Talk:The God Delusion/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Incorrect material in the God Delusion article

Dear Persons,

I should like to draw your attention to a point of logic - you mention in your description of the venerable, and frankly laudable man with large balls and even bigger brain who wrote the book that he is

Atheist.

I should like to point out this needs to be clarified with the eminent and respected scientist himself.

There are differences in a-theism and non-theism.

Viz: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/

as a primer and further, I propose you consider carefully the logic of what you are connoting - this is, as you might imagine somewhat fraught - and I would rather you guys get in touch with him about semantics and the logical differences about these very important distinct and discrete concepts.

Thanks, Alex

86.111.171.51 13:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Dawkins is clear that he is an atheist, and clear about what that means. --Dannyno 21:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Price

I think Professor Dawkins would help his cause if the book wasn't £20. I'm sure he doesn't need the money particularly. He ought to be posting the entire book on the internet for free. I'd like to by a sack full of them and donate them to schools and libraries, but at £20 a pop I think I might wait and see if a paperback version comes out before even buying one. Sheesh. Capitalist concerns getting in the way of something so important shows why religion is winning against secularism - they give the Bible away for free.

Sorry. Irrelevant rant over.

-Neural 12:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

They do give the Bible away for free - and it's worth every penny.
Even if it were posted on the net for free, it wouldn't make one inch of difference to its readership. Those who want to read it, will. And even if a library has 20 copies of the book, no fundamentalist Christian will read it. Anyone who wants to read the book will find a way to read it, regardless of the pricetag. -UK-Logician-2006 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure the book will get cheaper, and a paperback version will probably come out. Maybe it will eventually be free on the web. I dont agree that "religion is winning against secularism" - the fact that this book is published and openly discussed is a step in the right direction. Poujeaux 13:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I take it all back. I bought the book with £4 off, and it was well worth it. An excellent read. Whether it will have any impact with the faithful at all is another matter. Still, every school should have a copy of this in its library.
Btw... in the last census, more than 3 quarters of the British population described themselves as Christian. That's why I think religion is still "winning". I dream of a day when 9 tenths are atheists. Then secularism and reason will have won the day. -Neural 13:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Glad you enjoyed the book :)
Yes, 3/4 of people describe themselves as Christian, but how many of them actually are? You'd probably find that many of them just put 'C of E' out of habit. Not many people actually practice Christianity, and far less go to Church.
The majority of people are 'tacit atheists' - they just don't care. So, in a way, secularism has already won the day. -UK-Logician-2006 22:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
First, can you substantiate that with data? Also put that way it makes it sound as if 'tacit atheists' are also not subscribers to Dawkins' fundamentalist atheism, so shouldn't they be called agnostics? --BozMo talk 09:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
There's some material on "adherents.org" that indicates that about twice as many people claim in surveys that they go to church as actually show up. --John Nagle 06:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why Religion is far from beaten

