Talk:Victor J. Stenger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

[edit] NPOV

There are a number of POV edits, mostly from User:NBeale who studied under theologian, John Polkinghorne and is proud of it.

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"This work has not been peer-reviewed and its validity is controversial."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

[edit] Please define the scope of the debate

Hi. Could somebody please spell out what the POV objection exactly is about. I'm having a hard time correlating the discussion here to the actual article. --Amit 20:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess nobody's watching this page anymore. -- Amit 05:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the tag if nobody comments. --Amit 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine - the page *is* watched, though for me I only cue on anomalies on my watchlists. Ttiotsw 07:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed tag. Amit 09:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free will

Has Victor Stenger taken a definitive position on (libertarian) free-will? If so, shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? Amit@Talk 10:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well here has stuff but I wouldn't call it definitive. Ttiotsw 11:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere that he has said that a scientific, non-theological explanation of free-will, assuming it exists, will someday be found. You think that can be included, if I can find the source? Amit@Talk 11:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I added it as best as I could recall ... couldn't find the source again. Amit@Talk 06:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)