Talk:Criticism of atheism/Archive 6

External Link
User:Krshwunk has inserted the following as an "external link" Atheist Murderers. I don't think this is appropriate, as it's not criticism of atheism; it's a list of murderers who happened to be atheists. It looks like basic POV-pushing by link, and I've reverted a couple of times, but I want to avoid 3RR. Does anyone else care to comment? Pepper Beast   (talk)  21:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The external link in question criticizes atheism in various ways, such as the following: it details many instances where people have been killed in the name of state atheism, shows evidence that various mass shooters and serial killers have demonstrated atheism as a motivation for killing (as is seen with Jim Jones, Andrei Chikatilo, Jeffrey Dahmer, Craig Stephen Hicks, Kip Kinkel, and Jeffrey James Weise), and provides copious evidence in general to suggest that the frequent atheist claim that atheists are somehow less inclined to murder people than religious people are is false. All of these constitute criticisms of atheism in one way or another.  For these reasons, I would say it is not merely "a list of murderers who happened to be atheists" as User:pepperbeast has said.  Importantly too, the list has an objective character to it, backing up all its facts with exhaustive footnotes.  I think it is an extremely useful resource for an article that is titled "Criticism of Atheism."Krshwunk (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The first sentence on the page is "This list contains names and relevant details of various atheistic murderers, including genocidal/democidal dictators, mass shooters, serial killers, etc. It was composed to correct the notion that "atheists have never killed anyone" that some atheists have tried to argue and that all violence is somehow due to religion/theism. " If that's not POV-pushing, I don't know what is.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  01:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the link is, by its own assertion, POV-pushing and accordingly have undone it. -- Jmc (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If the link is POV, how are the external links in the "criticism of religion" article not? One such link is, "The Poverty of Theistic Morality."  But the "Atheist Murderers" link is rather modestly saying that atheists have committed heinous crimes too and that atheism, like religion, has even been used as an excuse at times.  Once again, the link includes a number of atheists who rather clearly stated that atheism was a motivation for their actions (as mentioned above). Krshwunk (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the issue is POV pushing here since "Criticism" pages are all about contradictory POVs, inevitably. Criticisms and counter-criticisms are often relative and subjective since a problem for someone is a non-problem for someone else and vice versa. The link does actually criticize atheism in terms of immorality, namely - "It was composed to correct the notion that "atheists have never killed anyone" that some atheists have tried to argue and that all violence is somehow due to religion/theism." Indeed, the blaming of violence on religion is still certainly used by many modern atheists and this link tried to counter this by providing examples of atheists who have engaged in similar activity. In other words, atheists have significant amounts of blood on their hands too despite all the complaining they do on religion as a source of violence. However, the issue, it seems, is that it really is just a list and I am not sure who the author of the article is either.Mayan1990 (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Mayan, it's criticism of atheism, not slagging off of atheists. We also don't use "external links" to "balance" views that aren't even presented in the article.    Pepper Beast    (talk)  03:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Criticism of atheism includes countering claims of non-violence of atheism and higher moral standing. Hitchens, Dawkins, and other atheists have brought it up by first pointing to violence and religion and this is a parallel criticism to violence and atheism.Mayan1990 (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's already a whole article of criticism, and if one of you wants to address this particular point in the article, you're capable of doing so. But tacking a list of supposedly atheist murderers onto the end of this article is not criticism.  It's intellectually bankrupt-- in the same league as, say, adding compiling and a list of Protestant drunk drivers, Catholic drug-dealers, or Jewish high-school dropouts.    Pepper Beast    (talk)  05:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a bit of confusion. As I already addressed on my first post, I am not convinced the list should be in the article for 2 reasons. I only pointed out, as an extra, that the issue here is not POV pushing per se since any criticism or counter-criticism in any "criticism" article is a POV by default (check out criticism of religion as another example). Plus, the point about violence is already in the article so not much else to add on it at the moment. But as a side note, the analogy you made (drunk driving, drug dealers, dropouts) is not really reasonable since atheists have a track record of accusing violence on religion as an important moral point for a few centuries now in numerous ways so it should be expected that the same would be done to atheism and violence as a moral point at some point in time. All sorts of comparisons and contratsts occur frequently in many debates on atheism or worldview alternatives.Mayan1990 (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is true that the point about violence is already on the article, but the link provides some significantly greater details on that subject, complete with sources (which I have found difficult to find elsewhere), something which external links are often meant to provide. Krshwunk (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The list on the external link is undeniably criticizing atheism, but whether it is "intellectually bankrupt" is another thing. Once again, the list has exhaustive footnotes for each sentence regarding every atheist murderer mentioned on it, and is certainly not being bankrupt in that area.  Furthermore, it is not "in the same league" as those things you mentioned, as the list multiple times mentions how various murderers openly admitted that their atheism was a motivation for their actions, as I explained above, rather than just two unrelated qualities happening to coincide. Krshwunk (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Krshwunk, appreciate your thoughts on this, but the actual link does have some issues. For instance, who is the author of it? I cannot find out if this is written by an expert or a random person on the internet. The contents may be true or false, but it does need to have a better standing for it to be put on Wikipedia. Otherwise, it will be removed. Also, there is a noticeboard post on this link that you may want to look into and insert some of your thoughts.Mayan1990 (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Mayan1990, I viewed the article and the author is at the very bottom. Indeed the contents may be true or false, which is why there are a plethora of footnotes and references for you to check. You also said "the point about violence is already in the article so not much else to add on it at the moment". However the external article does much more than just mention violence among atheists. The whole point of it is that it gives specific examples to support the claim. I support this external link staying on the page.BlazePhillips (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlazePhillips (talk • contribs) 23:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no rule in Wikipedia that says that external links must only link to pages written by a Wikipedia-acceptable reliable source. In fact, WP:EL states, "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" are to be considered for external links. The list has tons of footnotes of knowledgeable sources, as I have said before. So, even if you deem the page an unreliable source, there is still no basis for deleting the external link. Krshwunk (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The external link is junk and will be removed. There is no need to agonize over the issue, and no need for good editors to get sucked into an edit war. If necessary it can be removed in a week. It's hard to know whether the addition is an attempt to criticize atheists because they murder people, or whether the addition is to mock the idiocy of the linked page. Either way, WP:EL is not satisfied, but debating such a point with a closed mind is pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  04:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is the external link junk? No actual reason for such a claim has been forthcoming.  The site is copiously footnoted and scholarly if you bother to check.  If not, prove otherwise.  Burden of proof is on you.   