I disagree with the "secularism has already won the day" argument. We still have a situation where no political party would dare outlaw faith schools, for instance. Education is the frontline of this intellectual conflict. Read the chapter on the abuse of young minds in The God Delusion. Also, the minority of True Believers are well-organized, and they have a disproportionate influence on government policy... On the "tacit atheist" point, I agree, but I'd point out that these people still do not admit to being atheists. This reveals the following possibilities: 1, they feel comfortable being identified as Christian (they ought to feel embarrased at the suggestions of such superstition). 2, they may feel embarrased about their atheism (they ought to feel proud that they value reason above faith). Secularism will only have won in the UK when, 1, people would feel pretty embarrased to admit (or pretend to admit) to delusions, 2, when atheists feel proud enough to hold their heads up and organized enough to combat pro-religion government policies, and 3, when faith schools are outlawed so that religion cannot be imposed on vulnerable minds. Finally, we are overlooking the religious insanity of America and the Middle East. America is the world's only super-power. 95 percent of Americans believe they will survive their own deaths. Tens of millions of American voters yearn for nuclear war due to their End Time beliefs. Read Sam Harris's excellent The End of Faith to kill off any remaining complacency. Anyone who thinks secularism has already beaten religion is very mistaken when you consider a global perspective. -Neural 14:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Voltaire also claimed the death of religion? --BozMo talk 09:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
not sure who you think you are arguing against neural! nobody claims "secularism has already won the day". But some of us think things are improving - its more acceptable to criticise religion and be atheist than it was 20 yrs ago, and church attendance is declining... Poujeaux 14:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
no one except -UK-Logician-2006 in the comment about five lines higher who says exactly this? If getting better means anything lets hope that it is more tolerance from everyone of other people's views...I think over the last 200 years the sea of faith has ebbed and flowed...personally AFAIK I have never lived anywhere where atheism or animism was not the considerable majority view....I think the experience in USSR and North Korea shows that fundamentalist atheism ranks alongside the Spanish Inquisition as an unpleasant master; tolerant atheists of course are another matter. I think what most of us dislike are majorities who make disagreement unacceptable but whereas the Moral Majority in the US are one of such, religions don't have a monopoly of this behaviour .--BozMo talk 21:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China... etc, etc. What marks these regimes out is not so much a promotion of atheism as a promotion of variants of communism (itself a kind of religion, requiring faith in Marxist dogma). Take Stalinism and Maoism out of the picture, and would we still have the same persecution? I don't think anyone in history has killed for atheism alone. Why would anyone kill or persecute for a lack of a belief? Communsim, however, is a positive set of dogmatic beliefs that people do kill for. We will be better off without religions - even pseudo-scientific religions like communism and national socialism. -Neural 14:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This is getting very far off topic. Please try to restrict use of this talk page to discussing changes to its associated article. -- Schaefer (Talk) 19:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Delusion

A doctor explained to me the point about the scientific/medical definition of delusion which I think is interesting and important enough to have in. The key point as far as I can see is that, scientifically a delusion has to be (a)"false", (b) "firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary" and (c) "not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture." Dawkins considers belief in God meets (a) but concedes that it does not meet (b) or (c).

