User:Aziraphale/Arbitration

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, user:Conservative, user:Ungtss, and anybody who has followed a link or a Special:Recentchanges listing to this page,

So, let me tell you how I think this is going to go:

- I'm going to try and keep this as narrow as possible (think Sandra Day O'Connor). I'm not a Sysop, I'm not out to set some kind of broad policy. We're going to figure out where the miscommunication is and then I'm going to do my best to translate it for Andy's purposes.

- This isn't going to take long. I'm at work right now so I can't focus TOO much on it, but I've been lurking the Talk:Atheism page and have followed the conversation, so I don't need a lot of time to catch up.

- I'll get my understanding tightened up and have clarifying questions for you both. I welcome a back-and-forth on any subject you feel is necessary, that's the whole point is for you to have your say.

- Then, I'll present to Andy what I understand the conflict to be, and suggest a course of action (which of course he can do with as he pleases).

- Then, as far as I'm concerned, we're done. Any questions?

By the by, I live in the Pacific time zone, so keep that in mind when I talk about things like "morning" and "night"

Regards,

Aziraphale 19:43, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Contents

resources

In this section, feel free to list any pages you think are pertinent, or even external links.


user:Conservative | user_talk:Conservative
user:Ungtss | user_talk:Ungtss
Atheism | Talk:Atheism | Talk:Atheism/archive1 | Talk:Atheism/archive2 | Talk:Atheism/archive3 | Talk:Atheism/archive4

Atheism talk page with the previous archive states my position

The Atheism talk page with the previous archive states my position. Conservative 20:29, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Issues

Thanks for taking the time to attempt to resolve the conflict here. Here are the items at issue: Ungtss 21:49, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

The overarching purpose of the article

Possible approaches:

A) To describe atheism in detail, citing both atheist sources (to understand their pov articulated on its own terms) and sources critical of atheism (to provide the conservative and theistic perspective on the topic). The tone of the article should strive not to come off as heavy-handed and hostile -- instead, the tone should remain neutral, while the article itself should contain high quality facts and sources that both explain atheism on its own terms as well as showing atheism to be a pov at odds with the preponderance of the evidence.
B) The primary purpose of the article is to debunk atheism. Because atheism is obviously false, the article should not give "affirmative action" to atheism. Instead it should state, in no uncertain terms, that atheism is false, not cite or quote atheists articulating and defending their own point of view, and only incidentally mention what atheists believe (and cast into doubt whether they in fact believe it at all).

Types of atheism.

Possible approaches:

A) To describe strong atheism as the "true" definition of atheism, and state as fact that there has been an atheistic effort to "dilute" the "true" definition of atheism into something that it is not -- that is, weak atheism.
B) To describe strong atheism and weak atheism and alternate forms of atheism, cite theists and atheists holding that view, and then note that some theists believe that "weak atheism" is nothing but an effort to redefine the "true" definition of atheism.

Causes of atheism

Possible approaches:

A) Include all causes of atheism which are widely promulgated, both by theists and atheists;
B) Include only psychological causes of atheism, and exclude as a proposed cause the possibility that atheists are convinced by their interpretation of the evidence;

Talkpage use

Possible approaches:

A) Use the talkpage as a debate forum for issues unrelated to the content of the article;
B) Use the talkpage as a forum to discuss specific issues about article content;

Intro paragraph

Possible approaches:

A) Include only one dictionary definition of atheism, that defines it as the "denial" of the existence of God.
B) Include the dictionary definition of atheism, and a sentence linking to the article Definitions of atheist and agnostic, which deals with the issues of definition in greater detail.

First Round of Questions (and comments to boot!)

Ok,

I'm pretty up to date. Here are my first questions, which I'll mold around Ungtss' 5 points just for clarity's sake:

The overall purpose of the article
Can we all accept, at the outset, that this website will not tolerate an article on atheism that is neutral in tone? There's going to be an anti-atheism bias to the article, that's clear.
On the flip side, can we all accept that the article must clearly explain what atheism is?

