Talk:List of atheists in science and technology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Thomas Edison

I know there was a list of people not to be put on the list of atheists, but I can't seem to find it, and I don't know if Thomas Edison was on it. I have this quote from the New York Times article ""NO IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL" SAYS THOMAS A. EDISON" on October 2, 1910. It seems to be a reliable source, and a link to the full pdf containing the entire interview can be found on the page linked. There are several quotes in this article that lead me to believe that Thomas Edison was an atheist. This one, in particular, is the one that stood out to me: "Heaven? Shall I, if I am good and earn reward, go to heaven when I die? No -- no. I am not I -- I am not an individual -- I am an aggregate of cells, as, for instance, New York City is an aggregate of individuals. Will New York City go to heaven?" - Thomas Edison on Page 2 of the article.

If someone with more time and expertise could list all of them and put the credits in correctly, I'd appreciate that very much. Also, I may be mistaken in this suggestion, and, if I am, please tell me so. 67.61.252.188 (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing Einstein

I note someone recently removed Einstein from this list, I see no reason for this to have been done as a clear reference has been given to him having not believed in a 'personal' god, and on top of that the recent letter (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion), can show this is definitely the case. As I am rather new to wikipedia, I tried to 'revert' it but seems like I was going to mess up the ordering and the order of the references, so will leave it to someone more capable.

There was a list of People not to be put on the list of atheists, Einstein was one of them, but that'd been deleted for some reason. Anyway There's a difference between not believing in a personal god and not believing in any god. If you go to [1] you'll get a better explanation than I can deliver, also the Einstein article's talk page and archives have several discussions on the subject. Also to save you some time a quote "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." Also pls sign your posts in future by putting ~~~~ at the end of your post 82.20.250.69 (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The evidence being used to "prove" Einstein was an atheist is being grossly misrepresented. Not believing in a personal God does not automatically make one an atheist. Thomas Jefferson did not believe in a personal God, but was a deist, not an atheist. There is much evidence that Einstein believed in God in some way and strongly disagreed with atheism:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

Indeed, the article about Einstein completely contradicts the inclusion of his name in this list. 67.135.49.186 (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The key point is "I'm not an atheist", which by the terms of Lists of atheists, I agree means he shouldn't be there. I'm not sure there is any evidence he is a deist though. Note that it's unclear what definition of "God" is being used in the first quote, and the second quote specifies professional atheist, rather than atheism as a whole. Given the difficulties here, I think it's best to just go with what he identified with - which seems to be agnosticism. Mdwh (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "I'm not an atheist" probably disqualifies him. My only question would be, when did he say that? He might have changed his mind -- we've got Graham Greene securely listed, and 'everyone knows' he was a Catholic! Oolon (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Einstein, when using the word God, was referring to the God of Spinoza (he said so on many occasions). This sort of expression of belief is normally parsed to mean "belief in the order and function of nature or natural law". The famous expression "God does not play dice" is parsed to read "natural law is not probabilistic". God in this sense is the expression of natural law, which is something all scientists tacitly accept. Unfortunate word-play on his part (in Spinoza's time it was understandable, as it was a means to avoid harm), but by not including Einstein in the atheist category, he is by exclusion being set in the theist category, which is simply not correct. -- Jcandy (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

He said "I'm not an atheist." in an interview to Time Magazine according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#cite_note-13 which sites "The World AS I See IT" by Albert Einstein as the source. This would seem to disqualify him from this list. He also allegedly said in the article; "There are people who say there is no God...But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." You can find it at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html. His belief in Spinoza's God may have been word play, but "I'm not an atheist" is fairly unequivocal in its denial. He does not belong on the list.OExaltedOne (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychology 101 also tell us that people lie. Unfortunately, I'm afraid he probably can't be used because of it. PalindromeKitty (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm the sources for Carl Sagan?

I can find no mention of these on an online archive search of the sources. His article says he was an agnostic. 67.135.49.186 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"I can find no mention of these on an online archive search of the sources." That's odd: that's how I found them. Via LexisNexis (or whatever it's now called, Lexis UK or something). No point giving a direct link as it's a subscription service. I'll double-check. Oolon (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone's ignoring talk and re-adding Einstein

I'm tired of reverting. Someone else want to take over? 67.135.49.186 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I note that the same editor is also removing Einstein from the List of agnostics. But agnosticism is not necessarily mutually exclusive to atheism (many are both), so even if Einstein was an atheist, that is not a reason to remove him from the agnostics article - we have a clear quote of him identifying as agnostic. Mdwh (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd go along with the "You may call me an agnostic" quote above (though it's kind of iffy since he's not directly saying he'd call himself agnostic), but it's pretty clear that he was offended to be placed in the atheist camp. 67.135.49.186 (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, Einstein must be in this list as it's blatantly obvious he was an atheist. Religious people humorously try to claim him as his, but it's been clear a long time ago he's an atheist. Especially confirmed by the letter that was sold in an auction this year where it stated it was childish superstition to believe. I'm not too familiar with how WP operates, but is it possible to have him in without ever being removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.45.172 (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Einstein was an agnostic rather than an atheist. No, there's no way to add anything without it being possibly removed. That's the beauty of wikipedia. And just an FYI, please read discussion before you edit a page, and make sure no one is talking about that exact issue. Thanks! -70.119.126.195 (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Derek J. de Solla Price

Someone has just added this guy, with the following entry:

• Derek J. de Solla Price (1922–1983): British-American historian of science. (ref>"...my father was a British Atheist... from a rather well known Sephardic Jewish family..." de Solla Price, Mark (2007-12-09). "Are you Jewish?". Retrieved 2008-08-01.(/ref>

Now, his parents' convictions are pretty much irrelevant. But from the cited article:

As an adult I found my own spirituality as a mix of Quaker, Taoist, Native American, Jewish, Universalist and Humanist. Today, I think of myself as a humanist Unitarian Universalist and pretty non-thetics. I’ve been a member of Community Church of New York Unitarian Universalist since 2003.

Although the Unitarian Universalist movement branched off from liberal Christianity, a recent study found that today most members identify themselves as Humanist (54%), followed by Agnostic (33%), Earth-centered (31%), Atheist (18%), Buddhist (16.5%), with Christian (13.1%) and Pagan (13.1%) being tied for smallest segment.

Now, assuming the "pretty non-thetics" is a typo for 'non-theist', it's not far off. But the rest of it, overall, sounds like he doesn't qualify. Which is why I've removed him. What do the rest of you think though?

Oolon (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand my citation. My quoted excerpt is Mark de Solla Price writing about his father Derek J. de Solla Price, and the purpose of citing it is in support of listing Derek as an atheist. What you quote here from Mark's web site is Mark talking about himself, which I agree is irrelevant to the issue of whether Derek was an atheist. Mark, the son of Derek and Ellen and therefore a highly credible source, unambiguously states that both were atheists.

Zigamorph (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry! Nice catch, then. Oolon (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Pavlov

I can provide references that Pavlov was christian.--Vojvodaeist 17:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I bet you can. But the article I cited was specifically looking at that issue, and came to the conclusion distilled in the reference.Oolon (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's nice. Now why is it a better source than any other?--T. Anthony (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, maybe because it is quoting one of Pavlov's followers quoting Pavlov's own words on the matter? Or maybe because it was from a whole article on the Pavlov's religious convictions, by an associate professor and published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion? Or, maybe, because the obvious question is: what others?

Here's a bit more from the article, which I'll have to type out as the paper's a photo-variety pdf:

PAVLOV ON HIS OWN RELIGIOSITY

Some disagreement exists on the issue whether Pavlov was or was not personally religious. He was brought up in a religious background, but later he seemed to be an atheist. [discussion of who argues which way] The issue can be decided by Pavlov's own words. In the early 1920s, Kreps (1967) asked Pavlov whether or not he was religious. Kreps wrote that Pavlov smiled and replied:

Listen, good fellow, in regard to [claims of] my religiosity, my belief in God, my church attendance, there is no truth in it; it is sheer fantasy. I was a seminarian, and like the majority of seminarians, I became an unbeliever, an atheist in my school years. (1967 131)

A decade later, during the October 9, 1935 Clinical Wednesday, Pavlov, at the age of 86, made the following statement in regard to his own religious belief:

I am a son of a priest, I was reared in a religious environment, however, when I was 15 to 16 years, I was reading all kinds of books and I changed my position (Bykov, 1957 360)

[discussion of Pavlov's religious parentage; church school attendance; proliferation of Western ideas after the abolition of serfdom in 1861; influence on Pavlov of Pisarev's popularisations of scholarly works including Darwin]

According to Pavlov's son, V. I. Pavlov (1967: 351), in 1931 the writer Maxim Gorkii asked I. P. Pavlov whether he was religious. Pavlov replied:

Of course, I have lost the faith of my childhood. How this has happened? This is difficult to explain[.] I became fascinated with Vogt, Moleschott and later with natural sciences; I worked my whole life in this field: I worked with matter[.]

Pisarev's writings lauded the achievements of scientists and offered a new scientific perspective to the youthful Pavlov.Later, the mature Pavlov's orientation was positivistic and humanistic: he believed that science would improve the human condition. Pavlov described to Kreps (1967: 131) his beliefs as follows:

My belief is that the progress in science will bring happiness to humans[.] I believe that human intellect and the higher manifestation thereof - science - will free the human species of disease, hunger, hostility, and will reduce human suffering. This belief has given and continues to give me strength and helps me to continue my work[.]

Note that Pavlov believed science would free humankind from hostility and suffering. In view of his statement about his own religiosity, we may conclude that Pavlov was an atheist and this part of Soviet anti-religious propaganda was based on fact.

The article goes on to describe how, "As atheistic as he was, Pavlov was also tolerant toward the free exercise of religion", and why that was. If you want any more, I suggest getting hold of it.

So it's up to anyone disagreeing to provide something better.

