Dogmatism

Dogmatism is, above all, a posture, but it can also be a doctrine (or a set of doctrines). The dogmatic stance defends that there are certain postulates that are beyond the reach of criticism . This means that some positions – moral, epistemological or religious – simply do not fit within the spectrum of criticism and questioning. Some positions would be eternal, unchanging and uncompromisingly unquestionable. For a Christian convinced by faith, for example, the existence of God is a dogma.

What is philosophical dogmatism?

The dogmatic position will always work with the notion of eternal and absolute truth . This happens in the field of customs, but it can also occur in the field of knowledge. Logic , for example, is an area of ​​knowledge as exact as mathematics, in fact, it explains much of what is done in mathematics . Logic is a field of knowledge that we can call dogmatic, as it is based on principles as solid as rationality itself. In this way, when there are unshakable principles that define an area of ​​knowledge , we can call this area dogmatics.

When logic opens up a gap to be questioned, it does not demonstrate that this science is not perfectly dogmatic, but that there is a probable methodological error on the part of the thinker who was operating it. In these more rigid areas of knowledge , the dogmatic position is not a simple matter of conviction of the subject of knowledge, but something inevitable. Mathematical results, for example, are exact and it is impossible for them to be questioned unless, as in the case of logic, there is some methodological error or operational error by the one conducting the calculation.

We also call dogmatists those philosophers who present their theories as ultimate and definitive truths about themes . Often their dogmatism is unmasked by later philosophers, but sometimes it is not. This is the case of Aristotle, Plato, the scholastic thinker William of Ocham or René Descartes. Some theories of these thinkers resist time and are still debated by scholars and thinkers in general.

When dogmatism enters the behavioral sphere , we can have problems. It is easy to defend and demonstrate the accuracy of the exact sciences, making it easy, therefore, to defend a dogmatic position in these sciences. Customs, morals and politics are based on other processes: there is no rigidity or accuracy in what is produced in these fields, as everything is the result of interactions and chance, which prevents the existence of a calculation or rule that makes exact experiences.

What is dogmatism and skepticism

These two postures (the dogmatic and the skeptical) are diametrically opposed. The skeptical school emerged among the Hellenistic Greek schools and argues that there is no way to arrive at true and secure knowledge, and it is better, therefore, to abstain from the will to arrive at the truth.

According to the Brazilian philosopher Plínio Junqueira Smith, one of the greatest specialists in skepticism in Brazil, “skeptics are those who show, through an argument that is peculiar to them, that there is no guarantee that we know what we claim to know. According to them, we know nothing, we are not sure of anything and we can put everything in doubt; we don’t even know that we know nothing” . This skeptical posture inaugurates one of the anchoring bases of philosophical thought. While we have dogmatic philosophers, who claim truths, we have skeptical philosophers, who question supposed truths .

According to Pliny Smith, “refuting skepticism became an obsession of dogmatic philosophers” , because the skeptical posture annihilates any dogmatic possibility . Dogmatists then try to show that skepticism cannot match reality because it leads nowhere. It is true that ancient skepticism, founded by the philosopher Pyrrhus in Ancient Greece, seems to stagnate thought. There is a modern variant of skepticism , centered on the philosophical work of the Frenchman René Descartes , which changes the skeptical perspective and erects a constructive skepticism.

For Descartes, it was necessary to doubt everything, to maintain a skeptical posture about everything in the world. This was, however, an intellectual ruse to arrive at the point advocated by Descartes: doubting in order to think, thinking in order to arrive at true knowledge.

religious dogmatism

Religions are made up of dogmas . The level of tolerance of each believer and each religious faith varies, but all religions affirm dogmas that, at least in the internal logic of their functioning, operate as absolute truths. The holy trinity that unites Father, Son and Holy Spirit for Christians, the sacred wisdom of the prophet Mohammed for Muslims or the power that emanates from the orixás for candomblecists are examples of religious dogmas.

Religions need dogmas to function. It is within the religious rules and precepts that we understand how important this becomes for the maintenance of faith. However, as the posture of the faithful varies, we have more or less dogmatic people. As religious rules also vary, we have more or less dogmatic religions . Within major religions, such as Christianity, we have various aspects that also have a more or less dogmatic stance in relation to doctrine, sacred scriptures and tradition.

Within Catholicism, we have more progressive strands, such as liberation theology, which tries to unite two things that have been separated for a long time: socialism and Catholicism; there are also more conservative strands, which tend to walk more towards dogmatism, such as the traditionalist line; there are still the lines that unite dogmatic elements of the Catholic liturgy with non-dogmatic elements, such as the charismatic renewal and the neoconservatives.

Still within Christianity, there are extremely dogmatic Protestant strands for affirming the values ​​of the first reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin. There are also strands that move away from tradition, but create a highly dogmatic liturgical logic within themselves. We have, in this second classification, Pentecostals, Neo-Pentecostals and Reformed Pentecostals. If we compare the strands, it can be very difficult to understand the dogmatism of each one, as they are very different from each other.

Traditional Protestants have more moderate cults, while Pentecostals have a more hectic liturgical ritual, with clapping, praises and people claiming to speak tongues (a kind of communication that, in the tradition of certain religions, manifests itself as an intermediary link between people and God). Reformed Pentecostals, in turn, rescue many Catholic elements, adopt the clerical collar, celebrate the Holy Spirit, are more moderate in their services, but adopt non-dogmatic elements of traditional Protestants, such as praying in foreign languages.

This shows that dogmatism, especially religious, depends a lot on the perspective in question. Dogmas are, for the most part, centered on the internal logic of religions , not necessarily meaning that a more sectarian religion is more dogmatic and that a more progressive religious strand is less dogmatic.

Dogmatism in common sense

Common sense knowledge is untested and not validated by any rational rule. This does not mean that this kind of knowledge will always be wrong, just that it is not possible to blindly trust it . Therefore, when common sense is dogmatically adopted, there may be a problem: seeing the world in a distorted way of what it really is.