From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vandalism removed[edit]

I've cut the following passage from the "Other Usage" section:

"Dogma was originally a word used by Kimmel Manning (a buff Māori). It was believed to be a word used by Kimmel and his followers as a substitute for any other word you couldn't think of. For example: "That person is so... what's the word? Dogma". As time passed, Dogma became a religion with a whole prophecy behind it. Kimmel started preaching for Dogma in 2008, where he simply went up to small people and shook them repeatedly for hours until they vowed to follow his religion." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This article needs work[edit]

You're not kidding this article needs work! It's worse than sophomoric, it's sophomoronic! A 12 year old who doesn't have a bias against religious teaching could do better by simply looking up the Greek word from which "dogma" is derived. The definition contained herein is nonsense. "Dogma" is a decree or an ordinance. It's irrespective of religion but hey, the religious bias that people have, fomented by deceivers like Kevin Smith made someone foam at the mouth to write a Wickedpedia article! Supervision of these articles SUCK. It should have been removed immediately with a note stating something akin to "Go to your dictionary -- we don't yet have a good article on dogma." with a note to the author, "Get rid of your biases and come back and try again." LOL... yeah, religion haters (let's not forget there is no religion in America hated like Christianity -- ask the news and entertainment industries) getting rid of their biases... that'll be the day!

I tried a LONG time ago to contribute to Wickedpedia but found quickly that the biases of those who run this dog and pony show quickly overrule what their biases won't allow. That this article hasn't been removed is a testament to the biases of those in charge. It's crappy yellow journalism and shouldn't be here, as hundreds of other Wickedpedia articles have no business on a site that wants respect as an "Encyclopedia." (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence of the article currently reads: "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 statement is not supported by any reasoning here, and should perhaps be deleted for POV reasons.
Plaidscreen 12/4/07

I agree, I'm removing it. In humanism there is no dogma, the very fact that the Humanist Manifesto is on it's 3rd edition shows that it is not dogmatic. The humanist manifesto could be considered a dogma if it were authorative:

(Hey dude, you're on the Internet. There are no excuses for misspelled words -- it's "authoritative.")

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe.
Belgianatheist (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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 "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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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

This seems to be a very Christian-centric definition of dogma, even though other religions are included in the first sentence. In Christianity, should a person reject a belief in God and Jesus it would mean that they are no longer Christian. It is a mistake to assume this is true of other religions. In Judaism, for instance, people can reject the existence of god, still consider themselves Jewish and even be considered Jewish by the most religious Jews. And when I say "Jewish" I don't mean it as an ethnicity (a modern concept), I mean within the context of the religion itself, it is possible to be both Jewish and atheist because you would still be a part of the Chosen People. Thus a non-religious Jew is still a Jew, while a non-religious Christian is not a Christian. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levh7 (talkcontribs) 11:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


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

Scientific Dogma[edit]

I'd like to propose a section devoted to dogmas in science. Although it's true that good science should always keep an "open mind", the attempted refutation of certain scientific beliefs seems to illicit anger and contempt, rather than sparking thoughtful discussion. For example, the idea of a heliocentric universe; this is a short sighted view of our universe within space, and even a short sighted view within our own solar system, but pointing out that the center changes depending on one's point of reference will get more screaming than conversation. Please let me know if anyone is willing to at least open up a discussion, then possibly add a section for dogmas in science --Jessecurry (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(Screaming) opposition is not dogma, unless you can point to a "scientific bible", creed or document that all scientists have to conform to there is no point. Belgianatheist (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
While it's true that screaming opposition is not dogma, it seems that the root of that opposition are principles that are held as true despite the fact that no one in modern times has done much to verify them. Dogmas do not necessarily have to exist within the confines of a book, they can be resident within the ideas of the community. Further, these dogmas don't have to be the belief of "all scientists", just a number significant for discussion. --Jessecurry (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
That's conjecture perhaps you should first find those "principles at the root of that opposition" that you think exist somewhere and that according to you are dogmatic. Belgianatheist (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The dogmatic principle in the example discussion over heliocentrism is that the sun *is* at the center of our solar system, just calling what we have a solar system presupposes that the sun is the most important body in space. While it is true that using the sun as our center of reference causes calculations to be greatly simplified, the center is actually just an arbitrary point of reference.
It may not be the case that all scientists believe that the heliocentric model is correct, there are certainly a large number of people that do believe that all other models are incorrect. If these are not dogmas, or at least dogmatic in nature please point me to a better forum for discussion. --Jessecurry (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

