Anyone who has taken a logic course, computer programming course, and many who have taken a philosophy course, (along with self-taught students of logic) will recognize the Laws of Thought.
A) The law of identity (A=A)
B) The law of non-contradiction (A =/= ~A)
C) The law of the excluded middle (A or ~A, but not both)
I want to be clear... This is dogma. It is not objectively true. In fact, there has been great and solid arguments against them. In the time of Parmenides and Heraclitus, it was argued that the formulation of the "law" of non-contradiction was a disgraceful step away from true science, which was based on sensory experience. Heraclitus argued that since things change, not only may they contain their negation, but that they MUST! But, Parmenides wanted to know things, and know them for certain. Unfortunately, the things we encounter in our lives are neither fixed nor certain, and many of them contain irreconcilable contradictions.
Pythagoras wanted certainty, too. Mathematics gave him these. And Plato retreated to otherworldly forms, which do not and can not exist in this realm. It was Plato who put the first restrictions on the law of non-contradiction, "in this respect" or "right now" or "at this place" which others were happy to grant him, as these restrictions made it so that the law of non-contradiction could only describe the tiniest, most insignificant specks of what any given thing "is" or "is not".
(Paraphrased from
here, which goes into much more recent and thorough objections to all three laws)
What I'm getting at here is that the people who are the most difficult to talk to about shaking off dogma and living "outside the box" and being creative and furthering our species (no, the whole world) are those who seem to think themselves removed from dogma. Those who are convinced that their religion is not dogmatic, and that there are no rituals, and that everything they believe is objective fact. They tend to be atheists.
Now, I've already stated in an earlier post that I think that the similarities between atheism and autotheism are too significant to ignore, and that there is a kinship between the belief systems. However, I have never met someone who believes themself to be a god, without realizing that they create their own myths, legends, ritual, et cetera. I have never, personally, met an atheist who believes that the scientific method is a ritual, or that the above mentioned laws of thought are dogmatic, or that there is any belief that comes out of science that is a problem to accept (because everything that comes out of science is equally subject to testing and failure).
Dogma is generally defined as "prescribed doctrine", or the stuff you believe because some authority told you to. Science has no "authorities", according to these atheists I have met, and you only choose to believe what is verifiable. I don't know a single atheist who is also a scientist and only believes what they, themselves, has verified. On the other hand, I know two research scientists who work at Virginia Tech who are deeply spiritual and generally doubt the results of their own research.
As your doctor, therapist, and friend, I suggest that you consider your dogmatic assumptions. What are they, where do they come from? If you can't come up with any, you're so deeply steeped in your dogma that you have come to believe that you have none. If you can't come up with 15, go talk to a clergyman of any belief system you do not belong to (DON'T BE RUDE, most of the time they're tickled that someone is interested) and ask them questions until you identify 15 or more things that you don't believe and then figure out why you disagree, if you disagree based on information some enigmatic "authority" gave you, you may be finding your dogma. If you are unwilling or unable to find a clergyman, try a magazine or website. If you yourself are liberal, try Reader's Digest (one of the most widely read conservative publications in the world, despite the fact that they will not identify themselves as conservative). If you are conservative, try Democratic Underground (who may or may not appreciate me sending conservatives their way, but I think that the folks I know over there would appreciate me trying to shake up unchallenged dogma in anyone, even them, if they took time to think about it!)
This is the point, dogma is inevitable, we are going to believe stuff based on what "science has found" or what the "pope decrees" or what the "reliable sources" say. We all are. Dogma is only really dangerous when it goes unchallenged and untested. If we accept what "science has found" then no new science ever happens. (Some of the most interesting science I've been learning about recently is based on using plants as lie detectors, because plants may have the ability to pick up emotional signals broadcast by people, animals, and other plants around them. The implications of this are huge, if it's reliable. But, if the scientists working on this had accepted the dogma of plants being largely unaware of their surroundings, these questions never would have come up).
Believe something different. For example, if you have (up to this point) accepted those laws of thought as immutable, believe that everything contains it's contradiction, all the time. Everything red is also not red, every father is also not a father, etc.
