Talk:Human/Archive 26

• Talk:Human/Archive1: Feb 15, 2003–August 12, 2004
• Talk:Human/Archive2: September 2004
• Talk:Human/Archive3: October 2004, including taxobox poll
• Talk:Human/Archive4: November, December 2004
• Talk:Human/Archive5: Dec 15, 2004–Feb 14, 2005
• Talk:Human/Archive6: Feb 14-March 4, 2005
• Talk:Human/Archive7: Feb 14-20, 2005
• Talk:Human/Archive8: March 15-17, 2005

Relevance or irrelevance of humans as spiritual beings

Monk wrote:

There is no legitimate logical or NPOV justification for making 'human is a spiritual being' a significant fixture in the intro. Doing so would: a) put wikipedia completely out of step with how every other significant and credible reference source defines 'human' (in essence redefining 'human'), b) constitutes personal research because it is exceptional/outside the norm, c) and spirituality in all its incarnations has been considered a function of behavior and culture for at least 150 years in academic circles.

I guess this means that keeping in step with other encyclopedias is important for Wikipedia. If so, I suppose that the only exceptional thing about us is that we're GPL-licensed. But the NPOV policy of not taking sides seems more important to me than "keeping in step". What if all the other big encyclopedias have been endorsing a materialistic POV?

Reporting on alternate POVs is not necessarily "personal research" in the sense Wikipedia is trying to discourage. If a contributor simply reports that many people in general or some significant writer(s) in particular regard humans as having a spiritual side, I don't see how this violates our editorial policy.

Most importantly, while it is true that a major trend over the last 150 years in academic circles has been to consider spirituality merely as a function of behavior and culture, this is only one point of view. Specifically, it is the materialistic POV. A large number of people, both in and out of academia, espouse an alternate POV. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:02, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed, welcome to the talk page that nicely reflects the nature of the subject of the discussion. ;-) There's probably no point in your editing the current intro as we're working on a compromise version. The old (March 1) version is here, and the current version here.

As you've just tuned in. here's a breakdown of the positions:

• Not keen on the old (March 1) version (though perhaps for different reasons): FeloniousMonk, Mel Etitis, Knowledgeseeker, SlimVirgin.
• Not keen on the current version (again, perhaps for different reasons): Rednblu, Tom Haws, Goethean, Sam Spade, Ed Poor.
• No preference expressed: Pharos, Wesley

Therefore, we're working on this compromise version (below). A criticism of it is that it doesn't contain sufficient reference to spirituality, so I've tweaked it to emphasize that aspect more. SlimVirgin 17:28, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Human beings are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man) and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology. Biologically, humans belong to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, but differ from their relatives in their ability to engage in abstract reasoning, their use of language and speech, and their erect body carriage, which frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects. As a consequence of these traits, human beings engage in extensive tool use, and have developed complex social structures comprised of many cooperating and competing groups, nation states, and institutions, distinguished from one another by their different aims and ritual practices. The self-consciousness of human beings, their resultant curious and introspective nature, and their dominance over other animals, have given rise to a series of narratives intended to explain the development and nature of the species. These include materialist and spiritual perspectives promoting, on the one hand, the idea that human beings evolved over millions of years from other life forms; and on the other, that all life, including human beings, was created by a supreme being, and that an essential attribute of humanity is its spirituality.

SlimVirgin 17:28, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Ed, you say "materialistic" as if it's a bad thing. No one is saying that including the views of those alternate POVs in the article is personal research or can't that they can't be included. But stating or implying that those views are fact or tantamount to fact would be personal research and violate NPOV though, and that is what the current (and SV's proposed) into replaced.

If neutrality is about presenting competing versions of what the facts are, and facts being facts, there are several points that you'll have to admit: It is only those who are spiritual or religious that define 'human' in spiritual religious terms, just as your recent edit to the article implies that it is only biologists who define humans as "bipedal primate mammals." That spiritual beliefs make us human is just that - a belief- not a fact. It's a belief held by a particular group marked by dedicated belief in the absence of, or despite, evidence (faith), and a record of asserting their belief over other competing epistemologies. Should the perspective that spirituality is not just merely a function of behavior and culture be noted in the article? Yes, as long as it is attributed, and it is not presented in into, which implies that it is a significant metric in defining human.

As I've said, I have no problem accommodating the spiritual perspective in the article as long as any assertion that states or implies spirituality's role is anything other than behavioral is attributed and is made clear that it's opinion, not fact.--FeloniousMonk 17:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, thank you, 67 (and Slim) for elevating the intellectuality of my Thursday! There's obviously a lot going on here. I guess I'll turn to other things for a while and let my unconscious mind consider what you've all said. (Maybe I'll even pray about it, God might tell me that the materialist viewpoint deserves more respect than I've been giving it! ;-) Ta ta for now ... -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:02, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm 67 here, I got randomly logged off.--FeloniousMonk 18:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Humans are...

SlimVirgin asked me to try to state my opinion of the current efforts at an intro. I will try, but this is obviously (as I follow the discussion) going to take a while longer. The current intro starts by saying humans are bipedal primates, etc. I think we are having an unstated problem with the first two words, "Humans are". Those who like the proposed intro have been saying, "Everybody agrees that humans are bipedal primates, so we should put that first." I think it is approximately true that "everybody" agrees that humans are bipedal primates, and yet I think there is trouble with the opening. And I think I may have pinpointed why. Tom Haws 18:21, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have identified two different kinds of "Humans are..."

• "Humans are..." (definitively)
• "Humans are..." (descriptively)

All people generally respectfully assent to how bilogists describe humans as bipedal primates, Homo sapiens, etc. I myself have no problem describing humans in any of a number of ways such as this. But many people wouldn't allow that humans are defined as bipedal primates, Homo sapiens, etc. For example, if my child says to me, "Teacher says people are mammals." I would of course answer, "Yes." But if child asks, "What are people?", I will think a little harder. And if I want to be non-biased, I will answer, "Well, sweetheart (or buddy). There are a lot of different ways people answer that question." I hope that helps you who are pushing for this currently proposed intro to understand why some others of us seem intransigent to your explanation that "everybody believes this part, so it should go first." What should go first is a very careful and non-biased attempt to say what "humans are..." (definitively) Tom Haws 18:21, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of different ways people answer that question.

Why can't the article open with a spiffed-up version of that statement? --Goethean 18:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for that. In light of your post, I've tweaked the suggestion again:

Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for "knowing man") and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology. They belong to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, but differ from their relatives in their ability to engage in abstract reasoning, their use of language and speech, and their erect body carriage, which frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects. As a consequence of these traits, human beings engage in extensive tool use, and have developed complex social structures comprised of many cooperating and competing groups, nation states, and institutions, distinguished from one another by their different aims and ritual practices.

The self-consciousness of human beings, their resultant curious and introspective nature, and their dominance over other animals, have given rise to a series of narratives intended to explain the development and nature — or essence — of the species. These include materialist perspectives promoting the view that human beings evolved from other life forms over millions of years and are, in essence, no different from their primate relatives; and spiritual perspectives that emphasize a spiritual dimension to life, and which may include the view that all life, including human life, was created by a supreme being. The materialist and spiritual narratives are not mutually exclusive. SlimVirgin 18:53, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, now were back to the March 1 intro. I do not support or endorse this version of the intro. That certain groups of humans with arbitrary, intangible beliefs, i.e.; spiritual beliefs, define human by their own belief is beside the point and should not be mentioned in the intro except to mention that they do it. That they choose to do so is a matter of choice and not supported by any fact other than that they've chosen to do it. The intro needs to stick to the facts that are readily verified and accessible to verification by all. I can support your previous intro still though:

Human beings are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man) and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology. Biologically, humans belong to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, but differ from their relatives in their ability to engage in abstract reasoning, their use of language and speech, and their erect body carriage, which frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects. As a consequence of these traits, human beings engage in extensive tool use, and have developed complex social structures comprised of many cooperating and competing groups, nation states, and institutions, distinguished from one another by their different aims and ritual practices. The self-consciousness of human beings, their resultant curious and introspective nature, and their dominance over other animals, have given rise to a series of narratives intended to explain the development and nature of the species. These include materialist and spiritual perspectives promoting, on the one hand, the idea that human beings evolved over millions of years from other life forms; and on the other, that all life, including human beings, was created by a supreme being, and that an essential attribute of humanity is its spirituality.

--FeloniousMonk 19:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can support this version FeloniousMonk?

No. I support SV's previous version which I cite above. I oppose any intro that states "Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms." Spiritual belief is not a universial or credible metric for defining the concept 'human' for all the reasons I pointed out earlier. The spiritual POV is presented further down the page where it belongs, in the Culture subsection.--FeloniousMonk 21:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FM, doesn't everybody "define human by their own belief"? Tom Haws 20:01, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Reality is always the ultimate standard of evaluation. Objectivity is the acceptance that all knowledge is knowledge about reality. It is the only means of determining the truth. The concepts of true and false are only meaningful in reference to reality. Actually understanding something is act of referencing reality in determining the truth. So the truth of a belief is dependent on its correspondence to reality. Those who define human by beliefs that do not correspond to reality, are said to be independent to reality, or in contradiction to reality have no legitimate expectation to have their beliefs treated as fact.--FeloniousMonk 21:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's an extremely rough version of what I envision:

According to biology and anthropology, human beings are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man) and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology.

