D&D 5E Clerics and Wisdom

[Celebrim]

There is a profound difference between being convinced of the truth of a statement based on the past intellectual pursuits of others, versus believing it to be incontrovertibly true due to an authority laying it out.

No, there isn't. Words as you say have meaning. And to be convinced that something is true based on the intellectual arguments of others, is quite often the same as believing it is true based on an authority having presented their argument. That is to say, most people believe that the source of a person's authority is the truth of what they say, and the truth of what they say is made evident by the reasonableness of what they say. Hardly anyone believes that what they believe is unreasonable to believe, and it is unreasonable to believe that someone holds a belief despite believing it to be unreasonable. So for example, a Catholic if they are a pious Catholic believes that the Pope on certain matters is absolutely correct. But they believe that the Pope is absolutely correct, not merely because he is The Pope, but also because on those matters the Pope is divinely inspired to be absolutely perfect in his reasoning, which the Pope will lay out in his teachings. The sort of person likely to take the Pope as being reliable authority, also believes that the Pope is also a reliable intellect who has offered up sufficient intellectual proof.

The mistake I usually see made here is the assertion that someone believes the Pope's (or the Church's) teachings only because they are the Pope's and because the Pope has authority, and that therefore they believe these teachings without intellectual investigation. In fact, the Pope himself is acting very much in the same manner as any other scholar, and in outlining a teaching will appeal to reliable authority to show how the teaching conforms with what is considered to be reliably argued and hence already known to be and accepted as truth. I advise you to for example read some GK Chesterton.

(Full disclosure. I'm not Catholic. It's just a useful example.)

 

[Celebrim]

Also, nuance is entirely possibly even within Lawful alignments. That is where you get the arguments between two lawful types discussing philosophically whether the spirit or the letter of the law is more critical. Two very firm believers in strict laws can still argue an awful lot of nuance on such bases.

Sure, but from the perspective of the Law, this isn't an example of there being more than one truth or more than one valid perspective. This is an example of why wisdom is required to know the truth. Neither lawful philosopher believes that each can be right. They simply believe that at times, discerning the correct way to behave in a flawed world with flawed and limited human intellect can be difficult.

Chaotic scholars viewing the same debate might have a different conclusion, for example, that there was no right answer.

For my part, as a GM running this game, I'd try not to settle the issue of who was right, since I think it is more interesting for the players to pursue an answer rather than simply have it dictated to them. My own opinions I would tend to conceal.

 

[Celebrim]

Amen brother. Clerics in D&D are warrior-priests, not lead-the-congregation priests.

I think in the last 40 years or so, we've gone well past the point where every cleric - PC or NPC - was simply Bishop Turpin with side orders of Van Helsing and Moses. Even the illustration of what it means to be a cleric in the 1e AD&D PH, hinted the class was meant to serve or coming to serve a broader idea than its original conception. It's no longer appropriate to limit the notion of cleric to just plate wearing, mace wielding, ecclesiastical warriors.

 

[Tectuktitlay]

No, there isn't. Words as you say have meaning. And to be convinced that something is true based on the intellectual arguments of others, is quite often the same as believing it is true based on an authority having presented their argument. That is to say, most people believe that the source of a person's authority is the truth of what they say, and the truth of what they say is made evident by the reasonableness of what they say. Hardly anyone believes that what they believe is unreasonable to believe, and it is unreasonable to believe that someone holds a belief despite believing it to be unreasonable. So for example, a Catholic if they are a pious Catholic believes that the Pope on certain matters is absolutely correct. But they believe that the Pope is absolutely correct, not merely because he is The Pope, but also because on those matters the Pope is divinely inspired to be absolutely perfect in his reasoning, which the Pope will lay out in his teachings. The sort of person likely to take the Pope as being reliable authority, also believes that the Pope is also a reliable intellect who has offered up sufficient intellectual proof.

The mistake I usually see made here is the assertion that someone believes the Pope's (or the Church's) teachings only because they are the Pope's and because the Pope has authority, and that therefore they believe these teachings without intellectual investigation. In fact, the Pope himself is acting very much in the same manner as any other scholar, and in outlining a teaching will appeal to reliable authority to show how the teaching conforms with what is considered to be reliably argued and hence already known to be and accepted as truth. I advise you to for example read some GK Chesterton.

(Full disclosure. I'm not Catholic. It's just a useful example.)

Yes, there is. Dogma by definition requires incontrovertibility, hence why it is most often used discussing religious dogma specifically. It also applies to philosophical and political beliefs, quite often. You don't actually just get to toss out one of the defining aspects of a word so it suits a definition as you wish it to be. Not all beliefs, not even close to all beliefs one has because of trust in an authority, is an incontrovertible belief. Without that key metric, incontrovertibility (or, alternatively, without being questioned or doubted if you'd prefer), it isn't dogmatic, definitionally.

