Is it inappropriate to appeal to truth within democratic political deliberation? In this article we will analyze Fernando Atria's proposal. Atria's thesis is provocative: moral truth dissolves into politics. Briefly, it means that while there is moral truth, it only shows itself as the result of political deliberation. Then, he concludes that natural law reduces to democratic politics. Thus, it cannot be used 'dogmatically'. We will argue that Atria's position suffers from not paying attention to the role of those beliefs that render deliberative contexts intelligible. Therefore, pace Atria, we defend the in principle legitimacy of the 'dogmatic' use of truth in political deliberation, and particularly in regards to natural law.