Talk:The rationality of atheism

I don't know what you think of my changes, but I think it's essential that this kind of page not talk simply about what "theists" and "atheists" say. We need to talk about the views of particular philosophers, and attribute the ideas to somebody. This will help us ground the text in something more than our own ideas, and will provide information about what real philosophers have actually said on the subject.


 * You're absolutely right, of course. Thanks!

Obviously it's not done, and I don't even know if this is the right direction to go with an article like this -- you'd never find this in a traditional encyclopedia -- but I hope I've added something helpful.


 * A version of this article might eventually find its way into a traditional encyclopedia, though. --LMS

-

I would be curious to see the modern atheist's rationale to behave in a moral fashion, or for any standard of morality. --Wesley How do you define moral? I am behaving in a way i call moral, (note that this won't be really rational explanation), because i want others to behave in a way which does not abuse me. I believe that society where people wwould behave immoral would collapse. So baheving morally is for my own good, since i believe collapse of society would hurt me :) I believe also that i shoudl behave that way, which i demand from others.

Well, i am also raised that way. My both parents were catholics :) szopen

-

I think this needs work -- The recient additions to this page are not NPOV, and approach serious philosophical issues as though they have been decided by some hypothetical and prototypical "modern atheist." The original article mentioned specific people -- who make specific claims. The "modern atheist" section needs to be updated to do the same. Also, the modern atheist section needs to be subjected to review by someone more philosophically inclined, as it contains many poorly substantiated claims.

The whole article is far from neutral. It is an essay written from a specific perspective and on the basis of certain assumptions about atheism, rules of evidence etc. which are far from undisputed. If this is to stay in Wikipedia, it needs serious NPOVifying in a point&counterpoint fashion.


 * I tried to add some not-so-neutral counterpoint, but I'm not sure this is the right approach to improve this article. Anyone, please feel free to redo what I just submitted, if you can improve it. Thanks, --Wesley

Gee, Wesley, it looks like somebody really pushed your hot buttons. I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an argument. I thought the moden atheist section was a pretty good first attempt at explaining the rationality of atheism. Your weak comments detract from it and you should consider pulling them. --Anna Neimus


 * Yes, someone pushed my hot buttons. I'll admit it. And my off the cuff comments were a bit weak. I'll be happy to consider pulling them. But here's a bit more of where I'm coming from, for whatever it might be worth. As far as I can tell, if there is no god, no supernatural, and no meaning in life beyond the pseudorandom chemical reactions going around our brains that we call our thoughts, emotions, feelings, and perceptions, then the rational conclusion is there is no reason left to be moral, and the most sensible thing is to live fast and die young so as to maximize personal pleasure and avoid the possibility of long term suffering. Other proposals seem to be along the lines of utilitarianism, hedonism, hedonistic calculus, that sort of thing, but the surest hedonistic calculus is to maximize short term pleasure and then die swiftly and painlessly; utilitarianism proposes to maximize society's benefits, but it's not clear *why* society's benefits should be maximized. Why should the human race continue to exist at all? On the contrary, Christianity teaches that we are created in the image of a good god, intended to live in communion with each other and with that god. Through the exercise of our free will and divine intervention in our lives in a variety of ways, it is possible to regain that potential. Whether this is actually true or not, this belief appears to provide a much stronger incentive to be moral than does belief in "social interaction".


 * So the bottom line is that when it comes to rationale for morality, I think Christianity comes out way ahead, either tied with or closely followed by other major world religions, and atheism bringing up the rear. When I saw the contrary proposed, it pushed a button, and I wrote without a great deal of forethought. I'll try and improve it, and specific suggestions or contributions would be more than welcome. As for the "encyclopedia not an argument" bit, that to me suggests that the entire article should be deleted. But I don't think it would be good form for me to do that, so I won't. --Wesley


 * Whew! Just re-read what I wrote before, and decided to tone it down a bit. Is that better, or does it still look delete-worthy? I wonder if both paragraphs regarding morality aren't a bit off-topic; they could probably be moved elsewhere, or form a new topic. They don't have that much to do with whether atheism is rational, but rather address whether it's moral compared to religion. Thanks,  --Wesley

