Talk:Possibilianism

"Made up" objection

Someone posted a concern that Possibilianism was made up. Please note that the term has been used on NPR's Talk of the Nation (as cited and linked to), the Houston Chronicle (as cited and linked to), and is the title of an upcoming book, Why I am a Possibilian, by the neuroscientist David Eagleman (as cited and linked to). Therefore I have removed the possible concern from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinahNldton (talk • contribs) February 20, 2009

Recovery of article in light of recent attention in the media

June 14, 2010 - With new data since February of 2009, the previous merger between the article "Sum" and the term "possibilianism" can be seen to be outdated. First, note that the term "possibilianism" is never once mentioned in the book Sum; there is no direct connection between the two except for an author in common. Second, as of June 2010, possibilianism is a term with over 10,000 google hits, is the subject of dozens of newspaper and magazine articles (New York Times, MSNBC, Huffington Post, etc -- see original ref list), and possibilianism was just the subject of a TED talk. The idea that it should be merged in with a book that never uses the term does not make sense any longer. For that reason, it is being unmerged back out into its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.60.88 (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio/NPOV issues

Most of the text in this page is copied verbatim from [1]. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's policies but I assume this violates copyright and NPOV? 71.233.149.111 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

May 3, 2011--It having 3000 followers on Facebook equals a global phenomenon? This reads like a promotional pamphlet, not an entry in an Encyclopedia. I second the NPOV challenge above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.150.27.43 (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of the adjective 'ideosyncratic' ?

Does anyone agree with me that the adjective 'ideosyncratic' used to qualify the phrase 'claims of theism' may be in breach of the NPOV rule? DFH (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition of IDIOSYNCRASY 1 a : a peculiarity of constitution or temperament : an individualizing characteristic or quality - from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiosyncrasy - No sir - I do NOT think this violates NPOV rule, as "claims of theism" would be the individual characteristics as applied to the claims, the claimants, or all theisms which come in a wide variety of creeds/dogmas. With over 2000+ known or estimated theologies in Earth history, and none yet proven scientifically or empirically, I would think that idiosyncratic would be describe this perfectly in a neutral fashion. --Havoth (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)havoth

June 25, 2011--I'm afraid, with respect, I don't find the defence of the word "idiosyncratic" persuasive; I understand from the above explanation that it is meant in a neutral way, but the use of the word just seems odd (idiosyncratic!) to me in this instance. (Maybe there's a regional nuance? I'm writing from the UK.)

To me, replacing "idiosyncratic" with "diverse" would capture the intended meaning as explained above by Havoth, without the negative/provocative connotations detected by myself and David Haslam.

The rest of the piece doesn't seem to contain biased language, though I am sure that as and when criticisms of the position appear, we would do well to report them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.234.66 (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Agnosticism

Isn´t that Agnosticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.220.146.49 (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Agnosticism has nothing to do with the question of whether you believe in God or not, Possibilianism is simply Weak Atheism.96.255.36.154 (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Possibilianism Redundant?

Taken from the article on Agnosticism, the term Weak Agnosticism is defined as "The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."

This article doesn't appear to recognize that Possibilianism is not unique in any respect. The scientific method and empiricism have always incorporated an open-mindedness towards new evidence. Dawkins talks about it constantly, for instance. Russell talked about it. Quine. It's a long list. Is there any distinguishing and significant characteristic that separates this viewpoint from another? If not, some sort of recognition should be given to that fact. Baron of Dinosaur (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty redundant. It fits fairly well into science (science being the process of determining which possible explanations are really true), and it fits even more nicely into weak agnosticism. It also seems to fit under atheism as well, because it doesn't seem to advocate believing that all the possible things are actually true, and nobody has yet proven a god to exist. In fact, if someone described this philosophy and asked me to name it, i would probably call it scientific atheism. What is more interesting is the constant urge for people to try and explain what they believe with new labels, and avoid the old ones, even though they are applicable. ReytheRed (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

and the positions of certainty in atheism

This indicates that atheism is a position of certainty, which isn't always the case. Shouldn't it clarify that it is only strong atheism which makes claims at all, let alone claims of certainty? Possibilianism is a response to perceived claims of certainty, but I am not sure anyone makes such claims, let alone all atheists, but this article implies otherwise. ReytheRed (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! The notion of "atheism" opposed by possibilianists is a straw man, and in fact it would be more accurate to call possibilianism itself atheism (or at the very least agnosticism, and either way it is clearly redundant). Now if just you or I were to say so in the article it would be O.R., but fortunately we are free to cite that Sam Harris (one of the four most prominent new atheists) has said it here. Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Phrasing in the first sentence

Currently, it reads: "Possibilianism is a philosophy which rejects both the diverse claims of traditional theism and..." It seems that a more complete statement would be that "Possibilianism is a philosophy which accepts neither the diverse claims of traditional nor..." The Eagleman quote cited in note [3], first sentence, does not exclude those possibilitites. Possibilianism is not interested in committing to any particular story. I would add that theism and atheism are each a story that can be held by a Possibilian without committing to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.166.59 (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is this even a page?

This is surely not an important enough concept/issue to warrant a wikipedia entry. It reads like a promotion for the neuroscientist who coined the term - a term that will surely never have a home in serious literature on theism / non-theism. GPeoples (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. How about we merge it into a new section of David Eagleman? Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Provisional Deism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.238.129 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This sounds an awful lot like E.O. Wilson's position of Provisional Deism:

Wilson is:

"willing to consider the possibility of an ultimate cause. But we haven't really come close to grasping what that might be."

Full quote and context:

On the question of God, Wilson has described his position as provisional deism. "I tend to believe that religious dogma is a consequence of evolution. Religious belief and the firm adherence to it—and the intense dislike of apostates, people who abandon it—has a very important biologic origin, probably through natural selection, namely the cohesion of the group and the persuasion of people to be more altruistic. So in my view, most dogmas concerning the creation are myths of creation and are not believable. They're just different from one religion to another," biologist E.O. Wilson, co-author of the new book The Superorganism, says in a Q&A with the St. Petersburg Times. "When the question comes up, 'If it's not true, why does practically everybody believe in God?' the answer is that it's true in a Darwinian sense. That is, it provides cohesion, it provides personal peace and rites of passage, and it promotes altruism, which are all invaluable and necessary for the survival of human societies." When it comes to whether he personally believes in God, Wilson says he's "willing to consider the possibility of an ultimate cause. But we haven't really come close to grasping what that might be." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.238.129 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)