I think that when we talk about the criteria for delision, we should consider the context. The original Jasper criteria were (see the delusion entry):
  1. certainty (held with absolute conviction)
  2. incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
  3. impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
According to these criteria, belief in God (or Allah, or FSMism) would meet all three criteria. Now, in the case of the DSM-IV, there is an attempt to be sensitive to cultural differences, and to no longer speak of true or false, but rather widely believed. Otherwise, we would call anyone who believes that the Earth is flat delusional, when perhaps we should note that they live in a different culture. But, this very avoidance of true/false in the DSM criteria doesn't mean that we can infer anything about the truth or falsity of the beliefs in a community; rather we can only decide if they are pathological and require treatment. That is, it is important to recall that the DSM criteria are meant to be used to asess cases where people should be treated. If we follow that logic, then a definition of delusion that include fewer people seems sensible. We simply do not have enough mental health professionals to treat the majority of Americans! But, Dawkins' point is that belief in God still has many of the features of delusions, even if it is a very prevelant one. Edhubbard 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we can agree that a summary (which may be inaccurate) of what Jaspers proposed in the 1940s doesn't really cut it beside the DSM-IV definition. Also if you look at this definition you will see that it is a false belief, so they do talk of true and false. Furthermore not all delusions are pathological. I think the 'teapot' point is very weak, but if you want to leave it in I can have no objection. After all anyone with a firmly sustained belief in this teapot would be suffering from a delusion in the scientific sense. NBeale 19:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we might agree more than it seems here. The Jaspers summary fits with what I remember from my undergraduate coursework (I have a PhD in Experimental Psychology), although I don't know if it's word-for-word perfect. I also agree that not all delusions are pathological. However, for professional, practicing mental health professionals, their job is to identify and treat pathological delusions. Hence, the form of the definition that they use needs to speak to those cases where it is most likley that it would interfere with an individual's daily life. This is the standard of care normally applied in the medical health field. Dawkins is clearly using a slightly different meaning from the DSM usage, but then again, he's not recommending that everyone who believes in God go in for treatment and medication.
The 'teapot' example is interesting beucase we can all pretty much agree that it's probably not true, and indeed, even very unlikely to be true, but science is equally powerless to disprove the existence of orbiting teapots as it is to disprove the existence of God (or the FSM, for that matter). It's what Daniel Dennett refers to as an intuition pump. It clarifies the issue, which in this case is just that saying science can't "disprove" the existence of God isn't saying very much because of the way that science works. No amount of negative evidence could ever logically disprove that something exists, but it can make it less and less likely, and in the absence of some positive evidence, the burden of proof falls to the person advocating a given position, be it religious or scientific. Of course, there are people in Malaysia who could not be called delusional about their teapot religion, based on the DSM definition, just because it is their religion, even though we in the Western world would to think that they are suffering from a "delusion in the scientific sense"
To take an example from a completely non-religious domain, I could never disprove the idea that lefties are smarter than righties. If I were to run the experiment, and fail to get a significant result, it could be that my sample was too small, or that I did the experiment wrong, or any hundred of other things. Hence, I could not say my failure to find a difference between lefties and righties "disproves" the idea that lefties are smarter. I could only say that I didn't find any positive evidence for it. The scientific method works by positive evidence for something; not by evidence against it. That's the main point of pages 52-55, and that's why I want to insist a little on having the teapot in there. Edhubbard 20:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The delusion definition in the article is far too long. In the Delusion article it shows contradicting views on the defintion. It's fine to note how Dawkins defines it, but defining what it isn't is not relevant. *Spark* 23:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Do you want to take a shot at cutting it down? Dawkins spends a long paragraph on page 5 on this, so it's worth some time, but in one of my previous edit summaries, I mentioned the same feeling. I've been trying to work with NBeale to allow his concerns to be addressed, while trying to maintain my reading of Dawkins' book, too. Perhaps we can summarize with Persig's quote from Dawkins page 5, "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." Edhubbard 23:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That quote was already there. I've tightened it up. As long as Dawkins defines his terms, other definitions aren't relevant. *Spark* 23:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Spark. Please stop just deleting relevant material that has been worked on carefully by qualified editors. This is the official scientific definition of delusion - it is highly relevant that Dawkins does not follow it. NBeale 07:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ed. (Scientific -> Psychiatric) Well OK I suppose. But is there another relevant scientific defintion? NBeale 09:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You really need to learn WP:OWN. Live it, be it. You might want to read delusion a bit more closely, especially foonote 3, "Pathologies of belief" as well as the statement in the article "there is no acceptable (rather than accepted) definition of a delusion". As long as we note what definition he does state, other definitions aren't relevant, and it reads very weasely, defending belief instead of defining the term. It just clutters up the text as is. *Spark* 12:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. For example, someone who deals with neurological patients might also see people who have delusions, such as that their parents are impostors (see e.g., Capgras syndrome). In this case, it wouldn't even make sense to talk of "the majority of people's beliefs" since most people would have no belief at all about someone else's parents. Similarly, in the case of patients with Cotard's syndrome who feel that they are dead, despite the obvious fact that they are living, or people who believe that a limb does not belong to them, associated with anosognosia after damage to the (usually right) parietal cortex, there are clearly disordered beliefs, but again, the majority of people would have not belief whatsoever about somebody else's body. All of these are considered delusions, but they do not necessarily follow every aspect of the DSM-IV definition. Indeed, one thing that you learn working with clinical groups is that there are very few patients who come in and *really* exactly fit the "definitional" criteria. This is part of why I prefer not to limit things to the DSM-IV definition. Edhubbard 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Spark - that's your 3rd revert, please desist. This was a careful NPOV consensus of 2 well-qualified Editors with differing POVs - Ed even has a PhD in Psychology. I'm sure you have something contructive to offer. Also the fact that one editor puts a comment in the Delusion article is irrelevant to the accepted scientific definition of term. Wikipedia is not Holy Writ :-) NBeale 15:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You might want to learn the definition of consensus. It isn't a question of POV, it's a question of relevance and flow. There's more text describing what his defintion isn't, than what it is. Which is ridiculous. (Edit: After a little review, looks like the extra text does indeed violate WP:NPOV, correct as usual Laurence, Thanks) *Spark* 16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
NBeale, see my reply to your comment above (scientific -> psychiatric), but the DSM-IV is no more Holy Writ than wikipedia. That's part of why we are on version 4 of the DSM, and working towards a version 5. Next thing you know we'll have DSM-XP! Definitions are meant to help guide professionals, and they are 1) difficult to apply which is why people spend ten plus years going to school to do this and 2) are subject to change with increasing scientific understanding. The fact that the current DSM makes an allowance for religious belief doesn't mean that it always will. Mass delusions (like the Salem Witch Trials) are nonetheless delusions. Indeed, the fact that clinicians can and do sometimes talk about mass delisions suggests that they are willing to make exceptions to the DSM criteria. Edhubbard 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
NBeale, I agree with Spark here that it does read as if the intent is to defend belief, rather than to explain Dawkin's book (the first rule of good expository writing, first explain the concept, then explain crticisims of it). This is the reason that I started working on your specific edit from the outset. I've tried a gentler approach than Spark trying to integrate your comment in some way, but I agree that the goal seems to be to defend religion. The reason I was somewhat more open to trying it out is that Dawkins' notes that his psychiatrist friends were worried about his use of the term, before proceeding to explain his usage of the term. Since Dawkins set up his argument along those lines, I thought we might want to have some recapitulation of the explanation Dawkins gives. I'll try again to make that clear, while trying to avoid it sounding like an attempt to defend belief through definitional battles (what does "is" mean?). Edhubbard 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The DSM-IV definition allows for a cultural factor (i.e. in this case religion) that can be used to give exactly the kind of misplaced respect that Dawkins wish to discuss. Psychiatrists are obliged to take into account such relativism for a number of professional reasons. Dawkins is not - and obviously should not be - restrained in this manner. Dropping in the hand-picked definition like this does the article no favour in terms of neutrality. EthicsGradient 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
If there's a quote, from Dawkins, that states "I know my definition varies from DSM, and here's why I chose such" then that's fine. But a synopsis of the book is no place to be expanding on what he doesn't say. *Spark* 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I've put in some text which seems to meet all these criticisms as far as possible. But it makes no sense to call the official psyciatric defintion of Delusion a "hand-picked definition" NBeale 07:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain what book everyone else is reading, but he doesn't state the definition in chapter 1, he states it in the preface [1]. He also does not explicity state anything about religion being exempt from the psych definition beyond the Pirsig quote at this point. *Spark* 17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right... I noticed that this morning (Paris time) but didn't have time to correct it. The definition thing is in the preface, not Ch. 1, but I was more concerned about getting the information there as NPOV as possible, and to not put words in Dawkin's mouth, like that he "admits" this or that thing. The point about "undserved respect' is in Chapter 1, so making this link hard to do with a chapter-by-chapter summary. Edhubbard 18:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your edit summary, I only put in what Dawkins himself says about delusion in the preface. I don't believe it differs in any meaningful way from the DSM definition, which is flawed. For example, by the DSM definition quoted, my belief that an invisible unicorn lives in my garage would not technically be a delusion. That fails "despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary" as there cannot be evidence to the contrary (not falsifiable). *Spark* 00:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Spark. You don't have such a belief, certainly not firmly held. If you did, evidence against would include no sound or smell, no room in garage etc.. If you know better than DSM what should be a delusion explain it to the psychiatrists, but until then let's stick to facts about established scientific defintions not opinions. NBeale 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a multidimensional unicorn which nobody can hear or smell. I don't think you honestly believe no sound, smell, or physical presence is evidence against existence, do you? Hmmmmm..... *Spark* 12:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It's evidence against existence of a unicorn not (eg) a neutrino. The evidence for/against an entity depends on the type of entity in question. NBeale 13:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