Wesley, your arguments are fine. It is the presentation that needs to be improved (this is also very much true for the original text). Also, citations to back up both positions would seem to be elementary. There should be a lot of atheism-related arguments in the Atheists FAQ and at infidels.org, where you will probably find prominent freethinkers/atheists who can be quoted. It is not desirable that we have an article that goes like this:

"Theists say atheists are irrational. They argue that .. Many of them .. -- Atheists respond that .." These are so generic attributions that they cease to be helpful except in a small number of cases. In general we should try to find people representative for each clearly distinct argumentative position, label this position in as definite terms as possible (strong atheist, weak atheist, deist/theist/pantheist etc.) and provide quotes and sources where appropriate. For literally everything that is controversial in an article, the reader should be quickly able to tell: ''Who is saying that? What is his mindset? This doesn't refer to the editors, of course, whose personal evaluation should be included if it is a) uncontroversial or, b) they are'' well-known in the subject area in question [1], or the subject area is not one which requires such strict rules of attribution (e.g. fan fiction, presentation of advocacy arguments ..). If we want non-formal discussions among Wikipedia editors, these should usually be clearly distinct (but could be linked from) main articles. Philosophy is certainly a border case where a strict separation of different layers of attribution is not absolutely necessary, but in my opinion we should attribute opinions to relevant and accepted representatives when possible, and (sorry) non of the arguments in the original article hasn't been brought up a million times in the last 3000 years or so already. -- Eloquence

[1] Not necessarily in the mainstream! For example, IMHO, it would be perfectly valid to quote the author of a Usenet FAQ in a Wikipedia article.


 * Good observations, Eloquence. I might dig up some sources at some point, time allowing. Observing that an argument is circular shouldn't require a citation though; it's a very simple observation. For now, I'd simply like to again suggest that the last two paragraphs discussing morality be stricken entirely, or moved to another article, or rephrased so their connection with 'the rationality of atheism' is more apparent. --Wesley

-

The article starts off, it appears to me, with a flawed premise. The first paragraph states that: "If one is an atheist who desires to hold onto one's atheism rationally?, one would appear to need some arguments that God does not exist. Many theists maintain that it would not do simply to refute arguments that God exists. That would--many theists maintain--only show that there was no good philosophical reason to believe that God exists. It would not show that there was good reason specifically to believe that God does not exist."

The problem with this is that most atheists simply don't believe any such thing. There is a big difference between what theist believe that atheists believe, and what atheists themselves believe. Atheists do not say that " I know for a fact that God does not exist, and I am 100% sure of this." If this were there position, then they indeed would need to justify the truth or rationality of their position. However, their actual position is subtly different: They don't believe in the existence of any mythological or supernatural creature, for the simpel reason that they don't see any good reason to believe in them. Atheists don't believe in gods, in God, in unicorns, in fairys or in elves, trolls or dragons. They assign all of these creatures or gods to mythology and delusion. Why should a theists (e.g. a Christian, or Jew) demand that atheists create some sort of philosophical system to justify their rationality in the one case for God, but not for anything else (including the thousands of pagan gods)? Atheists consider all of them in the same boat, and will continue to do so unless they see evidence to the contrary. This position is what many people mistake for agnostocism. RK

Real atheists believe what people think agnosticis believe : that there is no reason to believe in the existence of God, so they don't believe in God. RK

RK, in most philosophical contexts, "atheism" means "the belief that God does not exist." Many, most I think, philosophers use "agnosticism" to describe the lack of a belief that God does exist (and in this they extend the original usage of "agnosticism"). See atheism. --LMS


 * Both of these definitions seem to be describing the same position. The original definition of agnosticism was different: the word "agnostic" was coined to describe the specific belief that it would be impossible to ascertain whether or not God exists, period. An agnostic wouldn't have a belief or disbelief in God; they would only believe that one could not rationally and justificably make a decision. This term was later broadened to included a wider set of beliefs - i.e. the belief that it may well be possible to prove that God did, or didn't exist; in this case an agnostic is someone who admits that proof one way or the other might theoretically be possible, but given the current state of knowledge, no decision can be made. In contrast, there are two different definitions of atheism, one of which most atheists acutally have, and one which theists mistakenly attribute to atheists. Theists mistakenly believe that the atheist position is "I believe with total faith and certainty that God does not exist", which is more of a religious proposition than anything else. But in fact most atheists have a position characterized not by total faith and certainty in God's non-existence, but rather hold that they simply won't believe in any supernatural or mythological entry, because such claims are just ridiculous to them. There is no special absolute faith attached to God's non-existence. This is a non-religious position, and is very distinct from agnosticism. RK


