Talk:Atheism/Archive 37

This is an archive of past discussions about Atheism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

So were getting dumber? I really think people are getting more & more ignorant & arrogant! (All these are the consequences of pure narcissism!) We live a society we’re narcissism is rampant,which sadly compounds to the inequality of Bigotry,this infuses the illusion of having the ability to know more about anything than what’s real or even understand! This is Truth? Humble people will listen & reason with anything that’s being discussed,FACT!! So our own arrogance also (narcissism) seems to be the actual problem with our world and society!! So yes we’re certainly getting dumber,which is formed from our own narcissistic behaviour,by displacing independence in our thinking, this then leads us too not wanting to retract from our or (US) being wrong! Even if they (WE) know it’s right! So in basic terms we’re doomed too destroy ourselves By actually ignoring the truth! But what’s more disturbing is that we can fully comprehend & understand this? So this isn’t formed from being dumb but being more distant from our human qualities!

(Our own Conscience) Dumber or more inhuman? I believe it’s the latter

Criticisms section

Isn't there some way we can integrate this into the article or at least re-name it? Criticism sections don't seem very encyclopedic. Aaron Bowen 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with this criticism section. It doesn't seem to draw too many trolls, and it's fairly balanced. Any attempt to integrate its content into the rest article would probably be clumsy. johnpseudo 17:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I object to the idea of a criticism section in general. Also the idea that integrating relevant material into the article would do anything but enhace it if done correctly is erroneous. If not, the section can be broken up and re-named to Religious response and/or Agnostic response or something like that. I think it should be noted that Global warming, another FA incidentally and perhaps the most controversial article in terms of current edit wars, doesn't even have one and neither does Evolution. Basically consensus is moving away from criticism sections because they're just not encyclopedic. Aaron Bowen 03:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaron makes a good point. There is a strong and very credible movement to integrate "Criticism" sections into the body of an article where individual points from both sides can be matched against each other (ie, point-counterpoint). While I haven't looked at what it would take to accomplish this gracefully, I support the move to integrate. Doc Tropics 03:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaron, yes there are lots of ways. This section is also being discussed above, but I would stay away from that and let it come out here with fresh views. I am in the process of figuring out exactly how to do just this (delete the section and integrate it into the body) and have a bunch of good ideas but will leave them out of this until some time has passed and others have voiced their opinions.

I don't know about points and counterpoints though. That just seems like it is more debate. I think that if it is done in that manner something would have to be done to avoid the whole problem I see with the current criticism section - that it generates a continuing counterproductive debate where people try to answer one point with another ad nauseum (point, counterpoint, countercounter point, etc). I also disagree that answering one argument with another makes something neutral. By definition each article is non-neutral in the sense that it is entirely the defense of the topic on hand. This is a good thing. I don't want continualy inane counter-arguments just for the sake of neutrality.

As I wrote above, I have ideas already on this, but first, does anyone else believe this to be a problem? If yes, what solutions would they use?

Thanks, Harley 11:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about integrating relevant points, I don't think we need to violate WP:UNDUE and bring up a counterpoint to every fact stated here, but instead need to integrate well-known (I'd rather use that term than valid) criticism or comments into the article. Aaron Bowen 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, we are talking about the same thing. I just see things a little differently. I think even a well known criticism shouldn't necessarily have a counterpoint for the sake of neutrality (which the current version does). This is in reference to the third paragraph of the criticisms. Harley 00:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How about the title "Religious response"? Aaron Bowen 02:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be an apt title. Aaron Bowen 19:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Critics of atheism (and even theists) aren't necessarily religious. Weak atheists criticize strong atheism. Criticism of atheism isn't necessarily a "response" either. It could be part of a general presentation of the pros and cons. johnpseudo 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah like I said above it might require two sections, however ciriticism by other atheists should be mentioned when the differentiation is made in the text. Aaron Bowen 23:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no distinction- they make the same criticisms. johnpseudo 01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, maybe I'm not being clear enough. When we're discussing the differences between the different forms of atheism, that's the perfect time to integrate the criticisms they have of each other into the text. Aaron Bowen 05:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any material we have to support the attribution of particular arguments to particular brands of atheism. Most of the criticisms we have originated from theistic writers, but that doesn't make them religious criticisms- they could be used by anyone. johnpseudo 16:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're in favor of the monstrously unencyclopedic criticism section? Aaron Bowen 00:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What is so "monstrously unencyclopedic" about it? It doesn't seem to violate Wikipedia policy, in that it presents both sides fairly and doesn't attract trolls. johnpseudo 00:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the current Criticisms section, it points to the main article, and summarizes the major arguments. Dionyseus 02:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue with the criticisms section is that it exists - where possible, it is preferable to integrate criticisms into the article, not sequester them in a special section. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron and Chihuahua. I was a little surprised when I started using Wikipedia to find that articles had criticism section, I could be wrong but I don't think I've ever seen one in Britannica. Marcus Taylor 01:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Merzul. And thanks for the edit summary! That was incredibly considerate of you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua has expressed opposing views very recently on this topic. I suggested deleting the whole criticism category in Atheism not long ago and she clearly wrote that I had no support for integrating it into the main body of the text. I argued quite well to integrate it at the time, showing useful evidence from the Wikipedia:Criticism, which she conveniently ignored at the time (seemingly out of stuborness).

It is nice that logic has finally prevailed. I hope noone is dumb enough to suggest this is a personal attack - this is factual information.

Marcus, I don't think it is surprising, that there are criticism sections. Everyone wants to be right, and attacking your opposition is a useful way of achieving this. Hence the huge amount of criticism sections. Really wikipedia is not and can not ever be neutral because the people writing it are not neutral. People hold their own beliefs to be true, and opposing beliefs to be wrong. The best we can do is try and stick to the topic at hand and not wander into debate. Debate should occur outside of the explanation of the term. Harlequinn 05:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay- I see that the Criticism section has been removed. Why? People keep on talking about how "unencyclopedic" it is, and how "surprised" they were to find it here. But it doesn't violate policy, and like I said earlier, until we can figure out how to gracefully integrate the criticism content into the rest of the article, the section should remain! johnpseudo 18:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The diff is here - as you can see, the bulk of the criticism has been integrated. If you feel any significant criticism was left out, adress that. But don't throw the baby out with the bath. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The current attempt at integration is a simple cut and paste job, putting information where it doesn't belong, breaking up the flow and throwing away the perfectly reasonable and logically structured section we already had. johnpseudo 18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to comment here... Feel free to revert, but it is a lot easier to discuss it when we have one admittedly clumsy version to start with. I'm not trying to impose anything on you. I'm happy to revert it myself. --Merzul 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work everybody! The article looks much better now and is improving every day. Aaron Bowen 04:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

First attempt

Most of the stuff seemed to find a home. The most difficult part of the criticism section was the rather self-evident intro. I try to incorporate this into theoretical atheism, but the prose is now very clumsy. I hope someone will fix it :) Another thing, I think I lost the link to criticism of atheism. Other than that, all the material should be somewhere. What do you guys think? --Merzul 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there is no urgent need to delete the criticism section. Unless someone can immediately suggest some graceful grammatical changes to smooth out your integration attempt, I suggest we revert. johnpseudo 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we improve the phrasing, rather than reverting. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Can we all agree that the article is worse now than it was with the Criticism section? johnpseudo 18:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I for one find it an improvement - which is not to say we cannot improve on the flow and phrasing, but I am delighted that Merzul did the initial bulk work of integration. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm too slow for this discussion, and keep getting edit-conflicts... Uhm, so I reverted myself, but was reverted :) I mean we can run with this for a while, and if it is a bad idea, I'm happy with reverting it all. I think the first question is about the placement and integration of the criticism. The grammar can be improved, but the flow and logic issues are of course more important. --Merzul 19:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Right there with you. IMO, we should try to improve the flow and phrasing. We can always revert later (like, several days later, lets give this a real chance) if consensus is that the integration is not working. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bleh- what a mess! Who exactly will be in charge of doing this revert and sorting out what edits are related to this Criticism section-removal attempt and which aren't? Can't we try to reach some basic level of integration on a talk sub-page before we change the main page? johnpseudo 19:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've created a draft area at Talk:Atheism/criticism-removal-attempt that is basically the article as-is (as of Merzul's 19:45, 30 May 2007 edit) without templates or categories. Would this work for you folks while you work out the flow and grammar? Can I revert the main article in the meantime? johnpseudo 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point, it is quite a mess, but I can go through the change log and implement any non-criticism related changes. I actually do believe now that this has improved the article. Especially, in terms of WP:NPOV, the relevant criticism is coming closer to where they belong. For example, there is now material objecting to implicit atheism, and some stuff questioning weak atheism. I do think this is more fair, and more balanced reading.

However, I'm fine with working on the sub-page, if you think this has no hope. Note, that I have tried to improve some of the flow problems, there are a few issues left, e.g. atheists in fox-holes, but please take a new look and see if you really think this has damaged the article. --Merzul 20:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad it has started. From here it can be worked on to flow into the text. Good start. I'm also glad to see other people as delighted with this as me - especially since I didn't have to do the work!!!! Harlequinn 11:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Now, I'm more or less happy with this version, so I have saved it as a link here, and you can do the revert. There are only very minor issues left. Here is an overview of what was done:

Text	Destination
The most direct criticisms of atheism are claims that a god exists and arguments for belief in the existence of God, such as Blaise Pascal's famous wager. There are various other arguments against atheism as well, usually in the form of rebuttals of atheistic rationale.	To the intro of Atheism#Theoretical_atheism. I think this makes sense, and I never really liked the idea that arguments for God's existence are "criticism" of atheism.
Prior to the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted that whether true atheism even existed was questioned. This is called theistic innatism—the notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.	Moved to the bottom of Atheism#Implicit_vs._explicit because this contrasts very nicely with implicit atheism.
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.	Moved to Atheism#Anthropocentric_arguments, where the claim that atheism makes life meaningless already figured. Perhaps this would make more sense at the "psychological arguments" section.
When the existence of atheism is accepted, critics assert the unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of God as indication that strong atheism requires a leap of faith, making it no more likely to be true than theism. Common atheist responses to this argument include that it is equivocation to conflate religious faith with all unproven propositions—that weak atheism is not a positive claim, and thus requires no more faith than not accepting the existence of Santa Claus, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster;[48] and that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[106]	Moved to the bottom of Atheism#Strong_vs._weak, because this the debate about whether atheism is a positive assertion that requires a leap of faith is very relevant to the discussion on weak vs strong atheism.

So let's discuss... --Merzul 20:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start with the implicit atheism addition

"There are multiple demarcations concerning the degree to which theism is not accepted. Minimally, atheism may be seen as the absence of belief in one or more gods. It has been contended that this broad definition includes newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God". George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child without the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist." Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.

Whether implicit atheism is a feasible position is a controversial issue. Prior to the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatism—the notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial. There is a strain of calvinist thinking according to which, we all have an intuitive sense of the divine presence, the sensus divinatis, so non-belief in the divine, according to this view, can not be implicit."

Do we have any sources that compare theistic innatism to implicit atheism? Otherwise, it could be an OR synthesis of information. At the least, the statement "Whether implicit atheism is a feasible position is a controversial issue." needs a source. Besides that, it's just hard to follow, because the implicit theism and implicit atheism are addressed separately, and none of this content seems to draw these two ideas together. And again, I'm afraid that if we did add too much new content to compare these two ideas, it would have to be OR. johnpseudo 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is quite a serious problem, but I'm fairly convinced this isn't my invention. I will try to find appropriate sources for this, but I mean:

d'Holbach: "All children are born atheists..."
Theistic innatism: "all people believe in God from birth"

It should be obvious that these views are incompatible. I will look for sources that connect these ideas, because I'm sure I've seen people criticizing implicit atheism. --Merzul 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As a quote to the opposite effect of d'Hollbach we have Cicero from (I believe) De Natura Deorum - "Nature herself has implanted in the minds of all the idea of God." This should serve as theistic innatism. It seems to readily apparent and uncontroversial that these two positions are antithetical that such an observation should count as 'original research'. --Faboba

(This is more of a digression that I feel that this section in no way adresses though it was my reason for looking it up:) I think that this granularity of atheism pulls rabbits out of a hat. Wether or not you "recognize the possibility" of a god is not really interesting unless you find that it only applies in the context of god(s). Nobody asks me to what extent I reject the notion of Santa Claus. What I mean by "(not) affirming the absence of God" without using my position on the tooth fairy as a frame of reference, is uninformative. It would even vary in the type of conversation we are having. It is "possible" that we are all caught in a Matrix, but it seldom warrants mentioning unless the conversation is dragged down a particular path. I have the distinct impression that all this form of distinction does is that it creates a strawman by projecting creating position which in conversational debate seemingly begs burden of proof. It's much more significant wether a person believes that the notion of god(s) should be treated any differently than anything else or if the person make any form of claim on the matter that drifts from the default position of any proposition/theory (which may vary from person to person). The main question is wether you have wandered away from the same position that you maintain for Rumplestiltskin or not. Why is theism not dragged through this? Shouldn't there be a similar distinction if your belief is based on:

"Consider your particular God proven".
"Consider a god proven, and your current as the most probable".
"Following a prophet or other idol."

Habalabam 06:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Next, the theoretical addition

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Is there a need to present these arguments? Do they enhance one's understanding of what atheism is? I suggest they should only be very briefly mentioned, and not in any way that is likely to attract edits that constitute a debate. As has been said, the better part of whole books take up logical and philosophical arguments for this stuff. If a article on this topic doesn't already exist, I suggest that would be the place for it, and link to it.

"Atheism explicitly posits arguments against..." A funny sentence. It doesn't make much sense since posits means to assume as fact or to base an argument on. So if it is an assumption of fact then it is a flimsy argument with no logic/philosophic/scientific base (since one is simply assuming). If it as an argument base then why mention argument? It's like saying "explicitly bases their arguments arguments against a belief in gods". So we could say "explicitly posits against belief in gods" or "has explicit arguments against belief in gods".

What is the "argument from design"? Is there an article? Re: "find them unconvincing" - I agree - source please. Harlequinn 11:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Third, the axiological addition

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Finally, the strong/weak addition

"Many atheists object to the 'weak/strong' terminology because it can convey the inference that the 'weak' position is less philosophically rigorous than the 'strong' perspective. The principle argument which distinguishes the two positions concerns whether or not it is possible to prove that something does not exist. A sizable segment of the atheistic community is critical of 'strong' atheism, seeing it as a position that is no more justified than theism, or as one that requires equal conviction.

Theist critics argue that weak atheism is an attempt to tip the burden of proof in favor of nonbelief, and assert the unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of God as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith just as much as theism. Common atheist responses to this argument include that it is equivocation to conflate religious faith with all unproven propositions—that weak atheism is not a positive claim, and thus requires no more faith than not accepting the existence of Santa Claus, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster; and that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility."

I know that you didn't add this, but I'm skeptical as to whether the statement "A sizable segment of the atheistic community is critical of 'strong' atheism" is supported by our sources. Also, the current source does not support your "Theist critics argue that weak atheism is an attempt to tip the burden of proof in favor of nonbelief" addition. That sentence is also a bit long and unwieldy. I would support combining these two paragraphs and removing any material unsupported by our references. johnpseudo 22:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a very good idea. Unfortunately, I really have to go to sleep now, so I thank you for a very fruitful discussion. We'll see what other people make of this. I'll be back tomorrow, but I'm still fine with this all being reverted, I have really enjoyed editing and discussing these issues. Thanks again, Merzul 23:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Much worse than the weasely (but true) claim that a "sizable" number of atheists (um, what "atheistic community"? There's no such entity any more than there's a "blue eyed community") is critical of 'strong' atheism, is that it's a non sequitur from the first sentence, which is simply false -- there are not "many" athests who object to the weak/strong terminology, and certainly not for the reason given. I have never heard of a weak atheist complain that the term makes them look non-rigorous. Those sophisticated enough to enter into the discussion are usually aware of the "strong/weak claim" terminology used throughout philosophy, mathematics, and science, and that it is strong claims that are harder to support and thus their acceptance is less "rigorous" -- indeed, that's the objection to strong atheism, that it makes too strong a claim to be demonstrated. Which is a far cry from saying that it is no more justified than theism -- many weak atheists believe there is no, or probably is no, God, but think it's a mistake to assert it as a fact. It is mostly theists who make the "no more justified" argument, stating that one can no more prove that God doesn't exist as prove that God does exist. Richard Dawkins, among others, responds by pointing out that he can't prove that there aren't fairies at the bottom of his garden, either, but it would be foolish to be neutral about their existence; they almost certainly don't exist, and the same can be said (strong atheists claim) about God. (There are also strong atheists who make a stronger claim than Dawkins, arguing that there necessarily isn't a God because the concept is ill defined, incoherent, self-contradictory, etc.)

This section, as well as much of the rest of the article, is OR -- it consists of naive impressions and arguments of various editors, rather than sourced discussion from the extensive literature. -- Jibal 02:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the article. I'd suggest starting with the obviously wrong stuff (see "awkward sentences") and working your way into the contentious stuff. I'd especially appreciate any attempt to narrow down your complaints of "naive impressions" and OR to specific sentences or sections so that we might continue our work/discussion. johnpseudo 02:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this part "it is equivocation to conflate religious faith with all unproven propositions" needs revision. The language is difficult (equivocation and conflate are not commonly used words), and the whole things stinks of a mini-debate.

Plus I think that religious faith is a assumption rather than a fact in this rebuttal. What if theist are referring to the meaning of faith in the context of all knowledge being a faith based. See Faith#Faith_as_the_basis_for_human_knowledge for a better explanation.

The part "not a positive claim, and thus requires no more faith than not accepting the existence of Santa Claus" is also problematic since most people start their lives fully believing in Santa Claus (or the Tooth Fairy, or Unicorns). A childs belief is based on faith that their parents are telling the truth (it sucks when they find out their parents are liars). Does it not require just as much faith to start believing in the knowledge of others over your parents?

And "that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility" sucks too. It doesn't imply anything. If this argument is trying to imply that the probabilities are not equal, then just get out there and say it. And furthermore, the probabilities of what? Of god existing or not existing? or the ability to prove god exists vs the ability to prove he doesn't exist? it is not clear at all. Can we have some maths to show the difference between the two please - otherwise it is an ubsubstantiated claim (if their is a reference, I'd like to see the maths taken from the reference - otherwise it is opinion, not mathematical fact).

My point is, this argument sucks. If it is an ambiguous and egregious, then why have it. Their is no problem in just mentioning that there are arguments for both and that they are not within the scope of the definition. Lets face it, neither of these arguments (either theist of atheist) is going to convince anyone in this context, so lets get rid of them.

Harlequinn 11:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism revisited

Having looked again at the article, and considering the comments in the discussion, I really do think we need a very brief "criticism" section which does not get into the rights/wrongs but just gives pointers and links to readers - some of whom have no idea that there are any rational criticisms (whether valid or not) of atheism. It seems to me there are essentially four:

That God in fact exists.
That atheists overclaim the strength of their arguments, and at most one can say that there is significant uncertainty about whether or not God exists.
That atheism is harmful to individuals, either in this world (on average reducing life expectancy, health, happiness and number of descendants) or the next (eg Pascal's Wager)
That atheism is generally harmful to society, leading to social breakdown and, in some notable cases, totalitarian rule with intolerance, oppression and mass murder on a scale far larger than was practiced in the name of religion.

Now I don't suggest that the article should imply that these criticisms are valid, but at present I don't think their existence is even acknowledged. NBeale 06:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

invalid criticisms are necessarily not rational. And none of the "criticisms" you offer is rational or valid. 1 and 2 are the purest possible forms of petitio principii (begging the question), and 3 and 4 are ignoratio ilenchi -- they are utterly irrelevant to the truth of the atheistic assertion. Nuclear weapons are harmful to individuals and to society, but that has no bearing on whether nuclear weapons exist or whether nuclear physics is correct. This is the same sort of argument as that the theory of evolution is false because it leads to eugenics -- say what? There are far more rational (though still incorrect) arguments against evolution than that, and the same goes for your "essential four" against atheism, which categorization is purely your own unsourced product. I think there could be some discussion of 4, not as a criticism of atheism, which it is not in any sensible way, but of the possible social consequences of atheism becoming more widespread -- even a prominent atheist like Daniel Dennett has cautioned about going slowly in this regard. However, that discussion would also have to include the fact that modern Europe, which has undergone a radical reduction of theism in the last few decades, with churches being converted in theatres and dance halls, has not suffered any of these dire consequences, and that totalitarian rule had nothing to do with atheism -- Stalinist atrocities were a consequence of Stalinism, not atheism, many citizens of communist countries remained believers, as became evident after the fall of the USSR, Hitler was a Christian, the Nazis wore "god is with us" on their belt buckles, etc. Far from being "rational criticism" of atheism, #4 as you have stated it is fallacious propaganda, and its uncritical inclusion would serve to mislead rather than inform. -- Jibal 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-06 12:46Z

Presumably for 3 and 4? And if we source these adequately would you be happy for something like this (not necessarily exact words) to go in the article - making it quite clear of course that these criticisms are not necessarily valid, but simply exist. NBeale 14:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean what are your sources for these being the primary criticisms of atheism. How is the first claim a "rational criticism", as you state? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-06 14:29Z

If they are included, then atheistic counters would have to be included too. But point #1 is essentially "atheists are wrong because my religion says that my god exists": maybe that one really is the "primary criticism of atheism", but it's hardly a rational criticism (unless someone can actually produce a deity). And the others aren't rational either, but could maybe go into a "misunderstandings" section (the supposed "harmful effects" of atheism, even if true, would not indicate that atheism is incorrect). Atheism is simply a disbelief in deities (anyone who disbelieves is an atheist, regardless of whether they self-identify as such: just as "aleprechaunists", who don't believe in leprechauns, don't generally self-identify as such): no rational argument against atheism (or aleprechaunism) is possible, short of demonstrating the existence (or likely existence, sufficient to make continued disbelief unreasonable) of a deity (or leprechaun). --Robert Stevens 16:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What I think about each point... (essentially agree with Brian and Robert)

This "criticism" is such a truism that I was annoyed every time I saw it. So, if God does exist, then atheism is wrong... Of course, but instead it is more useful to place specific criticism of atheist rationale in the suitable sections to give a more balanced reading.
What atheists over-state their arguments? Do you mean Schellenberg, Oppy, or perhaps William Rowe? Of course we all know what you are referring to, but Richard Dawkins is not the one spokesperson for all atheism.
I'm very sceptical of claims that some ideology is more conducive to happinesses. Most of them basically compare Sweden and the US, and draw wild conclusions. I don't think we should include any of these studies. This debate does fit in psychological arguments section if we must. I know Zuckerman argues that atheism makes you happy.
This is of course something we've heard a lot recently, and could be included somewhere. One option is this section, because the right philosophers are mentioned.

All in all, I think that removing the criticism section was a Good Thing, and there are good places to add criticism within the body of the article. --Merzul 22:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well to respond briefly: (1) it is simply ridiculous to suggest that there are no rational arguments for believing (or not believing) in God. The most that anyone philosophically literate can claim is that, on balance, the arguments for/against are more persuasive than the arguments against/for. (2) When Anthony Kenny and other agnostic philosophers disagree with atheism they are not referring specifically to "British Birds" Dawkins. (3) There is a lot of data on this, and it pretty well all points one way: happiness, health, longevity and number of children. Of course Atheism may be bad for the individual (evolutionarily) but true (though how, given naturalism, human minds could have evolved to hold such a belief is a big philosophical problem for atheists). But it is a perfectly rational criticism to say "we don't know whether atheism is true or not, but we have good empirical data that is it harmful." (4) Indeed. Even Dawkins notices that Stalin, Mao & co are a bit of a problem. NBeale 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There are in fact no rational arguments for believing in God -- even the Catholic church says so. OTOH, there are many rational arguments for not believing in God. Believers base their belief on faith, not rational argument. And Plantinga's naturalistic argument that supposedly is a big problem for atheists is not viewed as a problem at all by atheists because they don't make Plantinga's circular theistic assumptions. The fact is that the refutations of Plantinga's argument are a big philosophical problem for him, but he doesn't care because he's an apologist -- someone who moves from conviction to supporting argument, rather than the other -- rational -- way around. So please spare me, and spare this article, from your theistic apologetics. If you think that a criticism of, say, string theory on the basis that it would be bad for for the future of physics if it were true is a "rational" criticism, then you have no clue what it means to be rational. Your "perfectly rational criticism" is in fact a perfectly classic example of a fallacy of irrelevance. -- Jibal 03:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as FYI, in addition to criticism sections, it's not uncommon for religious positions to have whole articles on criticism, sometimes fairly extensive ones, e.g. Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Conservative Judaism, Criticism of Mormonism, etc. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and there is a criticism of atheism article, yet other Featured Article on religion like Bahai and Sikhism doesn't have a criticism sections. --Merzul 23:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Global warming, perhaps the most controversial article on here at the current moment, it's also an FA Merzul. Aaron Bowen 17:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to NBeale: #1. All of the "arguments for god" require some pretty huge leaps of faith, especially when the theist arbitrarily decrees that the thing being argued for happens to have all of the traditional attributes of his own preferred deity. #2. This seems to be the "nobody can prove that there is no god" fallacy. #3. Being an atheist in the United States is quite stressful, this is well-known. But the data doesn't point "all one way": IIRC, Christians (especially in the Bible Belt) have higher rates of divorce and marital breakdown, are more likely to spend time in prison, and so forth. And why do you include "number of children"? Yes, some fundies breed like rabbits (and may have a prohibition on contraception), but how is this a positive indicator? Most families are as big as the parents want them to be. #4. Stalin, Mao etc are "not a problem" because atheism does not purport to be a moral code. Religious "evildoers" are much more of a problem for theism. You also cannot demonstrate that atheism (per se) "leads to" these bad things. Very, very few atheists have been totalitarian dictators... --Robert Stevens 08:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The relative representation in prison of atheists vs. their total numbers is minute vs. theists. Of course, this is correlated with education and income. Atheists are generally smarter, better educated, more successful, and more ethical. -- Jibal 03:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't say these arguments are incontrovertable, simply that they exist and are not irrational. #1:Whether a "leap of faith" is "huge" depends on your POV: belief in other minds requires a "leap of faith". #2:A trusism is not a fallacy #3:It's "red states" vs "blue states" I think: the survey that purported to show divorce rates by faith group is very bad. The fact that religious belief substantially increases your evolutionary fitness is quite interesting, philosophically, since most atheists seem to suggest that evolution is the only ultimate reality about humanity. #4:The relationships between atheism, marxism and dictatorship are not accidental.