Perhaps some middle ground between neutral and polemic? Rule number one in rhetoric is that if you come off as one-sided and/or biased, you are not persuasive. The most persuasive way to make your point is with the facts, not with a one-sided, biased tone. When you exclude and/or misrepresent the other side, you've lost before you've begun. Ungtss 22:34, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
I agree, but I want to make sure that we're clear on the ground rules. For example, if I were writing an essay on atheism for, say, a school report, I might not go about it this way. This is CP's atheism article, so I'm checking in to make sure we're all on the same page. Aziraphale 00:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
Agreed. I think the ground rules are the most important thing we can resolve here. Given that CP does not believe in NPOV, I wonder how we can find a middle ground between CPOV (Conservative Point of View) and BPOV (Bigoted Point of View). What about this: "The Article should strive to show that the authors have first fully and open-mindedly grasped atheism as it is presented by atheists, with all its nuances, types, twists, and turns, and then show, exclusively through solid, fallacy-free argument, why atheism is false." Ungtss 10:41, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
I still like to think that the article can be neutral in tone. But note the word "tone". Simply by fairly presenting the facts about atheism, it should be clear that it is not a rational position to take. In other words, if you describe a false view accurately and fairly, it should be obvious that it's a false view. Philip J. Rayment 23:23, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Types of atheism
I don't have any questions here as yet.

Causes of atheism
I take it, Ungtss, you've got referenced explanations of the different causes that you feel are being left out?

Just the many atheists who say they are atheists because they think it's reasonable. One single bullet acknowledging that atheists think their position stems from reason.<-from Ungtss


Talkpage use
I think this is outside the scope of this arbitration. Different people believe different things are relevant when debating. Believe me, it irritates me to no end when I feel like a subject is being changed to avoid conceding a point, but just because I think that's happening doesn't mean the other guy thinks he's doing that. I could be missing something, though, so please elaborate if you'd like.

I'll defer to a narrower scope or the arbitration.
Thanks. Please remember, I'm not a sysop, just a (hopefully) reasonable person who's helping to settle a dispute. Policy regarding talk pages would come from someone like Andy, TK, Ed, etc... I think if you were to look at my recent debate on the main page (well, it's not there anymore, it got moved to some page about Larry Craig I guess) you'll see that, personally, I get very dogmatic about sticking to what I see as the subject at hand. However, debate tactics are a whole other kettle of fish. Aziraphale 00:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)


Intro paragraph
What's the argument against including an expanded definition? I assume Conservative is taking up that point. (I've looked again through the archives, and I don't see a concise point against; please restate it if I've missed it.)

He never discussed it on the talkpage -- but he has deleted it twice, most recently here. <-from Ungtss
Conservative, clearly you feel it doesn't belong. You may be correct, but will you please explain your reasoning? :) Aziraphale 00:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Schedule Talk & Off-topic Chatter

Amended scheduling heads up: I will be able to follow this until Friday, approximately 10AM Pacific time, then I will be away from my computer until Saturday evening, probably 6-7PM Pacific. In a perfect world this would be wrapped up by tomorrow morning, but I'm betting that won't be the case. Please don't be upset when I "go dark" Friday, I will be diligent in knocking this out when I return. Aziraphale 00:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)


Thanks, Aziraphale 22:11, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I may be out of pocket a lot this weekend, too -- I'm headed up to CO and I don't know how much net access I'll have. Ungtss 10:41, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
Heh heh:). It is where I'm going:). Ungtss 14:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Oh! Good thing Aziraphale is going away too, so that in case you don't make it back, he will not have expended too great an effort! :p Azi has mail, btw. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:14, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
If I don't make it back, I leave my userpage to charity:). Ungtss 14:26, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
"Good" news - my awesome trip to Portland is canceled. No peppermint profiteroles for me! :( Haven't received email yet, TK, but I'll keep an eye out; I think I'm writing moments after you did. Aziraphale 14:26, 7 September 2007 (EDT) <-will try not to take hunger out on participants

