Expanding on the Problem of Dogmas

Dogma seems to exist for one reason: to establish an unquestionable foundation upon which to build knowledge. This is alluring because it creates a way to get around the issue of an infinite regress. The problem here is that dogmas, themselves, can never be criticized. If they were, it could usher in the weakening or destruction of the knowledge that sits on top of the dogma. People defend their dogmas, and the resulting ideology, by any means necessary, because they are the lens by which phenomenon is interpreted.   

Since dogmas (aka unquestionable assertions about reality) are intellectually unjustified, many conclude that truth is relative. This position is generally called postmodernism. Though it’s accurate to point out that we can never be one-hundred percent certain that we know the truth, this doesn’t mean that there is no objective truth. Further, there is plenty of proof that we know many aspects of reality quite well. Airplanes wouldn’t be able to work otherwise. The postmodernist rational and dogmatists rely on the same epistemological grounds, which is the belief that knowledge is created from the starting point of a justified true belief. But, this is simply a poor explanation of how knowledge comes about. 

It should go without saying that there's nothing inherently wrong with starting from a common ground, since beginning from the same point can help two people identify problems and, thus, create knowledge faster. But, starting from a faulty common ground will inevitably lead to incorrect conclusions somewhere down the line of reasoning. This is why all knowledge and assertions should be open to being criticized. 

Personally, I see the rise of intolerance and irrational behavior across the entire political spectrum as a result of this lack of understanding around epistemology. Since relativism is detestable by most, especially on a moral level, the solution is to band together around a justified true belief. If there's a consensus regarding the belief (aka dogma), then an ideology is born and a new religion (whether spiritual or civil) is established. There is no other alternative under these conditions than to fight with those that have different dogmas than oneself due to the personal threat. If there are beliefs that we claim to be unquestionable, then warfare (either personal or social) seems to be the inevitable cycle of humanity.

There is a paradox regarding beliefs and intolerance that we eventually run into, but I'll leave things at this.