Take the 2-minute tour ×
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in logical reasoning. It's 100% free, no registration required.

My understanding of axioms is that they are self evident truths that require no proof, which in my mind is similar to a dogmatic belief in the sense that dogma is a set of beliefs or doctrines that are established as undoubtedly in truth.

share|improve this question
2  
Taking words from your own question, what is the difference betweeen "truth" and "belief"? That should give you an answer to your question. –  moonstar2001 Jan 31 '13 at 13:39
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Axiom is a statement taken to hold within a particular theory. One can combine the axioms to prove things within that theory. One may add or remove axioms to the theory to get another theory:

Euclid: ... 5. If a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles.

Lobachevsky: ... what Euclid says except (5)

Dogmas are axioms of cultural, religious, political theories. Again, one may add or remove dogmas to get a new theory, e.g.:

Arius: ...the Son is not unbegotten ... before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not.

Nicean Council: ... those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' ... are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

The difference is that it is perfectly ok to handle different sets of axioms in, say, mathematics and prove a theorem in Euclidean geometry one day and a theorem in Lobachevskian the next - just remembering when the fifth postulate does or doesn't hold, but it's not considered acceptable to hold several sets of dogmas at once. Life of Pi provides an illustration of the controversy of such a stance (the main character is Hindu, Muslim and Catholic simultaneously and his brothers-in-dogmas don't like to share him with the competition).

I'm sure early geometers were much more religious about their axiom-dogmas than the modern mathematicians, but I have no proof.

share|improve this answer
5  
Axiom: Let us assume X is true. Dogma: X is true. –  SF. Jan 31 '13 at 20:34
    
Although I don't have a concrete example at hand, I would imagine that you can find instances of pairs of dogmas that contradict each other (within the same "theory") whereas pairs of axioms should not. –  Drux Feb 1 '13 at 14:35
    
Isn't "axioms within a theory shouldn't contradict each other" an axiom? –  artm Feb 1 '13 at 14:59
    
@SF. Great :) Possibly the most concise explanation ever! You should post that as an answer. –  DBK Feb 7 '13 at 17:26
1  
@Drux: Axioms define the reality the theory is to describe, so if they define it in a self-conflicting way, the theory must work around that conflict. Take Lobachevsky's geometry which contains a seemingly self-conflicting axiom, and then the theory must bend the underlying space to satisfy it. –  SF. Feb 8 '13 at 5:36
show 1 more comment

An axiom is something that is self-evidently true; it is so obvious that there is no controversy about it. In mathematics, you just have to accept some very basic notions in order to avoid circular reasoning. These can't be proven, but they can always (and often very easily) be observed.

Example from Euclid's Elements:

Common notions:

  1. Things that are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another (Transitive property of equality).

  2. If equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal.

  3. If equals are subtracted from equals, then the remainders are equal.

  4. Things that coincide with one another equal one another (Reflexive Property).

  5. The whole is greater than the part.

Or an example from propositional logic:

If:

  • A is true
  • B is true

Then

  • A&B is true

A dogma refers to (usually a religious) teaching that is considered undoubtedly and absolutely true. It is something you accept without any direct observation; dogmas are accepted by faith only.

I should add that some people would say that there is no difference between axioms and dogmas, because 'self-evident truths' are in some sense based on faith; that is that you accept on faith that anything that seems obvious and self-evident is true. An interesting read on this subject is Wittgenstein's On Certainty. I also want to stress that I don't mean to say that an axiom is "better" than a religious dogma (or vice versa for that matter).

share|improve this answer
    
Good answer, but I'm not so sure about axioms generally being obviously self-evident. Take the axiom of choice, for example: there is huge division in mathematics as to whether it's true or not, and many proofs are written based on a by-faith acceptance (or rejection) of said axiom. In this regard I suppose I'm one of those who thinks there isn't a real difference between axioms and dogma - except maybe context. –  commando Feb 15 '13 at 16:12
    
@commando I accept your point. Not all axioms are self-evident, but I still think there is a difference between an axiom and a dogma. An axiom is only something you accept within a theory (self-evident or not); a dogma is far more pervasive. Whether I accept the axiom of choice doesn't change my life; whether I accept to dogma of Christian faith, for instance, will. Also,I don't think there have been any wars over which axiom is true, but there has been plenty of conflict over dogmas. –  Ben Feb 15 '13 at 17:12
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.