According to some of the major world religions, human beings are variously considered to be created in the image of god (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), as the incarnation of eternal, immaterial spirit (Hinduism), as illusion (Buddhism), as an expression of the ineffable (Taoism), or as lacking any static nature whatsoever (Confucianism).

--Goethean 19:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On my view, the "science" section could be lengthier, but not so long as to reduce the religion section to a mere footnote. This intro could then be followed immediately by an expansion of the bio/anthropology perspective. --Goethean 19:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And of course none of us are trying to say that this article has to give prominent nod to the idea that spirit is unique to humans, or to anything at all about the question of the origin of the human body. I only say this because it appears some of you are carrying over thoughts from Creationist talk, which this of course isn't. And also, I personally believe the only reason we are belaboring this point of non-bias on the Human page is that it matters to us humans. I suppose we should count ourselves lucky that there are no dogs, dolphins, or bonobos editing the Wikipedia. :-D Tom Haws 19:31, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I propose this synthesis of Goethean's proposal and the current intro:

Human beings are classified by biologists as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man): a bipedal primate mammal distinguished from other primates only by biological and behavioral differences and belonging to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, and by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for abstract reasoning and articulate speech.

The ability to reason and speak contributes to the behavioral differences between humans and other primates, most noticeable in the highly developed culture of human beings. Behaviorally, human beings are defined by their use of language, their culture, with its organization in complex societies with groups and institutions for mutual support and assistance, and their development of complex technology. These behavioral differences have given rise to a myriad of cultures incorporating many forms of beliefs, myths, rituals, values, norms, and tools.

According to some of the major world religions, human beings are variously considered to be created in the image of god (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), as the incarnation of an eternal, immaterial spirit (Hinduism, Buddhism), as an expression of the ineffable (Taoism), or as lacking any static nature whatsoever (Confucianism).

That's my attempt at a compromise giving spiritual beliefs some real estate in the intro (despite the fact we'll be the only putatively neutral encyclopedia doing so).--FeloniousMonk 21:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The scientific viewpoint should be noted as such. There is a difference between the beliefs of biologists and reality. --Goethean 21:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hehehehehehe. See Epistemology for starters (under Empiricism). The objective of science is to obtain the closest possible match to reality as is possible. It's a similar system to wikipedia if you will (or rather other way around, wikipedia is based on the system used by science to arrive at NPOV). Insofar as science fails. *FIX IT* , you can publish papers if you disagree, but you'll have to prove your position. Until then, let's stick to the current scientific position. Thanks! Kim Bruning 22:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kim, I suggest that both you and Felonius Monk read up on current research on empiricism. In short, it says approximately the opposite of what you think it does. here is an 1951 essay by the most important empiricist of the latter half of the 20th century, W.V.O.Quine, in which he concludes that naive empiricism (the philosophy with which Felonius Monk has been hubristically slamming the "religious" on this board) is untenable. --Goethean 16:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FM, I would prefer if you added Goethean's views to the compromise version I wrote up, as the current intro borrows too heavily from the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Also, to Lincspoacher, I removed this: "Central to this is the argument 'when did we become human', ie at what point did we change from being merely soulless 'clever apes' and become 'humans' with souls. This point has only just begun to be debated," as it count as "original research" or a personal statement. Also, your edit that references a BBC Horizon TV program needs a proper citation. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 21:36, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Monk (or 67 as I once called you), I appreciate your nod to the POV of "some of the major world religions" - and I assure you I don't plan any kind of "give me an inch I'll take a mile" takeover of the article. At least 90% of the article should stick to the materialistic perspective of biologists.

By the way, we are the only putatively neutral encyclopedia in existence. Every other one has a POV which informs it, and they're usually pretty up-front about it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:40, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've never doubted your good faith, Ed. Though I do have some doubts about the neutrality of the content of wikipedia based on the number "controversial" and "NPOV" tags in evidence, not to mention that there are plenty of instances to be found of culture jamming and POV warrioring daily. By it's very nature wikipedia's content may may be POV one day and NPOV the next, so claims to it being neutral in net strike me as a bit overly grand.

Here's my next attempt, incorporating SV's comments:

Human beings are classified in the natural sciences as bipedal primates, with the taxonomic classification Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man). They are distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology. Biologically, humans belong to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, but differ from their relatives in their ability to engage in abstract reasoning, their use of language and speech, and their erect body carriage, which frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects. As a consequence of these traits, human beings engage in extensive tool use, and have developed complex social structures comprised of many cooperating and competing groups, nation states, and institutions, distinguished from one another by their different aims and ritual practices. Behaviorally, human beings are defined by their use of language, their culture, with its organization in complex societies with groups and institutions for mutual support and assistance, and their development of complex technology. These behavioral differences have given rise to a myriad of cultures incorporating many forms of beliefs, myths, rituals, values, norms, and tools.

According to some of the major world religions, human beings are variously considered to be created in the image of god (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), as the incarnation of an eternal, immaterial spirit (Hinduism, Buddhism), as an expression of the ineffable (Taoism), or as lacking any static nature whatsoever (Confucianism).

Yes, no, flames? --FeloniousMonk 21:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I could live with that version. SlimVirgin 22:13, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I am unhappy with the failure to attribute the beliefs of the natural sciences. This is a deliberate marginalization by Felonius Monk to make a fact/fiction distinction between the beliefs of scientists and religious adherents. Should the wikipedia really imply that religions are false? Failing this, the single sentence on religion could easily be expanded to include major philosophical views, like existentialism. --Goethean 22:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, "along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans," is needless filler. --Goethean 22:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only remaining problem in that intro is the way it narratively progresses toward religion as a product of the bipedal primate, rather than unbiasedly presenting the religious/spiritual and any other definitions of humanity as standing independent. Here are the words that accomplish the progression: 1) "unique development of language, culture", 2) "As a consequence", 3) "given rise" 4) "beliefs, myths, rituals, values, norms, and tools". And all this is followed by the first words of the next paragraph: "According to some of the major world religions". It seems rather an intentional framing of religion as a delusion of the overractive Homo sapiens brain rather than another way of defining humanity. Tom Haws 22:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say there have been enormous compromises on the scientific side, and to keep on asking for more is beginning to border on the unreasonable. As for chimpanzees etc being needless filler, I disagree. Many people won't know what the great-ape family is. It's not a question of a fact/ficton distinction or marginalization, Tom. It's simply that NPOV states that majority views be presented as such. There is no implication that religious views are false. How could existentialism fit in? SlimVirgin 22:51, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Where on earth did you get the idea that NPOV states that first two sentences of a Wikipedia article are to endorse the dogma of the majority? Any reasonable reading of the NPOV page requires that even the leading definition would report the wide divergence of opinion on the definition--where there is a wide divergence of opinion on the definition. ---Rednblu | Talk 23:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Um, the Wikipedia guidelines on how to write a great article states: "Start your article with a concise paragraph defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points." Unfortunately for your argument what you term the "dogma of the majority" happens to be what best reflects reality. What does that say about your own dogmatic POV?--FeloniousMonk 00:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes. And the divergence is very wide when one side says the spiritual is merely an explanation of the physical, and the other side says the physical is merely a tool of the spiritual. This width must be tackled head on. Neither side deserves tyranny. Tom Haws 23:24, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Is there any proof that spirituality is anything other than a mental construct? If so, I for one would be pleased to consider it. Barring such evidence, spirituality's role in the article must remain aligned to reality.--FeloniousMonk 00:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Science is also a mental construct. --Goethean 00:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but science describes reality---and isn't that what we're trying to do here? grendel|khan 18:40, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Religion describes another person's experience of reality. Do you really think that the experience of 65% of the world's population doesn't merit a single sentence here? --Goethean 20:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about the difference between what people may believe and what is. Religion is a social construct, one that does not cut across all cultures. It's a feature of many human societies, and an important one. But it's just not that important to defining humans unless you believe in it. grendel|khan 22:04, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Science does not have a monopoly on reality. There are multiple legitimate perspectives on reality. Your opinion notwithstanding, the opinions of 3 billion people are notable enough to merit a single attributed sentence in this article. --Goethean 22:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Start your article with a concise paragraph defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points." ...and when there is no agreement on the topic at hand, a fair article would start out by giving the different sides of the controversy, attributing each acurately. The suggested compromise fails to do that. --Goethean 00:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that you want to get in which view is in the majority. Not with 2 billion plus christians in the world.

Tom's problem could be avoided by merely attributing the scientific view appropriately. --Goethean 23:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tom, the problem with your objection is that by all rational accounting religion is a product; a mental construct. So presenting the religious/spiritual and any other definitions of humanity as standing independent would be factually incorrect.