Oolon (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Add Einstein or change page name

It's more misleading, I'd suggest, on balance to not have Einstein in than to have him in. For that matter, I'd also add in Spinoza to the scientist list, who, as I understand was the kind of person who Einstein followed. I see the points raised above; but if you feel you can't put Einstein in because this is a "list of atheists" page - atheist being in the strong "I'm convinced there's no god" sense - then wouldn't it be better, surely, to alter the pages' names? I personally knew about Einstein's agnosticism/nontheism already. But I'd love to know who else there is; I'd imagine that the list would be quite a lot longer - and therefore more interesting. I think there are probably quite a lot of people who take the view that there should always be room for doubt: and not only the limited "tooth fairy agnosticism cum atheism" that Dawkins talks about. Wikidea 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, nearly every atheist I've ever met, including myself, can be considered an 'agnostic athiest', where as we believe it's foolish to believe in what is not natural law, but a god or gods were somehow proven to exist, the idea would become a facet of natural law. This is certainly atheism, and it's the most common form of atheism, so there's no reason why Einstein shouldn't be on both lists.

Really, there's no question about his agnostic athiesm if you read this quote:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

The above is from the letter auctioned last year, and the quotes earlier in this talk page can be easily explained by a belief in the God of Spinoza, or natural law, and thus, a lack of belief in religious superstitions. 8bit (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively before. There are quotes from earlier in his life in which he pointedly denied being an atheist, and expressed preference for the label "agnostic." That fact, paired with the earlier (more restrictive) inclusion criteria resulted in his removal from this list. However, Einstein may be included in this list based on the quote above and the current (less restrictive) inclusion criteria. Feel free to add him with a quote and source citation. Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, added Einstein and a couple of references supporting the claim. 8bit (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, despite adding two good sources supporting Einstien's atheism, my edition was removed by an IP user with edit reason: "Einstein was not an atheist!" I reverted back, however, if this continues, without any explanation which refutes my sources, I suggest that someone with the proper access should semi-protect this page. 8bit (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not this tired, old, defeated issue again. Einstein was no atheist, as can be seen in many quotes collected here: http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Albert_Einstein.html. He denied being an atheist and said that it made him angry when atheists quoted him to support their disbelief. 67.135.49.42 (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your source references Einstein's belief in 'Spinoza's God' several several times, however, Spinoza's 'God' was clearly the natural world:

"Be that as it may, Spinoza's fundamental insight in Book One is that Nature is an indivisible, uncaused, substantial whole—in fact, it is the only substantial whole. Outside of Nature, there is nothing, and everything that exists is a part of Nature and is brought into being by Nature with a deterministic necessity. This unified, unique, productive, necessary being just is what is meant by ‘God’. Because of the necessity inherent in Nature, there is no teleology in the universe. Nature does not act for any ends, and things do not exist for any set purposes. There are no “final causes” (to use the common Aristotelian phrase). God does not “do” things for the sake of anything else. The order of things just follows from God's essences with an inviolable determinism. All talk of God's purposes, intentions, goals, preferences or aims is just an anthropomorphizing fiction.

All the prejudices I here undertake to expose depend on this one: that men commonly suppose that all natural things act, as men do, on account of an end; indeed, they maintain as certain that God himself directs all things to some certain end, for they say that God has made all things for man, and man that he might worship God. (I, Appendix)

God is not some goal-oriented planner who then judges things by how well they conform to his purposes. Things happen only because of Nature and its laws. “Nature has no end set before it … All things proceed by a certain eternal necessity of nature.” To believe otherwise is to fall prey to the same superstitions that lie at the heart of the organized religions." -http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNat

In short, Spinoza was theorizing that 'god' is all that is material and natural, and that god contains all things, therefore, there is nothing beyond the outside world. He was what we consider today to be an atheist. (He obviously didn't call himself that, or refer to the term in any of his writings as the term didn't exist until long after he had died.) Thus, if Einstein stated that he was a follower of Spinoza's god, he was essentially stating that he was an atheist. 8bit (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, he was no atheist and does not belong on this list. Additionally, Einstein applied a personhood and will to the God he believed in. You don't call nature "Him" or state that nature created the universe (with would be saying nature created itself). 67.135.49.42 (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He was, and what? When did he apply personhood and will to his "god" idea? Most of what you say makes no sense. Dendlai (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

For example: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Does that really sound like he's referring to simply nature? Nature has a creative will? Nature has thoughts? 67.135.49.42 (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd just like to note that the demanding title of this discussion section definitely does not comply with Wikipedia's goal of consensus. 67.135.49.42 (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Though he also said:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God, and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

This seems to indicate that his only belief is in what is scientifically proven, and that his references to god is a reference to what is scientifically proven to exist in nature, thus, 'Spinoza's God' 8bit (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But that doesn't make him an atheist. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

...Yes it does... It not only makes him an atheist, it makes him a materialist. Regarding the quote you hid in a revision of the article, I believe that my above quote is at least partially a response to the earlier quote, and is, for sure, newer. 8bit (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as usual, is that many people who are familiar enough with scientific rationality and the rest of this stuff quite often are cautious about the terms they use. Also, there's the confusion about what constitutes an atheist: a denier of god(s)' existence, or just a non-believer. Even Dawkins is technically agnostic, after all.

But here, we're including those who simply disbelieve, who are a-theists, lacking theistic beliefs. This is because many have called themselves atheists, yet have either otherwise only expressed disbelief (not existence-denial), or haven't commented further at all. To exclude those self-claimed atheists who have not 'actively' claimed god-absence would be, frankly, nuts; and would leave us uncertain whether to include the self-identifying who've not clarified further (disbelief, or belief in absence?), lest we accidentally include 'mere' 'weak' atheists.

In short, this is perforce not exclusively a list of 'strong' atheists: 'weak' atheists are welcome too.

Seems clear from his quotes that Einstein was a 'weak' (ie disbelieving) atheist, and agnostic -- just as Dawkins is -- in the strong sense, for perfectly sensible philosophical / epistemological / scientific reasons. Not categorical denial, but simply lack of belief.

ETA: We have the reverse problem sometimes too, as with Michael Shermer: people who have actively denied being an atheist -- meaning certain of god(s)' non-existence -- while being probably stronger in their near-but-not-100% certainty than many another 'weak' atheist! If one is more atheist-y, but deny the term, they still need including!

Which makes him an atheist in the sense that allows his inclusion here.

It's also the reason for including the -- extensive if necessary -- quotes, so people can see the nuances for themselves, and get an idea what 'atheist' means to various self-users of the term and those with similar opinions (self-identified or not, as with Clarence Darrow or David Attenborough). And if these de facto atheists prefer another term, we note it.

Oolon (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As Oolon points out, it's outrageous to only include atheists who actively believe in the lack of a god, as if this was done this list would be empty. Just about every atheist, and especially those in the scientific community are also agnostic- people forget that these terms are not mutually exclusive. On that note, I'll be reverting back to include Einstien. If anyone has any further complaints, please post your argument on this talk page, as I honestly don't see any argument for keeping him off. 8bit (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned on this issue, atheist and agnostic are not one in the same. List of agnostics is a separate article with separate individuals. Or, at least, it should have separate individuals. Sadly, I see a bunch of POV pushers like yourself mucking things up again just as they did months ago. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Denial of a personal God is not the same as a universal denial of the existence of God. Jefferson denied a personal God, but he clearly believed in a god. Einstein had a similar belief. Neutral sources (Encyclopedia Brittanica, Adherents.com, etc. - i.e. NOT atheist sources) clearly and unquestionably show that Einstein was no atheist. Only people who misuse one or two of his statements argue that he was an atheist. (Ironic, as he once addressed people doing that during his lifetime.) 67.135.49.116 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"As far as Wikipedia is concerned on this issue, atheist and agnostic are not one in the same. List of agnostics is a separate article with separate individuals. Or, at least, it should have separate individuals. Sadly, I see a bunch of POV pushers like yourself mucking things up again just as they did months ago."

See agnostic atheism. As I pointed out, to suggest that only atheists who are not agnostic can be included is ridiculus, under such constraints this list would be completely empty.

Einstein, though, is very obviously a naturalistic pantheist, which is a branch of atheist thought. Einstein's naturalistic pantheism is apparent from his numerous quotes, and even a poem, in which he references his belief of 'Spinoza's god', Spinoza being the father of naturalistic pantheism.

"Naturalistic pantheism is a form of pantheism that holds that the Universe, although unconscious and non-sentient as a whole, behaves as a single, interrelated, and solely natural substance. Accordingly, Nature is seen as being what religions call "God" only in a non-traditional, impersonal sense, where the terms Nature and God are synonymous. Therefore, naturalistic pantheism is also known as "impersonal pantheism" and "impersonal absolutism," and does not posit any form of supernatural belief."

And...

"Naturalistic pantheism is attributed to the teachings of Spinoza, a Dutch philosopher of Portuguese Jewish origin."

"Denial of a personal God is not the same as a universal denial of the existence of God. Jefferson denied a personal God, but he clearly believed in a god."

What's important is not that he denied a personal god, but this portion of the quote: "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

This seems to deny any sort of religious conviction.

"Neutral sources (Encyclopedia Brittanica, Adherents.com, etc. - i.e. NOT atheist sources) clearly and unquestionably show that Einstein was no atheist."

I really don't see how Adherents.com can be considered NPOV sources, nor do I understand how the associated press or an Einstien biography are somehow non-neutral 'athiest' sources. Encyclopedia Brittanica doesn't seem to make any claim one way or the other, though they do state that:

"Einstein became deeply religious at age 12, even composing several songs in praise of God and chanting religious songs on the way to school. This began to change, however, after he read science books that contradicted his religious beliefs. This challenge to established authority left a deep and lasting impression."

