Doctrinaire Extraordinaire

Is there a 'truth' that we all can subscribe to? Pilate asked the searching question of Jesus, just before sentencing him to death. ' What is truth?' And according to Jesus, he was on the side of truth, as all who desired truth would listen to his voice. I think of this now in connection with the problem, as I see it, of dogmatism. Not that there should not be dogma, which one may or may not agree with, but that it is proposed as certain by some who then use it to discredit morally for the most part, though sometimes intellectually, those who disagree with the dogma. Even though I use the word dogma, I do not only mean the religious variety. Every sphere of knowledge, belief and opinion has its own dogmas which go more or less unchallenged, and sometimes even more or less ignored. But each carry with them the one big lie that unites them all, which is - in footballing terms - our team deserves to be supported because we support it.

Science has a case in point whenever we consider the prevailing scientific opposition to theories of causality which do not originate in the physical. Physical science by definition could not allow for such things as mentally caused phenomena such as my thinking making a object move without the intervention of some physical tool to be the 'real' cause. Such causes are ruled out of court to begin with, and so it is not surprising that such cases are not recorded. The mind-body link could never be established to the pleasing of physical science, as such a link would be to step beyond the limits of the method. But it is not certain that such possibilities are absurd - indeed they are not logically absurd at all, and it is not a good argument to say that physics does not allow for them therefore they are factually impossible. Science can never establish what is strictly speaking impossible, it can only comfirm factually what is possible. The disdain with which 'hard-nosed' scientists would approach such suggestions is a testament to their dogmatism and philosophical blindness, rather than to their thoroughgoing rationalism.

Religion is the easy case to examine. Being religious seems synonymous for some people with a zealous attachment to what they already believe, coupled with a combination of disappointment and disgust at those who happen to have a similarly zealous attachment to something at variance (sometimes only slightly) to their own position. And woe-be-tide anyone who deigns to discuss religion with a truly rational mind, for they are shown up as the dissolute person given over to the darkside against faith. Obviously this is a characterisation, but only in so much as it is not true for some people of faith, while being just spot on for alot of others. Where reasons are used they are often completely circular, relying on what is already believed in a way which is not arguing, but merely rhetoricising for a position doggedly adopted against all argument. Worse still are those who believe that all religious positions are as bad as each other, and then plump for one out of personal preference and who also then argue for it as if it should be obvious for one and all. At least, such persons should maintain their coherence and not foist personal decisions on to all as being intellectual certainty.

Thirdly, philosophers who are only critical and do not attempt to engage with the other areas of knowledge in a foundational way are like builders who leave their work six months early, and then wonder why nobody is building on the ground they left. The ground, being no longer solid and strewn with the aftermath of old rubbish, is no longer safe for construction, and the other builders go back to their old ways again. Where those involved in philosophy continue to be surprised at these 'old errors' in their criticism, but still continue to offer no conceivable way out of the impasse, displays their own implicit dogma that all is relative and yet all is still no good. If all really is relative, then why so much criticism? If it all is still no good, then define the good that this is not fulfilling, or one has not even completed a proper philosophical sentence, let alone made sense more systematically. Philosophy which is not constructive is not love of wisdom, but love of intelligence.

I write about dogmatism because I am frustrated at the Church's position on debate. Civil rights seem to be insisted upon elsewhere. The only trump card which seems to be allowed to be used against these rights is if the Bible or the Tradition seems to conflict with them. Therefore, women cannot respond to their vocations to be priests, and so they leave the Church to try to make sense of their faithlives rationally. Homosexuals repress their sexuality into celibacy in a way which can only develop into hatred of the created self one is, and suggests an attachment to a rather vindictive God whom they either stay with much in the way that a battered wife remains with her husband, or else they leave and feel that they no longer can attach themselves to God anymore at all. 'Whosoever leads one of these with faith astray ... '. Who are the Pharisees and who is Jesus in today's world? Priests are taught that they are better than others and then experience more guilt whenever they realise that they're not. Married people feel that loving another human being is the next best thing to being celibate, which is eventually degrading for their love life with each other. Single people feel themselves outside of the Church whenever they have relationships previous to marriage, and in their hesitation and desire to make a good commitment they are lambasted as selfish and protractedly sinful. But of course this is only one side of the story. There is the other side and it should be heard, and could be true. But this side also is a side, and it should be heard, and it could be true. What is important to respect is the necessity of debate.

'What is truth?' Wasn't Jesus wilfully ambiguous?! The dogmatists will say that he was very clear, and then paint on whatever either they wish to believe or they've been told is true. At least, if someone else told me this, it's not entirely my fault if I'm wrong! Wasn't Jesus wonderfully ambiguous?! Much like a poet wanting people to trust themselves in the presence of beauty and truth, and to make their own rational and heartfelt commitment to it instinctively out of love for the pure excellence and lovingness of the idea. Like Jesus standing amongst the Pharisees in the Synagogue wanting to help someone on the Sabbath, asking the people 'what did they think' was the right thing to do, and the people, in deference to the teachers of the Law - who should know better than them - remained silent. Some ask 'What would Jesus do?' Maybe Jesus might ask, like that example in the Synagogue, 'What would you do?'. Is it right that this man hates the way he has been created? Is it right that this woman may not touch God's body or read his Word? Is it right that this single person feels sinful until marriage? Is it right that this priest feels inadequate to his vocation but superior to all others? Is it right to see love as secondary to service? Is it right not to be able to discuss these things without being branded a heretic, or, which is sometimes still the case, the spawn of the Whore of Babylon?