I don't need to be advised to read up more on a famous Christian apologist, sorry. I am in fact being careful in my wording, here, and understand both what I am saying, and my own biases. This is not to say I won't read more of him at some point, but reading his philosophical teachings isn't going to magically alter a key metric of what makes a belief dogmatic, versus merely a belief.

 

[Celebrim]

Yes, there is. Dogma by definition requires incontrovertibility...

"Settled science", for example.

...hence why it is most often used discussing religious dogma specifically. It also applies to philosophical and political beliefs, quite often.

Or you could just say beliefs generally, and stop Othering other people's beliefs.

You don't actually just get to toss out one of the defining aspects of a word so it suits a definition as you wish it to be.

I'm not tossing it out at all. I fully accept that to be dogma the person must hold that the belief is incontrovertible and based on reliable authority, and have explained that in my arguments regarding what is dogma. What I'm not doing that you would prefer I do, is divide humanity into two groups, one you believe is like yourself holding little or nothing dogmatically, and an Other which holds things without reason or emotional maturity, merely because an authority said so.

Not all beliefs, not even close to all beliefs one has because of trust in an authority, is an incontrovertible belief. Without that key metric, incontrovertibility (or, alternatively, without being questioned or doubted if you'd prefer), it isn't dogmatic, definitionally.

Sure, but in my experience people aren't nearly as good at questioning their own beliefs as you seem to think that they are. Almost all beliefs are held on the basis of someone else's authority, and equally unquestioned and undoubted, and so dogma under the definition we both agree to. If you are not truly agnostic on something, chances are it is dogma, and you will not test it or allow it to be tested, and will fight tooth and nail to hold on to that belief. Because you are human, and that's how humans generally behave.

And to the extent that humanity does apply its reason, and test and doubt its beliefs, that reason and testing and doubting applies equally to beliefs of all sorts. Religious beliefs, political beliefs, and philosophical beliefs aren't off in special categories of things that aren't tested and doubted and specially held with or without reason. That's just an accusation people make in order to avoid having to deal with the fact that other people don't agree with them, and may have reasonable reasons for not doing so.

 

[Einlanzer0]

That was the same impression I got, a rather backhanded way of taking a jab at real-world religion, especially when we have given many examples of how your argument falls apart realistically. Your consistent use of opposing "dogmatic" with "wisdom" is evidence. You assume only the secularist negative connotations of the word, when many religious people see wisdom in dogma. (Cf. C.S. Lewis, Tolkein, Dorothy Sayers, etc.)

So, yeah, forgive me if we do get a bit defensive, because it was definitely in there.

Except you really haven't. And, no, your defensiveness is not rational.

 

[Einlanzer0]

That...is not what dogma means. Dogma is explicitly a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It doesn't merely mean any closely held belief, or even basis of a system of belief in the general sense. Both of the statements you just asserted are dogma are inherently non-dogmatic in nature, unless you only believe them to be true because an authority has laid them out as incontrovertibly true. And rare is the dogmatic system that has those sorts of beliefs laid down as incontrovertibly true.

I'm glad you said it for me.

Celebrim - Dogmatism and wisdom are absolutely at odds with one another in virtually all forms of philosophy. Achieving wisdom requires frequently challenging authority and your own pre-conceived notions about reality, while dogmatism is about precisely the opposite.

Frankly, I'm not the one that brought actual religion into the discussion, and I'm being accused of doing so. It was your (and others) desire to see personal slights where there were none that carries most of the responsibility. And, respectfully, you guys are twisting the conversation to meet this narrative while acting like I'm the one out of line.

 

[Tectuktitlay]

"Settled science", for example.

Umm, yeah there is no such thing as settled science. No scientific theory is sacrosanct. New data can and does come around pull even the most established of scientific belief into question. That is a core aspect of science itself. Do people use the term "settled science"? Yes. You will often see laymen, or scientific journalists use the term, but rarely will you actually see scientists or those who understand the scientific method that there can even be such a thing as a settled science. A scientific belief that is the most likely answer based on the evidence and data available? Yes. Settled in an incontrovertible manner? No. That goes against the very foundation of science itself.

Or you could just say beliefs generally, and stop Othering other people's beliefs.

Wow, what? No. Just, no. Separating belief and dogmatic belief is not "othering". Anymore than separating the notion of a theory versus a scientific theory is "othering". Or separating the concept of faith versus the concept of religious faith (also referred to at times as blind faith). The former can mean, for example, faith in your friends, faith in beliefs because they have evidence for them, the latter explicitly means faith in something despite there being no evidence. It isn't "othering" because it is defining terms so that what term is being used is understood. Othering, that word does not appear to mean what you think it means. No one is being "othered".

I'm not tossing it out at all. I fully accept that to be dogma the person must hold that the belief is incontrovertible and based on reliable authority, and have explained that in my arguments regarding what is dogma. What I'm not doing that you would prefer I do, is divide humanity into two groups, one you believe is like yourself holding little or nothing dogmatically, and an Other which holds things without reason or emotional maturity, merely because an authority said so.