That would be your rational accouting, not mine. Tom Haws 05:15, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Does spirituality or religion exist independently of man? I have no idea if it does, and as I've said to Ed I put it to you plainly that neither do you nor anyone else here. Since an absence of support is what marks objects of faith, it's safe to say spirituality like every other epistemology is a mental construct. But if you've got some credible/rational proof showing that the religious and the spiritual exist independently of our thought, then please, by all means, present it.--FeloniousMonk 00:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FM: "I put it to you plainly that neither do you nor anyone else here." You are speaking increasingly presumptuously and personally against the beliefs of your fellow editors. It isn't productive toward the end of the article to simply and repeatedly assert that the other POV is a house of cards, especially when held by billions of your brethren. About the best you can do is assert that "nobody really believes that." If you would like to speak at length with me in another venue, we can talk about why spiritual beliefs persist among seemingly rational people, and why I assert plainly to you that I do have very much more than an idea of the reality of what I believe. Your disbelieving it and belittling it does not change what I personally have experienced to be real. And yet you are free to believe as you do. And we don't have to agree before we can write a beautiful article together. Tom Haws 05:15, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to try to determine the worth of religious dogma or scientific theory. Our job is merely to report fairly and to attribute claims accurately. --Goethean 00:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I have very strong factual objections to the repeated assertions you make, dear FM. But I feel it is inappropriate to divert the discussion into an attempt to establish facts that we disagree on. You believe P and I believe Q. That represents human knowledge. (Yes, as a matter of fact I and billions of others do believe that the religious and the spiritual exist independent of Homo sapiens. And you and billions of others don't.) I am thinking that we all have been erring in attempting to use this article to define humans. As my thought experiment for this section started out, "Humans are...", I return to it and say, "That is too much for this article." Rather perhaps this article should expressly treat the subject of how the word human is and has been used. In such a framework, we might explain that some people have used human to speak of what is unique in the universe (including wearing clothes, telling stories, and having a mission from heaven), and others have used human to speak of what is in common with the rest of the universe (including fitting humanity into chemical and biological taxonomies). We also might discuss what has been said about the difficulty of self-definition. Tom Haws 04:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Wikipedia should not paper over or whitewash controversy. Instead, it should describe it. --Goethean 15:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tom, Goethean-- I agree fully that wikipedia should describe controversy, not whitewash it. I've tried to do that in my proposed intros, as has SV.

Moreover, I am not trying to either boost or devalue the worth of religious dogma or scientific theory. Nor am I speaking presumptuously and personally against the beliefs of my fellow editors. You insist on a statement in the article that defines humanity in spiritual terms. That statement implies that spirituality is an independent fact equivalent to other facts that distinguish humans from other animals. That statement assumes that spirituality is indeed an independent fact. Yet there is no proof that this is true. So it is only reasonable of me to 1) doubt the truth of your claim, 2) insist that you justify your claim. I'm sorry that it upsets you, and I understand that it is tantamount to questioning your faith, but writing a neutral and factual encyclopedia article demands that claims of fact be verified and justified. And it's not like Goethean does not constantly make digs about science (which I'll note welcomes the scrutiny).

So what I am doing is insisting that any implied or overt claims about spirituality's role in defining what is 'human' be justified by either evidence or reason. You insist that in reality spirituality is more than a human mental construct and that the article needs to reflect that. I'm saying prove it.

Both SV and myself have tried to accommodate your POV in the article. If you continue to insist that: a) spirituality is something that exists independently of man, b) that spirituality defines man, I, and others that follow me, are going to insist on proof for that POV. Without proof to the contrary, the intro will reflect that spirituality is not something that exists independently of man and hence our practice of it defines us.--FeloniousMonk 18:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You insist on a statement in the article that defines humanity in spiritual terms. That statement implies that spirituality is an independent fact equivalent to other facts that distinguish humans from other animals. That statement assumes that spirituality is indeed an independent fact. Yet there is no proof that this is true. --FeloniousMonk

As you know, FeloniousMonk, these statements do not accurately describe any part of my proposal for the article. My proposal is that religions' descriptions of human beings be attributed to religions, and that the sciences' description be attributed to the sciences. I would appreciate it if you would read my proposal and respond to it. --Goethean 20:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Without proof to the contrary, the intro will reflect that spirituality is not something that exists independently of man and hence our practice of it defines us. --FeloniousMonk

FeloniusMonk, you are not the sole editor of this article. Stop telling the other editors of this article what will be in the article and what will not. You are not the guarantor of proof. You are not the bailiff or judge in this case. I am going to call you out every time that you presume these roles. --Goethean 20:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, no person or group of persons owns this article, but please remember that includes you. It seems to me that you have given no ground here, whereas FM has, as have I. It would help if everyone were to drop their entrenched views. I don't mind Tom's idea of beginning by mentioning the difficulty of self-definition. SlimVirgin 21:10, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, go read the thread again. The only person I see here telling someone what they can and cannot do is you-- and that's flat hypocritical of you. I've never suggested that I am the sole editor or have the final say.

Perhaps you fail to realize that the problems with overemphasizing spirituality the article (as found in its pre- 3/1 content) will not go away even if you silence those like me who object. This article, like every other article on WP, must reflect reality. Get used to the idea that others will insist upon it even if I don't. People are free to believe that spirituality exists independently outside of man. But they are not free to assert or imply in this article that it is a fact. If they want that POV aired in the article, it can be presented as an attribution, which indeed it already is in the Culture subsection.--FeloniousMonk 21:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have given no ground here, whereas FM has, as have I. Go back and look at the March 1st article and then consider at how much ground FM has won. He has succeeded in demolishing all balance. Now instead of human beig defining themselkves in various ways, all perpectives are presented as fictions and explained from the scientific perspecive. The words "spirituality" and "soul" arn't even being considered, and mine is the only proposal that even mentions the content of the religious perspective. --Goethean 23:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

We need a topic and, er, some important points:

defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points

Okay, I'll shoot: the topic is "What is a human being?" and the most important points are:

• What does the body look like?
  • How is it structured?
  • Tell me about eating, digestion, nutrition, elimination, etc.
  • What are all those nerves and muscles for? (And what's a lymph node?)
• How does these things reproduce? (In case we want some more of them... ;-)
• Is what you see, what you get?
  • Or is there more to being "human" than just having a body?
  • For example, these creatures get together and build things: houses, cars, cities (then they blow them up!)
  • Oh, yeah, some folks think they have a "spirit" (isn't that a hoot? ;-)

Does that work for you, Slim? Monk? Everybody? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I am increasingly seeing this as a bad approach, because everybody already "knows" what a human is, and much of this encyclopedia is dedicated to exploring in detail the questions you ask. I am increasingly less certain about the topic and the important points. It almost seems hopeless to try to start the article with "Humans are..." In short, perhaps I am amid the mental deconstruction that preceeds new synergy. I only hope the rest of you have approached this problem as sincerely and openly, and that the result will be an improvement on everything hitherto proposed. Maybe it would be useful (or at least interesting) to ask each other some detailed questions to help each other pin down the idea of humanity from our respective points of view. For example, "Tom, is an angel human? Is a devil human?" "FeloniousMonk, is only the species Homo sapiens human? Is all of the species Homo sapiens human?" Tom Haws 17:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

A bad approach to what? If the purpose of the article was to assert that humans are nothing more than their bodies and their behavior, then it's been struck a mortal wound; it just doesn't know it's dead yet.

But if the new purpose of the article is to explore what it is to be a human being, then maybe some of the physical stuff can take a back seat (i.e., be split off into articles like Structure of the human body or Human behavior).

Or maybe we need an entirely new article addressing the question of what humans are and / or how humans perceive themselves. If there's as even a split as suggested above between adherents of materialism and religion, then let's find a place to describe the controversy.

Don't give up now! we've just started to realize what the problem is (now we can fix it). This is a good problem, let's tackle it! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:00, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

<purpose of the article is to explore what it is to be a human being>

Your thinking on the purpose of the article is flawed. The purpose of an ecyclopedic article is to describe its topic, not explore it.--FeloniousMonk 19:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of an ecyclopedic article is to describe its topic, not explore it. Sure, when the subject is uncontroversial—unlike this one. --Goethean 19:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's only controversial because those same people who think an encyclopedic article is the place do research, i.e.; explore, insist on having their own special understanding arising from personal belief treated as a fact in the article. There's little controversial here outside of that.--FeloniousMonk 21:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points Tom. This is what happens when a diverse group tries to reach consensus on a shared definition of a real, factual thing that only some believe has intangible attributes that affect that definition. It's only natural each POV wants an equal place at the table; the problem is when beliefs are asserted to be facts (please know that I'm not trying to inflame you or anyone else here). We must agree on what are facts, and what are POVs. But first we must settle by what means we are to make that distinction, our choices are knowledge arrived at by reason, or the arbitrary (unjustified belief).

For example, if I were to say, "We are all brains-in-a-vat. I can't prove it, but I have faith that we are.", then I have lost the argument before I began it. It grants the premise that reason is not absolute and to have lost the argument before it began.

Either reason is going to be our only means of knowledge here or it isn't. There is no middle ground or compromise between the two. If reason is your means of gaining knowledge then one must always reject the arbitrary. The existence of spirituality as a thing independent of man is not a complex issue. Since no evidence exists that it is a thing independent of us, reason dictates that it is an instance of the arbitrary. This is why I've insisted since arriving here that we limit ourselves to factual things in distinguishing humans in the intro. Do humans hold spiritual beliefs? Indeed they do, and it is mentioned in the intro. --FeloniousMonk 19:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

if I were to say, "We are all brains-in-a-vat. I can't prove it, but I have faith that we are.", then I have lost the argument before I began it.