The list looks like a good candidate for List of fallacies though...--Svetovid 11:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms sections are not encyclopedic, we definitely don't need one here. I'd like to commend everyone who worked so hard to integrate the previous one. Aaron Bowen 17:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Aaron. An encyclopedia, as far as I know, is supposed to be a comprehensive introduction to a comprehensive list of introductory topics. Now, since atheism is an assertion, I think almost everybody would want assessments of the assertion represented. --JmalcolmG 17:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, "atheism" is not an "assertion," it's a description of a non-belief. Weak atheists don't "assert" anything other than their own disbelief, and implicit atheists don't "assert" anything at all. Not believing something exists is not the same as asserting that it does not exist. Still, as far as a criticisms section goes, I could take it or leave it. We already have a link to an article that discusses criticisms of atheism on the page, so it's not like Wikipedia hasn't covered the topic already. -- Hi Ev 03:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Asked to comment - need to recognise the wider world

Hi - Merzul has asked me to comment. I havent had time for a detailed review but here are what I see as the most serious problems:

Annexation of Agnosticism. It is hardly mentioned, apart from saying "The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic world-view". The fact is that everyone in the whole world who has any opinion on the matter, apart from some self-declared atheists, considers agnosticism to be a separate world view. Even Richard Dawkins does! Now I realise that the majority of the people editing this article seem to be of the "annexe agnosticism" camp and I fully accept that there are complexities and that the border is by no means well-defined. But frankly this article is so partisan in this respect as to have lost touch with reality.
Airbrushing of criticism There is almost no acknowldgement that any rational criticisms have been, or can be, levelled at Atheism: about one sentence. By contrast there is a section in the article on Christianity on "Criticism and Current Controversies" and a whole article on "Criticism of Christianity".

I'm not going to try to change anything at the moment because Merzul suggested that I might leave it to the currently active editors to respond. I await this with interest. NBeale 19:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The vast body of scholarly works, including those referenced in the article, seem to regard agnosticism as a sort of "conjoined twin" of atheism, by which I mean there are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. I'm pretty sure that no gods exist, but I have no way of being absolutely certain (who can be?). By most scholarly definitions, that makes me an agnostic atheist; however, since there is a complete lack of empirical evidence for the existence of gods, I believe that they do not exist. That puts me firmly in the atheist camp. I think your "lost touch with reality" statement is ludicrous on this basis, but not entirely unexpected considering the source.

2. To be blunt, I wasn't aware that any rational criticisms of atheism existed, or could exist. I'm not sure how a rational person could expect atheism to attract as much rational criticism as any form of theism. -- Scjessey 19:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scjessey. Your comments beautifully illustrate my point(s). No-one denies there is a relationship between Atheism and Agnosticism, but this article is written from the PoV that Agnosticism is a minor province of Atheism and that agnostics, even if they are great philosophers (like Anthony Kenny) are atheists without knowing it. Indeed someone who didn't already know that ITRW Atheism and Agnosticism are distinct would find this article, and indeed this discussion, incomprehensible. And the lack of awareness to which you refer is precisely what an enycolpedia article should address. Does anyone really think that Atheism - unlike any worldview in history - is beyond rational criticism? NBeale 05:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well let's see, I'm still thankful that NBeale's expressed his opinion. Precisely because of his bias, his view is very helpful in assuring neutrality, and hence the credibility of Wikipedia. Personally, I'm not a fan of annexing agnosticism either, I do believe blurring the distinctions is unhelpful. I don't think this is such a great tragedy, we can slowly try to find sources and give more weight to the "outside world". The key area to add such criticism is in the section about weak atheism. Second, I'm not so sure that WikiPedia's love for controversy and criticism is a Good Thing. But Scjessey is right about the lack of criticism. Normal atheists hardly get any kind of media attention at all, so for us to add any real "criticism and controversy", we would have to cover the New Atheists and Richard Dawkins in particular. I don't think we really want to bring Dawkins controversies in here, do we? --Merzul 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over individual atheists should go on the individual's page; for the same reason that criticism of individual churches goes on the church's page and not the Christianity page. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with NBeale. I have long thought that this article makes a needless fuss over "weak vs. strong atheism". Atheism proper is "strong" atheism. Yes (yes!), agnosticism and "weak atheism" are closely related, but going into this merely sidetracks the discussion. Mention it, link to weak atheism and agnosticism (this is a wiki! people can click on links and read on over there), and be done. I haven't even tried to implement my views on this, since this article has historically seen an incredible amount of obsessed bickering over this "weak atheism question" (which I agree exists, but find profoundly uninteresting to this article), apparently by atheists bent on inflating the demographics of atheism. dab (⁳) 06:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

NBeale I wouldn't compare criticism of atheism with criticism of Christianity but with criticism of Theism of which we have very little documented. Christianity is a much larger subject given it's syncresis of many earlier religious sources. It is also the origin of social and political ideology whereas atheism is sometimes added to a political system (e.g. some forms of Marxism/Leninism, though not all varieties of communism). It is pleasing that it is compared to a regular religion but this is a bias as atheists are usually excluded from inter-faith dialogue and are not considered, legally, to be a religion in most countries. Ttiotsw 07:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Though atheism and agnostic are considered in the same camp, I personally don't see why they are joined. To me the fence-dwellers are neither theist nor atheist and though I'm happy that they swell the statistics its a ghost population of little practical use any more than someone being agnostic on, say NP completeness, is useful for criticism of computer science. Just as most theists have strong doubts about all other gods other than their own personal or doctrinal god, atheists have doubts about all gods. Agnostics don't have these doubts but have doubts that they are able to have doubts; they haven't actually decided to doubt either (all - 1 = monotheists) or (all - 0 = atheists). Theists and atheists are thus variations in the answer to the same question whereas agnostics have not answered the question in the same way. Ttiotsw 07:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A brief comment from an occasional visitor to this page... I agree with NBeale on one of his points. As an ignorant Joe Soap, I expect to see some sort of brief mention of agnosticism early on in an article on atheism. Yes, it is difficult, and fraught with all sorts of definition and boundary-drawing problems, but I am surprised not to see an early reference to it, even if it is only to draw attention to the definition difficulties. It seems pretty reasonable for someone to come to this article from a starting point of not being quite sure whether it's atheism or agnosticism he/she wants to look up. A pity that the article cannot go some way towards confronting the issue, and the confusion in the public mind, if that's what it is, early on in its text. Snalwibma 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward - re annexation agnosticism

Well there seems to be something of a consensus on this point. Perhaps a good start would be to adjust the opening sentence to something like this: In common use, Atheism is the position that asserts that no god exists[1], as distinct from theism and agnosticism. The definition is sometimes extended to "rejection of theism"[2], thus including agnosticism or to "absence of belief in deities", sometimes called nontheism.[3]NBeale 04:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Rejection of theism" includes some weak agnostics, however it does not include strong ~~agnostics~~ agnosticism. Thus, to say it includes agnosticism is inaccurate. -Modocc 05:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No. As Anthony Kenny explains in his chapters "Why I am not a Theist" and "Why I am not an Atheist". An Agnostic rejects both thesim and atheism. NBeale 07:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect to strong atheism, nothing is wrong with that position. Moreover, strong atheism has nothing to do with the problem here, because you proposed the statement "...extended to "rejection of theism"[2], thus including agnosticism...". With agnosticism, many theists are weak agnostics, that hold that "god is unknown, but I believe", whereas other theists claim knowledge. Moreover, weak atheism is not a position that includes strong agnosticism, which is the claim that god is unknowable. The definition can include many strong agnostics, however that does not mean that the atheism definition includes their agnostic position or agnosticism. Therefore, the completely inaccurate clause "...thus including agnosticism..." has to go. Also, "disbelief in gods" is a commonly accepted definition and includes weak atheism. The marginalization of weak atheism, the "disbelief" definition, as well as similar definitions with your suggested lede is unnecessary and unfounded. _Modocc 16:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than trying to adjust the definition of atheism in order to specify its relationship to agnosticism (a quick route to an edit-war if ever there was one!), maybe simply add something to the effect that the relationship between the two is unclear and the subject of debate. Dodging the issue, maybe - but at least it would acknowledge the existence of something called "agnosticism" and provide a link to the relevant article. --Snalwibma 05:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC.

Hi S. The nuances of the relationships between Atheism, Agnosticism and Theism can be discussed in the article. The fundamental point, which I don't think is at all controvesial, is that in common discussion Atheism means something disctinct from Agnosticism, but that other definitions of Atheism include it. NBeale 07:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Any kind of "controversy" statement between different positions/definitions would need reliable sources. A statement such as "no consensus on usage" is more appropriate and more readily sourced, if necessary. Also, if a summary history of the atheism/agnosticism relation can be short and informative, it could be appended to the lead section(it might help flesh out what is meant by "gathering a more specific meaning" perhaps); and the summary would need to be brief, accurate and helpful. _Modocc 16:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Kenny

Perhaps, to move forward, we should look at some prominent agnostics, and see how their writing is distinct from atheism. I will start by giving my impressions of this paper by Anthony Kenny. It is a very very interesting paper, because I think he discussing a notion of devout agnosticism, a form of Christian spirituality that doesn't try to speak about God, the essay ends by saying "To leave God unnamed, then, is not equivalent to disowning him; on the contrary it is to refuse to claim an ownership which would be blasphemous." I think this form of non-theist Christianity will be more and more common, so I strongly recommend reading that article.

There is also a very nice classification by Anthony Kenny in that article:

...there is an ambiguity in saying ‘I do not believe there is a God’. Someone who says such a thing may mean ‘I believe there is no God’: the speaker is a positive atheist, someone who positively believes in the non-existence of God. Or what is meant may be something less definite: ‘I have no belief that there is a God’: such a person is only a negative atheist, someone who lacks a belief in the existence of God. A negative atheist is an a-theist or non-theist in the sense of not being a theist or believer in the existence of God. But the negative atheist is not necessarily a positive atheist: she may lack not only a belief in the existence of God, but also a belief in the non-existence of God. If the question had been ‘Is there a God?’ she would not have answered ‘yes’ and she would not have answered ‘no’; she would have answered ‘I don’t know’.

Within negative atheism there is a further crucial distinction to be made. Those who lack the belief in God may do so either because they think that the statement ‘God exists’ is meaningful but uncertain, or because they think that the sentence is not really meaningful at all. ...
Those who fail to believe in God because they think that the truth-value of ‘God exists’ is uncertain may be called agnostic negative atheists, or agnostics for short. They are people who do not know whether there is a God, but think that there is, in this area, a truth to be known. Those who think that religious language is meaningless think that the sentence ‘God exists’ does not have any truth-value, even an unknown truth-value; they think there is no truth to be known here at all. To refer to this class of negative atheists we might use the (superficially paradoxical) expression ‘positivist negative atheists’, or, more concisely ‘positivists’.

It seems to me then that Anthony Kenny also agrees that agnosticism is a form of negative atheism, so our treatment isn't that far off, but agnosticism clearly rejects "positive atheism", so this might have to be made more clear. Is this a fair assessment? --Merzul 09:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi M. I think this is closely related to Kenny's 2005 book The Unknown God: Agnostic Essays - which I nearly bought in Heffers but decided not to - and which I think is a collection of philosophical essays. His 2006 book What I believe has (as Ch 3) "Why I am Not an Atheist" which begins: "Many different definitions may be offered of the word 'God'. Given this fact, atheism makes a much stronger claim than theism does. The atheist says that no matter what defintion you choose, 'God exists' is always false. The theist only claims that there is some definition which will make 'God exists' true. In my view, neither the stronger nor the weaker claim has been convincingly established". He goes on "the true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism ... a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed." NBeale 21:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. I'm puzzled by his statement that no matter what definition is offered, the atheist would claim that 'God exists' is false. I think Kai Hansen makes an excellent point that if you take modern concepts of God in some forms of Process Theism or for example Paul Tillich notion of God, then no atheist can reasonably assert that "God exists" is false. The only atheist response is to dispute that the given definition of God is consistent with confessional prayer and so on, basically argue that what is being described is a fundamentally non-theist concept. This is why I think "rejection of theism" as the most adequate definition, because depending on the definition of theism, this rejection takes different forms:

God is an old man with a beard. That does not exist!
God is a maximally great being. Whaa?
God is Love. Is Not!

Something a bit more sophisticated than that, I hope, is a proper definition of atheism...

Still, I fully agree that agnosticism is the default position. However, I don't think Anthony Kenny disputes the classification of agnosticism as a form of weak atheism. His main concern is that it is distinct from atheism proper. Perhaps the problem with our article is that in many places we have blurred the distinction between "negative atheism" and "strong atheism". I need to think about this all. I will stand back for a while and see what other people say. Thanks for your comments, Merzul 22:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the definition of weak atheism is now slowly being mixed with that of agnosticism. As you can see on the agnostic article, weak atheism is now a subset of agnosticism. The problem obviously is that we don't really want two words having so many contexts such that they mean the same thing, or too many things. It would probably be good to look at the history of the word to make sure we can keep with the traditional meaning.

agnostic - from gnostic, which itself stems from the greek gnostos, which means to know, or known. So agnostic means: without (a) knowledge (gnostic) of god, in this context.

atheist - from greek atheos: without (a) theos (god). No god.

I don't like the crossover. Weak atheism is agnosticism without a doubt. Within the last three weeks I and multiple other people argued the exact same argument as Anthony Kenny (look in archives if interested).

I guess the problem is that cutting out weak atheism will anger a whole lot of people attached to the term. Even if you logically show them that it is agnosticism and that it belongs there, I doubt that they will listen (hey, I hope I'm wrong).

I propose making weak atheism a historical definition only and enhancing the agnostic article to show how the terms had become mixed, and having only strong atheism as the atheist articles main definition. Harlequinn 10:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we have to accept that some atheists define atheism as including weak atheism, and some indeed as including nontheism. In my view this is intellectually mistaken and although presumably done to boost the numbers (the fact that only a ~~tiny~~2.5% minority of humans are atheists in the classical sense is a real problem for at least some atheists) it means that statements like "most atheists have given no real thought to the existence of God" become true which is perhaps one reason why Dawkins doesn't use this definition at all. My basic problem with the article is not that it acknowledges "weak atheism" as a concept but that it pretends that this is the primary definition of atheism, which is not so ITRW. NBeale 20:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC) amended tiny to 2.5% NBeale 05:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is fortunate, therefore, that the article is written using the consensus system. You often refer to your personal opinion as "in the real world", although this is demonstrably not the case. Your extraordinary comment about atheists being a "tiny minority" highlights how important it is for a large body of editors to work on articles like these. It is also important to understand that the atheist world does not revolve around Richard Dawkins, whose bold attempt to bring atheism into focus risks sacrificing or alienating a large body of atheists for the cause. The article must reflect all forms of atheism, or it is not worthy of the title. -- Scjessey 22:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi S: Whether 2.5% is a "tiny" or a "small" minority doesn't really matter to my point. Some atheists seem to think that there are no rational arguments against atheism, in which case it must be deeply puzzling that religion is so persistent, with eg Christianity growing rapidly in China. I think your point about Dawkins is spot-on, and it's not just Atheists he alienates. I agree that the article should refer to the wider definitions of atheism, but at present it gives no idea which is the primary sense. The wise comment of Editorius below would be meaningless if someone's sole knowledge of Atheism came from the article. NBeale 05:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather put it this way: The article ought to mention all forms of nontheism.

Religious indifference, agnosticism, skepticism, and atheism are forms of nontheism. — Editorius 01:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"One of the greatest Roman philosophers to affirm skeptical inquiry was Sextus Empiricus"

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)

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)

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)

New Atheism, and can we print excerpts from Dawkins, Harris, etc?

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)

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)

The short attention span of readers, that is served by having a separate introduction. For the meat of the article, I really think we can allow it to go long. FriendlyRiverOtter 07:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I would love to get Richard! But you realize that it’s kind of like asking Tim Duncan if he wants to shoot a few hoops. I mean, this is what the man does for a living, good writing I mean. However, we might catch him in just the perfect mood, so sure, let’s ask him.

Now, with Richard, as good as he is, we can’t overdepend on him, or on any other leader. If you’re becoming a doctor, you just can’t read a book and try to become a minature William Osler. Or, if you’re going into politics, you can’t just try to become a minature Franklin Roosevelt. In both cases, you’ve got to trust and develop your own instincts. So, yes, Richard Dawkins is very, very good at what he does, but he is still our colleague. We can also do good things. We have to think and feel for ourselves. (I’d still love to have a excerpt or contribution from him!) FriendlyRiverOtter 07:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ethics

. . . Kantianism . . . utilitarianism . . . virtue theory . . . social contract theory . . .

So, instead of merely stating that ethics are possible without religion, let’s DEMONSTRATE this. I’d love to have a short paragraph on each of the above theories. Some may resonate with some people, others with other people. And it’s really more about repertoire than a particular theory. Yeah, we can go in a formalistic way from axioms to conclusions, but that is not our strength as human beings. We are pattern recognizers, we recognize context. A skilled and experienced doctor, social worker, or entrepreneur, or whoever, hits upon a promising idea by a sense of feel as much as anything else. It’s almost a Zen art! Another example, a professional poker player, yeah, away from the table, he or she may calculate odds, may study a hand against an estimated range of hands, and study it against another different range, all good, all helpful, but when it’s time to play, it’s overwhelmingly by sense of feel. So in time, books and articles on ethics may (I hope) evolve primarily to case studies of positive actions in difficult and/or awkward situations, with only tangential discussion of theory. FriendlyRiverOtter 07:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Finding meanings in life

This is even more important than ethics. We don’t know our neighbors, most of our jobs, frankly, suck, most of our institutions poorly serve us, at best. We are emotionally and in every other way evolved to live in small groups as hunter-gatherers. Well, there’s no going back, the fly in that ointment was occasional famine, so it was no cup of tea. So what we need to do now is to maturely advance our institutions, transparency is a good step forward, so on and so forth, greater authenticity in our jobs, etc, etc. Realistic optimism, that’s all we can do (or, optimistic realism if you want to put it that way!). In fact, this is so important that I think it worth pushing the wikipedia envelope of “no original research.” Why can’t we speculate further developments and identify it forthrightly as speculation? I tend to think we can. FriendlyRiverOtter 07:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Misquoting Dawkins

Uhm... The entire de facto atheism talk is from a section of Dawkins's book called "The poverty of agnosticism", where Dawkins is putting forth the thesis that if we are agnostic about God, we should also be agnostic about the tooth-fairy, hence he calls Huxley a "tooth-fairy agnostic". I'm fine with that being reverted, although I'm offended about the edit summary because it was not a "mis-statement" of Dawkins's position.

On the contrary, the quotation of him as almost expressing a form of apatheism is misleading. If we mention that Dawkins is uncertain about God, we should also mention that he is uncertain about the Juju on the top of the mountain, because that's the only fair reflection of his position, and that's how he always speaks. I think it is best to not mention anything more about Dawkins than the fact that he doesn't use the weak/strong distinction. --Merzul 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins doesn't have a book called The poverty of agnosticism. I Googled it and also can't find an essay by that name; perhaps it's a chapter in The God Delusion or something. But in any case, before making claims like these please get your references straight. Mikker ^(...) 09:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a section in The God Delusion, see table of contents, pages 46-54 are about the "poverty of agnosticism", the ref is in this article, so I assumed it was understood. What I should have written is: it is from a section of Dawkin's book "The God Delusion", the name of the section is "The poverty of agnosticism". Many apologies, Merzul 10:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't miswrite. Mikker just misunderstood. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-07 13:56Z

Indeed -- my bad. Mikker ^(...) 16:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find Dawkins calling Huxley a tooth-fairy agnostic. D. isn't that stupid - Huxley was a very considerable thinker and didn't call himself an Agnostic for nothing. But the main point is that Dawkins uses "Strong Atheism" in a very different sense from that of the article, and since he is (alas) by far the best-selling book on atheism at present we need to reflect this. NBeale 21:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins calls himself a tooth fairy agnostic. He says that it is true, he can't claim absolutely there is no god because he has no proof, nor can he have. Yet, he says, he can say that there is about as much chance of there being found proof of the deity as there is being found proof of the tooth fairy. And that's why Huxley was mistaken to talk about the rich position of agnosticism. Huxley never acknowledged that, surely, probability comes into play....Wik idea 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

....good argument? Dawkins polished off Huxley's soft religiosity? Well, maybe. But if there is no proof for the existence of God, one might say, then doesn't that mean that there is no factual basis on which an assessment of probability can take place? If you say that there is a fifty per cent probability that a coin will land heads, and fifty for tails, that's because you've either (a) observed which sides it tends to land on before, or (b) are looking at the coin and estimating that because it's flat and got to sides it's most likely to be one or the other equally. I thought that Dawkins had already said there's no proof of anything about God. How can he talk about probability? Didn't think of that one, did he?! Oh dear. And what's more, isn't the case that people with faith make that it is a question of, precisely that, faith? If that's so, then everything Dawkins has said in The poverty of agnosticism chapter entirely misses the point! Hope this helps. Wik idea 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of evidence for an idea doesn't prevent us of thinking about it in terms of probability--it just means we tend to assign it a very low probability. There is no evidence that i'm a very special octopus, writing this post. That doesn't prevent you from assigning a probability to this claim being true. The same applies to the question of the existence of fairies and Yahweh.--Butbutter 09:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are indeed right, my statement was unfair to Dawkins, his criticism is far more modest: "Huxley, in his concentration upon the absolute impossibility of proving or disproving God, seems to have been ignoring the shading of probability." I read the entire section more carefully now, and while Dawkins's is clearly arguing that Huxley should just as well be agnostic about teapots and tooth-fairies, it is of course unacceptable for me to state that so bluntly, when Dawkins was so careful. While I'm very much thankful that my mistake has been amended, and apologize for the tone in my rant here, everything except Dawkins being explicit about Huxley is still accurate. So, I don't think the extra sentence on Dawkins's religious alignment is needed and gives the wrong impression.

Dawkins uses strong atheism more narrowly than used here, because what he calls de facto atheism ("God almost certainly does not exist") is I think according to our distinctions also a form of strong atheism, because it is a positive assertion even if it is a probabilistic one. At least Michael Martin considers evidential arguments against God to be supporting strong atheism. But do we need to point out this difference? --Merzul 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins de facto label, initially referenced by NBeal, and the quote of what one was(which I added to clarify his reference) left out the statement that Dawkins is a de facto atheist "leaning toward" a strong atheist in the Spectrum of Theistic Probability article. I should have realized that this would be a problem. The phrase "leaning toward" is not specific, as it could mean leaning somewhat, moderately or even very heavily towards strong atheism. Perhaps the STP article needs to mention that he is uncertain in the same way that he is "uncertain about the Juju on the top of the mountain." _Modocc 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That said, its not a good indication that a label that he advocates is not completely indicative of his position. He can neither be said to be a strong or "de facto" atheist, but an unnamed position. The term "pseudostrong" atheist comes to mind as an appropriate label, in the sense that his position is "close to or deceptively similar" to strong atheism. Strong atheists normally assume fallibility and assert the nonexistence of the common conceptions, deferring to the rejection position only when naturalistic conceptions such as pantheism require it. The idea of pseudostrong atheism is similar, since it affirms the nonexistence of gods as probable, and also defers to rejection when necessary. _Modocc 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Two important links

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)

The list of atheists link is now prominent enough, but again, what to do about criticism of atheism... other than creating a criticism of atheism section ;) --Merzul 22:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism

My knowledge of Buddhism is limited, but as I understand it, of the two main branches of Buddhism -- Theravada and Mahayana -- only Theravada can really be considered atheist. Perhaps this article ought to be a little more specific about what types of Buddhism can be considered atheistic. I don't feel I know enough about the subject to make the edit, but if someone else would be so bold...

Great article by the way. Congrats on being TFA. Stebbins 00:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism is not necessarily atheist; it all comes down to how you define "atheist." The Pali canon makes frequent mention of gods, as do many other scriptures. That there are orders of intelligence "higher" than humanity is accepted (two orders, actually, asuras and devas.) The fine distiction is that these deities are irrelevant with regards to release. In fact, the Pali canon and other early scriptures describe the gods as waiting anxiously for Siddharta to attain enlightenment and begin teaching because they, too, were caught in the cycle of existence and wanted to escape.

So is Buddhism atheist? Buddhism accepts the existence of gods in both scriptures (all schools) and ceremonies (particularly in the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools), so no. However, gods are irrelevant to salvation and, in fact, worshipping them beyond basic respect is an attachment to the universe that impedes enlightenment, so yes. TechBear 13:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, all branches of Buddhism are clearly atheist. E.g. see Nagarjuna's famous proof of God's non-existence for mahayana arguments. Yidams and other Buddha aspects can not be gods or God. They lack personality and rather represent the very nature of mind. Buddha is never said to have created the universe. Though buddhas are skillful in helping all sentient beings, their power is limited by the obscurations and kleshas of the beings. A buddhist can become Buddha while a theist can never become God. Buddhas can not control what happens in course of human life (God generally can), instead a person directs his/her life independently by changing his/her karma. Buddha doesn't rule, he rather helps those who are the same as what he was many births ago to understand the nature of mind. Obviously most lamas, including Dalai Lama XIV negate God's existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.85.122.122 (talk • contribs)

When I claimed that Mahayana was not atheistic, I was referring to the fact that many branches recognize a pantheon of bodhisattvas. Although they are not technically gods, they possess supernatural powers and are the objects of meditation and reverence. Because of this, Mahayana features elements and practices in common with theistic religions. I was thinking more from a practical standpoint than a doctrinal one.

