Dogmatic Denial

The Mennonite Preacher Anslo and his Wife, Rembrandt

The traffic is bad today, isn’t it! said the woman.
Yes; no one understands how to merge in an orderly fashion, the man replied.
And they selfishly cut in front instead of respecting the other, the woman added.
No, he responded; they just don’t understand merging, he asserted.

Conversation is a social activity. We make connections by sharing ideas through discussions and exchange of ideas via communication. These are not monologues in isolation, but a sharing, testing, and building from the feedback of the other.

So it is harsh and violating when someone responds no decisively and confidently to an idea. Harsh, as it is unexpected in the conversational flow and rather against the ethos of the communal activity. And violating, as it defies the social conventions of making connections and sharing in a position. Many conversations are not philosophically constructive but an exercise in symbolic interactionism with our desire to belong. So the denial is not a provocation or critique of the idea, but an emphatic refusal to share.

Breaking this role, the preacher of the dogmatic denial has other priorities. If one were to ask the preacher what they are doing, they would tell you their pursuit is Truth. Here they are in the teacher mode, distinct from educator mode where one encourages the other to express and build arguments. Instead, the teacher mode assumes the position that Truth exists, that one can be in possession of Truth, that they are in possession of Truth, that the other is not yet enlightened, and that it is the vocation of the preacher to share and to convert as Truth’s missionary. The educator is open as a learner in their own right, and when they hear something that they do not know or that does not fit in their conception of the world, they take interest to expand their understanding, test a new hypothesis, or even be wrong. The teacher, in contrast, denies these possibilities in preference of being right. The attitude is closed, assertive, confident, even bullying.

The preacher speaks the no without room for dialogue, rebuttal, or dissent. It can be a literal no—one syllable formed as a forceful stab meant to kill the previous articulation in its tracks. But the no can be more complex if the speaker wishes to peacock and impress the superiority of their position, their reasoning, and themself. The more complicated, abstract, or sarcastic the no, the more the preacher positions themself to alienate the other, to uplift their own idea, to assert their correctness. Here they reveal themself: they are emotionally involved, have something to defend, and desire the adoration of the other to put on such airs—their ego is hungry for validation. Softer, cleverer preachers say something like “I think you will find…” to correct factual errors if they have trained in their social cues, but those who are more relaxed and self possessed in their abilities are quiet, resist responding, and reflect later on the different ideas to see if there is anything interesting to learn.

There are three main responses to the dogmatic no.

The first is to fall for the preaching, which is the polite, social, and normal way to react if someone asserts with confidence and sincerity. The interlocutor assumes the preacher must be part of the educated elite, have access to much knowledge, or have other accreditations to merit their tone. This acceptance, in repetition and exposure, makes these conformers part of the preacher’s congregation.

The second is to reject the preacher or object to the assertion. This is daring, since the preacher has asserted in one mere syllable that they are not in the attitude of open dialogue, but will likely debate from a position of perceived power, that being their own conviction. The meek tend to avoid this challenge since they consider themselves ill equipped, inexperienced, or apathetic to engage in the game. Those who do engage must have some awareness of entering a debate, which can be a heated exercise of argumentation or even a figurative boxing match. Those who are dogmatic themselves respond with their own version of a dogmatic no, which quickly becomes a match of uncivilized brute versus brute. There is no place for reasoning and dialogue in a dogma-off.

The third option is to walk away. The preacher likely has not noticed that many avoid his company, or better yet the preacher has created his own dogmatic reasoning to dismiss his lack of social engagement, as he has created his own similar subjective rationale for so many other phenomena in his life. No one but sadists enjoy exposing themselves to this kind of behavior.

Anyone who speaks with a preacher for more than a few minutes will step on a figurative landmine. Dogmatic thinking cultivates a field of ideas treated as Truths. There are too many to avoid past the point of simple pleasantries because subjective reasoning treated as Truth is strong and impossible to match directly with anyone else’s position—after all, it is subjective, and conversation permeates many subjects, engages many others with their own alterity. The truth landmines are set off by unsuspecting civilians who thought they were fulfilling a social role, interacting in routine business, or making friends. They ignite and are difficult to ignore, especially as the social convention violation takes the interaction unexpectedly off script.

The skeptic principle of ataraxia presupposes that dogmatic thinking produces disturbances and anxieties, a principle that is worth briefly examining. Here are different reasons that could substantiate such a claim.

The rigidity displayed by the dogmatic attitude leads to psychological stress when individuals encounter information or experiences that challenge their beliefs. The effort to maintain these inflexible beliefs in the face of contrary evidence can be mentally taxing. Furthermore, when individuals are dogmatically attached to their beliefs, the possibility of being wrong is perceived as threatening, undermining their sense of certainty and security. The need to defend these beliefs against all denials or objections will as well lead to constant worry and tension. Socially, dogmatic thinking often leads to conflicts with those who hold different beliefs. This can strain relationships and arouse frictions, contributing to emotional distress. The inability to engage in open, composed dialogue with others due to rigid thinking can isolate individuals and induce feelings of alienation and anxiety. On an intellectual level, cognitive dissonances arise when there is a discrepancy between one's firm beliefs and new information or experiences that contradict them. For dogmatic thinkers, this experience can be particularly intense because their rigid beliefs leave little room for reconciliation or adaptation, leading to significant psychological discomfort. On an existential level, life is full of change and uncertainty. Dogmatic thinking makes it difficult for individuals to adapt to new circumstances or fluctuating environments. This lack of adaptability can generate anxiety as individuals struggle to cope with changes that their rigid beliefs cannot accommodate. On a moral level, dogmatic thinkers may feel an overburdened sense of responsibility to uphold and defend their beliefs. This as well provokes anxiety, as they constantly feel the need to justify their positions and convince others of their validity. For many, their beliefs are closely tied to their sense of identity. Therefore, dogmatic thinking can cause individuals to perceive challenges and doubts to their beliefs as threats to their very identity. This can result in stress and engender a defensive behavior as they attempt to nervously protect their self image.

From this standpoint, we understand how by maintaining a more flexible and open-minded approach, non-conclusive, more perspectivist, such as that advocated by Pyrrhonism, individuals can reduce these sources of anxiety and disturbance, leading to greater mental tranquility and peace.

Although, paradoxically, extreme skepticism can be dogmatic as well, when one refuses to revise their stance even when faced with compelling evidence. One can call unhealthy skepticism an attitude which involves a pervasive negative bias where the individual dismisses or disbelieves information, arguments, or evidence without fair consideration or any real intellectual effort. This superficially critical attitude can be called passive or lazy, just as someone who systematically refuses to take a stand or permanently pretends to be agnostic or neutral. Or when the skeptic is perpetually caught in a loop of questioning without moving forward and proposing ideas, constantly doubting and critiquing without a basis for doing so, leading to an environment where no idea or evidence is ever sufficient. Unhealthy skepticism can hinder intellectual growth by ignoring or rejecting new ideas and failing to build on existing knowledge. Skepticism is compatible with the pragmatic approach of science by considering that conclusions are always provisional, subject to change with new evidence, but are still accepted as they provide a working understanding that can be acted upon, even though later modified. But most of the time, through schooling, people are taught more to believe, a posture which is more natural than permanent questioning and thinking. We prefer the safety of “certain” knowledge, which is the reason why skepticism is not a common philosophy. The peace of uncertainty is more challenging than the comfort of dogmatism, even though the latter is more fragile, unstable, and anxiogenic.