True enough. But if 3 billion of the 6 billion human beings consider us to be brains in vats, you might want to consider that they have reason for doing so. 3 billion people believe that human beings are created in the image of god. You are assuming that they are acting irrationally, that they have no reason to hold these beliefs. But you are wrong. They hold these beliefs because their experiences and culture have led them to believe this just as your experience and culture have led you to believe that human beings are bipedal primates. --Goethean 19:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, it is entirely fallacious to argue that simply because a certain number of people believe something, the beliefs must be true or justified. In any event, we are not here to argue whether religious beliefs are true or not. We are writing an article on humam beings, and of course reference to these beliefs can be included, whether true or false. It is, furthermore, nonsense to say that a belief in God is as justified as the belief that we are bipedal. Please note Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View: our job here is to characterize disputes, not engage in them. SlimVirgin 21:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

That's called the argumentum ad populum - the appeal to the majority. It's the logical fallacy of believing that because something is popular, it is right.--FeloniousMonk 21:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is, furthermore, nonsense to say that a belief in God is as justified as the belief that we are bipedal. I don't believe that that's what I said. And in fact, it's not what I believe. I did say that both religious beliefs and scientific beliefs emerge from the intersection of upbringing and oobservation. --Goethean 23:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Either reason is going to be our only means of knowledge here or it isn't. There is no middle ground or compromise between the two. If reason is your means of gaining knowledge then one must always reject the arbitrary.

This naive empiricist epistemology was demolished in philosophy in the 1950s. Read W. V. O. Quine's article "The Two Dogmas of Empiricism". Experience is a legitimate way of gaining knowledge. That you have not had the same experience as me does not illegitimize or nullify my beliefs in any way. Stop presuming which of my beliefs are rational and which are not. --Goethean

But that isn't naïve empiricism; indeed, it isn't empiricism of any kind, making no mention of empirical experience. Nor does what Quine (who, by the way, can't be cited like a Biblical reference, as though no-one has ever argued that he's wrong) says in that article touch the general view against which you're arguing. (The stuff about what is rational being a matter of what the majority believes is even more peculiar and less acceptable, as is the more straightforward epistemological relativism into which it turns.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you've missed the bus here, Goethean. I not arguing for any form of empiricism here.--FeloniousMonk 21:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, how are you using Quine to support your position?

Quine's essay, "The Two Dogmas of Empiricism", ended the era when it was responsible to distinguish between scientific beliefs and religious beliefs, for example, as different kinds of beliefs. The wikipedia entry put it like this:

Our theory about physical objects is epistemologically comparable to the gods of Homer. Quine believes in physical objects and considers it a scientific error not to, but not because of some epistemic difference in kind, but because the theory of physical objects has turned out to be a more efficient theory.

This revolution is what led to the relativism of contemporary postmodern philosophers like Rorty. It also led to the recent successes of Christian philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, who had been largely derided earlier (his success is evident in the fact that there is a Society of Christian Philosophers which is part of the APA). That said, I am not a relativist. I do not think that any belief is just as good as any other. But I also do not believe the old naive empiricist myth of the world as the sum of all scientific facts. There are differences in perspectives, and those differences are legitimate. There is no objective set of facts that describes the world unless you include people's interior perspectives as part of that set of facts. This doesn't mean that any old thing that some crazy fool thinks is a fact. But you maximize the world's meaning when you are epistemically charitable (that's Donald Davidson), when you treat people's beliefs with respect. You should try to be inclusive rather than exclusive when describing the world. So that is the basis for my belief that religion reflects a perspective on the world. It's not a scientific perspective, but it is a legitimate perspective. --Goethean 23:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind Tom's suggestion of starting by referring to the difficulty of self-definition. SlimVirgin 21:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I concur. --Goethean 23:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

becoming human

If your going to have a page on Human, you have to have a discussion about WHEN we became human - the point we transited from being 'clever apes' to the point we became 'human'. Whether that means a discussion about having a 'soul' then so be it.

I have tried twice to introduce this point, twice it has been censored. If you do not have this point on your page, you are committing censorship, and your so called 'neutral POV' is bullshit. (posted by Lincspoacher)

Hi Lincspoacher, please sign and date your comments. You can do this by adding four tildes after your posts, like this ~~~~. The reason I deleted your edit is that you asked when we stopped being soulless apes, and became humans with souls. I deleted this because (a) the way it was written was non-encyclopedic, and (b) it presumed that apes and humans differ in that apes don't have souls and humans do, and we can't make that presumption. SlimVirgin 21:30, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

As of this moment in time, in my opinion, in all threads of the conversations I have looked at, everyone, all sides have begun to deal with each others' realities responsibly. I like that. Carry on. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For any newcomers

This debate is about finding an appropriate introduction. The debate is essentially between those who want a more scientific introduction and those who want a stronger spiritual or religious component.

We are currently debating the merits of the March 1 introduction [1] (the less scientific one) as opposed to the current one, [2] (the more scientific one), with the following proposed as a compromise:

Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for "knowing man") and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology. They belong to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, but differ from their relatives in their ability to engage in abstract reasoning, their use of language and speech, and their erect body carriage, which frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects. As a consequence of these traits, human beings engage in extensive tool use, and have developed complex social structures comprised of many cooperating and competing groups, nation states, and institutions, distinguished from one another by their different aims and ritual practices. The self-consciousness of human beings, their resultant curious and introspective nature, and their dominance over other animals, have given rise to a series of narratives intended to explain the development and nature of the species. These include materialist perspectives promoting the view that human beings evolved from other life forms over millions of years and are, in essence, no different from their primate relatives; and spiritual perspectives that emphasize a spiritual dimension to life, and which may include the view that all life, including human life, was created by a supreme being. SlimVirgin 02:38, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I understand that a great a debate has already taken place on this. But in reading the above as is, I can only say that it does not make me very proud a member of that species... What about consciousness, the ability of speech, to be compassionate, to love, cry, laugh, invent, sing, make music, enjoyment, etc. etc. Is that not part of being human as much as belonging to the family of great apes? --Zappaz 05:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Self-consciousness is included. For the rest, this is the summary of an encyclopædia article, not a poem. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks... add also "humans are the only animals capable of writing poetry" ... :) --Zappaz 17:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is certainly not NPOV. I can see where those who believe in a divine creation of human beings would be dissatisfied with this paragraph. The idea of a creation as described in Genesis is not even mentioned. The mention of a divine creation itself is not even given a full sentence. Perhaps a second paragraph explaining Judeo, Islamist, Christian version of the beginning of human kind? This one following the scientific view? --Wjbean 13:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But this is the summary of an article in an encyclop&aedia;; the article already has far more stuff about religion than you find in any other standard reference on 'Human' (and, frankly, far more than should be there). The summary should give the basic, central definition. It does (actually it's already bloated because editors have been trying to compromise with those who have been pushing for the inclusiuon of all sorts of stuff about 'spirituality'). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A summary, by definition, is a concise run through of the entire article. If I'm not mistaken the summary should contain some reference to the material in the entire article by Wikipedia standards. The entire article devotes considerable verbiage to religion and humankind, yet the summary does not. I'm simply saying that the summary should expound a bit more on the creationist viewpoint.

As an atheist I'm simply asking for fairness in this. The summary is entirely too one-sided. --Wjbean 19:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is comparison to a "standard reference" considered a valid policy for decision-making on wikipedia? --Goethean 18:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Unless you think that the meaning of 'encyclop&ae;dia' here is unconnected to any other use of the term, I assume that you do too. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't, really. You and FeloniousMonk have repeatedly said that this article cannot say this or that because that would take it out of line with other encyclopedias. But the wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias. The fact that it is an open, collaborative effort ensures that it will be quite different (out-of-step, if you prefer) from other works of reference. I personally think that its open nature makes it superior in some ways to other reference works. I reject the notion that the wikipedia must emulate traditionally edited, closed encyclopedias. Especially on the level of detail that you envision, which is that the very format, structure, and content of other encyclopedias has veto power over that of the wikipedia. --Goethean 19:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In looking for support for my view, I found the following, whch I would like to quote fully, as it bears on the entire debate: --Goethean 19:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Opinions: Encyclopedias (rightly, I think) try to avoid controversial opinions. I think a
headlining article on a topic should be as factual as possible, but I also think it should link to
opinions: Maybe we could have a standard "/Opinions" subpage (which differs from "/Talk" in being a
list of pointers to finished essays rather than an active discussion). Each page describing a poker
game, for example, could have a /Talk subpage where people describe their experiences with the game,
and an /Opinions subpage pointing to longer essays where various people express detailed opinions
about the game or how they would improve it.

I have a very strong disagreement with this one. Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia. The wikipedia
should write neutrally about opinions, but the wikipedia should not put forward opinions.
There is no need to shy away from controversial opinions -- but there is every reason to shy away
from asserting those opinions. --w:Jimbo Wales

I take this to bear out my point, that there's nothing wrong with the wikipedia noting what religions believe about human beings, as long as the wikipedia does not assert that those beliefs are true or false. --Goethean 19:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(after multiple edit conflicts)

Being open-source doesn't mean that there are no limits; the fact that it's an open-source encyclopædia, rather than an open-source catechism, or an open-source recipe book, is why the usual meaning of 'encyclopædia' is crucial.

