Talk:Dogma

---

"The dogma of the secular-humanist community is that Christian precepts and doctrine etc. cannot be true and that this is a fact without argument."

This opinion is not supported by any reasoning here, and should perhaps be deleted for POV reasons.

---

It is forbidden to say the truth. The correct sentence "At the moment the Wikipedia is run by people who believe in dogmas as well." was deleted without thinking about it.

It was deleted because it was irrelevant what your opinion on it is and was, furthermore, inaccurate: wikipedia is made of widely diverse contributors with equally diverse opinions, and ascribing a central "dogma" to it is problematic at best and simply wrong at worst. The best I could muster about wikipedia's "dogma" is that wikipedians in general believe that spreading knowledge is good. Beyond that, you're on your own.

You have a dogma too, and a blatant political one which you are trying to make heard on the 'pedia. Take it somewhere else; that's not what wikipedia is for. I refer you to Usenet. Koyaanis Qatsi 10:08, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The favorite dogma of Wiki admins is hyperanality with respect to NPOV, e.g. no one on the entire planet can be described as a liar or hypocrite, especially not, for example, George W. Bush

If dedication to facts that can actually be used (which is a general requirement of encycloPEDIAS) is "hyperanality", then the best wikipedians are "hyperanal", and proud of it. Noone is interested in personal opinions on whichever world leader; take them elsewhere.

There is no 'dogma' in Wikipedia? That's a pretty dogmatic idea. DasV

---

Is Dogme95 just concerned with films? If so, I guess that should be made clear (rather than just saying "artists"). I'm pretty sure it is, but not sure enough to change it. --Camembert

Changed. Personally I think it's pretentious and gimmicky, but still more noble than what they're railing against. Have you followed the link to Dogme95? We used to have one. --KQ

Oh yes, I missed that somehow. I agree with you about its (de)merits, by the way, but a couple of good films have come out of it, I'd say. Anyway, thanks for changing it. --Camembert

Yes, Festen was IMO quite good. And no, I wouldn't put my comments above in the Dogme article--they don't belong there--who cares what I think; I'm not a film critic.  :-) --KQ

---

Dogma was/is film by Kevin Smith, should it be mentioned there? --Hurda

Yeah, his film with the title of 'Dogma' does seem to have an example of the definition. It'd be ideal if something about it could give the article a relation, as it could further the knowledge of anyone seeking such information. Aeryck89 23:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

According to the primary definition of Dictionary.com: "A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church."

This is irrelevant to whether the belief is beyond question, so I think it should be removed.

oriental orthodox churches?

In the part that states:

“For most of Eastern Christianity, the dogmata are contained in the Nicene Creed and the first two, three, or seven ecumenical councils (depending on whether one is a Nestorian, a Monophysite, or an Eastern Orthodox Christian”

and the rest of the “dogma in religion” does not mention the oriental orthodox churches. I don’t know if they were forguoten by whoever wrote the article or if they were grouped with “Nestorian, a Monophysite” which is wrong. Licio 15:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Axiom definition, grossly wrong

Sorry for the drama in the header, but as a math and logic buff, I cringe at gross misunderstandings like this:

Axioms may be thought of as concepts or "givens" so fundamental that disputing them would be unimaginable;