As for theists not being able to become God, I've heard that Mormonism and certain forms of Hinduism allow practitioners to achieve a state of equality with God. Stebbins 12:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Boddhisattvas are thought to appear in human form also. For example, Karmapa is believed to be a boddhisattva of the eighth bhumi. Lamas like Karmapa or Dalai Lama actually manifest some supernatural powers or so it is said. Siddhis or supernatural powers to help beings are results of meditation and the development of boddhicitta. I think there is nothing godlike about Buddhist siddhis. As for devas and asuras, yes,they are often translated as gods or deities. But these deities share the same karmic obscuration as people. Difference between us and them is not overall essential. Buddhist deities are defiled with pride or jealousy while people's main obscuration is desire. By no means deities are perfect, omnipotent or ultimately happy. There are six classes of unenlightened beings in Buddhism and only two of them can be observed, still the other four are not godlike. Note that, as I mentioned, lamas really do avoid saying "god" when describing Buddhas, boddhisattvas or Buddhahood (dharmakaya) in oral teachings. Buddhism actually prescribes everyone to do one's best to become Buddha as soon as possible. Assuming that everyone has the perfect Buddha nature, Buddhism eliminates the border between beings and buddhas, thus making term "god" unnecessary. Buddha's superiority over a particular being is temporary and actually illusory (that is, not knowing mind is being in the state of illusion). In contrast, the superiority of monotheist God (especially Creator) is absolute and essential. The prime motives for talking about God in monotheistic sense in Buddhism, as it seems to me, is either eurocentrism in religious study (people want to unify everything in well-known terms of monotheism) or unwillingness to assume atheist religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.85.121.198 (talk • contribs)

This sounds like too complicated an issue to be explained in detail in this article. I guess a good idea might be just to include a link to God in Buddhism (if there isn't one already)? Stebbins 04:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on FA

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)

Unfortunetely thats very true. And wasn't this article featured before?--Surfaced 01:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I never looked at the atheism article until seeing it on the first page. Round of applause. I am surprised, however, that George H. Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God is not included in the Further Reading section.Albie34423 02:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god...this article's going to get hammered. I'll try to help with vandalism. Zeality 02:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

All bets are, he's not listening today. 70.65.101.17 05:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yep, I add my congrats as well too all the editors that have contributed to this article since its creation and made it as good as it is today. I also am surprised that I haven't really looked closely at this Wikipedia article until now. Once again, bravo to all who contributed! Homologeo 08:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Position or belief system

The lead paragraph did say "Atheism ... is the position that ..." but this was changed to "Atheism ... is a belief system that ...". I think the second version is pov, because atheism is the absence or rejection of belief. I can't see how the word "position" is putting any point of view on the matter.-gadfium 02:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a lack of belief indeed. Anybody who calls it a belief system should start here -> Logic.--Svetovid 02:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of belief is the non-philosophical, "belief system"/state-of-mind definition. The philosophical definition is atheism as a philosophical position. johnpseudo 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't make it a belief system.--Svetovid 02:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes- neither definition defines atheism as a belief system, which is why I object to using the phrase. Though the "lack of belief" definition in fact refers to the state of someone's mind/thoughts/beliefs, and therefore might be referred to as a belief system. A non-intentional belief system I guess. johnpseudo 02:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "atheism" is used in two ways as described in the introduction to this article: Atheism is either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods or the rejection of theism. I think the first meaning of atheism is the more common, and it is certainly a belief. I'm not sure exactly what a "belief system" is, but believing that gods do not exist is very different from lacking a belief in gods. If you reject theism then you do not believe in gods. If you affirm the nonexistence of gods, then you believe that gods do not exist. Suggesting that is a lesser belief than any other is POV. -- Lilwik 02:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I find your logic convoluted and unconvincing. However, using the word "position" avoids this fruitless debate.-gadfium 03:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I did not say it in as clear and simple a way as I might have, but surely it is clear enough that I am believing in something when I believe that gods don't exist. No one is seriously suggesting that is not a belief. Right? -- Lilwik 09:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats correct, a belief is a position and there are different positions and kinds of belief. Some are "deeply held", others mild, and there are those that are tentative. The precise position, its strength or weakness is subjective and depends on the person. One need not believe in fiction, yet one can still imagine it as real. Its like the question, Is it fact or fiction? To affirm does not mean one must put much stock, faith or belief in it every time, although one can. _Modocc 09:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

However, if you had never encountered the concepts of "god," "goddess," or "gods" then you would be an implicit atheist because you would have no belief in gods. Would you classify that kind of atheism as a belief? If so you end up with an infinite number of "beliefs" regarding everything you've never heard of, which is a ridiculous way of describing things. Also, I don't suppose you've ever heard the old saying, "If 'atheism' is a belief, then 'bald' is a hair color," have you? ;-) -- HiEv 10:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Implicit atheism is not a belief, but I think it might still be called a "belief system" because a belief system could contain absense of belief as well as belief. Also, I expect that common use of the word "atheism" is refering to explicit atheism, which certainly is a belief. -- Lilwik 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Atheism is not always a belief, as you admit above, and it is never a "system." A "system" is a combination of things into a single thing, and "atheism" is simply the absence of a belief in one kind of thing: gods. You don't have a "belief system" regarding the nonexistence of flying prairie fish (something you've never heard of before) anymore than atheists have a "belief system" regarding gods. Atheism itself may be part of some people's system of (non)belief, but atheism itself is not a system. So, calling "atheism" a "belief system" is terribly misleading and inaccurate. Calling it a "position" avoids most of those pitfalls. -- HiEv 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You started well when you said that Atheism was "not always" a belief, which is true, but then you fell back on assuming that atheism = implicit atheism, which I think is an unusual assumption for most readers. Implicit atheism is a weird sort of thing that applies to babies and pet rocks. For most people "atheism" means some form of explicit atheism and that is certainly more than an absense of belief. It is alright to talk about atheism as if it were the same as implicit atheism on the talk page, but let's keep that sort of talk out of the article. -- Lilwik 21:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is that calling something a belief when it isn't always a belief is misleading. Whether people are usually thinking of explicit atheism is irrelevant when that part is defining atheism in general, which is what I'm actually talking about, not just implicit atheism. Most people think of apples as being red, but not all apples are red, so describing apples as being red is inaccurate. Furthermore, not believing in something is not the same as actually believing in something, so that's another problem with calling it a "belief." To recall another old phrase, "If 'atheism' is a belief then not collecting stamps is a hobby." Your problem seems to be that you are defining "atheism" = "explicit atheism" and that's an inaccurate oversimplification. -- HiEv 00:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Its a position, not a belief system. Even when atheism is part of some system of belief, the atheism itself isn't a system, just one belief or disbelief or lack of belief or whatever. Now, there may well be other beliefs typically found alongside atheism, like disbelief in ghosts, but you can still be an atheist if you do believe in ghosts. ThAtSo 21:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Slight clarification of def

What this discussion highlights (amongst other points) is that the old wording "the position which either..." should be "either the position which..." since these are 2 distinct positions (the 2nd includes Agnosticism, the first doesn't). I think this point is non-controversial and I've made the edit to make it clear, though I'm still not happy with the definition as a whole. NBeale 05:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see what you are saying, but as I argue below, these positions are related, so let's try to get to the bottom of this then. I wonder, if the fact that we have used "rejection of theism", while the cited source uses "rejection of belief in God", is causing some problem? The difference is that an agnostic can also reject the statement "God exists", and so they are agnostic theists, but if they also reject belief in God, then I'm not sure they differ much from an atheist. --Merzul 11:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with equating "rejection of theism" and "rejection of belief in God" is that theism comprises more beliefs than just its core belief that a unique personal god exists. Theism includes a particular set of beliefs about God's essence and behaviour.

Of course, everybody who rejects the theistic core belief in God's existence must reject theism as a whole, but it is not the case that everybody who rejects certain parts of the theistic conception of God's essence and behaviour must reject the theistic core belief in God's existence.

This means that the phrase "rejectiom of theism" is ambiguous, becasue it can mean:

(a) "rejection of theistic core belief in the existence of a personal god.

(b) "rejection of the theistic belief system as a whole"

For example, deists neither reject theism in sense (a) nor in sense (b), for they accept the theistic core belief and only partly reject the theistic belief system.

So, "I reject theism" can mean "I reject the theistic core belief", "I wholly reject the theistic belief system", or "I partly reject the theistic belief system".

Editorius 16:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Two positions (and Dawkins)

Please let's not have mindless reverts. The fact is that "affirming no god(s)" and "rejection of theism" are two distinct positions (as the Blackburn definition makes clear) So to say "A is the position which (a) or (b)" is nonsensical. Also Dawkins may (or may not) be wrong to use "strong atheism" in this way, but the fact that the most influential atheist author in the world uses the term in a completely different sense needs to be reflected, otherwise we are defining him as "wrong". Now I think he is wrong about many things, but that requires argument not just POV definition :-) NBeale 06:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Atheism is the position that either affirms or rejects" can logically mean:

1)"Atheism is the position that affirms, but not rejects",

2)"Atheism is the position that rejects, but not affirms",

3)"Atheism is the position that affirms and rejects".

Atheists typically hold each of these. One can reject one god as nonsense and simultaneously affirm that another god cannot exist.

I'm not so sure that Dawkins actually used or uses strong atheism differently, his seventh category is Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.',Spectrum of theistic probability. Its the same strong atheism we have here. He does not classify himself as such either, and only puts himself close to strong atheists and my characterization of his position as a pseudostrong atheist with respect to strong atheists is OR(original research). I don't think we are saying anything that contradicts him that would imply that he is wrong. _Modocc 07:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right on all accounts here, especially since ~~Kai Hansen~~ Kai Nielsen who is our source for "rejection of belief" ~~falls in into category 3~~ is an example of affirming non-existence of one concept while rejecting another as nonsense, the idea being that this rejection takes different forms depending on the concept of God.

Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived):

for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God;
for a nonanthropomorphic God (the God of Luther and Calvin, Aquinas, and Maimonides), he rejects belief in God because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent;
for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers, he rejects belief in God because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., 'God' is just another name for love, or 'God' is simply a symbolic term for moral ideals.

So rejection of belief for ~~Kai Hansen~~ Kai Nielsen includes the positive assertion of the non-existence of most real conceptions of God, and by real I mean those that people worship in the real world. --Merzul 09:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The man is called Kai Nielsen, not Kai Hansen!

Here's the link to Nielsen's excellent characterization:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38269/atheism

Thanks! But heavy metal and atheism is the same thing, so I wasn't that far off. :) --Merzul 14:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I've fixed it now, in case someone don't think Kai Hansen is the source of our atheism. --Merzul 14:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that Atheism(1) excludes Agnosticism and Atheism(2) includes it. Asserting that not God exists is a different philosophical position from asserting that "theism is false/insufficiently proven". Atheism(1) is a different philosphical position from Atheism(2), indeed a strict subset of Atheism(2). That is why the present wording is simply wrong. NBeale 19:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Atheism includes different positions. Given atheism(3), atheism is not simply atheism(1) or a list of definitions. _Modocc 17:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Help is needed, the todo-list

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)

Anthony Flew

Anthony Flew is now a deist. ===Vernon White (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is probably true, but he hasn't changed his view on "The presumption of atheism", that is, he still believes atheism should be defined "as absence of belief", and theism is a positive belief. It is simply the case that he has himself now found evidence for this positive belief in something. Hence, most of our usage of Flew is completely safe. The only slight inaccuracy is when was bunched together with the other atheist philosophers in foxholes... But that sentence is very inaccurate, note the source: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/society.html#foxholes. It is Lowder who cites McCabe's listing a bunch of atheists in foxholes, and some atheist philosophers who have been in the army! --Merzul 15:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed the sentence anyway. --Merzul 16:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Mr. Flew!

What was the decisive difference between the gods of theism and of deism again?

"Having made Nature, He allows it to run its own course without interference on His part. In this point the doctrine of deism differs clearly from that of theism."

(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04679b.htm)

The deistic god is the god of rationalist natural theology. He is the theistic god in retirement.

Editorius 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

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 (⁳) 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I came her to comment that large portions of the article have an obvious negative slant to them, apparently written by christians with an ax to grind. It's not over the top, tending more to being apologetic. Perhaps I've just spent too many years fighting this battle.... Hmoul 18:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Which parts of the article do you believe to be problematic? My experience is that most of the big writers of this article are atheists or agnostics. I wrote and vetted much of the current article; if you believe my non-religion has crept into the article with a religious slant in the form of Christian axe-grindery, please let me know. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-11 16:50Z

Awkward sentences

I think that these sentences could use some work to improve their grammar, or to make them more meaningful:

~~"Other arguments for atheism are philosophical, social or historical."~~
~~"With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and was sometimes used to describe oneself."~~
~~"The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th century BCE, severing relations with the gods; that is, "denying the gods, ungodly", with more active connotations than asebēs, or "impious"."~~
"The words deist and theist entered English after atheism, being first attested in 1621 and 1662, respectively, and followed by theism and deism in 1678 and 1682, respectively."
"Part of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from the similar ambiguity and controversy in defining words like deity and God."
~~"There are multiple demarcations concerning the degree to which theism is not accepted."~~
"In the agnosticism of immanence, the consciousness is considered an absolute, and all human thought is locked within the subject."- I still have no idea what this means.
~~"Absolute metaphysical atheists, arguing for materialistic monism, cite the trend toward philosophical materialism as rationale for explicitly denying the existence of God."~~
~~"Different people interpret "atheist" and related terms differently, and it can be hard to draw boundaries between atheism, non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs."~~
~~"Furthermore, atheists may not report themselves as such, to prevent suffering from social stigma, discrimination, and persecution in certain regions."~~
"However, throughout its history, atheism has commonly been equated with immorality, based on the belief that morality is directly derived from God, and thus cannot be attained without appealing to God."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpseudo (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 May 2007

I took care of number 2 (Who does number two work for?) MPS 21:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Tried to deal with number 7. See if it makes sense, and isn't just my WP:OR interpretation. --Merzul 11:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I have changed 1. to : "Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds." I think this integrates better with the surrounding text. Kiwi137 14:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's #4: Related words emerged later: deist in 1621, theist in 1662; theism in 1678; and deism in 1682. (The preceding sentences make clear when atheist first appeared, so there was no need to repeat it in this thicket of ref tags. The refs remain.) —OtherDave 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's a possible #11 -- I didn't like it enough to put it in, but I think it captures the idea:

Atheism has often been equated with immorality. Such an equation assumes if morality comes from obedience to God's law, then not believing in God implies rejection of His moral code.

— OtherDave 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah... maybe, "Atheism has often been assumed to lead to immorality. Such an assumption is drawn from the belief that objective moral codes require supernatural origins."? johnpseudo 15:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have sufficient source for this change, though. johnpseudo 15:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, "Atheism has often been assumed to lead to immorality. Such an assumption is drawn from the belief that only moral codes written by a wise god are valid." johnpseudo 15:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Worked on #3, #6, #7, #9, and #10. And someone already fixed #8. johnpseudo 14:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad line; second paragraph

The line is:

"Many self-described atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities."

The problem of course is that the lack of evidence for 'the existence of deities' is no reason not to believe in most of the supernatural. What it's meant to say (I hope!) is simply that they "share common skeptical concerns regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence." (i.e. lack of empirical evidence for the supernatural). I'm changing it. Dast 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Since most of the supernatural stuff that you're probably thinking of falls into the realm of skepticism, I disagree with your statement. The whole article is on deities (well disbelief in deities). The "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" notion is a logical fallacy in that with empirical evidence, you can make claims on how likely something is to exist. Therefor the idea is that God doesn't exist empirically because there is no evidence for God. Imasleepviking 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Dast 18:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I see now that the whole second paragraph is confused. The above line is clearly intended to show that although atheism is about deities, many atheist also share a scepticism about the supernatural (e.g. the existence of ghosts, mind reading, etc.) - that's why it says 'many' not 'all'. However, someone clearly thought 'supernatural' referred to deities and the whole paragraph works on this assumption. I have to go, but this really should be fixed soon - it's the second paragraph! Dast 18:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The current version of this sentence, "Many self-described atheists are skeptical of the existence of deities", is a ridiculous meaningless statement, given the primary definition of atheism as "belief in the nonexistence of gods". What this sentence initially communicated was that

Many atheists are "skeptical" of ALL supernatural claims, and
That they support their skepticism of the existence of deities by citing a lack of empirical evidence.

I'll try to fix it without simply reverting. johnpseudo 21:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In this context, the phrase "existence of deities" falls under the larger umbrella of "supernatural claims." So if atheists are skeptical of supernatural claims, then clearly they would be skeptical of the existence of deities as well. The dependent clause in that sentence, "citing a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities," is therefore logically consistent and should remain the way it was initially.UberCryxic 00:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Think. Dast 02:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Claims as to Skepticism being based on Humean philosophy

Reading this article briefly, I couldn't help but notice this:

"Skepticism, based on the ideas of Hume, asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know the existence of God."

This is hardly an accurate account of skepticism.. sceptics would be entirely incoherent if they maintained that the absence of certainty is universal (as this would include their advocated doctrine of scepticism).

Further, attributing the origin of skeptical thought to Hume is pretty inaccurate - skepticism can be traced back to ancient philosophy; arguably even presocratics. --131.111.228.48 18:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is very valid criticism. I wonder what to do about the sentence, but this reminded me of a certain list of self-refuting ideas. --Merzul 00:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

First sentence

The clause in the first sentence immediately following "Atheism" makes no sense to me. When my change to eliminate it was reverted, I was told to "see talk page". You'll excuse me if I don't have the time to troll 35 pages of archives for the specific sections where this was discussed.

Anyway, the sentence reads as follows: "Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism." What the heck does "defined as a philosophical view" mean in this context? The excerpt on the Main Page today doesn't include that clause, and for good reason, in my opinion (and it also puts paid to the notion that said clause has been in the article and stable for a while).

To me, the clause is saying that atheism is defined as a philosophical view, but it seems far clearer and more succinct to say "Atheism is the philosophical position that either..." "Defined as ... view" is just unnecessary verbiage, isn't it?

-- Powers ^T 19:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, and as has been repeated ad nauseum on the talk page, the reason for the distinction is that "absence of belief" is not a philosophical view. Babies who are absent belief in God are not holding a philosophical view; they're just ignorant. This ignorance is commonly a definition for "atheism", thus we include it here, but it's not a philosophical view, so we don't call it one. The reason the main page entry does not make this clarification is not a good reason (as you say), it's simply that that paragraph is outdated. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-08 19:50Z

I apologize, but I don't think the limited room offered by an edit summary was sufficient to explain the purpose. Even now, I still think the wording is confusing. It strongly implies that Atheism is solely defined as a philosophical view, because it's not at all clear that that clause is intended to limit the succeeding one. Am I making sense here? And why do we lead off with a more restrictive definition anyway? Powers ^T 14:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We used to start with the most-broad definition and narrow it down to other definitions. We decided to go with the current format because 1. The "belief that no gods exist"/"rejection" definitions are the primary definitions used in philosophy encyclopedias and most dictionaries. 2. Clarifying those definitions as "philosophical" definitions neatly distinguishes them from the "lack of belief" state-of-mind/belief system definition, because under the "lack of belief" definition, no philosophical position on the question of the existence of gods is necessary. johnpseudo 15:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What Brian said, and there is some more information here. Most people seemed happy with the "as a philosophical" view formulation, although readers shouldn't have to check the talk page to understand this distinction, so this is something to think about... --Merzul 21:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I put "defined as" back in the first sentence. It's more accurate, and it works better with the next "when defined more broadly" sentence. Also, that appears to be the prior consensus on how it should be. I don't know whether we want to add a "usually" or "often" in front of the "defined as" part. -- HiEv 00:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, "usually","often" or "commonly" in the lede is unnecessary and the relative frequency of each definition differs with different communities. _Modocc 01:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the word "when" immediately before "defined as" would solve my main concern. Powers ^T 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be too clumsy the way the sentence is now phrased. However, I think I have a solution, and will make the edit. _Modocc 15:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely clearer, but still a little awkward. I hope you don't mind, but I changed it from:

Atheism{{catcite|Atheism}} is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods^[1] or rejects theism,^[2] when defined as a philosophical view.

to:

When defined as a philosophical view, atheism{{catcite|Atheism}} is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods^[3] or rejects theism.^[4]

IMHO it seems to flow better that way, especially since the next sentence starts with, "When defined more broadly[...]" I checked and not having "atheism" as the first word is acceptable per WP:LEAD. -- HiEv 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That solves my concerns adequately. It's a little odd having a restrictive qualifier as the first clause in an article, but such is life. Powers ^T 18:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is odd to start with a restrictive qualifier, and I think it's unnecessary. The original structure, "Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position...", says the same thing as what we have now, only more succinctly. I disagree with your above concern that it "strongly implies that it is solely defined as a philosophical view", and I think the restriction of the second sentence is plain enough. One of the points we want to get across in the first sentence is that the philosophical definition is the primary definition, and I think the current structure diminishes that point. johnpseudo 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that it's not clear that "defined as a philosophical view" is restrictive rather than definitive in nature until one reaches the second sentence. That's too long to wait for clarity. Powers ^T 19:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. It's as if we're saying, Atheism is defined as a philosophical view, and it is the position that affirms...". I see the problem and can't immediately think of a good solution. johnpseudo 19:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How about "Atheism, in the philosophical sense, is the position..."? Powers ^T 20:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Or "Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position..."? johnpseudo 20:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That would work. Powers ^T 22:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's much better. Thanks to everyone who contributed to fixing this. -- HiEv 02:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not criticism section (POV)

Articles like "religion", "Christianity", "Islam" have a criticism section (I think it is useful to give a balanced view of the subject) but atheism has not such a section. Does this means that atheism cannot be criticized because it is the truth? Or does this absence of a "criticism" section is somewhat related to the fact that most writers of this article seem not to have any religious beliefs (as seen in the discussion page)? Is not this an implicit POV? 83.39.80.47 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If you would read the article, you would notice that the criticism is spread throughout the article. Criticism sections are troll magnets and are frowned upon in the Manual of Style. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-08 20:59Z

If criticism section are frowned upon in the Manual of Style, why religion, Christianity and Islam articles have one of these and atheism article has not? Isn't this a double standard? Why there is an article called "Criticism of atheism" but is not linked here? (For example, the article "Criticism of Christianity" is linked and summarized in the Christianity article).

Still, it's true there are some criticism sentence in the article. But some important criticism is not included or linked. So I think it would be useful to have a criticism section or, at least, to link Criticism of atheism in the "See also" section (that now doesn't exist).
83.39.80.47 05:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You could file a Featured Article Review to stop this atheist propaganda, it would look a bit like this. And don't forget, this article was written by "christians with an ax to grind". --Merzul 22:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What Brian and Merzul said. Also, Global warming is probably the most controversial subject on here right now, if not its pretty close, its also an FA and doesn't have a criticism section. They aren't very encyclopedic thats why you don't see them in other encyclopedias. Aaron Bowen 23:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes... We could still benefit from adding valid criticism, but I don't miss the criticism section. Out of curiosity, I just checked if God has a criticism section or not. I mean "criticism of God" would be quite blasphemous! But it didn't, so we are safe. --Merzul 23:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A quick question. How is it possible to criticise the absence of belief? Its like trying to criticise non-smokers; a group that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the posistive side. Religion is a posistive belief, while Atheism is simply the absence of that belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs) 13:23, June 10, 2007 (UTC)

You'll find that even smokers sometimes criticize non-smokers when they want that non-smoker to join their group. Still, this talk page is for discussion affecting the article, not for other topics. For some specific criticisms see the Criticism of atheism section. -- HiEv 23:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism & Atheism

I don't know how some people here seem to link atheism with Buddhism. This religion is just this, a religion. The Buddha is treated as a God. Heaven exists once you reach nirvana stage.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.251.66 (talk • contribs)

Not all religions are theistic. Anyone can become a Buddha in Buddhism. Buddha is anyone who has reached enlightenment. Deities are quite different. johnpseudo 21:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So many flaws in such a short statement. For example, being treated as a god doesn't make you one.--Svetovid 22:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Most children in rich countries today would be gods and goddesses if being treated like one made you one. --Safe-Keeper 23:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Say again? Anyway, it doesn't make you a god in the sense atheism or theism are about.--Svetovid 01:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Theism isn't about actually being a god or not being a god; it is about belief. I don't know about Buddhism, but if Buddhists treat a Buddha as a god to the extent that they actually believe that a Buddha is a god, then that is theism. A glance at the God in Buddhism article shows that this is a rather complicated issue, probably because there is no one clear definition of what makes a god. -- Lilwik 02:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

which is why atheists bear no burden of proof at all. Atheism is as simple as saying, could you please make up your mind what it is that we're supposed to believe in before asking us to justify why we don't? dab (⁳) 07:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Demographics sections doesnt make sense

"A 2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica found that the non-religious make up about 11.9% of the world's population, and atheists about 2.3%. This figure does not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhist" If we hold that "atheism" is an umbrella term with a single criteria of not believing in a deity (or several). I take this assumption from the opposite meaning of "theism". Where monotheism and polytheism both heralds under theism the way agnostism etc.. heralds under ateism. Atheism should be 11,9% if 11,9 of the world is non-religious then. 86.52.207.252 20:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC) J

It all depends how you define atheism. I'm guessing here, but as this is a survey it could be 11,9 define themselves to be nontheist, of which 2,3 define themselves to be atheist. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would delete the sentence. "This figure does not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhist" --Merzul 22:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Great Article With Low Bias Level

Just wanted to take a moment and congratulate the lot of you on this well=balanced article. It is exactly as it should be for this point in its development. It addresses all of the beliefs, rationale and motivations of atheists without being blind to its weaknesses. Of course avoiding human bias is impossible but I didn't feel any within the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.252.65 (talk • contribs)

Congratulations to all involved who contributed! One more featured article on Wiki! --Safe-Keeper 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is a hard topic to keep objective about, but you have done an outstanding job. It truly deserves its featured-article status. 71.36.14.5 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing demographics?

I question the inclusion of the following paragraph under the "Demographics" section:

According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the UK Mensa Magazine in 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."^[5] A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal God or afterlife was at an all-time low among the members of the National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal God as compared to more than 85% of the general U.S. population.^[6]

First of all, I don't think intelligence is really part of demographics. More importantly, neither of the sources here are really definitive. Mensa magazine is not a peer-reviewed journal, and a letter to the editor of Nature is not the same as an article published in Nature.

That's not to say that Paul Bell, whoever he is, and Edward Larson (who wrote the letter to Nature) don't have the right to state their points, or that all sources in Wikipedia must be from peer-reviewed sources. But these rather obscure and unreliable references don't prove anything.

There's a backup citation to the Nature letter. Greg Graffin's PhD thesis gives pretty much the same figures. Debivort 07:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing this paragraph was included as part of a POV push by an atheist seeking to "prove" that atheists are smarter than everyone else.

There's nothing wrong, of course, with inquiry into whether that is true. But if we're going to do that succintly, we're going to need iron-clad sources, not these. Otherwise, we'll by default have to rely on anecdotal "evidence," which will have to include evidence on both sides. Or we can just leave the discussion out -- the best way to go, in my opinion. -- Mwalcoff 00:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall raising this issue, but we sort of forgot about this section... :O In any case, I agree with your assessment, and have removed it. If anyone things this was too drastic, then please revert! --Merzul 00:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have reverted you Merzul. We should proceed carefully on this matter; no reason to get too bold and start removing whole paragraphs without a careful consideration of the issues at stake. My main problem with Mwalcoff's comments is that the paragraph does not state that atheists are smarter than non-atheists, those kinds of comments are virtually inadmissible in Wikipedia, but rather notes the fact that many surveys find that atheists usually receive more education than others.UberCryxic 03:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in fact the article DOES state that atheist are more intelligent than non-atheist because they state the correlation between "religiosity and intelligence". No matter that intelligence measuring is disputable. I would change the expression for "correlation between religiosity and IQ or education level". Also it would be useful to note that these are studies in a part of the world and in a time of history but the wording must be interpreted like this is an intemporal truth.83.39.80.47 06:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My issue is that Mensa magazine is not a peer-reviewed source, and we don't know who this "Paul Bell" is. Therefore, the appropriateness of this "study" is questionable. The other source is a letter to the editor -- hardly definitive. A Google search on /religion educational attainment/ finds several peer-reviewed articles available to anyone with access to university databases. Those are the types of articles that should be included. -- Mwalcoff 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Are there any college students who can help? johnpseudo 03:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nor BTW was the ~~letter~~ study published in Nature. We should indeed remove that para. NBeale 05:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC) correction NBeale 20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? I was just looking it. um?Debivort 06:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's in The God Delusion, of course. Dawkins is quoting from a study from Michael Shermer. I'll change the reference. --Old Moonraker 06:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't do it: the sentence had gone by the time I'd got round to it. Inserted a brief summary of the Shermer study instead. --Old Moonraker 07:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus to delete this section, and each time someone has tried to remove it, someone else put it back. Even if you succeed in removing it on the basis that Mensa's full of dummies so we can't trust them, I can dig out my copy of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and quote at length about this correlation. The cat's out of the bag. ThAtSo 05:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite other sources, do it. But to say that others are saying "Mensa's ful of dummies" is a strawman argument. I am reverting your revert. TK421 06:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone give me a pointer to the sort of references they need - I have access to a University on-line journals so can go looking. Which ones are the most regarded in this field? Sophia 06:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Amusingly, your claim that this is a straw-man argument is itself a straw-man argument. The reason we shoudn't remove this section is that there's no consensus, just debate. Right now, the debate is over which citation to use, not whether it belongs at all. Let's not churn the article just for fun. Until the citations are lookd up and considered, there's no excuse for deleting the section. Leave it alone! ThAtSo 06:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in two minds on the Paul Bell ref. The problems with the Paul Bell ref are that..