In any case, I've given a number of reasons for thinking that the view upon which you're insisting is wrong; this is only one of them, yet you write as though it's my only reason. Why? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only view that I insist on is that the article acknowledge that other perspectives than the scientific one exist. Also these perspectives should be seen as seperate, rather than mere details or functions of the scientific perspective. --Goethean 19:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, you're lifting a single quote, which isn't helpful. Stating that we are bipedal primates does not count as putting forward an opinion. I have included a spiritual aspect in the proposed compromise. We also refer to culture, society, rituals, curiosity, self-consciousness; and religion, poetry, love, art all come under one of these categories. Remember: this is just the introduction we're talking about. We have to summarize. How about we add the second paragraph we had earlier, which referred to the views of the world's major religions? Would that work for you? SlimVirgin 19:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

The Jimbo Wales quotation is from this page: Wiki_is_not_paper --Goethean 22:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only true way to write with total neutrality is to write nothing at all. Of course, this would be pointless. Better to present multiple points of view than one as “factual” and another as “myth.” With labels like this we once again cross into twilight zone of non-neutrality.

So why not this;

“Human beings are classified by biologists as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man): a bipedal primate mammal belonging to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, and by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for abstract reasoning and articulate speech.

Behaviorally, human beings are defined by their use of language, their culture, with its organization in complex societies with groups and institutions for mutual support and assistance, and their development of complex technology. These behavioral differences have given rise to a myriad of cultures incorporating many forms of beliefs, myths, rituals, values, norms, and tools. Whether there is more to human beings than a body with a complex brain remains a matter of considerable controversy. See, for example, Evolution and Creationism.”

“Human beings are classified by theologians as spiritual beings created by and (often) in the image of a supreme entity. Many Judeo/Christian/Islamist practitioners believe that the supreme being (Jehovah, God, Allah) specifically created the earth and all of the plants and animals upon it for human’s free use in return for recognition of God and adherence to laws as defined by the Supreme Being.

Other religions believe that that humankind is another, yet higher form of animal Animism, was created and is ruled by multiple gods Polytheism, and one god (though not necessarily the Judeo/Christian/Islamist God) Monotheism.”

This does not add that much to the summary yet covers the religious aspects of "human." --Wjbean 20:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is an excellent summary. --Zappaz 20:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You'd probably have to say which theologians you were referring to, as not all theologians believe this. The sentence after that it is very POV, and would need references. This is not an article about religion and I'm finding it quite disturbing that some people can't separate these issues. It is as though I were to insist that art be elevated in the introduction, and proceeded to discuss the views of various (unnamed) artists. SlimVirgin 21:08, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

It downplays the Eastern religons a bit, but Wjbean's version is far better than any of the others so far offered. --Goethean 21:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The two added paragraphs are simply suggestions. Notice that they are not in the article itself. I know that the naming of some religions and excluding others is a problem. A Theologian, by definition, is a person who makes religion a subject of study so it's a relatively generic word. The definition does not include the name of any particular religion. Simply that a theologian is "One who is learned in theology."

I know that it's not an article about religion. The problem here is that quite a few people who inhabit this planet feel that human beings are of divine origin. My own opinion is that excluding a mention of these beliefs would violate NPOV. As I said before the only way to be truly neutral is to say nothing, which is pointless. The best compromise is to be inclusive.

I understand your dismay at religion being mentioned. I personally feel that religion has been at the root of many of the problems humans have endured over the millennia. But I also feel that not mentioning it at all would be harmful to the article since so many are believers.--Wjbean 15:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Wjbean. This issue raises the question as to whether popular opinion ought to hold sway in articles. I take your point: millions of people do believe in literal interpretations of, for example, the Christian Bible. But the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View policy has to be read in conjunction with Wikipedia:No Original Research, which states that we must refer to credible, published sources for our articles, and not to popular opinion. In this case, credible sources would be interpreted to mean scholars, and within this group, we need only refer to the majority and significant-minority views: tiny-minority views need not be included in articles according to the NPOV policy. If we agree that we need to cite the views of mainstream scholars for the introduction, that raises the question of which areas of scholarship we include, and how we determine what the majority within those areas believes. The views of the majority of biologists and anthropologists are probably easy enough to determine, and are basically the introduction as it now stands. But the views of theologians are trickier. I'm not convinced that the majority of theologians would agree that we are "spiritual beings created by and (often) in the image of a supreme entity." I don't know how we determine what the majority does believe, or even whether that question makes sense, as theologians work within different religious and academic traditions. I know that the theology lectures I attended at university were given by theologians who did not appear to believe in God (and one definitely did not, and said so quite clearly, even though he was an ordained minister), though they were perhaps not representative of the academic discipline as a whole. Perhaps Mel Etitis (who is a philosopher) could help out here: Mel, if we were to include a couple of sentences in the introduction about the views of most Judeo-Christian and Islamic theologians, regarding a description of "human," what would you say the best formulation would be, assuming the question makes any sense? SlimVirgin 15:58, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

But the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View policy has to be read in conjunction with Wikipedia:No Original Research, which states that we must refer to credible, published sources for our articles, and not to popular opinion. In this case, credible sources would be interpreted to mean scholars, and within this group, we need only refer to the majority and significant-minority views: tiny-minority views need not be included in articles according to the NPOV policy. If we agree that we need to cite the views of mainstream scholars for the introduction, that raises the question of which areas of scholarship we include, and how we determine what the majority within those areas believes. The views of the majority of biologists and anthropologists are probably easy enough to determine, and are basically the introduction as it now stands. --SV

I have emphasized your assumption. I don't see any reason why the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita, for example, should be excluded from your group of credible, published sources which have theorized about what human beings are. I don't see any support on the Wikipedia:No Original Research page for your belief that we must limit our sources to academic texts, and for limiting those who have a relevant opinion on what human beings are to academics or scientists.

Given the multiplicity and popularity of religions and worldviews in the world today, I would say that there is no consensus that human beings are nothing but highly developed primates. Therefore, I recommend that we follow these principles:

How to deal with Wikipedia entries about theories

For theories:

1. state the key concepts;
2. state the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", making clear which is which, and bearing in mind that extreme-minority theories or views need not be included.

--Goethean 22:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that Judeo/Christian/Islamist belief (all of which are centered on the Pentateuch) represent the majority of people who share religious belief on this planet. I'd be very interested to see what Mel Etitis has to say about this. But overall I think that if the summary can include spiritual belief right alongside scientific belief (and these are NOT mutually exclusive) we can put this particular contentious issue to bed.

Interesting! I looked up Pentateuch and found that Islam is not mentioned. It should be.--Wjbean 17:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• “I think it's safe to say that Judeo/Christian/Islamist belief (all of which are centered on the Pentateuch) represent the majority of people who share religious belief on this planet”. I'd say that that was a peciuliar view given the existence of Hinduism (“third largest religion with approximately 940 million followers worldwide”), Buddhism (“Estimates of the number of Buddhists vary between 230 and 500 million, with 350 million as the most commonly cited figure”), and countless smaller but still significant non-Abrahamic religions (see Major world religions). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well spotted. Sometimes people forget the true meaning of "majority". --Zappaz 02:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not living in that part of the world it was not difficult for me to exclude the Eastern religions. That's my excuse anyway. Still, I'm simply suggesting that since so many people believe in a divine orign of humans it would be damaging to the article to leave that out. Religious beliefs are nicely covered in the body of the article. I simply think that due to that coverage the summary should contain a brief statement to that effect. --Wjbean 14:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that saying that many people believe in a divine origin, is incorrect. A large majority of the population of Earth believes in some kind of supreme power, supreme energy, soul, love, God, whatever you want to call it. Not only today, but since humans had a way to put that in writing... --Zappaz 16:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz I was trying (hard) to word this in a palatable way. In truth more people on this planet believe in a divine origin than not. And though I'm not one of them, well the jury is still out on some aspects of my beliefs, I recognize the truth of your statement. This is why I feel reilgious belief should be included in the summary. It's only fair.

Mel Etitis As to Buddhism ("The teaching of Buddha that life is permeated with suffering caused by desire, that suffering ceases when desire ceases, and that enlightenment obtained through right conduct, wisdom, and meditation releases one from desire, suffering, and rebirth.") I'm not sure it really qualifies as a "religion." It's more a way of living or, as I see it, the first self administered pyschology for the masses. A belief system that helps us poor humans deal with each other and the world. Hinduism on the other hand, would be a religion.

Although I agree that the Buddha is more of a psychologist than a typical religious figure, most Buddhists seem to approach it similarly enough to religious followers that I think that its not terribly inaccurate to call Buddhism a religion. --Goethean 01:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Different versions of introduction

The different intro versions now have their own page for the purposes of clarity. See Talk:Human/draft SlimVirgin 22:14, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! Placing the different drafts of the introduction in their own area makes the issue easier to address. Please note that I'm not a "supporter" of the last version. I was simply trying to put forth a compromise that is respectful to all readers.

