Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD

Human beings often cling tenaciously to their initial beliefs, a phenomenon encapsulated by the idea of Kripkean dogmatism. In epistemology, Saul Kripke’s “dogmatism paradox” illustrates how once a person forms a belief, they may treat that very belief as justification to ignore any evidence to the contrary. In practical terms, the mind becomes “creased into a way of seeing things,” as Antoine Lavoisier put itthemuslimtimes.info. This cognitive dogmatism plays a huge role in politics and religion, where debates frequently entrench each side rather than resolve differences. Studies show that when people with opposing views (for example, on capital punishment’s deterrent effect) are exposed to the same mixed evidence, they don’t converge on the truth – instead each becomes more convinced of their original stance, and the disagreement polarizes furtherthemuslimtimes.info. In other words, exposure to contrary facts often makes us more dogmatic, not less. A Kripkean dogmatist effectively says: “Since I believe X is true, any evidence against X must be misleading – so I can dismiss it.” This approach is clearly unreasonable from a truth-seeking perspective, yet it captures how many of us instinctively react when our cherished views are challenged.

Nowhere is this dynamic more evident than in modern politics. Liberals and conservatives in America, for instance, seem to “see the world as if they were from different cultures”righteousmind.com, each side selectively filtering information through its own values. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt notes that while everyone values fairness and compassion, conservatives simultaneously juggle additional moral values – loyalty, authority, sanctity – that many liberals reject or deem less relevantonbeing.orgonbeing.org. This means the two camps often talk past each other, each blind to some of the other’s moral concerns. Haidt famously observes that “when it comes to moral judgments, we think we are scientists discovering the truth, but actually we are lawyers arguing for positions we arrived at by other means.”onbeing.org In political debates, partisans on each side deploy motivated reasoning to defend their team’s narrative. Conservatives may dismiss contrary media as “fake news,” while progressives may write off opposing viewpoints as ignorant or evil – each reinforcing their own echo chamber. The result is a deeply entrenched polarization sustained by confirmation bias and mutual accusations. Kripkean dogmatism is at work: once a party identity or ideology is adopted, new evidence is bent to fit the pre-existing belief, or else written off. This helps explain why core disagreements (whether over climate change, public health measures, or election outcomes) can persist in the face of overwhelming evidence. People are emotionally invested in their group’s stance; conceding error feels like betrayal. Thus, as Haidt quips, our reasoning is often like a defensive attorney’s – aimed at victory, not truthonbeing.org. The bind of dogmatism in politics is that it supplies moral certainty and group solidarity at the cost of open-minded dialogue.

Religious belief, too, provides fertile ground for Kripkean dogmatism. In fact, all religious traditions have adherents who display unwavering certainty that their understanding is the exclusive truth. Once a particular doctrine is embraced as divinely sanctioned, any evidence or scripture that seems to contradict it may be dismissed as a test of faith, misinterpretation, or even a lie of the devil. The Chief Editor of The Muslim Times, Zia H. Shah, reflected on decades of theological debates – from inter-sect Muslim arguments to discussions with Christian apologists – and noted that each side is typically locked in its views, impervious to the other’s proofsthemuslimtimes.info. Every religion has factions convinced that others are blinded by dogma while they alone see clearly. A creationist, for example, may reject mountains of scientific evidence for evolution by asserting that “apparent” evidence against the literal holy text is deliberately misleading – an echo of Kripke’s dogmatist who ignores disconfirming data on principle. Likewise, a doctrinaire atheist might dogmatically dismiss any religious experience as mere delusion, unwilling to examine possibilities outside a materialist framework. In both cases, ideological certainty trumps honest inquiry. As Whitehead observed, “mankind at each period… cherishes the delusion of finality of existing modes of knowledge. Skeptics and believers are alike. This dogmatic common sense is the death of philosophic adventure.”themuslimtimes.info In short, dogmatism is a universal human problem – not limited by creed or lack thereof – wherein we arrogantly assume we already have all the important answers.