Who says I hold nothing dogmatically? You, apparently? I never did. Also, no, "reliable" authority is adding extra meaning where none is actually present definitionally. It's just authority. Not reliable, merely incontrovertible truth laid out by authority. Not laid out by reliable authority.

No, there are dogmatic beliefs, and there are non-dogmatic beliefs. Painting with broad strokes that most beliefs are dogmatic because of the presence of authority of any sort is muddying the terminology in precisely the same manner that people often do rhetorically, again, with the terms "theory" and "faith".

Stating the definitions of the terminology being used clearly so it's understood what one means is in no way, shape, or form othering. Nor is it diving people into the two groups you are building out of straw and beating down. You are the only one arguing that division, here, sorry. Not going to play that silly game.

Most people have some dogmatic beliefs. And many beliefs, even many beliefs most people hold, are not dogmatic. Because most beliefs can in fact be discussed with nuance, doubt, and/or skepticism on some level or another. That whole "keeping an open mind" thing, in addition to skepticism. Which means those beliefs aren't actually incontrovertible because sufficient evidence or discussion could convince them to shift said belief in one way or another.

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim - Dogmatism and wisdom are absolutely at odds with one another in virtually all forms of philosophy. Achieving wisdom requires frequently challenging authority and your own pre-conceived notions about reality, while dogmatism is about precisely the opposite.

I'm agnostic regarding that statement. I can see value in challenging authority and testing your assumptions. I can also see that there might be times when you need to accept that other people are probably smarter than you, or know more than you do, and you should accept what they say. I certainly don't agree that always challenging authority is going to lead you to Truth, nor for that matter am I convinced that challenging one authority is usually anything more than blindly accepting another authority. I am certainly not convinced questioning authority is proof of wisdom. I can point you to sections of youtube were there are communities of like minded rebels who are continually challenging authority and questioning preconceived notions about reality, and quite proud of their challenge to the orthodoxy, but which I think both of us will agree are not wise. Wisdom is not found in one behavior or the other.

Wisdom is simply knowing what is true. Challenging what is true is vanity. Not questioning what is false is ignorance. Only wisdom can inform you when to challenge authority, and when to accept ti. But I don't really care how you get there, as long as you get there.

Frankly, I'm not the one that brought actual religion into the discussion, and I'm being accused of doing so.

Frankly, yes you did: twice.

Wisdom is fundamentally about emotional maturity and the application of reason, which has little to do with piety and is the antithesis of dogma​

Organized religion (regardless of its truth or lack of) is largely based on authority​

Piety and organized religion were the subjects you were commenting on, and quite clearly were referencing attributes you believed were true of real world religion - hence the source of your cognitive dissonance regarding D&D's fictional religions. The whole basis of your argument is based on defining what the attributes of real world religious belief are.

And to put a fine point on it, but if you are actually a pious sincere actively worshiping and attending believer with a notable respect for piety in others, I'll be happy to apologize. Otherwise, I think it would be reasonable to concede that I had you well and truly pegged.

 

[Celebrim]

Umm, yeah there is no such thing as settled science.

I'm happy to concede that, I'm just pointing out that a lot of people use the term and seem to think that there is settled science.

But I'll give an anecdote. Back when I worked in academia, a colleague bought some organic produce, took them out of the bag and began popping them unwashed into his mouth. My wife, observing this, said: "You really should wash those." And he was like, "It's safe. They are organic." And my wife was, "You know the Rotenone we use in the lab to inhibit electron transfer; well that stuff is an Organic pesticide. You can dust it all over produce, and legally sell it as Organic." And the guy didn't believe her, despite being a scientist, and despite the fact that my wife had at the time a Masters in Entomology and was completing her PhD in invertebrate physiology. That's what I mean about dogma being things - everything - that we aren't willing to test and we've simple accepted on some authority and refuse to acknowledge any other.

Yes. Settled in an incontrovertible manner? No. That goes against the very foundation of science itself.

I fully understand where you are coming from, but speaking as a guy with considerable scientific background, I'll also say that for me there are quite a few scientific theories that I accept as proven beyond the point of being reasonable to contest and do not continue to do so. And they are no more up for debate in my philosophy than anything else I hold as true, nor do I expect any evidence arise that will overturn those beliefs. If it did happen, then it might be time to reconsider, but that is true of everything I believe in, whether grounded in science or not.

Wow, what? No. Just, no. Separating belief and dogmatic belief is not "othering". Anymore than separating the notion of a theory versus a scientific theory is "othering". Or separating the concept of faith versus the concept of religious faith (also referred to at times as blind faith).

You just did it right there, when you separated out the concept of religious faith and equated it with blind faith.

The former can mean, for example, faith in your friends, faith in beliefs because they have evidence for them, the latter explicitly means faith in something despite there being no evidence.

No it doesn't. I personally believe in God for the same reason I believe in gravity.

It isn't "othering" because it is defining terms so that what term is being used is understood.

Yeah, but the problem here is you don't understand it. You don't personally experience it; so you other it. No one with real Faith speaks of it as blind faith.