(reset) The idea that quoting the facts about the psyciatric definition of a delusion is OR should have little place in serious discourse. Do you think Dawk's "arguments" are indeed so weak that quoting undisputable facts from official medical publications undermines them, so they have to be deleted by people who want to protect his worldview? NBeale 01:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to give it a rest with the whole "acolyte" nonsense. Dawkins doesn't mention DSM, we don't know that he's even familiar with the DSM definition. You're adding facts not in evidence, drawing a conclusion, and performing original research. Stop it. Read WP:NOR, especially the part about what is excluded. *Spark* 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Spark. I've no idea what your experience or qualifications are, but it would be constructive to use facts and logical argument rather than weak procedural points to try to block criticism of Dawk. The fact that he doesn't mention an establish scientific fact does not make it untrue. And even I don't think that he could write a book about Delusion without knowing the official scientific defintion of the term. NBeale 08:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Nbeale, you continue to insist that the DSM-IV is the "official scientific definition" of the term. I have given you multiple examples from real, scientific practice where the DSM-IV definition is *not* the accepted scientific definition of the term. Rather, the DSM is first and foremost a clinical guidebook, intended as a shorthand between experts. So, let's get that canard out of the way right now... The DSM is *one of* the places that clinicians and scientific experts turn to for definitions, but the most important place that they turn to is their accumulated reading of the primary, peer reviewed, scientific literature (perhaps 100-200 papers per year, for at least 5-10 years before becoming licensed), and their years of accumulated experience. Just as you don't need a dictionary to tell you what a dog is, clinicians don't run to the DSM-IV every time they see a case and think, gee, that might be a delusion. As is stated in the DSM-IV-TR "The DSM-IV-TR warns that, because it is produced for mental health specialists, its use by people without clinical training can lead to inappropriate application of its contents." You can see the entry here Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders, and I can confirm that it is in there from my own paper copy. See, too, the wikipedia section on the limitations (i.e., that the DSM is not a "cookbook") and the critism sections. One of the criticisms of the DSM is that it is *not* scientific, but rather clinical. So, you need to stop trying to refer to the DSM as the "scientific" definition of delusion.
Importantly, too, definitions change. As I've pointed out before, this is why we are on the DSM-IV-TR (previous versions just within my experience being the III-R and IV). If, suddenly, with the DSM-V (due out in 2011), this exception that you so proudly use to argue against Dawkins now, were to be eliminated, would you say, "Oh, that means that religion is a delusion after all"? I don't think so.
You know, when I first started working with on this page, I disgreed with the content you were adding, but I assumed good faith. In the past week, I have come to see that what you are really trying to do is push your own POV under the guise of adding this or that reference. What you are engaging in is OR as defined by the Official Policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. You are, indeed, citing sources. However, you are combining sources to create your own synthesis of ideas, in order to in some way attempt to argue that Dawkins is ignoring an important part of the definition, etc. etc. However, nobody has advanced this argument in a reliable source. Therefore you are engaging in a novel synesthesis, and attempting to do so to in some way deflect Dawkin's criticisms of religion. This is POV OR, and personally, I am about ready to adopt a revert-all-NBeale-additions-on-sight policy. Edhubbard 08:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Nbeale, when first I reacted to the use of the DSM-IV definition (calling it hand-picked) the text changed to the better quite rapidly due (I think) to a collaboration between you and Edhubbard. I stood down for the sake letting consensus work its way out. Now, after reading the recent discussion on this, I am quite certain that DSM-IV does not merit the weight you want to give it, and that my first reaction was justified. In addition to the points of Edhubbard and Spark above (thanks to both for clarifying things) here is a scientific (review) paper in The Journal of Psychiatric Practice that might shed some additional light on how definitions are viewed by scientists working in the field. From the abstract [2]:
Religious beliefs and delusions alike can arise from neurologic lesions and anomalous experiences, suggesting that at least some religious beliefs can be pathological. Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective. However, a religious belief's dimensional characteristics, its cultural influences, and its impact on functioning may be more important considerations in clinical practice.
Clearly, the psychiatrist would here use the DSM-IV definition in clinical work, while leaving the door open for using another when working from a rational perspective. EthicsGradient 12:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) NBeale, left the following message on my talk page in response to my above comments: "Ed. If a ref to a single direct quote from an official source is OR then all of Wikipedia is OR. This does not make sense. Be Bold is the slogan, surely. NBeale 10:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)" From watching NBeale work, I know that he is too smart to play dumb here... But, just to make things clear, I am going to go through my thinking on this step by step. Acccording to wikipedia policy here what NBeale is doing is considered OR. In particular, the relevant section states:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