Finally, please don't attack me, or any other Wikipedia contributors. This is not about us, and I urge you to focus on the discussion at hand. Thanks. 8bit (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Pantheism MAY be, in rare instances, atheistic.[2] It depends on the person's individual beliefs. I think it is very clear that Einstein was not an atheist. He even said he wasn't an atheist and I don't think I've ever heard/seen an atheist use the word "God" so much as he did in the way he did. Denying a personal god is NOT the same as denying the existence of a god. Denying religious convictions is NOT the same as denying the existence of god. Additionally, Einstein didn't like the idea of calling himself a pantheist. You are grossly misrepresenting these things (deliberately?). Adherents.com has no agenda of promoting any belief over another and is certainly more NPOV than the varied atheism-based sources (I'm talking about sources that promote atheism, not news sources) cited in this article and many, many others. Britannica states: "Einstein also clarified his religious views, stating that he believed there was an “old one” who was the ultimate lawgiver." Hardly sounds like a non-theist! It also quotes him as stating "I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages.…The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." Finally, if you see an attack upon yourself in my last post despite the fact that I did not specify anyone in particular, then perhaps you should ask yourself why you see that. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And just to point out a bit of irony I just realized is here, the difference between non-theistic news sources and atheist sources used here and in other articles is like the difference between Einstein's religious beliefs and atheism. His beliefs may have been non-theistic, but they definitely weren't atheistic. There IS a difference. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"His beliefs may have been non-theistic, but they definitely weren't atheistic. There IS a difference."

No, there is not. They are exact synonyms, and mean the exact same things. 8bit (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what the terms "non-theistic," "atheistic," or "exact synonyms" mean. The New York Times is a non-theistic newspaper, but it is not atheistic. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Above I stated that since Einstein seemed to deny being an atheist, then by the rules of List of atheists, he shouldn't be listed. However, note that the criteria has now changed. When I made that comment, the article was as [3], which stated "Excluded from these lists are persons who have denied being an atheist.".

Now we instead say:

Certain individuals may use an alternative label for their position on the existence of a god or gods, such as agnostic, or may even deny being atheists altogether. In such cases, the person's preferred label is noted, and their inclusion in the list is not to be taken as indicative of their self-identity as atheists, but of their nonbelief in gods.

I don't know how much discussion or consensus there was for this change, but by this updated rule, this argument for removing Einstein no longer applies. Therefore I retract my earlier statement. Furthermore, since List of atheists clearly states "for purposes of this list, the most inclusive definition is used".

So Einstein should be on the list, together with a note that he preferred the label "agnostic" (he should also be on the list of agnostics page - these terms are not mutually exclusive, so those arguing that he's an agnostic are missing the point).

If you think Einstein shouldn't be on the list, you either need to show that he believed in god (or cast doubt on his nonbelief), or change the criteria at List of atheists. Mdwh (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any discussion for the updated criteria, so I've raised this more general point at Talk:Lists_of_atheists#People_who_deny_being_atheists.3F, to see what people think. Mdwh (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Page protected for a week. Stop edit warring. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Convenient. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that every single argument made in order to justify Einstein's inclusion as an atheist in this article violates WP:SYNTH. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting and amusing to note how god-belief seems to be so often considered (not by anyone here, I hasten to add) the default position, something that needs active denial. I'd have thought belief in god(s) would be the thing that needed assertion (not least so one might know which variety). I mention this because the lack of an outright Einsteinian denial of all things supernatural is used to accuse the poor bugger of things like pantheism. He denied a personal god, but because he didn't explicitly rule out all the other nebulous woolly-headed versions, he might not have been an atheist (sensu lato).

But it strikes me that he was a scientist and a rationalist. Philosophically he knew he could not rule all god conceptions out entirely, so he wasn't (and said he wasn't) an atheist... which he wasn't, in the 'strong' sense. But that hardly means he was a believer.

So I applaud the idea of making this a list of nontheists. As Nick notes (thanks for the heads-up, BTW!), we started down that road before. Don't remember now why it fell apart, but that's why we ended up rewriting the criteria (lest, as I keep banging on about, we have to ask someone what they mean by 'atheist' when they call 'emselves it, and perhaps exclude them for not being 'strong' enough, for consistency's sake).

Oolon (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

When did Einstein ever say he wasn't an atheist "in the 'strong' sense?" Seems to me that it is far more interesting and amusing how much atheists want Einstein in their camp that they conveniently and willfully violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to make him a part of a listing of atheists. If someone like George W. Bush, Michael Behe, or Ann Coulter had said, "God does not play dice with the universe," people would pounce all over the statement and loudly proclaim, "Aha!!! S/He's a theist!!!" Ah, but someone like Einstein says it, well, then the statement "isn't literal." Whatever. In the end, it's just really, really adorable that the article title had to be changed to appease the people who want non-atheists ("strong" or otherwise) like Einstein and Sagan included. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

67.135.49.116, please keep it civil and assume good faith. Sarcastically calling other editors' actions "adorable" is not at all helpful in improving Wikipedia, which is what these talk pages are for.

You imply that the name change was POV-based. Actually, maintaining NPOV was part of the justification for the name change, since there are different points of view as to whether mere nonbelief in deities qualifies as atheism.

As for Einstein and Sagan: Einstein stated in a letter late in his life that "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses..." That's pretty good evidence that, no matter what he might have said about God earlier in his life, his latter-day views were dismissive of such belief, making him a nontheist. As a naturalistic agnostic, Sagan did not believe in any deity, though he entertained the possibility. We have two reliable sources identifying him as an atheist. Sure, he said he was not an atheist, but he used that term to mean the denial of God's existence. The broader definition of that term, which is gaining increasing currency, does not require denial for one to be an atheist. But no matter how atheist is defined, Sagan certainly qualifies as a nontheist.

Contributors to this list have, on the whole, not made an effort to add or remove people in order to push a POV. Sure, you'll find some people who are widely revered, such as Sagan, but you'll also find some real monsters, such as Stalin. Nick Graves (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What part of my comment do you consider not civil and not assuming good faith? I'm making comments based on observations about people's obvious editing behaviors and pointing out where they are violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

As for the name change, it's patently obvious it was done to appease those who want to include Sagan and especially Einstein. I don't see people suddenly adding Buddhists -- who are non-theists -- to the list and won't expect anyone to anytime soon. After all, according to 8bit, "atheist" and "non-theist" mean exactly the same thing.

Your interpretation of the Einstein quote you cite proves my comments accurate. You are violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with it. It is your interpretation that the quote means Einstein was a non-theist. Of course, it is obvious he's not stating and never stated any non-belief in God. Instead, he is commenting on the human usage of the word for something that lies beyond our comprehension. In Einstein's own words, "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is." The analogy is clear. Einstein believed in an incomprehensible intelligence beyond our own and, for lack of a better word due to our (which included himself) limited intelligence and perceptions, he referred to it as "God." 67.135.49.116 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I already pointed out your sarcasm above. It's not helpful, and contributes to a caustic editing atmosphere. I suggest you erase that statement. Your assertion of a POV-based motive for renaming the list represents an assumption of bad faith. Consensus supports keeping this a list of people who do not believe in deities, and nontheist is a less loaded term for that purpose than atheist. Whether Sagan or Einstein are included depends entirely on what reliable sources say with regards to whether or not they believed in deities.

Sagan was most definitely an agnostic, who neither affirmed nor denied the existence of God. That makes him a nontheist (and therefore an atheist, in the modern, broad sense). And again, at least two reliable sources identify him as an atheist--further confirmation that he was a nontheist, and belongs in this list.

I take your point about Einstein. There is some interpretation involved in concluding that Einstein was a nontheist based on his statement about usage of the word "God" being a sign of human weaknesses. And there is at least one reliable source I know of who, while fully aware of that later quote of Einstein's, still concludes that he was no atheist. Still, it is clear that what Einstein called "God" was impersonal, natural law, and he was not a theist in any conventional sense. I have no strong opinion for or against Einstein's inclusion on this list. At best, he is a borderline case. Last time I checked, he was not on the list. Nick Graves (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FrancisHarryComptonCrick.jpg

The image Image:FrancisHarryComptonCrick.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Joliot.gif
• Image:John Maynard Smith.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed Sagan

I cannot find anywhere the articles cited claiming he was an atheist can be easily verified. Including him on this list runs contrary to his biography article:

Sagan, however, denied that he was an atheist: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know."[30] In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic."[31] Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe.[32]

..and the List of agnostics article.

"Famed scientist Carl Sagan was also a renowned sceptic and agnostic who during his life refused to believe in anything unless there was physical evidence to support it." "Unbeliever's Quest" by Jerry Adler, in Newsweek, March 31, 1997. Excerpt hosted at HighBeam Research accessed 2 November 2007.

Given the choice, I think preference is given to someone's own clear statements as opposed to what someone else writes about them based on some unfounded interpretation of a vague quote. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps everyone should be removed from this list, as pretty much all of them are in the same, agnostic, mind as Sagan. 8bit (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The atheist reference is quoted in the Wikipedia article - it says "he was a confirmed atheist" and "died an uncompromising atheist". Being an agnostic is irrelevant, as the term is not mutually exclusive to atheism. Regarding him not identifying as an atheist, as with Einstein, this touches on the question of whether people say that they don't believe in God, but deny identifying as an atheist, should be on this list.

I'm starting to wonder if we should just have List of atheists and agnostics - this is what most surveys do, and trying to pick between the two pretty much depends on definitions, and what labels people prefer to use, and tells you nothing about what they actually did (or didn't) believe. Also see List of fictitious atheists and agnostics and List of former atheists and agnostics, where this approach is used. Thoughts? Mdwh (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The only issue I have with this idea is that, while athiesm and agnostic athiesm almost always go hand in hand, agnosticism and theism are also not mutually exclusive- See Agnostic Theism. 8bit (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A list of nontheists had been started a while back to accomplish just the thing that a combined list of atheists and (nontheistic) agnostics would do. Unfortunately, it was deleted in its undeveloped stage, and not for good reason, in my opinion. It would have effectively been exactly what List of atheists has become (an inclusive list of non-God-believers, regardless of their preferred label), except using the less loaded (and less contentiously-defined) term "nontheist." The8thbit makes a good point about the existence of agnostic theists--that's why a separate list of agnostics ought to be maintained. Also, I find the claim that pantheists are atheists to be quite dubious. Nick Graves (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Changing the name of this article and the parent article from atheist to non-theist sounds like a good idea, despite the terms being exact synonyms.

"Also, I find the claim that pantheists are atheists to be quite dubious."