heh, there is nothing sacred about axioms, and "disputing" them, is not only imaginable but quite normal in mathematics and logic. Actually, "dispute" isn't really the appropriate word here, since axioms are not, as if often assumed by the laymen, "self-evident truths". They are simply assumptions nothing more, nothing less. Not unquestionable assumptions, just plain 'ole assumptions. As a matter of fact, one might, and people often do, use one set of axioms, see where it leads them (and see if they are consistent), and then use a whole new contradictory set of axioms (or drop or add a few) to see if it also leads to a consistent system (often contradictory sets of axioms both lead to completely consistent and even useful formal systems). For example, the most famous example being Euclids Fifth Postulate. Mathematicians often drop it and replace it with alternative, and contradictory postulates. (see hyperbolic geometry, and elliptic geometry) Neither axiom set is said to be more true, and many alternative systems are completely consistent (and as it turns out physically applicable--but thats not really important). Another example would be the "disputed" axiom of choice (but only "disputed" in a boring mathematical sense, nobody is really "disputing" it, some people just prefer to not use it because they feel the system without it is more elegant.) Point being, axioms are in no way unquestionable, and definitely not "self-evident truths", and it is quite imaginable to dispute them. I'm changing the article accordingly. If you think I'm wrong, please read a little bit more about mathematics and logic (arithmetic text-books don't count, as they often, but not always, go with the "self-evident truth" bit as a convenient, but unfortunate, brush over of a complicated concept which might lose the already fickly attention of algebra students. )

bleh, I'm currently on a AOL account, and it uses diffent proxy IP addresses on different pages. Someone autoblocked the proxy adress that I get assigned when I load the article page so I can't edit it right now (i.e. some other AOL user was on that IP when they got blocked.) Someone please change the egregiously misleading statement.Brentt 03:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the person who originally defined "Axiom" the way that they did wasn't taking into consideration mathematical postulates and whatnot, I mean, this is the Dogma article, it's not really supposed to be mathematical. Homestarmy 04:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I would assume so to (although it'd still be a misuse of the term), but they said there is a "corresponding concept in logical analysis." I.e. they are pointing out a resemblance that doesn't really exist. So yes, they were talking about maths and logic unfortunately. . Brentt 01:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh :/. Well, thanks for spotting it then. Homestarmy 04:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a notion of axiom in epistemology (which has little to do with the mathematical notion) that does correspond to "self-evident truth". But its not a very widely accepted view that such "axiomatic truths" really exist. It could be mentioned though. Brentt 02:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Religious dogma

I think the section of religious dogma could use some improvements due to concerns I have about NPOV and factual issues such as with the following statements:

Religious dogmata, properly conceived, reach back to proofs other than themselves, and ultimately to faith.

Who defines what is "properly conceived" dogma? Wikipedia should not take a position on what constitutes properly conceived dogma but rather state how others have defined "properly conceived dogma".

Dogmata are found in many religions such as Christianity and Islam, where they are considered core principles that must be upheld by all followers of that religion.

Within Christianity, there is some disagreement among some denominations as to what constitutes Christian dogma. While many accept the Nicene Creed as the basis for defining Cristian dogma not all Christians accept the creed as dogma, such as many liberal Christians. It would be more accurate and NPOV to state that governing bodies of particular denominations or churches generally require certain dogmas to be accepted for it's people to be official member of their denomination. Also in denominations without a central governing body, a majority of followers would share a set of dogmas they feel it's necessary to accept to be a member of that religion. When it comes to a religion in general, there are generally at least a significant number of self-identified followers of said religion who disagree with the majority as to what constitutes dogma for that religion and the article should reflect this to be NPOV.

As a fundamental element of religion, the term "dogma" is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt.

Who assigns the term "dogma"? This ought to be explained better. As it is written it could be interpreted as implying their is some sort of universally accepted source for a religion's dogma which is generally not the case. Their are often groups/people who diverge from traditional dogma but still consider themselves a part of that religion. Since Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding what makes one a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. we need to be careful in how we discuss dogma so a not to take a position on the validity of those who reject some dogma but still consider themselves followers of a religion.

Rejection of dogma is considered heresy in certain religions, and may lead to expulsion from the religious group, although in the Christian Gospels this is not done rashly (e.g. Mt 18:15-17).

Again we should distinguish religions as a whole vs. denomination within the religion. Their is no central organizations that could expel a Christian from Christianity as a whole though many denominations such the Catholic Church can and do expel people. To be NPOV and factual we must be clear that the definition of heresy as it relates to dogma has been disputed by certain religious groups labeled by others as violating a religion's dogma. --Cab88 00:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Distinction

Ought this page distinguish between dogma and doctrine? Pastordavid 08:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)