Talk:Atheism/Archive 33

message: I've made this a new section and started to expand it somewhat, since it is critical period in the development of atheistic philosophy. I won't be able to access my books until this evening (EST), so if someone else wants to fill in material and sources in the meantime go ahead. Djcastel 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Modern Period

message: Atheism refers to one of a number of definitions, which include the belief in the nonexistence of gods,[1] the conscious rejection of theism,[2] and the absence of belief in the existence of gods.[3]
I am taking a break, cause I need to mow the lawn, any comments are welcome before I make what I consider a long needed edit. _Modocc 20:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A NPOV Introduction Proposal

message: As a philosophical doctrine, "atheism" can refer to the belief in the nonexistence of gods,[1] to the rejection of theism,[2] or, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of gods.[3] Other definitions may require a justification for disbelief, such as conscious rejection or critical thought.
Pros: Cohesive; the most important doctrines given equal weight; and it addresses the issue of justification, since much of the article and atheism in general is about reasons or the absence of reasons. 
Cons: First sentence is longer; and the view distinction is gone(But these views/non-views are self-evident with each definition). 
Because this would be a huge and bold edit on my part, comments please. _Modocc 15:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: As a Doctrine, Proposal(old version)

message: (new version)
As a philosophical doctrine, "atheism" can refer to the belief in the nonexistence of gods,[1] to the rejection of theism,[2] or, to nontheism, the absence of belief in the existence of gods.[3] Other definitions may require a justification for disbelief, such as conscious rejection or critical thought.
Pros: Cohesive; the most important doctrines given equal weight; and it addresses the issue of justification, since much of the article and atheism in general is about reasons or the absence of reasons; No weasel word is needed to introduce nontheism.
Cons: First sentence is longer; and the view distinction is gone(But these views/non-views are self-evident with each definition). To make room for the addition of "nontheism", had to removed "broadest sense" but this was already too opaque anyway.
This new edit should help clear up the confusion. _Modocc 20:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: As a Doctrine, Proposal

message: In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious or unspiritual
????
And might I suppose that Eastern Culture likes atheism? Apparently, theres been a few Religious extremists lately in the Middle East. Clearly these individuals are atheists, or don't mind them.
I mean...
GIVE ME A BREAK!
I am a Catholic and don't regard atheists as unspiritual or whatever. In the west, atheism is widely though indirectly supported by the government's secularism - one could argue.
But in the Middle East, many non-monotheistic religions are banned, like in Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. and even Judaism and Christianity is strictly regulated. 
Please don't insult Western freedom, look to Sad Extremism, whom believe in killing infidels.Tourskin 00:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't meant as a slight to the West, it's simply that the source for this claim  only refers to the West. I'd support a change of wording, but not sure what to. --h2g2bob 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Tourskin. In religious studies, Islam is considered a Western religion. "Western" is, loosely speaking, a synonym for "Abrahamic", whereas Eastern religions include Dharmic, Taoic, etc. traditions. Additionally, the statement isn't "In Western culture, atheists are violently persecuted"; all it's saying is that there is a strong association between atheism and irreligion, which is true. However, I've removed the statement anyway simply because it lacks a reference. -Silence 06:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western 

message: Currently the article uses the following web link to a couple of paragraphs from the online Brittanica in a footnote: Britannica (1992). "Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs". Encyclopædia Britannica 1: 666. 0852294735. Retrieved on 2006-10-27.  I generally object to the use of these Britannica stubs because they are basically advertising hooks trying to get the reader to register for the site, and sites that require registration are generally discouraged under WP:EL.  I also think that the reference to Hinduism once again injects that issue into the article in a manner that is not well-sourced.  I think that the link to Britannica should be removed, and any statements made that are currently sourced from it should be sourced in some other way, if possible. Buddhipriya 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: External links policy does not apply to sources. Sources are governed only by reliable sources policy. --h2g2bob (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My specific concern has to do with a lumping together of Hinduism and Buddhism, an issue which has come up several times before on this talk page.  The sentence cited by the Britannica stub says: "With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a god, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Hinduism and Buddhism" which to me seems completely unclear regarding what it is trying to say about Hinduism and Buddhism.  The article is written so strongly from the point of view of Western religion that it does not seem to have a clear view of what it is trying to say with regard to either of those two Indic-Dharmic religions, which are quite different from one another.  Lumping them together in that sentence might sound like a Hindu writing something like "the existence of any transcendental concepts in Christianity and Judaism." What exactly is the point that is being made?  Can a better source be found for that point in particular? I guess I just don't understand what the sentence means.  The vast majority of Hindus are extremely theistic in devotional practice. As written, the sentence implies that they are not, since they are being contrasted with the first part of the sentence referring to belief in god.  The implication is that Hindus don't believe in god. The article also currently confuses orthodox Buddhist philosophy, which denies the existence of any permanent entities, with popular Buddhist religion, which has many deistic features, as has been previously discussed on this talk page.Buddhipriya 08:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence isn't trying to imply that Hindus don't believe in God; it's trying to imply that atheists, at least by some people's definitions, can't accept the transcendental ideas of (at least certain denominations of) Buddhism or Hinduism. It doesn't say that atheism encompasses the belief in the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Hinduism and Buddhism; rather, it says "atheism may counter... the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Hinduism and Buddhism". However, it's a terrible sentence and a poorly-made point, so we certainly shouldn't repeat it in the article, though I don't see a problem with citing it as a source, since it is indeed a prominent academic authority. -Silence 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to use of a trivial source 