Not all pantheists, just naturalistic pantheists. 8bit (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And you assertion that Einstein was a "naturalistic pantheist" is supported by nothing but original research and it might very well violate WP:SYNTH. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

He said that he followed Spinoza's philosophy on god. Spinoza's philosophy is naturalistic pantheism. What more evidence do you need? 8bit (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take the time to read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the same to you. Conclusions drawn through simple deduction are not original research or synthesis. 8bit spelled out the deduction as simply and clearly as could be. Nick Graves (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this breaks any of the rules on either of those pages. Both statements are true. 8bit (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

lol! I'm sorry, but Wikipedia does not allow editors' "deductions," simple or otherwise, as a basis for what is in articles and those do, in fact, fall under WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Good gosh! I can just picture what a mess Wikipedia would be if it did! "Simple deductions" have made people believe that the WTC was brought down by explosives on orders from President Bush! 67.135.49.116 (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) See this. Granted, it's not official policy, but it does have some consensus backing it, not to mention common sense and WP:IAR (If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.). Some examples of simple syllogisms that are ok:

Reliable source A defines nontheists as those who do not believe in deities. Reliable source B reports that Mike Smith said "I don't believe in deities." So we can conclude that Mike Smith is a nontheist and list him here.

Reliable source C identifies 7/8 as an unusual time signature. Reliable source D reports that a song is in 7/8. So we can conclude that this song is in an unusual time signature, and list it here. Nick Graves (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And as reliable source A quotes Einstein as stating that he follows Spinoza's philosophies, and reliable source B defines Spinoza's philosophy as atheism[4] it is therefore reasonable to conclude that Einstein was an atheist. (Or non-theist, as you will. Whatever you wish to call it.) 8bit (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the part you have in mind reads "Reductive pantheism and atheism maintain extensionally equivalent ontologies." That's not quite the same as saying reductive pantheism is a type of atheism. Nick Graves (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As Atheism only comments on what is ontologically present, not on how to interperet this philosophically, I don't see how it isn't. 8bit (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Atheism does not comment on anything. It is absence of belief in deities. Also, the very definitions of atheism and naturalistic pantheism contradict the notion that one is a form of the other. Atheists believe in no deities, while naturalistic pantheists believe nature is an impersonal deity (whatever that is). Perhaps the difference is merely a matter of semantics, but it is a difference that is significant with regard to inclusion on this list. If a person says they believe in a deity, they do not belong here, as they do not fit the criteria for inclusion. It does not matter that, by "God," they mean nature. Their word choice identifies them, regardless of "equivalent ontologies." Nick Graves (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Your policy-violating synthesis runs contrary to Einstein's own statement that he was not an atheist (and thus, by you own standards and definitions, neither was he a non-theist. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Where, exactly, does Einstein actually deny being an atheist? He denies associating himself with professional atheists, whatever that means, but I don't think I've ever seen a quote where he says anything along the lines of 'I am not an atheist'. Furthermore, he classifies himself as agnostic within the same quote, which, by modern day standards, is atheism, and is certainly non-theism. 8bit (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but where does the idea that agnosticism 'by modern day standards, is atheism' come from? Atheism has 2 clear definitions, neither of them overlap significantly with agnosticism, really. They may both fall in the somewhat curious 'nontheist' category but then, so do branches of buddhism. That is precisely why there are terms such as agnostic atheist, agnostic christian etc. I find it somewhat offensive that agnosticism and atheism have become so intertwined as this list makes it out to be, redirecting list of atheists to 'nontheists' for the sake of including agnostics? Really now. 125.26.240.52 (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition of 'deity' from Wikipedia: "A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers."

From Wiktionary: "(religion) The essential nature of a god, divinity. (religion) A powerful entity that possesses numerous miraculous powers (e.g. a god or goddess)."

From Webster: "1 a : the rank or essential nature of a god : divinity b capitalized  : god 1, supreme being 2 : a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece> 3 : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful"

The naturalistic definition of 'god' does not qualify as a deity under these definitions, and, as atheism and naturalistic pantheism are ontologically identical, and naturalistic pantheism doesn't actually comment on the existence of 'deities' (but logically denies them through its definition of God), then if we assume that naturalistic pantheists believe in deities we must also assume that atheists believe in deities. At this point, logic breaks and your head asplodes. 8bit (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I see I've hit upon a touchy subject. I don't really want to get into a silly edit war over this, but I'm positive you can't classify Sagan as a nontheist unless all agnostics can be classified as such. I've read all his books and sometimes he was very skeptical about the idea of God, but other times he was certainly open to the possibility and actually argued that a universe with regular laws would be what you would expect from a God, defined as a creator of the universe. He certainly held that the God hypothesis wasn't in any way scientifically proven, but also that it hasn't really been challenged scientifically either. He also held that the idea of Extraterrestrial life for instance didn't have any scientific evidence backing it up, but he certainly was more than open to the possibility of it. So again, if you define a nontheist as someone who doesn't 100% assert God exists, then you would have to classify all agnostics as nontheists, and I'm pretty sure that someone who says they don't know if God exists but that he might but that his existence hasn't been proven, which would be Sagan's position, would not be classified as a nonthiest. He was agnostic on the idea of extraterrestrials but you wouldn't classify him as someone who did not believe in extraterrestrials. As for the sources labeling him an atheist, since they contradict his own declarations of the subject, they would seem to be false claims, even if they are in a major newspaper.Roy Brumback (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"... if you define a nontheist as someone who doesn't 100% assert God exists, then you would have to classify all agnostics as nontheists..."

Roy, mate, it strikes me that if you define nontheist as someone who asserts God 100% does not exist, we'd have a pretty bloody short list. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't go that far. And that, of course, means that nearly all of the perfectly sound -- presumably, never challenged anyway -- entries... are agnostics. Would anyone not include Dawkins? Yet he says:

"6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

[...] Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number, category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

In other words, once again (it keeps recurring), agnosticism is a position about knowledge and certainty, not about belief. Non-theists are simply non-believers-in-a-god. Some may be more certain than others that their belief is factually correct, but they are united by a lack of belief.

So, comparing Sagan with Dawkins (agnostics both, yeah?), is it a question of how agnostic someone is? Is Dawkins okay, but Sagan is too agnosticky? Apart from wondering who might decide that (certainly not WP editors ;-) ), the answer's plainly 'no'. It's a question about belief in deities. Do / did they believe, or not?

Seems pretty obvious to me that Sagan did not.

I'm actually quite fed up with how often this keeps coming up. Anyone acquainted with epistemology, and scientists especially, is inevitably going to hedge their bets to some extent. "I could be wrong of course, but..." Moreover, 'atheist', with its nested meanings (disbeliever, and no-god-asserter), is regularly disowned by those who take it in its strongest sense, or for a range of other reasons. See eg David Attenborough. Or, till pushed, Michael Shermer. Both have disowned 'atheist'. But do you seriously want to argue (and more to the point, justify via a reliable source) that Sagan was any more of a believer than Shermer or Attenborough? Or Dawkins?

TTFN, Oolon (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and thinking of Shermer reminded me of the article that finally clinched his inclusion (after much wrangling due to his disavowal of the 'atheist' term). Remind yourself of Sagan's 'Baloney Detection Kit'. Then convince me his position would be much different from Shermer's. See: http://www.michaelshermer.com/2005/06/why-i-am-an-atheist/

TTFN, Oolon (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, let's try this little experiment, and see what we think of Sagan's position after it:

"I'm pretty sure that someone who says they don't know if a Sun-orbiting teapot exists but that one might but that its existence hasn't been proven, which would be Sagan's position, would not be classified as a non-teapotist. He was agnostic on the idea of orbiting teapots but you wouldn't classify him as someone who did not believe in celestial china."

Oolon (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well mate, the difference between Sagan and Dawkins is that Dawkins clearly says he is an atheist, and that he lives his life as if he was sure there is no God, even if he admits there might be a chance there is. So no, Dawkins is not an agnostic. I don't believe in Unicorns, but I suppose it's possible they exist, however I would not classify myself as agnostic on the topic of the existence of unicorns, I guess I would classify myself as a non unicornist (hasn't anyone else noted that the firefox spell checker says that nontheist isn't even a real word, but it could be correct with a space or hyphen between the non and the theist). And the only evidence I need to give you that Sagan wasn't an atheist is that he himself said he wasn't, and Shermer says he is, so I don't really know where your going with that. I wouldn't classify his as a believer either, but he clearly said he also wasn't a disbeliever, just that it had to be proven to him, not that he believed God didn't exist, which would be a non theist.

Again, are all agnostics non theists? According to the definition on the page non theists are people who don't believe in deities. If I say I don't believe in x, then I don't believe in x. If I say I don't know if x exists or not but it might but there isn't enough evidence to make a decision, the agnostic position, then you wouldn't say you don't believe in x, you would say you don't know and won't make a leap of faith in either direction. You have to make the leap of faith toward the x doesn't exist position to be classified as a non Xist, which Sagan clearly didn't do on the issue of the existence of God. And there are atheists who assert they are 100% sure God does not exist. And I'm pretty sure Sagan would say he didn't believe in the celestial teapot, not that he was agnostic on the issue.Roy Brumback (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Roy, you said in an edit summary earlier that "Sagan certainly wasn't a theist". If this is the case, then Sagan is a nontheist, and belongs on this list. There is no middle option between theist and nontheist--if you aren't one, then you must be the other. Not all agnostics are nontheists, though it appears that most are. But that's immaterial, since we have two reliable sources identifying Sagan as an atheist. If you can cite a reliable source where he denies being an atheist, then maybe you have a case. Even if you were to present such a source, Sagan might very well still belong on the list, if he's ever expressed that he does not accept as true the proposition "God exists." Nick Graves (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you playing dumb? It says it right on his wiki page. Here it is

Sagan wrote frequently about religion and the relationship between religion and science, expressing his skepticism about the conventional conceptualization of God as a sapient being. For example "Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."[32] Sagan, however, denied that he was an atheist: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know."[33] In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic."[34] Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe.

