There's the word I was looking for: dogma

In Reframing the argument: Is it "religion vs science"? , I mused on how I'm not too keen on battling "religion" per se. Oh, sure, I'm all for bashing religion in the sense that it's usually meant: a collection of beliefs – often harmful ones at that – not based on evidence. But "religion" can also be applied to something as benign as "a sense of awe" or "curiosity over whether there might be 'something more'".

In addition, attacks on "religion" invariably become confused with attacks on stained glass and soup kitchens and kind Salvation Army volunteers. Sure, it's dumb to read an anti-religious stance that way, but people will do it. In short, it's tricky and sometimes ineffective to target an enemy whose definition isn't even agreed upon by all.

I suggested "faith" as the better name for the real target, i.e., belief not based on evidence or reason. That not only focuses on the bad part of religion, it also places some non-religious bad stuff in the crosshairs: superstitions, unproven alternative medicines, etc. So I liked that.

Yet even the word "faith" is tricky. For starters, the word carries such a positive ring to many; even when a complaint against some specific example of faith is perfectly justified, it may be hard to get a sympathetic ear. On top of that, it invites goofy rebuttals like "What? Don't you have faith in your wife/husband/child?" That's idiotic – that's a different meaning of "faith" – but it's yet another instance of shifting definitions allowing a nutcase to deflect the argument and waste time. 

Most problematic of all, "faith" could even be used to mean "belief based on evidence". I can easily imagined a challenged scientist responding, "Of course I have 'faith' in the scientific method; it continually proves its effectiveness". Some might use "faith" that way, some might not; again, we're back to confusion.

The word I've been looking for to label the enemy is an obvious one that's been around all along; I was just too dense to really notice. It's dogma. That word clearly encapsulates religious beliefs not based on reason or evidence, and it enjoys no positive connotations. (No American politician boasts of his adherence to dogma.: ) Naturally, religionists will claim that their beliefs aren't dogma, but they'll be on thin ice, especially when scornfully pointing to other religionists' beliefs as pure dogma.

I wish dogma more clearly included some of the non-religious beliefs mentioned earlier, but in a debate, it's simple enough to specify "all religious dogma, as well as superstition, astrology, and similar unproven beliefs" as the enemy.

Anyway, this will all seem rather pointless to everyone who's been using the word all along. Sorry, I'm still new at the defending-rationality business!