mean, it was added Scientific 'doctrine', but did this not make the whole more plausible rather than less?

Religion is not static, as much as Atheists like to claim it is. Theological thought evolves and God is seen to interact in our doing so. Even the OT shows more clear expressions of Monotheism in the prophets than the Torah. Increase in complexity might make something more tenable, plug holes as it were, or explain ambiguity more definitely and securely. This is the position that our ongoing Sciences take, amongst whom the Queen of Sciences, Theology, as well. It doesn't mean we know irrefutably, but a different schema might have different points of contention - as for instance, physics has shifted from the failures of Newtonian mechanics in astrophysics, to the failures of Relativity theory on the quantum level, etc.

 

[cloudyday2]

Let me ask you though: Does Relativity Theory have more points of failure than Newtonian Mechanics? I mean, it was added Scientific 'doctrine', but did this not make the whole more plausible rather than less?

I actually think the efforts of physicists to broaden the applicability of laws might make the "dogma of physics" simpler. For example, if a physicist said here are some equations that we can use under certain conditions, and here are some other equations that we can use in other conditions, that is kludgy and complicated. There are issues at the boundaries between the areas where we might not be sure which set of equations to use. Physicists are always striving to generalize their equations so they apply in all extremes. IDK

It is hard to quantify points of failure though. It's not as simple as counting apples.

 

[Uber Genius]

More thoughts on agnosticism: if I haven't evaluated an issue, then that is not the same as if I have evaluated an issue and reached no verdict. Saying 50/50 (agnostic) is really no different than saying 100/0 (believer) or 0/100 (disbeliever). They are all evaluations of an issue, and they can all be wrong.

We evaluate propositions based on three possible outcomes, true, false, or undecided.

That we are going through a process of gaining knowledge by attempting to reason on whether a claim is true or not is to go past belief to knowledge.

Knowledge is largely although not unanimously considered to require true statements that are justified by reasons to believe.

The person who hasn’t familiarized themselves can be agnostic or the person who says there is not enough justification to warrant belief one direction or the other is also a agnostic as they are not justifying beliefs in any direction.

Atheist make the knowledge claim: there are no gods

Theist claim: God(s) exist

Only those two need to justify their claims

So we don’t look and say “the evaluation process itself makes all claims equal.”

We are comparing knowledge claims which is what separates atheististic/theistic claims from both agnostic (non-knowledge claims)

 

[Sanoy]

I think remaining agnostic on a doctrine that isn't clear is healthy. I actually went through a crisis of church tradition when I was still young. There were so many things from tradition that no one could explain adequately, so I burnt it all down to "Mere Christianity". If I'm not sure about the content of two beliefs I'll run with them both and build on each one separately. Time will test them and it allows me to see connections that I otherwise would not discover if only held one view of each subject.

Chrisitanity isn't an addition to Judaism, modern Judaism is actually a historical subtraction. In the second temple period some of the Jews believed in two Yahwehs, a greater and a lesser Yahweh. However after the destruction of the Temple their views were changed from binatarian to a single Yahweh. The easiest way to see this fact is in Genesis 19:24.

 

[pitabread]

Religion is not static, as much as Atheists like to claim it is.

I find it is usually Christians (fundamentalists anyway) who claim this, not atheists.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I find it is usually Christians (fundamentalists anyway) who claim this, not atheists.

Odd. I often see Atheists make this claim in juxtaposition to Scientific Method or Empiricism - as if the absolute validity of the latter two are not just taken on faith as well.

Catholics with Papal Encyclicals and Doctors of the Church, Orthodoxy with Ecumenical councils, and Protestantism that arose from a Reformation, leaves a claim of a static tradition very much incongruous.

 

[frater_domus]

With regards to things added, check out this post I have written in another thread. The last paragraph is especially relevant to the issue of added text and what it means for us. Take a look:

“Yes, the gospel is based on eyewitness accounts, but they were also written down decades after the whole thing has happened and most likely not by the apostles themselves, but by their church communities and not solely based on apostolic accounts but rather all eyewitnesses, that were willing to add. Imagine a scenario, where the gospel is being spread and people, who may have heard it preaches tell it to others. Word travels and inevitably it reaches the respective church communities. They considered it beautiful and wrote it down so that it may be preserved.

This is how it is assumed to have happened. The original manuscripts were never found, only those that followed. Luckily for us, there are a wealth of NT manuscripts and the NT research center in Muenster is able to determine how the original looked like with a high degree of certainty, by cross-referncing all the avaiable ones.

