Talk:Agnosticism/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Atheism includes more than "belief in no gods"

To retrace ground we've been over before (but apparently is no longer on this talk page), atheism is not only the belief that no gods exist. The atheism article discusses this in some detail, and our sources cover it as well. We cannot state as much, in wikipedia's voice no less, in this article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edits which change this definition of atheism: if you disagree with the definition of atheism put forward here, please post to the talk page (right here would be good) with sources. Thank you!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I attempted a minor grammatical edit of this article to correct the implication that an Agonistic and an Atheist are the same thing in having not made a direct decision to deny the existence of God in the form of changing the text of the article from "an Atheist does not believe that God exists" to "an Atheist believes that God does not exist".

The difference here is that the term "an atheist does not believe that God exists" implies they have not made a direct decision to deny the existence of god, which is in fact the standpoint of an Atheist, not an Agnostic. (from the Wiki entery page on Atheistism: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities")

An Agnostic also "does not believe there is a god" but does not reject the existence of a god and the correct way to express the difference in their beliefs would be to make it clear that the Atheist has made a decision, whereas the Agnostic has not by stating "an atheist believes that God does not exist". This form of statement is more definitive in the English language, leaving less room for doubt to be interpreted into the sentence.

Both Atheists and Agnostics "do not believe there is a God". Only an Atheist "believes there is no God".

Only an Atheist chooses to deny the existence. The Agnostic is open to the possibility because of the lack of evidence to deny it.

No one here denies this, yet the distinction caused another user to enter into an edit war with me over this clarification and removal of ambiguity.

Said user has a history of editing primarily religious topics which should show some cause for concern over the users impartiality in this topic. 124.148.252.225 (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "grammatical" edit if the intent is to significantly change the meaning. "Rejection of belief" is not the same as "belief in the nonexistence." That's why you see three distinct definitions at Atheism. If you're brave, sift through the archives of Talk:Atheism, and you'll quickly discover why it's so important to draw these distinctions. Here are the sources we're using for the current wording: Neilsen, Edwards, Harvey, Blackburn, Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford Dictionaries, and Rowe. Also, please heed the advice in WP:PA, and keep discussion on content, not on contributors. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

was hoping for impartial comments here, not biased comments from a editor who concentrates on religious topics as the majority of his subject edits. 124.148.252.225 (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

But, to address your comments, there cannot be three different definitions of a word, this is also extremely bad grammar. the Agnostic article refers to general Atheism, not specific subcategories, so the page should address the general definition, not the specific version which puts out your personal preference. The wording of this topic implies that an Agnostic person is religious in nature, relying on their own belief, which is directly opposing to the very nature of Agnosticism.

Atheism includes more than "belief in no gods" is not the topic I am addressing with my edit, it is the fact that Agnosticism is not reliant on a belief as the article currently implies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.252.225 (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I shall withdraw from the bias of this conversation, as I see that the Wiki editors involved choose to influence people into believing there is not non-faith philosophies as an alternative to religion.

This would be why people are coming to the agreement that Wiki has no credibility left - because of full-time "volunteers" with religious agendas. Of course you would point out policy, as you are trying to hide the fact.

And in future I'd appreciate you not completely destroying my original post, moving it to wherever you feel like. that is in essence, vandalism.

124.148.252.225 (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The general definition is "the rejection of belief" or "the absence of belief". "Belief in the nonexistence" is the least general of the three. I'm sorry you feel that a word can only ever have one definition, but you are grossly mistaken. Please read any one of the multitude of sources I listed for you, or feel free to consult a dictionary. I don't see any implication in the article that an agnostic is inherently religious, or relies on any belief. You may also find Agnostic atheism interesting.   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, the definition of Atheism (be specific, stop muddying the waters here) is "the rejection of the existence of God", which is based on an Atheists belief that there is no God.

