Religious dogmatism

Nature

Religious dogmatism refers to the unwavering adherence to specific beliefs or doctrines within a religious framework, often accompanied by an intolerance for differing viewpoints. This rigidity can lead to conflict, social division, and the suppression of critical thinking. Dogmatism may hinder interfaith dialogue and promote extremism, as individuals or groups may reject alternative perspectives or evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Consequently, religious dogmatism poses a significant challenge to societal cohesion, fostering environments where discrimination and violence can thrive, ultimately undermining the principles of tolerance and coexistence essential for diverse communities.

Incidence

According to an American specialist in religious studies (Charles Kimball) there are five warning signs for the corruption of all religion, which also are signs indicating that things can go wrong in a religious group: 1) when claims of absolute truth are made; (2) when blind obedience is demanded; (3) when the group anticipates an exclusive time of "deliverance"; (4) when the group teaches that the end justifies any means; and (5) when the group is prone to declare a Holy War.

Claim

Religious dogmatism is a critical problem that stifles open dialogue, breeds intolerance, and fuels conflict. It shackles individuals to rigid beliefs, preventing personal growth and understanding. This unwavering adherence to doctrine often leads to discrimination, violence, and societal division. In an increasingly interconnected world, embracing diverse perspectives is essential for harmony and progress. We must challenge dogmatic thinking to foster compassion, promote peace, and cultivate a more inclusive society. The stakes are too high to ignore.

Counter-claim

We have thus reached one of the principal points in the Modernist's system, namely, the origin and the nature of dogma. For they place the origin of dogma in those primitive and simple formulas, which, under a certain aspect, are necessary to faith; for revelation, to be truly such, requires the clear knowledge of God in the consciousness. But dogma itself, they apparently hold, strictly consists in the secondary formulas. To ascertain the nature of dogma, we must first find the relation which exists between the religious formulas and the religious sense. This will be readily perceived by anyone who holds that these formulas have no other purpose than to furnish the believer with a means of giving to himself an account of his faith. These formulas therefore stand midway between the believer and his faith; in their relation to the faith they are the inadequate expression of its object, and are usually called symbols; in their relation to the believer they are mere instruments. Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. (Papal Writings, Pascendi Dominici Gregis: On the Doctrine of the Modernists, 8 September 1907).