message: ::"Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism negatively, as the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited"
The problem I see with this is that it is weasely and vague. How "recently"? Which "philosophical circles"? The meaning of "negatively" is not clear; most will think it means "badly". Which "atheist communities"? You got all of this information from those couple cited sources? Do any one of those sources state all of the claims in this sentence? If not, it would see to violate WP:SYN. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 16:50Z
*It's vague because it's addressed more specifically in the very next section, and including detail would create redundancy. If you want more specifics, replace "Most recently" with "In recent decades" and "in certain philosophical circles" with "by philosophers such as Flew and Martin". If you think that the "negatively" note is unimportant, feel free to remove it. Asking "which atheist communities define atheism negatively" is like asking "which American communities speak English"; it is impractical to list them all, so it makes sense to just note that "most" or "many" do, or, best of all, just leave it unqualified so it can refer to any unspecified number—then it's indisputably true, yet still informative. If you still want specific examples, though, you can start with Internet Infidels. The sentences in question are quite clearly not "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position"; if they were, then the lead section of this article would need to be deleted too! (And most of its body, including "Rationale", "Demographics", and "Religion and morality".) -Silence 17:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Silence's Etymology addition

message: Silence's sources do support the claim that there isn't any consensus on usage. Should the citations warrant mentioning, then a statement about "there is no consensus on usage" or something like that is fine with me.  _Modocc 20:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning just the dispute here about use

message: Here's the minimal definition of "atheist":
"For all x, x is an atheist iff x is not a theist, i.e. iff x does not believe that God or other deities exist."
This means the set of atheists is the complementary set of the set of theists.
But one of the problems is that "x does not believe that God or other deities exist" is ambiguous, for it can mean:
(a) x has a non-empty mental belief box that does not contain "God or other deities exist".
(b) x has an empty mental belief box that does not contain "God or other deities exist".
(c) x has no mental belief box at all that could contain "God or other deities exist".
(a) is satisfied by conscious, mentally mature unbelievers, (b) by babies, and (c) by any non-living material things. — Are we really prepared to call those living or non-living things atheists which satisfy (b) or (c)?! — Editorius 16:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm rather missing your point on this one. None of this seems to relate to the article, which says "In its broadest sense, [atheism] is the absence of belief in the existence of gods." --h2g2bob (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What you should be categorizing over is what happens when a person (or anything else capable of accepting a belief) is offered the belief that "there exists a god". They might add it to their own beliefs, they might not add it, they might add its negation. From that point on you may categorize them as theists, agnostics or atheists. --MarSch 11:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Definition That Is Too Minimal