In this case, A is the definition of "delusion" that Dawkins' used, and B is the DSM-IV definition. NBeale repeatedly pointed to the difference between these two definitions, which then serves to advance the argument (cleverly left implicit) that, since Dawkins' definition differs from his preferred "scientific" defition, Dawkins is in some way trying to mislead the reader about what a delusion is, and perhaps even (oh, hope of hope!) that readers will just ignore everything that comes after. If someone else, in a reliable, published source, were to make the same point, *then* NBeale *could* cite it in the criticism section. However, until then, it is considered original research by wikipedia policies. When I first started working on that section with/against NBeale, I assumed good faith as I mentioned above, and I thought that it might have been relevant, given that Dawkins' does mention talking with psychiatrist friends. However, as Spark correctly noted, Dawkins never mentions the DSM-IV definition, and therefore introducing this new information can only be thought of as adding source B, which then serves to advance the author's (in this case NBeale's) position. Edhubbard 22:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ed. Revisiting this issue after a pause for reflection, I still think we can, and should, find a way in which the reader is made aware of the currently defined Psychiatric definition of Delusion, so that they can make up their own minds as to whether it is reasonable to call belief in God a Delusion. I'm pretty sure that if a religious scientist wrote a book which heavily used a scientific term in a non-scientific sense (eg "The Schizophrenia of Atheism", defining it as "a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements." which was justified by pointing out some contradictory or incompatible elements in the views of Atheists) you would think it fair to point readers of Wikipedia to scientific defintions of Schizophrenia and allow them to draw their own conclusions. I certainly would. NBeale 22:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't. Drop it. It's done. It's WP:OR, clear and simple. *Spark* 22:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Spark is correct, it is OR. •Jim62sch• 23:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Curious points about the book