I completely understand why this is a contentious issue. As an atheist I lean heavily toward the scientific explanation. As a lifelong mediator I can clearly see how excluding divine origin is a problem. As an older human I no longer have the driving need to absolutely right about anything :o) --Wjbean 15:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL! I came to the conclusion some time ago that I'm rarely right about anything. In fact, it's one of the few things I'm fairly sure of. ;-) SlimVirgin 16:01, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I am also working on a version here --Goethean 00:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My vote is for Goetheans version not mine. It retains the original first paragraph (with slight modifiction) and includes (I really like this) "Either in opposition to, or complimentary to" and further expounds on various belief systems in a somewhat generic yet inclusive way. --Wjbean 21:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have been modifying my proposal in some respects on my userpage, by the way. Mostly grammatical improvements and trying to make the religion summaries more accurate. --Goethean 01:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hang on. I will be voting. I like what is going on.  :-) Tom Haws 18:35, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Human (scientific view) and Human (spiritual view)

The controversy about the introduction will never end. Some do want to treat the subject in a scientific way, like any other species, as an animal. Some do want to treat the subject in a spiritual way, like any other cultural artefact, as an non-animal - or better to say an an-animal, that is, an imal. To reiterate my point Human (scientific view) = Homo sapiens and of course Human (spiritual view) = Human being. Some already has written separate introductions for both of them. The compromise text might end up in Human (holistic view). Somebody might consider at this point to initiate a poll or a vote. Please do cast your ballots also on Talk:Bible. Gebruiker:Dedalus 20:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Hm? Is there a vote in progress? nevermind. --Goethean 22:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a POV fork. We don't do that. grendel|khan 17:51, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Separate articles on Homo sapiens and Human would not be inappropriate, but this idea was blocked by felonious monk & co. --Goethean 20:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Religious points of view

Popular opinion I

I'm starting a new heading, because the above ones are becoming unwieldy.

Goethean, if you believe that the widespread popularity of religion means that there should be a religious definition of humanity in the opening paragraph, why aren't you out arguing for changes in pages like universe to say that "many people believe that the Universe was created by an all-powerful, unknowable higher power", or age of the universe to say that "many people believe that the universe is less than ten thousand years old". Or woman to say that "many people believe that women were created as lesser beings, with rights and abilities far less than their male counterparts". Where does it end?

Why is this page special? Why should this page be different from all other pages? grendel|khan 17:57, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

grendel, your proposals are reasonable (though I am certain you meant them to be absurd). In general, as you know, the NPOV policy requires that we represent all significant points of view fairly, and that we characterize disputes rather than engaging in them. It would perfectly acceptable and good, and make Wikipedia all the more an extraordinary bias-free zone, if all articles presented all controversies fairly. But in practice we lack the time and attention to do anything but put the basic established traditional perspective in most articles. This article simply seems to be a fundamental fulcrum of concern, and so it is receiving the full NPOV microscopic care. I would like to start a heading called Word ownership where we can talk more about this. Perhaps I will later. But the short answer is that this article isn't special, it's just lucky. Tom Haws 19:46, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Tom. But I think that the number of young earth creationists is much, much smaller than the number of people who think that humans are spiritual beings (I'm not sure how many muslims are young earthers). Also, the term "universe" actually is a scientific concept (as mel etitis was contending last week regarding "human"). Earlier conceptions could easily go under cosmos. Also (in my opinion), the theory of evolution has more evidentiary support than does the idea that humans are nothing more than physical beings. But I don't expect anyone to agree with me. --Goethean 20:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But 'universe' and 'cosmos' are used interchangeably in science and philosophy (the science is cosmology, after all). Incidentally, I've still seen no adequate explanation of what's meant by 'spiritual'. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've still seen no adequate explanation of what's meant by 'spiritual'

What's your point? The word isn't used in my proposal. --Goethean 21:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

'Spiritual' is a weasel word for 'religious'. I did indeed intend for my suggestions to sound ridiculous, but perhaps we need to edit Jew to include "Some people consider Jews to be vicious parasites who manipulate world finance and eat Arab babies". I'm sure that a significant proportion of the world will agree with that statement, so what's your argument against including it? Point is, we have an article on anti-Semitism which describes that widespread opinion. We also have an article on religion which the general attitude that you want to put atop this page. (I've just realized that I've been assuming that you're a Christian, but I have no reason to. I wonder why I did that.) Just as the baby-eating perspective is not central to the meaning of Jew, the religious perspective is not central to the meaning of human. It's a cultural artifact, and a very important one. But it does not make us human. grendel|khan 21:47, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

I don't think that there are a billion anti-semites in the world, whereas religous people outnumber non-religious by over 6 to 1.

'Spiritual' is a weasel word for 'religious'. Apart from being untrue and offensive, that's irrelevant as I have been upfront that I want to add religious content to this article. --Goethean 22:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

“I don't think that there are a billion anti-semites in the world” If you mean the U.S. billion, then I'd say you're almost certainly wrong; if you mean the U.K. billion, then maybe — though I'm not sure.

“religous people outnumber non-religious by over 6 to 1.” Your evidence for this odd claim? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

adherents.com (You may want to read about their methodology before you dismiss it.) --Goethean 22:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the spiritual/religious question: You know, you're right. I've seen "spiritual" used as a synonym for "religious" before, and I made an assumption. It was wrong of me to do so, and I apologize for the cheap shot. grendel|khan 19:02, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

I've read through it quickly. It isn't, however, about 'religious people': “The adherent counts presented in the list above are estimates of the number of people who have at least a minimal level of self-identification as adherents of the religion.” The churches in this country are filled with people who count themselves CofE, but who have little or no religious belief — it's a social matter (in villages like mine, it's pretty well the only social centre of any sgnificance). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But the perspective is important as Goethean points out. Doing the very best that any of us can, we come up with the following figures. If you can improve them, go ahead, but personally I did not find a reference that categorized the world's population according to "belief".

• 1/6 (1 billion) of the world adhers to Catholicism
• 1/3 (2 billion) of the world adheres to Christianity
• The majority of the world (3.3 billion) adheres to monotheistic religion
• 2/3 of the world adheres to either Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism

The above merely shows that the idea (or word ownership) that humans are definitively partly spiritual beings is the dominant perspective, and not a marginal one. And for this article, it is important to disclose to the reader that a major portion of the world believes there is a significant spiritual aspect to the definition of humans. After all, the readers are humans, and they all "know" what they are. FeloniousMonk "knows" he and I are an apes, and I "know" he and I are children of God. Why make the article offensive to either one? Tom Haws 19:35, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

You misrepresent the qualitative differences in the two statements and play fast and loose semantically with the word "know" here. What you're really saying is that I know we are apes, and that you believe that you and I are children of God. The difference being that the former belief enjoys a surfeit of evidence and support whereas the latter is a matter of belief and arbitrary. The fact that the first is a statement of fact whereas the latter is a statement of faith is what needs to be recognized in the article.--FeloniousMonk 08:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I still say that those billions you cite are irrelevant to this discussion. Appealing to popularity is a dangerous road to go down. Are you going to update same-sex marriage to point out that such unions are against the designs of nature and of your God? The vast majority of humanity agrees with that opinion.

Popular opinion II

The idea that women are subhuman is the dominant perspective, and not a marginal one. Are you going to update woman to reflect that? If we put it to a vote, all the Jews'd be tossed into the sea. Will you update Jew to reflect that? I'm trying to ask for some consistency here, and you keep appealing to popular opinion in an inconsistent way which I'm beginning to think is disingenuous. Wikipedia is not a democracy.

And you did just use "spiritual" as a way to say "religious" without invoking religion directly. grendel|khan 22:23, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

But it was I that denied using the term. I'm a Liberal Quaker and Tom's a Mormon, if it helps you us to keep us straight. --Goethean 00:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tom, Grendel makes a very good point. Are you willing to edit the article on Woman, so that the introduction says many or most of the world's men believe women are inferior or dangerous and should be kept in some form of subjugation? Are you prepared to say in the introduction of Gay that most human beings believe gay marriage is absurd or wicked? If you believe there is a difference in kind between these examples and this one, the onus is on you to say what that difference is. SlimVirgin 22:51, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

No, the onus is on you to tell us why an accurate description of the state of the world is unacceptable, inappropriate, or impossible for wikipedia. --Goethean 23:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But that is precisely Grendel's point. Why is it only in this article's introduction that popular opinion must hold sway? Please do address his/her point rather than lobbying the question back. This has been the problem with this talk page for weeks: very few people come up with actual arguments, and when they do, the other side simply ignores them. SlimVirgin 23:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Are you prepared to say in the introduction of Gay that most human beings believe gay marriage is absurd or wicked?

The gay article doesn't mention marriage at all, so I don't see why it should have to be changed. --Goethean 00:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This has been the problem with this talk page for weeks

The problem with this talk page is that the opponents of the religious perspective intend to stall indefinitely while an obviously POV article remains on the main page. This is wrong. Tom has already answered this argument above. If it can be documented that a large portion of the world's population believe that women are inferor, then that fact should be mentioned in the article on women. Reporting the existence of that opinion does not entail condoning or asserting that opinion, as my opponents repeatedly imply when they point out that "wikipedia is not a democracy" (a wholly irrelevant point), etc. --Goethean 00:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No; SlimVirgin, I, and others are consistent in our approach to all these articles. The claim is that you're not (and it's a pretty strong claim). There's therefore nothing for us to explain; you, on the other hand, need to explain why you're not really inconsistent. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then Goethean, please be consistent and go and add that information to the introduction of Woman: not to the article, but to the introduction. You can explain on the talk page there that you're not condoning the attitudes, but simply reporting them, then count the seconds until the screaming starts. And to the introduction of Same-sex marriage, please go and add the views of the majority of people around the world that same-sex marriage is either silly or sinful. You could add that Muslims are a bunch of terrorists; that Scottish people are mean with money; that the Irish drink too much; that Jews are trying to take over the world. But if you are not prepared to add popular opinion to the introductions of other articles, then you ought to admit your inconsistency and stop trying to do it here; or else you have to show how your position is not in fact internally inconsistent (argue it; not simply assert it). I repeat: whenever anyone has put forward an argument, as opposed to an assertion, you have been unwilling or unable to address it. SlimVirgin 00:46, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Arent' we missing the point completely? Let's face it, folks, a summary of a definition of "human" that does not include elements beyond the mere physical will be surely incomplete. The discussion should be focused on "what" to include, not "if" to include. I can understand the secular views, but even within secular views there are aspects of "human" that go beyond what phylus, class, order, family, genus, and species we found ourselve to belong.--Zappaz 05:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Tom Haws 18:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

That's good to know that you understand the secular views. But what's there not to understand? What you call here "secular views" is but man's own attempt to identify himself within reality by using the methods of science. Science is limited to studying reality. From the successful application of it comes knowledge. Hence, knowledge is the mental grasp of the facts of reality. It is not just an awareness of reality, but an understanding of it. It is a successfully formed conclusion about some aspect of reality.

