That's all fine but how do you choose the things that do not reveal your god in some way?

Since you regard science as a revelation of your god, it must mean that, most of the time, the revelations are false. How do you choose which revelations of your god are true and which are false? And how do you cope with the constant shift of truth that is an integral part of a concept of falsifiability?

Example: 150 years ago it was scientifically understood that if an animal spent its life reaching out for fruits in trees then its arms would increase in length and the increased length would be inherited by its offspring. At the time of this understanding there was actually sufficient evidence and sufficient lack of contrary evidence to make it a scientific fact, i.e. a truth for all practical purposes. Hence, these ideas constituted scientific theory and law (Lamarcks theory contained two laws).

How can you consider this to be a revelation of your god and his intention for you to share the wonder of his creation when this particular wonder of his creation is demonstrably false? Do you change your religious truths in the same pace that science apparantly provides you with false revelations of your god?

Non Sequitur, science is falsifiable while your god can't afford the luxury of that particular property. By definition, science produces truths that can be found to be false. As such, they are of course only true as long as they are not found to be false. By definition, religion produces truths that are true because they cannot be found to be false. As such, they are true as long as anyone says they are true.

In order for you to claim science to reveal your god, you must approach science in the same way that you deal with religion. And that doesn't seem like a pleasent option.

Again, why? How do you choose those parts and discard others?

Non Sequitur, there are two main issues that the Bible is generally said to convey. "Generally" because some people fortunately realize that it doesn't say anything about the first issue, which is the world around us. You are of course right that man wrote the Bible (who else?) and, moreover, man wrote it in a way that is clearly wrong as far as the world around us goes (due, as said above, to the falsifiable nature of that part of our reality). The other issue is the world with us in it, i.e. the world of human beings. How we relate to each other. to ourselves, to our fate in life and to the death of others and ourselves alike. Also, how we relate to the world around us but, still, solely from the perspective of the world of humans.

The thing is that no matter how accurate or, especially in the former case, how inaccurate those issues are described, none of them require any form of deity. Nope, they really don't. Bear with me a while, please.

There needn't be involved any kind of supernaturality in order for humans to advice other humans on how to behave morally and mutually responsible. There needn't be involved any kind of supernaturality in order for humans to remind other humans that consequences ensue their actions. Authority? Yes. Supernaturality? No.

So, does authority require supernaturality? No, of course not. Unless, of course, authority does in fact require supernaturality in order to become authority! And where does that occur? Where there is faith, of course.

Bottom line, what requires a deity .. hold on to your hat .. is faith in a deity! There is nothing in, on or of this world that requires a deity other than faith in a deity. Absolutely nothing.

Therefore, when you speak of a theological truth, you are solely speaking about faith and, to be more precise, your faith only. Any such truth exists - i.e. receives it's value as truth - solely because of your faith. Not because of a Bible or any other writings about the supernatural entity that you have faith in. That's why the term represents nothing more than your faith. For example, to me it represents nothing more than the fact that someone drilled a term into you.

That, I suspect, is also why you can pick in the Bible the truths that are desired for your personal faith. Those who claim to be literalists do it as well. They cannot pick and choose because their faith allows them to admit that some things are false. That's a no-no. But they can pick and choose under the pretence that some things are more important than others. For example, when the issue is homosexuality - as is often the case on this forum - it's very common to hear that it's a much more important issue than, say, adultery. That's not picking and choosing, that's simple prioritizing!

Whoops, sorry about the length of the reply. I'll stop now

All truth? Nah, not necessarily. Dogma claims only the truth that it or the contained doctrines claim. If dogma claims the truth of everything then, yes, it obviously claims all truth. But no matter how many truths (or how much truth if you want) it claims, it does claim to be the sole source of truth. That's what dogma means.

Feel free to redefine it, though. I'll just redefine it back

That's true of every statement isn't it?


By that definition I would submit that almost no one believes in religious dogma then, since I know of no one who believes that any religious writing, doctrine or organization is the sole source of truth, as demonstrated by the fact that they accept statements from non-religious sources as being true.
If they actually believed it to be the sole source of truth, then surely they would no attribute truthfulness to any other source.

