Talk:The God Delusion/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Descriptions of the book from other sites?

I added a description from amazon.co.uk, but looking back at the edit history I get the feeling this will be removed - are we not allowed to include excerpts from amazon or other online sites which provide descriptions? 81.131.61.180 23:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The Amazon piece is a sales pitch, which is fine for Amazon but not here. This article will contain a description of the book's contents, together with some immediate reaction and criticism maybe, and then later on a description of the long term impact of the book. As such it's hard to see how the article can progress until release date.—Laurence Boyce 10:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit attempts

My two attempts to edit this page to show that the book is now available and to offer a (very) brief description of the content have been reverted. I'm told the reason is that my changes weren't "encyclopedic." I readily concede that. However, I feel it's better to be accurate with poor format than inaccurate with a perfect encyclopedic style. I'm not making another attempt to edit this page but I suggest somebody (perhaps Laurence Boyce) move himself to make the page more accurate as my attempts seem doomed to reversion. It is, after all, an excellent book and Dawkins obviously considers it an important addition to his earlier works. 68.173.6.90 01:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I have absolutely no doubt that within a very short space of time, this article will change dramatically. You could be very much part of the effort, though you would have to curb your enthusiasm for the book and stick to describing it in a neutral manner. By the way, I've made loads of unencyclopedic edits, but there's not a lot of point, they get contested very quickly. Please obtain an account (v. easy) and come on board. Laurence Boyce 10:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins and Paxman on the God Delusion

Did anyone see Jeremy Paxman interviewing Richard Dawkins about the God Delusion on BBC's Newsnight (22/9/2006)? Despite Paxman's usual confrontational style of interviewing, he said (to Dawkins) that the book was a very entertaining read, very convincing, although somewhat "strident in tone". Could he be quoted on in article at some point? There are also extracts from the book available on the Newsnight website ( bbc.co.uk/newsnight ). I hope to get the book soon, so I can read the whole text and then start helping with the article. -Neural 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In the long run I guess we could quote from the Paxman interview as long as it found its way onto this list as a reference. It ought to. But there will be plenty of written reviews as well. I've got the book, but I won't be reading it immediately. Laurence Boyce 14:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok it looks like it will be available here. Laurence Boyce 15:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

Added links to evidence of historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, Israel, Ten Commandments. Dawkins, claims no historicity for Christianity held by 33% of world's population.DLH 02:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Only 33%? If the evidence is so compelling, it should be 100%. Laurence Boyce 08:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Really? How does it follow that if the evidence for a belief was compelling, that it would result in 100% of the world's population believing in it? I suppose I understand the issue you're raising, but the amount of people who believe in something is completely irrelevant to its truth, or whether the evidence supporting it is complelling. Btboy500 06:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Laurence Boyce wrote "if the evidence is so compelling...", not "if it were true...". But I take your point. 100% of the population once thought the earth was flat like a chess board. -Neural 14:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Self-reported statistics of religious belief tend to be substantially exaggerated. 43% of Americans say in surveys that they go to church at least once a week, but attendance figures from churches indicate that only about 20% actually show up.[1]. Canada shows 20% claiming vs. 10% actually showing up. Numbers for Europe other than Ireland are far lower. --John Nagle 21:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

33% means that Christianity is the largest religion. Far above atheism. Restored the Criticism section for NPOV. DLH 01:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

. . . and The Sun is the biggest circulation UK newspaper. Laurence Boyce 10:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Added section on reviews, with links to Andrew Brown and O'Leary. DLH 02:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis

Are we going to have a detailed synopsis of the book at some point? I'd be happy to help. -Neural 14:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should. Not in massive detail maybe. Please go for it. Laurence Boyce 16:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been rather more busy recently than I had expected. So I'll give it a shot when I have a bit more time to devote. Unless someone beats me to it, a'course. -Neural 20:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've had a bash at it, giving a summary of the key points. I agree that we shouldn't go overboard with detail, so I've been as brisk as possible. Now I encourage everyone to dive in and improve or correct anything that seems inadequate or misleading. -Neural 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Neural, good effort. I think we should lose that Douglas Adams quote. Any quotes should be by Dawkins in my view. I know you didn't put it there (I think). Laurence Boyce 16:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Dawkins uses that quote because he thinks Adams put it better than he ever could. He writes "I never tire of sharing his words". I'd leave it in for its literary quality. --John Nagle 16:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't add the Adams quote, but just wrote the summary around it. I don't feel strongly about it either way, so I'll leave it to the rest of you to decide... -Neural 11:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazon Bestseller

This book is currently the number 1 bestseller at Amazon UK (and 6th at Amazon.com). So there's some Good News for you Neural. Is this worth mentioning on the page? Poujeaux 12:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's good news. You never know - reason might just triumph in the end. Unless everyone is buying it just to be outraged. To answer your question: yes, its success might be worth a mention. -Neural 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Although I wouldn't feel comfortable editing an article on a book I haven't read, while reading the article I felt that the part that said that a lack of free will would abridge our 'need to find faith' did not adhere to a neutral point of view-it sounded as though the article was making a statement as to what it believed was true, and not stating what other believed. Filippo Argenti 00:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What part are you talking about? The phrase "need to find faith" doesn't occur anywhere in the article, and neither does the phrase "free will". -- Schaefer (Talk) 08:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I was sure I read that here....mabey that was in a former version, but I'm not sure.If I'm just losing my mind, I'm really sorry. Filippo Argenti 02:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there are still some adjustments needed to maintain an NPOV on this. For example on Chapter 5 "Dawkins uses the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, to explain how religion might spread" should read "Dawkins suggests that the theory of memes ... might explain..." 8, "citing how" should read "suggesting that" or "citing how, in some cases". Any objections if I make those edits? NBeale 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section

I'd like to address the "Controversy" section in the article. The tone is somewhat POV ("Dawkins fails to realize," "fails to address,") and to be honest the arguments in the section don't seem particularly relevant as legitimate criticism of the work. The study about prayer and smoking seems particularly irrelevant. I think that the article does deserve a "controversy" section, but the current one seems particularly POV. SnurksTC 01:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I think the article should be about the book alone, and not a debate on the existance of God. I'm removing the section and references for now, pending the creation of a better section about controversy surrounding the book that's actually present in media, instead of controversy claimed by a single editor. SnurksTC 01:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved your reversion discussion up with the rest of the controversy material. Your action appears to be thought police at work - i.e. no criticism allowed without your approval. Since the book is about the existane of God, it is strange that you remove any discussion of contrversy about that. The smoking study explicitly provides scientific evidence for the existance of causation not attributable to natural forces. DLH 13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And I've moved it back down again. The controversy section you added was highly tendentious, editorial, and off topic. Laurence Boyce 13:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If that keeps you happy. Revised to address snurks concerns and added a citation. DLH 13:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

All the citations used do not address the book at all. Several are non-descript personal blog entries that just deal with religion in general and do not even mention Dawkins (let alone the Book). I do not even want to start thinking about what Dawkins book has to do with teenager smoking ;).
Here is an actual negative reviews that you can use that are critical of the book:
Naturally you will have to find more negative reviews. But do remember that when you actuall provide the links, that the links should actually deal with the book and not just be general theological arguements that you are using to criticize the book. This violates Wikipedia:No original research.--Roland Deschain 14:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Cleaned up the criticism section. Weasel words have been removed and criticisms are tied to named authors and linked to the authors' Wikipedia articles. Incidentally, Kraus wrote "The Physics of Star Trek" and "Beyond Star Trek". He's a Trekkie[2] and says he's watched every episode. --John Nagle 22:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Cleaned up the Andrew Brown criticism section. Incidentally, this Andrew Brown is not Wikipedia's Andrew Brown, who is a second-string relief pitcher for Cleveland. --John Nagle 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed "A leap of understanding"

I will remove the "A leap of understanding" item from the Reviews section for the second time:

on the grounds that:

  • it is not from The Guardian proper, but from the "Comment is free" site, sort of a blog;
  • the section already contains a proper review published in The Guardian;
  • the section already contains a proper review by Andrew Brown, in Prospect.

