A dogma isn’t a claim that happens to be unexamined. It’s a claim placed where examination isn’t allowed to reach.
“Dogma” gets used today almost exclusively as an accusation aimed at religion, shorthand for belief without evidence, held rigidly. That usage quietly assumes secular reasoning is automatically exempt from the same failure mode.
Kant used “dogmatic” to describe his own pre-Critique philosophical position: in his own account, Hume’s skepticism “interrupted my dogmatic slumber,” meaning his prior, uncritical trust in reason’s power to reach certain metaphysical knowledge without first examining what reason could and couldn’t actually justify. The word here isn’t aimed at religious belief at all. It names any framework’s habit of treating its own foundational assumptions as beyond the need for justification.
That is the sense at stake whenever a framework, religious or secular, treats its foundational commitments as simply obvious and never examines the assumptions doing the work underneath that claim (see worldview). Distinguishing a reasoned, examined starting point from an unexamined one is a different question from which tradition, if any, the starting point comes from.
Source: Stratmann, N. (2023). “From Dogmatic Slumber to Rationalist Nightmares: Kant among the Dreamers of Reason.” European Journal of Philosophy.