Morality without God

[vulcanlogician]

Dogma in the broad sense is any belief held unquestioningly and with undefended certainty.
...

Since it isn't the kind of thing we can prove scientifically (it's ought, not is) then it's something we hold to without proof. I suppose if you hold to it tentatively, rather than "unquestioningly," then you're not being dogmatic about it.

Exactly. You can have moral beliefs about how to treat other human beings, and so long as you are willing to have a discussion about it-- and you don't insist that others hold the belief just because you say so-- then it ISN'T a dogma.

You can have a discussion about "oughts." Your oughts can face criticisms from moral skeptics or people who argue for different oughts. So long as you are willing to subject your particular beliefs to rational discourse, then you aren't being dogmatic.

Sure, science can't tell us anything definite about oughts. But that's why we have moral philosophy. I mean, physicists can't tell us anything definite about economics... that's why we have economists. The natural sciences are great, but they can't tell us everything. That's why we have other disciplines.

Humanism is a definsible view. So it doesn't need to rely on "undefended certainty." And therefore, it isn't dogmatic.