Religion and politics often intersect in moral dogmatism. Haidt’s research reveals, for instance, that American conservatives (who disproportionately identify as religious) consider loyalty, authority, and sanctity as sacred values, whereas secular liberals often scoff at those concernsonbeing.org. So when a conservative cites “sanctity of the family” or religious tradition to oppose some social change, liberals may automatically dismiss it as bigotry or superstition. Conversely, when liberals invoke compassion for immigrants or the poor, conservatives suspiciously regard it as naive or as masked socialist ideology. Each side thus views the other’s moral rhetoric through a jaundiced, distrustful lens, assuming the worst motivations. The name-calling (e.g. “soulless baby-killers” vs “religious zealots”) further entrenches each camp’s belief in its moral superiority. Again, morality binds and blinds: it binds people into ideological teams and blinds them to the merits in their opponents’ positiononbeing.orgonbeing.org. In multi-religious societies, similar patterns emerge. A devout Muslim and a devout Christian might debate scripture for hours – each armed with quotes from the Qur’an or the Bible – yet leave more convinced that the other is stubborn or misguided. As Lavoisier said, the mind gets creased into its habitual shapethemuslimtimes.info. The Muslim interprets the Bible’s prophecies as foretelling Prophet Muhammad, while the Christian brushes this aside and insists Qur’anic verses about Jesus prove the Gospel’s truth. Both see what they want to see, discounting the other’s evidence as “misleading” or misinterpreted. These intractable disagreements illustrate Kripkean dogmatism vividly. Each believer’s starting conclusion ( “my faith is true”) becomes unfalsifiable, since any contrary argument is reflexively invalidated.

This phenomenon even appears within a single religion – for example, in Islam’s sectarian interpretations of the Quran. Sunni, Twelver Shi’a, Ismaili, and Ahmadi Muslims all revere the same Qur’an, yet their theological prisms lead them to read its verses very differentlythequran.lovethequran.love. All four groups share the belief that the Qur’an is God’s final revelation and is textually unalteredthequran.love, but their methods of interpretation diverged over centuries of doctrinal development. Sunnis prioritize the apparent (ẓāhir) meaning of verses and the context of the Prophet’s sayings (Hadith), relying on scholarly consensus to settle meanings. Twelver Shi‘a Muslims, by contrast, filter Qur’anic interpretation through the authoritative teachings of the Prophet’s family and designated Imams. A verse that Sunnis take at face value might, in Shi’a exegesis, have a layered esoteric meaning known only through an Imam’s guidancethequran.love. Ismaili Shi‘a push the allegorical reading even further – almost every verse has an inner (bāṭin) meaning, revealed by the Imām of the time. Meanwhile, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (Ahmadis) introduced the idea of a subordinate prophet (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) after Prophet Muhammad, which dramatically affects their interpretation. For instance, mainstream Muslims understand the Qur’anic title “Khatam an-Nabiyyin” – Seal of the Prophets (Qur’an 33:40) – to mean that no prophet can come after Muhammad, in a finality of prophethood. Ahmadis, committed to their belief that a new prophet did arise in 19th-century India (albeit without a new law), must reconcile this with the Qur’an. They argue that “Seal of the Prophets” signifies the highest rank of Muhammad rather than absolute chronological finality, or that only law-bearing prophets are endedthequran.lovethequran.love. Each side supports its view with scriptural evidence and reasoning – and each side finds the other’s evidence unpersuasive, even insincere. Similarly, Shi’a scholars often interpret certain Qur’anic verses as indirect references to Imam ‘Ali or the twelve Imams (for example, they see hints of ‘Ali’s designated leadership in verses like 5:55 or 4:59). Sunni commentators, coming from a different paradigm, do not see those verses as allusions to ‘Ali at all, but rather to general leadership or to early Muslims. And while Sunnis revere thousands of Hadith reports in interpreting the Qur’an, Quran-centric groups (like some reformist or Quranist Muslims, as well as Ahmadis to a degree) may dismiss many Hadith as inauthentic accretions that distort the Qur’an’s “true” message. Clearly, each sect approaches the text with prior theological commitments – a Sunnī sees prophecies of the caliphs where a Shī‘ī sees proof of the Imamate, etc. – and each tends to explain away verses that challenge its doctrine. This is classic confirmation bias. As the Qur’an itself warns, “He it is who has sent down to you the Book; in it are verses that are clear – they are the core of the Book – and others are ambiguous. But those in whose hearts is deviation pursue the ambiguous part, seeking discord and seeking its interpretation…”qurantalkblog.com. In other words, those with ulterior motives or preconceived agendas will fixate on ambiguous texts that can be twisted to support their desired meaning, rather than grounding themselves in the clear, firm teachings. Sadly, much sectarian polemic fits this description: each faction cherry-picks and emphasizes Qur’anic verses or Hadith that bolster its own narrative, while ignoring or reinterpreting the rest. The resulting debates are interminable and heated, often generating more heat than light.