I’m genuinely curious as to how Dawkins’ supporters would defend some aspects of this book from the suggestion of a fundamental lack of intellectual integrity. eg:

  1. He says (p1) that this book is for people who “wish they could [leave their parents’ religion], but just don’t realise that leaving is an option.” Since the OT, NT and Koran all make it clear that leaving is an option, where does he think he can find such un-informed people? Does it surprise him that most readers are like Lala, fans who already agree with him?
  2. He uses his own definitions of “God.” (p13 & p31). With a modern philosophical definition (like “Ultimate Creator”) several of his arguments break down. If you want to argue with integrity against a widely-held view you should use a definition of that view from a leading exponent.
  3. Before The God Delusion the only full-length books on religious questions written by a current FRS were by John Polkinghorne, who even Dawkins concedes is a “good scientist.” Yet Dawkins never engages with Polkinghorne’s arguments and only lists one of his many relevant books.
  4. His list of religious scientists conspicuously omits Simon Conway Morris and Martin Nowak.
  5. He uses his own summaries of the major arguments for the existence of God, mentions some well-explored issues about them without citing any of the (vast) literature and assumes that there is no response to his points. The major modern philosophers who lead on these arguments (eg Alvin Plantinga) are not discussed.
  6. The obvious ‘evolutionary’ explanation for religious belief is that believers, on average, are happier, healthier, live longer and have more children (all well documented in many studies). Dawkins does not even consider this hypothesis, let alone look at the evidence.

Responses on these points would be much appreciated (but please spare me tirades about "religionists") NBeale 07:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

1) The texts themsleves also make it excruciatingly clear that "leaving" (or, for that matter, not joining in the first place) will result in eternal damnation and punishment. Some Western societies (e.g. parts of the US and almost all of Italy), not t mention the Eatern ones, make it exquisitly clear that becoming an atheist will result in ostracism, explicit juridical and political discrimination of varios kinds and generally being treates as if you are a socially contagious species of bacterium. Fact is, if any one of my relatives here in Italy ever found out that I were an atheist, the results would be devastating for all involved. I would be considered a freak and/or satanically possesed, with the result that people wouild be preaching at me and attempting to brainwash me 24/7. I would end up having to physically hurt one of them and that would very sad indeed. This is an important point. Thanks for pointing it out to me!! I now realize the extraodrinay value of a book like Dawkins on atheism that is aimed not at philosophers and intellectualls but at the intelliegent but intimiated secular lay audience "locked in the closet". Judging by the sales, there are a great many people who needed a book like this to help them develop their self-confidence and defend themselves against the pushers of holy hogwash.

