Talk:Victor J. Stenger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] NPOV

There are a number of POV edits, mostly from User:NBeale.

"However the only peer-reviewed publication of the MonkeyGod model is in Philo an expressly anti-theist philosophical journal published by the Center for Inquiry where Stenger is a Fellow, and this article has only been cited once, by Stenger himself[8]."

The Center of Enquiry is a secular and scientific organisation. Some guests may be critical of religion, but that does make make the journal anti-theist. The views expressed in their journal may not represent those of the Center for Inquiry.

"This work has not been peer-reviewed and its validity is controversial."

Where is the reference for the lack of peer-review? Who regards the work as "controversial"?

Blind designer 19:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have "fixed" the Philo reference with [1] (though our mutual friend may disagree). Truthfully I'm not too fussed if Monkeygod is spiked. Ttiotsw 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Philo is very explicit about it's anti-Theistic stance, on its official website. The complete lack of 3rd party citations of Monkeygod is a matter of public record. If people conclude from this that it is Junk science that is a matter for their intelligence. Pitting Stenger against Martin Rees is an act of desparation! NBeale 22:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not read Philo so must take what I see at face value or find a reference that contradicts my view. From their web site they state that they also...."To facilitate discussion and debate, Philo also publishes defenses of theism and criticisms of naturalism". So that isn't really a biased publication any more than a biology publication would be anti-Bible. I don't feel it is neutral to call it outright anti-theist especially given they have Alvin Plantinga on the editorial board. As for MonkeyGod I care neither here nor there on it; It is listed, it has supporters and detractors (it's probably out of date too). Martin Rees has more variables which fit a particular worldview (more importantly fit an Intelligent Design worldview) in a way which could be argued is the same magical that is alluded to in the aphorism that goes, "...a suitably advanced science..." so I argue that it is still a desperate leap of faith to go from a proposed design to the specific designer of whose worship we indicate by the term "theism" and of whose denial you indicate by the the word anti-theism. Ttiotsw 06:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)