Once again, I will point out the Wiki page on Atheism defines Atheism as "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." (which is in itself rather bad grammar, you cannot reject all belief, only your own) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

124.148.252.225 (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat: "the rejection of the existence of God" and the "belief that there is no god" are different things. That's why they are listed separately in our article on Atheism, and why our sources list them both independently. You can reject belief in something (i.e. not believe it) without believing it is certainly untrue. I'd suggest you read our page on Agnosticism to find out more about that... but here we are.   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"You can reject belief in something (i.e. not believe it)"124.148.252.225 (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Are you speaking English or American Dialect? Sheesh, how can anyone take this site seriously with grammatical constructs that make little sense? I'll leave you to your religious propaganda editing, bye! 124.148.252.225 (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Types Section

I suggest the terms "Agnostic atheism," "Agnostic theism," and "Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism" should all be removed from the article unless scholarly references can be produced that suggest these are widely accepted terms within the philosophic community. One example of why these terms need scholarly references is that the current definition for "Agnostic atheism" is not philosophically rigorous. If knowledge is a subset of belief, then not believing implies not knowing, which makes the statement "do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist" nonsensical. Kylerops (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that all three should be removed.

Concerning 'Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism': I can find no Wikipedia policy that references what defines a 'type', but apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism is weak or strong agnosticism with the extra caveat that they don't care. This is irrelevant as there is no requirement in being a weak or strong agnostic that one has to care. Simply stating they don't care makes no distinction from being a weak or strong agnostic and a type listed should be something that is unique from the other types listed.

Concerning 'Agnostic atheism and theism': Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Each article should be about a single concept, whereas a dictionary is primarily about a word and its meanings. This article is clearly about the single concept that agnosticism is "the view that the truth values of certain claims...are unknown and perhaps unknowable" and is the name for the group of people "who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God." Agnostic atheism and theism clearly, rely upon a different meaning of what agnostic is, a different concept of what agnostic is. This is clearly demonstrated in the three citations for agnostic atheism, which all define a meaning, a concept for agnostic that is different than the single concept being represented in this article. WP:NAD

Not only should these be removed from 'types' but all links to them in this article should be removed as well.IIXVXII (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the extra categories as per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD & related. Wikipedia:Verifiability states "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.[2]" Given the long history of addressing agnosticism within the philosophic community, a "reliable source" in this case should be something like academic scholarship published in reputable journals/recognized philosophic encyclopedias.Kylerops (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted this change. You seem to be confused as to how verifiability works on Wikipedia; sources need not be academic to support a claim, they need only meet the criteria of our policies on WP:Reliable sources. You removed several such sources and the content they supported without citing why they failed that standard. Furthermore, I'm pretty suspicious of the fact that we have three separate contributors here at present who each have between 5-20 edits total, and all are operating (almost exclusively) across the same handful of pages on atheism/agnosticism and are all pushing the same basic views and changes. This may just an immense coincidence, but it surely meets the ducktest for SPI and if there is sockpuppetry at work here, the party engaged in it should be aware that it's the quickest route to get blocked from participating on Wikipedia. Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 08:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not confused about how verifiability works, perhaps you need to refresh your own memory of the policy:

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

The Philosophy of Religion is 2500 years old, has academics studying it at every major university, and is a topic of many peer reviewed articles in respected journals (Noûs, The Philosophical Review, The Journal of Philosophy, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Religious Studies, etc) and in trusted online encyclopedias like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. What we want to establish is that these sub-categories of agnosticism in the “Types” section are indeed categories widely discussed/acknowledged within philosophic literature and are not merely obscure terms that were casually coined or employed by those not academically trained in the field. In the list of sources:

1. Smith, George H (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God
2. Harrison, Alexander James (1894). The Ascent of Faith: or, the Grounds of Certainty in Science and Religion
3. Barker, Dan (2008). Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists
4. John Tyrrell (1996). "Commentary on the Articles of Faith"
5. B.A. Loftus. "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance: Apatheism: "Does God exist? I don't know & I don't really care""

we have no academics (nor anyone with serious formal academic training in philosophy), a very dated publication from the 19th century (appearing to have coined certain terms out of convenience), a citation of a dubious webpage, and another source from a person described elsewhere as founding “The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (UCTAA) with the creation of a single, sparse page on his personal site. At the time, the webpage included only the three Articles of Faith and a disclaimer.”