Hrvoje Simic 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading the reviews of Terry Eagleton and Andrew Brown. Both are so feeble and miss the point in different ways. Eagleton writes: Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. If he has read the book, he should know that Dawkins has aptly described theology as a non-subject, something completely empty and pointless. Andrew Brown accuses Dawkins of being "dogmatic and incurious". Well, the chapter "The God Hypothesis" deals with the accusation of dogmatism. As for "incurious", I'm am not sure what he is refering to, or if it even matters. Brown also accuses Dawkins of "rambling" and contradicting himself, although he doesn't point out any specific contradictions. And Brown says that Dawkins fails to explain properly why religion has survived the onslaught of Darwinism - as if this should count in the favour of religion. Why Brown is attacking Dawkins anyway is a mystery, since they are both anti-religion in outlook. Why not attack, umm, religion... instead? -195.93.21.130 12:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But to attack concept cogently you need to understand them. Simply "describing them to be a non-subject" doesn't do it. String Theory may well be vacuuous, but if a biologist had written Not even Wrong without even studying the mathematics (s)he'd expect a rough ride. NBeale 18:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say that comparing String Theory to Theology is a bit like comparing Economics with Legoonomics. But then I'm on the same side of the fence as Dawkins on this whole argument... -Neural 14:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Could we make a balanced pair of sections: principal criticisms and principal rebuttals?

Could we make a balanced pair of sections: principal criticisms and principal rebuttals? Maybe this is too much to hope, but if we had some ground-rules, eg:

  1. Two separate sections (Principal Criticisms and Principal Rebuttals) of equal length. "The main criticisms appear to be:" and "The main responses to each of these appear to be:" No Rebuttal can be longer than the Criticism to which it relates.
  2. At most 7 Criticisms, prefereably 5 (and consequently at most 7 Rebuttals).
  3. No Critic may edit a Rebutter or vice-versa, except in clear cases of breaching the above. What do people think?

NBeale 18:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that a pair of sections is such a great idea; it risks turning the article into a battleground of ideas. Much better in my view would be a single balanced criticism section: on the one hand so-and-so said this, on the other hand so-and-so said that. It would merely report what people have said, not discuss the ideas themselves. Laurence Boyce 11:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Free speech criticism: unsupported

I removed the following block from the Criticism section:

Andrew Brown, writing for the Prospect [3], criticizes apparent selectivity in Dawkins' advocacy of free speech:

   
“
 He [Dawkins] quotes later in [The God Delusion] approvingly and at length a speech by his friend Nicholas Humphrey which argued that, "We should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out." But of course, it's not interfering with free speech when atheists do it.
   
”

This block does a poor job of describing the issue, and the remaining part of the review doesn't help. I asked myself: what does "it" at the end of the quote mean? When atheists teach their children in literal truth of the Bible? Or in the falsity of the Bible? Or in some "atheist" belief that is contradicting reason?

What I think the author suggests is that Dawkins in this book criticizes religious parents when they push their irrational beliefs to children, but not atheist parents pushing : (anti-religious) irrational beliefs to their children. However, he fails to support it by quoting or referring to the passages from the book. What comes out is confusing and misleading, and does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

Hrvoje Šimić 06:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That quote from Humphrey was somewhat out of context. It's quoted on p. 326 of Dawkins, and the entire quote is two paragraphs. The second paragraph in its entirety, with the quote above in italics, is:
"In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense, and we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon."
Seen in its entirety, it has a somewhat different meaning. So taking it out, at least in the form it had, was a good move. If you're going to write about this, read pages 325-329 from Dawkins; he has more to say about Humphrey. --John Nagle 21:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_God_Delusion_Archive1_826f.html"