Originally Posted by
McBTC
Belief that global warming during the last half of the 20th century is caused by humanity's release of CO2 -- and by extension, is caused by soccer moms driving SUVs instead of LCF, which in turn is killing polar bears is an example of dogma --i.e., belief based on emotions that must be taken on faith, like religious beliefs that cannot be verified by the scientific method.
First of all, dogma isn't directly defined by emotions but by rhetorical/superficial knowledge divorced from deeper understanding. It is possible to believe the things you're saying in a dogmatic way, which is what you and others like you promote by talking about these things as if they're random events that otherwise have nothing to do with each other.
In reality, it is perfectly logical to look at the amount of fossil fuel burned throughout the 20th century for all sorts of reasons, and believe that polar ice melting is at least partially caused by that. What's more, it is perfectly reasonable to break down large-scale phenomena, such as 'fossil-fuel burning,' into narrower categories, such as soccer moms, who burn relatively large amount of fuel if they drive around a lot to shuttle kids to all sorts of different activities.
So, no, claiming that soccer moms are contributing to polar bear habitat loss is not dogmatic unless you don't understand the logic behind the claim. What is dogmatic is believing that driving is a necessary fact of life when you've never actually considered what it would take to LCF. In many ways dogmatism is nothing more than just 'going with the flows' of culture without critically thinking about why culture is the way it is, how it could be different, and/or what freedom you have as an individual to make your own choices independently of cultural norms and prescriptions.