I think this makes sense. Something we tend to forget in our natural egocentric view is that the first generation or Christians were much like us, squishy and imperfect humans. It is too common that we regard them as something far superior given their significance and thus assume that they have left a flawless and perfect document for all the future generations (which they have, but not in the way one may think). But the truth of the matter is that even the apostles doubted and that none of them have seen God. They had many of the same theological concerns we have. Their troubles were different as we all are a product of our time, but we are very much alike. Yes, they saw Jesus and his miracles, death and resurrection. But in many regards they were like you or me. I believe that it is important to remember that. It keeps us grounded.

Does that all mean that the bible is not the inerrant word of God? No. The spiritual message is perfect and inerrant. However, given that it was written down by squishy humans and the presumed way that it was believed to have been recorded, it means that it is not free of historic and worldly inconsistencies or free from cultural bias. In fact, this is how stories of Jesus and the adultress or the ending of Mark, if memory serves me well, managed to get into our modern bibles, even though researchers agree that those were not part of the original manuscripts.
However, they left them in, with a footnote, but still left them. Why? Because they do not take away from the spiritual message.
You see, God’s concerns are not ours. As such, chances are that God cares little for historic or factual accuracies within the bible as opposed to the perfect divine truth within. As such, it is our task to approach the bible intellectually and study it diligently. To understand the context and to peel back the layers of worldly information so that the spiritual truth may be revealed to us. It is like a parable. The meaning is hidden beneath what we receive at face value.
In my eyes, that is the proper way to study the bible. Not literalism, but hermeneutics. Yes, that is much harder, but laziness ain’t on the divine menu “

 

[devolved]

Imagine a case where Doctrine-A is a subset of Doctrine-B. Doesn't it seem that if each item of dogma is uncertain then a person who believes in Doctrine-A is less likely to be wrong?

I think you first need to re-evaluate your concept of "knowledge/belief" as a "mind-map" as opposed to isolated dogmas.

We tend to split and discuss individual concepts here, but there never exist apart from a long network of concepts in your mind.

For example, the concept of a "tree" is not an isolated concept. It maps to a wide range of other concepts that you'd need in order to explain what a tree is, especially if you attempt to do that in a broader semantics of that word.

Thus, our "dogma" is merely a network of foundational concepts that form a certain framework/network of knowledge and logic. When were are talking about "religious" concepts of the past, these were all-encompassing applications of tribal politics, morality, history, sociology, economics... all fused into one unified traditional framework. Hence, adding or subtracting from framework was not an arbitrary concept. It was a very much a way of life and meaning.

Hence, it was not as simple as "Ok, we'll just go ahead and add Doctrine B". It's a process that augments cultural perception and morality, hence any of such concepts take some time to establish. And with time there's always internal "review process" that would generally trim any doctrine inconsistent with original model or doctrine.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Typically new religions evolve from earlier religions and usually the new religion claims to ADD to the old religion. Earlier Christians were Jews with some extra beliefs about Jesus.

Imagine a case where Doctrine-A is a subset of Doctrine-B. Doesn't it seem that if each item of dogma is uncertain then a person who believes in Doctrine-A is less likely to be wrong?

Of course it is often the case that the added beliefs in the new religion REINTERPRET the old beliefs. For example, Christians understand the Old Testament different from Jews sometimes.

Also there is the issue of what counts as a belief (if we are going to count them and use that to declare that one dogmas is a subset of another dogma). For example, maybe a decision to remain agnostic on a question is actually taking a position on that question, so it might count as a belief just as surely as guessing true or false would.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: More thoughts on agnosticism: if I haven't evaluated an issue, then that is not the same as if I have evaluated an issue and reached no verdict. Saying 50/50 (agnostic) is really no different than saying 100/0 (believer) or 0/100 (disbeliever). They are all evaluations of an issue, and they can all be wrong.

Reminds me of something Sam Harris said once: "We can say that mormonism is less likely then christianity, since it is just christianity with some additional and rather silly ideas…"

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let me ask you though: Does Relativity Theory have more points of failure than Newtonian Mechanics?

The difference is that relativity theory has actual evidence in support of it.
Science isn't faith based like religion.

I mean, it was added Scientific 'doctrine'

There's no such thing.

, but did this not make the whole more plausible rather than less?

Yes, but only because the added ideas were added to explain more evidence and more accurately.

The additions weren't the results of "visions" and "dreams" and what not.