While reading news I recently came across and example of what I would consider to be scientific dogma. Not sure if it's just something circling the nerdy news sites, but there is a company called BlackLight Power, they claim to have developed a new technique for producing energy. This technique is obviously going to come under criticism from the scientific community(as it should), but some scientists have pointed out that the equations presented by the creator of this new technique were not Lorentz invariant, further stating that being Lorentz invariant is a requirement of any theory that explains the behavior of particles moving close to the speed of light. Placing such hard requirements on what is still a very young field demonstrates that the scientists have their own dogmas, if this were not the case then there would be a more prominent discussion regarding the validity of the claim that being Lorentz invariant is a requirement of any theory that explains the behavior of particles moving close to the speed of light. All too often scientists just take some bit of information as infallible fact, simply because it hasn't been proven wrong yet. --Jessecurry (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

it's simple, if it works the scientific community will accept it, they seem to have found enough idiots to fund them, I'm not holding my breath for that "prototype" that they're going to release. Science it not dogmatic, it cannot be for it would not be science anymore. Dismissing the obvious is not dogmatic, every year there are a number of people who claim to have invented a perpetual motion machine, they are dismissed without further study, this is similar, there is no need for further investigation because the claims are impossible but they could still try to prove their case without risk for bodily harm just criticism (and don't expect help or funds). If that means that their dewicate feewings are hurt then they should have investigated their claims better. Here's another case you can bring up in your next comment about the dogma of science Good luck Belgianatheist (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
"... there is no need for further investigation because the claims are impossible ..." This statement alone is a quite clear example of scientific dogmatism. In the above instance, the specific creed would be several of the fundamental laws of physics, primarily the law of conservation of energy; anyone who may deny or question these laws is not accepted as a member of the scientific community.Njnash (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing with examples, a recent one is the belief in speciation despite a lack of evidence. Darwinian evolution, while proven on the micro scale has not even come close to being proven on the macro scale. This example of scientific dogma has attracted so much attention that Ben Stein wrote an entire movie about it. --Jessecurry (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seconding the call. There definitely are self-ascribed dogma's in science so there should be a section on scientific dogmas. What there isn't except as a failure of scientific institutions, is dogmatic assertion of belief in something contrary to evidence or better explanation. Typically a field with a recognized dogma will refer to it as "The Central Dogma of ..." or in similar terms. There are copious examples. The essential distinction is that the scientific dogma is capable of being overturned within the system of belief, it's self consciously a dogma in that sense. This may be the best known. (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The scientific community is the worst when it comes to preventing any change to their system of beliefs. Every single scientific paradigm shift in the history of mankind has come only with extreme struggle against those pre-conceived ideas set in dogmatic ways. How did Planck put it, "New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." And those individuals usually have to wait until the majority still holding to dogmatic ideas die out. "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."[1] Dogma is everywhere in anything where opinions are articulated. Steven J White (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


So free thinkers hold true the dogma of “never holding true a dogma”? Sounds a little oxymoronic. (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Divine paradox.Njnash (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that would be a paradox. Like the Cretan philosopher (Epimenides) who stated that All Cretans are liars. (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it only be a paradox if he was telling the truth? But since he's a Cretan and lying - all Cretans can't be liars :) Steven J White (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Dogma is NOT...[edit]

The same as "good advice" or "a proven and tested method". So no more dumb arguments like "oh, never murder the innocent? HOW DOGMATIC."

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


There's a statement that certain religions, Judaism among them, have dogma. Yet no source is given. This is a question that has been debated for centuries and nobody has yet to come up with a fundamental belief that one must hold to continue being a Jew. Even the most orthodox of Jews would say that a person of Jewish ancestry who doesn't hold a single Jewish belief is still Jewish. There are many sources stating that Judaism has no dogma (Google "Judaism has no dogma" and you will find it quickly) and even Wikipedia pages on Judaism cover the issue and explicitly say that Judaism isn't dogmatic. Indeed the "see also" link in the "in religion" section ("Jewish principles of faith" link) goes to a page that starts off by contradicting the notion that Judaism has dogma. Judaism has no central authority to impose dogma in the first place. I'm removing Judaism from the list. It contradicts its own Wikipedia references and is subject to removal by virtue of having no source. Hagrinas (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

General cleanup - more needed[edit]

I did quite a bit of cleanup on this article but it is still too verbose on irrelevant points at times andn could used more detail. In some places additional editing is still needed to convert POV to more neutral text.

KSci (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)