Conviction or Constriction

[ruby27]

This follows a interesting point naomi24 made about whether political ideology like religious conviction can result in a rather dogmatic and narrow perspective of the world.
But, without faith, ideology, scientific framework how do you make sense of the world? Or should these paradigms just be theoretical scaffolding which you can discard when new information challenges your world view.
I hold my hand up to seeing and understanding the world through the lens of socialism, feminism and social constructionism.
Do you have ideologies, and if so do they help or hinder.

[jake-the-peg]

Oh yes I have a scientific background that's formed a part of my thinking from an early age.

Thing is proper scientific thought is different from those others because it's the only one that accepts that it might be wrong.

Your thought process can only really be thought of as Scientific if you can conceive of something that would make you change your mind.

Of course the bar is not even extraordinary claims require extrordinary proof - If somebody tells me of a modification to the way we understand the composition of comets I'll probably take the word of a reputable researc organisation, if someone tells me that they've build an anti-gravity machine - I'd want to see a lot more!

Personly though I think the Scientific paradigm has been extraordinarilly sucessfull in history. It has outlasted pretty much any political ideology that I can think of and is far more sucessful in it's ability to predict and control the world than religion. (Would you get on a plane navigated by prayer?)

It does have weaknesses however. Despite all that it has nothing to say about morals or ethics there is no scientific guide to how you should live your life and for that I have to turn elsewhere

[Reverandfunk]

Religion encourages you to judge people who dont hold the same beliefs, breeds intolerance and ignorance and causes far to much conflict.

So in a nutshell:

Religion = Load of old pants

[jake-the-peg]

I agree - 'cause you're never intolerent are you rev? ;o)

[VillageVicar]

Morning Rev: Just a bit of my tuppence here, but I don�t feel it�s fair to suggest that religion causes judgement, intolerance and conflict for everyone. I would never disagree with you that there is a large element who become feverishly drunk in the dogma that is slung at them. But this can also apply to science, feminism, politics, bigotry and anything else in excess.

For me, and perhaps I�m of a sadly small group, my faith has not only encouraged, but demanded an almost unquenchable thirst for learning, interaction and life-experience. And it causes me, constantly to reach past the comfort of dogma and challenge what I hear and what I read.

I would also have to tie this to those experiences that have had such profound impact upon my life. I have experienced the greatest highs and I�ve been in the deepest most guttural lows of humanity. And for myself, as I only have the right to speak for myself, it has been those experiences that I pursued, in faith, that have been the most fulfilling in my life.

My most common personal mantra is �I am not a judge.� My second one, which was said to me when I was about 8 years old was �get out there and live every moment of your life, because if you don�t, you�ll have nothing to talk about in the locker room when you�re older.� That message has stuck with me like cement.

I recall saying at my thirtieth birthday that if I died tomorrow, I would have accomplished more, experienced more, and seen more, than any eighty year old I knew.

Having lived within many cultures and geopolitical mind-sets, I believe that political dogma can have the same effect as religious dogma. But to me, the bottom line is the broad will of the individual. I would have used the word �spirit� but that would prompt a change in direction for the thread.

Fr Bill

[Octavius]

Well put Fr Bill.

Reverand, I actually find that the majority of people who are not religious are far more judgemental, intolerant and ignorant of me than I am of them. But as Fr Bill has said, it is the will of the individual that really counts.

[mibn2cweus]

Convictions is a fancy word for beliefs. We all have them, many of which we acquired through our upbringing. They are necessary to and are drawn upon whenever we are faced with making a decision . . . and they are constrictive. For this reason we need to examine the validity of our convictions. To provide us with a maximum of freedom our convictions should be constrained only by the dictates of reality. To this end a political system should be designed to protect our freedom. The protection provided by a political system likewise can not ignore the restraints placed on existence by reality for the best interests of civilization to be served.