None of the sources give any reason to believe that these categories represent common and accepted terminology within the mature philosophic study of religion and therefore fail the Wikipedia Reliability policy. Since you've chosen to restore the material, the burden is upon you to show how, within the context, the above represent reliable sources WP:BURDEN. Insulting appeals to non-existent sockpuppetry show no respect for philosophical rigor and merely detract from the issue at hand. Kylerops (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not to any degree convinced that the sockpuppetry is non-existent -- point in fact, there are numerous red flags for it in this case -- nor is it any sense "disrespectful" for me to allude to concerns of such. That being said, you make a case that is nuanced enough that I feel compelled to reply to it, though I have concerns that any solutions we arrive at may be partly or entirely invalidated if the issue does go to SPI.

I'll start by stipulating that you are absolutely right about "apatheticagnostic.com" and "religioustolerance.org", as I noted in my edit summary, though erred in representing them as one site; those are wholly unacceptable sources for supporting the content they are attached to and had your edit been limited to removing them, I'd have had no objection to it. If you want to remove the refs that point those sites and add a {{cn}} tag to that section (as a first step in discussing whether it should remain at all), you'll have no opposition from me on that. The remaining sources in question, however, do represent acceptable sources under policy and cannot be discounted merely because they do not meet your personal criteria for "maturity" and academic rigor.

We do have to have a concern that these sources do not skew our representation of the topic at hand (BTW, there's a significant policy that more closely aligns with your arguments in this area that you may want to use in similar circumstances in the future: WP:WEIGHT), but there's no reason that sources must be academic in nature. Religiosity is by no means a topic which is understood or informed upon only by theologists or academics in the field of philosophy and our policies do not in any sense limit us to accepting sourcing from only those who have degrees or other credentials in specific areas. The fact that you found that one of the authors of these sources was "described elsewhere as X or Y" is a kind of WP:Original research in this instance that does not in itself invalidate a source, but this is irrelevant because the source in question is one of the two websites discussed above that fails WP:RS standards in any event.

Truth be told, I have qualms about the sourcing for "apatheism/practical atheism" not just with regard to the section on this article, but also on the main article for that topic. At the same time, we only need a source or two to represent it at all as a subject which exists; we would only need abundant sources to support it if our content were making a much more specific or qualified claim, such as that it was a major current in the discussion of agnosticism, which the articles does not say. This is where WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT would come into play, if we were making such claims. But to mention it in passing here as a perspective some have adopted requires much less sourcing to satisfy WP:V, and that bar is being met, albeit weakly, on the main page for apatheism. Mind you, I have concerns that A) the sources on Apatheism are being used in a somewhat WP:SYNTH manner, and B) at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the sources here on the topic of apatheism our useless to our purposes.

My agreement on that particular topic voiced, your removal of the other three sources does not have any policy validity to it. Those are reliable sources, entirely suited to use on this project for verifying claims, whether their authors are tenured professors or not. Having looked through Barker, Harrison and Smith, though, I think there is an argument to be made that the are presently used in a WP:SYNTH manner; they do directly support the statements being made, but they do not support the claim that these observations are equatable to separate branches of agnosticism. Bearing this in mind, I would recommend the middle-ground solution of removing them as entries in the "Types" section and instead moving them into the prose elsewhere in the "Defining Agnosticism" issue. This would address the weight concerns, leave only the two divisions discussed much more broadly in literature on the subject in the "Types" secion, and retain the three viable sources (and the statements they support) which are wholly admissible here. The wording would have to be reworked some, of course.

For the record, I actually hope you aren't socking here, since, although you are clearly still getting to know our policies, you seem very adept for a new editor at parsing their meaning, and I think with experience you could be a real asset to the project -- and at this time it's increasingly important to retain useful contributors. I raise the issue of sockpuppetry only because I see some suggestion of it, not because I want to kneecap your arguments, which have been useful in this case in drawing attention to a real issue (even if the issue was a bit to the side of where you made your claims). It's a procedural matter, so don't take it personally if my concern is unwarranted. Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 09:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There, done. I'm sure you'll find that this is at least an improvement in the direction you wanted. As to removing the content on those three concepts altogether, there may be a WP:WEIGHT/WP:NOTABILITY argument to be made for whether each of those ideas deserves it's own article and whether we ought to be discussing them as established terms, rather than just passing on the basic distinction, but it seems we'll always have sourcing enough to at least mention the distinctions themselves. Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 09:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a 'sock puppet'. I'm a condensed matter physicist that over the years, has felt it neccessary to stand against elements in the atheist community that are trying to eradicate the traditional meaning of agnosticism. I posted my first comment July 11, 2012 in this talk page on how Rowe and Smith are clearly using different definitions of agnosticism, how this article tries to muddle it together into one, how this is deceptive and should be changed. It's taken almost three years to finally see this change happen.

