In defense of dogma:
1. For a large set of propositions some immediate experience is the best justification for belief.
2. Most dogmas are either of the kind in 1 or some esoteric proposition subject to no serious correction (e.g. belief in Russell's teapot is unlikely to have any effect on anyone).
3. What is dangerous must have substantial negative effect.
4. Dogmas are either likely to have positive effect or none, because they are irrelevant.
:. Dogmas are not dangerous on the whole.
Objection: Political dogmas- Nazism for instance -have had disastrous effect.
Reply: This is too wide a brush, since it would throw out every way of life in one move. Moreover, in many cases it's questionable to what extent Nazism is a dogma. Racial science was thought supported and something like (fraudulent) evidence was available in the form of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Dogmas are simply not the same as false beliefs in general.
Some forms of racism may be properly dogmatic, but it's not clear that they're untrue by any means. The evidence of acrimony between my group and another is immediate, experiential, and regarding my state not some sociological assessment. There is no special study of the external factors that justify a Mets fan's belief that the Yankee's are sons of bitches. Are such beliefs dangerous? Perhaps. But this has nothing to do with their dogmatic character in and of itself but rather their particular domain.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My BooksIt is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.~Martin Heidegger
