Talk:Atheism/Archive 36

message: "Theoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against belief in gods. These arguments assume various psychological, sociological, metaphysical, and epistemological forms. Theist philosophers have presented arguments that a god exists, such as the argument from design and Blaise Pascal's famous wager. Theoretical atheists find these arguments unconvincing, and may use one or more of the following arguments to support their views:"
I like the idea of putting a mention of Arguments for God here, but the language is just disjointed.  Maybe it could be framed more like "Theoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's wager."  Also, not all theoretical atheists have even heard of those arguments, much less can we claim that they "find them unconvincing" without a source. johnpseudo 21:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, your wording is certainly better, but I don't quite follow why all theoretical atheists must have heard of these arguments. I consider myself a theoretical atheist, but it is not so much that I know exactly how to refute Plantinga's modal ontological argument, I simply know that philosophers of religions find these arguments unconvincing, and this is not hard to source -- almost every atheist book on "arguments" spends more than half of it on refutation. --Merzul 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You state "Theoretical atheists find these arguments unconvincing".  Do you mean "Some theoretical atheists find these arguments unconvincing"? johnpseudo 22:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I see the problem now. I mean "some atheists" and it is specifically those that base their disbelief on logical and evidential arguments, so it might be the case that these things fit better in that section. When it comes to evidential arguments, you evaluate the sum of the evidence by weighing for example evil vs. love, and so on. However, if a person just believes God-talk is meaningless, then he probably doesn't need to bother with arguments for the existence of God. --Merzul 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Pascal's Wager isn't an argument that God exists, it's an argument that one is better off believing in God than not believing in God.  This is the problem with including "criticisms" of atheism here; they aren't really about atheism, they are about theists and their arguments, and neither the editors nor the readers are generally capable of judging their validity as criticism without a lot of further study.  There are numerous lengthy explanations of why Pascal's Wager is a foolish and fallacious argument even on its own terms of picking one's beliefs for their utilitarian value, let alone as an argument that God exists, which it simply isn't -- no serious modern philosopher, including theistic philosophers, accepts it as an argument against atheism.  The reasons why PW fails as an argument belong on the PW page, where one can find them if one has an interest in the subject (as opposed to an interest in atheism).  If these "criticisms" of atheism are appropriate to the Atheism article, then why not add every single argument -- no matter how shoddy -- ever published against belief in God to every single article about religious belief?  The "criticisms" aren't encyclopedic, they aren't descriptive of atheism, rather their presence on the Atheism page serves as theistic apologetics.  The Atheism page should not consist of, or catalog, arguments for or against the existence of God, it should describe atheism. -- Jibal 02:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The sentence about "theoretical ... atheism explicitly posits arguments ..." would make a lot more sense if it said "presents arguments" or "puts forth arguments";  "posits" is simply the wrong word.  But the language is still confused and muddy (welcome to Wikipedia).  The fact is that "theoretical, or contemplative, atheism addresses pro-theistic arguments, such as the ontological argument, the argument from design, or Pascal's Wager, with logical and theoretical counterargument".  Who is or is familiar with or convinced of the pro-theistic arguments is irrelevant to what theoretical atheism is. -- Jibal 02:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next, the theoretical addition

message: "Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a "higher absolute", such as Humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Sartre all used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness.
One of the most common criticisms of atheism has been to the contrary—that denying the existence of a just God leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation, or renders life meaningless and miserable. Blaise Pascal argued this view in 1669. It is also asserted that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis—that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there are no atheists in foxholes." Atheistic philosophers such as Joseph McCabe, Paul Kurtz, Antony Flew, and Michael Martin dispute this claim; also, atheist organizations of military personnel have been created in response."
Deathbed conversion has nothing to do with morality- it has to do with belief in an afterlife.  I see no connection with the psychological section either.  Strangely, it doesn't seem like heaven/afterlife is mentioned anywhere else in the article. johnpseudo 21:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can see the problem here. This section did flow a lot better with the idea that atheism is a state of denial, and that true belief surfaces in times of crisis, so it makes sense to keep them together. --Merzul 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, gee, that would be fine if atheism were a state of denial, but it would be extremely POV to present it as such.  That sort of language doesn't belong in an article about Atheism, unless it is confined to a section describing theistic characterizations of atheism.  But if we have such a section, then we should also add a section to every article about religion, mentioning that atheists describe religion as superstition, irrational belief for no reason, a state of denial about the finality of death, and so on. -- Jibal 02:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The end-result is the Atheism#Implicit_vs._explicit. Note that the considerable atheist response to this particular issue makes it a very significant piece of criticism. There is even an article about atheists in foxholes. --Merzul 12:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third, the axiological addition