The divide between believers and non-believers in response to the Qur’an also exemplifies this dogmatism dynamic. The Qur’an pointedly observes that its message has a polarizing effect: “We send down in the Qur’an that which is healing and mercy for the believers, but it only increases the wrongdoers in loss.”thequran.love. To a receptive soul, scripture brings guidance and enlightenment – but to a hostile skeptic, the same words only harden their aversion. Another verse states, “We have certainly explained for mankind every kind of example in this Qur’an, but most people refused [to do anything] except disbelieve.”surahquran.com. Here we see almost a frustration: the scripture provides countless analogies and arguments, yet many folks persist in disbelief, finding some way to resist the conclusion. It is as if those people’s hearts are already decided – they approach revelation with minds sealed shut. Indeed, the Qur’an uses exactly that metaphor for stubborn disbelievers: “Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil”surahquran.com. Because they refused the guidance, their faculties of perception atrophy; now they literally cannot accept the truth even when it is plainly before them. In Qur’anic theology, this is a kind of poetic justice: willful rejection leads to inner blindness. The verses continue to describe how such people may deceive themselves about their spiritual state. “Among the people are those who say, ‘We believe in Allah and the Last Day,’ but in fact they do not believe. They seek to deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive only themselves without realizing it. In their hearts is a disease, so Allah has increased their disease… When it is said to them, ‘Do not cause corruption on the earth,’ they say, ‘We are only peacemakers.’ Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they sense it not.” (Qur’an 2:8–12). This ancient passage offers a startlingly apt psychological profile of dogmatic double-thinksurahquran.com. It portrays people who outwardly claim righteousness yet inwardly are full of arrogance and denial. They rationalize their misdeeds (“we are reformers, making things better!”) and remain blind to their own faults. In modern terms, they have succumbed to extreme confirmation bias – utterly unable to see their own contradictions. Whether one applies this to hypocrites in a faith community or to partisans in a political arena, the pattern fits. Each side believes it is doing good and speaking truth, and any harm they cause is either ignored or justified away. The Qur’an’s remark that “they perceive it not” about their own corruption is reminiscent of how dogmatists everywhere operate: utter certainty in their righteousness, zero self-awareness of the damage or falsehood they may be involved in.

In sum, “Kripkean dogmatism” – the habit of dismissing dissonant evidence to preserve one’s belief – is a useful lens to understand why so many political and religious conflicts remain intractable. Once humans invest identity or sacred value in a belief, our minds reflexively fortify that belief. We reinterpret new information to fit the established narrative and slough off anything that threatens it. That is why debates between deeply opposed camps (left vs right, Sunni vs Shi’a, theist vs atheist, etc.) often end with each side more convinced of its original position. They are, in effect, living out a psychological paradox: both sides have seen the same evidence or heard the same arguments, yet each emerges thinking, “The facts clearly prove I was right all along.” It would almost be amusing if it were not so consequential for human cooperation and truth-seeking. The metaphor of dogmatism helps explain phenomena from the post-truth politics of our time (where partisans create airtight alternate realities) to the myriad religious schisms where each sect exclusively claims salvation. Recognizing this pattern is the first step to addressing it.

Epilogue: Toward Open Minds and a Common Ground

How can we resolve or mitigate this entrenched dogmatism, especially in the realm of religious interpretation? The Qur’an itself provides a guiding principle. It repeatedly urges genuine reflection and warns against unthinking zeal. A particularly striking verse is “Do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have found much contradiction in it.” (Qur’an 4:82)thequran.love. Here we have a thematic epilogue within the scripture: a call to scrutinize consistency. The Quran invites readers to test it – to look for internal incoherence – on the premise that truth from God will be self-consistent. The implication is that interpreters of the Quran must resolve apparent contradictions rather than gloss over them. If an explanation of a verse puts it in conflict with another, something is wrong with that interpretation, not with the Qur’an. This ethos could be a powerful antidote to dogmatism. It means Muslims should be willing to re-examine even long-held interpretations in light of the Qur’an’s broader message. As Muslim scholar Zia H. Shah emphasizes, a “worthy commentator” of scripture must be prepared to set aside popular opinions of earlier scholars if needed in order to present a truly coherent and just interpretation of the divine messagethequran.love. In other words, no human exegesis is infallible – only the Revelation itself is. If centuries of Sunni-Shi’a disputation have led to clashing tafsīr (exegeses), perhaps all sides need to return to Qur’anic first principles: unity of truth, justice, and compassion, against which sectarian hobby-horses should be measured. The Quranic mandate “afalā yatadabbarūn” – will they not contemplate? – asks believers to engage their intellect and avoid blind allegiance to inherited notions. This suggests that minimizing dogmatism requires intellectual humility and an evidence-based approach even in religious matters. For Muslims, that could mean embracing what Dr. Zia Shah calls a “beyond sectarian tafsīr,” using shared tools of reason and science to illuminate the Quran’s meaning rather than relying on partisan dogmathequran.love. In a recent analysis, he argues that modern scientific knowledge – the “Book of Nature” created by the same God – offers an empirical common ground where all sects and even non-Muslims can agree on certain truthsthequran.love. By exploring how the Quran’s statements align with observable reality (in fields like cosmology, biology, and history), believers of different stripes can move the discussion to a neutral arena of facts. This approach “democratizes access to the text, shifting authority from the exclusive lineage of clergy to the inclusive observations of the ‘people of understanding’ (ulul albab),” as Shah writesthequran.love. In other words, it breaks the monopoly of dogmatic scholars and invites everyone – Sunni or Shia, scholar or layperson, even believer or skeptic – to examine the Qur’an with objective criteria in hand. Such a method can expose interpretations that are contrived or biased, because they will conflict with evidence and consistency, whereas valid interpretations will show harmony with both scripture and creation.