Wikipedia requires of us that article topic definitions/intros summarize the major points of the article and that they be factual. Since factual means in line with reality, let's look at the facts:

• Scientists give humans a taxonomic hierarchical classification. -Fact.
• That some people believe man is a spiritual being. -Fact.
• That man is a spirituality being. -Not a fact.
• That spirituality is anything other than a mental construct. -Not a Fact.

So, all we can in all fairness and with any intellectual honesty say in the definition/intro is that humans are behaviorally distinct from all other animals, that the natural sciences classify human beings as bipedal primates, and that some people chose to believe that man is a spiritual being.--FeloniousMonk 08:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wrong.

1. Wikipedia policy suggests that the leading section should summarize the points made in the article. See Wikipedia:Lead section.
2. Within NPOV, the only "facts" are the recordings of what the proponents of the various POVs say. See NPOV#The_original_formulation_of_NPOV.
3. Consequently, within NPOV factual never means "in line with reality" -- unless reality is identical to the totality of what the proponents of the various POVs say. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.
4. So, all we can in all fairness and NPOV and with any intellectual honesty say in the definition/intro is that humans have been defined variously as biological, spiritual, and cultural creatures.
5. That you think the scientists are right is only your personal research. See Wikipedia:Original research.
6. People cannot choose what they are; people are what they are. And whoever believes what is merely a matter of reporting a poll--which should be cited if put into any legitimate Wikipedia page. ---Rednblu | Talk 09:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So, taking your points above one-at-a-time:

1. You're either mistaken or intentionally misstating nature of Wikipedia:Lead section- it's not a policy, but a style guide and a how to. Furthermore, I suggest you reread Wikipedia:Lead section again and take particular note of this passage: "The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic." Since not one other credible, neutral encyclopedia describes or defines 'human' in spiritual terms in its introductory definition what you propose then is a completely nonstandard definition of the topic. That in defiance of the very injunction of the "policy" you cite. Needless to say that is a double standard. Perhaps you've not read the other relevant sections of the style guide, especially the part that states: "If different people have different opinions about your topic, characterize that debate from the Neutral point of view." Nowhere does it say that particularly popular POVs get to be treated as fact.
2. Here you're confusing POVs with facts. In epistemology a fact is something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed. That people have POVs is a fact, but not all POVs are founded on facts. Facts are easily corroborated, whereas opinion (POV) is much less so. Were that not the case, we wouldn't be having this debate, as we'd all be in agreement. Luckily for your POV once again the wikipedia How to write a great article guideline provides for it to be aired, as attributed POV: "If different people have different opinions about your topic, characterize that debate from the Neutral point of view." So POVs that do not enjoy the benefit of being easily corroborated as fact are to represented by attributing the POV's notions to those that hold it.
3. Sorry, but your point here is a special pleading. Any meaningful, semantically precise definition of 'factual' will always mean of the nature of fact; real, or of or containing facts. Citing Wikipedia:Verifiability was a complete red herring- that particular 'semi-policy' is about fact checking not how to epistemologically identify facts.
4. Hmm, OK, then cite your sources. Again, I challenge you or anyone else to cite one other credible, neutral encyclopedia that describes or defines 'human' in spiritual terms in its introductory definition. I've personally read the articles for 'human' in every encyclopedia in both libraries at UC Berkeley and there are no encyclopedias that do so. Additionally, in the social sciences spirituality is considered part of a person's cultural provenance, not separate from it. By insisting that it is separate, you wrongly imply that spirituality exists independently of those who hold those beliefs, something for which there is no proof.
5. That's a straw man. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that scientists are right. What I have been saying is that we are required to write an objective and accurate article, and to that end all metaphysical notions of being human are not founded on fact, and as such must be attributed and must not presented as being independent entities. But it's no coincidence that scientists, being tied by their eponymous method to a rational epistemology, also insist on the same point. They have little trouble recognizing that A = A, but balk at A = A, and B, and C... just I have here. As would any editor who's goal is to present a valid representation of reality, which by definition requires identifying arbitrary ideas as such. See: Epistemology,justified true belief
6. Um, that sounds a lot like determinism, another misbegotten metaphysical can of worms, though it does hide behind a grain of truth, which is that our brains and minds conform to the Law of Identity, meaning the results of our minds are consistent with their nature.

--FeloniousMonk 07:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Popular opinion III

SlimVirgin, I will quote myself. "It would perfectly acceptable and good, and make Wikipedia all the more an extraordinary bias-free zone, if all articles presented all controversies fairly. But in practice we lack the time and attention to do anything but put the basic established traditional perspective in most articles. This article simply seems to be a fundamental fulcrum of concern, and so it is receiving the full NPOV microscopic care." And I will point out that you are presenting a straw man with the following sentence: "You could add that Muslims are a bunch of terrorists; that Scottish people are mean with money; that the Irish drink too much; that Jews are trying to take over the world." What you should have said was that we might "add that P-ists say Muslims are a bunch of terrorists; that Q-ists say Scottish people are mean with money; that R-ists say the Irish drink too much; that T-ists say Jews are trying to take over the world." The only pertinent sifting question is, "Is it a significant point of view?" In other words, "does it make a difference in the world?" And for all the examples you cite, the answer is "Yes". The world is a different place because of those P-ists, Q-ists, R-ists, and T-ists, and only Wikipedia has the energy and peer review necessary to present the whole picture in a fully non-biased way. Until we catch this vision, we have not fully appreciated Wikipedia. When I come to Wikipedia as a reader (not an editor), I fully believe I will get here the fullest, most unbiased picture available in the whole world. Anything less is a failure to deliver on the promise. Tom Haws 18:42, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Amen. (pun not intended) --Zappaz 21:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I repeat: Tom, please go and add that information to the introduction of these articles. I take your point that time is limited (though not so limited, clearly, that you have no time to debate here for weeks), so choose one of these articles and insert popular opinion; for example, go and add to the introduction of Woman that a substantial number of people in the world believe women to be inferior to men, sexually dangerous, less intelligent, and irrational, and that therefore women need to be controlled in some way for their own safety and for the stability of society. Add it to the introduction, mind you, as you're trying to do here. When you have tested your introduction-must-reflect-popular-opinion theory elsewhere, then I'll have more respect for your position here. Until then, as I see it, you've chosen this article as a soft target. SlimVirgin 14:46, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Presenting controversies fairly? Of course, no one here is arguing against that. But spirituality should not be presented as equivalent to fact or as a fact that exists independently. A universal characteristic of all metaphysical notions is that they are arbitrary, meaning without any basis in reality. In other words they are not fact. Of course that people hold them is a fact, and without doubt should be presented in the article as such as part of airing the controversy fairly. That would be part of an attribution like "Theologists believe..." or "The faithful claim...".--FeloniousMonk 08:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, no... The claim about metaphysics is just wrong, I'm afraid; metaphysical notion aren't arbitrary, and don't lack a basis in reality (I assume that you've not read any philosophy — unless you're stuck in the early twentieth century with the logical positivists — and note that people like Ayer and Popper were dualists). Moreover, it's just as much a metaphysical claim that there's nothing bu the physical as it is that there's something more than the physical. The distinction is more complex and less back and white than that. I don't propose to rehearse the arguments fully (I've gone into detail above, and for the most part it's been wasted, as people like Rednblu keep pounding away at the same point regardless); suffice it to say that there are good grounds (experiential and rational) for holding that persons are more than just physical — but that has nothing to do with religion or 'spirituality' (whatever that means), or anything that Rednblu and others want to cram into the summary.

As a dualist, I hold that (as a natural fact about the universe) there are at least two sorts of thing: the mental and the physical. That doesn't even belong in the summary either, because it's at best peripheral to the biological notion of human, concerning the metaphysical notion of person (someone who lacks consciousness and is utterly reliant on life-support machines is still human).