Paul Bell but who are you ?
The article is about "religiosity and intelligence". This article is about "Atheism" so a tenuous link which we need someone to show that this study related to "religiousity" is applicable to how many gods you believe in (the 0 , 0? ,>0 , 1 or many).
Typical Mensa mag quite fine articles but, yes not peer reviewed...

Why I'm in two minds is that Dawkins says around page, 103 in The God Delusion that,

On the subject of religion and IQ, the only meta-analysis known to me was published

by Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine in 2002 ......

Bell concluded: 'Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship

between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational

level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher

one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be

religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind.'

(I found a PDF on the Internet (Divshare) to search fast).

To me I feel that there is enough support from Dawkins to include this *if* we can agree on these points i.e. is the Dawkins support of "Paul Bell" and mention of "Mensa" enough of a "peer review" to overcome the relation between the article and this study. Dawkins re-interprets the results to make it applicable (i.e. "...hold "beliefs" of any kind..",

maybe we cite Dawkins citing the study ? (p.s. must admit I'm a Mensa member and an Atheist and last time I checked I had some straw in my clothes from cutting the grass but I'm not made of that stuff.) Ttiotsw 07:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what does it matter who Paul Bell is? Both you and Mwalcoff have brought this up, and I don't understand why. He could be Hitler's love child, but that doesn't matter one whit if his research is accurate. In the same way, he could be one of the foremost researchers in that field, but that also wouldn't matter if he cherry picked his studies. So, who Paul Bell is is totally irrelevant, what matters is his research. Making this about who Paul Bell is is a subtle form of ad hominem attack. It seems to be a fairly decent meta-study, so unless someone can provide evidence that it is biased in some way, it appears to be the most comprehensive meta-study on the topic I've heard of. Some might not like the results, but that does not necessarily mean that the results are wrong. -- HiEv 19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It does matter, because 1) the study in question was not peer-reviewed and 2) no one involved in this discussion has seen it. We have no information on the accuracy of the mysterious Bell article. -- Mwalcoff 01:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how knowing who Paul Bell is will change any of that. What would knowing who he is change? If he had a history of writing inaccurate articles that wouldn't mean that this particular article is also inaccurate, nor would a history accurate articles mean that this particular article is also accurate. What matters is the accuracy of the article, not who wrote it. -- Hi Ev 06:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what, in specific, the perceived problem is with this reference. Its mention in the Dawkins book is enough citation on its own. The fact that Dawkins is references a cited meta-study that summarizes 43 other cited studies makes this a no-brainer. ThAtSo 08:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bell study is a non-peer-reviewed publication from an unknown author in a non-scholarly source mentioned in a diatribe written by someone (Dawkins) writing outside of his field of expertise. In other words, it has about as much scientific merit as a high school term paper. Clear enough? -- Mwalcoff 08:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How is Athiesm outside Dawkins' field of expertise? That statement kind of hurts the credibility of the rest of what you are saying. Debivort 09:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins is clearly writing outside his field of expertise, unless psychology/sociology of religion is a branch of ethology. He is naturally welcome to do so, but he isn't a reliable source for the kinds of claims we are discussing here. Also, he is a bit more cautious in his use of these sources than we are, acknowledging that more research needs to be done on this issue and that the "reasonable conclusion" from this is that "religious apologists might be wise to keep quieter than they habitually do on the subject of admired role models, at least where scientists are concerned." I would say that the same applies to us atheists... ;) --Merzul 12:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Dawkins' book is an attempt to promote atheism and dismiss religion, it hardly counts as a neutral source.

I found a literature review online: "Religion and Higher Education: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" [1] by SIU-Carbondale sociology Prof. Darren E. Sharkat. It is from a Social Science Research Council forum. Sharkat writes that the research on the relationship between religiousity and educational performance is a mixed bag: Religious students tend to do better in college than non-religious students, but devout Christians are less likely to go to college, especially "prestigious" ones, in the first place.

Some quick Google searching finds the following relevant, peer-reviewed studies:

"Religion as a Determinant of Educational Attainment: An Economic Perspective" by E.L. Lehrer from a 1999 issue of Social Science Research.
"The effects of ethnicity and religion on educational attainment" by W. Sander from a 1992 issue of Economics of Education Review.
"Religiosity as a Determinant of Educational Attainment" by E.L. Lehrer from a 2004 issue of Review of Economics of the Household.
"Does Church Attendance Really Increase Schooling?" by L.D. Loury from a 2004 issue of Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
"Evidence on the Relationship between Religion and Educational Attainment" by C.W. Mueller from a 1980 issue of Sociology of Education.
"Religious Determinants of Academic Attainment in the Netherlands" by A. Dikjstra and J.L. Peschar from a 1996 issue of Comparative Education Review.

All of this research deals with educational attainment rather than "intelligence," which is hard to measure or define. -- Mwalcoff 08:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And every last bit of it is irrelevant. The issue here isn't whether religious belief (or some co-factor, such as church attendance, peer pressure or parental involvement) is correlated with better grades. We already know that, for at least some churches, it can be. (Go look up the academic track record of children raised in the UUA.)

The only issue is whether there is a significant correlation between various measures of intelligence and education as compared to various measures of religiosity. We unambiguously know that there is, and it's strongly negative. In other words, if you know nothing about a pair of people other than the fact that one is stupider or more ignorant, you can accurately predict that this person is more likely to be religious. Likewise, if you know that one is religious, you know they're more likely to be stupid or ignorant.

This correlation doesn't directly tell us the cause. In other words, it doesn't tell us whether religion encourages people to be stupid and ignorant, or religion just makes better marketing headroads among the stupid and ignorant. No matter how you slice it, though, when you put the facts in such blunt terms, feelings are going to be hurt. That's too bad, but a fact's a fact, and we can't hide them just to spare feelings. That's why, in the end, this section isn't going anywhere. ThAtSo 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that Wikipedia has an entire article devoted to this subject: Religiosity_and_intelligence. Maybe we ought to just summarize the conclusions and link there. ThAtSo 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, it's not a fact, and I have no reason to believe that atheists are any more intelligent than religious people. Until you can prove otherwise, I will continue to doubt there is any kind of link. -- Mwalcoff 04:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for your statement of faith. Unfortunately, your unsupported assertion carries no weight in the face of the evidence, so I must reject your conclusion. The truth is objective and cannot be changed by your whims, no matter how strongly you wish otherwise. Finally, it's not up to me to prove the link; there are dozens of studies that prove it for me. Any doubt you express now is itself consistent with that link. After all, any "belief system" that encourages you to reject proven facts isn't going to help you learn. ThAtSo 05:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making any assertion; you are. You are the one claiming atheists are smarter than religious people. I'm not claiming to know one way or the other. You claim there are "dozens of studies that prove it," but you haven't cited a single one. You appear to be basing your arguments on a knee-jerk rejection of religion rather than on any facts. You're allowed to think what you want, but that certainly doesn't fly in a featured article. -- Mwalcoff 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. I'm not making this stuff up, just referencing the meta-study that you are very much aware of and wish to delete all mention of. It's not my fault that there's a correlation, and it's not my responsibility to somehow personally prove what those studies already prove. This isn't about me, it's about you wanting to hide facts that you consider unpleasant, which just isn't going to happen. ThAtSo 02:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The supposed Mensa magazine study, as I mentioned above, is from an obscure, non-peer-reviewed magazine (not an academic journal), written by an unknown author and only known to anyone because it was mentioned in an anti-religious screed written by someone writing outside of his area of expertise. This is not a slam-dunk case; it's not a case at all. Now unlike you, I've been respecting Wikipedia's policies on assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks. But I'd be willing to bet anything that neither you nor anyone else defending the paragraph in question has ever seen the "study" you are defending. On the other hand, I've found several legitimate articles on the relationship between religion and educational attainment that we could use to write a proper paragraph on the subject.

Unlike Richard Dawkins' book, Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. Including a poorly sourced claim from Dawkins' book as fact violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. -- Mwalcoff 03:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We already link to that article, but what is the conclusion of that article? The closest thing to a conclusion was the end of the lead: "Some studies show an inverse relationship between intelligence and religiosity, however there are several counterexamples and criticisms of these findings." That's not quite what we are saying here... --Merzul 00:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we already link to it. Unfortunately, that article has been nerfed in the name of NPOV, so it doesn't directly state the conclusion that the evidence supports. The case is entirely overwhelming. ThAtSo 05:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, you claim this is an open-and-shut case, but you have provided no evidence to back up your assertion. -- Mwalcoff 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The meta-study's conclusion fully takes into account the three studies that did not find this correlation, so the "several counterexamples" are already dealt with. Likewise, the existence of criticism is to be expected, and is not in any way a disproof of the meta-study's conclusion. However, the article tries too hard to be neutral, so it muddles up a clear point. ThAtSo 02:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

God out of weakness

Eminent Buddhist scholar Walpola Rahula has the following to say about the Buddhist attitude toward the God concept:

Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety, and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, fear, weakness, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically. The Buddha's teaching does not support this ignorance, fear, weakness, and desire, but aims at making man enlightened by removing them and destroying them, striking at their very root. According to Buddhism, our ideas of God and Soul are false and empty. Though highly developed as theories, they are all the same extremely subtle mental projections, garbed in an intricate metaphysical and philosophical phraseology. These ideas are so deep-rooted in man, and so near and dear to him, that he does not wish to hear, nor does he want to understand, any teaching against them. The Buddha knew this quite well. In fact, he said that his teaching was 'against the current,' against man's selfish desires.^[7]

I am going to add a small blurb about this to the psychological arguments section. Rahula is certainly a RS for the Buddhist view. Arrow740 06:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:God

This article is listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:God but it's not on the page. Is it not on here for a reason? Leedeth 08:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It is big, and yet doesn't provide any AdSense revenue, so we didn't feel it was worth messing with the flow of the images. There are some very nice and discrete navigational templates at the bottom of the page though... --Merzul 13:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That template isn't very useful; it's extremely large, completely disrupts image flow, and may even be seen as POV in an article like this. Just because the template has this article in it doesn't mean this article should have the template in it. If you reworked the template as a bottom-of-the-page version, then that would be fine. People searching for this article don't want to be hit in the face with a massive list 'o' links. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-09 16:27Z

down with template bloat! {{Popes}} is particularly bad: fills half the screen, and provides no value whatsoever over a single list of popes link. Remove such abominations wherever you can. dab (⁳) 07:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Buddha" is not like "The Christ"

Does anyone agree with me that User:Coelacan's refusal to use the common name of "the Buddha" for the founder of Buddhism results in a somewhat distracting and forced presentation? It is not the same as referring to Jesus as "Christ" because most people only know of the Buddha as "the Buddha," while it is the opposite for Jesus. Arrow740 21:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't "Buddha" mean "the enlightened one"? Is it not a form of honorific? Perhaps Coelacan does not view Buddha as the or even an enlightened one. Nick Graves 02:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of sytle. Most readers have no idea who Siddhartha Gautama was. The current version makes it clear, but I would prefer referring to him the way everyone, Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike, refers to him. Arrow740 04:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Buddhists holds that Siddhartha was the first to attain enlightenment during this time cycle; all others who followed attained enlightenment through his example and teachings. As a result, long-standing tradition has him referred to as the Buddha (capitalized and with a definite article) with others as buddhas (lower case and without a definite article.) Translating from the Mahayana tradition, the Lord Buddha refers to Siddhartha; bodhisattvas and others do not receive that honorific and are, again, just buddhas. Your syntatic comparison between "the Buddha" and "the Christ" is incorrect. TechBear 13:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

hm, how did you come to the conclusion that "Most readers have no idea who Siddhartha Gautama was"? In my book, usage of "the Buddha" and "the Christ" is exactly parallel. Both are titles summarizing the respective chap's main claim to fame. Both titles are "in universe" if you like, but using them does not imply you subscribe to them, it means you are referring to the towering figure of a world religion, not just to the historical individual. If this is at all worth arguing over, you can link to Gautama Buddha just like to Jesus Christ (I have no idea why one article title does include the title, while the other redirects to just the given name. Probably misguided scepticism at the Jesus article, while nobody seems to invest much scepticism whether it is npov to say that Gautama was awake). dab (⁳) 06:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with every single sentence you wrote. Doesn't happen to me that often... :) --Merzul 13:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

alright, there is a minor difference: Buddhists assume there can be any number of Buddhas, and "the Buddha" is taken to refer to the first Buddha as a matter of convention, while Christians obviously would object to the notion of several Christs. But that doesn't change really impinge on anything I say above. dab (⁳) 13:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this too... ;) --Merzul 14:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, they are both honorifics. That is not the issue. My point is that the name "Siddhartha Gautama" is not sufficient to identify the figure most people think of as "the Buddha." Arrow740 23:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We can acknowledge Gautama's Buddha title by changing ",the founder of [[Buddhism]" to ",the founding Buddha of Buddhism". Doesn't say he is "the Buddha" and adds a link to Buddha too. _Modocc 02:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about the French revolution

I'm confused about our section on the French revolution because Robespierre was clearly a deist, but there was also a militant atheist movement at that time. Could someone perhaps check, if our section is accurate enough? And explain to me why I might be confused. Thanks, Merzul 10:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question, I tried to figure it out but couldn't. Aaron Bowen 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem. The revolution was 100% anti-clerical, but only partially atheist. dab (⁳) 14:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, he said there was also a militant atheist movement at the time. I don't think he said the entire movement was athiestic. Aaron Bowen 15:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Distinguishing the narrow and broad definitions

Given the broader definition, atheism is “the view (or philosophical view) absent theism”. In this sense, “as a philosophical view” expression is an unclear distinction, thus I would prefer the following lede:

Atheism, as a view on theism, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects belief in gods.

It is more specific and distinct (nontheists without such views on theism are excluded). It's also less cryptic. As a bonus, we get the clarity of theism stated upfront and a refinement of the rejection position. _Modocc 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC) I reverted my edit to await opinion and consensus. _Modocc 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But the primary definition of atheism is not a view on theism- it is a view on the existence of gods. Also, the broader definition is not a view at all- it is simply a state of absence-of-belief. johnpseudo 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Err, I agree with your first point; one need not have an opinion about beliefs of others, so my suggested edit is canned. The second point however is not clear, since the absence definition is inclusive of all nontheists which have views absent belief,even infantile ones, but not for rocks. "Views absent belief" are implied. Even though "Atheism, as a philosophical view (on the existence of deities), is..." isn't necessary, since the actual topic of distinction is made by the definition, it would be nice if could be made with the clause however. ;( _Modocc 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We do have to find a good way to distinguish between two things: 1. atheism as a philosophical position, ie. the rejection of theism. This might be weak/negative or strong/positive (see Edwards onwards). 2. atheism defined more broadly by writers such as Smith to include "absence". Weak/negative rejectionists might express their position in terms of "absence", but that's not entirely what Smith means. He means to include people for whom atheism is not a philosophical position, because they haven't considered or encountered theism. Philosophers would, for obvious reasons, only be interested in rejectionism (unless to make a point about the existence of nontheistic cultures), because only rejectionism is an actual stance you can take towards theism. And then of course "popular" (if that's what it is) opinion thinks of atheism as narrower than either of those approaches. --Dannyno 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that the word "atheism" came before the word "theism", could they have described it as "a view on theism" back then? How would they have described it then? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-14 13:10Z

Who is "they"? Both words were imported from French, where they could happily cross refer to their hearts' content. Maybe people in English speaking places used the French, italicised as foreign: théisme. --Dannyno 15:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What the peer-reviewed studies say

On June 10, I listed several peer-reviewed studies on the link between religion and education I found on Google and Google Scholar and encouraged someone with access to scholarly databases to see what they had to say. Since no one took up the challenge, I did it myself. Note that I had no idea what the studies would say.

Wikipedia policy WP:NOR discourages original syntheses of primary-source data, so the best thing I could find would be a good literature review. The 2004 Lehrer study includes one. It reads:

While the role of religious affiliation in educational attainment has received considerable attention in recent years, much less is known about how schooling decisions are affected by religiosity. Religiosity encompasses such dimensions as commitment to the religion, the strength of religious beliefs, and participation in religious activities individually or as part of a congregation. The few studies that have examined the linkage between religiosity and educational attainment suggest a positive association. Richard Freeman (1986) finds a positive effect of churchgoing on school attendance in a sample of inner-city black youth. Mark Regnerus (2000) finds that participation in religious activities is related to better test scores and heightened educational expectations among tenth-grade public school students. Using data on adolescents from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, Chandra Muller and Christopher Ellison (2001) report positive effects of various measures of religious involvement on the students’ locus of control (a measure of self concept), educational expectations, time spent on homework, advanced mathematics credits earned, and the probability of obtaining a high school diploma.

In explaining the positive impact of religious involvement on various measures of educational outcomes, the studies cited above note that most religions encourage healthy and constructive behaviors, and participation in religious activities can promote emotional well-being. In addition, religious communities can be a valuable source of social capital for youths. The finding that there is a positive connection between religiosity and educational attainment is part of a broader picture: several recent studies show that some involvement in religious activities is associated with positive outcomes along many dimensions of young people’s lives (see Mark Regnerus, 2003 and Linda Waite and Lehrer, 2003, for recent reviews).

Lehrer's own study, based on a 1995 survey of 974 white female conservative American Protestants at least 27 years of age found those who went to church at least once a month when they were 14 averaged one more year of educational attainment than those who were less observent as teens. Frequent services attendance was correlated with increased likelihood of graduating from high school, attending college and graduating from college.

Loury's study was based on the U.S. National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which had 12,686 respondents. It found that those who were at least weekly churchgoers as youths in 1979 (37%) wound up with 0.52 more years average educational attainment as of 1993 than those who never attended church in 1979 (19%).

The Dijkstra article is based on a survey of 1,778 Dutch students of Christian background. It found "unchurched" and "marginal" church members did worse in school than former church members and "core" church members. Those with a "Christian worldview" outperformed those without, but with a higher "salience of religion" (kids who said religion was important to their lives) scored somewhat poorer.

The Sander and Mueller studies compared the educational attainment of Americans of different religions. They also included people of "no religion," but those people were only a few percent of the respondents. Sander found those over 30 raised with no religion averaged fewer years of schooling than the overall average, except for older women, for whom the few raised without religion were somewhat better educated. There was no difference between the categories for young men or women. Muellers numbers went back and forth among the age and sex categories, but showed no major differences.

The 1999 Lehrer study compared only people different religions and not religiosity.

So the evidence I gathered, on balance, argues against the hypothesis that religious people are dumber than nonreligious people. Granted, educational attainment is not the same as intelligence. But it's far easier to quantify scientifically, since "intelligence" is famously hard to define. It also fits the category of "demographics" much better.

I'm going to replace the Dawkins paragraph with the information gathered from Lehrer and Sharkat. While their literature reviews are not meta-analyses, they are from peer-reviewed articles written by researchers in the field, and their findings are backed up by the sample of primary research I looked at. It will be a major improvement over the Dawkins paragraph. -- Mwalcoff 03:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done, but ... are you saying none of the articles provide data on the relationship between years of education/degrees -> religiosity? Only years of churching/religiosity -> educational attainment? As for replacing the text, I'm afraid it's still inappropriate, since the data you have given above is of a separate measure, and should be added as separate information, rather than as a replacement. Debivort 03:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I will revert your change because I find the analysis of 43 studies to be more impressive than the few studies you cite. Dionyseus 03:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the Bell paragraph, as well as Mwalcoff's, along with a bit of snark pruning and transition sentencing. I find this version quite acceptable. Debivort 03:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Debivort. None of the studies I looked at used educational attainment as the independent variable. However, it would be a relatively simple matter of regression analysis to reverse the methodology and look at it the other way. I suppose there's just more scholarly interest out there as to what encourages people to get degrees than the religious demography of PhDs.

I'm going to remove the Sulloway-Shermer sentence because I think we ought to stick to meta-analyses or literature reviews rather than list primary sources ourselves. If I wanted to, I could "respond" to the Sulloway-Shermer mention with a mention of one of the studies I looked up, and then someone could respond to that, and pretty soon, we'd have a laundry-list of competing studies. This is exactly what WP:NOR is intended to avoid.

I'm going to leave the Bell sentence up for now but list a request for comment about it. I simply don't consider it a reliable source, and considering the fact that the people who are defending it have never seen it, I don't find their arguments very convincing. -- Mwalcoff 04:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your refs are generally good and should be included in one form or another. As for regression, I think that wouldn't produce the result you are suggesting it would at all. Your studies map x="churchiness", f(x)=years education, Bell purports to be y=membership in academy / degree f(y)=%religiosity. We don't know x=f(y) or that y even = f(x) for that matter (maybe religious people take more time to get through school? <- mostly in jest, but it is a point that merits methodological clarification). All in all they are non substitutable. Perhaps more importantly, if most people are bailing out of school in high school or after college, the PhD measure might hit a different distribution than simply the average educational years attained, so that even if x=f(y) and y=f(x), the original trends could still hold. Debivort 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone register that I linked another peer reviewed source to the claim that NAS members (with evolutionary interests) are biased towards athiesm? Debivort 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good points. Indeed, the letter to the editor was co-written by Edward J. Larson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, which I was going to note in the article as soon as I finished with this RFC thing. -- Mwalcoff 04:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit, I think we should discuss this further before adding controversial matter into this featured article. As for the request for comment, the Religiosity and intelligence article will be relevant to the discussion. Dionyseus 04:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I can live with you reverting deletions pending further discussion, but I am not going to let slide your removal of my addition. You have made no objections to it, for one. And if my addition is at all "controversial," the paragraph you restored is far more so. We can include both or delete both pending a resolution, but we're not going to keep yours and delete mine. -- Mwalcoff 04:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC

The original RFC said "The article includes a claim from a meta-analysis by an unknown author in an obscure, non-peer-reviewed magazine that no editor claims to have seen but which is mentioned in a very biased secondary source. Should the claim in question remain in the article?" Now, thanks to me, it says, "There is a disagreement about whether a source referenced in a book by Richard Dawkins is reliable."

According to WP:RFC, there should be a "brief, neutral statement of the issue". I think it's obvious that Mwalcoff's version was blatantly biased, violating the rules of the RFC and making any comments it did generate a lot less relevant. Another problem is that people coming here from the RFC notice are going to search for "RFC" and find this section, which contains only Mwalcoff's views and none of the refutations. Arguably, a visitor would carefully search the entire talk page for relevant comments, but the reality is that most people will stop short of a thorough examination. For these reasons, I feel that this RFC has so far failed to help the article. ThAtSo 20:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome RFC readers

This dispute involves the following paragraph from the "Demographics" section:

According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the UK Mensa Magazine in 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."

The sentences come from Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion, as noted with a footnote. I and a few others objected to the sentence because we did not believe it counts as a reliable source. The reasons are:

Mensa Magazine is not a peer-reviewed source.
That would not be as much of an issue if Paul Bell was a well-known researcher in sociology or a related field. But no one knows who he is.
It is impossible to judge the reliability of the article, because no one involved in the current debate on this page claims to have actually seen it.
Even that would not be a fatal error if the study were given credence in a reliable secondary source. But an anti-religious diatribe written by someone writing outside of his field (Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, not a sociologist) hardly meets that criterion.

With no consensus to delete the paragraph, I searched Google and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed articles on the link between religion and educational attainment. I avoided "intelligence," which is hard to define and measure. I came up with several studies, which I listed above before looking at. Two of the articles included helpful literature reviews. I replaced the Bell paragraph with the following:

While some atheists, such as Dawkins, refer to themselves as "Brights," evidence on the relationship between religious belief and factors related to intelligence is mixed. Research in the United States has tended to find that religiosity in general is correlated with greater educational attainment and scholastic performance. However, the effect of religion on education can differ depending on what type of religion a student professes. Fundamentalist Christians, especially women, tend to acquire fewer years of education than others do. (footnotes omitted)

User:Dionyseus reverted my changes, saying the Bell study was more "impressive" than the ones I mentioned. User:Debivort then saved a version with both the Bell paragraph and an edited version of the one I wrote, which is where we stand now.

I will leave it to those who want to keep the paragraph to defend it. -- Mwalcoff 04:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Coming from RFC- I believe that there are probably numerous other sources which exist that contain the same information but don't come from 3rd party sources. Perhaps you should try to find those?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

According to this paragraph "Fundamentalist Christians, especially women, tend to acquire fewer years of education than others do." Why would female Fundamentalist Christians tend to acquire fewer years of education than others? Does it have something to do with the doctrines of Fundamentalist Christianity? Or is it just inaccurate? Vsst 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalist Christianity endorses social conservativism, including traditional gender roles. In other words, women are supposed to be barefoot and pregnant, not educated and employed. ThAtSo 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Mwalcoff, the reasons given by you do warrant the removal of this "Mensa Magazine" source. It is not reliable. As a psychologist, I've been searching for at least a year trying to find good sources to fix the mess in the article on Religion and intelligence. My repeated attempts to find reliable references revealed the dearth of literature on this topic (by literature I mean actually peer-reviewed scientific literature). The paper "Clark, Regan (2004). "Religiousness, Spirituality, and IQ: Are They Linked?" (PDF). University of California. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)" is almost the only example of direct research on the topic that appears on a google scholar search. Not only it doesn't find a significant correlation between IQ measurement and religiosity, it also confirms (in the text) that there are very few appropriate research studies on this subject. Also, the "Cambridge Companion to Atheism" - that devotes a whole chapter to a detailed psychological profile of Atheists (and mentions the topic of "intelligence" when discussing intellectual inclination) - refrain from claiming that there is any study about intelligence suggesting atheists are, on average, more intelligent than religious people. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 18:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Mensa source mentions dozens of studies, but you're saying none exist. Thank you so much for invoking a conspiracy theory. ThAtSo 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am claiming those studies appear to be extremely hard to find, and I just referenced at least one paper agreeing with my impression that there is little sound research on the topic. I am also claiming none of the peer-reviewed sources on the subject I could find (after considerable literature research) advances the same view reported to be in the Mensa Magazine. We have no way to verify the quality of the research discussed in this "Mensa essay" ... Were those "many" studies really peer-reviewed research papers published by reliable institutions? Was the method used to access intelligence and belief in them an appropriate method? Were their results generalizable? Or were the conclusions of each paper actually restricted to a specific population due to methodological choices? ... There is no way to really know any of that. If it was the case that the Mensa article was peer-reviewed by scientists, then the reviewers would be able correct any dubious conclusions from Paul Bell. But it is not the case. --Leinad ∴

-diz aí. 20:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Explanations for why removing the Dawkins reference would be a mistake can be found all throughout this page, so there's no point repeating ourselves. Go look. ThAtSo 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The counter arguments are weak. Certainly none of them seem to challenge the crucial point that the Mensa article it is a non-peer-reviewed essay by an obscure author. The 3rd part and notoriously biased source of the reference doesn't help either. --Leinad ∴

-diz aí. 20:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So you read the counterarguments in all eight sections that cover it? I'm talking about "Removing demographics?", "What the peer-reviewed studies say", "Put up or...", "Citing a citation", "Dubious", "Reliable Sources", "A thought on NPOV", "Yet another issue: Larson-Witham vs. Ecklund". Did you also look at the article dedicated to the subject, Religiosity_and_intelligence, and read the arguments there?