So he clearly held there was no scientific evidence for what some people might conceive of as God, but he also clearly said he was not someone who asserted that they believe God does not exist, which would be the atheist position. So sources that label him as an atheist are either misinformed, lying, or using a definition of atheist that Sagan did not use himself. So again, are you asserting all agnostics are non theists? If so, then you are asserting that if I claim to not believe in something it is the same as saying I don't know if it is true or not and don't have enough evidence to make up my mind. It seems pretty obvious to me they are not the same position, and according to the definition given on the page for non theist they have to assert they don't believe in deities, not that they say they don't have enough evidence to make up their minds on the subject. And you seem to be contradicting yourself. You said "There is no middle option between theist and nontheist--if you aren't one, then you must be the other. Not all agnostics are nontheists, though it appears that most are." So are some agnostics then theists? You can't say there is no middle position and then say there are some agnostics who are not non theists unless there are agnostics who are theists, which can't be true by the definition of either term.Roy Brumback (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "he was not someone who asserted that they believe God does not exist, which would be the atheist position." You are presuming here that god-denial is the atheist position. It is not. It is an atheist position. Mere disbelief (which seems to be Sagan's position) can also be atheism, and is most certainly nontheism.

I'm not asserting that all self-described agnostics are nontheists, though it does seem that most are (how many people have you known to say they are agnostic, but that they believe in God?). However, if someone says he does not have enough evidence to make up his mind on the matter, then of necessity, he does not believe in deities. Either you believe something, or you do not. There is no third option. To suspend judgment as to a proposition's truth is to not believe it. Perhaps you are confusing not believing X with believing X is false.

You aren't yet grasping the distinction Oolon made earlier. Agnosticism concerns lack of knowledge. Nontheism (or atheism in its broad sense) concerns lack of belief. One can be a(n):

• agnostic nontheist: "I do not know if God exists, so I do not believe in God." (Sagan's position)
• "gnostic" nontheist: "I know that God does not exist, so I do not believe in God." (My position)
• agnostic theist: "I do not know if God exists, but I still believe in God." (Søren Kierkegaard's position)
• "gnostic" theist: "I know that God exists, so I believe in God." (Josh McDowell's position)

[I am using "gnostic" here to mean "one who has (or claims to have) knowledge".]

From Sagan's statements you supplied above, we know that he saw atheist as a term applied exclusively to those who claim to know enough to conclude that God does not exist. The two reliable sources who called him an atheist, presuming they were aware of Sagan's position on the existence of God (that is, non-accepting, though open to its possibility), were using the term atheist in its broad sense. Though Sagan's words and these two sources may appear to contradict each other, they do not necessarily contradict each other in terms of raw meaning, given the very distinct possibility that they were using terminology differently. Note that the two sources labeling him atheist are published in the UK, where the broad definition of the term has wider currency than in the United States.

Regardless of all that, I must ask: Do you believe Sagan was a theist? Or do you believe he was not a theist? If the latter, then why object to putting him in a list of nontheists? After all, nontheist means "someone who is not a theist." Nick Graves (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't mess with my posts. I'm not being uncivil, I'm asking you a question as I find it hard to believe you've been debating this topic for weeks and don't know Sagan said he wasn't an atheist, so you can classify me as a non you didn't knowist. And I hate postings moved to only half the page, so please leave them where I put them. Before we continue, please clarify something for me. You have said that not all agnostics are non theists, but that you have to be either a theist or non theist. Agnostics are not theists, so if there is no in between, then they are non theists. Which is it, as you can't assert both are true? Are all agnostics non theists or not according to you? Roy Brumback (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The implication of your rhetorical question is either that I am playing dumb, or that I am dumb. It is thus either an assumption of bad faith, or an insult. Either way, it's not helpful to our dialogue. The standard formatting of responses helps others follow the discussion, and identify who is responding to whom. You say agnostics are not theists. This generalization is not true. There are exceptions. I identified one, and there are a few other notable examples whom you'll find here. Your mistake is in insisting there is a third alternative between theism and nontheism, called agnosticism. With regards to god-belief, there can only be two classes of people: those who believe in (a) god(s), and those who do not. The former are theists. The latter are nontheists. The agnostic position concerns knowledge ("I do not know if any gods exist."), not belief. It overlaps theism and nontheism--it is not an alternative to either. Nick Graves (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not helpful to our dialogue to demand evidence Sagan said he wasn't an atheist when not only is it on his wiki page but the same quote is also on the very top of this discussion thread, right above your first post on this thread. That's why I asked if you were playing dumb, but if you really didn't notice that I apologize.

If non theist simply means people who are not theists then this entire series of articles on the subject is pointless. It would be like having articles on non Americans, non chocolate lovers, non baseball players ect. Imagine how silly it would be to have an article on non baseball players with a list of people who don't play baseball, then breaking that down into subcategories like people who don't like the sport, people who've never heard of it, former baseball players, people who prefer playing football ect. So non theist has to mean more than that for these articles to have any point being written at all. And of course the definition of non theist on the list of non theists page does expand the definition of non theist beyond that, saying it is disbelief in deities and that it is synonymous with atheism in its broadest sense.

Now I'm sure Sagan was aware of the meaning of atheism and non theism and consistently failed to identify himself as such. You claim Sagan's position was "I do not know if God exists, so I do not believe in God." Where did he ever say that? He definitely said he didn't really know if extraterrestrials exist but that would not mean he would say he didn't believe in extraterrestrials would it?

And notice that Sagan said he was agnostic when asked about his religious beliefs, which means he wouldn't agree with you that agnosticism is a statement about knowledge and not belief (not that the two are fully distinct anyway)

And I'm pretty sure saying everyone has to be either a theist or non theist, if you take out the redundant definition of non theist being simply not a theist, is a fallacy of the excluded middle. As an example consider Ignosticism. Some Ignostics claim to be neither theists nor non theists as they find the terms meaningless or ill defined. So now the real question is what type of agnostic was Sagan? I wouldn't classify him as a theistic agnostic or atheistic agnostic. But I'm not really sure exactly what he would be, so I guess we need more research. However since, if we leave out the redundant definition of non theist, it's not clear what his type of agnosticism would be, he should be removed from this list.Roy Brumback (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I should have scanned for more info on this issue in Sagan's WP article. I was unaware that the quote you mentioned was documented there. Thank you for pointing it out.

I found something interesting in the very article which gives that quote. Achenbach wrote: "By most definitions he would be called an atheist, but he hated the term." We have here further confirmation that Sagan did not believe in gods, despite his rejection of the label atheist for himself. Such rejection is based on the premise that an atheist is someone who asserts the nonexistence of gods. We know from other reliable sources that this is not necessarily true. So, Sagan is not an atheist according to his own definition of the term, but is an atheist according to others'. Regardless, he was not a theist. A while back, several editors here agreed that this list is to include people based on their position with regard to the existence of deities, and not on their preferred label, or even necessarily their rejection of a certain label, such as atheist. On that basis, Sagan belongs. He did not accept the proposition that deities exist, and we now have three reliable sources confirming that.

Whether a list of people who do not believe in deities belongs in Wikipedia is a different matter from what we are discussing here.

The fallacy you name does not apply. An example of such a fallacy would be if someone were to say that an integer is either positive or negative. Of course, that is not the case, as 0 provides the counter-example. In the case of distinguishing theists from nontheists, a better comparison would be to the statement that an integer is either positive or not positive. If theist and nontheist are meaningless terms, then we have an entirely different problem than the fallacy you mention. [I have corrected my example from a previous version by replacing odd and even with positive and negative, respectively. Nick Graves (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)]

You and I have been going back and forth on this for quite some time. Oolon chimed in with a third voice, and he favored keeping Sagan in the list. Consensus, such as it is, favors including Sagan. Whatever the nuances of Sagan's personal statements about deities, atheism and agnosticism, we do have three reliable sources making the judgment that Sagan was an atheist, or at least that he was one "[b]y most definitions." From this, we can conclude that he did not believe in deities, even if we take issue with their application of that particular label. Rather than continuing to go back and forth on this, perhaps we could work out a way of including Sagan on this list in a way that is as informative as possible, so as to avoid possibly misleading readers about Sagan's views. How about if we cite the secondary sources calling Sagan an atheist, document his rejection of the term (including the quote), and emphasize his own self-identity as an agnostic? Nick Graves (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair, Nick. As far as possible we should be doing that anyway, for anyone, precisely because of the nuances that raise their heads so often.

But I'll counterpoint Sagan's agnosticism with this, about Dawkins:

"And according to Dawkins, he is not actually an atheist but agnostic. However, this is only because "technically we all have to be" as there is no such thing as an immutable fact. He said that a Christian God is "no more likely than Yahweh, leprechauns, or the flying spaghetti monster"." [5]

Strikes me that Sagan was just being scrupulous with regard to knowledge. He was agnostic, sure. But that doesn't mean he was a perfectly-balanced fence-sitter. Indeed, we know he wasn't, from the quotes we've already seen here.

TTFN, Oolon (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually zero is even. Divide it by two and you get an integer, 0. And what quotes, the one where he says he's not an atheist or that atheists have to know a lot more than he does? Those sources labeling him an atheist are either misinformed or are using the definition of atheist as anyone who isn't a theist, which would clearly conflict not only with Sagan's definition but with the definitions used on this encyclopedia as they are clearly separated into two subjects, so they clearly can't be used to define him as an atheist. Sagan never said he's "technically" agnostic, and clearly said he's not an atheist, and Dawkins clearly said he was an atheist, so they did not hold the same position of the subject. It's pretty clear to me from reading every book he ever wrote that he held that the existence of God was not scientifically proven and that as a scientist he therefore didn't believe in God, but the converse wasn't scientifically proven either so he didn't believe in atheism either, so he was agnostic on the subject until more evidence came in. The definition of non theism given on the article page says non theism in synonymous with atheism in it's broadest sense, a sense that would not include all agnostics, as then agnosticism would be atheism and there is no point having a separate article on it either. So again, what type of agnostic was Sagan? Again, we need more evidence, and so he should not be included on the list until we firmly decide that question. Roy Brumback (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error I made in my example. It was one of those weird things where I was thinking the right thing, but typing the wrong words. I have corrected it.

I found only one quote in Sagan's Wikipedia article where he denies being an atheist: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know." That would suffice.