 * I think the distinction you're making is the distinction between strong atheism and weak atheism that's described in the atheism article. You're right that for naturalists, they lump belief in God together with belief in fairies, dragons, etc., but I also think that they then go on to state with certainty, that neither fairies nor God exist. This appears to be based on the notion that all knowledge can be derived from scientific observation and the like, which would rule out any sort of supernatural beings or events by definition. In one of its more extreme forms, strong atheism becomes militant atheism under many Communist governments when the government states with force that God does not exist and outlaws any instruction to the contrary. It's not just a hypothetical position. --Wesley


 * RK, do you think the article should be changed somehow based on the outcome of this debate? (How?)  If not, let's stop it immediately.


 * Anyway, it's very simple. One word, 'atheism', names a kind of belief, namely the belief that there is no God.  The other word, 'agnosticism', in its broader usage, names not a kind of belief but the lack thereof (the lack of a position on the question of God's existence).  I hope the article implies this clearly enough!  None of it is the slightest bit controversial; it's literally Philosophy 101 at many universities and colleges.  As far as the definitions of the terms are concerned, it matters not at all how certain one is of the belief.  If you have only a weak belief that God doesn't exist, then perhaps you might be said to be, weakly, an atheist.  Generally speaking, characterization of philosophical positions does not change based on the degree of certainty people have holding them. --LMS

Larry, there's a difference between "lack of position" and "lack of belief". Most agnostics would say that they lack a position on the existence of God, i.e. "I honestly don't know" or even "It is unknowable", whereas many atheists would say that "I don't believe that God exists" (usually for lack of evidence, as in "I don't believe that pink unicorns exist"). Atheists often argue that agnostics are too conformist to apply the same kind of logic they apply in other situations (i.e. they would probably not say "It's unknowable whether unicorns exist") to the question of God. Others argue that the question itself is irrelevant without a proper definition of God, and when pushed, most atheists would probably agree with this also.

Some would say that "I believe that God doesn't exist", and that is indeed a subtly different statement (as "I believe that pink unicorns don't exist"), but as far as I can tell it is mostly people from the other side of the fence trying to portray atheists as holders of a positive belief (by using the same vocabulary), and thus no different than any other holder of a religious belief, which is clearly incorrect. When it comes to the pink unicorns, silence usually ensues, because most religious people are not willing to apply the same twisted rules of logic the apply to their own beliefs to other fantasy beliefs (e.g. not willing to state that "The belief that pink unicorns don't exist is just another kind of religious belief"). I should point out that the pink unicorn example is often used in another sense, "invisible pink unicorns", because it is both contradictory and unknowable by definition, much as many definitions of God. The question of God is trivial to answer, it is the wishful thinking that there's a father figure that protects us all the time or punishes those we despise (either in this life or in the promised afterlife, an equally unfounded belief) that is the motor for the continuing belief in God, not any kind of logic -- the "irrationality of theism", so to speak. -- Eloquence

What does the above have to do with the article? I'm not really very interested in debating philosophical issues that have nothing to do with what the article says. So, suppose you're right: how would you reword the article? (Please see . We're not here to debate, Eloquence; we're here to write articles.)

