Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tectuktitlay" data-source="post: 6860044" data-attributes="member: 82812">Yes, there is. Dogma by definition requires incontrovertibility, hence why it is most often used discussing religious dogma specifically. It also applies to philosophical and political beliefs, quite often. You don't actually just get to toss out one of the defining aspects of a word so it suits a definition as you wish it to be. Not all beliefs, not even close to all beliefs one has because of trust in an authority, is an incontrovertible belief. Without that key metric, incontrovertibility (or, alternatively, without being questioned or doubted if you'd prefer), it isn't dogmatic, definitionally. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f635.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="O.o" title="Er... what?    O.o"  data-smilie="12"data-shortname="O.o" /> I don't need to be advised to read up more on a famous Christian apologist, sorry. I am in fact being careful in my wording, here, and understand both what I am saying, and my own biases. This is not to say I won't read more of him at some point, but reading his philosophical teachings isn't going to magically alter a key metric of what makes a belief dogmatic, versus merely a belief.</blockquote>