With all due respect, I seriously doubt you've done the basic research necessary to dismiss all of these counterarguments as "weak". In fact, the use of a single, vague word instead of any detailed refutation indicates that you're waving your hands at the issue instead of tackling it. Thank you for offering your opinion: I'm sure we'll give it all the weight it deserves. ThAtSo 21:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I did read the counterarguments in the other sections. BTW, I have been watching the discussions (both here and in the Religiosity_and_intelligence talk page) for a long time. Until now I completely failed to find the so-called "good reasons" to keep the reference. A good reason would be something so compelling that can allow editors to ignore the critical problem of reliability explained above. The arguments I found in the other discussions are simply not strong enough to justify it, especially because much of it is simply assuming that the study must be right... "because it makes sense". Circular reasoning also abounds: "We 'know' that the Mensa article 'must be right' because we have all these studies (provided in the same Mensa article) to prove it"...

So, what great counter arguments have I missed? Why should we ignore the very good points made by Mwalcoff? Why should we ignore the peer reviewed references I just provided? It's time for you to really engage in this debate. Until now you have been simply trying to dismiss this RFC altogether, but your refusal to provide actual counter arguments to the points being made is not very convincing. If you really believe that there is any good reason for this Mensa article to be considered anything else than yet-another-unreliable-source, please put it forward here. --Leinad ∴

-diz aí. 01:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Counterarguments:

Mensa Magazine is not a peer-reviewed source. Wikipedia:Reliable sources does not require peer-reviewed sources, it asks for "authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and Mensa Magazine seems to be a trustworthy and authoritative source on the subject of intelligence. No evidence has been presented that they do not have an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight, which is recommended and standard in most magazines.

We don't know who Paul Bell is. This is irrelevant. Even if we did know who he was that would not make the information any less true or false. Yes, it would be helpful if he were a known authority, but it is not required that he be one. It should also be noted that according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (emphasis in original) The information can be verified to exist and is notable and relevant, thus is worthy of inclusion.

It is impossible to judge the reliability of the article. It's not our duty to do that, it is only our duty to judge the reliability of the source and then report what that source says if it is reliable. As such, this argument is moot.

It's not supported by a reliable secondary source. Actually, the Dawkins citation of the Mensa meta-analysis fits the description of a reliable secondary source as well. Richard Dawkins is a scientist and an author regarded as trustworthy and authoritative on the topic of atheism and religion (among other things.) Take a look at his background before you simply dismiss him as a source.

If you think that these counterarguments are weak then please be specific in stating how they are "weak." Offhandedly dismissing them all will not advance the discussion.

I also note that, by Mwalcoff's own admission, with no consensus to delete the reference, he deleted it anyways and put something else in. That is not building a consensus or negotiating a compromise.

Furthermore, I find it odd that he said that during his Google searches that he "avoided 'intelligence,' which is hard to define and measure." However, "intelligence" was the topic being discussed, and as it is quite commonly measured with IQ tests, that seems like a poor excuse to pick some other topic as a replacement for a meta-analysis of the relationship between religiosity and intelligence.

The above, plus the biased original introduction to this RfC and other things Mwalcoff have added here, seems like an attempt to force through a contentious deletion to myself and others like Old Moonraker (see his comment in Mwalcoff's Put up or... section below.) -- Hi Ev 10:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, HiEv. Let's consider each of the points:

Mensa Magazine is not a peer-reviewed source. Of course Wikipedia:Reliable sources doesn't require peer review for everything. The policy is written for all articles, and many subjects in Wikipedia simply don't need such level of rigor. On the other hand, when discussing scientific material the clear recommendation is "Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications". The Mensa Article makes a scientific claim about a very complex topic, in this context the lack of peer review is a serious problem. Another way to put it is that publications lacking peer review are not "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative" when making scientific claims (that is precisely "the subject at hand" here).

Agree with the above - Mensa Magasine is decidedly NOT peer reviewed. It is pseudo-scholarly in nature. It is not more reliable than the blog with an intelligent author - there are no constraints save the libel laws or the scrutiny of readers to ensure verisimilitude. It is NOT a reliable source to be taken as something on par with a peer reviewed journal or a high profile magasine.--

We don't know who Paul Bell is. Mentioning Wikipedia:Reliable sources again, Paul Bell doesn't appear to be an author "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". And it is certainly relevant, especially if the source seems problematic on other criteria.

It is impossible to judge the reliability of the article. And it is a problem because, as I comment bellow, Dawkins is not a reliable source when discussing psychology. BTW, Wikipedia includes advice about how to evaluate experiments and studies which includes the recommendation that "Detail about the design and implementation of the experiment should be available, as well as raw data. Reliable studies don't just present conclusions". It seem to me that WP sees such evaluation as a worthy pursuit.

It's not supported by a reliable secondary source. Richard Dawkins is regarded as trustworthy and authoritative when discussing biology. But he is not regarded as as trustworthy and authoritative when discussing psychology or intelligence. And he is regarded by many as "un"trustworthy and amateurish when discussing religion - one may simply look at the critical reviews of The God Delusion (the precise book from which the reference was taken) to see what I am talking about. --Leinad ∴

-diz aí. 14:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Concluding my participation in this discussion, I really think the removal of the reference is warranted. That said, I also think that in the end the reference will be kept despite its obvious flaws. It is already noted in academic studies about Wikipedia that each article here tends to show a bias in favor of it's own topic. And I think this bias will be operating here too. Still, it is a pity when dubious information is spread because it favors a a particular POV. I'm not saying that the editors here are acting in bad faith, it is just that it is part of human nature to treat supposed evidence confirming what one already believes in a very particular way. Since most editors of this page on atheism believe that atheism and intelligence are correlated in a way that favors atheism, they are more prone to ignore and dismiss the problems in the source. --Leinad ∴

-diz aí. 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Counter-counter arguments

While this is getting tedious, I have to hand it to HiEv for at least trying to put forth his arguments in a reasoned manner. So here, as requested, are responsed to his counterarguments:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources does not require peer-reviewed sources, it asks for "authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and Mensa Magazine seems to be a trustworthy and authoritative source on the subject of intelligence. No evidence has been presented that they do not have an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight, which is recommended and standard in most magazines.

Have you ever seen Mensa magazine? I don't see how you or anyone else here can make any judgments about the article without ever having seen it. We have no idea if it is a straight news magazine like Time or if it is a forum for members to write on subjects of their own choosing.

We don't know who Paul Bell is. This is irrelevant. Even if we did know who he was that would not make the information any less true or false. Yes, it would be helpful if he were a known authority, but it is not required that he be one.

If the author was an expert in the field, and we had confirmation that Dawkins faithfully represented his findings, that would suffice to resolve doubts about the legitimacy of the citation. The obscurity of the author means the citation cannot be saved that way.

It should also be noted that according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (emphasis in original) The information can be verified to exist and is notable and relevant, thus is worthy of inclusion.

This is the crux of it. You are saying that because Wikipedia policy may not require the deletion of the citation, we should keep it. If this were an article on a very obscure subject, and the Bell mention was the only source available, I'd be open to keeping it (although I'd still want to actually see it). But there are thousands of sources out there on atheism, and a featured article should only use the best and most-appropriate ones.

There is no Wikipedia policy that just because something doesn't have to be removed or replaced, it should stay. If that were the case, no article would ever be improved or kept to a reasonable length.

It is impossible to judge the reliability of the article. It's not our duty to do that, it is only our duty to judge the reliability of the source and then report what that source says if it is reliable. As such, this argument is moot.

Again, this depends on what type of source Mensa magazine is and if Dawkins is faithfully representing the article. We don't know either.

It's not supported by a reliable secondary source. Actually, the Dawkins citation of the Mensa meta-analysis fits the description of a reliable secondary source as well. Richard Dawkins is a scientist and an author regarded as trustworthy and authoritative on the topic of atheism and religion (among other things.) Take a look at his background before you simply dismiss him as a source.

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you on this at all. The God Delusion is not a scientific source. It is a diatribe written by someone who happens to be a scientist in other fields. If he was recognized as "authoritative" on the subject of religion, everyone would be an atheist. Let me flip it around: if Alister McGrath (or, for that matter, Franklin Graham) said he read in an obscure source somewhere that atheists were less intelligent than religious people, would you believe it?

I also note that, by Mwalcoff's own admission, with no consensus to delete the reference, he deleted it anyways and put something else in. That is not building a consensus or negotiating a compromise.

I did not simply delete the section. As you'll see if you read the discussion above, I found several sources from legitimate researchers in the field and replaced the questionable source with the results I found, taking care not to violate WP:SYN. I didn't expect that a few people would react so negatively to my actions. The replacement was reverted, so I added what I found in a separate paragraph pending further discussion here.

Furthermore, I find it odd that he said that during his Google searches that he "avoided 'intelligence,' which is hard to define and measure." However, "intelligence" was the topic being discussed, and as it is quite commonly measured with IQ tests, that seems like a poor excuse to pick some other topic as a replacement for a meta-analysis of the relationship between religiosity and intelligence.

My very first objection was that "intelligence" is not part of "demographics," which is the topic of the section in question. At least, I have never seen intelligence included in any demographic statistics or analysis. Educational attainment is a demographic characteristic. "Intelligence" is such a hard-to-pin-down concept that sociologists rarely use it. IQ testing is rarely used nowadays except in the educational placement of mentally handicapped children.

And as we've seen, while there hasn't been a lot of recent research into the relationship between religiousity and educational attainment, there's been more research in that area than there has been in the relationship between religiousity and intelligence. So it makes more sense to look at educational attainment than it does to look at intelligence.

Mwalcoff 12:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, each and every argument you've made has been refuted repeatedly, and you've ignored each refutation. In addition, you've broken Wikipedia rules through your patently biased RFC notice, failed attempts to delete against consensus and tendentious arguing. We can therefore no longer presume that your complaint has any merit whatsoever, nor justify spending any more time on it.

This RFC is a standing joke that ended before it began because you refused to be honest and neutral. Unless you show good faith, follow the rules, and come up with arguments that haven't already been refuted, I consider this matter closed. There is no consensus to censor the Dawkins reference so I will restore any attempt you make to remove it. ThAtSo 13:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply claiming that Mwalcoff's arguments have been refuted does not actually refute his arguments. In the absence of consensus for the neutrality and verifiability of content, Wikipedia policy states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It's not a matter of "censorship". This material is simply too shaky to warrant inclusion in a featured article. I really wish we had access to the original study, but according to some of the British Mensa Wikipedians I've talked to, Mensa doesn't offer free archived copies of Mensa Magazine. Until at least one person can find this study and show how the study overcomes the biases inherent to a magazine devoted to high intelligence, we should remove it from the article. johnpseudo 16:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sulloway-Shermer sentence

You did not mention that you removed the following referenced statement as can be seen by this dif :

Also in 1998 Frank Sulloway of MIT and Michael Shermer of California State University conducted a study which found in their polling sample of "credentialed" U.S. adults (12% had Ph.Ds and 62% were college graduates) 64% believed in God, and there was a correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level.[94] Dionyseus 05:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a separate issue -- as noted above, most studies have shown a positive correlation between religion and educational attainment (albeit measured the other way around), and if I wanted to, I could now list five or six studies in the article that would argue against the Sulloway-Shermer study. But rather than start a citation war and violate both WP:NOR and WP:POINT, I removed the Sulloway-Shermer mention. Let's stick to meta-analyses and literature reviews. -- Mwalcoff 05:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't violate WP:OR or WP:POINT to cite primary literature rather than reviews or other secondary lit! As I see it, this particular point should be resolved by each side gathering as many peer reviewed primary sources, and then counting each. If it's near 50-50 then say "no consensus exists regarding blah blah blah" if there is a clear bias one way then say "sociological studies favor a trend in which blah blah blah" and if it is unanimous then say "blah blah blah." Debivort 05:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, but WP:NOR says "most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources." It also prohibits new syntheses of existing research. This bias in favor of secondary sources (which I would say applies particularly to subjects on which a lot of material exists) presumably exists at least in part avoid just the kind of citation war I fear. -- Mwalcoff 05:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't have concensus to remove it, which is why I asked you to discuss this further before making controversial changes to the article. Dionyseus 05:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, put it back pending resolution of this issue if you'd like. Just please don't remove what I've added. -- Mwalcoff 05:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, have done, thanks. --Old Moonraker 10:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet another issue: Larson-Witham vs. Ecklund

I read the Larson-Witham letter (and thanks go to User:Debivort for improving the citation information). It's clear it is not just your ordinary letter to the editor. Instead, it's an update of a study the authors published in Nature two years earlier. Larson is a well-known historian who has studied religious issues, and Witham is a journalist who has covered them. As noted, they find that religious belief (specifically, belief in a personal God and human immortality), already low among "greater" scientists 90 years ago, was even lower in 1998, based on the authors' survey of U.S. National Academy of Sciences members.

However, while Googling that study, I found an even more-notable study that both complements and, to some degree, contradicts Larson and Witham's findings. Sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 American university scientists about their views on religion. She found:

Respondents were split nearly into thirds into atheists, agnostics and believers.
About half had no religious affiliation.
But about two-thirds said they were "spiritual."
Nearly half "identified with some sort of faith tradition."
The biggest determiner of religious belief was how the respondents were raised. It's not that scientists are inherently irreligious, but rather that people raised without religion or with little religion are more likely to become scientists.

I suggest adding some of this information to the article. But lest someone accuse me of being on some kind of vendetta, I'll ask for comment here first. -- Mwalcoff 05:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't contradict anything. If 2/3 are atheists or agnostics, that's much, much more than the general population. Likewise, it confirms that science is a field that is not conducive to the religious worldview. People raised to be religious are to some extent less likely to get educated, and to a larger extent, less likely to be willing or capable of doing science. The term "spiritual" is so vague as to be meaningless, and since it has positive connotations, lots of people lay claim to it. Identifying with a faith tradition likewise has nothing to do with believing a creed. I could go on and on, but if you think this study offers a rebuttal, you haven't really understood it. ThAtSo 06:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"About two-third said they were spiritual."

Obviously, the vaguer, the more wishy-washy a term is, the more agreeable it becomes.

"Spirituality" is a verbal container that can be filled with nearly anything.

"Are you spiritual?" — "Oh yes, sometimes I'm in a funny mood ..."

Editorius 13:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

According to standardized tests, I have an excellent vocabulary. Despite this, I just don't know what "spiritual" means. Sometimes it's a euphemism for "religious", but it's also used in place of "psychological", "social" and "emotional". On top of that, people who reject organized religion but retain (their own quirky version of) religious beliefs stereotypically claim to be spiritual instead of religious. In short, it means so many things that it tells us next to nothing. We should just replace it with "smurfy". ThAtSo 16:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not out to "offer a rebuttal." I don't really care whether most scientsts are atheists or not. I just want to have an article that is worthy of the featured star. Anyway, to answer your question, here's what the article says:

And what did these respondents mean by spirituality? Analyses of the in-depth interviews reveal definitions that vary from “a vague feeling that there is something outside myself” to “a deep and compelling, other-centered worldview that directs how research and interactions with students are conducted.” Definitions of “religion” and “spirituality” are not benign constructs for this population. Among university scientists such distinctions often carry a moral weight. For example, one chemistry professor describes having “the feeling that [religion] doesn't really work in that it ends up being a mechanism by which people's thoughts and lives are controlled or meant to be controlled.” This same professor, when asked to compare religion and spirituality, says that spirituality is “more flexible and personal, and a lot less judgmental. In fact, she explains, “[W]hen I think of a spiritual person, the word ‘judgment’ doesn't even pop into my mind.” For many of those who consider themselves spiritual, spirituality means simply having a larger purpose or meaning that transcends daily concerns. For many of the natural scientists, in particular, knowledge of the spiritual comes directly from their work. For example, according to one physicist,

When I travel to observatories...and when I finally just have enough time to try to think of my place in the world and the universe and its vastness, it’s then that I feel the connection to the world more than I do, say, sitting here in my office. And so that for me, that’s the closest I can come to a spiritual experience.

This excerpt and the many others like it show that, for some scientists, rather than science replacing religion, spirituality may be replacing religion.

-- Mwalcoff 21:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Charles Peirce, still the greatest American philosopher, once said something wonderful:

"It's easy to be certain, one only has to be sufficiently vague."

One can ask millions of people whether they believed in God. But when the next question is "What exactly do you mean by 'God'?", they are virtually speechless. The very same people would laugh at the question "Do you believe that Thingamabob exists?", while being firmly convinced that you will go to hell if you negate that God exists.

It may be oh so fashionable to call oneself 'spiritual' rather than 'religious', but I suspect hardly anybody can tell what this is supposed to mean. — Editorius 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"a vague feeling that there is something outside myself"

Wow, I must be extremely spiritual, because my feeling that there is something outside myself is anything but vague ...

Anyway, I guess that in most cases "I am a spiritual person" is to be translated as "I like to bathe in my emotions and to give reason a rest". — Editorius 00:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is driving me crazy. Wikipedia is not a debating platform. I am not out to say that atheism is good or bad, and neither should you be. We should be trying to trying to tell the complete story from an objective standpoint. I mentioned this study to see if anyone has any objections to mentioning it in the article. Instead, both you and ThAtSo are trying to promote a point of view. If you have an objective reason why the Ecklund study should not be mentioned, present it. Otherwise, please take your arguments to an appropriate forum. -- Mwalcoff 01:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There were two clear objective points that were disputed: 1) You said it "contradicts Larson and Witham's findings" and ThAtSo pointed out that it didn't (and I agree with him.) 2) You listed the point about being "spiritual" and it was pointed out that the term is meaningless and not relevant to atheism. Let me just add that the study isn't relevant to atheism in particular, so it might better belong elsewhere, such as the "Genes and environment" section of the Religiosity article. -- Hi Ev 04:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't belief in things such as ghosts, souls, and other supernatural/paranormal things, whilst also not believing in any god(s), count as spirituality? Also, according to the study "It's not that scientists are inherently irreligious, but rather that people raised without religion or with little religion are more likely to become scientists." The current wikipedia article seems to imply that religious people are not as smart as irreligious people, but the study cited by Mwalcoff suggests that it is not a question of intelligence but rather of up-bringing, a more neutral, and, in my opinion, accurate viewpoint. Thus, I propose we at least rephrase the article to reflect this. Vsst 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be supernaturalism without theism. Not that it makes any more sense, but at least it's less associated with judgemental conservativism.

Yes, one interpretation is that religious people are incapable or unwilling to contribute to science. Another is that the sort of education that lets you become a scientist either requires too much intelligence and rationality to allow theism or directly gets in the way by disproving young Earth creationism and other fundamentalist religious beliefs.

The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't really matter which one you think is neutral or accurate, since neither of these are requirements for inclusion. The article has to be neutral, the facts don't. As for accuracy, that's not for us to judge. What matters is whether it's relevant and cited, so if we want to mention both views, we can. We can't choose to exclude the "inaccurate" one based on your opinion, though. ThAtSo 02:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, and I apologize for arguing only my viewpoint in my last post. However, as it is, both points of view are not expressed in the article, and it seems to me that they should be in order to maintain the neutrality of the article. Currently, it seems to favor one explanation over the other. "Such an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002, according to an article in Mensa Magazine." This sentence implies that less intelligent people are generally more religious, rather than religious people tending to have less education, and I think the article should reflect both points of view. Vsst 18:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That statement is about correlation, without offering a causal explanation. To be frank, saying that religion discourages education isn't exactly a huge improvement over it being for stupid people, but it does have the virtue of being potentially testable. Offhand, I know that some religions explicitly discourage higher education (JW's) and many conservative ones discourage it for women, if only because their role in life is to be barefoot and pregnant, not educated and employed outside the home. Other conservative religions invent their own partisan schools, often unaccredited (BJU) or just barely accredited (BYU), which conspicuously fail to teach science. No doubt, you could find some reliable sources to back this up. ThAtSo 02:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why no Criticism?

REligion has a criticism section, but atheism does not, if this isn't POV, then what is? I'm adding a section which links to the main article. That is the template followed on other articles. Warfwar3 15:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on this talk page ad infinitum (see extensive archive). Atheism is not the same as Religion. Nor is it the same as any type of religion. No direct criticism of atheism is possible without it being a point of view, since it is a position that does not suffer from the "burden of proof" issue that religions do. -- Scjessey 16:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

All criticism is a "point of view." Wikipedia doesn't ban "points of view." It bans bias. It is certainly possible to list common criticisms of atheism from a factual perspective. -- Mwalcoff 21:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's good to know, because it is my point of view that there are no valid criticisms of atheism. -- Scjessey 22:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And of course you have the right to your opinion. WP:NPOV says articles should represent "fairly and without bias all significant views." (Emphasis mine.) -- Mwalcoff 22:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

How does one express criticism for a lack of belief without being point-of-view or expressing bias? Would it be a legitimate criticism of Wicca to point out that Wiccans lack a belief in the Christian Trinity?TechBear 22:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more criticims of atheism out there than "They don't believe in my religion." Some of them are mentioned in Criticism of atheism, although I think that article does a poor job of describing them and goes overboard in its rebuttals. Just off the top of my head, and with no offense intended to any atheists, I can think of the following criticisms that some people might have:

Atheists, unlike simply nonreligious or secular people, are often disdainful or mocking of religious people to the point of meanness.
Atheists' worldview can be as dogmatic and inflexible as that of religious fundamentalists.
Attempts to wipe out religion or form an atheist society (Jacobin France, Khmer Rouge Kamupchea, etc.) have been disastrous.
Some studies show religious people are happier and healthier than the nonreligious.
Because for most people morality and religion are linked, atheists may lack attachment to traditional morality. For example, atheist philosopher Peter Singer thinks it's sometimes OK to kill newborn babies.

There are, of course, responses to these criticisms. But those criticisms, and undoubtedly more, exist. -- Mwalcoff 22:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The first two don't seem to be criticisms so much as hasty generalizations, the third ignores the fact that the same is also true of groups trying to wipe out atheism for religious reasons (such as when Hitler launched an "anti-godless" movement in Germany,) the fourth assumes "happiness" = "truth" which isn't a criticism so much as an illogical argument for religion (I might be happier thinking there's a vast treasure buried in my backyard, but that doesn't mean any such treasure exists,) and the last falsely implies that atheists aren't or can't be moral and makes another overgeneralization based on one example, ignoring examples of religious people who believe the same thing and the many counterexamples of moral atheists which disprove the implication. The other problem with those "criticisms" is that they're loaded with weasel words. Still, the point is that there is already a Criticism of atheism article and it is linked to by this article. If you think it does a poor job of describing the criticisms feel free to improve that article, however the rebuttals are necessary to maintain WP:NPOV. -- Hi Ev 18:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! Ha! Mwalcoff, your views are crazy! RS

Thank you for sharing your original research. When you have reliable sources for any of these (trivially refuted) claims, feel free to share those as well. ThAtSo 23:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to say this... Your list of supposedly common criticisms of atheism put a smile on my face, and not for the reason some may think. These might be concerns that some people have, but in no way do these criticisms represent commonly held believes about atheists. Likewise, what evidence is used to support such lines of criticism. Besides, according to the Bible, wasn't it God who killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt? Homologeo 07:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've spent far more time on this page than I ever intended. It should not be up to me alone to make the article objective. We should all be editing this article from a neutral, unbiased, objective perspective and be thinking, "How can we fairly represent all sides of the issue, giving appropriate weight to various points of view?"

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum. Our goal should be to write an article that fairly and objectively represents all sides of an issue, not to promote our individual opinions. I have been active on Wikipedia for about two years, and I have never been as frustrated with other users as I have been in trying to improve this article. You, certainly, and other defenders of the status quo on the page, appear to have no interest in crafting an objective article. Instead, you seem to be attempting to use Wikipedia to promote your personal viewpoints. I beg you to read the Five Pillars and better familiarize yourself with the goals and policies of Wikipedia before continuing to obstruct progress on this article. If you are too zealous of an atheist to edit this article from an objective perspective, you should not be involved in this article. -- Mwalcoff 23:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, if you were interested in an objective perspective rooted in the evidence, you'd be an atheist and we wouldn't be having this discussion. My point still stands: original research doesn't belong here, just material from relevant, reliable sources. No matter how many weak, unsourced arguments you post here, none of them fit in the article. This is not a debating forum, so I'm not going to bother refuting them. I'm just going to revert any attempt to insert them. ThAtSo 01:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, "bald" isn't a hair color. ThAtSo 16:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Mwalcoff has a point. If there is some scholar source to backup criticism (the Journal of Religion and Society for instance doesn't sound like one), I think it would be better to include them in the most on-topic subsection, if there is one; if none of the current subsections can properly incorporate a criticism from a scholar source, then this shows a hole/flaw in the article and until that's fixed a criticism section should be created .--BMF81 23:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

“I think Mwalcoff has a point.” What nonsense! Mwalcoff doesn’t have any point. Look at some of his claims. They are so stupid. Let me refute some of his stupid suggestions.

‘Some studies show religious people are happier and healthier than the nonreligious’.

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality. This is what George Bernard Shaw said, boy.

‘Atheists' worldview can be as dogmatic and inflexible as that of religious fundamentalists.’

This claim is so stupid! Show me the evidence that God exist. I am an avowed atheist and I think it is stupid to believe in God. However, show me one scientific proof that God exist. I will change my view right now.

Mwalcoff, do some research, boy. Don't make stupid claims. Look, there are some really smart atheists. If you make stupid claims, people are going to make fun of you.

RS

RS, those aren't my claims. Those are claims people may have about atheism. I feel like a broken record: This is not a debating platform. This is an encyclopedia. Whether God exists or not, the article needs to be complete, and right now, it isn't. The point of this page, Talk:Atheism, is not to determine whether or not God exists. It is to determine whether the article is complete and high-quality, and if it is not, how to improve it.

