The 'Evil' of Dogma (The personal opinion rant)

I felt like adding a pretext to this, to state that i wrote this with a lot of personal opinion behind it. Of course, I meant to keep it as justifiable as possible, but there are points of disagreement in this argument most obviously, and that is a cause of my own bias peppering this post. But, on the other hand, I suppose it gives a better idea of my standing and personal opinion when you add a bit of dogma into my beliefs.

Good and Evil

The concepts of good and evil, as ill-defined as they are, have been a constant throughout human existence, both in theology and society. What is good is something you should live by doing, and what is evil is something you should avoid. However, the defintions of such concepts are ill-defined and vague. Such a suggestion is not new to the philisophical train of thought, indeed, such concepts are based on opinion, and since everyone has individual opinions, to subject a definite good and evil is near impossible, and is wrong and rather arrogant to do so. We cannot live without concepts however, they are something that is seemingly integral to our existence. Our existence must surely have instinctual rights and wrongs in order to differentiate life and death, and to keep the species alive, and it is from this base point, that we can draw a logical conclusion to where morality and ethics derived from. However, if we are talking about the right and wrong beyond survival, indeed a universal, possibly transcendental sense of morality, does this exist?

Evil as Dogma

Personally I believe not. To argue an absolute concept when it is impossible to reinforce and back any concept as absolute, is a seemingly ridiculous train of thought. However, if I WAS to consider my own sense of good and evil, I would claim this: 'Evil' (the term, of course, used lightly) is only that which organises a claim of evil itself (and as such, a counter-point of good). As such, near all religions fall guilty to evil, Christianity claiming to know evil as its sins, such as homosexuality and heresy. This indeed includes all forms of dogma, whether religious or non-religious, for the moment one claims knowledge of righteousness and wickedness, he also claims a shallow arrogance, egotism and hatred. Truly, if one claims to truly know the true nature and purpose, and the opposition of such, this is the forging of a tool of segregation, of seperation. As such, I would personally treat this tool as a tool of evil, and one that is logically weak in the grandeur of the unknowable. It is an easy assumption that the human race indeed functions on such morals and ethics, and that these are necessary to a healthy survival, but the difference between a belief in such an ethic, and an understanding of the possibility of said ethic, is not as blurred and intertwined as intial thought and presentation would have us assume. Indeed, this argument is embodied in the nature of agnostic theists and atheists alike, those who share individual beliefs, but fully realise that the nature of these beliefs is largely unknowable, and instead form their beliefs on personal opinion and preference, rather than what they could believe as 'absolute', like many gnostics do. Conclusively, the 'evil' I view is the ever-present dogma, and that true intelligence in man is only brought forth with the realisation of the egotism of such dogma, and the unknowable of absolutes. Boiled down to a sentence: When one claims true knowledge, one rejects true intelligence.