2) He uses the most common definition that follows from the three great Western monotheistic religions that he is attacking.And, in can case, this is common pratice. When Daniel Deneett writes a book about intentionality, it is HIS deifntion of intentionality that is relevant and discussed in the book. He does not discuss Searles0s notion of intentionality. Contrarily, Searte ALWAYS defines consciousness in his favored terms before discussing it. He does not adopt Denett's defintion or Chalmer's defintion or Fodor's non-definition. This is because there are simply too many and the concepts are extremely vague, but one has to start somewhere. 3) No one who writes a book on consciosness is require to engage every single writer who has ever touched on the topic. The same applies to the existence of god. 4) So what? Dawkin's book is not perfect. Gee wizzzz!! 5) This is true. He should have enaged the traditional arguments somwhat more thorouhgly and not dismissed them as "silly". But, then, he's writing for a popualar audience which will not have much undertanding or interest in the Ph.D. level technical vocabulary and logico-mathemaical argumentation of Platinga and other a professional analytic sophists.....err, um... philosophers who write exclusively for analytic philosophers. All of this is mostly beside the point. 6) On the last point, the evidence is certainly disputable. I'm not going to defend Dawkins here, because I tend to reject what Jerry Fodor calls "pop Darwinism" in any case. I don't buy evolutionary explanations for religion. It is purely the product of social psychological needs for father figures, fear of death and so on. Freud had it about right.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. To respond briefly:(1)well maybe that's who's buying the book - I really doubt it. Almost all the reviewers think he's preaching to his fans. (2) To agrue against a view with integrity you should use a definition from a leading Proponent. What would you say to a book that defined Atheism as "a prejudice against God"? (3) He doesn't engage with any good scientist who believes in God - even the ones he knows about and mentions. (4)A bit dishonest to mention the two great evolutionists who disagee? (6)Are there any studies that go the other way? And why doesn't he dispute the evidence, rather than trying to hide it? NBeale 18:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You missed the most important point: the fact that

anyone in the US is buying the book is an important revelation of the enormous number of people out there who HAVE NOT been successfully brainwashed by fundies and others, but who feel closeted and isolated because of the overwhelming social pressure to conform to the dominant theocratic culture. The book is valuable because it takes on the most sacred of all sacred cows in the history of the planet, giving others the courage to follow and speak out more forcefully. Period. 2) The Stanford Ency of Phil, when discussin the arguments for and againt the existence of god, uses a definition very similar to Dawkins "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenelovent being worhty of worship, etc.." In sum, a personal deity.

The term “God” is used with a wide variety of different meanings. These tend to fall, however, into two main groups. On the one hand, there are metaphysical interpretations of the term: God is a prime mover, or a first cause, or a necessary being that has its necessity of itself, or the ground of being, or a being whose essence is identical with its existence. Or God is not one being among other beings -- even a supremely great being -- but, instead, being itself. Or God is an ultimate reality to which no concepts truly apply. On the other hand, there are interpretations that connect up in a clear and relatively straightforward way with religious attitudes, such as those of worship, and with very important human desires, such as the desire that, at least in the end, good will triumph, and justice be done, and the desire that the world not be one where death marks the end of the individual's existence, and where, ultimately, all conscious existence has ceased to be. What properties must something have if it is to be an appropriate object of worship, and if it is to provide reason for thinking that there is a reasonable chance that the fundamental human hopes just mentioned will be fulfilled? A natural answer is that God must be a person, and who, at the very least, is very powerful, very knowledgeable, and morally very good.

They don't take sides on the arguments. 3-6) The rest are just intersting quibbles with which I agree. The book is not an academic tour de force. But that's not what it is supposed to be!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Stop Enough of this. This entire section is irrelevant to improvement of the article. Read WP:NOT. This is not the place for a debate on the merits of the book. I'm sure you can find a board or newsgroup to discuss your issues. *Spark* 21:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You still don't get it, do you?--KaptKos 10:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to try and explain some of this to you, NBeale - but I fear I'm not qualified to do so, as I'm not a "supporter" or a "follower" or an "acolyte" of Richard Dawkins! Snalwibma 14:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The 747 Gambit