Johnuniq, simply calling the link "idiotic" is not a legitimate reason and borders on breaking Wikipedia's civility and politeness policies, not to mention arguably tainted with some POV-pushing.  So, again, does anyone have an actual reason for banning the link?  Abstain from ad hominems, if you would.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krshwunk (talk • contribs) 01:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should tell us why you think the article is good and worth linking to. So far, you haven't come up with much more than "it has a lot of footnotes".  How do you think it adds to the article, given that it's an article about criticism of atheism, not an article *criticising* atheism?    Pepper Beast    (talk)  01:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While the Wikipedia page is about the criticism of atheism, its sources obviously directly criticize atheism, such as the quotes by the popes and Edmund Burke, just as quick examples. If a page is to exist about the criticism, inevitably it needs to have sources and links that criticize it. This external link does that.BlazePhillips (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User talk:pepperbeast, I've mentioned the reason in other posts here. Here it is again in different words: it criticizes atheism by showing how there have been some people who have been killed in the name of atheist ideologies (analogous to how atheists criticize religion because some people have killed in the name of religious ideologies ... which you think is legitimate, right?).  It also shows evidence that certain mass shooters and serial killers had atheism as a motivation for murdering people (consult the list especially regarding Jim Jones, Andrei Chikatilo, Jeffrey Dahmer, Craig Stephen Hicks, Kip Kinkel, and Jeffrey James Weise).  Furthermore, it suggests, using many examples, that the common atheist claim that atheists are somehow less inclined to murder people than religious people are is not correct.  Because this list shows that atheism can be a reason for murdering people, it thus criticizes atheism, contrary to what many atheists claim nowadays ... or do you somehow disagree with that?  To stress again, too, is there anything on the list that you disagree with?  Every claim includes a source.  What exactly is your problem with it?  Mention one thing about it that breaks Wikipedia rules.  Krshwunk (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the influence of atheism and state atheism has been covered to a reasonable extent in the Atheism and Politics section, and with better resources than yours. I'm not really aware of any "common atheist claim" that atheists are somehow less inclined to murder people than religious people, but even if there is one, your article does nothing to critique that view. It's just a list.  If I sat down and composed a list of Roman Catholic murderers that's longer than your list would that prove that Catholicism leads to violence or that Catholics are more likely to murder than atheists?  No, of course not.  I'd have to do some pretty sophisticated research to establish that a given belief system made people more likely to kill-- perhaps starting by establishing homicide rates for different groups, controlling for other factors.  Unless you can do something along those lines, you're really not contributing any information and, it doesn't matter how many footnotes you add.
 * Besides that, your work is a sloppy mish-mash of wildly varying claims. Kimveer Gill saying "I hate God", Dylan Klebold saying that he still believed in God, and David Berkowitz's claims of involvement in a Satanic cult are hardly evidence of atheism. Kim Jong il and Kim Jong-un are basically the gods of their own religion, which is not quite the same as being atheists.  You've also merrily mixed people who may have been in some way motivated by atheism with people who were killers but just happened to be atheists, people who can only be labelled murderers of you're pushing a rather specific POV, such as Dr. Jack Kevorkian, people who may or may not have been atheists (and were probably just opponents of organised religion, which isn't the same thing), such as Adolf Hitler, people about whom the strongest claim you can muster seems to be that they lived in the USSR, such as Andrei Chikatilo, and people like Timothy McVeigh, who does not appear to have been an atheist and was influenced by the Christian Identity movement.  So, seriously, this is junk.    Pepper Beast    (talk)  02:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:pepperbeast, are you saying that the "Atheism and Politics" section includes everything on my list? No, of course not.  And even if it has "better resources" than my list, it doesn't merit deletion of the link, as the list covers things that the other does not.  If you are not aware of the common atheist claim that atheists are less inclined to kill people than religious people, then I suggest you familiarize yourself with the New Atheist movement.  I encounter that argument all the time.  It's quite popular.  If I didn't encounter it so often, I wouldn't have made the list.  Also, you said "It's just a list."  Lists are actually a common format to inform people about things.  The accusation that it is "just a list" is vacuous.  Furthermore the items on the list have descriptions ... it's not just a sequence of nouns, like some simpler lists.  What is often coupled with the aforementioned common atheist claim is that "there are no atheist mass shooter or serial killers" (people have said that to me a lot).  This list corrects that error.  Also, the list is designed to suggest that atheist rulers, though relatively few in number, as well as atheist terrorists (as can be seen with Velupillai Prabhakaran, the founder of the anti-religious "Tamil Tigers" who invented the suicide vest), have an unusually bad track record, despite being a much small percent of the population.  I don't say that outright, I leave that up to the reader to draw.  Nonetheless, it obviously constitutes a criticism of atheism.  These are things that this list does.  It's not ... "just a list."  Also, you claim that the list is a "mishmash of wildly varying claims," which is irrelevant.  The list details a variety of people, probably with a variety of atheisms (there are many kinds of atheists, be it gnostic atheists, agnostic atheists, ignostic atheists, "hard" atheists, "weak" atheists, practical atheists, etc.).  The list does not only include atheists in some very narrow sense.  When you say that some of these people may have been motivated by things other than atheism, indeed, that might be true ... or it might be false.  Likewise, when someone commits a crime in the name of religion, they might actually be motivated by something other than religion and are just using religion as an excuse.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  In any case, once again, they are on the list to counter the notion that there are not really any atheist murderers ... which, again, I have encountered a lot, even if you have not.  Now, I know this list makes some people uncomfortable ... but that's not against Wikipedia's rules.  Krshwunk (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Imagine what Wikipedia would look like if everyone with a website were able to force links into articles. People are free to debate this as long as they want (within reason—editors are removed if too much time wasting occurs), but such debate will not influence the fact that the proposed external link is not acceptable and does not have the consensus that would be necessary for its use in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To respect Wikipedia's rules, this will be my last post on this topic as this is taking up a lot of people's time. For the record, however, I have been arguing in favor of the external link, not forcing it into Wikipedia.  The reasons why the link is unacceptable have not been clearly established, as I have shown in rather rigorous detail.  But, again, to respect Wikipedia's rules, I will go along with the consensus now.  I wish you all well. Krshwunk (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Criticism of atheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418162422/http://www.voltaire-integral.com/Html/22/07_Pascal.html to http://www.voltaire-integral.com/Html/22/07_Pascal.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130902040902/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130703015921/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20101939_summi-pontificatus_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20101939_summi-pontificatus_en.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071014184253/http://catholiceducation.org:80/articles/apologetics/ap0214.htm to http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0214.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229021803/http://richarddawkins.net/article,1454,Richard-Dawkins-on-Hardtalk,BBC-Richard-Dawkins to http://richarddawkins.net/article,1454,Richard-Dawkins-on-Hardtalk,BBC-Richard-Dawkins
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925045703/https://richarddawkins.net/2015/05/articles-odds-and-ends/915/ to http://richarddawkins.net/articles/915

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That looks good although I did not examine the details of the claims in this article versus what the refs say. Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph includes extraneous content and is contrary to the article content
How many types of atheism listed "hamper" criticism is not explained, and appears to be overstated. Much of the article is criticism of the common status of all atheist -- they are not believers -- so the "many types of atheism" objection does not actually hold true. Additionally, criticism of the status of not believing is not altered by such things as theoretical atheism or practical atheism, which appear to be extraneous and irrelevant as a diverse aspect that hampers criticism. Additionally, irrelevant topics in atheism are listed together with synonyms for different types of atheism giving the misleading impression that there are so many types of atheism that most or all criticism of atheism is somehow questionable. How some criticisms don't apply could more accurately be addressed as details elsewhere in the article where why and how this is relevant can be described.

List of types of atheism includes synonyms: Per the wikipedia entry cited for negative and positive atheism these words mean the same thing as strong and weak atheism. One set of terms should be deleted. Again, the duplication appears to inflate they types of atheism unnecessarily.

The lead appears to require updating to include more types of criticisms than the two identified (theistic and moral). The criticism in the article include the history of science (e.g. the necessity of theism to scientific development), evidence from science (e.g. fine tuning), and other relevant types of criticism that should also be included.

I made some modest changes trying to address the above, which were reverted, so these are now pending discussion.

Provided supporting links and names to answer question in lead concerning who are the various agnostics and theists criticizing the science supporting atheism. These were reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_atheism&diff=737773693&oldid=737773407

I thank you for your patience as this is my first adventure here. There is a lot to take in. :)

KScidmore (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi KScidmore, I think the edits you have introduced are quite modest. The fist paragraph, as you had it, was I think acceptable and representative of what the whole wiki article notes. Perhaps a few tweaks were needed but it was not a bad edit. In terms of the second paragraph with the "who" tag, I think some of the sources maybe acceptable. Why not amend the statement to "Various contemporary agnostics like Carl Sagan and theists such as Dinesh D'Souza..." or something like that? Hope this helps.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestions seem like good improvements. I like them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KScidmore (talk • contribs) 23:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The end of the sentence you commented on Various contemporary agnostics agnosticism like Carl Sagan and theists such as Dinesh D'Souza have criticised atheism for being an unscientific, or overly dogmatic and definitive position to hold, some with the argument that 'absence of evidence is not to be equated with evidence of absence'.

I propose, also, that the end of the sentence (bold above) beginning with "some" should be dropped. The specific phrase is more characteristic of William Lane Craig and to my knowledge is not a position of either Carl Sagan or Dinesh D'Souza. Additionally, the phrase is used in response to a specific criticism of theism and is not, in fact, a criticism of atheism, and so not even germane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KScidmore (talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Not to pick this one sentence completely apart, but I also suggest "dogmatic and definitive position" be dropped. "Dogmaticness" and "definitiveness" are not discussed in the paragraph, which is about criticism based on science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KScidmore (talk • contribs) 00:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is what is proposed: Please note also the style reference Manual of Style/Lead section

Criticism of atheism is criticism of the concepts, validity, or impact of atheism, including associated political and social implications. Criticisms include positions based on the history of science, findings in the natural sciences, theistic apologetic arguments, arguments pertaining to ethics and morality, the effects of atheism on the individual, or the assumptions that underpin atheism. Criticism of atheism includes multiple definitions and concepts of atheism, such as practical atheism, theoretical atheism, negative and positive atheism, and implicit and explicit atheism.

Various contemporary agnostics like Carl Sagan and theists such as Dinesh D'Souza and key figures in the scientific revolution such as Sir Isaac Newton  have criticised atheism for being an unscientific position.

KScidmore (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi KScidmore, I think the proposed edit you made is good. Go ahead and edit the lead as you have it.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The edit was made. The "web" citations could, I think, use editing to improve the formatting, particularly for the Isaac Newton citation, which is linked to copy of his manuscript, which is a little better source than a news article or blog. I wasn't sure exactly how this might look if not using the templates. Thanks. -K KSci (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Definition of ignosticism is only peripherally relevant and is not discussed as a criticism of atheism.
This definition is not a concept of atheism and the definition appears to have only a loose connection to the article content and is either explained nor discussed. Propose that the following definition be removed. "Ignostics propose that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and that the question of the existence of God is meaningless.[citation needed]" KSci (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement about Edmund Burke in the lead should be corrected.
The second paragraph of the lead states "Edmund Burke, a name associated with both modern conservatism and liberalism,". I believe this isn't actually true. Burke is not ordinarily associated with modern liberalism (but is associated with conservatism), but why he should be seen as relevant actually does follow from his reputation as a statesman and philosopher, and the praise he received from both liberals and conservatives in his time. Please see Edmund Burke. I suggest the following be substituted:

"Edmund Burke, a 19th century Irish philosopher and statesman praised by both his conservative and liberal peers for his "comprehensive intellect".

This change,also explains why he should be seen as a relevant source, which was not previously apparent to someone who does not recognize his name.

Comments?

KSci (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This change was implemented. During the change identical text was found to appear in two different places in the article. Both were changed. I have already propose a change that will remedy the duplication.

KSci (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"Practical atheism" not sufficiently significant to warrant mention in lead 1st paragraph
In the first paragraph, "practical atheism", is listed as a "type or concept" of atheism, with a link to apatheism. "Practical atheism" is a phrase used in a papal quote in the article to describe apathy with regard to both atheism and theism. I suggest that "practical atheism" be dropped from the list as not a significant "type or concept" of atheism, but rather a state of mind.

After additional consideration, I propose that the entire sentence be removed from the lead paragraph as superfluous detail that is at best incomplete, too controversial to to be easily defined, and it makes the focus of the topic less clear rather than clarifying it.

"Criticism of atheism includes multiple definitions and concepts of atheism, such as practical atheism, theoretical atheism, negative and positive atheism, and implicit and explicit atheism"

Comments?

KSci (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Removal seems sensible to me - the various types of atheism are listed in the adjoining infobox. -- Jmc (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of the one sentence was implemented, though additional changes were promised and will be suggested as agree. KSci (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Propose to remove text in section "Definitions and concepts of atheism" not relevant to the article topic.
In the section "Definitions and concepts of atheism" there is a body of text detailing criticisms of theism and rebuttals by theists. Though this material appears to have been added in good faith as legitimate "concepts of atheism", neither these criticism of theism nor the rebuttals appear to be germane to the topic. I propose that both the text presenting criticisms of theism and the theist rebuttals beginning with "Some atheists argue" to the end of the end of the "Definitions and concepts of atheism" should be removed. Unlike the material above, I don't believe this text can be used elsewhere.

Comments?

KSci (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi KScimore, that whole section is appropriate as is. Atheists have arguments against theism and theists have arguments against atheism and the section merely highlights some of this along with basic definition. The general atheist arguments are not covered elsewhere in the article. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 You make a reasonable point. What I'm having difficulty with is that the article body begins with a long digression into details of the opposing view and rebuttals before engaging the actual topic. Would you be okay with removing the William Lane Craig-specific rebuttals to the atheist positions beginning with the words "Analytic philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig ..." to the end of the section?

KSci (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @KScidmore You have my unqualified support for removing the William Lane Craig-specific rebuttals to the atheist positions beginning with the words "Analytic philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig ..." to the end of the section.


 * This material is simply irrelevant in a section headed "Definitions and concepts of atheism". Such a section should succinctly set the stage for the discussion of specific criticisms in the following sections. This section, as it stands, is anything but succinct and appropriately focussed on stage-setting.


 * --Jmc (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think a good solution is to separate the sections. I left the definitions with just definitions and I made a separate section on atheist arguments and positions. The Craig source is quite useful in capturing many of the common views held by atheists and providing criticisms of those views.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Carving the irrelevant material off into a separate section "Arguments and positions" is not an effective way of dealing with it. More radical reorganisation of the whole article is called for. There should be individual sections to critically address each of the "Arguments for atheism" listed in the sidebar infobox, which do a far better job of "capturing many of the common views held by atheists" than the Craig-sourced material. These sections would incorporate material already in the article as relevant and appropriate. -- Jmc (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Ramos1990, I agree with jmc, but would like to add that this is not an article about atheism vs. theism, the topic is criticism of atheism. How does it make any sense to start the article with criticisms of theism?

If you are familiar with the philosophy behind these criticisms of atheism and craig's rebuttals, my impression is that these ideas are presented so superficially as to be almost incoherent. The sidebars infobox Jmc suggests would give people access to descriptions of these topics which would do them justice rather than rapidly inserting rapid fire snippets referring to complex ideas. I think this section is most likely confusing and raises more questions for for the reader than they answer.

Thoughts?

KSci (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi JMC and KSci. Glad to hear your input. JMC's proposal for a radical reorganization is quite a bit of work, but what would you do? I think that on this article, there can be a expansion of criticisms of atheist arguments - a section for each one if you want (if one can find some sources which address each of the atheist arguments). But it certainly is appropriate to have something on this article criticizing some basic atheist arguments to some degree. "See also" tags can be added to help others find more detailed treatment of each argument. Obviously many of these ideas are complex, but many atheist's arguments really boil down to a few common arguments like the issue of evil. Craig's piece certainly brings an overview of common atheist arguments and that is the point of it. It is notable since it was part of the "Cambridge Companion to Atheism" and his paper was one of the few to criticize and counter atheist views.


 * Theist and atheist arguments are interrelated by default so one can expect that atheist views will be counter-theism and theistic views will be counter-atheism. Perhaps we can start with Craig's criticisms of common atheist arguments and proceed form there? Huitzilopochtli (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to give Craig such prominence. Rather than rely on his "overview of common atheist arguments", the article should take the arguments as they are documented in WP itself and present the criticisms to which they have been subjected by a range of writers. (I note that the first of Craig's targets, "The Presumption of Atheism", is not one that is documented in WP, so it risks being perceived as a straw man criticism.) -- Jmc (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ramos1990, @Jmc I think we are only seeming to work at cross purposes, when in actuality we are working toward mutually compatible goals. @Ramos1990, I'm going to reverse my previous position and agree with you, the topics in this section should be presented in the article, and I think @Jmc suggested how we can do this. @Jmc, I agree with your assessment that these topics could be presented as criticisms of atheism. If I've understood you both correctly, I suggest the following compromise would achieve all the goals we're discussing.

The apologetics of William Lane Craig includes criticism of atheism that is not presented elsewhere in the article. Noting Craig's prominent position as a Christian apologist and atheist critic, I think @Ramos1990 is right in saying the material should be included. However, as presented, the subject matter is far too complex and potentially confusing to a reader to be the starting point in the article body. A good presentation of all 8 positions would be far to complex and "heady" to be the first topic of discussion in the article body.

I suggest that this section be renamed "Criticism of atheist arguments" (or something similar) and moved to the end of the article then rewritten and fleshed out to introduce the subject as criticisms of atheism rather than criticisms of theism. I'm very familiar with both Craig's positions and the arguments they addressed, and I'm willing to put in the time to help out with that effort. Once this has been done, I thin the text would probably warrant being moved back up to a more prominent location.

Addressing the question of the radical reorganization, I'm all in. I have some substantial edits to propose for consensus review over the weekend. I think these will take us in the direction of WP guidelines.

KSci (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi KSci and JMC. @ JMC Craig is not really occupying a prominent place since more sources can be added for each argument he addresses. At the moment his piece is a placeholder since no one seems to be adding criticism of atheist arguments in the article even though criticizing atheist arguments is certainly appropriate. I had added T.J. Mawson's piece to have another voice in there. I already agreed with you, and so did KSci that we can make separate sections for each of the atheist arguments and treat them individually while also linking in the more appropriate wikilinks or "See also" tag for a more extensive treatment of each argument. Also keep in mind that when it comes to atheist arguments or any other arguments, there is a wide range of creativity involved and new arguments could pop up or old arguments could be re-labeled. The "The Presumption of Atheism" argument is a basic argument used by atheists though it is probably known by another name or it is merely a basic belief.


 * @ KSci, I think "Criticism of atheist arguments" is an appropriate name for the section. But I do not see how it would be confusing to any reader if we keep it near the top or even in the middle of the article. The most basic criticism of atheism naturally would be the criticism of atheistic views. Just like in the criticism of Islam, the most basic criticism would be criticism of positions held by Muslims. Though you may think that the criticism of atheist arguments are complex (and they sure are), look at the criticism of religion page. When you compare to that page, you will see that the points people have put on there are not extensive or detailed treatments of ANY issue, despite the fact that all the issues there are much more complex. Rather snippets or summaries of views are superficially touched upon with "See also" tags added for people who want more detailed treatments of a relevant topic (e.g. religious violence or animal cruelty). This article (Criticism of atheism) is not a detailed treatment of any of the sections or arguments, but is instead a collection views and points relating to atheism. In terms of what Craig wrote, I tried to keep the complexity of each argument intact while not making it way too long. Does this help? Huitzilopochtli (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @Ramos1990 Something more substantial and solidly referenced than "The 'The Presumption of Atheism' argument is a basic argument used by atheists" is needed to avoid the impression that Craig is putting up a straw man here.


 * More generally, what Craig appears to be dealing with are philosophical issues, so maybe "Philosophical Criticisms" would be a more appropriate subhead than "Criticism of atheist arguments". This would clearly differentiate it from other sections which (e.g.) deal with moral and political criticisms.


 * @KScidmore I'm eagerly awaiting your "substantial edits to propose for consensus review over the weekend". They promise to take us in the direction of a long-overdue cleanup of this ragbag of an article. Thanks for initiating this process.


 * Jmc (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 & @Jmc, we appear to be converging on a consensus very nicely. :) @Jmc Another name for "presumption of atheism" may be "no burden of proof", which is a topic of criticism, as I'm sure you've noticed ;) @Ramos1990, I only suggested the end of the article while the section is improved, but I'm fine with 1/4 to 1/2 way down. I have a particular interest in the topics covered in that section and would like to see them developed further. When we've got that section fleshed out I think it should be more prominent, though I have some concern about losing the reader in the complexity, but Craig's arguments are meant to be easily understood. On the naming, I think philosophy is distributed throughout the article so "Philosophical Criticisms" could be something of misnomer. What don't you think? KSci (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It is going a bit slower than I expected the part I wrote is very congested with citations and links. It also covers a lot of territory, but still has some gaps. I'm hoping it works out and will, eventually, make its way through to a consensus approval. My expectation is that both theists and atheists will have edits and initially see it as unsatisfactory.

KSci (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think labeling the section "Philosophical Criticisms" would be too narrow since these are more than just arguments engaged by philosophers. They are generic and even non-philosophical because non-philosophers get into the criticisms too (like scientists who are not atheists). The "presumption of atheism" literally is claim often heard from lay atheists, for example, that "in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist". Its not a novel thing and it certainly is not a starwman or imaginary argument created by Craig. It is very prominent and even cliched. Also Antony Flew pretty much reified that principle and fleshed it out even more in his work called "The Presumption of Atheism" . If there is no evidence for something one should simply not believe it exists. Of course this kind of logic has many issues (despite it being used by atheists for the past few centuries in various ways) and Craig merely points out problems with such reasoning. Look at the criticism of religion page and you will see that many of the arguments presented, though certainly being philosophical, are not limited to philosophical arguments. There is no "philosophical criticisms" section either.


 * I think we all have some general agreements on what to do in this article, with minor differences, but let us see what KSci suggests.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@JMC, I agree, the presumption of atheism could not be a more central topic of criticism both ways and I agree with your entire paragraph above. Thanks for the links. @Ramos1990 & @Jmc, I think we're almost there. - I think we agree that moving the section part way down away from the lead is fine. I suggest that Ramos1990 go ahead and put it where he thinks it fits best. - I agree with Jmc about "Philosophical Criticisms" being too narrow. @Ramos1990, I want to suggest a compromise or something I think you'd like better but I'm not sure this will do it: "Criticism of atheist positions". If that's not any better, we can continue thinking on it.

KSci (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for discussion on the deficiencies of this article and how it should be improved and organize.
Parts of this article are very well written but other parts are repetitive, weak, wordy, etc. One difficult I see is the absence of a synopsis overview or introduction. The existing lead seems to have been an attempt to do this, but is largely a sequential list of people and what they said. It's a rough disjoint read and doesn't provide a progression or continuity of thought. Should, perhaps, and introduction of some type be written to serve this purpose? Where should it reside? In the lead, or after?

What changes are needed to bring this article more in line with WP guidelines?

Apart from the above, what do you think are the priority improvements needed?

What do you see as the order of priorities?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. KSci (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Who philosopher Alvin Plantinga is and why anyone should care about his opinion is not identified in the lead
In the lead paragraph 2, philosopher Alvin Plantinga's views are given, but why his views would be significant is not identified. Suggest the following change: "The philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that a failure of" changed to "Analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame, argues that a failure of"

Comments?

KSci (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Plantinga is mentioned in the body of the article, so specific reference here seems unnecessary. In fact, IMHO, most of the lede suffers from an inappropriate level of detail and merits severe pruning. -- Jmc (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

JMC, I could not agree more, a severe pruning is warranted. Rather than undertaking to make individual deletions, I would like to see the last two paragraphs of the lead re-written to be a brief synopsis of the article subject matter, which is not the case right now. Before undertaking to do this right now, I'd like to review the article history in greater detail and have a greater insight into the preferences and sensitivities of other authors, both now and in the past. Might I suggest that this modest change be made now to fix the immediate weakness? I will take a look to see what can be offered to do as you suggest in the near future?

KSci (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @KSci Yes, go ahead. Be bold! -- Jmc (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@jmc I have written a far shorter replacement that is more focused and representative of the leads in other WP articles. I will post that text here for consensus review, but before doing so I would like to consider where the content that would be replaced might be moved or integrated elsewhere in the article. Though this text represents excessive detail in the lead, I think it also represents appropriate content, efforts, and contributions by other authors. Due consideration to preserving these efforts is, in my opinion warranted. I'm sure you'll agree.

In the mean time, any comments or proposed changes that would move or integrate the content in the last 3 paragraphs of the lead would be most welcome and appreciated.

KSci (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The modest change originally proposed here was implemented, per discussion. Note that discussion of the the larger change proposed above was started in the talk subject title beginning with "Alternate short lead...". A consensus on that discussion could replace this smaller change with a larger one.

KSci (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternate short lead that could stand alone while describing the topic and its scope and sets the stage
As promised. The following lead is proposed to replace the existing one, with the latter three paragraphs of the current lead moved below the definition section, to be merged into the appropriate subtopic as the next step.

Please see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview

''"Criticism of atheism" is criticism of the concepts, presuppositions, positions, outcomes, and practices of atheism, and associated, political, individual, social, and other implications. It also includes criticism of what atheism does not inherently provide, such as a consensus theory or belief in truth, an evidence-based rationale for atheism, sources for existential or moral meaning, social structure and cohesion, medically established positive outcomes for  health and well-being, restraining effects on moral conduct, or a foundation for morality and  moral philosophies.

''Criticism of atheism includes formal and informal arguments from an agnostic, secular, specific religious, or broadly theistic perspective and includes atheist criticisms of other atheists, such as criticism of percieved  religious intolerance   and anti-religious views and practices associated with the new atheism. Some arguments critical of atheism may presuppose a theology while others rest partially or entirely on evidence, including empirical evidence, from scholarly academic disciplines such as history, philosophy, medicine, and the natural sciences.

''There are two competing meanings for the words "atheism" and "atheist" in common use. In one sense an atheist is a person who believes there is no god., while in the broader sense an atheist is anyone who does not believe in a god. A given criticism of atheism may apply to one, the other, or both definitions.

Comments? KSci (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * In its succinctness and focus, this is a vast improvement on the current lede.


 * The second sentence needs further qualification (at the expense of greater verbosity), along these lines (my modifications highlighted only to make them more obvious here):
 * "It also includes criticism of what atheism does not in and of itself provide, nor claim to provide, and which are provided by theistic belief systems: such as a consensus theory or belief in truth, sources for existential or moral meaning, social structure and cohesion, medically established positive outcomes for health and well-being, restraining effects on moral conduct, or a foundation for morality and  moral philosophies."


 * Without this qualification, the sentence places atheism in the same category of spiritual belief systems as theism, which it plainly is not. Jmc (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi KSci. It seems you are new to wikipedia since I see the way you are adding the citations on the talk page is like it is done on the article. It is getting confusing so I changed your citations to be wikilinks because otherwise a list of references will be at the bottom of this Talk page instead of in the context of your responses. Since many discussions have already been started by you, it can get very confusing. Also I would suggest you limit the number of "New Section" because these are not separate requests. If you look at the Contents on this Talk page, you have already started 8 sections when they are all the same discussion. Generally when an editor has a request he/she will open only 1 section and settle the issue in that section. Other wise it is hard to keep track of the discussion.


 * I also italicized your proposed wording to make it stand out for this discussion. I think that your suggested wording is a great improvement and is less wordy. I think is good to go, while taking care of JMC's concerns. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @jmc, my first reaction was to wonder how this plays out when atheism is argued as requiring a leap of faith a some juncture. Given this, however, where would the basis for taking that leap of faith come from? If the change you make is made, I think the sentence must be split into two for two separate types of outcomes


 * Proposed wording integrating your comments:


 * "It also includes criticism of what atheism does not in and of itself provide, nor claim to provide, and which are borrowed from theistic belief systems, such as a consensus theory or belief in truth, sources for existential or moral meaning, a foundation for morality and  moral philosophies, and reasons to show moral restraint in the absence of culturally induced consequences.  Additionally, atheism does not provide the increased social structure and cohesion or the constellation of positive [medicine | health]] and well-being outcomes established to follow from theistic beliefs or practices."


 * @Jmc, if the above is satisfactory, I will go ahead and implement per Ramos1990's approval.


 * @Ramos1990, I was wondering what I should be doing for the citations, so now that you've explained the proper way, I'll do as you suggest. Thank you! You are correct in saying that my changes have coalesced as I've become more comfortable. I initially thought it wise to recommend only incremental changes, but I'm getting bolder so the number for discussions will naturally decline. Every bit of instruction you offer is greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to offer further suggestions.


 * I also see Jmc's use of blockquotes. Keep the suggestions coming! KSci (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi KSci. Cool. I noticed you inserted responses to me an JMC in our past responses. I have reorganized your responses a bit and put them together. Please keep the responses in sequential order (recent ones always below the others) - do not distribute the responses backwards into what me or JMC have said. It messes up the chronology and makes the dialogue confusing. Now you can see that as each one of us responds we can see the chronology with the indents for each person's response. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. The existing lede is far superior to this slanted rubbish. We are not going to state in Wikipedia voice that atheism does not provide....Charles (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Charles, could you please clarify what you find objectionable? What would you like to see changed/improved in the proposed lead?
 * Thank's in advance.
 * -KSci


 * KSci (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have to agree with Charles. I tried to anticipate his objection with my proposed emendation, but I see now that it's logically absurd to include "criticism of what atheism does not inherently provide [or claim to provide] ...". The list that follows that statement could be added to endlessly: miracles, saints, angels, devils, priests, sacred places, holy days, sin, blood sacrifices, ... -- Jmc (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Jmc, thanks for offering an objection that provides a basis for continued discussion. You have the advantage of knowing what sorts of things bring objections, so I appreciate your input. I apologize because I missed the purpose of your proposed emendation. :) Please bear with me as I try to figure out how this might be addressed. First, would the exact wording you suggested address the concern, or do you think it probably would not address it either. This is what was suggested:

It also includes criticism of what atheism does not in and of itself provide, nor claim to provide, and which are provided by theistic belief systems: such as a consensus theory or belief in truth, sources for existential or moral meaning, social structure and cohesion, medically established positive outcomes for health and well-being, restraining effects on moral conduct, or a foundation for morality and moral philosophies.

Or perhaps closing the list...

''It also includes criticism of what atheism does not in and of itself provide, nor claim to provide, and which are provided by theistic belief systems: specifically a consensus theory or belief in truth, sources for existential or moral meaning, social structure and cohesion, medically established positive outcomes for health and well-being, restraining effects on moral conduct, or a foundation for morality and moral philosophies.'

If you think the latter may be acceptable, I will comb the article to be assured that the closed list is complete (it may be, but I'd like to check).

Thanks for your input!

KSci (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to remove unsupported one-sentence paragraph at the end of "Atheism and science"
The last paragraph of the section "Atheism and science" is a one sentence paragraph stating: "Richard Dawkins addresses this criticism by pointing out that evolution, as a process, is able to develop both selfish and altruistic traits in organisms". This one sentence paragraph has the following difficulties:

- The use of the term "refutation" is a claim that one expert opinion disproved another. To be more than a POV statement requires a citation supporting "refutation".

- The citation is invalid. There is no discussion related to the subject matter in Chapter 7 of the book cited.

- The sentence appears to conflate possibility and actuality. The possibility of of an evolved altruistic trait does not show that Francis Collins is necessarily wrong.

For these reasons, I propose that this sentence be removed.

Comments?

KSci (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC) KSci (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The chapter reference was wrong (7 instead of 6). I've corrected it. -- Jmc (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jmc, for your effort to establish the correct reference, but I think we still have some problems that render the sentence in question unsalvageable.

Frances Collins' argues that the the evolutionary pressure of survival to pass on DNA presents a problem when trying to account for the case of our proclivities toward self-sacrifice. In Chapter 6 Dawkins' argues that moral law is not necessary to account for human moral proclivities in the general case. He does not make an evolutionary argument contra Collins' assertions about self-sacrifice, and in fact there is no evolutionary argument presented in Chapter 6, so the article text stating "evolution, as a process, is able to develop both selfish and altruistic traits" is not supported by the material cited.

I'm at a loss to see how these problems can be reconciled. Any suggestions?

KSci (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @KScidmore Sorry, I don't see your problem. In my reading of Ch 6, Dawkins presents a closely-argued case for altruism (including the urge to self-sacrifice) arising within the evolutionary process. -- Jmc (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jmc, Frances Collins argues a special case that Dawkins does not address. Can you give me a page number for self-sacrifice? I read Chapter 6 twice and didn't find self-sacrifice. One of the problem is that Frances Collins does not argue that altruism cannot follow from evolution. If he argued that, then the two would be taking about the same topic. Otherwise, we can't be sure due to insufficient information.

KSci (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Essentially, Collins is saying, "Altruism can't be explained as an evolutionary consequence". Dawkins is saying, "Yes, it can be". -- Jmc (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jmc, I noticed that you edited the paragraph to use an alternate word for "refuted", which was what got my attention originally, so we're cool on this topic. Thanks for staying with the discussion, and for making that edit. :)

We've got a consensus as it is in the article now.

KSci (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Does this scripture quote add to the article?
This may be a matter of personal preference, but I don't think the following has a WP flavor. Calling people fools seems unconstructive and less than informative in the WP context. Opinions requested.


 * "The Bible has criticized atheism by stating 'The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good.' (Psalm 14:1).:"

Thanks in advance.

KSci (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Should this Bible quote be removed?

KSci (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Relevant direct quote. -- Jmc (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jmc, we have a consensus. No change.

KSci (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Pascals wager is a probabilistic apologia for "betting" on theism not a criticism of atheism - recommend that this paragraph be removed.
For the short version it is only necessary to read about Pascal's ---> Pensées <---.

I began looking at the paragraph quoted below noting that it seemed to be flavored with POV, including a misquote of Voltaire and editorial license to add POV in the narration. Voltaire should have fully quoted without the POV omissions and narrations. What Voltaire actually wrote is shown below, but this is probably academic since the subject of the paragraph is the bigger problem.


 * "French: ''D'ailleurs cet article paraît un peu indécent et puéril; cette idée de jeu, de perte et de gain, ne convient point à la gravité du sujet; de plus, l'intérêt que j'ai à croire une chose n'est pas une preuve de l'existence de cette chose."


 * "English : Elsewhere this article seems to be a little indecent and puerile; this game idea, of loss and gain, should point to the seriousness of the subject; in addition, the interest that I have to believe one thing is not a proof of the existence of this thing."

The problem with the paragraph is that Pascals Wager is purely an apologetic (defensive) argument and was not offered as a criticism of atheism. This is very clear in the description of Pascal's intentions and the description of his Pensées (please read).

The following paragraph, which is also appears to have been edited piecemeal many times is very awkward, but there doesn't appear to be a reason to rewrite it because it doesn't appear germane to this Wikipedia article. The first sentence isn't a noteworthy criticism discussed in connection with Pascal's works. I propose that this paragraph be removed.


 * In his Pensées, Blaise Pascal criticizes atheists for not seeing signs of God's will. He also formulated Pascal's Wager, which posits that there is more to be gained from wagering on the existence of God than from atheism, and that a rational person should live as though God exists, even though the truth of the matter cannot actually be known. Criticism of Pascal's Wager began in his own day, and came from both atheists and the religious establishment. A common objection to Pascal's wager was noted by Voltaire, a Deist, known as the argument from inconsistent revelations. Voltaire rejected the notion that the wager was 'proof of god' as "indecent and childish", adding, "the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists.

Comments?

KSci (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jmc, you modified the text I propose to remove, so I'd like to be sure you have input before making this change, . <==supposedly sends a notification KSci (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @KSci I made my modification before you proposed removing the paragraph entirely. On the whole, I think it should remain on the basis that Pascal's Wager is at least an implicit criticism of atheism. (Incidentally, if your English version of the Pascal quote comes via Google Translate, it shows the limitations of machine translation ;) .) -- Jmc (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@jmc, thanks for your input. I see that you're right about the timing. Apparently I copied the paragraph before your change. I appreciate that change. I apologize for my mistake.

Several problems with this paragraph came to my attention as I was going to add some new material and thought to blend it with first paragraph. I began looking for citations for the earlier key assertions and found I could not find citable sources calling Pascal's wager a criticism of atheism. Next, I looked for citable sources supporting the first sentence and found nothing. Moving on, I was unable to find a citable source to support the statement that Pascal's Wager was criticized by contemporary atheists. I think this and your observation that Pascal's wager is only indirectly a criticism, rather than explicit, is enough to consider the paragraph to be either original research or POV. I'd like your opinion. What do you suggest?

KSci (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @KSci I note that you had a revert from Charlesdrakew when you edited this section previously. It might pay to await his opinion. -- Jmc (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

, do you have anything to add to this question? The rationale for removal is that the subject matter in the paragraph is not germane (not a criticism of atheism) and is at odds with two or all three of the article policies: No original research, Neutral point of view, Verifiability

KSci (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

This change was implemented following from the lack of objections

KSci (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Any further comment?

KSci (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

An additional note, if this text is removed the image of Pascal will no longer be needed and the paragraph should also be split in two at the topic transition.