A small point

Thank you Aziraphale for helping out. I do want to make a small point though. I think it is fair to say that you are not doing arbitration here but are actually offering your services as a mediator and also as recommender to Andy Schlafly. I am not saying that you would not be a fair arbitrator (as I really cannot say I am well acquainted with you as a person) but merely stating what I believe your function is here in relation to the current conflict. Conservative 16:36, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Hi Conservative. :)
I think you've got a valid point, although this strange role smells like a hybrid of the two to me; in fact, your "mediator + recommender" comment nicely defines the two species yielding this hybrid. :) A mediator would be helping the two of you resolve your conflict. The recommender is the part of me that's going to arbitrate the issue. The trick, of course, is that I'm going to come to a decision as to what should be done, like an arbitrator, but it will in turn only be a suggestion to Andy, rather than a binding ruling. So, neither word fits perfectly in my opinion. That said, if you prefer to think of this in terms of mediation, I'm happy to frame it that way.
Question for you, Conservative, and I'm trying to word this neutrally so I apologize if it sounds pointed (I can see how it would, in text) - are you planning to respond to any of the questions here, or are you comfortable that your comments on Talk:Atheism are sufficient? I only ask because I'm waiting for your responses so as not rudely to "talk over you." If you've said your peace already, I'll move on. :)
Thanks, Aziraphale 16:53, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
PS - interesting reading, when I went to see if it was "said your peace" or "said your PIECE".

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001884.html

Aziraphale, I just made an additional post to the atheism talk page that I think is important. Secondly, I believe that all my comments on the talk page are likely sufficient. Given what I believe is the unreasonableness of Ungtss I think I would likely have to spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to converse with him here and it would likely yield very little additional information. I regettably say this because I do not believe that Ungtss acts in good faith so dialogue is extremely difficult to achieve. However, should you wish to clarify something with me please feel free to send me a note to my user discussion page. Conservative 17:16, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

One additional point

I reviewed Ungtss comments above. Since atheism is largely considered a philosophical school of thought ( it is certainly not a religion) I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge what the leading encyclopedias of philosophy state what the standard definition of atheism is. This should certainly carry the most weight in how atheism is defined. However, as the current Conservapedia atheism article states there has been for about 30 years a effort on behalf of atheists to redefine how atheism is defined although I do note that one theist scholar - namely the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain - wrote an essay in 1949 regarding two different types of atheism. Regardless, in terms of defining atheism I don't think that one or more philosophers can overule what the much larger body of philosphers consider what the standard definition of atheism is as reflected by the many encyclopedias of philosophy. I strongly suggest that you read these articles: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ . Please note this as well: "The entry on ‘atheism’ in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, probably the preeminent reference tool for philosophy, begins: ‘Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.’[1] Currently Ungtss takes umbrage at this section of the current article which I believe is very reasonable: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Attempts_to_Dilute_the_Definition_of_Atheism Conservative 17:36, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

In short, I believe the current format on how the current Conservapedia article introduces the definition(s) of atheism is entirely appropriate.Conservative 17:47, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
For the record, I introduced the Maritain article which Conservative is now citing, and followed it with my reasoning on that issue. I have no problem with citing Conservative's favorite dictionary definition of atheism at the head of the article, but I see no legitimate reason to portray "weak atheism" as a conspiracy to "water down" atheism since 1979, given that the distinction has been made by both theists and atheists both before and after 1979. Ungtss 19:34, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
It is not my favorite dictionary definition. Please look at the citations and you will see that the definition given at Conservapedia is the standard definition as offered by encylopedias of philosophy. This is exactly why I said you are unreasonable Ungtss. Conservapedia is a reference work and I see no reason to not give encyclopedias of philosophy their full weight since atheism is generally recognized to be a philosophy. Conservative 21:02, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
Please stick to the issues of contention. I said I had no problem with using that definition, Conservative. I'm not even arguing that we use the Catholic Encyclopedia's definition, "Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning."[2] Note how the article differentiates between positive and negative atheism, incidentally, and refers to no effort to "water down" atheism. Again, my issue is with the "definition conspiracy theory." Ungtss 21:23, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree with the comment that Atheism "is certainly not a religion". It really depends on your definition of "religion", and by at least one definition, it is a religion. Philip J. Rayment 23:29, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

You should probably mention that some call it a religion. But calling it a religion always struck me as demeaning to many real religions. The richness of tradition and worship in the Roman Catholic, for example, can barely be compared with a hunch of some people that there is no divine being. Roman Catholicism is more than an opinion. Order 01:47, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
I'd reply, but I don't want to get this page onto a sidetrack about the definition of "religion". Have you read the "religion" article I linked to? If you have a disagreement with what it says, you might like to take up this matter on its talk page. Philip J. Rayment 02:21, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
Indeed, the Religion article is also applying this very broad definition of religion. It is a bit broad for my taste, because it would also apply to e.g. the fans of the "Pittsburgh Steelers", but you are right we should discuss it on the religion talk page.
  • Of special note is the fact that our "Religion" article has some contributors who have been blocked for being master parodists, including "Auld Nick", perhaps the most clever of them all. So it is suspect in my book just because of that. Ask any Jesuit if Atheism is a religion, and you will get a derisive laugh. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 05:09, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
The religion article was almost completely rewritten by me, so there's little if anything of Auld Nick's work remaining. Jesuits might laugh, but I know quite a few who consider Atheism a religion (me among them). Philip J. Rayment 06:24, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Another additional point