From the above quote, it is clear that Sagan defined an atheist as someone who accepted the proposition "God does not exist." This is by no means the only definition in use, nor are the sources who report on Sagan's positions obliged to use the same definition for the word that he did. One cannot assume that sources identifying Sagan as an atheist must be misinformed, as they might very well be using a less conservative (but no less legitimate) definition for atheism than Sagan did. The two UK sources most likely were doing exactly that, given the fact that the broad definition of atheism is more commonly used there than in the United States. And Achenbach explicitly acknowledges the different definitions, stating that Sagan qualified as an atheist according to most definitions of the word, even if not according to his own preferred definition. You are incorrect to suppose that this encyclopedia uses only one of those definitions. It acknowledges all of them.

If it is true that Sagan did not believe in God, which you yourself acknowledge, then he was an atheist in one or more of the broader senses, even if not in the narrow sense that Sagan clearly uses in the above quote. The three sources that identify him as an atheist can therefore not be summarily judged incorrect or misinformed. One need not accept the converse of the proposition "God exists" in order to be an atheist in a broader sense. Sagan's particular disavowal of atheism only proves that did not accept the proposition "God does not exist", and does not automatically rule him out for inclusion on this list.

Sagan was a nontheistic agnostic. You admit he did not believe in God. Well, this is a list for people who do not believe in gods. We have three reliable sources confirming that Sagan was an atheist in some sense. If Sagan is an atheist in any sense, then he is most certainly a nontheist. Inclusion in this list is not terminologically limited--it is dependent on the position a person takes on the existence of gods. A person can deny being an atheist, yet still belong here because they do not believe in gods. Such is the case with Sagan. Nick Graves (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He did not believe in God in the sense of saying that he affirmed a belief in God. However he also did not disbelieve in God the way an atheist does. Otherwise he would have simply said he was an atheist. And what is a non theist agnostic? Please don't try the silly redundant definition of an agnostic who isn't a theistic agnostic, as that's pointless. You tried to dismiss my arguments pointing out that being a useless definition if you actually want to make non theist a real subject. Would you be ok with articles on non baseball players or non people who like to eat fish ect? If not, then you can't just say non theist with the redundant definition and still say non theist deserves articles and lists of people.

Here is Sagan's position only using another word besides God to make this clearer. Thomas Aquinas, Sagan, and Dawkins are driving in a car down a road none has traveled on before. The road might eventually hit a town or it might just dead end before reaching anywhere, or perhaps reach somewhere else (a park, disneyland, garbage dump ect.) Now Aquinas says he believes there is a town up ahead. Dawkins says he believes there is no town and the road just dead ends (although of course he says it might be there, just that he's pretty sure it's not and so there is no point in continuing on down the road). Sagan says he doesn't know and needs more info to decide, although he's open to the possibility that it's there. He might explore it some more, or spend time doing something else but doesn't begrudge anyone else who continues on or anyone who says they'll never go down it ever again. (Dawkins would be trying to convince everyone to not go down the road. Aquinas would be trying to convince everyone to stay on it.) Now according to you we should classify both Sagan and Dawkins as non towners. But Sagan clearly isn't a non towner unless we use the redundant definition of non towner as anyone who doesn't assent to Aquinas's position or something very close to it (a theistic agnostic would say they don't know if the town is there but they are going to go down the road anyway). Sagan would say that it might be worthwhile to explore the road some more, but he won't clearly say he believes in the town unless he's given really good evidence it's there, like someone trustworthy bringing back a picture. However he also won't say he doesn't believe in the town because there is definitely a real possibility it's there. A non towner would not say that there is a real possibility the town is there and that it's worthwhile to consider the possibility and even to continue down the road to investigate the possibility, so Sagan would not be a non towner.

The point is that Sagan was agnostic in the sense of holding God unproven but certainly possible. He also held the same position on extraterrestrials, but would you classify him as a non extraterrestrialist? I wouldn't. Now he certainly probably thought that the odds favored the existence of extraterrestrials, so leaned more toward believing in them, although he was rigorously skeptical about all claims to have discovered them, and with God I would guess he probably gave it around a 50 50 chance, but that would not put him in the non theist camp any more that he was in the non extraterrestrialist camp. (Come to think of it would there be any point in listing all notable people who didn't believe in aliens, including agnostics on the subject, or would only a list of people who actually asserted they didn't exist be worthwhile)? Roy Brumback (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I dismiss your argument about the pointlessness of having a list of nontheists because that is a different matter altogether from whether, given the fact that there is such a list, Sagan belongs on it or not. If you think this list doesn't belong on Wikipedia because it is pointless, the proper step is to put it up on AfD. If you think the list criteria are meaningless, and would rather have a list of only strong atheists (those who believe gods don't exist), then that's another matter too, and you ought to open a different section in the main list talk page and advocate a change to existing consensus.

I get the difference between Dawkins' and Sagan's positions. But it remains that they both did not believe in God. And that makes them both nontheists, according to the well-attested definition of that word used in the current list criteria. We know Sagan was an agnostic, which alone makes it quite likely he was a nontheist, as very few self-identified agnostics believe in deities. Then we have confirmation from 3 reliable sources that he did not believe in deities. Two of these sources were most likely using a broader definition for atheist than the very restrictive one that Sagan used, and one of these sources, while fully informed about Sagan's disavowal of the label atheist, points out that Sagan was an atheist according to most definitions of the word.

The sources support including Sagan in this list. You admit he did not believe in God. After a fairly thorough discussion, Oolon and I favor including him, which represents a consensus among current participants for inclusion. This may change if others wish to weigh in, but at present, the interested editors favor inclusion. Nick Graves (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no consensus as you're ignoring the entire discussion proceeding any comments I have made. And you just keep repeating the same things over and over again. Let's try this again. Would you support a list of non people who like to eat fish? Is saying I don't know if the town is there or not the same as being a non towner? Would you classify Sagan as a non extraterrestrialist? Roy Brumback (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the entire discussion. I've responded to every relevant point you've made, and I believe I have refuted your case. Clearly, I haven't convinced you, but you're still in a minority of only one objecting to Sagan's inclusion. You're not entitled to an indefinite filibuster here. No, I wouldn't support a list of people who don't like fish. That's a red herring. Non-fish eaters are not a notable group deserving their own article. Nontheists are. If you don't like this list, then put it up on AfD. Objecting to the inclusion of a single person on the list is not the proper approach, if that is your basic position. Yes, I would classify Sagan as a non-extraterrestrialist--he was quite open to the possibility of their existence, but was not convinced by the evidence. So what? I am repeating the same things over and over again because you keep bringing up the same faulty objections to Sagan's inclusion over and over again. Like I said, we've discussed this pretty thoroughly. We've exhausted the points we have to make, and are at an impasse. Except that you are still in a minority of one objecting to Sagan being listed here. Perhaps you could open up an RfC and see what others think. But at present, the discussion is played out, your position is in the minority, and your deletion of Sagan goes against present consensus. Nick Graves (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Red herring" :notworthy: :D

Just to add... Roy, it's clear that Sagan was an agnostic. So's Dawkins, so are loads, if not perhaps all, of those already safely included. It's also obvious he was not an atheist, when atheist is defined as an out-and-out asserter of gods' nonexistence. But that's not the only definition; and this is not a list of atheists so defined. Indeed, the very problems with the word atheist are why it's now a list of the relatively neutral term nontheists instead. The problems have been chronicled exhaustively hereabouts; that even some folks, who most people would call the staunchest atheists based on their views, have actively denied the word, because of its negative connotations, or because they regard it as a more hardline view than others do, or whatever.

It also seems obvious that Sagan is in that last category. The journalists who called him an atheist were not being deliberately misrepresentative. They were accurately using the term according to its broader, slightly softer, but thoroughly well-attested meaning. Sagan may or may not have been an atheist (whatever that means). But if he were not a nontheist, then he must have been a believer. And did he not try not to think with his gut?

Incidentally, because of you mentioning the hyphenated version of non-theist, I looked it up in the OED. And while you're right, hypenated is all the OED lists, it does I think clinch the matter. Because a non-theist is:

A. n. A person who is not a theist.

1857 J. BUCHANAN Mod. Atheism 365 The Non-theist..affirms that natural reason has not yet attained to (evidence of) Supernatural Being.

And a theist is:

One who holds the doctrine of theism: in earlier use = DEIST; in later use, esp. as distinguished from this

And theism is:

a. gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism. b. Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = MONOTHEISM. c. Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = DEISM. d. esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.

So unless you think good ol' Carl was a theist, he was a non-theist. QED.

TTFN, Oolon (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sagan: In or Out?

Is it appropriate to list Sagan here as a nontheist, given the following facts?:

• He identified himself as agnostic. Source: 'Conversations with Carl', by Tom Head, Skeptic, Vol. 13, Number 1, pages 32-38
• He denied being an atheist. Specifically, he viewed atheists as those who claim to know there is no God, stating "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." Source: 'Worlds Away', by Joel Achenbach, Washington Post, April 23, 2006
• He has nevertheless been identified as an atheist by at least 3 reliable sources:
  • "By most definitions he would be called an atheist, but he hated the term." Source: 'Worlds Away', by Joel Achenbach, Washington Post, April 23, 2006
  • "...he was a confirmed atheist. 'I would lose my integrity if I accepted a belief system that did not stand up to sceptical scrutiny,' he said recently." Source: 'Sagan, Man Who Brought Cosmos to Earth, Dies', by Ian Katz, The Guardian, December 21, 1996, Pg. 3.
  • "In the end, Sagan... died an uncompromising atheist." 'Beauty is... in the measurements', by Robin Mckie, The Observer, August 24, 1997, Review Pages, Pg. 14.
• See also the Newsweek article quoted in the discussion below. -- Oolon / Specifically, the following excerpts -- Nick:
  • "They rose (if prayers do rise) to the heaven Sagan had never seen in all his years of searching the sky, and were heard (if prayers are heard) by the God Sagan never called on."
  • "But he died in what amounted, for him, to a state of grace: resisting the one temptation to which almost everyone submits in the end, the temptation to believe."
  • "For most of the last decade of his life he engaged in a wide-ranging dialogue with religious leaders on the question...: does God exist? He argued the negative, although his formal position was agnostic, awaiting proof."
  • "You're so smart, why do you believe in God?" [Sagan] once exclaimed to [Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, general secretary of the National Council of Churches]. She found this a surprising question from someone who had no trouble accepting the existence of black holes, which no one has ever observed. "You're so smart, why don't you believe in God?" she answered."
  • "His friends prayed harder, but Sagan never wavered in his agnosticism. ¶ "There was no deathbed conversion," Druyan says. "No appeals to God, no hope for an afterlife, no pretending that he and I, who had been inseparable for 20 years, were not saying goodbye forever." ¶ Didn't he want to believe? she was asked. ¶ "Carl never wanted to believe," she replies fiercely. "He wanted to know.""

