The Meaning of Dogma

In the last couple of weeks, two different friends have said to me something along the lines of: “But some atheists, like Richard Dawkins, are just as dogmatic about atheism as some religious people are about religion.”

The statements perplexed me.

Dogma, by definition, is a set of principles laid down by authority as incontrovertibly true. When associated with organized religion, then, dogma is characterized by irrationality and a complete unwillingness to countenance evidence, especially that which counters those deeply cherished principles.

I sense that when people say “some atheists are dogmatic” what they mean is that such-and-such person is just really firm in her/his opinion, perhaps passionate, outspoken, arrogant even. And, yes, many prominent atheists are certainly some or all of those things.

But this is not being dogmatic. Why?

Because, if tomorrow scientific evidence came to light supporting the existence of a ‘god’, the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Ricky Gervais (and myself, for what it’s worth) would accept it and become theists. (Only an atheist that would continue to claim ‘god’ doesn’t exist in the face of clear scientific evidence to the contrary could be said to be ‘dogmatic’.)

Of course, not all religious people are dogmatic. Nor is being dogmatic exclusive to the domain of religion; people can be, and indeed are, dogmatic about other things — such as economic policy or gun control legislation, for example.

But let’s not use the term loosely as a synonym for ‘forceful’ or ‘opinionated’. Being dogmatic connotes nothing less than an unwillingness to change one’s mind, which is not just different to critical thinking, but is in fact the complete antithesis of the scientific method.

Thus, describing the likes of Dawkins as being dogmatic in their atheism is not just harmless refashioning of meaning; rather it does a disservice to rational thinking itself.