I support your edit. While I suggested the atheists criticisms be part of the criticism section, upon seeing your contribution, I think it works better in the defining agnosticism section. Afterall, that is the crux of the matter, what I've been arguing for, that agnostics and elements of the atheist community have different definitions for agnosticism. The only change in your edit that I would like to see is your choice of the word, 'refined' in the sentence, "Others have refined this concept..." as refined implies an improvement. I think it would be better for neutrality and the reader to simply state how 'others' have defined agnosticism. Perhaps, "Others have defined agnosticism to simply mean, without knowledge, to distinguish between agnostic atheism...". IIXVXII (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So when you "stand against" people you think are trying to "eradicate the traditional meaning of agnosticism", what do you mean by that? Are you standing against it broadening from 'I can't know' to 'I don't know'? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"Theism/atheism has to do with belief, gnosticism/agnosticism has to do with knowledge. If you think you know whether or not a god exists, you're gnostic; if you don't know, you're agnostic. And you either have a belief in deities (theism), or you don't (atheism)." -Robin Lionheart

Where is the traditional meaning of agnosticism in your statement or have you eradicated it? If you want to debate my motives for being in this article, then we will also debate yours, atheist.IIXVXII (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

When I explained "agnostic"'s broad 'don't know' meaning, I didn't destroy its narrow 'can't know' meaning. Nor was I trying to. Words can have multiple usages. Which my full comment, that you're quoting from, explicitly acknowledged. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The logical consequent of your disjunction is clear.

You did not say: You either have a belief in deities (theism) or you don't (atheism) or you suspend judgment (agnosticism).

"Don't know" is weak agnosticism and "can't know" is strong agnosticism. You haven't 'broadened' anything. You simply redefine the meaning.IIXVXII (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Suspending judgment means you don't have a belief, so that falls under "you don't". It's not a third option.

Indeed, I neither broadened nor redefined anything, I merely used "agnostic" correctly to mean something it has meant since before I was born. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Suspending judgment means the status of the belief is unknown. It might or might not exist. The atheist has no authority to dictate the status of someone elses belief.

Atheists, the group that fights tooth and nail for non-boolean logic, that just because they don't affirm the existence of God doesn't mean they deny the existence of God. Yet, these same atheists will come to the agnostic article and claim, if an agnostic doesn't affirm having a belief means they deny having that belief.

Agnosticism: "It's not a third option."

Hence, why your contributions to this article should be minimized. You deny the traditional, academically accepted definition of agnosticism. IIXVXII (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You write, "Suspending judgment means the status of the belief is unknown." No, because if you don't know if you have a belief, then ipso facto, you don't have it.]

To believe is to accept as true. To suspend judgment is to neither accept as true nor accept as false. Hence, to suspend judgment means you do not believe. Yet.

You seem to be incoherently contending for the inclusion of an excluded middle between believing and not believing, which suggests that you're the one having difficulty with logic here. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"If you don't know if you have a belief ... you don't have it"

Your affirmed beliefs as a person are a summary and consensus of your internal thoughts and beliefs. Cognitive science points to the fact that you may have multiple contradictory beliefs and feelings at the same time. When someone says "I don't know what I believe" it may be an expression of mixed feelings; this wouldn't appropriately be labelled as a lack of belief. The issue isn't as clear cut as an absolute "this person either does or does not believe." There are better ways to approach this labelling dilemma. Ephemerance (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I offered a rebuttal above to the atheists claim of excluded middle of which no one challenged, including you. Putting aside that choosing a belief is different than choosing a truth value, Quantum Mechanics is an example of non-Boolean logic, where excluded middle doesn't apply. If you think all logical frameworks require excluded middle, then you are the one lacking understanding of such things as Quantum Mechanics, Many-Valued logic and future contingents. Apparently, you didn't understand my point about atheists either.

p = God does exist.

