Dogmatism

The subject is one of those words that exist in English, but almost never gets used by native speakers.  That in itself is interesting to me, and is just a little bit part of the topic, since I am sometimes dogmatic about use of language in terms of grammar and, especially, vocabulary.

We began discussion with the doubt about the difference between dogma and dogmatism, which rolled around for a bit before reaching the fuzzy conclusion that dogma is merely the belief system while dogmatism is the attitude that promotes it.  The Sometime Visitor defined dogmatism as the condition of being unable to change an opinion despite having evidence that the opinion is incorrect.  He later brought in Freud, saying that dogmatism is a type of hysteria, an irrational reaction to the world.  Even history can be dogmatic, since its interpretation is really quite subjective and dependent on present circumstances.  The Visitor's firm opinion is that interpretations of history are to satisfy some instinct for patriotism; I might revise patriotism to sense of belonging, since history is used as an excuse to reject subcultures or even the mainstream of a nation besides other national/ethnic groups.  Our Thinker said that dogma is closely associated with religion, while dogmatism is easily identified in other spheres.  Restating a bit what the Visitor had said, dogmatism implies being closed to criticism or even any analysis.  It also means presenting a dogma as a universal truth, when any dogma is by nature subjective.

The use of "dogma" and "dogmatic" in my experience is generally negative, and apart from any religious context.  I personally do not frequent religious realms, quite the opposite in fact, and the very connection dogma has to religion is what makes it something of an insult.  When talking of science, we assume that evidence is paramount in forming opinions, but not all evidence is equally convincing to all for a number of reasons.  When somebody refuses to accept our evidence, or accepts evidence we find suspect, we might call that person's opinion "dogma", implying that they are not thinking critically and are probably mistaken.

Our Respected Organizer continued the theme of lack of examination being the key ingredient of dogmatism, and also reminded us that dogmas are not necessarily wrong.  All we need to have dogma is the aura of unquestionability, whether there was a rational reason for the belief or not.  He insisted on the need for protection from excesses of belief to end this contribution.

The Source of the topic gave a detailed analysis of the source of dogmatism, saying there needs to be a certain type of situation for a person to give up common sense for a dogmatic attitude.  Two factors should be present in the person: ignorance and fear.  It is also likely that a charismatic leader is the source of the belief that becomes a dogma in the person's mind, although I think that is not the case 100% of the time.  If dogmatism means rejection of common sense, why would people promote it?  The Source had an answer - it's just business.  There is big business behind many dogmatic beliefs, both religious and otherwise, and a number of people have livelihoods that depend on the acceptance of fantastic or irrational ideas by others.  The Source ventured that the irrationality of dogma and dogmatism might point to a mental disorder, and if that is the case, it might be something that can be treated like any other condition.

The Expert in Medicine did not venture into that arena, but instead focused on the power dogmatism has over the people exposed to it.  The attitude exists for the purpose of "taming" people, keeping them under control and malleable to the will of the powerful, who control the spread and content of the information used to prop up dogmatic ideas.  He also highlighted his skepticism, saying he does not believe anything because everything is transmitted with words.

After some contributions reiterating the lack of analysis allowed in dogmas, the Organizer returned to the imposition implicit in dogmatism.  The key is that it comes from a position of authority, from the powerful, and is laid upon the less powerful.  The beliefs in the dogma may be true, but they are not allowed to be proven or examined in any way; they are to be accepted without any doubt or question.  He then reminded us that this acquiescence to authority can easily lead to disaster, to the perpetration of crimes or other forms of injustice.

The Expert lamented that the non-existence of truth causes philosophers to lie to themselves, since they search for something that is not there to be found.  He also warned us that words are dangerous when read by "deficient" minds.  The Thinker disagreed, saying that there are many types of philosophy and most "true" philosophers work from the knowledge that they do not know the truth and may not be able to know it.  He also introduced Willard Van Orman Quine to the discussion, and his work on dogma in philosophy, leaving us with the idea that only statements within our range of experience are meaningful although a statement itself might make sense.

The Source closed our discussion wondering if the vast amount of available information today can be a protection against dogmatism, since the more information one is exposed to, the more one begins to doubt what one knows.  Assuming everyone has access to information and takes advantage of it, this is something to consider.  However, it appears more likely to me that both limited access and limited interest will support dogmas and dogmatic authority for the foreseeable future.