I suspect it would be the atheism article you'd want to change, and you might want to say that what 'atheism' means is simply that one has no belief that God exists. Unfortunately, in point of fact, that is not all that most philosophers (note that word) mean when they use the word 'atheism'. Most philosophers mean the belief, or position if you prefer (philosophers generally do not use 'belief' in the epistemically-loaded sense it seems that you're reacting to), that God doesn't exist. It's useful to distinguish, as people often do in introductory philosophy classes, that there is a distinction between these two claims: "I don't believe that God exists" and "I believe that God doesn't exist." The second entails the first; the first doesn't entail the second. This is what the articles (last time I checked) said, and it's what they should say! --LMS

I don't see how any sentence of my reply except for the last one, merely the conclusion, is not in relationship to the article. With regard to the definitions of atheism vs. agnosticism, I think it would be helpful to quote thinkers from both sides (the "freethinking tradition" as you call it) to present more definitions -- otherwise, the article should be renamed "The rationality of positive atheism". Even on the basis of the definitions used, the argument can be made that someone who claims "[I believe] X doesn't exist" does not need to present any (counter-)evidence for this statement until evidence or arguments for the existence of X are presented in the first place. You seem to imply that someone who says "X doesn't exist" means this statement in an absolute sense (which may or may not be the case, depending on their school of thought -- and the absolutist view should be rejected not on the basis of lack of evidence, but on the basis of logic in open systems). The only conclusion that may be derived from the statement "X doesn't exist" is that the person postulating it may, with some increased likelihood vs. a "negative atheist", present further arguments in support of this claim (e.g. the problem of evil), but not that he does have any logical obligation to do so. If we can agree on all this, I will rewrite the article accordingly. -- Eloquence

It would be pointless to quote philosophers defining 'atheism', since it's not controversial that they mean what I said they mean. As to the rest, you say: "the argument can be made that..." OK, the argument can be made; but what's the point of your saying this here on this talk page? If you're objecting to the problem that the page raises, I don't think you should change the page because you have an objection. You should change the page if you can find somewhere in the philosophical literature (or the freethinking literature, I suppose) someone saying what you want to say. We're not here to do original research. So, if you want to change the article, please do not change it in such a way that misrepresents what philosophers actually say about this issue. --LMS

You are correct, the argument should only be included with attribution to someone from either side of the debate (thanks for allowing freethinking literature, that saves us debate of this point). I'll see what I can find. As to your characterization of the beliefs of philosophers, I will not contradict you: You certainly have a better overview of the beliefs of philosophers than I. However, I think that "original research" is completely appropriate when restricted to the Talk pages until confirmation can be found from accepted sources. So, for example, if you point out a fundamental flaw in my argument, and that everyone in the literature disagrees with me, I may decide not to start searching and therefore be more productive elsewhere. Wikipedia should be a place for active minds and possibly even the inspiration for new research, not a place where thinking is choked by (non-constructive) policies (I agree with most of Wikipedia's conventions/policies!). The last edit of the page is a good one, BTW. -- Eloquence

It sounds like we're arriving at a good resolution here. Now, I have thought, a lot, about Wikipedia's (and Nupedia's) policy against new research, and your casual remark that it "chokes" anything or that it is "non-constructive" is something that I find, indeed, entirely "non-constructive." I'm willing to talk a lot about it and explain the reasoning behind it, and I imagine it's conceivable that I would change my mind about it--but very unlikely, I think. A Nupedia Classics editor--a distinguished scholar--quit that project because I asked him not to publish a new theory he had about something (I forget what) in an article on the subject. That's how I feel about it.

I haven't articulated this particularly well here on Wikipedia (though I have on Nupedia), probably because there's been little need: it follows rather neatly from the fact that the purpose of an encyclopedia is a summation of human knowledge, and new research by definition is not part of "human knowledge" (in this sense)--yet, anyway.

Anyway, I utterly reject the suggestion that the policy chokes any thinking at all. It focuses our thinking. --LMS

Please explain how allowing discussion of subjects on the Talk pages to arrive at better validated presentations can possibly be a bad thing? I was not talking about publishing any new theories in the articles, but about using the Talk page to discuss what may or may not be "out there" (e.g. in the case of the Nupedia editor, he might ask if this theory of his has already been published somewhere, and if not, try to get it published before presenting it in the article, but if it has already been published by someone else, cite it -- that's what I mean when I say that Wikipedia can be an inspiration for research). -- Eloq

''whenever an atheist ... uses reason and the laws of logic, which are universal, abstract, and absolute, he/she must first borrow from the theistic worldview.''


 * Why? This needs some explanation. Evercat 23:13, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)