Talk:Atheism

Number of atheists in Japan

In the beginning of this article it reads that 65% of people in Japan describe them self as atheists. But in the article religion in Japan it reads that only up to 16% are possibly atheist. I don't know where the CIA World Factbook have their numbers from, or where P. Zuckerman have his numbers from. Pyramide (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the statistics on this page seem sketchy at best. I'd say it's safe to assume that P. Zuckerman's surveys are largely biased and based on a sample size smaller than my thumb. I find it hard to believe that Sweden has an 85% population of atheists. CIA World Fact book does not support this argument, stating "Lutheran 87%, other (includes Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist) 13%". This doesn't leave any room for atheist, agnostics and non-believers ... so who can you trust really? --99.236.27.71 (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the best we can do for the moment is to cite more than one source, to acknowledge that any single source may be inaccurate. Some of the refs at religion in Japan are dead links, but I've added one active one to this page, to hopefully serve as a counterweight to Zuckerman. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be removed. I teach in Japan and often discuss religion with students of all ages. Many will say Japanese are not religious but then turn around and say they visit temples/shrines, pray and believe in gods/spirits. The Zuckerman data is fundamentally flawed, misrepresentative and agree probably guilty of cultural bias. I'm an atheist but that doesn't mean I can just ignore false claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.26.69 (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

60.47.26.69|60.47.26.69, I do not doubt your observations in your classroom, but they do not qualify as a reliable source (and would not be representative of all of Japan, even if they were published in a reliable source). Zuckerman's surveys, since they were published in a peer-reviewed academic source, do qualify as a reliable source, and so cannot be dismissed based on anyone's personal observations. I'm not sure where you're getting the cultural bias idea. Are you accusing Zuckerman of falsifying data because he is biased against the Japanese? I see no evidence of this.

Pyramide, take a closer look at what the source and the WP article say. They say that up to 65% of the Japanese describe themselves as atheists or agnostics or non-believers. There is no claim that all 65% call themselves atheists. I do not see any data in the US State Department report that directly contradict Zuckerman's findings. While religious identifications are nearly twice the population of Japan (due in part to individuals claiming more than one religious identity), this can be consistent with many of these same people identifying themselves as nonbelievers, etc. (Also, those figures are based on self-reports of religious organizations, which are notorious for over-reporting their number.) One may believe in spirits or ancestor worship and still not believe in a supreme being. Many Buddhists and Shintoists may thus also be counted as atheists, agnostics or non-believers. One may be religious and a nontheist (as an atheist Unitarian Universalist, I count myself among such people). Furthermore, participation in cultural or ritual practices may or may not indicate sincere acceptance of the religious beliefs with which they are associated. Does my participation in many of the traditions of Halloween, Thanksgiving or Christmas make me a theist or Christian? Of course not, as these are deeply-ingrained cultural practices that invite participation even of those who do not believe that spirits exist, or that there is a God to thank, or that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. I suspect a similar thing is going on with Japanese citizens who observe Shinto and/or Buddhist rituals and holidays, yet who nonetheless indentify themselves as atheists, agnostics or non-believers. Nick Graves (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To all: since we cannot cite OR, we have to work with the cites we've got. I think the current treatment on the page is the best we can do for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I would like to explain my thinking about the wording of the footnote with the State Dept. data. I originally wrote the footnote, describing the data there as possibly contradicting the numbers from Zuckerman, per the talk just above. Nick then correctly pointed out that the apparent discrepancy is explained by respondents identifying themselves with multiple categories, and I agree with that. We then have had differing opinions about how to explain that point; see diff and diff. I would like to explain my reasoning about those latter edits. This is a footnote to text in the lead that says "Up to 65% of Japanese describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-believers." The version that I have been rejecting says in the footnote that "many Shintoists also consider themselves Buddhist." I think that a reader making a natural reading of the page would not find it obvious what Shintoists also considering themselves Buddhists would have to do with that, unless it is explained. In contrast, the wording I suggest (which can, perhaps, be improved upon) relates the information in the footnote to the subject of the main text (non-believers), and explains the relevance (numbers adding up to more than 100%). I sincerely think that makes the point clearer. Otherwise, we are asking the reader to make an inductive leap to understand what that footnote is there for. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I did my best to spell out the challenge of these two data sets. I'm not convinced this does not get into the realm of original research. See what you think. Nick Graves (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I agree with the changes you made to the footnote, although I also am concerned that this is crossing the line into OR. (If we do decide it's OR, I'm afraid the solution may be to go back to what I originally tried, which is to cite the State Dept. data as data "different than" (or something like that) Zuckerman's, but not to make any attempt to reconcile the two sets of data as not contradicting one another. The fact is, the way you have reconciled the data, in this talk and on the page, is your OR, even if it is obviously correct.) The one thing I disagree with is the way you changed the main text (as opposed to the footnote) to say that "at least" that percent (greater than or equal to), where it previously said "up to" (less than or equal to). That is clearly unsourced OR, and I'm going to change it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. The "at least 64%" figure is directly from Zuckerman, who gives a range of 64-65% of Japanese identifying as atheist, agnostic or non-believing. It is no more original research than the statement that "up to 65%" so identify. Coming to conclusions based on simple arithmetic (which is what I did) is not original research, as it does not require specialist knowledge. My concern about original research was due to the complexities of survey error and statistical interpretation, which indefinitely reduce the certainty with which we can draw conclusions (even those derived from simple arithmetic) through comparison of the two data sets. Given these challenges, the conclusions I drew cannot be stated with certainty, at least not to any degree that we are equipped to determine. I'll take a look at how you changed things and see if it reads better. Nick Graves (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the footnote. See what you think. Nick Graves (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I think this is much better. I further tweaked the footnote, but in a pretty minor way. About that 64/65 thing, it's fine since it's based on the source. I was just assuming that the previously standing wording had reflected the source, but no problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The Zuckerman figure is for a broad category of atheist/agnostic/non-believer in God, and this isn't the same thing as 'atheist' is it is classically understood in the west. There are many people who don't believe in God, but who (for example in east asia) believe in other supernatural things. They would qualify as non-believers in God because they don't believe in God, but I don't think that people would put them into the same category as atheists. The same is true of Europe. Look up the eurobarometer polls (go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_europe) for religious belief in Europe, because they differentiated between people who didn't believe in God but still thought there could be some sort of supernatural higher existence and those who neither believed in God nor some other supernatural thing... and the figures are vastly different from Zuckerman's broad category of 'atheist/agnostic/non-believer in God'. Use the Eurobarometer poll instead of Zuckerman's figures for Europe, and find more restricted statistics for Japan, or else just don't mention it. God Bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.99.178 (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

"Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited"

Is the above really true? Whilst there may still be some people who, for their own reasons, want to promote the notion that atheism is a 'belief', surely most people nowadays understand it to be a 'lack of belief'.

Two other areas I feel need covering under 'Etymology' are; some reference to the fact that the word 'atheism' is virtually unique, there being no comparable word, for example, to describe someone who doesn't believe in fairies, etc.

And, some explanation on why the initial letter in atheism is not capitalised in normal use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obscurasky (talk • contribs) 07:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"some explanation on why the initial letter in atheism is not capitalised in normal use". Is this really necessary? Ilkali (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty common to see the word 'atheism/atheist' wrongly capitalised. Many people don't understand why 'Christian' (for example) has a capital C, yet 'atheism' doesn't have its initial letter capitialised. An explanation of this could also help promote a more accurate understanding of the word's definition; where readers don't understand that 'atheism' isn't a proper noun.Obscurasky (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting to claim both that "most people ... understand it to be a 'lack of belief'" and that "Many people don't understand why ... 'atheism' doesn't have its initial letter capitalised." Anyone who understands the former shouldn't even ask the latter question. Powers ^T 14:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If I've learned anything in my time here, it's that nothing good ever comes from assuming people can put two and two together. As an IT guy, MOST of the people I come into contact with can't.

"I tripped and launched 20 oz. of hot coffee directly into the main server rack. By the way, our network is down, I don't know why." --King ♣ Talk 15:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As a psychologist I would say that people would link the hot coffee to the server being down, even after an unobserved massive shortcircuit occurred just before the coffee incident. Adding causality where it does NOT occur is a bigger problem in mankind then ignoring causalities that don't exist .... Anyway this is besides the point ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The human habit of seeing causation where there is none is the reason there's a WORD for atheism. --King ♣ Talk 21:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seven problems with this sentence. First of all, "recent" surely does not extend back a quarter of a century to 1984, when one of the cited references was written. Secondly, it contradicts wikipedia's article on weak and strong atheism, where Smith (1979) is cited, as an even earlier proponent of this definition.. Thirdly, it is empirically false, because atheists were defining atheism as "absence of belief" in the nineteenth century. Fourthly, the sentence doesn't belong in the etymology section. Fifthly, the citations do not support the POV assertion: where is the citation of the claim that this is a) a redefinition, b) recent, or c) not much used in the mainstream? Sixthly, if the claim is not substantiated by direct citation, then it is Original Research, specifically synthesis. Seventhly, "certain philosophical circles" is weasel words. I think it should be deleted or properly sourced --Dannyno (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

Furthermore, the cited Flew book, which I now have in front of me, is the US edition of The Presumption of Atheism, first published in 1976. In fact the essay with that title, to which the citation presumably refers, was first published in 1972. Recent? The Austin Cline piece is similarly misrepresented, as it is his thesis that the weak/negative definition is a traditional one, not an new one. Nor does the Michael Martin reference actually claim that the weak/negative defintion is new, though it does suggest the stronger/positive atheism is the one more commonly understood. Conclusion: all three references are being misrepresented and mis-cited. --Dannyno (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and get rid of it. Here is the text, in case anyone wants to discuss:

Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited.

--Dannyno (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the other two points I raised? Obscurasky (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation - not encyclopedic. "Unique"? Probably not encyclopedic or significant whatsoever. It might interest you, but unless it's an issue in the literature it shouldn't go in. --Dannyno (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)