It doesn't help, though, to oppose one extreme by presenting the other extreme. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Despite probably being the one here most often insisting on semantical precision in others, you've caught me using 'metaphysical notions' euphemistically here. I was using to in place of 'faith' or 'religion belief' in an effort to avoid using charged terms. The reason and justification for the use of euphemisms should be obvious- just last week I was accused of bashing other's POVs for merely identifying how they are quantified in the social sciences. On the subject of my education in philosophy, I had a few years studying it at university, though it was not my major. I strongly prefer rationality and reason over emotional or revealed knowledge, and so I generally self-identify as a rationalist.--FeloniousMonk 07:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree heartilly w Tom Haws, but I also think this discussion is a complete waste of time. A decent % of the participants seem like they'd enjoy debating atheism / secular humanism more than discussing an article on humanity. Religion/spirituality has always been an aspect of humanity, in case anyone is confused. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Simply repeating the claim that's disputed isn't terribly helpful; nor is the cheap debating trick of painting your opponents as avoiding the real issue, which not only ignores the fact that everyone in this debate is doing the same thing, but begs the question. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where is anyone "debating atheism/secular humanism"? Please identify specifically where this is being done. I think you're off-base on this.--FeloniousMonk 07:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Study a cave painting, read a book, or take a walk sometime. I think you'll discover that religion is part of humanity. The real issue is writing an encyclopedia. The question begged is why your endlessly debating the obvious instead. The easy answer would be obstructionism, but their are others, of course. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Cave paintings have to be interpreted, usually by people who take it for granted that humans have always had religious beliefs.
2. I'll pass over the silliness about reading books and taking walks.
3. Even if human beings had always and universally been religious, that wouldn't mean that it was a simple fact that the notion 'human' had any religious aspect. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow; that doesn't mean that I should be defined as a sun-will-rise-tomorrow-believer.
4. Again, the cheap debating trick of pretending that a person's arguments can't be the real reason for his position isn't worthy of a response. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mel, if you can refer me to any texts you'd recommend about the form of dualism you support, I'd be very interested in reading them. SlimVirgin 15:00, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

These represent views with which I'm more or less in sympathy, though neither is identical with what I hold myself:

1. Foster, John. 1991: The Immaterial Self: A Defence of the Cartesian Dualist Conception of the Mind (London: Routledge)
2. Hart, W.D. 1971: The Engines of the Soul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Descartes also comes close (and I know of no adequate response to his argument (in Meditations VI) for a real distinction between mind and body).

If I can think of anything else, I'll leave details on your Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you speak as though any one of us could simply walk up to Woman and throw in a meaningful "popular" idea, and that I don't do so for disingenuous reasons. The truth is I don't fancy myself as having anything valuable to add to any of the articles you mentioned. I could study up and probably add something useful (and, yes, the notions about women you mentioned are significant for a cursory mention in an intro, "through much of history, women have been widely regarded as P, which is modernly distateful to Q."), but I really have not the interest. But I maintain it could and ideally eventually should be done. Wikipedia isn't your great-grandmother's encyclopedia. It is something new, different, and better. It aspires to be and has the potential to be truly unbiased. Tom Haws 19:34, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

My great-grandmother's encyclopedia probably contained frequent reference to some of the ideas that might still be labeled popular opinion, and which I'd hope Wikipedia could rise above. Tom, I can only urge you to read Wikipedia's policies as a whole. If you concentrate on NPOV in isolation, you'll get a false impression. Read it in conjunction with Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and you should probably also read some arbcom cases where precedents are being established e.g. that advocacy is not allowed. As I see it here, you are not defending NPOV; you are acting as an advocate for a very particular POV. Sticking to policy is always the best way to solve disputes, so if any religious perspective is to be included in the intro, we need an authoritative, scholarly reference from you, giving a view of "human" that would meet your requirement for including a spiritual component, while satisfying the rest of us that the introduction will reflect majority and significant-minority views of scholars, and not popular opinion in general, which leads to the absurdities we've discussed above.

Regarding Woman, you wouldn't have to read up. You probably have an excellent idea of what popular opinion worldwide is regarding equal rights for women, and I'm sure you would describe it well. If you really are arguing that this view would be appropriate for the introduction, even if attributed, then I suggest you're working at odds with the views of the vast majority of Wikipedians.

I'd also like to add that these talk pages are not intended for endless discussion, but for discussion directed toward content. Some editors here seem happy for this talk to go on forever, and I feel that is a misuse of this page. SlimVirgin 22:07, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

<<Tom, I can only urge you to read Wikipedia's policies as a whole. If you concentrate on NPOV in isolation, you'll get a false impression. Read it in conjunction with Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and you should probably also read some arbcom cases where precedents are being established e.g. that advocacy is not allowed.>>

• The above comment manifests two noxious elements that recur in Wikipedia: 1) veiled threats and 2) misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Possibly, :)) I am wrong. So momentarily I give you the benefit of the doubt and ask, "What specific three arbcom cases are you talking about?" If you can give us three actual arbcom cases that even come close to implying what you hope us to conclude from your inserting the phrase "arbcom cases" into this discussion, then we can talk about whether you know anything whereof you speak. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you wouldn't try to patronize me. I've left an example of a relevant ruling on Zappaz's talk page. I don't know which three cases you're talking about; I didn't mention three cases. I also don't know what veiled threat you're talking about. I don't make veiled threats. SlimVirgin 00:25, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I knew my Jesuit education would one day pay off and today is that day. Luke 6:42 seems to be the right response to this sort of nonsense. John 8:7 resonates well here too. Even if what you allege here is true, it's no more noxious than the well-documented history of some here. The ice is too thin on the high road to allow you to pass.--FeloniousMonk 08:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not about a "religious" POV

The premise of this discussion is a bit off, IMO. We are not talking about a religious POV, but the fact that the summary of an article on Human beings, cannot include biological information only. Is it not that a summary of an article requires, well, a summary of the article, with the main points as developed further down? If we move away from a contentious religious vs. secular debate, I am sure we can have a summary that we can all be proud of both as editors, and as human beings. In pursuing NPOV, a would second SlimVirgin proposal to refrain from opinion and provide a couple of good citations of "human beings more than just animals with complex brains", that we could place on the summary alongside the biological definitions. --Zappaz 01:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, note that the last sentence in the summary ...

• Whether there is more to human beings than a body with a complex brain remains a matter of considerable controversy.

... is a statement that does neither honor history, nor reality. Considerable controversy is simple a very poor choice of words. It would be more appropriate to say:

• Since history started being recorded to this date, human beings have pondered about the meaning of life, the existence of a supreme being, and their place in the universe."

--Zappaz 01:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see this at all, largely because it strikes me as being very vague. First, Why does the sentence fail to 'honour' history & reality? Secondly, in what way is the existing choice of words poor? thirdly, your proposed alternative, aside from its slightly purple use of 'ponder', has nothing to do with what a human being is, and instead talks in a portentous way about what some of them have thought about. In fact, of course, precious few human beings have 'pondered' about most of those things, at least not in any sustained way. They've either swallowed what religions have told them, or have simply got on with everyday life with no thought for all that stuff. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It fails to honor history and reality, becuse the search for meaning is an integral part of being human as reflected in narratives from every culture and civilization. Maybe my choice of words was "purple". I wanted to make a point of the difference on tone, between "considerably controversial" to something that addresses the issue more widely. --Zappaz 16:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Metaphysics

There ought to be a section on metaphysics and philosophy in an article on humanity. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Metaphysics being a part of philosophy, the section would be on philosophy with a subsection on metaphysics. Both would likely fall in the existing Culture section.--FeloniousMonk 07:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure, whichever. Do you dispute that religious would be a necessary componant as well? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The philosophy of religion would be a subsection of philosophy alongside metaphysics. Religious philosophy used to be a topic within metaphysics but has somewhat recently moved into its own separate subheading of philosophy, the philosophy of religion.--FeloniousMonk 09:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Off the cuff, I see no objection to that. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But we don't include a section on philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, or whatever) in every article on a subject discussed by philosophy; there are separate articles on those subjects. A link to a relevant article would be enough, surely. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obviously not. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't obvious. You've made no case for it, and you're playing your usual little trick of ignoring my arguments and questions (despite your frequent reminders to others of Wikipedia:Wikiquette). Why, then, should there be a separate section on metaphysics in this article when there isn't one in other articles? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Facts about humans

The purpose of this section is to clarify some points that may have been troublesome as underlying confusion here between common knowledge facts and facts of attribution. For the purpose of this section, a fact is an assertion that is not known to be disputed by any otherwise reasonable/rational (?) person.

Feel free to edit this section without signing your edits. (Started by Tom.)

Common knowledge facts

• Humans are living beings.
• Humans are inhabitants of earth.
• Humans are the only beings on earth that build fires.
• Humans are the only beings on earth that wear clothing.
• Humans are the only beings on earth that read and write.
• Humans are the only beings on earth that devise machines [is this a fact?].
• Human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimpanzees and bonobos.
• Humans are not the only beings to exhibit signs of self-consciousness; that is, awareness of "I".
• Humans are not the only beings to exhibit signs of an emotional life.
• Humans are not the only beings capable of abstract reasoning.
• Humans are not the only beings capable of language use.
• Humans are not the only beings who live in complex societies.
• Humans are not the only beings who engage in tool use.
• Humans are not the only beings who are territorial and who engage in wars.
• Humans are not the only beings who may form lifelong, monogamous relationships.
• Humans are not the only beings who carefully tend to their young.
• Humans are the only beings known to have wiped out other species.

Attribution facts

• Biologists classify humans (the human body?) as the bipedal mammal Homo sapiens, a species of great ape.
• Non-secular individuals and groups define humans using concepts such as soul or spirit, free will, and divinity.

Careful, free will and even the vernacular 'spirit' are not solely the province of religious people. Neurophyre 18:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rednblu

It seems there is a problem regarding the Rednblu user account. So as not to clutter up this page, details are at Talk:Human/Rednblu. SlimVirgin 19:00, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)