BTW, you should read Wikipedia:Civility. Calling things "stupid" is incompatible with Wikipedia standards of etiquette. -- Mwalcoff 03:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are no valid criticisms of atheism but that point is utterly irrelevant to the existence of those criticisms and I think they should be included. The argument that there are no reliable sources is absurd. In fact, one of the host of books advocating atheism which discuss the common criticisms of atheism would serve as a reputable source of those arguments (making a point here; citing only those would not be a good route to travel). A Google book search would reveal scads of books discussing Aquinas' views and Pascal's wager and the teleological argument and so on. Of course, a balanced criticism section would summarize the criticism and atheists' response to the argument. Validity has nothing to do with it. Of course religion is nonsense (my pov) as is astrology (also my pov), that doesn't mean we shouldn't have Wikipedia articles on religion and astrology so long as reliable sources treat those topics. The same goes for criticism of atheism. I'm not sure this article meets the comprehensive prong of WP:FACR without discussing common criticisms. Regarding the post I edit conflicted with above, you're missing the point entirely, it doesn't matter whether the arguments are weak or strong; the arguments exist. Also, please keep the tone civil.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, they need to be sourced. ThAtSo 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir on that one but sourcing is a nonissue. Sources are legion in this area. (yes, I had fun typing this religious allusion-filled post;-)--Fuhghettaboutit 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit. I would say that the best places to find criticisms of atheism would not be from atheists themselves but rather from religious critics. For example, Arthur Lelyveld wrote a book called Atheism Is Dead. And there's a book by Alister McGrath called The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine. Whether or not you agree with those authors, I think it makes sense to get criticism of atheism from atheism's opponents, not from its supporters. -- Mwalcoff 03:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mwalcoff, I am sorry. I should not have use words like ‘stupid’ and ‘crazy’. However, some of your suggestions were not correct. RS

Apology accepted, thank you. The criticisms of atheism I listed may very well be incorrect. But correct or not, there are a lot of people out there who don't like atheism for reasons other than that they think their religion is right and everyone else is wrong. We have a responsibility to tell the full story, which includes criticism of atheism, and atheists' response to those criticisms. -- Mwalcoff 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, thank you for keeping a level head, and getting the discussion on this Talk Page back on track! While some may agree or disagree with particular criticisms of atheism, as long as a respectable author treats the subject, and a particular line of criticism does indeed exist and is relatively notable, the topic should be covered within the article on atheism. Of course, the atheist response to such criticism should also be included. What we need to do now is to find legitimate sources that support whatever criticisms are to be added to this article. They should be sourced appropriately, so that the added text will not be deleted or deemed inappropriate. All the while, editors should strive to retain NPOV throughout the article.Homologeo 02:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Boys, how can you criticize atheism? There can be no valid criticisms of atheism. Atheism is beyond criticism. Atheists don’t ask for any “atheists country”! Rabbi Arthur J. Lelyveld was a rabbi and he voiced his support for the recognition of the State of Israel. We all know what the policies of Israel are. And, I strongly oppose Islamic fundamentalism. I oppose both the policies of Israel and the Islamic fundamentalists. I don’t care what Jewish fundamentalists like Arthur J. Lelyveld have to say about atheism. And, please, don’t compare atheists with religious fundamentalists. I am a devout atheist; however, show me one scientific proof that God exist and I will change my views right now.

Alister McGrath is a biophysicist and I respect him. However, his criticisms of atheism are simply not valid. He has failed to provide any scientific proof that God exist. Alister McGrath has been highly critical of Richard Dawkins, calling him "embarrassingly ignorant of Christian theology". I would like to ask a question to Alister McGrath. Do you have to be an expert in astrology to refute astrology? The answer is No. You don’t have to be an expert in astrology to refute astrology. Similarly, you don’t have to be an expert in Christian theology to refute Christianity. Again, Alister McGrath has simply failed to provide any scientific proof that God exist. If Dr. McGrath wants to prove that God exist, he should provide the evidence. Where is the evidence? In McGrath's book Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, Dr. McGrath himself acknowledge that the scientific method cannot conclusively prove that God does or does not exist. His belief in God and Christian theology are based on faith, not reason. If the scientific method cannot conclusively prove that God does or does not exist, then it is likely that God doesn't exist. Look, if I say that in the Andromeda Galaxy, there is a planet where there is life and their civilization is far more advanced than ours, can you scientifically disprove my claim? No. However, there is very little probability (close to zero) that in the Andromeda Galaxy, there is a planet where there is life and their civilization is far more advanced than ours. There is not a single scientific proof that God exist. Thus, it is quite clear that God doesn’t exist. And, one more question. Even if God exist, who created God? How did God come into existence? Can Dr. Alister McGrath answer this question? I think Dr. Alister McGrath is embarrassingly ignorant of atheism. Dr. Alister McGrath should study the books of Richard Dawkins. Dr. Alister McGrath is suffering from the God delusion and reading the books of Richard Dawkins will help him.

I think this article on atheism is OK. Except the image of Baron d'Holbach at the top, this article on atheism is OK. There is absolutely no need for a criticism section. I think we should mention the importance of science in the article. Science is important to atheists. I also believe that the article should mention some of the great work of Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has made significant contribution to atheism. He introduced the concept of meme and he has written some very important books on atheism.

RS

Well, there you go again. It is unquestionably clear that you are not looking at this article with a neutral point of view. You undoubtedly are unable to look at atheism from an objective perspective. If you are unable to take a step back from your personal views, you should refrain from editing this article. -- Mwalcoff 05:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I may be new to Wikipedia, but I know it's not kosher to try to scare off contributors with personal attacks. Cut it out or I will report you. ThAtSo 05:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thatso, the gall you have in accusing me of violating Wikipedia policy after your consistent violations of the rules and spirit of Wikipedia is crossing the line. I believe I have been very patient in dealing with newer users like you and RS, pointing out how your actions have violated Wikipedia rules and giving you the chance to correct yourself. You have made clear you have no intention of playing by the rules. I'm now going to begin the dispute-resolution process, starting with a Wikiquette alert. -- Mwalcoff 05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mwalcoff, are you an atheist? I am looking at this article from a neutral point of view. I am looking atheism from an objective perspective. I believe that there can be no valid criticisms of atheism. OK, tell me Mwalcoff, how can there be valid criticisms of atheism? You seem to be a good person. We may have different views; however, we can have a discussion. RS

Mwalcoff, I am not a new user and I have not violated Wikipedia rules. RS

My religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are not the issue. Ideally, this article should be written in such a way that a reader would have no idea if we were atheists or priests. For the sake of full disclosure, I will reveal that I am not an atheist but rather a Jew. That said, I believe I have conducted myself in such an objective manner. I think the article should include all appropriate facts, whether they make atheism look good or bad.

It does not matter whether you or I think any of the criticisms of atheism are "valid." But the fact is, there are a lot of people out there who are critical of atheism, rightly or wrongly. A complete article on atheism must mention the most-common criticisms, and atheists' rebuttal to them, if appropriate.

What bothers me, RS, is that your user page says you "would like to promote atheism in the Wikipedia." This is called POV (point of view) pushing and is considered abuse. -- Mwalcoff 06:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mwalcoff:"My religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are not the issue."

How can you say that?

Mwalcoff:"I will reveal that I am not an atheist but rather a Jew."

Oh! You are not an atheist! If you are not an atheist, then you should not add the criticism section. Look, you seem to be a secular Jew and I am not accusing you of trying to demonize atheism. Look, you should try to understand atheism. You should try to understand science. You should try to understand the Laws of Physics. You should try to understand Darwinism. God is a human invention. God didn't created men; men created God. God is a psychological fantasy of humans. This is how we atheists think. If you religious believers think that atheism is false, please show at least one scientific proof that suggests that God exist. There is no scientific proof that God exist. Thus, there can be no valid criticisms of atheism.

Look, atheism is not a religion. Religion is based on faith and atheism is based on facts. Atheism is not a type of religion. If you want to covert to a particular organized religion, you should follow certain process. However, if you want to convert to atheism you don’t have to follow any process. You just become an atheist. And, it is not even important to say, “I am an atheist.” You should have naturalistic and scientific views of the Universe. Atheism is a position that does not suffer from the "burden of proof" issue that major religions of the World do. Yes, there are a lot of people out there who are critical of atheism, rightly or wrongly. However, lot of people out there who are critical of atheism simply cannot show a single proof that God exist. In fact, most of the criticisms of atheism are non-scientific and these criticisms of atheism are based on egos. I understand that there are people who are afraid of atheism and criticize atheism because of fear. Such criticisms of atheism are simply not valid.

And, yes, I would like to promote atheism in the Wikipedia. However, it cannot be considered as POV (point of view) pushing and it cannot be considered as abuse. There might be individuals in Wikipedia who are trying to demonize atheism. I don’t want that to happen.

RS

<r-indent> Sorry, but am I the only one who thinks this whole discussion is rendered rather moot, by the existence of a criticism of atheism article? ornis 07:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

the argument goes, the existence of a criticism of atheism article establishes that this article should have a summary of that article per WP:SS. Btw, everybody knows atheist try to disprove the existence of God only so they can eat babies with impunity [2] :p Seriously, RS, if you are at all serious with your "There can be no valid criticisms of atheism. Atheism is beyond criticism", you are doing rationalism a great disservice. What you might mean is that "the burden of defining 'God' is not on the atheists, and of course the position of an individual atheist may vary if people keep redefining what they mean by 'God'." That's not the same as saying "atheism is beyond cricitism". Atheism is criticism. dab

(⁳) 09:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I wrote "Atheism is beyond criticism", just to irritate Mwalcoff. However, I seriously believe that "There can be no valid criticisms of atheism." You made a mistake by writting "you are doing rationalism a great disservice." Dab, don't behave like dumb. I know you are smart. And, you are right. Atheism is criticism. Tell me Dab, how can there be a valid criticisms of atheism? Can you criticize non-astrologers for not believing in astrology? No. Look, if you can present valid, scientific criticisms of atheism, fine. The problem is most of the criticisms of atheism are non-scientific and these criticisms of atheism are based on egos. That’s the problem. RS

Whilst I agree that nothing is above criticism, atheists are not a group that can be lumped together and the "sins" of one attributed to the whole. Deeds are not done in the name of atheism - they are done by people who lack a belief in the concept of god. I have a lack of blond hair, I lack pet birds, I also lack tattoos but can see no reason why I should be grouped with others who similarly lack these attributes. We always have to be careful of couching arguments in terms specified by the "other side". As long as the main article on Criticism of atheism is mentioned somewhere it is much better to weave any common objections into the text. Sophia 09:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

indeed. I have no problem with the article as it is. The observation stands that other articles on "X" for which there is a "criticism of X" sub-article tend to have a "Criticism" section. There could be such a section here, or stuf could be interwoven, I am agnostic about this (no pun intended:) As for your grievous lack of tattoos, it is true that you should not be blamed for any crime committed by one of your fellow-untattooed. "criticism of atheism" should be to the point, concerning the position itself, not harping on random jerks that also happen to be atheists. This cuts any way, of course. "Criticism of Christianity should also go beyond "Catherine de' Medici/Vlad III the Impaler-Heinrich Kramer was one of them, enough said." (reductio ad Hitlerum) dab (⁳) 12:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, calm down. You are perfectly demonstrating wikipedia's severe liberal bias. Here are the facts. There are criticisms of atheism, no matter whether or not you agree with them. These criticisma do not represent a fringe view of the larger population. Therefore, they should be added into the article. If there are no criticisms of atheism, Criticisms of atheism should be deleted, or wikipedia will contradict itself. Oh, and for the mentally disturbed person who suggested that only athesists can add criticisms to atheism, are you actually serious? If only christians could add to the criticisms of christainty, you would all be in an uproar. Everyone needs to stand back from your own ideology and remember that wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting atheism. Warfwar3 21:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for promoting atheism. It appears the opposite is true </sarcasm> -- Scjessey 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Atheism as a neutral point of view

Most of the debating above seems to argue that the only way to present a balanced point of view is to include criticisms of atheism, however invalid they may be. I'd like to suggest that atheism itself can be considered a neutral point of view, particularly with respect to implicit or agnostic atheists. With this in mind, perhaps any criticism of atheism should be confined to explicit atheism and antitheism. That being said, how can you criticize the disbelief or lack of belief in weird supernatural beings, powers, or deities when no proof of these "gods" exists?

I'd also like to invoke my cheese analogy again. Criticizing atheism is like criticizing people who don't like to eat cheese. It is easy to come up with reasons why you shouldn't eat cheese, but it is impossible to come up with reasons why you shouldn't not eat cheese. Even the sentence is absurd, because of the ridiculous double-negative. -- Scjessey 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with all you just said. Your sentence isn't invalid, it's clumsy. It resolves to "reasons why you should eat cheese", and I am sure there are such reasons. Comparing a position of epistemology, ontology and/or faith with a question of diet is completely flawed, or at least until you attribute it to some notable author, irrelevant as "original research". Obviously, we will not feature "invalid criticism". We will feature academic criticism of high notability, not online pseudo-intellectual bible-thumper rambling. We will not ourselves decide whether such academic criticism is "invalid" (per NOR), we will refer such qualifications to academic reviewers. This really is like any other article on Wikipedia: If there is notable academic debate, cover it. If there is just usenet white noise, ignore it. There is good faith academic criticism of atheism in Christian apologetic literature (not all Christians are dunces, not all atheists are whizz-kids). While I personally do not find it convincing, I cannot for a minute take an 'atheist' seriously who tries to dismiss such criticism out-of-hand (without having seen it) with a piece of sophistry involving cheese. dab (⁳) 12:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Scjessey and I totally disagree with dab. Like I said above, most of the criticisms of atheism are non-scientific and these criticisms of atheism are based on egos. RS

I think the situation is simpler than you are making it. Athiesm is NPOV with respect to "Which religion is correct" but POV with respect to "Is any relgion correct?" Debivort 12:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

dab, I am not suggesting that all religious believers are stupid. There are/were brilliant scientists (like Abdus Salam) who believe/believed in God. What I am suggesting is, it is stupid to believe in God. All of us have great ideas in some field and all of us are stupid in some field. If a brilliant person believe in God, I respect that person. However, I am a strong believer that, it is stupid to believe in God. There is not a single scientific proof that God exist. Even if God exist, who created God? How did God come into existence? Can any religious believer answer this question? RS

I agree that some scientist who also happens to be a theist, without actively publishing on his reasons, is irrelevant. Just as your personal opinions are irrelevant. The proper academic field where criticisms of atheism are published in peer-reviewed publications is theology (and Christian apologetics), and if you're going to just declare an entire field with which you appear to have no acquaintance at all as "illegitimate", I frankly could not care less. "Can any religious believer answer this question?" Are you familiar with the concept of "books", or did you expect academic authors to give you personalized explanations on Wikipedia talkpages? Try James Buchanan (minister), or more recently C. S. Lewis. Lewis was an atheist, became convinced of theism, and later became a Christian in particular. There can be no doubt that Lewis was an intelligent man. He has published on his views of theism. I personally fail to be convinced by his reasons, but they are certainly worth hearing, and it is plain silly to dismiss them as "illegitimate": atheists are supposed to be on the rationalist side, for crying out loud, not on the dogmatic or propagandistic. dab (⁳) 13:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dab: “The proper academic field where criticisms of atheism are published in peer-reviewed publications is theology." The problem is my views on theology are exactly similar to that of Richard Dawkins. I don’t believe in theology at all. There can be no doubt that C.S Lewis was an intelligent man. However, he failed to present single scientific evidence that God exist. Dab, I think you should study the books by Richard Dawkins. I really believe that you should read the book The God Delusion. I think you should also study the book God's Defenders: What They Believe and Why They Are Wrong by S. T. Joshi. The book is an anti-religious polemic against various writers including C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, T. S. Eliot, William F. Buckley, Jr., William James, Stephen L. Carter, Annie Dillard, Reynolds Price, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, Guenter Lewy, Neale Donald Walsch and Jerry Falwell. RS

I used the silly (and deliberate) double negative to try to prove a point, but obviously it fell short. Let me try to be more blunt. There are no legitimate criticisms for atheism at all. It is perfectly possible to criticize the acts of specific atheists or atheist groups, but these would not be criticisms of atheism itself and are, therefore, not appropriate for this article. Let me be clear. You cannot offer criticism for not believing in X when no evidence for X exists. -- Scjessey 13:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

the problem lies in describing what people mean by "X". It's complicated. You should say "There are no legitimate criticisms for atheism"{{fact}}: I am perfectly prepared to accept this claim coming from some respectable source, but we are most certainly not here to make claims of our own. dab (⁳) 13:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to make the statement you suggest because the burden of proof is on theists. You can have a "criticisms of theism" section, but you cannot have a "criticisms of atheism" section because it doesn't make any sense. -- Scjessey 13:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Scjessey! Scjessey has clearly explained what I was trying to explain. Dab, why do you not understand? You cannot offer criticism for not believing in God when no evidence for God exists. There is not a single scientific proof that God exist. And, the burden of proof is clearly on theists. And Dab, show me one proof that God exist. If you show me one scientific proof that God exist, I will change my views right now. In fact, the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically. Dab, you must accept this FACT. RS

guys, what part of WP:CITE do you not understand? This is not my position, I am merely saying the position exists. Yes, I agree the "burden of proof" is on theists. Some theists have taken up that burden and eloquently argued against atheism. That you or me may not agree with them is perfectly irrelevant for the purposes of writing this article. dab (⁳) 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, whether or not you guys think those criticisms are valid or not. stupid or not, people have, and continue to level those criticisms. Just dismissing them as invalid, doesn't tell the reader anything, why for instance is atheism illegal in Iran? Why are there practically no atheists ( at least not out of closet atheists ) in the US or Commonwealth governments? While I still tend to think that having a perfectly good criticism of atheism article somewhat obviates the need for one here, as Dab pointed out, guidelines and standard practice kind of call for them to be incorporated. I would suggest a short summary and link. ornis 13:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV means we report all (non-marginal) viewpoints, however mistaken we may privately, as individuals, consider them. It does not mean uncovering the correct viewpoint or the one that an objective person would adopt. Metamagician3000 14:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I.e. there are clearly criticisms of atheism "out there", both for its alleged intellectual deficiencies and for its alleged social dangers. We should identify them, even if some of us think them misguided (or, in some sense, "illegitimate"). That said, a very short summary and link should be adequate, given that the "criticisms" article already exists. But I do think that some of the commentary I've read on this page shows a weak grasp of what NPOV is all about. Metamagician3000 14:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(by edit conflict) atheism may, for example, be legitimately criticized from the purely psychologist/sociologist perspective. Viz., theism may not be logically consistent, but then our brains are not built for logical consistency. There is a reason most children are taught fairy tales before they are taught how to solve Cauchy-Riemann equations, and this reason is meaningful in some real sense. From this angle, atheism may be intellectually superior to theism in the same sense that quantum field theory is intellectually superior to coffee. To conclude from this that all coffee outlets should henceforth be replaced by particle accelerators is still patent madness. This is *not* the same as saying "theism is false, but it is opportune to have people be theists anyway". It is saying, atheism may be "true" in some abstract sense, which completely fails to take into account the human condition and is hence utterly uninteresting to humans. Atheism is like concluding from the knowledge that coffee is made of various baryons and leptons that there is no such thing as "coffee". The division begins with the notion of "true": theists may argue that the rationalist boolean "true" is good for solving sudoku puzzles and not much else, and applying it to what they mean by "true" is childish, with some justification etymologically, since OE getriewe meant "firm in allegiance; faithful, loyal, constant, trusty" and not "computes". Let me repeat that this is not my own position, and yet still one that I consider eminently arguable. The problem I see here is that pop-culture atheism tends to perceive "theism" as represented by goons like Jack Chick. dab (⁳) 14:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue of reporting all viewpoints, or citing opposing positions, or anything like that. I'm saying that any criticism of atheism is like trying to criticize empty space. It is a meaningless exercise. The fact that "learned theologians" have published works that criticize atheism is irrelevant because atheism is a philosophical position, not a theological one. Making atheism illegal (as mentioned in the "Iran" comment above) is like making empty space illegal. Any criticism should be aimed at Iranian law, not atheism. -- Scjessey 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are struggling to understand our NPOV policy if you can make a comment like that. I don't know how I can explain it better, but the issue is exactly about that. The criticisms exist, they are notable, and it just does not matter, for Wikipedia's purposes, how misguided you think they are, or how meretricious their advocates may be. Metamagician3000 14:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

indeed. Scjessey, I can respect that this is, like, your opinion, but it really stops there, since discussing your or my pinion is really not what this page is for. dab (⁳) 14:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to state my personal opinion. A section on criticism has been in and out of the article many times. It has been discussed extensively. A significant majority of the editors (a consensus) realized that there was no way to put such a section into the article without giving it a negative bias. Logically-speaking, any legitimate criticisms relating to atheism can only be applied to the acts of atheists or atheist groups; therefore, such criticisms should be documented on articles about the individuals or groups. -- Scjessey 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt criticisms exist, but I still haven't seen any cited from reliable sources. If it's so easy, someone should go do the research and come up with the citations. However, NPOV policy demands that we also look for (and link to) equally notable rebuttals. ThAtSo 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

First this apparently needs to come to a fine point, so to repeat what I and others have said (directed at multiple editors arguing both sides above): every argument based on validity of criticism is utterly irrelevant to whether the article should contain those criticisms. The basis for detailing criticism is to make the article comprehensive. Any subject that has had millions of words written criticizing it should at least summarize the major criticisms leveled, as well as the responses thereto. This has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with the merits of the criticism. As to citing sources, come on. Okay, just to humor this so we can set it aside, picking a random example, Pascal's wager is an incredibly well known argument used to criticize atheism. Putting aside the multiple, reliable sources extant in the linked article, this Google book search shows 670 book sources to mine. A web search returns a paltry 181,000 hits. Again, finding sources for this or other well know arguments is a nonissue.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

sure, the task at hand is to build up a clean criticism of atheism article and post a clean summary of that. I was objecting to the hilarious notion that arguments for atheism are somehow "beyond criticism" because they are self-evident. That's dense to the point of being positively medieval. Of course saying that arguments for atheism may be legitimately critiziced does not mean that every zealot yahoo with no understanding of the issue offering "cargo cult criticism" has to be taken note of: we should ideally only bother with authors that are both notable and intelligent. dab (⁳) 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pascal's wager isn't a direct criticism of atheism. It is merely a clever piece of circuitous logic designed to justify belief in the Christian God. It relates directly to all non-Christian God believers, and not just atheists. It has a passing relevance to this article, but no more so than thousands of other pieces of information that are left out for necessary brevity. -- Scjessey 21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether Pascal's wager should be one of the topics covered in a criticism section is not what we're on about here. It was used to illustrate, in reply to a request for sources, that well known arguments are easily sourced. It may very well be that Pascal's wager is too peripheral for inclusion as a direct criticism. That's also beside the point.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Woah! I made the original link to criticism yesterday, and the response has pretty much shown my point. For all your sloganeering about free -speech and fairness, you people are arrogant jerks who won't tolerate any criticism of your beliefs. If atheism does not have any valid criticism's then the whoele article on the subject should be deleted. But if you won't stoop to that level of censorship, then what is wrong with linking to that page, like every other page on a major philosophical view. Its things like these that make conservapedia seem reasonable. 72.70.121.232 21:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean this edit where Warfwar3 (Talk | contribs) created a blank "Criticism of atheism" section that pointed to the Criticism of atheism article. (Which would mean that you are Warfwar3, correct?) Anyways, it was changed to the "See also" section, not "deleted" as you claimed above. The reason given by Brian0918 was "rv, sections can't be blank. just put the link in See also", so the explanation had nothing to do with bias. Please, do not assume the worst of people when your edit is not accepted; assume good faith is the rule here. The link you added is still there today, even though it's just a repeat of the "Criticisms" link in the "Atheism topics" box that has been there for quite a while now, so your complaints of "censorship" are unjustified. Furthermore, even if there are no valid criticisms that is no reason to delete an article. You should probably retract your complaints. -- Hi Ev 04:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, folks: You may think atheism is perfect and that there are no valid criticisms of atheism. Fine. You have a right to your opinion. But you cannot deny that, rightly or wrongly, not everyone agrees with you. After all, the vast majority of people are not atheists. Many of those people have criticised atheism, for various reasons. It is our responsibility to tell the complete story, which includes some of those criticisms. We should also include atheists' responses to those criticisms. -- Mwalcoff 22:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

While I am almost certain that Mwalcoff and I are in different ideological camps with respect to this issue, I agree with him or her on this point. Criticisms of atheism exist - there is already an article on them - if we insist that they are logically invalid, and therefore refuse to report them, then that is the very kind of synthetic original research we need to avoid. Debivort 23:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

the idea that "without a belief, there is nothing to defend" is utterly flawed anyway. You can just decline to have a conversation, sure, but refusing to participate does not mean you "win" the argument. What a terrible idea this is can easily be seen if we apply it to, say, global warming. Quoth the petrol-billionaire: I do not believe in this "climate change" of yours, and without a belief, there is nothing to defend. Have fun discussing your quaint notions, I'm off to drill up some more oil. Does any more need to be said? I am not saying disbelief in God is like disbelief in CO2, I am just pointing out the staggering stupidity of the position defended here that "refusal to address a topic cannot be criticised". dab (⁳) 08:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the fine line between this and to refuse to succumb to arguments of dualism (ie The notion that you need to explain something in order to not accept another). Like two cavemen trying to explain lightning. Cavemans As inability to explain it is inconsequential to the fallacious method Caveman B uses to invoke intelligent design. The popular debate today is all but [b]based[/b] on to either be knowledgeable enough to identify and destroy the evolutionary strawmen set forth by creationists, or to "be open to intelligent design" which is just as bad form today as it was in the broze age. As if everyone is supposed to be evolutionary biologists, geologists, paleontologists, cosmologists or whatever. As if being an atheist isn't a sensible [b]default[/b]. So yes, I "win" the argument about science by letting scientists decide and not your "helpful crash course". Atheism isn't a fulltime job, and your miscomprehensions on subjects that you pretend to be interested in, is really your business. It puts no burden on me. Habalabam 09:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

well, yes, as long as the arguments of Caveman B are indeed fallacious strawmen. Which is something that needs to be established. In the case of ID and what not, this has of course been established, and the reason we can justly scoff at it is a result of that. This is what I tried to point out above: This whole debate tends to reduce the atheism:theism debate to the childish "Intelligent Design" strawmen that are flung around in the USA at present. This is a fallacy. Just because the most vocal apologists of theism in the USA today are intellectual dwarfs acting in bad faith does not mean that the debate itself is one of reason vs. confused blather. It may rather mean, I suggest, that we should turn away from this US/ID nonsense to where the intelligent debate is taking place: everything you say is correct, but it is of very little relevance to the topic at hand. dab (⁳) 10:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is actually a tautology. Atheism, from a scientific perspective, must remain the one acceptable scientific theory, until someone presents evidence to the contrary. I believe Ayn Rand made the argument comparing God and Santa Claus. Her point was, we don't assume that Santa Claus exists, because no one has proven that he doesn't. Similarly, it would be illogical to assume God exists, without positive evidence that indicates such existence.

Please note I am only talking about this in the scientific view or philosophic view using logic and reason. Some view that as all-important, some do not. Some people have even criticized science, saying that the scientific method is in itself flawed, and that it is actually a religion. But humanity mainly operates now from a scientific and logical framework. Wikipedia itself operates out of a scientic and logical framework, demanding evidence to support the views herein. Given that, there can be no refutation of the argument that Atheism is the one true philosophy, the one true science. No matter how ridiculous that sounds to people, it can not be refuted. Unless Wikipedia and science choose to change the rules of the game, I would agree, it's not a controversial viewpoint at all, it is a neutral point of view. That doesn't mean there can not be other articles and discussions on the beliefs that people have and the institutions they set up around those beliefs.