Religion is not static, as much as Atheists like to claim it is. Theological thought evolves and God is seen to interact in our doing so. Even the OT shows more clear expressions of Monotheism in the prophets than the Torah. Increase in complexity might make something more tenable, plug holes as it were, or explain ambiguity more definitely and securely. This is the position that our ongoing Sciences take, amongst whom the Queen of Sciences, Theology, as well.

Theology has literally nothing to do with science.
Except, maybe, to the extent that it tries to reverse match its religious dogma's to new scientific discovery, just so they can continue to feel justified in holding on to those doctrines.

In science, when an idea doesn't match the evidence, it is discarded or altered. Not "re-interpreted".

It doesn't mean we know irrefutably, but a different schema might have different points of contention - as for instance, physics has shifted from the failures of Newtonian mechanics in astrophysics, to the failures of Relativity theory on the quantum level, etc.

And in doing so, it zeros-in on the truth. And it does so by accumulating actual evidence based knowledge.

Religion is nothing like that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Atheist make the knowledge claim: there are no gods

That is false and it has been explained to you countless times why it is false. I know, because I was one of them.

I wonder why you still repeat it.

Theist claim: God(s) exist

That is correct. And the actual atheist position, is to not accept that theist claim as true/accurate.

Which is NOT (repeat: NOT) the same as claiming the opposite.

Only those two need to justify their claims

No. The theist needs to justify his claim. I'm an atheist only because theists fail to justify that claim. I don't accept unjustifiable claims.

We are comparing knowledge claims which is what separates atheististic/theistic claims from both agnostic (non-knowledge claims)

I'm an agnostic atheist.
Does it really need to be repeated again why agnosticism and atheism are NOT mutually exclusive?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Odd. I often see Atheists make this claim in juxtaposition to Scientific Method or Empiricism - as if the absolute validity of the latter two are not just taken on faith as well.

They are not taken on faith.
They are taken on an incredible track record of these methods working when trying to get accurate answers to phenomena of reality.

They are thus, evidence based.

If you build airplanes using the scientific method, they fly.
If you build airplanes without using science, they don't fly. Their engines won't even start. In fact, would they even have engines? There's quite some science that goes into building an engine....

Empirical science demonstrably works.

 

[Starcomet]

That is false and it has been explained to you countless times why it is false. I know, because I was one of them.

I wonder why you still repeat it.

A hard atheist claims "There is no God(s)." An agnostic simply does not accept or deny such a being exists. It sounds like you are describing the latter and not the former.

I'm an agnostic atheist.
Does it really need to be repeated again why agnosticism and atheism are NOT mutually exclusive?

The two are mutually exclusive. One affirmatively claims that no God(s) exist. The other is simply unsure on the matter. A hard theist argues affirmatively that God(s) does exist and an agnostic theist says they think God exist, but are uncertain. The former is 100% conviction and the other is uncertainty.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

They are not taken on faith.
They are taken on an incredible track record of these methods working when trying to get accurate answers to phenomena of reality.

They are thus, evidence based.

If you build airplanes using the scientific method, they fly.
If you build airplanes without using science, they don't fly. Their engines won't even start. In fact, would they even have engines? There's quite some science that goes into building an engine....

Empirical science demonstrably works.

I've told you before, that is nothing but a silly little petitio principii. Roman Aquaducts work on wrong ideas of pressure and flow, for instance. That our usages of something can be explained via our understanding thereof, says simply nothing about whether it is correct or not. In fact that is expected, as that is its derivation. It simply says it is useful. Like Newtonian mechanics, which is wrong, was used to build bridges and railroads in the 19th century.

Empiricism only 'works' by assuming empiricism. You cannot prove Empiricism empirically without fallacious reasoning.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The difference is that relativity theory has actual evidence in support of it.
Science isn't faith based like religion.

It is. On axioms held by faith alone, such as empiricism and its assumed methodological naturalism, or that the universe is actually intelligible.

There's no such thing.

Really? Read up about Priestly and Lavousier, and the disputes about phlogiston. Anyway, Scientific Dogma is actually a known and quite common term for widely acknowledged theories.

Yes, but only because the added ideas were added to explain more evidence and more accurately.

The additions weren't the results of "visions" and "dreams" and what not.

Which is my argument for Christianity. It explains more accurately the moral and preceptual ideas of Judaism and human religion in general.