message: In all the chaos above, I think I missed what the point was to change "is" to "can refer to".  It seems unnecessarily ambiguous, and I think it's a step in the wrong direction. johnpseudo 18:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary reason for the change was that the two definitions of "belief" and "rejection" are not the only definitions that are philosophical views of the term.  Therefore, what we had was something like saying that "a numeral is one or two"(true if one limits the discussion to binaries), when one can only show that numerals "can refer to" either or both. _Modocc 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree that it is a bit confusing to have a lead that says "Atheism is A or B." but then to say that it can also be C. Although there's something about "can refer to" that I dislike, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Possibly that it seems too vague for the lead. One possible alternative is to combine the second sentence into the first, something like: "Atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of gods, the rejection of theism, or in its broadest sense, it is the absence of belief..." - but that may be too long and unwieldy a sentence? Could "in its broadest sense, it is" be dropped? Mdwh 20:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've gotten no support for a similar statement. Also there are many definition and stating just three as the definitions might be a problem.  I almost hate to say this... replacing "can refer to" with "commonly refers to" might have a better ring to it and do whats needed here.  For the "disbelief" definition is very common and it also implies "belief or rejection".  I striked that for a number of reasons. In any case, from my perspective, my edit does not really detract from "the best" lede yet, it also clarifies the presentation of the definitions.  One problem with the earlier version was that it was unclear if the second definition was just a restatement(saying the same thing in different words), or a new definition.   _Modocc 21:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: But the "belief" and "rejection" definitions are the only widespread philosophical definitions.  The "absence of belief" definition is widespread, but not in philosophical definitions.  Two categories: "philosophical" and "broadest sense".  The point of the first two sentences is to put forth the two most widely used definitions first, then to immediately include the important "absence of belief" definition. With the sources we have (Routledge/Brittanica & most dictionaries vs. most atheist definitions), the distinction seems pretty well-supported. johnpseudo 22:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet, there is still our lay-in-the-mud underdogs and that guy that sulked with a robot(which may not have had a philosophical view either).  Thus, my point is, that although A and B definitions are very common(also with the "in crowd", especially those that demand "critical rejection"), the two main definitions/views do not fully encompass the actual range of real views. To acknowledge that the definitions are incomplete required revision, and mine improves the presentation.  _Modocc 23:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right- the two main definitions/views do not fully encompass the actual range of definitions.  To acknowledge this, we already have the clarifier "As a philosophical view".  We don't need an additional, ambiguous "can refer" clarifier.  Yours does not improve the presentation because it introduces the article by referring to atheism as a term.  The article is not about the term- it is about the concept. johnpseudo 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, indeed it's valid if it were clear that philosophical view meant simply "the common, textbook variety", but its not clear that is what is meant.  To me, "philosophical view" is vague.  Essentially, there is this domino effect and its not terrible, for my edit resolves my end of it.  If what is meant could be made clearer then, of course, my edit wouldn't be needed either.  _Modocc 23:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I don't understand you.  "As a philosophical view" means that these two definitions are how atheism is defined philosophically. What is unclear?  How does your edit help? johnpseudo 00:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "philosophical":   1.  Of, relating to, or based on a system of philosophy.  ->The sourced ones yes, but different philosophies entail alternate views. 2. Characteristic of a philosopher, as in equanimity, enlightenment, and wisdom.  ->Who's?, perhaps Smiths?  Without sufficient context, what is meant is unclear.  _Modocc 01:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What I'm saying is that we first define atheism to be a philosophy.  Philosophy: "#1: doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school. #2: any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation".  A philosophy is a belief, not a state of mind.  Maybe we could change the first sentence to, "As a philosophy, atheism is ..."? johnpseudo 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "as a philosophy" is much clearer, for me too.  The "broader sense" doctrine must be a subset of these doctrines? Yes? In this case, I'm am fine with this change.  _Modocc 02:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, but in that case, going off on a tangent, "rejection of theism" is not a belief. Not that I'm saying that rejection of theism should be removed from the first sentence - it should be there alongside the "belief in the nonexistence" definition, as the two common definitions. So is this a problem? Is "philosophical view" or "philosophy" really the right term? I dislike defining atheism foremost as a belief... Mdwh 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a system of beliefs, philosophy is about what we think about, either personally or collectively, and belief plays a large role, but tentative assumptions and sound rejections of doctrine are entailed too.  Thus, nothing is amiss. _Modocc 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Philosophical view is better at unifying for it is more specific than philosophy, but neither phrase serves well as an indicator that there are alternatives. _Modocc 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "rejection of theism" a belief?  It's the belief that theism is wrong. johnpseudo 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rejection of a belief may be motivated by other beliefs but it is not a belief itself.  — Editorius 21:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now that I look up what "reject" means (refuse to accept or acknowledge), I have to agree.  I suppose that's why "philosophical view" is better.  I guess a better reason for Wikipedia to call them "philosophical views" is because that is how the philosophical encyclopedias define atheism.  I can't think of a way to better indicate that these two definitions- rejection/nonexistence - are the standard definitions of philosophers. "Can refer to" doesn't help. johnpseudo 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "is used to refer to" would be better. — Editorius 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would that be better?  We should try to refer to the concept instead of the term if we can. johnpseudo 01:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modocc's "Can refer to" change