Aziraphale, I do ask that you also look at the atheism talk pages archives in order to be able to understand the current conflict. I believe merely reading the current talk page will be insufficient. Conservative 17:40, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Have done so. :) I started from the very beginning and read forward. I had actually been following the conversation since about the 2nd archive, but re-read it all to make sure I was straight. Aziraphale 20:13, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Wrapping Up Shortly

Hi all,

Sorry if it seemed like I abandoned this page. Since Philip Rayment is participating, thus giving us a wide time zone spread, I wanted to give more time for the conversation to bounce around.

I'd say that Conservative, Ungtss, and the other interested participants have made their opinions known. Ungtss, you've explained what your main bones of contention are. Conservative, you've mostly allowed your Talk:Atheism arguments to stand for themsleves, with some clarification here. Samwell, sorry that I didn't break down the conversation as you indicated, but in the end I consider large portions of Talk:Atheism, while interesting, to be beside the point. One man's opinion and all that, but still.

I'm leaving the next 6-8 hours for any last comments, then I'll be giving my recommendation to Andy on his talk page where this conversation originated. If I may suggest in advance: of COURSE it's not going to please everybody, but the whole point was for someone reasonable *holds up hand* to digest the arguments for a very busy person *holds up Andy's distracted hand for him* so he didn't have to wade into it. He may not agree with what I have to say - I won't just be recommending the course of action, I'll be explaining why. But please, if you simply respond to my post with a complete re-hash of the argument, this will have been pointless. Aziraphale 03:39, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate your efforts, Aziraphale. I'd like to make one further suggestion. I don't like the way in which the Theory of evolution article has been effectively locked up. I'm not referring to the ban on editing per se, which I'm confident won't happen here, but on the fixed direction that the article takes. With that article, the decision was that it had to stay essentially as it was (with some exceptions). This (in theory at least) prevents anyone introducing a new angle that wasn't there at the time the decision was made. I understand the need for direction on this article (Atheism), but would like to see it framed in such a way that it doesn't preclude innovation and novel approaches.
Perhaps the recommendation should be as to what directions the article should not take, rather than what directions it should take. This allows for more flexibility in the future. Alternatively, or as well, perhaps the recommendation has some sort of "sunset clause", so that it expires after a limited time (e.g. three months), perhaps with a compulsory review of the recommendation. I'm tossing out some ill-thought-out ideas here, so sorry if some seem a bit impracticable, but hopefully you get the general thrust of what I'm getting at.
Philip J. Rayment 06:18, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Hi Philip,

My intention is to offer a few suggestions to Andy very specifically on the dispute between Conservative and Ungtss. My hope is that these will settle the dispute between the two of them so that they can focus on other things. If my suggestions result in a locked article, or one with a flashing warning that says "this article has been settled, paws off!" I'll feel that I have failed. In other words, I agree with you almost completely. :) And where I don't, it's only because I want this arbitration to be even more limited than what you're suggesting. Aziraphale 10:19, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Having reread Talk:Atheism and its archives I would suggest limiting the nature of the recommendation to Andy to;
  • engage in discussion about the scope and direction of the article. What has been happening is that minor edits and redactions have been made because the editors do not share the same POV as to the focus and nature of the article.
  • stay on topic, often the nature of the dispute has given itself leave to bring in tangential arguments that just stoke the fires already burning. Do not start, (or engage in) another facet of contention unless and until the issue at hand has been resolved.
  • enjoin the assignment of motives to editors that is not in evidence from what they have posted nor in the edits they have made to the article.
Samwell 12:52, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Hi all,
My apologies for the delay. I've "finished," but I'm being a little paranoid and editing the #(*&@ out of it. I'll post shortly. Aziraphale 15:04, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Aziraphale/Arbitration"
Personal tools