Please state below whether you support or oppose inclusion of Sagan. Thank you. Nick Graves (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Support inclusion- Not only is he identified as an atheist by modern definition by a multitude of sources, 'The Dragon in Sagan's Garage' is a very common hypothetical used in much of non-theistic philosophy today, and his objection to atheism, while not valid by today's definition, doesn't apply to any extent of the situation, as we are no longer using the term 'atheist' to describe the list. (At least, not directly, in a way which would invalidate Sagan's membership.) 8bit (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Support inclusion I thought the whole point of renaming from list of atheists to nontheists was to avoid problems like this? As long as he wasn't a theist, he belongs on the list - that he used the strict "strong" definition of atheist, and didn't self-identify by that term, isn't a problem, as this isn't list of atheists anymore. Mdwh (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion - The somewhat baffling attempt at redefinition of atheism aside, the man clearly stated that he was not an atheist. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid.. If you have a source that states that he 'believed there were no gods' then present it. On the other hand, I would imagine that most recognized theists likely have similar thoughts from time to time. Unomi (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose stricken on reading Oolons source below. Unomi (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Support inclusion: I think the Achenbach source really clinches it. From it, we know that Sagan viewed an atheist as someone who claimed to know there was no God. So, when Sagan denies being an atheist, all we can conclude is that he was not someone who claimed to know there was no God. Such disavowal does not automatically rule Sagan out as an atheist in one of the other well-documented senses of the word, and Achenbach and two other reliable sources do identify him as such, with Achenbach explicitly acknowledging that Sagan is an atheist in a sense other than the one Sagan himself used. If Sagan is an atheist in any sense of the word, then he is a nontheist, and belongs here. Nick Graves (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion: See preceding posts. Roy Brumback (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Support inclusion, duh. See the OED definitions of non-theist, theist and theism above. If he wasn't a non-theist, he was a theist. I've seen no evidence whatever of that, and his championing of scepticism makes it pretty bloomin' unlikely, don't you think? TTFN, Oolon (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

[Please use this separate section for discussing the above poll, so the poll responses don't get lost in a bunch of replies. Thank you. Nick Graves (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)]

Unomi, neither this list, nor the editors here, are attempting to redefine atheism. What you call a "redefinition" is just a broader sense of the word that is well-documented in countless reliable sources. Yes, Sagan denied being an atheist, but in the context of the very quote where he made such a denial, he spelled out exactly what he meant by that. The quote clearly confirms that Sagan was not an atheist according to the conservative sense of the word. It cannot be used to conclude that Sagan was not an atheist in some other sense of the word. If Sagan had just said "I'm not an atheist," and not provided further context to show what he meant by that, then you might have a case. But since Sagan did explain what he meant by that, then we cannot automatically dismiss the three reliable sources identifying him as an atheist as being truly contradictory to Sagan's own statement, especially since the Achenbach source explains that Sagan was an atheist in a sense of the word other than the one Sagan used. And again, if Sagan was an atheist in any sense of the word--which we have reliable support for, and which Sagan's quote does not actually contradict--then he was certainly a nontheist. Under the old list criteria, Sagan's denial would have ruled him out, but this is now a list of nontheists, and inclusion or exclusion is dependent on position (non-belief in deities), and not on the terminology by which the subjects self-identify. Nick Graves (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. It's a bit like someone stating that he is not a murderer, despite his outstanding track record at deliberately killing people. If the chap breaks into people's houses at night and shoots them in their beds, we'd laugh at his denial all the way to the electric chair. If he's a soldier in Afghanistan, however, he might be a multi-medalled hero. As with 'murderer', 'atheist' has a narrow definition (and a perjorative one at that) -- deliberate illegal killer / immoral and/or illogical git -- and a wider one (any killer you don't like / non-accepter of the unevinced). A soldier may not be a murderer (and Sagan not an atheist sensu stricto), but he can be a killer... and Sagan a non-theist-atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oolon Colluphid (talk • contribs)

What we have of his own words regarding this is that he considered himself agnostic, according to our criteria: People who identify themselves as agnostics, humanists, naturalists, secularists, etc. are not automatically included, as not all who go by these labels are nontheists.. There is absolutely no reason to force Sagan into the square hole just for not fitting into the triangular one. As an aside, the alacrity with which we say that there is no redefinition going on, assume that Sagan would be ignorant of the meaning of atheism, and then dance into the land of WP:OR by saying that this list should cover all that are not avowed 'theists' further erodes what little encyclopedic value this list is thought to have. Unomi (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not that everyone who is not a theist should be included (though by simple OED definition it might do, and we're just awaiting their comment on the subject). The crux of the matter is that Sagan went further than idle disbelief or indifference. His avowed championing of scepticism, his complete refusal to 'think with his gut', pretty much rules out (a) "Belief in a deity, or deities", (b) "Belief in one god", (c) "Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation", and (d) "Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe".

One could get pedantic and say that according to definition d, Sagan most certainly was an atheist (and bugger 'non-theist' mealy-mouthisms), but let's not go there. Because there's no need. Every one of those definitions relies on belief. And that's the one thing Uncle Carl pointedly refused to do until or unless the evidence was in. Theists may say that it is, but he clearly didn't think it is. Of course that makes him an agnostic. It also makes him a non-believer.

Anyway. On the matter of belief, I recalled a quote from Ann Druyan (his wife) to the effect that he didn't want to believe, he wanted to know. Couldn't find it in a general online search, so I tried Nexis via my Open University membership. And found the following, from which I quote the relevant bits:

Newsweek March 31, 1997, UNITED STATES EDITION,

UNBELIEVER'S QUEST

BYLINE: BY JERRY ADLER

SECTION: SOCIETY; Pg. 64

HIGHLIGHT: A man of science, Carl Sagan didn't want prayers; he wanted proof. He died still waiting for evidence.

CARL SAGAN, THE FAMOUS SCIENtist and author, never asked for anyone to pray for him, although in his final illness many people did anyway. For two years prayers for his health filled the great Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York. They rose (if prayers do rise) to the heaven Sagan had never seen in all his years of searching the sky, and were heard (if prayers are heard) by the God Sagan never called on. And God (if he exists) let Sagan die anyway, late last year, at the untimely age of 62, leaving behind a wife, five children and much unfinished work on the earth he loved so well. But he died in what amounted, for him, to a state of grace: resisting the one temptation to which almost everyone submits in the end, the temptation to believe.

Not that the Kingdom of Heaven held no interest for Sagan, an astronomer who found the solar system too confining for his speculations on cosmic origins, human consciousness and evolution. For most of the last decade of his life he engaged in a wide-ranging dialogue with religious leaders on the question whose answer held the potential to put either preachers or cosmologists out of business: does God exist? He argued the negative, although his formal position was agnostic, awaiting proof. On the other side were primarily mainstream, liberal Protestant clerics, such as the Rev. James Parks Morton, then dean of St. John the Divine, and the Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, general secretary of the National Council of Churches, whom Sagan met in the environmental movement. [...] Sagan was fascinated by the phenomenon that educated adults, with the wonders of science manifest all around them, could cling to beliefs based on the unverifiable testimony of observers dead for 2,000 years. "You're so smart, why do you believe in God?" he once exclaimed to Campbell. She found this a surprising question from someone who had no trouble accepting the existence of black holes, which no one has ever observed. "You're so smart, why don't you believe in God?" she answered.

Sagan never set out to finish the work of the Enlightenment singlehandedly. "I started out very much enjoying the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God who like a benign parent was watching out for me," he wrote to one of his correspondents. "I was brought to skepticism by the slow realization that the 'evidence' [for religion] is anecdotal . . . But if there is evidence of such a God, or any other God, I feel it is my responsibility to try and know about it."

[...]

[...] He thought believers should be just as willing to jettison their beliefs in response to evidence. A religion whose highest sacrament is heresy might have won Sagan's allegiance, but he never found one.

Sagan developed many of these ideas in his 1995 book, "The Demon-Haunted World," a defense of science against the superstitious nonsense that he saw in American culture, from alien abductions to "recovered memories" of satanic ritual abuse. He managed to suggest, with considerable circumspection, that the evidence for most religion is not very much stronger. [...]

[...]

[...] His friends prayed harder, but Sagan never wavered in his agnosticism.

"There was no deathbed conversion," Druyan says. "No appeals to God, no hope for an afterlife, no pretending that he and I, who had been inseparable for 20 years, were not saying goodbye forever."

Didn't he want to believe? she was asked.

"Carl never wanted to believe," she replies fiercely. "He wanted to know."

Now, those of you who think he shouldn't be in a list of non-theists, I refer you to the bit there that goes: " "You're so smart, why do you believe in God?" he once exclaimed to Campbell. [...] "You're so smart, why don't you believe in God?" she answered."

So tell me guys: what do you think would have been Uncle Carl's answer? Would it have been more along the lines of (a) "I do", or (b) "Because I've not seen enough evidence"? It's a shame the reply is not recorded, but surely that exchange alone makes it plain he did not believe in God? When he started out liking the idea of God, but became sceptical, it was of what, precisely? Might it, just perhaps, be sceptical that god exists? When the journalist wrote that, in discussions with religious leaders on the question "does God exist? He argued the negative", was he just, like, making it up?

Strikes me that someone who argues against the existence of god is an atheist, let alone a non-theist.

TTFN, Oolon (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Also: "You get older and you mellow. I think it's counterproductive to criticize beliefs we don't happen to share and to not try to understand what the beliefs do for the individual believer." Sagan, quoted in an interview, 'Sagan's faith in science pays off ; 'Cosmos' guru is kinder to doubters after cancer bout', The Washington Times, June 5, 1996, Pg. A2 (Oolon's emphasis).

