While compelling, your initial commentary makes claims for the meaning of "heterodoxy" which it's proponents do not hold to me true. A departure from "correct belief systems" or teleological orientation is not the central claim. Heterodoxy is the ability to hold two or more disparate ideas in mind regarding a topic. The 'exercise' would thus be to explore the nuance without succumbing to the prejudice of cognitive dissonance. Dismissing this as a self contradicting paradox misses the point entirely and sets up a series of straw men consisting of circular arguments.
Black and white thinking, as encouraged by the perspective of orthodoxy as "correct belief" is an illogical cognitive distortion which erases any nuance regarding a subject. Heterodoxy is a conscious rejection of said fallacy.
I consider myself heterodox, but perhaps my definition is different than yours. Some ideas or propositions I consider wrong or almost certainly wrong and I am willing to present arguments as to why. However, most of what I consider my heterodoxy is in not accepting claims to be proven. The best way I have found to express this is using some legal terms:
Probable cause: there is reason to suspect there may be some truth/or falsehood here.
Indictment: sufficient evidence to justify a investigation and consideration of the evidence
"Preponderance of evidence:" strongly supports a claim that something is true or not true
Beyond a reasonable doubt. No identifiable reason to doubt.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt. Essentially certain.
I am what I consider to be a heterodox Christian. In my late 30s enough evidence pushed me to serious investigation and "trial," and when I reached preponderance of evidence I stepped over the line and accepted some foundational truths. After this point things started to happen that have moved me to beyond a shadow of a doubt concerning some foundational beliefs. That said, there are many Doctrines of the various Christian denominations that I find to be unproven. However, in local churches I have attended I do not argue against accepted doctrines. Local churches are not set up for that kind of discussion and if attempted they would be disruptive, divisive, and of no value. If asked (very rarely) about my acceptance of certain beliefs I generally reply that I do not argue against it but do not have evidence to confidently support it. I is quite difficult to find people willing to have substantive evidence based discussions of Christian doctrines.
My attitude also extends to the sciences. For example, I find many claims concerning evolution and the origin of life that are often seen presented essentially as fact to be unproven.
While compelling, your initial commentary makes claims for the meaning of "heterodoxy" which it's proponents do not hold to me true. A departure from "correct belief systems" or teleological orientation is not the central claim. Heterodoxy is the ability to hold two or more disparate ideas in mind regarding a topic. The 'exercise' would thus be to explore the nuance without succumbing to the prejudice of cognitive dissonance. Dismissing this as a self contradicting paradox misses the point entirely and sets up a series of straw men consisting of circular arguments.
Black and white thinking, as encouraged by the perspective of orthodoxy as "correct belief" is an illogical cognitive distortion which erases any nuance regarding a subject. Heterodoxy is a conscious rejection of said fallacy.
However, I do agree with the broad strokes of your discourse.
I consider myself heterodox, but perhaps my definition is different than yours. Some ideas or propositions I consider wrong or almost certainly wrong and I am willing to present arguments as to why. However, most of what I consider my heterodoxy is in not accepting claims to be proven. The best way I have found to express this is using some legal terms:
Probable cause: there is reason to suspect there may be some truth/or falsehood here.
Indictment: sufficient evidence to justify a investigation and consideration of the evidence
"Preponderance of evidence:" strongly supports a claim that something is true or not true
Beyond a reasonable doubt. No identifiable reason to doubt.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt. Essentially certain.
I am what I consider to be a heterodox Christian. In my late 30s enough evidence pushed me to serious investigation and "trial," and when I reached preponderance of evidence I stepped over the line and accepted some foundational truths. After this point things started to happen that have moved me to beyond a shadow of a doubt concerning some foundational beliefs. That said, there are many Doctrines of the various Christian denominations that I find to be unproven. However, in local churches I have attended I do not argue against accepted doctrines. Local churches are not set up for that kind of discussion and if attempted they would be disruptive, divisive, and of no value. If asked (very rarely) about my acceptance of certain beliefs I generally reply that I do not argue against it but do not have evidence to confidently support it. I is quite difficult to find people willing to have substantive evidence based discussions of Christian doctrines.
My attitude also extends to the sciences. For example, I find many claims concerning evolution and the origin of life that are often seen presented essentially as fact to be unproven.