Dogma, dogmatic, dogmatism, are words that are unequivocally associated with the religious sphere. This relationship is very appropriate, because in this sense, dogmas are considered within many creeds, as declarations of the divine word, sacred and certified by the official doctrinal body. The faithful accept doctrinal dogmas as a clear act of faith, thus excluding dogmatic from the ground of all science and philosophy. However, the philosophical sense of these terms has a subtly different nuance.
There is an explanation for this association between dogma and religion. In its origins, the term dogma meant “opposition”, thus it was a philosophical opinion referring to the early principles. Hence the term was then associated as a reference to “doctrinal principles”.
Thus, philosophers who strongly insisted on “principles” ended up not paying attention to facts or arguments that might put such foundations into question. These philosophers used to dedicate their activity to affirmation, that is, they did not develop critical analysis. They were therefore called “dogmatics” to whom they were opposed to the “skeptics”.
Currently, dogmatism can be understood in three ways:
Naive realism: in this case, it is admitted only the possibility of knowing things in their being itself, but also the effectiveness of this knowledge in the daily and direct treatment of things. In fact, this kind of realism does not exist within philosophy, but refers specifically to vulgar knowledge.
Doctrinary Confidence: This is understood as absolute confidence in a particular doctrine.
Absence of critical reflection: it refers to unconditional acceptance, without any consideration of the principles to which it adheres. This is a mere submission to authority.
From a positivist perspective, we see how Comte postulates an opposition between dogmatists and skeptics. Dogmatism and skepticism are defined as attitudes rather than positions. Thus, human life can exist in a dogmatic state or in a skeptical state.
But the lack of review and analysis of a certain theory appears paradoxically, in certain forms of skepticism, so that it is possible to affirm that some skeptics, in fact, end up being representatives of dogmatic thought.
In fact, from a gnoselogical perspective, dogmatism is more opposed to criticism than to skepticism. It was Kant who most clearly opposed the criticism of reason in the face of metaphysical dogmatism. It could be said, in this sense, that dogmatism would be a sort of intellectual fundamentalism. Because dogmas express certain truths, which by definition are not subject to any kind of review or criticism.
Bibliography: Ferrater Mora, Abbreviated Dictionary of Philosophy