Even by Dawkins standards this is a terrible argument. The standard form of argument for hypothesis H1 vs H2 is to observe a fact X and note that p(X|H1)>>p(X|H2). So the argument from fine tuning (say) is that p(Anthropic Universe|God)>>p(Anthropic Universe|No God). Now if Dawkins stopped handwaving about "statistical improbability" (whatever he thinks that means) and tried to formulate his argument as p(X|Y) he would see that it doesn't hold water for a second. Of course p(God|No God)=0 which is less than p(X|No God) but that begs the question. What Dawkins seems to be trying to say, in his quaint non-numerate way, is that if D designed X then, for any B, p(D|B)<p(X|B) (justifying it perhaps by wooly appeals to "complexity"). But this is obviously untrue. Consider an artist D who designs n paintings x1..xn, all but one of which are destroyed at random. Then p(x1|B) = 1/n but p(D|B) =1. I accept at the moment that this counts as WP:OR but it's only a short matter of time before someone publishes this elementary refutation. To prepare the ground for this, does any Dawkins supporter have a better formulation of the "argument", preferably from a notable source, or a suggested counter to the refutation? And in the meantime shouldn't we soft pedal on his ludicrous assertion about theologians. Dawkins must have heard for Bernard Silverman! NBeale 23:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me you're kidding. WP:NOT. *Spark* 00:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are sure somebody will shortly publish 'this elementary refutation', why the hurry? If that's the case, you can afford to relax. EthicsGradient 10:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Nbeale, you continue to break Wikipedia guidelines even when they are pointed out to you (see the stop sign above). Can you read what it says at the top of this page? It says This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Poujeaux 13:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC). [ If I am allowed a one line reply, p(Iraq war, malaria, mosquitoes, cancer | randomness + evolution) >> p(same things | kind loving omnipotent god). ]

Be that as it may (glad to discuss offline but as you say this isn't the place!) ... Thanks Spark for restoring the +ve reviews, which I didn't delete (and indeed I think I put some of them in originally). I hadn't noticed that they had gone because I was only looking at the 747 section. The reason I've adjusted the Dennett reference is that it reads as though we are getting a quote from Dennett but the ref was in fact a quote from Dawkins who then quotes Dennett. Since (as you know) I think the argument ridiculous the more Dawkins and Dennett tie themselves to it the better as far as I'm concerned, but since Dennett is writing 11 years before Dawkins offers this "gambit" to the world he might be writing about something else. NBeale 19:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Timely writings - Religion as Contamination

Religion is a disease, a plague, an epidemic. It must be wiped from the face of the earth before its too late. Any ammunition that can (peaceably) help with this is Good. This is a Good book. Publicize it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.194.13.103 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publicity platform. Our goal is to present information from a neutral point of view, not to promote or disparage. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize the absolute silliness of this situation

I find it impossible to order a copy of this book because I'm surrounded by an entire family (that is, mine) of Catholic fanatics. I will have to lie to my mother and tell her that I have ordered a different book and then, when the book arrives via courier, I will have to immediately remove it from the box, hide it under my bed or somwhwere comptely inaccessible and replace it with a copy of some other book in the box. It's as if I were buying a book of child-pornography by Ted Haggard or something. WTF!! If anyone in my family found out I am atheist (except my ex-fundamentalist, now rabidly and vociferously atheist American brother in San Francisco, of course) they would probably kick me out of the fucking country, notwishstanding the fact that I am nearly 80% physically and mentally disabled. (It is these disgusting injustice and unpardonable maliciousness of the torture involved in these latter conditions, BTW, that convinced me of the absolute impossibility of GAAAAAAAD and not Dawkins or anyone else's argumentation. That and the fact that I can easily see through all of the BS logical arguments for the exitence of god that are put forth by those who beleive in god(s),for whataver bizarre psyhcopathologic reasons they do and then argue a posteriori to convince people that the idea of gaaaad is not as ridiculouly implasuible as that of Zeus, Hera, Aprhodite, flying green strawberries, Santa Claus, etc..) At any rate, I would be cosidered some kind of terrifying freak of nature if my Catholic fundie famnily were to find a copy of this insidious and dangerous work buy Richrd Dawkins. This is why I shall certainly buy it and translate it into Italian myslef ASAP. You see, these MOTHERFUCKERS are trying to control what I am allowed to think, read, beleive right down to the most fundemnental matters. The question is not one of who's right and who's wrong, from this point of view. It is one of CIVIL RIGHTS and FREEDOM of THOUGHT, for Christ's sake. Western civilization (wel., at leats parts of the US and ALL of Italy are already theocracies!!). It's time to fight back, ladies and gents and it0s time to fight back hard againts these poisonoous Christofacists and Islamofacoists who control what many of us can say, do and think.

--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)End of rant.


and not any agumnatatiomn

THIS is why the books like this are so damned important!!