69.181.188.254 00:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What you're saying is true, but Wikipedia's not a place for truth, just verifiability. Your change got reverted and there's no chance for it to ever go through. Sorry. ThAtSo 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not subject to argument. As I mention, the worst that can be said is that it is a tautology, therefore redundant. But the facts of it are indisputable. If you are going to make such changes, at least make an argument for why what was said is NOT true. I don't think a logical case can be made against it. If it is true, it deserves to be said. It is the alternative that can not be verified. Give me arguments, not apologies!

See additional arguments at:

http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm

69.181.188.254 09:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, this is Wikipedia, where the truth just doesn't matter. Yes, atheism is true and the scientific method mandates it. We know, we know, but so what? All that matters is whether you can cite a reliable source. If you want to quote or paraphrase some renowned scientists endorsing atheism, that's worth a try. Otherwise, what you're doing will be treated as vandalism and reverted even by those who agree with you. ThAtSo 09:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The about.com article is not a reliable source. Cline has no credentials in science or philosophy, so his opinion on this matter is basically worthless. He's also a silly Mac bigot, which makes me laugh. ThAtSo 09:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then here:

http://www.americanatheist.org/smr00/T2/zindler.html

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/at/logical.html

http://www.qsmithwmu.com/moral_realism_and_infinte_spacetime_imply_moral_nihilism_by_quentin_smith.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/raymond_bradley/moral.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html

Please note that I am only contending that in the context of logic, science and wikipedia, there can be no alternative to this view. Real world people may choose to think whatever they wish. There are also many authorities that point out that it is not up to atheists to prove their belief, it is the opposite.

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FBurdenOfProof.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/mcinerny.html

69.181.188.254 10:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: ThAtSo, I do not read 69.181.188.254's comments as in any way being involved with "truth", but rather with accuracy, which as you point out, is Wikipedia's goal. Please address the content dispute and drop the line of accusations of "truth seeking" which are nowhere evident in 69.181.188.254's posts - thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also wanted to add that most theists make the argument that "faith" is the basis for theism. That is a good argument, but it is not a _rational_ argument. Belief and faith may or may not be good things. They may even be important, psychologically or otherwise. But the problem is that faith and belief are _individual_ acts and can not be conveyed to others. By their nature, they can not represent proof. Therefore, they have no place in science, logic, or wikipedia articles. But that does not make them "wrong", just not useful in the present context.

69.181.188.254 11:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And you may indeed make that point, but unless you tie it specifically to reliable sources, you are discussing the topic of atheism and not the article for atheism, which is more appropriate for a blog or forum. Please try to make your posts concise and about the article. Suggestion: try beginning your comment with the source. "According to (RS), blah blah blah. As (RS) is a noted (author, philosopher, pick whatever applies) I think this should be included in the article." This may help. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Article hole: discrimination

The article doesn't discuss the discrimination of Atheists in contemporary societies. Here's a source for the United States: "AlterNet: Rights and Liberties: Rise of the New Atheists". Retrieved 2007-06-18.--BMF81 14:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, why not insert a sentence. There was coverage of this issue on CNN not long ago. It certainly seems notable enough for some sort of brief reference to be made if there's nothing there. Metamagician3000 14:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a short paragraph on this in Demographics of atheism from which we could borrow. It has a {{main|}} tag leading to Discrimination against atheists. Would that do? Old Moonraker 05:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Put up or...

Nearly three days ago, I put up an RFC explaining my objections to the Paul Bell citation. Shortly thereafter, I explained my objections to the Sulloway-Shermer citation.

Since then, not one person has chimed in to defend the sentences in dispute.

I urge those who want to keep those sentences to explain why my objections are wrong. If no objections are registered, I think I should be free to delete those sentences. -- Mwalcoff 23:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

take it easy. Take the reference for whatever it is worth. I see no reason not to quote it. As it happens, we already state that most scientists are atheists, and since scientists tend to be among the better educated, and (however correlated causally) better-scoring in IQ tests, it is pretty straightforward that there will be a positive correlation between IQ and atheism. So what? It confirms that theism is the default position. The uneducated will be theists. It is only among the intelligent and/or educated that a division between theists and atheists will emerge, because only the educated will bother discussing this. The correlation is thus no proof that atheists are oh-so-intelligent, but simply that those who have nothing to contribute to the debate happen to be chalked up as theists. Your attempt to hide this study because it is allegedly unnotable doesn't look very honest to me. I am confident that any study of the same kind will find the same result, because it's nothing but plausible. Of course, if you have a refutation of similar notability, we could add that as well. You should take this study seriously especially if you are irked by its result. If it is flawed, it will be debunked, but I do expect you will have to wrap your mind around the possibility that it is valid. Psychologically, you might explain this in gist of: mental disposition towards atheism ("abstract intelligence") does score in IQ tests, while mental disposition towards theism ("spiritual intelligence") does not. I would "criticize" the study in this way if I was a theist, without needing to question its superficial correctness. dab (⁳) 00:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment.

My objection is not the conclusion of the study. It's the fact that no one here has seen the study, that it is not peer-reviewed and that it is by an unknown author. If one of those statements were untrue, I wouldn't find its mention so objectionable. But I don't see how anyone can defend the study without seeing it. It clearly does not belong in a featured article as it currently stands. -- Mwalcoff 00:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing my own investigation of this, and I have come to the same conclusion as Mwalcoff. All references I have found for the article seem to lead back to the same place ("The God Delusion"). The article definitely exists, but Mensa does not keep online archives of its publications. I think all reference to the Paul Bell study should be removed. The section is only supposed to be a summary of Demographics of atheism, so this sort of controversial information is best left there. -- Scjessey 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. -- Mwalcoff 02:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "chime in to defend" the Sulloway-Shermer citation: I restored your deletion of it, citing in the edit summary your own grudging "permission" to let it stay.

It could seem to be slightly disingenuous to complain that nobody has defended the material in the last "nearly three days" when there is such a large discussion, including strong arguments for, that ended just three days before your post, at Talk:Atheism#Removing demographics?. Perhaps other editors are content to let their points from that discussion stand.

The Sulloway-Shermer study is not in the same category as "Bell". It is a published work from noted academics (both with bios on WP) working at prominent institutions and it meets in every respect the requirement of What is a reliable source?: There shouldn't be any more attempts to delete it, under the smokescreen of the conceivably more valid debate about whether or not to remove "Bell". --Old Moonraker 06:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My objection to the Sulloway-Shermer mention was that it might lead to a citation war. But I agree that it's in a very different category than the Bell study, and I'm prepared to let it go for now as we seek to improve this article one point at a time. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. -- Mwalcoff 22:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't matter who Paul Bell is, but it does matter where he publishes his stuff. The letter to Nature is very obviously good enough. The Mensa Magazine may not be of the same order of notability, but it is certainly better than some atheist blog. Also, Bell has not done his own study, he has analysed other (peer reviewed) studies, which could be quoted directly by us also. I really see nothing that would prevent us from quoting Bell. Sure we could expand the discussion and give details of the studies he looked at, but your concerns seem mostly boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, as Moonraker points out, this talkpage tends to descend into infinite loops, and everything that can be said about the topic has been said, above. dab (⁳) 08:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dab -- I object to your characterization of my objection to the Bell citation as "I don't like it." I think I've done a fairly good job of explaining why I don't like its mention, and it has nothing to do with Bell's conclusions about smart people and atheism.

For our purposes, it does matter who Paul Bell is, not only because he was published in an obscure and unscientific (as far we know) source, but because this is supposed to be a featured article, and we shouldn't mention a guy's name without saying who he is. You'd never find a New York Times article that says, "Joe Schmo says illegal immigration costs (or saves) the country $1 trillion a year" and not tell you who Joe Schmo is. -- Mwalcoff 22:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What seems to have been conveniently forgotten is that the Paul Bell study wasn't a study at all, but an analysis of 43 different studies investigating the relationship between religiosity and intelligence over an 80-year period. In essence, it was a data-mining exercise - something that can be done by anyone. In the interests of fairness, one has to remember that The New York Times has a record of journalistic fraud that certainly would never have happened to Mensa Magazine. -- Scjessey 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, have not "forgotten" that the Bell study is a meta-analysis. The problem is that neither you nor anyone else here has seen it. All we know about it is a couple of sentences that Richard Dawkins wrote. We have no idea how Bell compiled his studies to analyze (the key factor in a meta-analysis), or even if Dawkins has accurately reported Bell's conclusions. I see no reason to include such a dubious reference when there are several more-appropriate references we can use. -- Mwalcoff 02:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can keep the Bell citation, in good conscience. We'd really have to cite Dawkins, but we'd be forced to say, "According to Dawkins, according to Bell ...". It's getting too tenuous. Metamagician3000 12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be removed. Thank Mensa. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-20 12:51Z

I agree as well. It's a bit too chinese whispers-like for me. -- Scjessey 12:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am making a small change in the section "Criticism of atheism"

Fuhghettaboutit: "Pascal's wager is an incredibly well known argument used to criticize atheism."

What nonsense! If I were God, I would have send Pascal to Hell for believing in me for such a cynical reason. Pascal's wager clearly shows that people believe in God because of fear.

Mwalcoff: "But you cannot deny that, rightly or wrongly, not everyone agrees with you. After all, the vast majority of people are not atheists. Many of those people have criticized atheism, for various reasons. It is our responsibility to tell the complete story, which includes some of those criticisms."

Statistics shows that people who have education is science are skeptical about God. Most people criticize atheism because of fear.

I am making a small change in the section "Criticism of atheism". Most of the criticisms of atheism are non-scientific and these criticisms of atheism are based on egos. I also know that there are people who are afraid of atheism and they criticize atheism because of fear. Such criticisms of atheism are absurd.

"Criticism of atheism is made chiefly by theistic sources. Most of the criticisms of atheism are non-scientific and these criticisms of atheism are based on egos. Many people criticize atheism because of fear. Such criticisms of atheism are absurd. Most atheists consider the criticism of atheism to be absurd."

RS

I think our job, RS, is to simply report the criticisms theists make and let the reader decide if they are absurd criticisms or not. For our purposes, it doesn't matter whether they are good or bad criticisms, only that they are criticisms of atheism (i.e. are prominent, published criticisms) and, so, should be included in the section. Dast 11:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, RS: "...criticisms of atheism are based on egos. Many people criticize atheism because of fear. Such criticisms of atheism are absurd. Most atheists consider the criticism of atheism to be absurd." reads like an opinion, rather than a WP:NPOV assessment based on quotable sources, and is completely out of place in the article. You've also demonstrated that it's WP:OR from the above synthesis of other contributors' opinions. Reverted. --Old Moonraker 11:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views."

Well, tell me Old Moonraker, do theists write from a neutral point of view (NPOV)? Absolute NOT! Most of the stupid theists criticize atheism because of fear. Most of the criticisms of atheism are non-scientific and absurd. For hundreds of years theists have written about atheism in encyclopedia and demonize atheism. Now, atheists should write about atheism. The views of religious believers should be in the religious sections. The views of religious believers should not be in any atheism-related article.

RS

Devraj, please tell me you are not really that naive. Wikipedia is not for teenage pop-culture atheism with a grudge. See WP:ENC. Our Atheism article, like any other article on the project, aims to give a representative outline of academic discourse, no more, no less. It happens to be a featured article, which means that it has survived all sorts of excessive criticism as it stands, and if you want to alter it, you would do well to be aware of that, and present a correspondingly watertight rationale (as opposed to throwing a childish temper nobody is interested in). We will not cover "most of the criticisms", which may or may not be "absurd", we will cover the "most notable criticism". I hope you can appreciate the difference if you think about it for half a minute. You can rant against theists all you want on assorted internet fora, but not here, thank you. dab (⁳) 12:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, do not feed the trolls. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-19 12:57Z

sorry about that. dab (⁳) 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not for teenage pop-culture atheism with a grudge." Well, Dab, words like pop-culture should not be associated with atheism. Dab, why do you not understand that?

Dab, read the following: Matter are composed of atoms, atoms are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. Electrons cannot be sub-divided into smaller particles. Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. Now, superstring theorists argue that quarks and electrons may be tiny vibrating superstrings. We live in a planet called Earth. Earth is a member of solar system. Sun is a member of Milky Way Galaxy. Milky Way Galaxy is a member of the Universe and our Universe is a member of the Multiverse. Where is the room for God in this world of superstrings, quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, humans, planets, stars, galaxies, Universe and Multiverse? There is no room for God. God was invented by men to explain the mysteries. Now, the mysteries are explained by Science. There is no need for God. God is a failed hypothesis. Now, to understand this you need knowledge. You need serious knowledge. STOP ASSOCIATING WORDS LIKE PUP-CULTURE WITH ATHEISM.

And, Dab, I really hope you can appreciate what I am trying to say if you think about it for half a minute.

RS

"pop culture" in "pop-culture atheism" forms an apposition. dab (⁳) 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Pop-culture atheism" should not exist. And, Dab, you have failed to present a single valid criticism of atheism. Why are you making unnecessary noise? RS

Mate, this isn't your personal soapbox. I really think you should calm down a bit, and look at what dab has been trying to tell you. He isn't saying atheism is wrong, or even trying to present valid criticism. The point is, that criticism exists ( valid or not ) and the most common and notable of those should be integrated briefly into the article. That's it. Oh and the jury's still out on string theory and multiverse theories. ornis 02:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK! Criticism of atheism exists. All I am trying to say is there are no valid criticisms of atheism. I think we should find appropriate sources which can be used as a response to criticism of atheism. And, yes, this isn't your personal soapbox either. ornis, look, you are an atheist and I am an atheist. We shouldn’t be fighting with each other.

And, it is more likely that M-Theory, the closely related successor of the Superstring theory, may turn out to be a correct theory. RS

None of the scientists really have a clue which theory will prevail until experimentation and direct analysis provide the answers (which may never happen). The absence of an answer does not automatically mean I'm going to invent some supernatural being to explain the lack of empirical evidence though!

I've always contended that you can criticize atheists and atheist groups, but not atheism itself. I am willing to concede that it is possible to criticize antitheism, or even explicit atheism simply because although it is fantastically unlikely, it is impossible to disprove that a God or gods don't exist. That being said, criticism of a simple lack of belief is wholly inappropriate. The "see also" link to Criticism of atheism is more than adequate. -- Scjessey 11:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How about a compromise?

If we can all calm down and think rationally, i have a suggestion. How about we add criticism to atheism in a see also section. After all, what can be the objection against that, wikipedia already has an article on criticisms of atheism. If you people fundementally think there are no criticisms of atheism, then you should take Criticism of atheism should be deleted as complete bull. If not, it should be linked to. You can't have it both ways, or this is censorship. Warfwar3 13:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not understanding you. Have you read the article? The criticisms have been removed from the "Criticism of atheism" section and have been spread throughout the article. They haven't been deleted altogether. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-19 14:35Z

Fine show me where Warfwar3 16:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Atheism. It took me 3 seconds to find an example in the article. If you feel there needs to be more criticism throughout, please add it, with appropriate sources. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-19 16:43Z

indeed. We are looking for critical editors who are willing to invest time and effort. Coming to this talkpage airly telling people to jump is not helpful. Step 1, read the article (yes, all of it, if that's alright). Step 2, be aware of its history. At the very least, be aware of the criticism voiced and addressed in the recent (April) FA debate. Unless you are prepared to invest that amount of effort, I am afraid you have little chance of achieving more than being a mild waste of time for other editors. dab (⁳) 16:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should also find appropriate sources which can be used as a response to criticism of atheism. And, Dab, are you an atheist? RS

That's my biggest problem with "Criticism of..." sections. They tend to devolve into "X criticism" with "Y rebuttal", and someone comes along to try and post "Z rebuttal to the rebuttal." I've found they tend to create more conflict than any benefit they could add to the article. We can make a neutral article without such a section. -- Kesh 03:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article is quite fine as it is. Do you mind, RS, .......(write in English)? dab (⁳) 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

English please! I don’t understand German! RS

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of criticism sections. Besides, an entire criticism of atheism article already exists and I see no need for much more than a link to it, such as we provide, and mention of some points that actually must be mentioned, in appropriate places (which we also have). My comments elsewhere on the page were just to insist that notable criticisms should be reported somewhere, not that the article needs a "Criticism" section. Metamagician3000 12:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Citing a citation

Scjessey just reverted a change I made that I think was mistaken. A whole section was deleted based on the idea that we shouldn't allow an indirect citation. I've been taught that indirect citations are perfectly legit for academic papers, and I don't think there's any doubt that Dawkins' reference is real. On top of that, Scjessy reverted an unrelated change by acciden, and the non-minor change was labeled as minor. Because of these errors that I've explained here, I'm going to revert the change. ThAtSo 17:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a second. You are re-adding a previously removed section. The section has been discussed extensively and found by consensus to be inappropriate. The other edit only made sense with the restored paragraph, so that had to also be reverted. I've reverted again. Please consider the three revert rule before messing with this section again. -- Scjessey 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed a lot but there's no consensus to delete it, which is why you really should stop deleting it. The reasoning you gave didn't make much sense -- lots of articles have indirect references -- and marking the edit as "minor" was misleading, though I hope not intentionally dishonest. Let's leave it alone unless and until there is clear and genuine consensus to remove. Oh, and 3RR applies to you, too. ThAtSo 18:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Clear and genuine consensus to remove: Talk:Atheism#Put up or... (consensus reached at the end of the section). In my experience, reversions are almost always marked as minor edits, so I do that automatically out of routine. I don't see how it is possible for anyone to be dishonest in a system that includes a full historical edit archive, but I'll assume you're just saying that because you didn't like being reverted. Oh, and I know that 3RR applies to me too, what with being a 2½ year Wikipedian and all. -- Scjessey 18:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw it and there's no consensus. Consensus would mean broad agreement. What we have there are the three of you agreeing while two of us disagree. Given the small sample size, the extra vote is insignificant. ThAtSo 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There are more than 3 people agreeing that the Paul Bell section should be removed. I count at least 5, and there may be others. The problem revolves around the fact the nobody has seen, or can produce, the article in question. The only reference we can find to the article is in "The God Delusion", which is simply not enough. Rather than risk exposing the article to uncorroborated data, it is better to exclude the section until its contents can be verified. This is the Wikipedia way. -- Scjessey 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

false dichotomy: it doesn't work like this. You are not to pose some question like "Paul Bell yes or no?" and then count the few heads that can be bothered to reply at the time. The trick is to listen to all concerns and then produce a synthesis or compromise version that is better by being informed by all concerns. I tried something like this here. dab (⁳) 18:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You cannot have a compromise if the material is suspect. Nobody has seen this article. I would be delighted if the study were available for review, but nobody has been able to find it. By including the section in whole or in part, we could (potentially) be introducing POV or bias that is unsubstantiated. In cases like these, the onus of finding a consensus is on the editors seeking its inclusion, not its exclusion. -- Scjessey 19:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

sheesh: what will it be? is the Mesa study "not peer-reviewed", or are we not going to cite it because it is, has, in fact, been reviewed, that is, cited in a notable publication? Which has itself been extensively reviewed? So it was cited by an notable atheist author, rather than a notable theist author criticizing it, so what? If you like, we can add "according to Richard Dawkins", but that's really all there is at stake here. This is information we attribute to Dawkin's book. If Dawkins somehow blundered here, the "onus" is on you to find one of his many critics pointing this out. dab (⁳) 19:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how many people are on each side of this debate, we have to follow Wikipedia standards. The standards in question here are:

Verifiability- No-one can verify the study, because no-one has seen it.
Reliable Sources- We are trying to provide a source for the statement "Paul Bell found that religiosity is inversely correlated to intelligence." To support it, we are providing a reference to Dawkins, who is hardly an expert or a reliable source on the subject of Mensa magazine or Paul Bell (whoever that is).

The information simply cannot be verified. We don't know whether Mensa ever published this study. Adding "According to Dawkins, Paul Bell published a meta-study..." seems just too much like hearsay, as we discussed above, and the relevance to the matter at hand is suspect in the absence of any information about Paul Bell. johnpseudo 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So are you accusing Dawkins, an Oxford University Professor, of academic fraud? The attribution and quote seem entirely justified within the context.

--Michael Johnson 03:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC) The information is attributed to Dawkins (2006), p. 103. Anything beyond that is criticism of Dawkins, which I suggest you kindly delegate to critics of Dawkins. At this point I believe that people are simply trying to muddy the issue by random sophistry. What is this even about? Seeing that religionists have repeated tirelessly for centuries on end that the key to God is faith or grace, not intelligence, I fail to see how any theist is going to be surprised or much less disturbed by the result of this study, no more than by a study saying that motorsports enthusiasts run a higher risk of dying in car crashes. dab (⁳) 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the attribution is inaccurate. We are trying to draw conclusions from the work of Bell, not from the work of Dawkins. If we cannot cite the actual study, we should not mention it. It is as simple as that. -- Scjessey 19:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In a featured article, about such a strong claim, we need strong sources. Until someone verifies the study, this is not a strong source. With this level of verification, it might be appropriate for an article about Paul Bell, "Religiosity and intelligence", or Richard Dawkins, but not for Atheism. johnpseudo 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you walk into any Borders or other large book store, you can open up a copy of "The God Delusion" and see for yourself that Dawkins cites this study. This citation is not only sufficient, but it's better than a direct one, since it shows that a noted atheist considers it to be relevant. If we dug it up ourselves, we might be guilty of original research.

This information is cited and verifiable. If you believe Dawkins made it up out of whole cloth, I bet you can get a lot of positive attention from the creationist crowd if you track down the issue of Mensa and prove Dawkins wrong. Until then, the citation is valid so the paragraph stays. ThAtSo 02:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree what ThAtSo is saying. Richard Dawkins is a highly respected atheist. RS

I also agree. It seems that people are making a large amount of incorrect statements as they try to justify removing this Bell stuff. There is a source that we can cite: Mensa Magazine, UK Edition, Feb. 2002, pp. 12–13. Is that not good enough? Well, we've also got Dawkins who has cited and supported Bell's results. Surely those two things together are enough to make this reliable. "Until someone verifies the study..." Isn't that what Dawkins did? -- Lilwik 02:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's been a pattern of excuse-hunting to remove this particular citation. It can't be entirely coincidental that, when one basis is refuted, they search for another one. Even assuming good faith, it sure looks like this valid citation is being given way too much attention. It's sort of like a cop pulling you over for one excuse, realizing he can't ticket you on it, then looking hard to find some other basis to give you a ticket. ThAtSo 03:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please adhere to WP:AGF. We shouldn't have to take Dawkins' citation on faith. The entire point of people including citations in their work is so that encyclopedias and other researchers can find the source material and verify claims. johnpseudo 14:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. Not one single reason for the removal of the citation in question has been refuted. No one has found a copy of the article; no one has determined who this Paul Bell is; no one has shown (nor could they) that Dawkins is an expert, unbiased source of factual information on religion. This is supposed to be a featured article. No information that dubious belongs in it, especially when there are many, many other neutral sources of information available on the topic. Featured articles should be iron-clad in terms of their sources. -- Mwalcoff 03:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

These hoops you want us to jump through are ridiculous! There is absolutely no reason for anyone to find a copy of the article. We don't demand this for our OTHER citations, do we? There is absolutely no reason to care who Paul Bell is. All he did was look at 43 other studies, which anyone can do. There is absolutely no reason to show that Dawkins is an expert on religion because he's not the one who did the study. He's notable because he's a prominent atheist who has raised this argument in a popular book.

The problem isn't that we haven't met your demands, but that your demands do not need to be met. The information is reliable, the citation is solid, the complaints are absurd. Just walk away before your credibility is entirely destroyed by your actions. ThAtSo 03:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea what the study says, ThAtSo. You have never seen it. You have no idea what methodology the mysterious Paul Bell used. All you have to go on is a second-hand mention in a very partisan diatribe. If you tried to use this citation in a journal article, you'd be laughed out of academia. This is the kind of amateurishness that makes people mock Wikipedia. -- Mwalcoff 04:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to second ThAtSo's previous comment, it's an excellent summary of the problems with Mwalcoff's arguments. Mensa is a reliable source regarding topics on intelligence, and Dawkins is a reliable source regarding topics on atheism, so I see no reasons to throw either out on the claim that they are not reliable sources. Wikipedia:No original research says, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." (emphasis in original) The Mensa meta-analysis reference is a reliable, published secondary source for the various primary sources Bell cites. Dawkins' book is a reliable, published secondary source for the Mensa meta-analysis and a tertiary source for the sources cited by Bell. That means that the Mensa meta-analysis and Dawkins' book are both acceptable sources per WP:NOR. Your complaints about "methodology" and such are also irrelevant, as the standard of Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in original) per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your accusations of "amateurishness" are not particularly conducive to a friendly atmosphere here either. The point is, this is not a "journal article," these citations are acceptable under Wikipedia's guidelines, and that's all that matters. -- Hi Ev 05:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the recent edit-war over this section, with many people on each side, I think it's painfully clear that there is no consensus to delete. If anyone deletes on the basis of consensus, they're kidding themselves but fooling anyone else. Nobody's been able to come up with a deletion excuse that sticks, despite lots of people trying. I think it's time for you theists to disprove the citation by doing the smart thing and just walking away. ThAtSo 03:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mwalcoff, you again!

Mwalcoff: "no one has shown (nor could they) that Dawkins is an expert, unbiased source of factual information on religion."

How can you say that? Dr. Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Richard Dawkins is a highly respected atheist. Richard Dawkins is an expert and an unbiased source of factual information on religion.

RS

RS -- have you read Dawkins book, or any part of it? Certainly no one who reads Dawkins book can call him neutral or unbiased. It's fine to cite him as an example of what atheists believe, but it would be insane to use him for objective information on religion. -- Mwalcoff 04:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have read Dawkins book. I am an atheist and I think his views are unbaised. RS

I am going to email Dawkins and ask him about the study; hopefully, he can direct me to the original source. I do not question his academic honesty (and I am surprised that people actually are doing so; it's not as if he would blatantly lie about statistics), but it would be better to cite the original source. In the meantime, I think it is fine to indirectly cite it, as long as it is acknowledged that we are using an indirect citation. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not question Dawkins at all or verifiability, however I do question the potential for inaccuracies with the study itself. Mensa magazine is not cataloged in my university system where I live, thus like other editors, I have no access to it. Bell is a Mensa member, and other than that, we don't know who he is or what his credentials are, what studies were selected, and the criteria/measures used. In addition, Mensa has its own eccentric measures of intelligence too; did Mensa use such criteria? The meta-analysis was obviously not published in sociology or social biology journals, so did it get vetted by several peers for accuracy as is standard for journals? Probably not and Dawkins adds that more studies are needed (he covered himself there). I strongly disagree that anyone can do a meta-analysis(at least not a proper scientific one). It takes expertise in statistics and the subject material. There are often subtle complexities, confounding factors and biases that can be overlooked, and we don't know his methods. At a minimum, a list of the forty-some studies mentioned and Bell's credentials are essential disclosures. Until these are produced and verified, I agree with other editors that the Bell study should not be mentioned. _Modocc 05:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could mention that more studies are needed, then, but I still think we should include the Mensa article. Like was mentioned further down the page, Mensa is a reasonably reliable source, more reliable than a lot of other sources we use. Just mention that the article is from Mensa and let readers judge the reliability of the source for themselves. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Another, strongly sourced study added, below the Mensa entry. --Old Moonraker 08:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if there's any correlation at all between intelligence and theism/atheism. C.S. Lewis was no dope, and neither was Bertrand Russell. Religious beliefs of all stripes tend to be inherited rather than attained. See, e.g. this article (which might or might not find a place somewhere in this Wikiarticle). PiCo 05:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The study doesn't say people can't be intelligent and theistic, it just says that there is a negative correlation between the two. What you are arguing is merely anecdotal evidence, which doesn't disprove anything that says things like "most people do X" or "X's are more likely to be Y's." For example, "Most people have two arms." Naming a couple of people who have one arm or no arms does not disprove that statement. -- Hi Ev 05:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfair criticism

"Theists have made very similar arguments, however, against atheists based on the state atheism of communist states."