Often additions were such. A lot of Science was not based on evidence, but on 'thought experiments' to account for mathematical probabilities. This is often quite divorced from 'real life' in which only one or two of the actual possibilities are expressed, and thoroughly untestable. Much of theoretical physics is of this ilk. So people in glass houses should really not be throwing stones.

Theology has literally nothing to do with science.
Except, maybe, to the extent that it tries to reverse match its religious dogma's to new scientific discovery, just so they can continue to feel justified in holding on to those doctrines.

In science, when an idea doesn't match the evidence, it is discarded or altered. Not "re-interpreted".

Sorry? How is altered different from re-interpreted? It is exactly the same, my friend. Theology used to be called the 'Queen of Sciences' by the way. How do you think the idea of the Trinity was derived at? By discarding ideas that did not accord to Scriptural or spiritual qualia or a priori reasoning, like Arianism, and by reinterpreting or altering existing theology to account for other ideas - such as monothelitism, Sabellianism, etc. The procedure is quite similar, only the data worked upon differs. In fact, Christian churchmen invented Scientific Method, well aware of the structure, hence its archaic popular title of Queen.

And in doing so, it zeros-in on the truth. And it does so by accumulating actual evidence based knowledge.

Religion is nothing like that.

No way of knowing Science is doing this. That is a complete assumption on faith. Science has had many dead ends, where it flogged a dead horse for a long time (phlogiston, Galenic blood physiology, Lamarckism, solid state universes, etc.). Even Atomism was widely laughed at, and Democrites thought a loon, until we came to agree. We have no way of knowing: for all intents and purposes, the entirety of Science might ultimately be erroneous. This is the problem of trying to determine veridicality, and it is best to maintain some scepticism, than the absolute fanatical charge and unscientific notion that 'science zeroes in on truth'. That is as faith-based and a priori as the Shahadah of Islam.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A hard atheist claims "There is no God(s)."

Also called a gnostic atheist.
I personally don't know a single one.

An agnostic simply does not accept or deny such a being exists. It sounds like you are describing the latter and not the former.

Also called an agnostic atheist.
Someone who doesn't believe and doesn't make knowledge claims.

Like just about every atheist I know.

The two are mutually exclusive.

They aren't.
Hi, I'm an agnostic atheist. Just like every other atheist I have ever met.

One affirmatively claims that no God(s) exist. The other is simply unsure on the matter. A hard theist argues affirmatively that God(s) does exist and an agnostic theist says they think God exist, but are uncertain. The former is 100% conviction and the other is uncertainty.

no.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I've told you before, that is nothing but a silly little petitio principii. Roman Aquaducts work on wrong ideas of pressure and flow, for instance. That our usages of something can be explained via our understanding thereof, says simply nothing about whether it is correct or not. In fact that is expected, as that is its derivation. It simply says it is useful. Like Newtonian mechanics, which is wrong, was used to build bridges and railroads in the 19th century.

Empiricism only 'works' by assuming empiricism. You cannot prove Empiricism empirically without fallacious reasoning.

If you reread my post, you'll see that I didn't use the word "prove", nore did I use the word "certainty".

What I said was that science demonstrably works. If you build airplanes using science, they fly.

What science does is zero-in on the truth.
Newtonian physics was "wrong", sure. But "less wrong" then previous models.
I'm sure Einsteinian physics is "wrong" to an extent as well, but again "less wrong" then Newtonian physics.

And both are a lot more correct then physics models that aren't produced by scientific inquiry.

So yes, I don't see any issue with pointing at that impeccable track record and concluding that science is our best method to find out how stuff works and getting every more accurate answers.

 

[Starcomet]

Also called a gnostic atheist.
I personally don't know a single one.



Also called an agnostic atheist.
Someone who doesn't believe and doesn't make knowledge claims.

Like just about every atheist I know.



They aren't.
Hi, I'm an agnostic atheist. Just like every other atheist I have ever met.



no.

View attachment 230774

I have met a few hard atheist actually who state affirmatively a God(s) does not exist. You are correct that most are not.

And I was referencing that picture when I was writing the response so an agnostic theist does exist as I am one and I know a few who are. Most are hard theist though.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have met a few hard atheist actually who state affirmatively a God(s) does not exist. You are correct that most are not.

And I was referencing that picture when I was writing the response so an agnostic theist does exist as I am one and I know a few who are. Most are hard theist though.

Cool. Although it's a bit strange then that you also said that "the two are mutually exclusive" while referring to agnosticism and atheism.

They most certainly aren't. If anything, one is a qualifier of the other.