Sure. I agree with you.

That is why I questioned Josepha on the following statement: "Which proves that believers believe in their religion - but it does not prove the the dogma of the religion is that there is no other way that is valid."

Emphasis mine. Maybe what Andrewl said didn't prove anything of the sort but if this statement means that dogma of the religion is NOT that there is no other way that is valid then that is what I'd like to hear an explanation of. AFAIK, the word dogma is used to denote the sole and complete truth of an issue.

That's true of all dogmatic statements, yes.

Ah, I suspect then that you and Josepha (and myself, I suppose) were just using different definitions for the word "dogma".
I suspect that using your definition would more severely limit the number of "dogmatic" believers. Which is fine; just something to bear in mind.

See, there's that word again and I'm not sure what significance to give it.

Doesn't EVERY statement claim that the "doctrines" contained in it are true? That's the purpose of the statement isn't it?
I mean, if I say "The sky is blue", then I'm claiming the truth of the "doctrine" that the sky is blue.

Stating that "the sky is blue" is not a dogmatic statement. It is merely a statement of a temporal 'fact'. It only states that the sky is blue - right now. It might be blue tomorrow - or it might not be. Such temporal statements are 'falsifiable'.

A dogmatic statement on the other hand means that the sky is blue now, today, tomorrow and always, no matter what colour it appears, or what mathematical mumbo-jumbo you can spin about the angles of light and the colour spectrum. The sky is blue and cannot be anything but blue. Such dogmatic statements are usually not falsifiable (which is what makes them dogmatic).

Ah but there I don't agree with you. The definition of dogma does not provide a specification of the truth. It's merely dogmatic truth if a truth is held true on the basis of an absolute or the tenets of an absolute authority.

For instance, if the Bible is the sole source of the truth that Jesus is the son of God, - heck, even that someone named Jesus existed - then that's a dogmatic truth. It requires faith that the Bible constitutes the absolute authority on such a tenet. And somehow I doubt that belief in that particular dogma would severely limit the number of "dogmatic" believers.

White Rabbit, thank you. Falsifiability is the key word here.
Dilettante, please refer to White Rabbit's post

Ah, I see.
Though I think that being temporal has nothing to do with whether or not the statement is falsifiable. If I say "George Washing was the First US President" then I'm making a statement that, if true now, must be true tomorrow and for all days thereafter.
Yet I would still consider it falsifiable (at least to me) because it is based on a set of premises (that the authors of early US history are reliable on at least this point, for instance). If those premises could be called into question or negated, then I would no longer assert the truth of the original statement. E.G. If I could be convinced that some vast George-Washington based conspiracy had been perpetrated on America's earliest record keepers, then I might no longer claim that Washington was the first president.

So, might one say that a claim is "dogmatic" (I.E. not falsifiable) when it relies on no premises? Or at least no premises that are, themselves, not dogmatic? When it is considered to be self-supporting?

In other words, if I claim, "X is true because of Y" and Y is something about which I admit I could be mistaken, then the claim that "X is true" is not dogma?
Whereas, if I claim, "X is true." and there is no because (I.E. no supporting premise) then the claim is dogma?

Done

EDITED:
Does the link between Falsifiability and a lack of premise work for you?

True. The characteristic of 'temporal' was merely descriptive. It is not a necessary or sufficient condition for establishing falsifiability.

Yes, that is why the claim about George Washington is falsifiable. It can be checked or verified independently. It is not an absolute fact. It is possible that it is not actually true.

No. Brilliant and innovative new ideas often have no premise either, yet they are not dogmatic.

The key factor in identifying a 'dogmatic' claim (using logical terms) is one where the conclusion is identical to the premise.

Correct. It is not dogmatic because "X is true" can be falsified by testing to see if "X is true because of Y". If Y is an error, then "X" is not true.

Correct. The premise "X is true" is identical to the conclusion "X is true". This is dogmatic.

No. See above post.

Dogmatic statements usually do have a premise. The flaw is that the premise is taken as the conclusion. That is dogmatic.

Mathematical mumbo-jumbo ?
That, Sir, is a glove that will be picked up in due course.