Ultimately, overcoming Kripkean dogmatism in any context (religious or political) comes down to fostering a mindset of curiosity over certainty. We must consciously remind ourselves that we might be wrong – that our current understanding, no matter how deeply held, could contain flaws or gaps. The Qur’an 4:82 challenge is essentially about falsifiability: if something were not true, you should be able to find contradictions in it. By extension, a fallible human understanding of the Qur’an will produce contradictions and injustices, signaling a need for revision. A community serious about minimizing bias would encourage questioning and reward those who point out inconsistencies, rather than shun them. It would emphasize what the Qur’an calls “the common word” or shared values, rather than magnifying disputes. In Islamic terms, this means focusing on the clear, core teachings – God’s oneness, compassion, service to humanity, justice – which all Muslims accept, and being flexible and empathetic about ambiguous matters (Qur’an 3:7)qurantalkblog.com. It also means engaging with other viewpoints in good faith. Instead of reflexively dismissing outsiders or minority sects as heretics, one should listen and reason together, as the Qur’an often invites people of various beliefs to do (e.g. Qur’an 3:64). The thematic epilogue of many recent comparative studies is hopeful: if Muslims (and indeed people of all faiths) can center their shared reverence for truth and scripture above partisan interpretations, there is great potential for mutual understanding and healing of rifts. One scholarly review of Sunni, Shia, Ismaili, and Ahmadi perspectives concluded that appreciating the diversity of interpretations can actually enrich one’s faith and foster intra-faith dialogue, rather than threaten itthequran.love. When we see that others are often trying to honor the same sacred text – just approaching it from a different historical angle – it humanizes our opponents. We might even recognize our own confirmation bias in how vehemently we upheld one view and belittled the other.

In the end, Kripkean dogmatism is a trap – a seductive one, because it offers certainty and simplicity, but a trap nonetheless that can lead communities into stagnation and strife. The Qur’an’s remedy is tadabbur (deep reflection) and ta‘āwon (cooperation in goodness). “Had it been from other than God, you would have found much discrepancy in it,” says Qur’an 4:82thequran.love – implying by contrast that what is from God will stand up to honest scrutiny from all angles. If we approach our political philosophies and religious exegeses in that same spirit – testing for consistency, open to correction – we can gradually disarm the paradox of dogmatism. The process is admittedly challenging; it demands stepping out of our creased mental grooves and questioning the narratives that comfort us. But it is also liberating. By acknowledging that no single human group has a total monopoly on truth, we make space for learning and for unity. In an age of furious polarization, this humble, truth-centric approach may be the key to finally seeing past our own biases and finding common ground. It allows the possibility that, while my perspective has merit, so might yours – and together we might piece together a fuller picture. Such humility and willingness to engage in genuine dialogue are the antidotes to dogmatism that our politics and religions so urgently need. Only by transcending the dogmatic mindset – through empathy, evidence, and earnest reflection – can we hope to fulfill the higher goals that all these belief systems were meant to serve: knowledge, understanding, and the collective goodthequran.love.

Sources:

1. Thomas Kelly, “Disagreement, Dogmatism, and Belief Polarization.” (Excerpt in The Muslim Times)themuslimtimes.info
2. Jonathan Haidt, “The Psychology of Self-Righteousness,” On Being interview (2014)onbeing.orgonbeing.org
3. Zia H. Shah, MD, The Muslim Times & The Quran. – “Kripkean Dogmatism: The Best Metaphor to Understand Religious and Political Debates”themuslimtimes.infothemuslimtimes.info; “The Holy Quran about Dogmatism and Black-and-White Thinking”surahquran.comsurahquran.com; “Reflecting on Qur’an 4:82 – Divine Consistency”thequran.lovethequran.love; “Beyond Sectarian Tafsir… Common Ground for Quranic Understanding”thequran.lovethequran.love; Qur’anic Verses: 17:82thequran.love, 17:89surahquran.com, 3:7qurantalkblog.com, 2:7-12surahquran.com.

If you would rather read in Microsoft Word file: