Talk:List of atheists in science and technology/Archive 2

Redefinition of atheism?
Discussion moved to Talk:List of nontheists.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Graves (talk • contribs) 13:45, 22 October 2009‎ (UTC)

Albert Einstein
1. Albert Einstein: From a Jesuit Viewpoint, I am an Atheist

'' I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. '' Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

2. Albert Einstein: Skepticism, Freethought Proceed from Seeing Falsehood of Bible

''Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment - an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections.''

Albert Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp

3. Albert Einstein: I am Not a Crusading, Professional Atheist

''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.''

Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

We should ask ourselves what is definite definition of "atheism"? Can we postulate official "wikipedian" definition and than decide about Einstein? It seems that Albert Einstein's "naturalistic pantheism" caused that some "professional theists " take him as theist. It is clear that A.E. WAS atheist is classical (Jesuit) form of its meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlemocilac (talk • contribs) 23:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. The viewpoint of a Jesuit priest is not necessarily relevant here. There are several quotes already provided showing him rejecting the label of atheism. Keywords here are "from the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest".
 * 2. Not believing in the bible=/=atheist.
 * 3. Not believing in a personal God=/= atheist.
 * With both 2 & 3 there is plenty of room for belief in a non-personal God not based on the bible. Einstein's religious views are very unclear and he was very ambiguous when speaking of them. What is pretty clear though is that he rejected the label Atheist, hence he does not belong on this list. Depending on your bias you can cherry pick among quotes to support either view. I'd suggest not to put him on any list since his views were so unclear. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا  01:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, his views are totally bleedin' obvious; it's just that, for a variety of temporal-cultural reasons he didn't come out and scream his position from the rooftops. (I find it amusing that the majority of securely-identified atheists are from the last fifty years or so. Perhaps atheism has been hugely on the rise. Or perhaps, just maybe, it's become far easier to call yourself the word.)
 * No, they're not. They've been a matter of discussion for decades.  Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Einstein believed in Spinoza's god: and that is simply not a god in any usual sense of the term. He was a deeply religious non-believer. (Which, incidentally, is what Dawkins calls himself too, and for the same reasons.) As a non-believer, he was an atheist sensu lato, game over, QED.
 * A God nevertheless. In fact Spinoza's view has been a matter of controversy for a long time. This is not something we're here to solve. If you want to discuss Spinoza's views go to his article. With Einstein it is abundantly that he was NOT an atheist, rejecting the label on several occasions. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * But given that anything short of statements of outright strong atheism without a single epistemological bet hedged -- or, conversely and paradoxically (as I've been saying for years), the simple muttering of the magic word, no matter how 'weak' the mutterer's views are really! -- is all that some people will consider sufficient evidence for incusion, I suppose we should leave him out, just for a quiet bloody life.
 * what magic word?Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * But I'll say it one last time. 'Magic word' atheists may well be less firm in their 'atheist' position than many who've called themselves other things. In fact some certainly are, from their other comments. Many only say things like "I'm an atheist, I don't believe in the Bible or the rest of that stuff".


 * See what I mean? If all we had were their "I don't believe in the Bible or the rest of that stuff", it would be immediately shouted down by hyperzealous editors as insufficient. But if all 'atheist' means to the person is not believing in the Bible or that religion thing, do they belong on the list? Maybe no, if we adopt the strict criteria. But say the magic word, and they're suddenly a shoo-in.
 * Zoroastrians doesn't believe in the bible and they are not atheist. And what magic word are you talking about? God? I never said we should include him in a theist list. In fact I said we should leave him out on any list since his views are not clear enough. What is clear though is that he rejected Atheism Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, we have endless arguments about people like Sagan and Einstein and, over in their section recently, Russell and Chomsky. Who do/did not believe in god, had further, had thought about it a lot and had no truck with anything like gods, but who were for various reasons simply leery of the magic word.


 * There's no better example of the problem than John Brockman:


 * For instance, he would never call himself an atheist, he says, in America: "I mean I don't believe: I'm sure there's no God. I'm sure there's no afterlife. But don't call me an atheist. It's like a losers' club. When I hear the word atheist, I think of some crummy motel where they're having a function and these people have nowhere else to go. That's what it means in America. In the UK it's very different." "


 * See that? He's sure there's no God. Yet he got deleted a while back, for (I must assume) rejecting the label. How can someone who's sure there's no God be out, when mere disbelievers are included? (Note too the singular 'God' there. Which God do all these people not believe in? If they say they don't believe in God or the Bible, does anyone seriously think they might, however, believe in Apollo or Ganesh and so aren't really atheists? And think how that applies to Einstein. He rejected a personal God, but that's not good enough, apparently: he'd have had announce his rejection of all gods, ever.
 * I've never said anything of Brockman. We're talking about Einstein here. And Einstein never said he was sure there's no God. In fact he often implied he believed in a God. What he did say though was that he was sure there was no personal God. And of course that's not enough. Just because his views doesn't fit in your narrow definition of what a God is doesn't mean he didn't believe in one. Otherwise he would have said "I don't believe in any God". Instead he limited it to a personal God. And what's with the simplification? Just cause you don't believe in the Bible doesn't mean you're a Hindu or so. What about all the Deists, Panentheists, Panendeists and just general theists? There are tons of people who believes in a God, personal or impersonal, without being adherents to any particular religion.Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So these lists need to have their intros amended. To the effect that it's not actually a list of atheists, but just a list of people labelled or self-labelled as atheists.
 * Sure. Otherwise it would be just a list of guesses made by biased atheists.Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, from the days when this was a list of nontheists, there's a slew of people still included who are in on the basis of merely not believing in god, so we've got sod all consistency anyway. But I'm sick of trying to get through to people that the only list that makes sense and is practicable is one that captures all these people's position, regardless what they themselves call it. 'Nontheist' seemed to do the trick, but that project got bogged down and buggered up.


 * Back on the Einstein matter, and his lack of rejection of all gods ever and only of a personal god, I'll leave you with this. Please think about what it means for his position.


 * "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."


 * "I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science."


 * (both from here)


 * TTFN, Oolon (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you need to get out in the world and see that there is a wide array of views and that fundamentalist Christians are not the only ones believing in God. Those quotes you put forward here would even support a deistic view. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is Sakharov listed as an atheist?
I don't know why I am posting about Sakharov, after reading all the push and pull over Einstein. Yet I was very surprised to see Sakharov's name on a List of Atheists and looked up what he said on the matter of religion in his "Memoirs": “And yet I am unable to imagine the Universe and human life without some guiding principle, without a source of spiritual ‘warmth’ that is nonmaterial and not bound by physical laws. Probably this sense of things could be called 'religious.'" "On the whole, however, I have nothing but admiration for those who are sincerely religious." If you still want to claim Sakharov as an atheist, then you could also claim Ralph Waldo Emerson as an atheist which would be really something. My personal opinion is that you should not include someone on this list unless they themselves labeled themselves as an atheist. This would rule out Einstein, Sagan, Sakharov, and many others. 67.188.94.20 (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A person can still be spiritual and not believe in God. There are religions that don't require the belief in God (Buddhism). For example, Gautama Buddha (The founder of Buddhism) is agnostic about the existence of God. British scientist Roger Penrose, who has identified himself as an atheist, states in the film A Brief History of Time, "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it." If you want more evidence for this claim, please read this article: More than 20 percent of atheist scientists are spiritual. If you look at the citations on Andrei Sakharov, it states that he was an atheist. Just because someone admire those who are "sincerely religious" does not mean that he/she considered himself/herself to be religious. There are atheists who envy those who are religious. However, they don't take that final step due to their skepticism. I agreed that Einstein was not an atheist as his biographies and his statements support this. Anyway, there are people who don't believe in God and yet don't labeled themselves to be atheists. Just because a person doesn't explicitly states that he/she is an atheist does not mean he/she is not an atheist. American physicist, Steven Weinberg states this comment about scientists who don't call themselves atheists: "Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion even to call themselves atheists.". Ninmacer20 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul Dirac, a Christian
Here is a interview with Mrs.Dirac from Denis Brian's book, The Voice Of Genius: Conversations With Nobel Scientists And Other Luminaries: Interviewer: "What was your husband’s attitude toward religion?" Mrs.Dirac: "He was a Christian. He went to church on Sundays." Interviewer: "You mean he believed in Jesus Christ?" Mrs.Dirac: "Perhaps sometimes, and sometimes not. You know, most people are like that. Most people I contacted are atheists. My husband wasn’t an atheist." Considering this interview with his wife, it would be wrong to still include Paul Dirac in this list. Ninmacer20 (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet, at the same time, on the other recent articles of Paul Dirac, it states that he was an atheist. According to the British Newspaper, 'The Telegraph', Helen Brown writes: "Dirac’s story ends with a whimper. As a young man he had joked that physicists were all washed up by 30 and as he aged his powers waned. The Cambridge physics department took away his parking space and an outraged Manci insisted he take up a fellowship at Florida State University. He died in 1984, aged 82. An atheist, he was buried under a gravestone chosen by Manci. It read “because God said it should be so.”" Here is a link, The Strangest Man: the Hidden Life of Paul Dirac by Graham Farmelo - review. According to the Los Angeles Times review of the same book it states: "Dirac was contemptuous of philosophy and, as many scientists do, professed atheism. But it was a narrow sort, mainly dismissive of religious orthodoxy. In notes he wrote in 1933, he embraces another creed: "[T]his article of faith is that the human race will continue to live for ever and will develop and progress without limit. . . Living is worthwhile if one can contribute in some small way to this endless chain of progress."" Unless there is more evidence, that states that Dirac was a Christian, he should stay labeled as an atheist. Ninmacer20 (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Good move? rename from "list of atheists" to "list of atheists and agnostics"
Barring creating separate lists I think rename to List of atheists and agnostics in science and technology is a sound move. un☯mi 15:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not also consolidate the other particular "Lists of atheists" and agnostics into respective "lists of atheists and agnostics in..."?
 * Atheists, agnostics and nontheists share a non-acceptance of a concept (divinities) that they regard as untenable. Nihil novi (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I will try to merge the atheists and agnostics in other categories as well. Ninmacer20 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Err, I don't think there is a reason to consolidate lists that are already split into agnostics and atheists. The problem with this list was that there was a sense that while it was called 'list of atheists in ...' it actually also included people who were perhaps not incontrovertibly so. un</b><b style="color:#319">☯</b><b style="color:#219">m</b><b style="color:#119">i</b></i> 11:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Time out - Whoa ... this sort of rename was already proposed (and rejected) a few times in the past. A change of this magnitude has to go thru the right process: (1) an WP:RFC or WP:RM; and (2) rename all related articles so they are consistent. Topics of discussion that need to happen include:
 * Consider List of atheists and List of agnostics - are those two lists going to get merged?
 * There are over 20 subarticles that share the same naming convention "List of atheist ...." - Should all those articles be renamed so they are all consistent?  If not all, which ones?  And why not all?
 * If the list is expanded, what is the optimal name:  "List of nontheist ..."   "List of atheist and agnostic ..."  "List of atheists, nontheist and agnostic .."
 * What is the criteria for including persons in the list?
 * Should the lists internally subdivide the persons into atheists vs agnostics vs nontheists vs ??? subsections?

My point is: Hold off on the renaming any of these List articles until after an RFC (minimum 30 days) has been held for discussion. Also, the Atheism project needs to be notified. Also, the Talk pages of List of atheists and List of agnostics need to be notified. --Noleander (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see your point, Noleander. I'll change the title back to its original name. Ninmacer20 (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restoring the original name. If you still want to expand the scope of this (and other?) Lists to include agnostics or nontheists, I recommend you follow the procedure at WP:RFC.  I suggest you put the RFC discussion at the Talk page of List of atheists.  Your proposed rename has some merit.  For example, there are several persons that were in the lists because they had said "I don't believe in God"; yet those persons were removed from the lists, because other editors felt that was not the same as being an atheist.   Your suggested rename would resolve those kinds of borderline cases.  If you want to start an RfC, but don't know how, let me know and I can help. --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Note - If interested in continuing this discussion, please place any comments at this other Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hilbert?
I believe the inclusion of Hilbert to be somewhat dubious. All but one of the references appear to be his attempts to base mathematical foundations on something other than a Supreme Being, not a denial that such a thing exists - and the remaining reference is from an article primarily referencing Wikipedia and no direct reference for the atheism statement. I would expect the criteria for inclusion here would be a complete denial that God exists, not a refusal to base scientific research on devine sources. One can believe Hilbert's mathematical approach and still believe in God. He just does not believe it is necessary. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think 4 citations more than suffice to make the claim that Hilbert was an atheist. These citations are created by academics from universities, not some random user making questionable claims. You could send an email to these academics to ask for clarification to these articles as you wish. I posted links to these citations in order for skeptics to look at these citations for themselves. Anyway, a person does not have to deny the existence of God in order to become an atheist. Just because a person doesn't explicitly states that he/she is an atheist does not mean he/she is not an atheist. American physicist, Steven Weinberg states this comment about scientists who don't call themselves atheists: "Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion even to call themselves atheists.". This statement can be also applied to mathematicians as well. Hilbert, as a mathematician, was known to be against intuitionism of any kind and demanded rigorous proofs for any claims whatsoever. (Read the wiki article, Brouwer–Hilbert controversy for more details.) Whether in terms of mathematics or theology. Here is one example, "Also, when someone blamed Galileo for not standing up for his convictions Hilbert became quite irate and said, “But he was not an idiot. Only an idiot could believe that scientific truth needs martyrdom; that may be necessary in religion, but scientific results prove themselves in due time." - David Hilbert. Anton Z. Capri, Quips, quotes, and quanta: an anecdotal history of physics (2007), page 135. If a person does not have proof of any kind to their claims, it does not make any sense to believe in it. This is what most atheists' stance is in terms of theology. For example, Richard Dawkins himself, has said before that he was an agnostic. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic. Daily Mail.co.uk] However, that does not rule out the fact that he stills considered himself to be an atheist. Just because a person is unsure about the existence of God, doesn't forbid the person to not believe in him as well. For example, I'm unsure about the existence of the Tooth fairy, however, due to lack of any evidence for this entity, I don't tend to believe in it. If there is evidence (or proof) of a statement or claim, I'd more likely believe in it. Ninmacer20 (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Erwin Schrodinger? Non-theist sure, but not an atheist. His inclusion implies a very slippery defintion of atheism.
Erwin Schrodinger didn't like the Christian approach to religion very much, but it seems quite a push to call him atheist. He certainly wouldn't have straightforwardly agreed that 'there is no God'. His preference for Vedanta philosophy is indisputable [cf. the Epilogue to 'What is Life?']. However, he clearly thought that it was simply a mistake to distinguish the individual 'I' from an 'all-pervading' I. He thought the universe was one, and that that one was conscious. He spoke favourably of many mystics, and encapsulated the kernel of their independently shared realisation: "DEUS FACTUS SUM (I have become God)." Having a problem with the way that religion has been inherited, and taught, in western culture, is very different to believing that there is something univocally meaningful and univocally TRUE in the statement 'There is no God'. Is there a discussion somewhere of how one qualifies as an atheist in order to be included in this list? Is it enough to simply not believe that the bible [whichever version one happens to have been exposed to] is not the literal truth? In which case, Eddington, Einstein, and many others, clearly do deserve to be on this list - the vast majority of self-identifying Christians would then need to also be considered atheists by such a definition. The Vedanta concept of Brahman [Schrodinger's spelling] is no further from the Christian idea of God than Spinoza's account [which Einstein favoured]. Simply branding Schrodinger an atheist completely ignores the massive interest he had in Vedanta philosophy, and the fact that he used the word God to imply something of a religious nature - QUITE UNLIKE Einstein, whose use of the term 'God', following with Spinoza, is interchangeable with the term 'Nature'. 'What is Life?' is available free online [see for example the wikipedia page]; the Epilogue is very short, very interesting, and clearly challenges his position here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.128.133 (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not doubt about his preference for the Vedanta philosophy and his interest in eastern religions. In fact, I was the one who mention that in the citations near his name. However, Schrodinger called himself an atheist. According to Schrodinger's biographer, Walter J. Moore, Schrodinger has explicitly claimed the he was an atheist: "In one respect, however, he is not a romantic: he does not idealize the person of the beloved, his highest praise is to consider her his equal. "When you feel your own equal in the body of a beautiful woman, just as ready to forget the world for you as you for her - oh my good Lord - who can describe what happiness then. You can live it, now and again - you cannot speak of it." Of course, he does speak of it, and almost always with religious imagery. Yet at this time he also wrote, "By the way, I never realized that to be nonbelieving, to be an atheist, was a thing to be proud of. It went without saying as it were." And in another place at about this same time: "Our creed is indeed a queer creed. You others, Christians (and similar people), consider our ethics much inferior, indeed abominable. There is that little difference. We adhere to ours in practice, you don't."" - A Life of Erwin Schrodinger by Walter J. Moore. Since he identify himself as an atheist, I don't see much controversy over his inclusion to this list. I acknowledge Schrodinger's use of religious concepts in his work (such as the one you cited: 'What is Life?'). However, he was said not to have taken these concepts very seriously. According to Walter J. Moore: "He rejected traditional religious beliefs (Jewish, Christian, and Islamic) not on the basis of any reasoned argument, nor even with an expression of emotional antipathy, for he loved to use religious expressions and metaphors, but simply by saying that they are naive." - Walter J. Moore, Schrodinger: Life and Thought. Another source says, "He claimed to be an atheist, but he used religious symbolism and believed that his scientific work was 'an approach to God'." Here the link to the source - [Erwin Schrodinger]. You know, a person can still be spiritual and also identify himself as an atheist. For example, British scientist Roger Penrose, who has identified himself as an atheist, states in the film A Brief History of Time, "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it." If you want more evidence for this claim, please read this article: More than 20 percent of atheist scientists are spiritual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninmacer20 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent reply. I hadn't realised Schrodinger had identified himself as an atheist. That seems to be the only sensible criteria for inclusion onto this list. The footnotes do include references to his interest in Vedanta. And I think you may be right that he never took this entirely seriously [there are some inconsistencies between his account of the 'statistico-deterministic' workings of organisms and his account of 'spirituality' that I can't see round yet]. I'm a little [very, very] uneasy about the equation of 'God' with Judeao-Christian teachings though, and I'm almost sure that that was what Schrodinger meant to distance himself from in describing himself as an atheist. You appear to have read much more about the man though, so I'm not in a position to argue. The link you've offered could be useful, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.11.4 (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP Policy edit warring
To make the article conform to, rather than contradict BLP, I've just re-applied an edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology&diff=cur&oldid=prev, as the change is indefensible in light of WP:BLPCAT. Admin action will be requested if this critical policy is not respected. (My last edit summary shows I got a bit hot under the collar, sorry.) However, this kind of edit is not an acceptable way to try to shift established policy. Ninmacer20, it looks like you're familiar with this policy, based on your edit history. What's going on?--Elvey (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries from article history (Every other one is me, the other is Ninmacer):
 * (WTF? re- reverting an edit in blatant violation of the policy notes shown THREE TIMES at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology&action=edit !!)
 * (Added an extra entry to this list. Removed "Atheism" sidebar (unnecessary) Rephrase sentence.)
 * (These additions are superfluous - under the assumption that readers will read another article, but that's always an unwarranted assumption.)
 * (The "Atheism" sidebar and the explanation you copied from the "List of Atheists" page is superfluous.)
 * (IS IT TRUE THAT Living persons in this list are people whose atheism is relevant to their notable activities or public life, and who have publicly identified themselves as atheists? IT SHOULD BE... The text of this edit is fromLists of Atheists)

I apologized for my misguided edits. I understand that I should have acknowledged the policy from the beginning. Anyway, the reason why I put my addendum to this article is because I'd have to delete over 95% of the people listed in this article due to following this criteria. If we were to follow this criteria, Richard Dawkins and a few others would be the only scientists in this list. I'll give you a few examples. One example is Alan Turing. Turing is identified as an atheist by his biographers, however, there hasn't been a quote that explicitly says that he is an atheist. Another example type are physicists, Peter Higgs and Hans Bethe. While Higgs and Bethe has identified themselves as atheists, however, you can not say that atheism is relevant to their notable activities or public life. That happens to be a stance that they took concerning the existence of God. My final example type is mathematician John Horton Conway. While Conway states that he doesn't believe in God, however, he didn't identify himself as an atheist. Anyway, I think it would be best to delete this article and make a new section for scientists under "List of atheists (Miscellaneous)". Ninmacer20 (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And I apologize if I came on too strong. I encourage you to try to shift established policy if it doesn't make sense.  Note:  as I see it, we should be able to know someone has identified themselves as an atheist without having a verifiable, direct quote from them, e.g. policy should allow [this http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-06/18/turing-timeline] for Turing, clearly he told someone he was an atheist (though perhaps only in private), and given his character and monumental contributions to society, his atheism is relevant.  It could be argued that atheism is inherently relevant when it comes to notable scientist; IMO, certainly it's inherently relevant when it comes to particle physicists.  I'm not sure how I'd word a policy that would allow Turing in this situation, and yet not allow the mean-spirited labeling of unpopular or controversial persons regarding their religious beliefs or sexual orientation by bigoted editors.  ("John, a fooist, did [hateful things] ." - where John's fooism isn't relevant except in the eyes of a bigot who sees fooists as prone do doing hateful things.)   Interesting discussion!  --Elvey (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Why the note for living people?
"Living persons in this list are people whose atheism is relevant to their notable activities or public life, and who have publicly identified themselves as atheists."

Why differ them from teh dead ones? One day they'll be dead, then what? WP must think in bigger scales. --Subfader (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Neil Degrasse Tyson
Don't add him. He defines himself as agnostic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos --Subfader (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Atheism
Atheism simply is the lack of belief in a god/group of gods. This broader definition is weak (or negative) atheism. This is what should be used unless otherwise specified. Don't confuse it with strong (or positive) atheism, which holds that there are good reasons to belief there are no gods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.70.45 (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What purpose does this serve?
This list is completely ridiculous. If list of atheists, why not list of scientists who don't believe in existence of pink unicorns?


 * Presumably because, unlike theism, pink unicornism is not particularly widespread. Oolon (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Culturally religious atheists
I've now had to go through and pull out all the recently inserted references to various folks as "Jewish" (of various nationalities) in their descriptions. Jonathan Miller, Marvin Minsky, Steven Rose, on and on. If they're actually Jewish, their inclusion might be thought somewhat iffy. But they're not. They are all merely culturally or perhaps ethnically Jewish, which for the purposes of a list of atheists in some field or other would seem as relevant as their skin colour. The references mention their backgrounds, if relevant; there is no non-ludicrous reason to list eg Jonathan Miller as "British Jewish physician, actor...". So I've mostly reverted to what we had: the first line or so from their main WP entries.

I'll also note that the helpful soul who edited those into the list [note to self: check other lists] not only missed a few of these Red Sea Pedestrian atheists (Lawrence Krauss, Oliver Sacks), but far worse: he/she completely failed to go through adding the religio-cultural backgrounds to all the others. (One might therefore suspect a hymenopteran in the headgear.) Even of those who have happily talked of it. So if it is felt that I'm misguided in removing these bits, I do so look forward to reading the one that goes, in precisely the same way:
 * Richard Dawkins (1941–): British Anglican zoologist and biologist, creator of the concepts of the selfish gene ...

Edited to add: Strikes me that there might however be a use for a list of culturally Jewish (and Hindu, and Muslim... and maybe Caucasian, Black, Hispanic, East Asian etc...) atheists. If someone has more time than sense and fancies doing it: knock yerself out.

Oolon (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah. Oh well. Seems there already is a list of Jewish atheists. Good show! Oolon (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

National and equivalent aspects in consideration
Observe: The added description of Jewish cultural affiliation is of important view from sociocultural and ethnical viewpoints. The fact stands that certain countries (ex former Soviet Republics)) and certain groups have are highly represented among professed atheist. Nationality is already mentioned so I this should be no problem. OBSERVE. In question of Judaism the active religious practice or background is not here considered but the identical parallel aspect to nationality. The before mentioned aspect is not found so readily in other great religions of the world and if visited upon them would be an oblique.

Further elaboration of subject

Jewish atheism refers to atheism as practiced by people who are ethnically, and to some extent culturally, Jewish. Because Jewishness encompasses ethnic as well as religious components, the term "Jewish atheism" does not necessarily imply a contradiction. Based on Jewish law's emphasis on matrilineal descent, even religiously conservative Orthodox Jewish authorities would accept an atheist born to a Jewish mother as fully Jewish. One recent study found that half of all American Jews have doubts about the existence of God, compared to 10–15% of other American religious groups.

ps

Who is a Jew

Jewish by birth - As a result, mere belief in the principles of Judaism does not make one a Jew. Similarly, non-adherence by a Jew to the 613 Mitzvot, or even formal conversion to another religion, does not make one lose one's Jewish status. Thus the immediate descendants of all female Jews (even apostates) are still considered to be Jews, as are those of all their female descendants. Even those descendants who are not aware they are Jews, or practice a religion other than Judaism, are defined by this perspective as Jews, as long as they come from an unbroken female line of descent. As a corollary, the children of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother are not considered to be Jews by halakha unless they formally convert according to halakha, even if raised fully observant in the mitzvot.

Pgarret (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "... atheism as practiced by people who are ...". Just a subtle hint, old chap: one doesn't practice atheism.


 * Having let that sink in, I'll note, sorry, OBSERVE, that you do make a reasonable point about cultural background. But surely it is relevant to every last one of the people on these lists, not just those of Jewish extraction. It certainly matters to Richard Dawkins, yet as I mentioned elsewhere, it would be ridiculous to call him an Anglican.


 * And certainly, nationality similarly matters, and yes, it is included. But it is included because the majority of these summaries are lifted straight from the opening paragraph of their main WP entries, where it generally is mentioned, for some reason. We could just have a plain list of names, with nothing but the reference attached, but that would make for a pretty tedious read. So, we have a few words describing who the person is. Who they are, in relation to the list -- in this case, science and technology people.


 * Sure, these ones' Jewish background is, well, part of their background. And it'll be described in their main, linked entry -- and even in the reference here, if it matters. But it has no place in the dozen or so words describing them in the list. Any more than, in the list of atheist authors, it's relevant to have "Douglas Adams: Tall British author of..."


 * Apart from anything else, to apply upfront -- in the first word or two, as if it's of prime importance -- an unqualified religious label to people on a list of atheists is misleading, confusing and looks plain oxymoronic (in other words, bloody daft). "Oh well I only mean culturally..." doesn't cut it, cos it ain't on the page to be seen.


 * But anyway, given that the descriptions are taken from the main entries, and the main entries do not mention their 'Jewishness' at the start, I fail to see why it needs mentioning here. But if it does, I'm afraid we really will have to have Dawkins called an Anglican, for he has frequently spoken of his church-y family background, love of Bach cantatas and Christmas carols, to mention but a few bits. If Jonathan Miller is 'Jewish', Dawkins is C of E.


 * Good luck not looking ridiculous. And by extension, including 'Jewish' next to Lawrence Krauss is exactly as ridiculous. Sorry.


 * Oolon (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The list is festered with sloppiness
It seem this that large chunks of this are quite unWikipedian and also an slippery attempt at promoting atheism through desperately squeezing in "famous" names in the attempt to persuade of something. This list is untrustworthy as it happily hops throughs in names and cherry picks sources or even worse chooses to uses bad sources to further an opinion as a fact.

write anything and source it quite liberally, but when it comes to claiming something as fact and marking it as someone's convictions be it marxist or atheist or even hindu the rules are as follows:

Pgarret (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh get over yourself. Nobody should be on this list without a good reference -- and boy have we had spats about that in the past. But if they have a good reference, then in they bloody well go, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks about it.


 * Of course it features 'famous names' -- you'll be hard pressed to find any other sort of person in Wikipedia, surely?


 * It's not promoting atheism, it's simply listing atheists (sensu lato, iirc). The only way I can see it 'promoting atheism' is if it were to make theists uncomfortable, seeing so many Nobel laureates and other very smart people featured. But that's their look-out.


 * I do not understand this 'hopping through names'. It's in alphabetical order.


 * It does not (or shouldn't) "cherry pick sources": it is referenced; and if there are counter references for someone, then bloody post them and we'll discuss it. Till then, if it's the only reference, then it counts, live with it.


 * And as for using bad sources: the editors who added entries considered the sources valid; if you have evidence to the contrary, bloody post it. Till then, kindly refrain from deleting well referenced entries and so furthering your opinion as fact.


 * Oh and by the way, I'm unclear how something can be "festered" with sloppiness. Did you mean 'infested'?


 * Oolon (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What are the standards for inclusion in this list? List of Christian thinkers in science lists only 48 names of 20th Century scientists, so there is presumably a very high bar for inclusion into that list.  On the other hand, William James Sidis was a man of essentially zero accomplishment.  Why is he here?  And don't give as a reason that he has a Wikipedia page: so does Teodor Kaczynski.  Vegasprof (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of John Stewart Bell and Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar + others.
I don't understand why John Stewart Bell and especially Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (+ some other people here) were removed from this list. According to Wikipedia guidelines: "When adding living persons to the list, the WP:BLPCAT policy requires that the person identify themselves as belonging to this religious category, and that the person's religious beliefs are relevant to their notable activities or public life. A reliable source must be provided." The policy does not say anything about deceased people (John Stewart Bell died in 1990 and Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar died in 1995). Both scientists had reliable sources (especially Chandrasekhar) for the inclusion of this list. Apparently they were removed because their atheism were not relevant to their activities or public life. By following that criterion, you could say the same thing for most of the scientists and engineers in this list. Many of the scientists and engineers in this list (both living and deceased) were not advocates for atheism or were involved in any public demonstration for atheism. It was just a stance that they took in regards to their view on God. If we were to follow this criterion, Richard Dawkins and a few others would be the only members on this list. Ninmacer20 (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Ninmacer, just as you cited for the guidelines of inclusion on this list, it is not enough that the scientists would identify that they do not have a belief in god. Being alive or dead is not really an issue either since there are some from the 18th century on the list too. One needs to have the "person identify themselves as belonging to this religious category, and that the person's religious beliefs are relevant to their notable activities or public life. A reliable source must be provided." In the cases of people who have been removed from the list so far, it is clear that based on the sources provided, their atheism is not relevant to their notable activities (e.g their scientific endeavors) or nor did they use their atheism in their private OR public life in a significant fashion. However, some on the list are known to have used their atheism in their public or private lives such as Peter Atkins or Richard Dawkins - so they fit the inclusion criteria quite well. Merely identifying being an "atheist" or saying "they do not believe in a god" is not enough to include on the list since there are atheists who do not identify with atheism nor do they want to be associated with it, for example, Frans De Waal is an atheist, but he does not align with active atheism and has actually criticized it.


 * An issue with some of the entries that may result in exclusion is how some of these people identify themselves or are identified by biographers. For example, John Stewart Bell's citation has him as a "Protestant atheist" (which means he identified more with Christianity than with atheism), Abhay Ashtekar is an atheist who seems to be influenced by the Bhagavad Gita more than atheism, Julius Axelrod is an atheist, but identifies more with Jewish culture than anything else. Many other similar entries are still in this list which may require to be cleaned out. Mayan1990 (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on List of atheists in science and technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080424091429/http://www.colorado.edu:80/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htm to http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060628114544/http://www.vindy.com:80/local_news/279051929445300.php to http://www.vindy.com/local_news/279051929445300.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 02:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate article!
I have seen the wikipedia's list of deists, and more than one scientist listed here also is listed in that other list. Obviously,m the criteria for entering people on the list is flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.85.230 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Gay-Lussac is on both lists because he was raised catholic but later became a deist. The source used is a misleading paraphrasing of another source.Tesla (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

W.D. 'Bill' Hamilton
Just removed Bill Hamilton again, as per his own wiki page and source. The source cited here (a review of the book cited for Hamilton's agnosticism) seems only to make reference to the reviewer's own atheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiewithanienotay (talk • contribs) 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II <sup style="color:green;font-family:arnprior">Notify <sub style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:green;font-family:arnprior">Online 05:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag. No further action is necessary.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 00:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)== Request for Comments ==

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infoboxes of individuals that have no religion.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Joe Weber
I believe Joe Weber does not belong on this list. I have removed him a couple of times, and others have returned him to the list.

1) I do not know of any evidence that his "atheism is relevant to [his] notable activities or public life" (one of the criteria for inclusion on this list).  Regardless of his personal beliefs, he was a member of Temple Beth Emet in Anaheim CA and Temple Sinai in Washington DC until he died, he took an aliya at his grandchildren's Bar and Bat Mitzvahs in the 1980s and 1990s, and said kaddish for his deceased relatives. To the best of my knowledge, he made no public statements about his theology (or lack thereof) during his lifetime, and the source here is a quote from his wife made after his death.

2) The source used here to call him an atheist is a quote from his wife, saying that both she and Weber were atheists.  However, in another source, the preface to Visit to a Small Universe (pages xii - xiii), she wrote, "my marriage to physicist Joe Weber...partially motivated my conversion to Judaism." Furthermore, you can hear audio of her publicly leading kaddish at the American Physical Society Meetings in memory of Harry Lustig at https://www.aps.org/units/fhp/meetings/april11/h13.cfm EAWH (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The side portraits?
Pardon me if this has been discussed somewhere else before, but what is the logic behind who is selected to be included on the side portraits (same goes for every other list of x y's)?

LaunchOctopus (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My main criteria for providing a portrait on "List of atheists in science and technology" has been the availability of an adequate one on Wikimedia Commons; and time and space available.
 * Please feel free to add portraits to this article.
 * Thanks.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I was operating under a rule of only putting portraits of people that either were clearly serious atheists, or people that are very well known (although I question whether Freud can be considered a scientist).


 * LaunchOctopus (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Photos
Do we really need all these side portraits? I think that only the most prominent scientists should have them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeusNovo00 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Illustrations provide additional information about the individuals, and are more readily absorbed than mere words, which require a great deal more processing and even so do not have the same effect.
 * Moreover, and tellingly, nearly all these individuals are "the most prominent scientists".
 * Nihil novi (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Group list by last name
I suggest to group the list into sections A–Z by last name, and to move all portrait images into a separate Gallery section (or group them into Galleries for each letter-section). Would that make sense? -- Cheers,  R fassbind  -talk   20:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone disagrees? Please let me know before I start working on it. -- Thx,  R fassbind  – talk   23:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So I see the alphabetization happened, but what about moving photos to the gallery format? The side layout does not always render well on mobile devices, so I too prefer using a photo gallery. RobP (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of atheists in science and technology. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2004/march/?ft=boyer
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120521011600/http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990a01.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990a01.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ffrf.org/day/?day=11&month=5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005105825/http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers to http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927204004/http://www.groene.nl/index.php?show=article&article_id=C0A801020a6062AD3EoGy13D7340&source= to http://www.groene.nl/index.php?show=article&article_id=C0A801020a6062AD3EoGy13D7340&source=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050622001026/http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140503165910/http://www.norskfysikk.no/nfs/old/epsbiografer/SCHROD~1.PDF to http://www.norskfysikk.no/nfs/old/epsbiografer/SCHROD~1.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Einstein
Why is Einstein not on this list? He did claim to be atheist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.1.76 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What is your source? Vegasprof (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In a letter to Eric Gutkind dated 3 January 1954, Einstein wrote in German, "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."[15][16][17]


 * On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954: 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.[18]


 * Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
 * 86.205.57.61 (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of atheists in science and technology. 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/20080527165838/http://www.gale.cengage.com/servlet/GvrlMS?msg=ma to http://gale.cengage.com/servlet/GvrlMS?msg=ma
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016081655/http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=2597&a=593360&previousRenderType=6 to http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=2597&a=593360&previousRenderType=6
 * Added tag to http://www.roaldhoffmann.com/pn/modules/Downloads/docs/cardellini.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120711195548/http://postnoon.com/2012/07/10/its-the-atheist-particle-actually/58312 to http://postnoon.com/2012/07/10/its-the-atheist-particle-actually/58312
 * Added tag to https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/meyn/www/spm_files/Markov-Work-and-life.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514205940/http://www.nireland.humanists.net/events.html to http://nireland.humanists.net/events.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of atheists in science and technology. 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/20080509132416/http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613094539/http://encyclopedia.gwu.edu/gwencyclopedia/index.php?title=Gamow%2C_George_and_Edward_Teller to http://encyclopedia.gwu.edu/gwencyclopedia/index.php?title=Gamow%2C_George_and_Edward_Teller
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120729105915/http://www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=5&id=334 to http://www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=5&id=334
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016074222/http://eastbayexpress.com/2003-04-30/culture/divine-calculations/full to http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2003-04-30/culture/divine-calculations/full
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717090818/http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Lalande.html to http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Lalande.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/meyn/www/spm_files/Markov-Work-and-life.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080613184012/http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1738 to http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1738
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604155536/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/its_the_arrogance_stupid.php to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/its_the_arrogance_stupid.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130808155013/http://www.templeton.org/templeton_report/20110420/index.html to http://www.templeton.org/templeton_report/20110420/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723145445/http://www.belfast.humanists.net/roberts.htm to http://www.belfast.humanists.net/roberts.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825125921/http://www.belfast.humanists.net/ to http://www.belfast.humanists.net/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080903142119/http://www.investigatingatheism.info/whoswhotwentieth.html to http://www.investigatingatheism.info/whoswhotwentieth.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Questionable entries
There are many names on this list which do not fit into the category of "science and technology". Mathematicians, for example, are neither scientists, nor technologists.

The entry for Richard Stallman describes him as "American software freedom activist, hacker, and software developer" -- neither hacking nor activism make him a scientist or a technologist.

I suggest using the AAAA list of recognized sciences, and a standard engineering journal (e.g., Engineers World) to determine whether someone is doing significant work in a recognized branch of science or technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that the word "science" in this article here is used in the most inclusive sense of the word. It could mean much more than natural sciences (like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.). Please check out the article, Formal science, to give you a better idea. Ninmacer20 (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you note the "software developer" part? How could anyone be led to think that being one of the most influential programmers in history, coming from a science background, doesn't qualify you to a list of scientists and technologists. Stallman's engineering work has awarded him ACM prizes twice. Half of the people on this list are or were also notable for their activism (Russell, Einstein, Dawkins, Krauss, Higgs, etc.). And don't even get me started with the mathematics thing. Nit-picky discussions of that kind belong to a Wiktionary talk page. --Sisgeo (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Who belongs and who does not belong on the list
Hi, just fleshing out on the criteria on the list because of recent add attempts.

When this article is edited, the fixed criteria wording clearly states: "Please note: This list is subject to the WP:BLPCAT policy and the WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline. Please familiarize yourself with both before editing this list. When adding living persons to the list, the WP:BLPCAT policy requires that the persons identify themselves as belonging to this religious category, and that the persons' religious beliefs are relevant to their notable activities or public life. A reliable source must be provided."

Merely being an atheist is not enough to be put on this list (otherwise the list would be too long and irrelevant). People who have clear identification and notability for their atheism in the form of belief, belonging, and behaviors (common criteria in sociology) such as Richard Dawkins or Peter Atkins or Victor Stenger (all of whom actually do things with their atheism - they write books on atheism, they speak for atheism, they are very active with their atheism personally) should be on the list. This criteria is from wikipedia, not something that is made up.

When looking at the people that were attempted to be re-added:

James F. Crow - is only worried about creationism and is not active about his atheism.

Gordon Gould - does not say much about him being an atheist or that it is notable in his life.

Dan Shechtman - does not say anything about his atheism in his life.

Does this help clarify? Mayan1990 (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I noticed that many additions of people who merely identify as atheist, but whose atheism does not play a role in their public life or nor are they notable for it have been added. They will have to be removed since they do not follow wikipedia policy. Also I noticed that some editors have manipulated the intro to go against Wikipedia policy.


 * When adding living persons to the list, the WP:BLPCAT policy requires that "the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." So to be on the list, the subject must 1) identify with atheism and 2) their atheism must be notable or relevant to their public life. For instance, someone like Peter Atkins fits the criteria by the policy. Someone merely being a scientist and being an atheist is not enough to include on this list. Some of these people on the list explicitly say that they live or identify with their Jewsih, Hindu, etc rather than their atheism. Keep in mind that many forms of atheism are available, such as secular humanism and if anyone on the list identifies with that then they should be on the list. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ramos1990's 2 March 2017 mass deletion of entries from "List of atheists in science and technology" seems overzealous. How would his cited inclusion criterion of "relevance to [an individual's] public life or notability" square with Wikipedia lists such as "19th-century deaths from tuberculosis"? Nihil novi (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree since people are not following wikipedia policy. I removed many entries a year ago because of this and it seems people are not following wikipedia policy. In fact some editors have ignored the policy and have even altered the lead wording and in doing so manipulated the policy. As such, it should be rectified.


 * Furthermore, this category is not the same as "19th-century deaths from tuberculosis" since that one is NOT a biographical category. This list is biographical. It is what it says when you edit this page too. It emphasizes that point.


 * Many of the entries here were literally in because someone is simply was an atheist. Some of them were also improperly sourced (YouTube and other non-reliable sources). Being an atheist is not enough of a reason to include because as the wikpedia policy states, "the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." 2 criteria must be met. Like I mentioned before, there are people who are atheists and actually DO something with their atheism such as Richard Dawkins or Peter Atkins. They write about their atheism, they incorporate it, etc so they fit the wikipedia policy very well. Others clearly do not because the sources merely state that they are atheists and say nothing else. Many people can be "atheists" just by the fact that they do not believe in God, but mere lack of belief in God does not mean that they lean towards it as their preferred worldview or moral basis. Some of the entries explicitly state that they stick to their traditions like Judaism or Hinduism but they do not have a belief in God - so they lean away from atheism and stick to their traditions. The list becomes meaningless and becomes incredibly long for no good reason and in doing so obscures scientists who are atheists and actually are active as "secular humanists", "humanists", "secualr" etc.


 * The policy was put in to keep some degree of relevance and reasonable length to an article.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

hi. I think if a scientist mentioned him/her self as Atheist it is enough (WP:BLPCAT: self-identified with the belief). you said whose atheism does not play a role in their public life or nor are they notable for it but personal believes are personal things so definitely it does not need to be a person who is a significant Atheist figure like R. Dawkins. we have also List of Christians in science and technology and some of people who were mentioned in the list were not religious figure (Christianity does not play a role in their public life or nor are they notable for it and the were only Christian people (Perhaps non practical Christian) --–  Hossein Iran  « talk » ''' 08:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Many of the scientists in the Christian list actually wrote on both science and religion or engaged both to some extent (they were known to be committed to Christianity) so many of those entries seem valid since their Christianity was relevant to their public life or notability. In other words, their Christianity DID something for them. It was not a nominal identity. Per the WP Policy here is what actually says "the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Christain atheists do not belong here unless their atheism does something.


 * Merely identifying as an atheist is not enough to include on the list. Their atheism must be relevant to their public life or notability. They do not have to be high profile, they merely have to have done SOMETHING with their atheism (e.g. written a book on atheism or been active in atheist organizations or publicly spoken on atheism in some extensive fashion or been promoting atheism in an extensive fashion etc) not just say in one line in an interview that they do not have a belief in a god. If a guy on the Christian list said "Christianity was nice" and that was it, they do not belong there either. Most likely Christians have done things with their Christianity, whereas atheists may not.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In these discussions, I see repetitions of the idea that an atheist scientist or technologist "must have done something" with his atheism in order to merit inclusion on a list of atheists in science and technology. Why should that be the case?
 * I would think that it suffices that the atheist be prominent for his scientific or technological accomplishments.
 * Did Ernest Hemingway get included in the Wikipedia List of people with bipolar disorder by writing a book about bipolar disorder or going on speaking tours, expounding the benefits and / or disadvantages of bipolar disorder?
 * Hemingway merited attention by his literary prominence, and was admitted for his bipolarity on the basis of credible documentation. Why should we require more of scientists or technologists?
 * If professional merit, plus unequivocal atheist self-identification, are not enough, then perhaps we should reconsider the criteria for membership?
 * Nihil novi (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not really up for debate. That is the wikipedia policy on inclusion for these kinds of lists. The wikipedia policy clearly states: "the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Which makes sense since this is not a list of atheists who happen to be scientists or scientists who happen to be atheists. That list would be way too long and useless for any reader as can be seen by many of the entries that were here before. All lists should be narrow and focused. Per wikipedia policy, their atheism must be a prominent part of their lives such as being a part of atheist groups or members of organizations propagating atheism like Richard Dawkins or Peter Atkins or Victor Stenger have (all of whom actually do things with their atheism - they write books on atheism, they speak for atheism, they are very active with atheist groups personally).


 * Your example of Ernest Hemingway being in List of people with bipolar disorder meets the criteria since his bipolar disorder is "...relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." The bipolar disorder was relevant to his public life. But keep in mind that the list of list of atheists in science and technology is about voluntary beliefs, rather than involuntary conditions. So there should be evidence on someone voluntarily accepting and using those beliefs, not just identifying with a belief! Many people "identify" or relate to ideas related to beliefs all the time, they just never do anything with them and this lack of action shows that such beliefs or ideas are not "...relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."


 * Simply not having a god belief does not mean they support atheism, agree with atheism or that they interact with it, either. Agnostics are an easy example of people without god beliefs who usually distance themselves from "atheism". Neil Degrasse Tyson is an easy example of this since he actively rejects associations with atheism and even though he has no god beliefs . That is why their atheism must be more prominent - "the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability". Hope that helps.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Did Hans Bethe, Niels Bohr, Pierre Curie, Paul Dirac, Edmond Halley, Pierre-Simon Laplace, Henri Poincaré, and Erwin Schrödinger all proselytize for atheism? Nihil novi (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They do not necessarily need to proselytize atheism, but their atheism should be relevant to their public public life or notability. If they did nothing with their atheism then they should be removed. I have not reviewed these cases yet, but it may be worth removing these if they fail wikipedia protocol. That is why Albert Einstein, Neil Degrasee Tyson, Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley and many others are NOT on this list. They failed the criteria. Please keep in mind that this list is not a dumping ground for putting anyone who does not have a belief in a god. The list is incredibly long already and other editors have complained about the sloppiness that has occurred in the past (see talk posts above). Very few editors have been following the protocol, so it is time to reinforce the rules. All biographical lists have to have narrow and focused criteria. Otherwise you end up having even longer lists that are useless to wikipedia readers. &#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, Albert Einstein, and Neil Degrasse Tyson were well-documented atheists, then it seems a shame to omit them. This article could end up only with half a dozen militant atheists who have been bent on converting the world to atheism.  Somehow that seems to miss the point of a "list of atheists in science and technology".  Regards, Nihil novi (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They all rejected atheism and preferred other identities like agnostic or other labels or no labels. They do not meet the criteria per wikipedia policy since atheism was not relevant to their public life or notability. This is not a list of people who say they have no gods. Keep in mind that many religions have no gods, like Buddhism, Taoism, etc. These scientists who have no gods and identify with religious traditions would not belong to this list either since atheism is not relevant to their lives or notable activities - their non theistic religious worldviews would be. Since people's lack of belief in gods is complex (rejection of atheism, be a part of an religious tradition that has no gods, indifference to atheism, etc), someone not having a belief in a god is not enough to be included on the list. Their context in terms of relevance to their public life and self identification with atheism a worldview or lifestance of belief system is what matters for this list. Along with their public life and notable activities. Their atheism should not be nominal. In other words, if a person is nominally an atheist or non-theist or merely has an absence of a god belief, they do not belong on the list. Just follow the wikipedia policy. It is there after a consensus was reached to prevent people from dumping useless trivia and making long lists of useless entries. Wikipedia is not a directory for all things that exist WP:NOTDIRECTORY.


 * FYI, If you look at demographics of atheism most people who do not have a belief in a god actually do not self-identify with atheism at all. Here is one example, in the US only 24% of people who do not have a belief in god self-identify as "atheist" . So context matters. &#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hardly surprising. Even today, many nontheists who might otherwise self-identify as atheists fear being confused with atheist communists.
 * I'm more than happy to take them at their word and not recruit them for atheist lists (assuming that they're prominent enough for their workaday achievements to qualify in the first place). Nihil novi (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of atheists in science and technology. 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/20150513055326/http://stanford.garron.us/class/ospber34/files/nazis_and_mathematics.pdf to http://stanford.garron.us/class/ospber34/files/nazis_and_mathematics.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Zwicky2.jpg

Orphaned references in List of atheists in science and technology
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of atheists in science and technology's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":<ul> <li>From Carl Sagan: Poundstone 1999, p. 15.</li> <li>From Shroud of Turin: </li> <li>From The Guardian: Audit Bureau of Circulations Ltd– abc.org.uk</li> <li>From British people: See the article entitled British overseas territories.</li> <li>From Steve Jones (biologist): BBC Radio 5 Live: Breakfast, broadcast 13 January 2009</li> <li>From Turkish people: 2011 census in the Republic of Kosovo</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)