Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational mysticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Although the sources currently presented in the article are not ideal, and do not present the concept in any great depth, they do establish sufficient ground to satisfy WP:V. WP:N may be satisfied by either the content now present, or the (largely unanalysized) below-mentioned Google News results. While the article needs work, it meets the minimal requirements such that policy does not demand its deletion, and consensus below to do so does not exist. Xoloz 14:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rational mysticism

Rational mysticism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No stance on the article, it was deleted prod that I restored per request (RDates was contesting it). Prodego talk 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOR. Rational Mysticism is the title of a book. If you use the google test, you will find hits on the book by John Horgan. It is not a movement, philosophy, stance, position, or anything as insinuated in this article, and is not mentioned as so in the book, it is simply the title.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 04:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comments. Upon inspection of what has changed since the page has reappeared from oblivion, I see two "references" have been added (which is really the only thing that has changed besides some re-wording). The first reference is simply an exercises in someone typing in "rational mysticism" in google book search, the second is a review of the book entitled Rational Mysticism (why not the book itself then?). Again, there IS NO "Rational Mysticism" movement...its called science. Horgan never claimed to be some part of a "movement" or new philosophy. Anyone doubting can go to google book search and see for yourself.
  • Delete it's just a book title, and nobody much as used it. DGG (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a genuine philosophical theory. Dr E. Jane Cooper wrote part of her thesis on this aspect of Plotinus's work, and had an article published in which she discusses it. (I know her and could get her to add something here if anyone thinks it relevant.) Anarchia 07:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepRational mysticism is not a movement but an important concept in building intellectual bridges between science, religion and metaphysics. The author Sam Harris discusses the concept in an on-line article. When you google the term, you find a number of references to the concept which have nothing to do with Horgan or Horgan's book.Richard Dates —Preceding comment was added at 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Are you refering to this page? This is simply a defense of his book "End of Faith". Does he even mention the phrase "Rational Mysticism" ever again in the article? Where does he lay down the evidence that there is a concept of "Rational Mysticism" that is notable within the scientific community? The burden of proof is on you, not us, to prove there is a "Rational Mysticism" NOTABLE concept and to find some basic principles being layed down by one or more notable scientists. It doesn't matter if you think it is important. Anything else is just classic original research. Plus, most of the concepts in this page have already been covered in the Neurotheology article. Also see WP:WING--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 21:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope, we don't have to prove anything of the sort. The only hurdle is demonstrating the article complies with general notability guideline.--Addhoc 22:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. This article fails every one of those critera except that the cites you are adding are verifiable. Speaking of which, please stop adding bad faith cites to the article. It is not substantially notable, if at all, which is why you have resorted to searching every single book in google database and only coming up with a couple of "cites" that do not reference each other and make no case for being part of any movement.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't accuse other editors of acting in bad faith in this manner. I don't remember saying there was a movement, and you continue to invent criteria. Your latest is apparently the citations must reference each other. Again the single criterion is the general notability guideline.--Addhoc 22:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Prove that this article passes each of those criteria; it doesn't so you can't. I challenge you to attempt though. You are the one inventing....notability that is. Have you even read the books you are "citing" through google book search? Do you know what you are citing? Please, I challenge you to defend these cites. The cites must be more than just verifiable, in case you haven't read the notablity guideline in whole. --Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A genuine avenue of investigation. Xxanthippe 22:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep Neutral. It has four solid references now which give good support for the hypothesis that it does not violate no original research policy; it may accumulate more. — Athaenara ✉ 06:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)   (Changed my ‘Keep’ to ‘Neutral’ at 02:10, 10 November 2007 UTC. — Athaenara ✉ )
How are these solid references? Yes, they exist, but are they relevant? Notable? Are they even related to one another? He used google book search and pulled up random mentionings of the phrase "rational mysticism", most of which are mentioned only once or twice in their respective books. These references have no relation to one another, and are talking about different things in their own respective contexts (read more of the books he cites). What else can the phrase "rational mysticism" mean but that? It will always say something about the unity of mysticism and science whenever it happens to come up on google book search...the question at hand is whether there is actually a notable area of thought that is called "rational mysticism". Finally, if there actually was a "rational mysticism" area of thought, surely John Horgan would make reference to it in his book entitled RATIONAL MYSTICISM...but he DOESNT. Not a single time. He mentions nothing of the sort. This is proof positive in my view that this entire article is being made up as its written.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 09:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Full disclosure: it was I who deleted it as an expired prod five days after Hypergeometric tagged it. — Athaenara ✉ 18:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment 1: This goes back as far as Robert Jastrow's God and the Astronomers (1978) and farther. Diligent referencing will help. — Athaenara ✉ 06:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment 2: The term "rational mysticism" was used by 20th century South African philosopher J.N. Findlay and has also been attributed to 3rd century Greek philosopher Plotinus, among others. It is the title of a 1924 book by William Kingsland and an article for Free Inquiry by Sam Harris. Please note that I am not defending the concept in and of itself but pointing out that a substantive basis for an encyclopedia article about it exists. — Athaenara ✉ 18:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the article by Sam Harris? It is a defense of his book "End of Faith"; it is not about a supposed "rational mysticism" movement. Yes, it was a title of two books, one of which (by Horgan), never mentions the phrase again. Do you know what these book are about? Do you know what scientific idealism is? Does it have anything to do with an actual movement that is notable and related to the other cites? Be sure to follow through on all of these cites.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to recration. The current sources only mention the phrase in passing, or reference the book by this title. They are not about any "movement." The article as written appears to be unique synthesis of the material towards a specific viewpoint. -- Kesh 13:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.