Just a technical note: In debate parlance, arguing the negative does not necessarily require that one argue the contrary of the affirmative. It is enough to argue that the affirmative side has not provided sufficient evidence for its proposition. So, when Sagan argues the negative in the debate over God's existence, he is not necessarily making a case for (strong) atheism (ie. "There is no God."). Regardless, he is still making a case for nontheism (non-acceptance of theism), to use a "mealy-mouthism." Nick Graves (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Very true, Nick. I wondered to what extent Sagan was playing Devil's Advocate meself. But in light of his scepticism, the answer's obvious. He was just saying, "convince me!" (I've been saying that for years myself.)

Nobody convinced him. He died, as his wife says, without belief. He wanted to know.

Frankly, if someone as avowedly sceptical as Sagan can't make the grade, I'm not sure what the point of this list is. TTFN, Oolon (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the text of the newsweek source, I have stricken my oppose above. While I would be much happier with the thought of having separate and non-overlapping lists consisting of agnostics and atheists, this source does seem to remove ambiguity in terms of 'non-theism'. Unomi (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

But there's nothing in that article that hasn't been already brought up. And it doesn't talk about definitions of non theist. Again, Sagan held the exact same position in regard to extraterrestrials, that they might exist but that there was 0 pieces of hard scientific evidence to substantiate their existence, and if he was consistent he went to his death not really believing in aliens either but if you ever found Sagan on a list of non extraterrestrialists it would be hard not to laugh. He also considered aliens highly likely in his youth but later refused to accept any supposed evidence of aliens being offered at the time, such as alien abduction stories. Again, it depends on the definition of non theist and what type of agnostic Sagan was. He certainly wasn't an atheistic agnostic as he said as much. Roy Brumback (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The article Oolon brought to our attention provides this: confirmation from Sagan, from his widow Druyan, from an intellectual colleague and acquaintance of his, and from yet another reliable source, that Sagan did not believe in God. That's all that's needed for inclusion. The article need not talk about definitions of nontheist--we've got that information covered by other sources. This article provides clear evidence that Sagan's agnostic views were of the nontheistic variety. I'm not so sure that something like a list of "non-extraterrestrialists" is so outlandish. We do already have List of skeptics and skeptical organizations, which does include Sagan. But what does such a list have to do with this one? By any reliably sourced definition of nontheist, Sagan qualifies as one. Certainly, he wasn't an atheist in the sense of asserting God's nonexistence. This is obvious from the Achenbach quote, and no-one is disputing that. Whether one agrees or not that he was an atheist in some other sense will depend on whether one views any of the broader definitions of the word as legitimate. But such considerations are irrelevant, since we have unassailable evidence that Sagan did not believe in God, and was therefore a nontheist. Nick Graves (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"And it doesn't talk about definitions of non theist. [...] it depends on the definition of non theist..."

Sorry Roy, but which part of 'not a theist' are you struggling with?

"Sagan held the exact same position in regard to extraterrestrials, that they might exist but that there was 0 pieces of hard scientific evidence to substantiate their existence"

The fundamental difference is that he found the existence of extraterrestrials plausible. Despite the lack of evidence for them, he found no reasons why they could not or might not exist. In stark contrast, he disposed of all the usual arguments for gods. See his Gifford lectures, and this, from an interview in the Toronto Star (February 25, 1995, Pg. M14):

Did the questioning lead to any conclusions about the existence of God?

"What do you mean by God," Sagan replies. "It's a word that covers a multitude of ideas. There is an enormous range of very different notions and ideas that are covered by the single rubric 'God.' " There's the "light-skinned male with long beard who sits on a throne in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow." There is no evidence for such a God and to believe in the absence of evidence is foolish.

There's the view of God that is essentially that of Einstein: that God is the "sum total of the laws of nature."

There's the Deist view of a God who established the laws of nature then retired and is not available for prayer or intervention in human history.

The views are as numerous as religious institutions and, because they contradict each other, they can't all be right.

Then there is the classic argument that "God is to be found in the details;" that, because the universe appears to work like a well-oiled clock, there must have been a divine clockmaker who set the works in motion.

We are, says Sagan, forever hoping to find, or at least safely deduce a Designer of a well-ordered, precise universe.

"But, amid such elegance and precision, the details of life and the universe also exhibit haphazard, jury-rigged arrangements and much poor planning. What shall we make of this: an edifice abandoned early in construction by an architect?

"The classic argument is that there is all this order so there must be an 'orderer.' But this (argument) was disposed of by Darwin who showed there are mechanisms in nature by which enormous order can be extracted from chaos by natural processes," Sagan says.

"We should be aware there are such processes; it is a kind of warning flag that we must be careful that we don't let our hopes dominate our thinking."

In other words, the difference is this: for extraterrestrials he could not find reasons why they should not exist, and had reasons to think they might. For god(s), he could not find reasons why they should exist, and had reasons to think they might not (or at least were superfluous). In short, while agnostic about both, he found extraterrestrials plausible and gods implausible.

TTFN, Oolon (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Scott Atran

For some reason I can't quite understand, Scott Atran, who I added to this list, was taken off apparently on the grounds that anthropology is a "social science". I won't debate whether or not he is a social scientist or not, but if he is to be taken off this list for being one, could someone at least put him somewhere else before deleting his name? Corbmobile (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was peculiar at the time too, but then I noticed that he was included in the social scientists section of the Miscellaneous list. Perhaps that section should be moved here. What do you think? Nick Graves (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say Atran is as much of a psychologist as he is an anthropologist: he's one of the most important people studying evolutionary psychology of religion along with Boyer and Barrett. He's at least as much of a scientist as Susan Blackmore (and I'd say quite a bit more of one personally) I think social sciences should be moved here: putting them in a group of their own is making a value judgment about the validity of the social sciences themselves. Corbmobile (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking

Would this article be a starting place for the inclusion of Stephen Hawking? --75.57.4.80 (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

BRING BACK EINSTEIN

Hide WP:SOAP comment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If anyone is unclear if Albert Einstein was or not atheist I dear hear to cite famous Richard Dawkins's book "God Delusion": One of Einstein's most eagerly quoted remarks is 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' But Einstein also said: It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. Does it seem that Einstein contradicted himself? That his words can be cherry-picked for quotes to support both sides of an argument? No. By 'religion' Einstein meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant. As I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional. Here are some more quotations from Einstein, to give a flavour of Einsteinian religion. I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. In greater numbers since his death, religious apologists understandably try to claim Einstein as one of their own. Some of his religious contemporaries saw him very differently. In 1940 Einstein wrote a famous paper justifying his statement 'I do not believe in a personal God.' This and similar statements provoked a storm of letters from the religiously orthodox, many of them alluding to Einstein's Jewish origins. The extracts that follow are taken from Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion (which is also my main source of quotations from Einstein himself on religious matters). The Roman Catholic Bishop of Kansas City said: It is sad to see a man, who comes from the race of the Old Testament and its teaching, deny the great tradition of that race.' Other Catholic clergymen chimed in: 'There is no other God but a personal God . . . Einstein does not know what he is talking about. He is all wrong. Some men think that because they have achieved a high degree of learning in some field, they are qualified to express opinions in all. The notion that religion is a proper field, in which one might claim expertise, is one that should not go unquestioned. That clergyman presumably would not have deferred to the expertise of a claimed 'fairyologist' on the exact shape and colour of fairy wings. Both he and the bishop thought that Einstein, being theologically untrained, had misunderstood the nature of God. On the contrary, Einstein understood very well exactly what he was denying. An American Roman Catholic lawyer, working on behalf of an ecumenical coalition, wrote to Einstein: We deeply regret that you made your statement . . . in which you ridicule the idea of a personal God. In the past ten years nothing has been so calculated to make people think that Hitler had some reason to expel the Jews from Germany as your statement. Conceding your right to free speech, I still say that your statement constitutes you as one of the greatest sources of discord in America. A New York rabbi said: Einstein is unquestionably a great scientist, but his religious views are diametrically opposed to Judaism.' 'But'? 'But'? Why not 'and'? The president of a historical society in New Jersey wrote a letter that so damningly exposes the weakness of the religious mind, it is worth reading twice: We respect your learning, Dr Einstein; but there is one thing you do not seem to have learned: that God is a spirit and cannot be found through the telescope or microscope, no more than human thought or emotion can be found by analyzing the brain. As everyone knows, religion is based on Faith, not knowledge. Every thinking person, perhaps, is assailed at times with religious doubt. My own faith has wavered many a time. But I never told anyone of my spiritual aberrations for two reasons: (1) I feared that I might, by mere suggestion, disturb and damage the life and hopes of some fellow being; (2) because I agree with the writer who said, 'There is a mean streak in anyone who will destroy another's faith.' . . . I hope, Dr Einstein, that you were misquoted and that you will yet say something more pleasing to the vast number of the American people who delight to do you honor. What a devastatingly revealing letter! Every sentence drips with intellectual and moral cowardice. Less abject but more shocking was the letter from the Founder of the Calvary Tabernacle Association in Oklahoma: Professor Einstein, I believe that every Christian in America will answer you, 'We will not give up our belief in our God and his son Jesus Christ, but we invite you, if you do not believe in the God of the people of this nation, to go back where you came from.' I have done everything in my power to be a blessing to Israel, and then you come along and with one statement from your blasphemous tongue, do more to hurt the cause of your people than all the efforts of the Christians who love Israel can do to stamp out anti-Semitism in our land. Professor Einstein, every Christian in America will immediately reply to you, 'Take your crazy, fallacious theory of evolution and go back to Germany where you came from, or stop trying to break down the faith of a people who gave you a welcome when you were forced to flee your native land. the end of citation... Now I think that even an idiot is clear that Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of 20th century WAS ATHEIST in classical meaning. Now, I will add him to the list. Just watch me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.152.33 (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Einstein was not an atheist and until you produce a good tertiary source that calls him one please leave him off the list.Griswaldo (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Women

I am wondering why there are no women on this list? No one has found any? Oh my mistake. I found two.

Akirrick (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What about Marie Curie? She became an atheist after the death of 2 close relatives. Can't fin the source of this information though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.163.130 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)