message: I find it very disappointing that the aspect of probability is virtually always neglected:
:"Probability is the very guide of life."
:(Joseph Butler: "The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed", 1736, Introd.)
:"A more familiar mode of judgment is flat, 'dogmatic' assertion or denial, as in 'It will rain' or 'It will not rain'. In place of this 'dogmatism', the probabilistic mode of judgment offers a richer palate for depicting your state of mind, in which the colors are all the real numbers from 0 to 1. [...] Yes or no: was there once life on Mars? We can’t say. What about intelligent life? That seems most unlikely, but again, we can’t really say. The simple yes-or-no framework has no place for shadings of doubt, no room to say that we see intelligent life on Mars as far less probable than life of a possibly very simple sort. Nor does it let us express exact probability judgments, if we have them. We can do better."
:(Jeffrey, Richard. Subjective Probability: The Real Thing. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. pref. + p. 8)
:"Either [God] exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability. [...] I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. [...] God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice. If he existed and chose to reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument, noisily and unequivocally, in his favour. And even if God's existence is never proved or disproved with certainty one way or the other, available evidence and reasoning may yield an estimate of probability far from 50 per cent." 
:(Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. pp. 48+50)
One of the very few philosophers who explicitly take the aspect of probability into account is A. J. Ayer (who himself wasn't an atheist but a theol. noncognitivist):
:"[I]t is characteristic of an atheist to hold that it is at least probable that no god exists."
:(Ayer, Alfred Jules. Language, Truth and Logic. 1946 (2nd ed.). New York: Dover, 1952. p. 115) 
How right he is! Atheism doesn't begin with the (firm) belief in the nonexistence of God (or other deities); it already begins with the belief in the improbability of the existence of God (or other deities)!  An adequate dictionary entry on "atheism" should read as follows:
:"Atheism: the standpoint that it is not the case or at least unlikely/improbable that God or other deities exist."
— Editorius 23:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like these characterizations. --MarSch 10:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheism & Probabilism

message: As the lede stands now, belief is mentioned first, perhaps due to it being historically the narrowest or most common used, but from my perspective, these reasons are not adequate. Normally, it wouldn't matter to me what the lineup is, but if I had to choose, to make a favorable impression, I would put the rejection definition first. The reasons for this is that the rejection definition is very creditable, noteworthy and modern in its own right, and if I'm not mistaken, it is the preferred academic definition, and if we are going to use "as a philosophical view" to refer to the primary academic definitions then it is proper to put the rejection definition first, and although there is still going to be those that favor the other definitions, these important factors favor it being the first definition mentioned. _Modocc 01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Source for "it is the preferred academic definition"? Brittanica says "the critique and denial of (God)" (sort of like rejection), but Routledge says "the position that affirms the nonexistence of God" and most dictionaries use a variety of the affirms nonexistence definition. johnpseudo 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake perhaps. Although there is a tendency to consolidate. Rejection and belief are both denial and affirmation, but denial and affirmation are not necessarily rejection.  Also, the way the current lede is worded, it appears that simple rejection is a restatement or consequence of belief, but it is not. With respect to science, putting rejection first and the belief following that is more inline with the method.  _Modocc 02:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To reject p is not to deny p, i.e. to affirm ~p. But if one denies / affirms p, then one also rejects p / ~p. Both weak atheists (agnostics) and theol. noncognitivists reject the proposition "God exists", but they don't affirm its negation, the proposition "God does not exist". — Editorius 12:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and thanks.  _Modocc 19:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets put the rejection definition first

message: "The very notion of 'philosophical atheism' is far from clear. There are many philosophers, as well as others, who are atheists, but I do not know that anything sensible is added by calling their atheism 'philosophical', anymore than anything sensible is added by saying of a philosopher who is a socialist that his socialism is a philosophical socialism. I wanted my 'Philosophy and Atheism: In Defense of Atheism' to be simply entitled, after its lead essay, 'In Defense of Atheism'. But this conflicted with another Prometheus title. My publisher proposed as a title 'The Philosophy of Atheism' which I rejected out of hand, and quite correctly so, for there is no philosophy of atheism, though atheism can have a philosophical articulation and defense." 
[Nielsen, Kai. "Atheism without Anger or Tears." Walking the Tightrope of Faith: Philosophical Conversations About Reason and Religion. Eds. Hendrik Hart, Ronald A. Kuipers, and Kai Nielsen. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999. 82-127. p. 98 (fn. 16).]
What exactly is the non-philosophical view of atheism?
Editorius 15:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once the relevant neurological structures have been identified then atheism (and theism) could be reduced to an understanding of the signals in the brain related to that structure. We know so-called religious experiences can be more or less simulated so that would indicate a non-Philosophical view of any of this is at least in principle possible (from a materialist point of view it is obviously a certainty!). Ultimately the cause of the neurological structure could be tracked back to particular genetic structures. This does hold out a cure for theism (though on the flip-side you could also argue a "cure" for atheism but the problem with chemically or genetically manifesting the delusion of theism is that you do not always know how many gods you would end up creating !). Ttiotsw 08:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Very true. A number of people have attempted to compare "religion" and madness though I don't know if it follows that simply being a theist would make one mad and a complete lack of belief in gods is to be completely sane. Religion part culture, part politics and imagination and you need not believe in god to take part. I personally disagree with equating belief in god or gods with any "madness" on the basis that it is a human trait to be able to believe many fictional characters in art, poetry, film, books and music. I feel it is essential part of being human to imagine an alternative reality. The delusion is when this harms others e.g. killing people for having a alternative reality e.g. a different god, gods or even no god for that matter. In the end the fictional creation isn't real but the illusion is real. Ttiotsw 15:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "As a philosophical view, atheism is ..."