~p = God does not exist.

Truth Table

p|~p

T| F

F| T

Assigning false to 'p' is logically equivalent to assigning true to ~p, due to excluded middle. Yet, atheists will argue tooth and nail that just because they assign false to 'p' doesn't mean they assign true to ~p. Atheists argue for non-Boolean logic, rejecting excluded middle and then demanding everyone else follow excluded middle. Even if you tell me that atheists don't assign false to 'p', you are still arguing for many-valued logic, rejecting excluded middle, since certainly the atheist doesn't assign true to 'p'.

"Either the thing is true or it isn't. If it is true, then you should believe it and if it isn't you shouldn't. And if you can't find out whether it's true or whether it isn't, then you should suspend judgment." - Bertrand Russell IIXVXII (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently your logic is indeed very muddled. No, atheists neither argue for non-boolean logic, nor reject excluded middle, when they suspend judgment. ¬Bp ≠ B¬p does not require non-boolean multi-valued logic. You should probably read our article on doxastic logic.

I suspect you nonsensically call quantum mechanics "an example of non-boolean logic" because you mean to liken superposition to a non-boolean truth value. OK, but suspending judgment is not analogous to a superposition of states. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

My objective with you, atheist, was to demonstrate that you are an example of an element in the atheist community that comes to this article and tries to eradicate the traditional and academically accepted definition of agnosticism. Obviously, if I thought atheism was logical, I would choose it. But of course, I don't, because I'm "incoherent, muddled, nonsensical and have difficulty with logic." I have completed my objective. IIXVXII (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:PA while you're at it. This page is for discussing article improvements, not the subject, and not the religious views of other editors.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Everyone can clearly see that I responded to Snow. Everyone can clearly see that Robin Lionheart responded to me. Everyone can clearly see that you chose to remind me of Wikipedia policies and not the person responding to me and throwing out the insults. I look forward to more comments from you about WP:NOTFORUM when atheists come here advocating for their interpretation of agnosticism. IIXVXII (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Though you may feel insulted at having your lapses of logic pointed out, it is not "throwing out the insults" to call your statements "incoherent", "muddled", or "nonsensical" where they are incoherent, muddled, or nonsensical. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Getting back to the OP, our lede splits the difference between "don't know" and "can't know" with a "don't know, and perhaps can't know" definition. Both agnostic theism and agnostic atheism are compatible with that definition, so referring to them as subtypes causes no conflict. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Agnostic theism and agnostic atheism are built upon the premise that agnosticism is not a third alternative. This article is about agnosticism as a third alternative. Please see WP:NOTFORUM about advocacy. Thanks. IIXVXII (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No, this article is about a philosophical position that actually exists, not about your illogical 'third alternative' besides believing and not believing. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is not based upon my opinion and it will not be based upon yours. Please see WP:NOTFORUM about advocacy and WP:PA while you're at it. Thanks. IIXVXII (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

At last, something we agree on! Does this mean you'll finally give it a rest already? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Missing Citation

Does someone know the citation for this quote?

"The concepts of a universe with or without a God represent intellectual tools that aid our exploration of reality; neither of these ideas are inherently wrong and both bear a useful conceptual utility." IIXVXII (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"and an atheist believes that God does not exist"

"and an atheist believes that God does not exist"

This claim is simply false. An atheist rejects theists' claims. I understand that anyone can edit this website, but how do you expect to be taken seriously if you can't even get the basic definition straight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.135.45.101 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Not only is the statement false, it's attribution to William L. Rowe is equally false.

On those grounds I have amended the sentence which asserted that William L. Rowe had claimed that an atheist "believes that God does not exist" to accurately reflect what he actually wrote, which was in fact "an atheist disbelieves in God" (my emphasis). The distinction may be small, but is crucial and should not be disregarded, as the meaning becomes quite different.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Since Rowe wrote "someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God", he apparently does mean "believes that God does not exist" by "disbelieves" there, or else that phrase would be illogical. But of course we should not misquote him. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)