User:JimWae/atheism/FAQs

How is it that three definitions were chosen?
A search of the literature by the editors revealed three distinct definitions. There is no agreement among scholars or non-scholars on which of the three is the most "correct". A fourth definition, along the lines of "disbelief in the existence of deities", was also found. This definition is not given in the lede since it overlaps with two or three of the other definitions, depending on what one thinks the word "disbelief" means. Because the meaning of "disbelief" is vague and does not distinguish itself from any of the three defs, it is not presented as a separate def.

Each definition includes or excludes an identifiable group of people as atheists. The narrowest of the 3 defs (the position that deities do not exist) includes the least number of people as atheists. The broadest definition (the absence of belief that deities exist) includes the most people as atheists, including, among others, all non-theistic agnostics, whether they self-identify as atheists or not. The "rejection" def includes more people than the narrowest definition, but less than the widest one.

With this 2007-APR-13 edit the movement to three definitions began. A few weeks later The 3 definitions presented in the first paragraph were arrived at after extensive debate and searches of existing sources. It has been the consensus since April 2007 to present all three of these definitions in the first paragraph, and it was in that manner that the article achieved FA status.

Why doesn't the article say which definition is best?
The purpose of wikipedia is to summarize what scholars and other reliable sources have to say on a topic. It is not the role ofthe editors to decide which reliable sources are best. One of wikipedia's core policies is to present topics maintaining a neutral point of view. It would violate that policy to use the editorial voice to express a preference or to denigrate any of the reliably sourced definitions.

What other sources list all three of these definitions?
Very few sources present all three of these definitions. Most sources contrast only two of the defs in order to present an opinion on which is better. One source that does present all three is ... in .... After introducing the first two, he quickly groups them together and spend little time distinguishing them, and proceeding to express his preference for a third def (absence).

Why isn't the absence definition given first?
Those who advocate adoption of the absence definition concede that it is not the most widely understood meaning of "atheism". There are also scholars who have specifically stated that "sheer unbelief" is not sufficient to qualify as atheism, among them Ernest Nagel.


 * Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".
 * "I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist - for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist - for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject."

Theodore Drange raises objections to the etymological basis of Simth's argument.Drange 1998

This definition as it stands would include infants as atheists. However Smith/Martin provides additional parameters for calling a child (i.e. someone older than an infant) an atheist, and thus does not follow through on any claim that absence is truly a sufficient condition for atheism. The absence def is the most contested and has the least support among scholars. Wikipedia is not about advocating changing the way words are used or redefining them, and leading with a disputed definition is contentious.

Why isn't the narrowest definition given first?
While the narrowest definition (the position that deities do not exist) is one of those found in nearly all sources, scholars have presented arguments that it is too narrow & does not include everyone who could reasonably be categorized as an atheist.

Previous to this 2007-APR-28 edit, the absence def had appeared first for some time.

Why doesn't the definition appear in a single sentence?
There are three distinct definitions. Each definition results in a different scope of application, resulting in greater or lesser inclusion of people as atheists. Single sentences have been proposed, but the result has been:
 * a loss of information - relative scopes, and the nuances of each definition get lost; also lost is the fact that not all three definitions are accepted as valid by all sources. Including the scope in the lede gives the reader a map for dealing with the 3 distinct definitions, and getting all that in one sentences becomes a burden for the reader
 * use of "or" as connective - becomes unclear if the "or" is one of synonymy and if commas that oset choices are appositives. Some usages of "or" make it seem that
 * use of "and" as connective - implies that all three definitions are accepted, whereas some definitions, particularly the absence def, are contested

A is a subcategory of X which includes r, d, and a
As in
 * Atheism is a form of nontheism which includes rejection..., denial..., and absence...
 * Atheism is a form of irreligion which includes rejection..., denial..., and, most inclusively, absence...


 * Mammals are a subcategory of chordates which includes humans, whales, dogs, and bats.
 * Mammals are a subcategory of chordates which includes humans with arms, dogs with injured legs, bats with wings, and whales with an absence of legs.


 * Mammals are a subcategory of chordates which includes humans with arms, dogs with injured legs, bats with wings, and, most inclusively, viviparous animals.

Look at the syntactic structure of proposals of the form: A is a subcategory of X which includes r, d, and a. The structure is the same as Mammals are a subcategory of chordates which includes humans with arms, dogs with injured legs, bats with wings, and whales with an absence of legs AND/OR Mammals are a subcategory of chordates which include carnivores, primates, and, most inclusively, placentals. The expectation that what follows is to be understood as a definition is weakened by the use of "which includes", making nontheism/irreligion the only clearly definitional part of the sentence. Those articles are not themselves featured articles and do not themselves contain clear definitions - indeed contain definitions that I think we would shudder at if applied to atheism. We currently have 3 distinct definitions with 3 distinct scopes, and the wording more clearly indicates that the 3 sentences are to be understood as definitional. Putting everything into one sentence reduces the information presented to the reader - the relative scopes are hidden as well as the fact that these are competing, not complementary (nor completely accepted), definitions. I can easily give my preferred definition in one sentence, but if three sentences is what it takes to give a clear NPOV exposition of the definitions, then so be it.

Explicit position
''Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the rejection of belief that there are any deities, or the assertion that no deities exist. Atheism has been defined most broadly as the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Arguments against the absence def

 * Drange 1998 - on etymological grounds
 * Nagel
 * Martin does not follow through on this as a sufficient condition of atheism when discussing whether children are atheists -- he does NOT include infants


 * This def would make mathematics and stamp-collecting atheistic pursuits
 * Not only does this def not require someone to take a position to be an atheist, they need not even have brain activity. Indeed, even worms, cabbages, and rocks have an absence of theism, but this absence is not a sufficient condition for saying they subscribe to atheism or for calling them atheists.

Absence of belief is a necessary condition for atheism, but whether it is a sufficient condition is doubtful. The statement "Babies are atheists" is often repeated as if it were some kind of incontrovertible truth. Babies do not have to be immediately categorized as 1> socialists or capitalists 2> theists or atheists 3> everything vs. its contrary.... (I would agree babies must be either theists or nontheists, which are clearly directly contradictory positions, and not simply contrary positions.) "Absence" is an insufficient condition to distinguish whether -ISMs are theist or atheistic. Marxism is clearly atheistic; Catholicism clearly is not. Mathematics & even Darwinism cannot be categorized as easily as either of those - because they are silent about theism. Many scholars & reliable sources (including those already used in the article) remark that the absence definition is an "extended" definition, a "loose" definition, a less rigorous, less scholarly definition. Starting any article with a definition that is widely regarded as insufficient for distinction detracts from the quality of the article.

Why not define atheism in terms of theism?
Theism has more than one meaning. Paul Tillich was neither a theist nor an atheist, as well as...

Why is the scope discussed in the first paragraph?
The scope provides the reader a map with which to compare the three definitions by their extensional characteristics as well as intensional ones. Omitting the scopes would, of course, shorten the lede, but keeping them is what distinguishes an encyclopedia from a dictionary (which also rarely admits there are competing defs [or discusses sources]).