A reminder of the dangers of Kripkean Dogmatism

An extract from my upcoming text on Anglican Catholic Moral Theology:

"Kripkean Dogmatism is the state in which a dogma is held to be true to the extent that evidence to the contrary is automatically rejected and all evidence to the affirmative is assimilated. Kripkean Dogmatism may be shown to be inherently irrational as follows. Any dogma is founded on a particular body of evidence. If that particular body of evidence is complete, then one may rightly and justifiably hold to that dogma since there is no new evidence that can alter the decision. If, however, the body of evidence is incomplete, then the Kripkean Dogmatist is assuming the dogma to be certainly true based on the incomplete evidence that he has. There is, therefore, an absolute conclusion based upon non-absolute warrant and/or non-absolute data which leads to the acceptance only of evidence for the dogma and that produces an unsound argument. Hence, Kripkean Dogmatism is not a rational position."

This makes it all the more important to understand the reasons why we discard the bodies of evidence that we do. The Revisionist and Biblical Eisegete are prime examples of Kripkean Dogmatists in that they already have agenda external to the authority of the Catholic Principles. Individuals who claim absolute irrefutability thus are not using Reason rightly.