This criticism is totally unfair. Communist dictators like Stalin abolished religion so that they can replace God themselves. They saw religion as a rival power source, which is why they abolished religion. I think the above criticism should be removed. RS

RS, you may think that criticism is unfair, but nonetheless, it is a common criticism of atheism. Your response -- that the atheism of Communist countries was not really atheism -- is also rather common. So instead of deleting the sentence you disagree with, find a legitimate source that says what you said and cite it in the article. In this case, I believe, a citation from a widely read atheist apologetic like Dawkins or Hitchins would suffice. -- Mwalcoff 03:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mwalcoff; I've read Dawkins and remember him addressing this in The God Delusion. It has to do with the lack of terrible acts committed in the name of atheism. Just find what Dawkins wrote and use it here (I would do so myself, but I loaned my copy of the book to a friend). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Although it is obviously a dubious criticism, it is still a common one, so it should be included. We include Pascal's Wager even though it clearly invokes an idealized situation that's completely detached from reality. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-21 20:33Z

Why are atheists so unpopular in America?

That question is not meant to be an insult to atheists, and it is not rhetorical. For some reason or another, atheists are very unpopular, at least in the U.S. See, for instance, this article from the atheism.about.com site.

Yet, with the lack of a criticism section, there is no mention of the disregard with which atheists tend to be viewed by the majority of the public in the U.S., and, one would assume, some other largely religious countries.

No matter what one thinks about atheism, this is a glaring omission. Imagine the article on Jews in the Middle Ages without a mention of anti-Semitism! Indeed, that article discusses anti-Semitism in detail, providing reasons why it was such a problem (blood libels, blame for the Black Death, etc.)

I would recommend that a section be added about external opinions of atheists and atheism, the reasons for those opinions and atheists' responses to any common criticisms, if appropriate. -- Mwalcoff 04:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because you haven't bothered to actually read the article doesn't mean the criticism isn't currently present. Not everything is in convenient bite-sized packages (the kind which you want to create in the form of a Criticism section). The Manual of Style and Jimbo are both opposed to criticism sections. Bother to read the article and you will find the criticism you are claiming is absent. If you want to add more criticism, feel free, provided you supply the necessary reliable sources, of course. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-21 20:28Z

Please do not engage in personal attacks or make assumptions about other contributors. I certainly did read the article, and it occured to me that it does not answer the question of why atheists are so unpopular in America. I think this ought to be addressed. -- Mwalcoff 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, restore the Dawkins quote and we can talk about this next. ThAtSo 04:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism should ideally be integrated into other sections of the article. As Jimbo Wales wrote, "And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, [criticism sections] are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."

I would agree with a section on the persecution/perception of atheists, though, much like the section in Christianity for persecution of Christians. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The well is poisoned in the USA. This is probably still a result of the greatest wackjobs of 18th century Europe, both on the religious and the social scale, emigrating to the New World. This is not meant as an insult, and not rhetorically, it is at the root of the paradoxical situation the USA finds itself in today, being both the most freaked out liberal, and the most medieval / anally retentive conservative country in the world, simultaneously, with both halves accusing the other of being "un-American". This is a topic of the schizophrenia of USian society, and not directly related to Atheism as such. It may call for a separate Atheism in the USA article, but should probably be discussed in an existing article, such as Religion in the USA. dab (⁳) 07:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Try Discrimination against atheists and Persecution of atheists? Mdwh 22:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that a "criticism" section may not be the best thing to do. Perhaps we should call the section "Outside views of atheism and atheists." -- Mwalcoff 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It would still turn into a criticism section, regardless of the header name. And as has been explained, the MOS and Jimbo are opposed to such sections. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-22 12:59Z

Well, however it's done, I think the article should try to answer the question of why atheists are so disliked, or at least demonstrate that such dislike/prejudice exists. -- Mwalcoff 22:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

I highly doubt the factual accuracy of this statement:

"Research in the United States has tended to find that religiosity in general is correlated with greater educational attainment and scholastic performance."

Please find reputable sources for this. I also changed "Research" to "Some research" as the other studies mentioned obviously oppose any positive correlation between religiosity and "greater educational attainment and scholastic performance." -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes 94 and 95 cover the entire paragraph. The studies mentioned above are in the minority; I've been arguing to stick to literature reviews and meta-analyses so we don't wind up in a citation war. -- Mwalcoff 05:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Research" without "some" still implies that it is a fact that religiosity and intelligence positively correlate. This has huge POV issues, and I'm reverting back to "some research." Prove to me that the vast majority of research shows a positive correlation between the two. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read the literature reviews that are cited, it will be pretty apparent. Note that I didn't use the term "vast majority;" I used a term that was faithful to the literature reviews I cited. -- Mwalcoff 05:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds awfully weasel-like to me (ironically, as it is the lack of a weasel word that does this). Anyway, I checked out the study which was available online (Sherkat), and even he said that only "some" research shows this: "Some studies claim that religious students are better students—and there is some merit to this argument." He does not seem to conclude that religion has an overall good effect on on students; rather, he concludes that moderate religion does. However, even that is not entirely clear, and it in no way justifies the removal of the word "some" from the article. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you scroll up to the "What the peer-reviewed studies say" section of this talk page, you'll see what Lehrer had to say. -- Mwalcoff 22:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to thank Mwalcoff for defending NPOV and not budging to the atheists. Warfwar3 16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can't contribute anything of value, please don't bother. Read WP:NPA and learn how to be civil. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-21 20:36Z

(Note: The immediately preceding post was interlineated later; this post addresses Warfwar3) I would just like to thank you for your future exercise of restraint in posting divisive and misleading posts like the above. Authors on both sides of the credulous fence have appeared on both sides of the criticism inclusion issue. I, for example, am a strong atheist and support the inclusion of a criticism section, as you can note in prior posts. The religiosity of editors has only seemed to be relevant at all because there has been much loud, useless, and distracting debate on the merits of criticism, with both sides apparently unable to contextualize and understand why that is utterly immaterial to the question at issue.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

how do we reconcile these studies? Note the "in the United States". Most people in the US are "religious". Did those studies somehow gauge "grades of religiosity"? That is, do the findings reflect that "ardent churchgoers are more successful than bums who don't bother to go to church except maybe at Christmas"? In this case, this is patently not about atheism at all, but about WASPs and social integration. It all hinges no "religiosity" vs. "theism". We need to check the study to see what was actually measured. dab (⁳) 16:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I've noticed a lot of discussion on this talk page about how to determine if a source is reliable.

There has been mention of peer-reviewed sources, or sources that cite other sources. I want to point out that there is no requirement in the Wikiguides that sources be peer-reviewed, only that there is some reasonable level of trust in the reliability of the publisher or writer. A magazine published by Mensa for example, clearly is a reliable source - not in the sense that the contents of the magazine are always correct, but in the sense of the Wikipedia guidline on reliable sources. A letter to the editor in that magazine one might consider a bit less of a reliable source than an article in the magazine, but in a publication like that, even the letters to the editor must pass some sort of review for Mensa to include it.

I'm not arguing one way or the other in the particular discussion that mentioned the Mensa magazine, I'm just using that as an example.

I know we often quote Wikiguides like WP:RS and consider that we know what they mean. But since there has been so much debate here about what sources are reliable or not, I highly recommend re-reading the WP:RS page. It's pretty well thought-out - a lot of editors have worked hard to get it into a concise statement of a deep policy. --Parzival418 _Hello 06:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up - I just found this page that seems interesting: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you are not able to resolve your differences about the reliability of the various sources you've been discussing, it could be helpful to post a request there to get some feedback. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Parzival. I certainly agree that not all sources need to be peer-reviewed. However, a study that we cite should be peer-reviewed. I acknowledge that for some subjects, there may not be appropriate peer-reviewed material. But there are thousands of sources on atheism. We should only be using the best and most authoritative sources for this article. -- Mwalcoff 22:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There may be "thousands of sources" but how many of them meet your criteria as "the best and most authoritative sources"? Almost zero I'd guess. It seems to me, based on your previous comments, that your definition of a reliable source is much more stringent than Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. I think we should stick to Wikipedia's definition, in which case (as I just explained above in the Citing a citation section) both the Mensa meta-analysis and Dawkins' citations count as reliable sources. Saying we should use "the best and most authoritative sources" is all well and good, but please keep in mind that "best" and "authoritative" can be judged by various criteria, and not everyone agrees with the particular criteria you've used to define those terms for some sources. -- Hi Ev 05:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello HiEv. It may be true that Wikipedia's standards for sources are not as tight as those of a refereed journal. But this is supposed to be a featured article -- the best of Wikipedia. So it should have the best sources. It would be impossible for there to be zero "best" sources for a given subject. The best are the best of whatever does exist. For an obscure subject, a "low-quality" reference might be the only one there is. Atheism is not an obscure subject. There are, as I said, thousands of other sources available.

WP:RS says, "In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." I maintain that the paragraph on intelligence clearly violates this policy and appears to reveal POV-pushing. -- Mwalcoff 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough wikilawyering already. This is an unambiguously reliable source. The original studies are reliable, the meta-study referred to in the Mensa publication is reliable, and Dawkins' reference to the meta-study is reliable. The fact that a well-known advocate of atheism mentioned it in a popular book makes it particularly relevant and dispells any accusations of original research or synthesis. In short, there is nothing left to discuss here except why you won't just let this drop. Do you care to explain yourself or do you just want to go away? Your choice. ThAtSo 04:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I think the source is inappropriate, especially for a featured article. I've stated my reasons several times already. Several other people have agreed with me. I believe that if we have to continue through the dispute resolution process, the paragraph in question will find few defenders among a broader audience. We'll just have to see. -- Mwalcoff 22:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "zero" I said "almost zero," and you ignored my main point that there has actually been a strong consensus here that disagrees with your insistence that this is not a reliable or appropriate source and generally agrees that this is one of the best sources given so far, and many have explained why. The meta-analysis cites many studies, is notable due to Dawkins' reference to it, and comes from a reliable and appropriate source. Though you continue to deny it, Mensa is a reliable and appropriate source for information regarding intelligence. Also, your suggestion is not "replace with X" or "improve" it's simply to delete and possibly "replace with ?". You claim it is "POV-pushing," I disagree, but in any case the NPOV FAQ says that valid information should not be deleted simply because you think it is pushing a point of view, you should edit it to remove bias instead. You say you "think the source is inappropriate, especially for a featured article," but you are ignoring the fact that it became a featured article with that information already in it. This supports my point that others disagree with your claim that the Mensa meta-analysis is not a reliable source. And when there is no consensus regarding a delete, you should not delete. So, rather than complaining about WP:RS and WP:NPOV or referring to some vague "thousands of other sources," why not add some of these other "best" sources or work on a compromise? -- Hi Ev 09:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A thought on NPOV

We all agree that Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a "neutral point of view." From my perspective, though, NPOV shouldn't mean "You try to prove your point, and I'll try to prove my point." Rather, it means that the article should be written from an objective standpoint. In other words, it should read as if it was written by people with no personal opinion about the subject matter, in this case atheism.

The second paragraph of the Demographics section certainly does not read as if it was written by disinterested people. Rather, it reads like notes for a high school debate competition. It seems as if people have done research with the intention of finding sources that make atheists out to look smarter than religious people. The inclusion of a citation from 1958 is the best (or worst) example.

I would not be surprised to find that atheists score higher than religious people on some measures of intelligence. But to determine that, I would try to find all the information I can on the subject rather than search specifically for data that prove one side or the other.

When I searched for studies on the link between religion and educational attainment, I looked at all of the studies I found on Google and Google Scholar. I posted the titles and authors of each study on this page before reading the studies. As it turned out, the documents I found included two literature reviews, and I summarized the findings in our article. (Among the articles I read, the primary-research studies themselves tended to back up the literature reviews.)

Somehow, I don't think the same technique was used by those who crafted the rest of the paragraph in question. -- Mwalcoff 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This motivation was suggested and refuted a while back. It turns out that we didn't dig up obscure references to show that theists are stupid and uneducated, which would have been original research. Instead, we noticed that a vocal proponent of atheism referenced a metastudy to that effect in a recent, popular book. Maybe you should assume good faith, even from those of us who reject faith, and keep your focus on the content, not the people. ThAtSo 03:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he was assuming bad faith, ThAtSo (correct me if I'm wrong), and let's not throw around faith-based insults. That being said, I don't think that this section reads like that at all. The tone is perfectly suitable for an encyclopedia, and I see no problem with using a 1958 meta-study. There haven't been very many, so we use what we can. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of cooperation, I'll withdraw what I said about bad faith. Let's just leave it at these studies being notable and not original research by us. ThAtSo 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's called "writing for the enemy". Can everybody here just forget whether they consider themselves "theists" or "atheists" for the time they edit this article? It really shouldn't matter. Your job is to research opinions and report on them. Your own predilections or convictions really have nothing to do with it. dab (⁳) 16:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. As I said before, I'm not an atheist, but if I found solid evidence that most research showed atheists to be ten times smarter than religious people, I'd put it in the appropriate place (if there is one in this article).

BTW, I should not make any assumptions about the motivations of people who contributed to the article. But no matter what their motivations were, the paragraph reads as if it was written to prove a point. -- Mwalcoff 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, of course we should forget our religious convictions and avoid POV. However, like I wrote earlier, I believe that this section perfectly satisfies WP:NPOV, and I don't think it reads as if it was written to prove a point at all. Perhaps you could quote certain passages with which you have a problem? I just don't see any problems with it; both sides are presented, and not in a way that gives undue weight to one side. True, there are more studies cited which identify an inverse correlation between education and religiosity, but it does seem that this is the general trend, from the evidence we have available. If there are some other meta-analyses available which show that religiosity and education level/achievement have a positive correlation, we could cite those, but it doesn't seem that such studies exist, at least not ones from reliable sources. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 23:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

None of the sentences are factually incorrect (although we don't know about the Mensa thing). It's just that when I read it, I don't think it looks like it was written from a completely objective standpoint. It's hard to put a finger on it, but it's probably because of the sources the paragraph cites: two individual studies, an obscure magazine article and a 1958 book. Again, I don't want to make any assumptions about anyone's motivation. But if an objective person was asked to report on the current state of research on the relationship between atheism and intelligence and/or educational attainment, I think he or she would come up with a paragraph that looks like this. The researcher would be very unlikely to wind up with the latter two sources. And while there's nothing wrong with citing individual studies in some articles, I think in this case a hypothetical researcher might stick to broader statements about the tendencies in the literature out there.

I think both the Larson and Sulloway studies count as very reliable sources. (In fact, it should be noted that Larson's letter to the editor was simply an update of an earlier article he had published in Nature.) But I fear that citing two individual studies (not literature reviews) that show a negative correlation between religion and intelligence/education and zero that show a positive correlation puts the article at risk of giving undue weight to the negative side. I say that because Lehrer writes that most studies on the subject show a positive correlation, while Sherkat, more nuanced, says that religion has both good and bad effects on educational attainment and performance.

Perhaps the truth is that religion is positively correlated to educational attainment in general, but not with scientists. Scientists (especially the elite scientists Larson surveyed) represent a small portion of even the well-educated population. Their lack of religiosity may not show up in broader studies of educational attainment simply because there aren't that many of them. -- Mwalcoff 23:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, it's not neutral. Fortunately, we don't have to go by your opinion so long as it is unsupported by anything stronger than whim. As for your original research, there's nothing of value to comment upon. ThAtSo 04:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo, the sarcastic tone and insulting content of your comment is not helpful. You're certainly welcome to point out that you believe Mwalcoff's comment is unsupported by references or that it may be original research. But there is no reason to be mean about it. You say that his words contain "nothing of value to comment upon." If so, then why are you commenting?

While I don't particularly agree with Mwalcoff's concerns about the article, I appreciate that he's editing respectfully, discussing his ideas on the talk page first, seeking consensus and references.

Make your counter-arguments or quote the Wikiguides if you wish, but leave out the insults and sarcasm. That way of communicating is unproductive; you can make your point without making bad feelings. --Parzival418 _Hello 05:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Parzival418, you are trying to scare ThAtSo. How can you say that the comments of ThAtSo are "insulting"? ThAtSo is trying to suggest that there should be no original research in the Wikipedia. And, he is right. RS

That was not my intention, so in the interests of clarity, I've re-edited my prior comment to soften the closing sentence. There is nothing wrong with telling someone that their argument constitutes original research and so is not acceptable in Wikipedia. But it can be done politely. While Mwalco's arguments might not be grounded in solid references, that does not make them worthless. He also is a member of the community working to better the article. Even the dissenting viewpoints are part of the creation of consensus.

Editors can disagree and still keep the communication friendly. We're all here to make this a better encyclopedia. So when we disagree, let's do it with respect rather than sarcasm, that's all I was trying to say. --Parzival418 _Hello 08:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, in my opinion, Mwalcoff's objections haven't been original research. He is trying to evaluate the quality of the sources in order to find the right balance. Perhaps I can try to guess at what is bothering him. I think it is the way we are stringing together these different studies to give the impression that the issue is more solid than it actually is. --Merzul 09:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The best way to overreact is to take things out of context. For example, the context here is that Mwalcoff has a pattern of posting trivially refuted or entirely irrelevant arguments here, and then concluding that the lack of a response means he has a consensus to erase parts of the article. This error has led to actual edit wars, so I proactively responded to make sure he wouldn't just assume that silence was compliance. In this context, my remarks were entirely civil.

You also twisted the meaning of my tactful closing sentence by putting the emphasis on the wrong part. To remind you, I wrote "As for your original research, there's nothing of value to comment upon." The emphasis in the original is on the fact that all that speculation is just original research. Rather than wasting any time arguing against ideas that he pulled out of thin air, I simply said that there is nothing to say about them. Of course, if you choose to assume bad faith -- and this is entirely a matter of your choice -- then you can focus on the "nothing of value" part and pretend an insult was intended.ThAtSo 14:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens, Pete Stark, Robyn Blumner

An encyclopedia is not about staying old-fashioned, it’s about communicating knowledge within context. So, let’s include some of the interesting stuff happening right now (or recently), such as:

A good exerpt from Christopher Hitchens' new book GOD IS NOT GREAT. (And I think like a book review, under fair use provisions, we can include a good-sized excerpt.)

Let’s talk about U.S. Representative Pete Stark filing out a survey from the Secular Coalition back in March and candidly describing himself as “a Unitarian who does not believe in a Supreme Being.” [3] [4] [5] And I understand that he’s the first member of Congress—ever!—who has said that they do not believe in a hypothesized deity.

And although this now may be somewhat dated, I was really impressed three years ago when newspaper columnist Robyn Blumner very confidently, very easily, and very winningly said that she was an atheist. “I'm an atheist - so what?” August 8, 2004 [6] “A heartening response from atheists” August 15, 2004 [7]

I’d like to see our article become longer and splashier, like a really good Newsweek cover story with sidebars and biographical sketches and photos and so on and so forth, only we’re going to give much more historical background. And perhaps as something becomes dated, we could keep a summary version and then move the longer version to some kind of archive. Let us take good chances and try experiments. FriendlyRiverOtter 05:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a bad idea, to take an otherwise decent article and make it vulnerable to Wikipedia:Recentism. It would be better, in my opinion, to start a new article — like ~~Athiesm in the 20th century~~ Athiesm in the 21st century — and have a {{main}} link from the section here. Also watch out for systemic bias: Not all notable athiest figures (politicians or otherwise) are American. Silly rabbit 12:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Second Mr. Rabbit about another article for that sort of thing. Also, note that Wikipedia is not Newsweek and should not read like any such magazine; this is an encyclopedia. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that it's a bad idea. The Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy gives various reasons why many of those things should not be included (especially "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".) Much of that is not particularly important or notable, or simply isn't especially relevant to the topic of "atheism." -- Hi Ev 06:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter's ideas are brilliant. Let's also add a section on why Paris Hilton isn't an atheist because she "found God" in jail, and perhaps a survey to see how many people who watch "American Idol" think atheists are immoral evildoers. A section entitled "Would Jesus use an iPhone?" could discuss how Apple has alienated atheists by targeting religious people with their advertising. </sarcasm> -- Scjessey 13:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Silly rabbit is correct. The three people I mentioned are Americans (Hitchens very recently!). That’s because I’m an American and this is the culture I’m most familiar with! And that’s why we need a variety of people, from a variety of different cultures, participating and contributing.

We seem to have two unofficial, unstated rules for articles: The article must be short, The article must be immune to criticism. And in both cases, we are artificially holding ourselves back.

Are we going to have a main article on “Physics” that does the old-fashioned stuff (no longer entirely correctly), and a separate article on “21th Century Physics”? Or, are we going to have one big article that tells the narrative of the whole story? I think this second way is clearly the way to go.

Again, if a teenager (or college student) comes to our article because they are wondering if they might be an atheist, do we have anything that is genuinely useful, or is it all just tame and timid?

No, we can’t meaningfully summarize Richard Dawkins views (or anyone else who has lived in the last 50 years!). I don’t know why, but there’s some rule we can’t. FriendlyRiverOtter 00:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(Note: This is mainly a response to the second paragraph in the previous comment.) "The article must be short" is not an "unofficial" or "unstated" guideline, it's clearly stated in the official Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Size guideline. Quote: "Articles themselves should be kept relatively short. Say what needs saying, but do not overdo it. Articles should aim to be less than 32KB in size." Currently the article is just over 75KB in size, which is already more than twice the recommended size.

Also, "the article must be immune to criticism" is not what people are saying, so you are making a straw man argument there. What they are saying is that you are trying to turn the article into something that does not conform to the Wikipedia standards for articles, violating policies like WP:NOT and causing problems like WP:RECENTISM. I can understand wanting to be bold, but rewriting an article that has managed to achieve featured article status in a way that violates Wikipedia standards is just a bad idea.

If you have other ideas, please, keep them coming, they are welcome here. However, this particular idea is one that you should probably drop IMHO. -- Hi Ev 05:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The perception that atheists don’t have repertoire/skills/passion in morality

Scjessey asks with sarcasm, “perhaps a survey to see how many people who watch "American Idol" think atheists are immoral evildoers.” Actually, that may not be such a bad idea! That’s really kind of getting to the gist of the matter, the idea that we atheists are lost and adrift. And it’s not just less educated people, or less intellectually active people, who believe this. All sorts of people believe this.

I don't necessarily know that I'd say that; I haven't met many (if any) intellectually active or well educated people who aren't atheists. Your experiences may vary. ElHalo 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And a variety of atheists have responded to this through the ages, but again, you’d never know from reading our article. FriendlyRiverOtter 00:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

List of atheist Nobel laureates

I have created the List of atheist Nobel laureates. It is important to acknowledge that there are several atheist who have received the Nobel Prize. RS

Some of that would probably be a good idea to include in our main article, especially the laureates who have been more outspoken about not believing in religion. But, per the above, there is probably some rule against it! FriendlyRiverOtter 00:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule against it but it's a bit of a slippery slope [8]. Sophia 17:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this of note? Is the claim that they are Nobel laureates because they are atheists? Or is it just that they happen to be atheists as well? It seems to me to add nothing to our knowledge of atheism (or Nobel laureates) other than the spectacularly unsurprising fact that atheists can be laureates too (as well as cooks, and office-workers, and engineers, and good people, bad people, and so forth). Dast 09:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think much of the "see also" section is misguided, to be honest. -- Scjessey 14:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Atheism and persecution

Why is there no topic about the persecution of atheists??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.104.191 (talk) 15:27, July 8, 2007 (UTC)

Because it's already mentioned in a couple of places in the article, plus the "Atheism Topics" box has a link to the Persecution of atheists article. -- Hi Ev 05:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

'See also' section

This section, near the bottom of the article, contains only three links. However, I'm sure most people reading this are aware that Wikipedia has many more pages about or related to atheism. Some of these are listed in the 'Atheism' template, but this is hidden away at the very end of the article, making the links difficult to find (see, for instance, the comment immediately above this one). Why not move some of the links from the 'Atheism' template up to the 'See Also' section? If not all of them, at least the most significant ones.Terraxos 01:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - I followed the advice of WP:BOLD and expanded the See Also section myself. Terraxos 06:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding "see also" links that are already present in the body of the article is contrary to the advice given in the Manual of Style (see Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also). They should really be reverted. -- Scjessey 20:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Added ref. to support definition of atheism

I've been reading the long debates about the definition of atheism in the discussion archives. I thought this reference to the book Natural Atheism by Dr. David Eller might be helpful in supporting the definition that atheism is a lack of belief in dieties. Dr. Eller is a Cultural Anthropologist and the book is a scholarly work on the nature of atheism. I feel it meets the requirements of WP:RS. Dr. Eller says "Atheism is the lack of belief in any god(s)" - Bgplayer 02:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This source may be "reliable", but it doesn't seem notable with respect to defining atheism. This book is just another book among hundreds of books on atheism. If it were regarded by a reliable source to be "the final word" or "an important work" on the subject on atheism, then it might belong here. johnpseudo 15:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a perfectly good definition and very much in line with what the article says. There's no reason to keep it out if there's a place for it. ThAtSo 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposing leaving the definition. I am opposing using this reference. johnpseudo 19:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also a perfectly good reference. ThAtSo 21:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The existing definition is perfectly adequate, and any further revision is unnecessary. The broad context description we have at the moment (covering the various forms of atheism) is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Remember that this is supposed to be Wikipedia, not Wiktionary, so a concise (and possibly restrictive) definition is not desired. -- Scjessey 21:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear I didn't change a word of the definition or introduction. I just added a reference to support the definition of "atheism is the absence of belief in deities". I added the reference because I was going through the discussion archives of this article and saw a lot of argument about the definition. Some editors wanted this particular definition of atheism removed because it is not the first definition to appear in the dictionary, and it is not a widely accepted definition. It seems like a reliable source reference in support of this definition could help. I chose this particular reference because it's the one I have access to that best meets WP:RS. It's a scholarly work by an expert in a relevant field. Perhaps the reference is unnecessary, and if so that's fine, I don't mind removing it. After all of the argument the definition was still in the article so maybe no further reference is required. - Bgplayer 03:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)