Freedom entails responsibility and in order to practice responsibility requires the necessary freedom to do so. A political system that does not acknowledge personal responsibility and does not provide and protect those freedoms that make it possible is attempting to ignore this reality and will not serve those who depend on both for their survival and well-being.

Confusion often arises from a failure to distinguish between the dictates of reality and the dictates of an ideology that does not recognise the requirement that its dictates and those of reality must correspond. The foundation of a healthy world view is the understanding of what serves the survival and well-being of the person on whom this understanding relies, that being each and everyone of us.

We rely on our ability and freedom to choose and on being responsible and accountable for and the beneficiaries of the consequences of our choices. In our endeavors to extend the reaches and benefits of our freedoms and to understand the corresponding responsibilities we should not neglect to appreciate, reevaluate, maintain and celebrate the freedoms we have so far acquired.

[ruby27]

jake-the-peg. On the whole I think I agree, especially as science is so complicated and beyond my ken, I never really have any ability to be critical. Only picky little point is, has it outlasted or predate the notion of democracy. Both were written about in A Greece (if not thought about before) or would the A Egyptians count as scientific?

Reveranfunk. Is it chicken and egg, are the judgemental and intolerant attracted to dogma, whether this be political or religious or do they become so following their conversion to such ideologies. Personally I think those type do seek the security of rigid frameworks that offer the 'truth'

VV. I do like your expression of feverishly drunk on dogma. I am guilty I admit on occasions of both an excessive consumption of wine and what I thought was the right explanation/way/perspective. Both courses of action fill the imbiber of an overwhelming belief that they have see the truth, whilst boring the pants of everyone else who is sober.

[ruby27]

mibn2cweus
To provide us with a maximum of freedom our convictions should be constrained only by the dictates of reality
Confusion often arises from a failure to distinguish between the dictates of reality and the dictates of an ideology

Yes but the problem can lay with what is reality. In the physical world of science there are certain truths. But, in the social world, what is reality depends on how you view the situation. For me there are many 'truth's' about gender inequality, whilst to others that perspective is nonsense and just feminist ideology. For those of a religious faith, their reality is different from a non believer, but there is no real objective means of determining whose truth is real - is there?

[mibn2cweus]

Hell yes!

Reality is that which exists in spite of what we believe or wish it to be. Our window to reality consists of our perceptions which are automatically assembled by our brains from the sensory input we receive from reality. As long as we have healthy organs of perception and a healthy brain we can confirm the validity of our perceptions by observing the non-contradictory nature of the information they provide. As an example, when a church bell rings if we look we can see the bell moving and identify the object that sets it ringing, we can hear the bell ringing and by touching it we can feel the vibrations that set the air in motion that we hear. This type of fundamental experience can be shared by all first hand and through sharing mutual experiences with others. Most of us would know when someone claims that there is no choirboy pulling on the rope, that it is God calling us to prayer, that we can say with confidence that they have bats in their belfry.

Perceptions provide us with the foundation on which all other knowledge must rest by demonstrating a non-contradictory relationship between what we believe we know and the same reality we all (except for the occasional nutter) perceive. Admittedly we have a ways to go to relate the ringing of a church bell to explaining why we should all be treated equitably and fairly and exactly what that means but we have to start by agreeing that both beliefs and knowledge exist, that they are not necessarily the same and that there is a basis for distinguishing one from the other.

Leave it to those who claim that reality is an illusion to explain why we should believe they are real and leave it to those who claim that knowledge is delusion to explain how they know that. Then perhaps the rest of us can begin to work on bridging the gap between reality and human rights.

With me so far?

[Theland]

ruby27 - you understand your world through socialsim, (Marx or Harold Wilson?), feminism, (a level playing field or positive discrimination?),
and social constructionism, (Eh wha? Does that mean if you are brought up on a sink estate the world is generally crap, but if brought up in the leafy suburbs, the world is generally O.K.?)
As you can see, I don't quite understand.