message: This seems to be inherently POV, and doesn't really tell us anything useful.  I realize that this is cited, but can't we say something more concrete and verifiable than "greatest"? johnpseudo 18:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well of course it is POV to say that S.E. was one of the greatest Roman philosophers.  And also this article is not about "skeptical inquiry" but about Atheism.  In theistic societies skeptical inquiry may lead to atheism, but in atheistic societies (such as the former Soviet Union and Communist China, which in the 20th century adopted atheisic ideologies and persecuted theists on an unprecedented scale) skeptical inquiry lead to theism for many people. NBeale 20:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: actually that whole section was in very bad shape. It gave the impression that Epicurus was a pre-Socratic, referred to the views of philosophers about which there is no remotely reliable evidence, and found it necessary to say "The Greek philosopher Socrates" without mentioning the nationality of many of the others!  I was tempted to leave in that the greeks "explained the world in purely materialistic terms" to make the point of how bogus these explanations always turn out to be, but "attempted to explain" is surely more accurate. NBeale 20:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "One of the greatest Roman philosophers to affirm skeptical inquiry was Sextus Empiricus"

message: People want the very latest.  Maybe that’s a character flaw, but let’s work with people where they are.  Let’s give them what they want!  So, let’s give them a longish (maybe three-paragraph) excerpt from Richard Dawkins, another from Sam Harris, and maybe a third from some other “New Atheist.”  Instead of just summarizing what Dawkins is all about, let’s just show them and let them make up their own minds.  And then maybe people will become interested in Bertrand Russell and Robert Ingersoll, and the Greek philosophers, and so on and so forth.  And if they don’t, that’s okay, too.  
And regarding the fair use provisions of copyright law, from a longer work like a book, I believe you can quote a pretty good sized excerpt.
-----
Now, I like our section on ethics.  “Moral precepts such as "murder is wrong" are seen as divine laws, requiring a divine lawmaker and judge. However, many atheists argue that treating morality legalistically involves a false analogy, and that morality does not depend upon a lawmaker in the same way that laws do, [100] based on the Euthyphro dilemma, which either renders God unnecessary or morality arbitrary. [101]”  That’s good writing.  It explains a chain of reasoning very nicely.  I would just like to see a good section become even better and suggest that perhaps we expand it.  We might want to include by name the major ethical theories of Kantianism and utilitarianism, neither one of which requires a deity.  These are the big ones discussed in every introductory philosophy class, and they are good theories, and they also have a tension that kind of plays off between them (I hope in a creative way that adds to a skill set, for we of course care about both human rights and human welfare).   Other theories include virtue theory and social contract theory (and thusly there are obviously many forms of humanism!).
Another issue, many people seem to feel that without religion, life loses much of its meaning.  We need to address this in a forthright manner. 
And at some point, we’re going to have to battle against all the wikipedia “rules.”  I mean, it’s the biggest bunch of artificial restrictions I’ve ever seen.  For starters, if it’s good, it probably is going to be long, and that’s okay.  Bandwidth is cheap!  And then, just like I once ran across a medical book that said, “The days of a one doctor otorhinolaryngological textbook are rapidly coming to an end,” we might eventually have such a long and substantial and interesting article that each individual writer only knows the introduction and then his or her favorite section, and has to trust fellow writers regarding the other parts.  I hope we will celebrate that for the success that it would be.   FriendlyRiverOtter 08:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason to avoid long quotes is that whilst bandwidth is cheap, the attention span of our readers is not.  As an encyclopedia it behooves us to condense book-appropriate discussions into something that someone will actually read while sitting in front of a screen. SteveBaker 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: All the lovely bits about New Atheism can be found in our article about antitheism, which is essentially what the "new atheism" is all about. Interestingly, new atheism actually redirects to that article. I'm impressed! Wikipedia is sometimes so well informed. :) --Merzul 20:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like us to run in friendly competition!  It’s not like everything is all done and the main consideration is printing costs.  To the contrary, wikipedia is very much in the process of becoming.  Let’s do the best job we can right now, right here, whatever other articles are doing.   FriendlyRiverOtter 04:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We could ask User:Richard Dawkins for a quote - yes, he is a fellow Wikipedian (although not one with many contributions to his name).  Or we could ask him to contribute directly - that would be better than quoting him.  This isn't an article about him or his views - it's an article that happens to heavily overlap what he's written about.  His scholarly input would be valuable - for all of the controversy he brings, he knows an awful lot about the subject. SteveBaker 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Atheism, and can we print excerpts from Dawkins, Harris, etc?

message: The links to criticism of atheism and list of atheists, should probably feature prominently somewhere in this article. I will try one possibility, which isn't ideal, but much better than creating a see also section. --Merzul 22:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two important links 

message: Brilliant article.  And good luck with the vandals.  This article is going to be attacked like Darwin was. Orangemarlin 00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunetely thats very true. And wasn't this article featured before?--Surfaced 01:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh my god...this article's going to get hammered. I'll try to help with vandalism. Zeality 02:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All bets are, he's not listening today. 70.65.101.17 05:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 70.65.101.17 read the article and is beginning to accept atheism. :-D Brilliant article! JHMM13 08:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Congrats on FA

message: This article still requires a lot of work, and some very important threads are perhaps lost in all the discussion. If anyone feels like applying their copy-editing skills, please see the list of #Awkward_sentences identified by JohnPseudo. There are some other issues, but fixing those awkward sentences is probably the best place to start.  --Merzul 10:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help is needed, the todo-list 

message: I've been watching the troubled history of this article on and off for more than two years, and I am pleased to find it FAotd now. Well done, everyone. dab (𒁳) 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations