Scientists don't blindly
accept dogma as fact.
Religious faith means abandoning rational inquiry and
accepting dogma as truth.
Not exact matches
However Christians demand that society
accept the existence of their god
as fact and validate their religious
dogmas by incorporating them into civil law.
Tenderness separated from the source of tenderness thus supports a «popular piety» that goes unexamined, a piety in which liberalism in its decline establishes dogmatic rights, rights that in an extreme»
as presently in the arguments for abortion in the political sphere and for «popular culture» in the academic» become absolute
dogma to be
accepted and not examined.
Faith is the willing suspension of critical thinking in order that one might
accept supernatural
dogma as fact.
«Knowledge» must come after faith... it is faith to
accept religious
dogma as knowledge.
'' Once you remove man's
dogmas and get back to the teachings of Jesus Christ» Which is one of man's
dogmas... Men wrote the bible.You haven't removed anything, you have
accepted one of man's
dogmas as if it were truth.
If I appear ignorant to you perhaps it's because I don't blindly follow the theocratic
dogma, or
accept the creative translations and cultural contexts that particular preachers try to pass off
as the only «true» way to interpret the Bible.
Teaching Creationism
as a scientific theory teaches people to reject the value of evidence and
accept dogma and tradition.
For centuries his theological teaching was
accepted as official
dogma by most Catholics.
are you not just blindly
accepting dogma that's been honed over centuries
as truth when, in fact, it's just people's ideas about things they don't understand?
To
accept the Bible
as the authority of the Christian faith, therefore, is not to
accept merely some static
dogma that lays the dead hand of the past on the fresh life of the present.
The church gained in so far
as it
accepted a critical attitude to
dogma.
This dogmatic intolerance becomes all the more difficult for non-Catholics when it is associated not only with distinctly religious
dogma, but also with elements of natural law that are not
accepted as divinely sanctioned moral demands by most non-Catholics.
«Heresy is in the eye of the beholder... no one thinks that their beliefs are heretical, so denouncing another's theology
as «heretical» is meaningless and purposeless, for what one judges to be «heresy» is dependant upon one's
accepted church's
dogma.
I propose doing so, in challenging what he states
as accepted dogma: that any time - series less than 25 or 30 years is meaningless.
As anyone can see, the article is about politics, bias, confirmation bias, groupthink,
dogma, prejudice, the stubborn refusal of the left to
accept data on IQ studies, sneering and smearing (see ATTP's latest childish sneer / smear at the Conversation).
I originally
accepted the climate science / IPCC
dogma, but my background
as an electrical engineer with experience in developing spice models led me to look closer at the details.
«
As a fundamental element of religion, the term «dogma» is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt.&raqu
As a fundamental element of religion, the term «
dogma» is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer
accepts the given religion
as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt.&raqu
as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt.»
The notion that there is such a thing
as progress of mankind
as a whole was unknown prior to the seventeenth century, developed into a rather common opinion among the eighteenth - century hommes de lettres, and became an almost univerally
accepted dogma in the nineteenth....