KSci (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC) The changes have been implemented. Thank you, Jmc, for your input, suggestions, and advice. KSci (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Propose to remove sentence about "conclusive statements" relating to population studies that is not germane, misrepresents the source cited.
The following sentence “Atheism and the Individual” misrepresents the authors it cites, who were critiquing an article previously published in the same journal rather than making a broad statement applicable to all such studies. The statement appears to be a straw man as it rebuts a position not taken. "Multiple methodological problems have been identified with cross-national assessments of religiosity, secularity, and social health which undermine conclusive statements on religiosity and secularity in developed democracies."

Comments?

KSci (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi KSci, the paper is partially a critique of a paper in that same journal, but it addresses wider sociological issues in how researchers even assess religiosity, secularity, and social health and make conclusive statements on whole societies. This is the issue. Societies cannot be classified as if the populations are homogeneous or uniform in ideas, beliefs, belonging, and behavior. The same issues occur when researchers try to assess cross-national trends in intelligence or happiness. The two studies before it make bold statements about religiosity and secularity and this paper critiques the common generalizing methodologies used in such studies. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ramos1990, thanks for your interest. What you noted about cross-national population studies is unquestionably accurate. On the other hand, the preceding sentence only states "tend to be statistical predictors", and doesn't assert conclusiveness.

Before we discuss this further I'd like your opinion of the preceding statement, which this disclaimer appears to be addressing. Is the idea that correlates of wealth are predictors of atheism germane? Is this even a criticism of atheism?

"Some studies state that in developed countries, health, life expectancy, and other correlates of wealth, tend to be statistical predictors of a greater percentage of atheists, compared to countries with higher proportions of believers. Multiple methodological problems have been identified with cross-national assessments of religiosity, secularity, and social health which undermine conclusive statements on religiosity and secularity in developed democracies."

I reviewed the history of this section for quite some time, but I didn't read all the discussions. You were there so I'm thinking you may have some good insights. What do you think?

KSci (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What you quoted was studies like Paul's piece which specifically tries to link atheism and secularism to social health and Moreno-Riano's questioning of such rash conclusions. In this article, it is perfectly ok to have relevant sources that address atheism in a positive sense. In older versions of the section only Paul's conclusions were cited despite the fact that his conclusions were already challenged. Moreno-Riano merely criticized Paul's conclusions (that theistic societies lead to more social dysfunction and non-theistic societies leas to better social health) and this provided a contrast/criticism that atheism and secularity cannot be automatically linked to social health for numerous reasons. Does this help clarity? Huitzilopochtli (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 Yes, this definitely helps.

In this case what is conveyed from Paul's paper is the supposed statistical relationships without Paul's contested conclusion, yet Paul's conclusion is rebutted in the next sentence. For a reader not familiar with the backdrop of the studies (e.g. me) this text presents as two conceptual fragments with no meaningful conclusions and no continuity of thought. In the sciences (my profession) neither sentence would pass muster in a scholarly peer review, so my inclination is to remove both. If you disagree, perhaps there is a way to re-write these two sentences so they at least seem to provide continuity of thought. What do you think? Maybe I'm just picking a nit?

KSci (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 Do you think this would be an improvement?

"Although there are well-understood methodological problems that preclude drawing conclusions about religiosity, secularity, or social health from international population studies, some assessments suggest that in developed countries countries, health, life expectancy, and other correlates of wealth, may tend to be statistical predictors of a greater percentage of atheists.[1][2]"

Just a thought that may improve readability, not something I'm pitching but just an option.

KSci (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Section name amendment and added definition.
The proposed change adds a definition of deism and connects it to the article topic. To accommodate a non-atheist definition and concept, the section title would drop "of atheism" to be "Definitions and concepts".

"Deism is a form of theism in which God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through special revelation.1 Deism is a natural religion where belief in God is based on application of reason and evidence observed in the designs and laws found in nature.2 Christian Deism refers to a deist who believes in the moral teachings but not the divinity of Jesus."

KSci (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Implementing section name change part of this proposed change.

KSci (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Implemented addition of definition for deism per this change.

KSci (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Propose minor edits to improve a sentence in the lead.
I suggest that the following sentence: The Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire, a deist, imagined the implications of godlessness in a disorderly world ("If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him").

I propose to replace this sentence with this: The Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire, a deist, expressed concern about the implications of godlessness in a disorderly world writing "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him".

Comments?

KSci (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I've revised the proposed wording above after considering the context in Voltairs Epître à l'auteur du livre des Trois imposteurs.

KSci (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that Voltaire's concern about the "perceived effects on morality and social cohesion" might be a little clearer if the sentence read: ''The Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire, a deist, saw godlessness as an attack on the sacred bonds of society ("le sacré lien de la société"), writing "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him".

@Jmc I saw your question. This note is just to let you know I'm not ignoring you.

Thanks for your suggestion. I will get back to you, but it may take a few days.

KSci (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC) @Jmc, thank you for your patience.

What you suggest is, I think, quite right. Voltaire was very utilitarian in his views which I read as saying that God belief and the fear of ultimate judgment curbed villainy and the tyranny of kings. Sticking to Voltaire's (translated) words as much as possible, how about something like the following.

The Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire, a deist, described belief in God as a "sacred tie that binds society", and "bridle to the wicked" where fear of ultimate judgement curbed the tyranny kings; "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him".

My French is barely good enough to read Voltaire's poem, but not good enough to "feel it". I used this academic source and English rendering:


 * https://www.whitman.edu/VSA/trois.imposteurs.html#english

I'm open to other phrasing, and not stuck on the above.

Thank you for your thoughts.

KSci (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My thoughts? Too long. I'm sticking with my proposed wording as adequately covering the "perceived effects on morality and social cohesion". In fact, I'd shorten it further by simply using an English translation (my own work!) and putting it in quotes to show that we're quoting Voltaire himself: The Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire, a deist, saw godlessness as an attack on "the sacred bonds of society", writing "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him". -- Jmc (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jmc, what I suggested is long. I have no opposition to your approach or translation, we can go with it if you wish. The one thought I have is that "an attack on" and "sacred" seems to overstate Voltaire's position and suggest he was a religious fanatic, which we know was not the case. I suggest a more neutral phrase such as "weakening the sacred bonds of society".

KSci (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 'sacré' ('sacred') is V's own word. But I'm fine with 'weakening' - I had initially thought of 'dissolving', and 'weakening' captures the sense nicely. Let's go with it! -- Jmc (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. 73.238.32.210 (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)