Talk:The God Delusion/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Section on Turkey

Has anything come of this? I updated the section with a second reference from a more recent article (December), but there has been nothing more on it since then, and it was over three months ago. Is the process, whatever that's supposed to involve, supposed to take this long? If nothing comes of it, should we even bother keeping this section? Richard001 (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's still a notable controversy, perhaps if nothing ever comes of it beyond this it could be collapsed into a shorter verions. 3 months isn't usually that long for a legal issue : ) 20:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The plaintiff said that he's going to appeal against the decision on a procedural reason. [1] (kutukagan (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

I don't think its significant enough to warrant its own section, this book has had problems in a lot of countries. 68.238.217.81 (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Trimming the criticism

I really want to trim the reviews section to make it more readable. This was very difficult, because we obviously don't want to just remove criticism. I started a /reviews sub-page, but then I gave up. Maybe, we can simply make a few small changes at a time... so let's begin with the two first sections. I would like to merge them and remove Professor Plantinga for the following reasons:

• We already mention that Plantinga has published a rebuttal.
• Philosophical objections can not be summarized in one sentence. I don't think sentences like "Plantinga claims that Dawkins does not support this assertion and suggests that Dawkins is assuming materialism" are respectful to Plantinga at all.
• Is there anyone here, who thinks that ad hominems, such as "many of [Dawkins'] arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.", adds any information to the article?

I would replace the whole plantinga paragraph with:

Alvin Plantinga,[24] Anthony Kenny,[25] Thomas Nagel,[26] and other philosophers have responded to the arguments of the book about the existence of God. Richard Swinburne has responded to parts of The God Delusion that interact with Swinburne's writings.[27] These philosophers agree to a greater or lesser extend with Plantinga's verdict that the book's argument "really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a delusion".

What are the objections? I think it is a wonderfully NPOV and accurate summary. :) --Merzul (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The final sentence looks WP:SYNTH-y to me, and I agree it's hard to do justice to philosophical objections with brevity. That ad hominem thing should be removed, even if it is a quote. Reading the section, I'd say remove the second sentence "He says that.." If Plantinga focuses on chapter 4, why not expand the discussion of that focus to include a more meaty summary of the argument, then move the scholars who agree to the bottom? Lead with Plantinga, if others are agreeing but not expanding, then we don't need to discuss those arguments in depth and a simple 'X, Y and Z echo Plantinga' would seem adequate to me. WLU (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The final sentence is indeed synthy, so let's see. On the other hand, I would not like to expand too much about the argument though, why else do we have the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit? I will think about if there is any way, something substantial about the argument can be said per as a summary. --Merzul (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. What about the first line of the section after the {{main}} being a quick summary of the UB747A (I'd just copy-paste the lead), then saying who agrees? Take out the specifics and quotes completely. WLU (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It could be, but the synopsis briefly outlines the argument already, so here I would prefer a succinct presentation of the critique. I made the "main" link more specific towards the critical assessment, do you think that's good or bad? Now, I'll go along with whatever you guys prefer. I would personally love to get this article a bit shorter, but I have no desperate need to do so of course. :) --Merzul (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest putting links to reviews - but not trying to summarise the criticism (because it may not be valid - eg ad hominem) and the clutter in trying to elucidate every criticism is what kills the readability. Also it is often not simply "fair" to present a criticism in detail and then try and even it up with a rebuttal - the best "sound byte" wins in this method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spurrymoses (talk • contribs) 02:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Russell Blackford - Science Fiction Writer and PhD Student in Philosophy

AFAIK all the professional philosophers who have reviewed The God Delusion find it full of philosophical errors (some go so far as to say "howlers" and my (atheist) collaborator Colin Howson has described the 747 Gambit as about the worst argument he has seen published in philosophy. To "balance this out" we quote from the Australian Philosopher Russell Blackford who turns out to be a science-fiction writer studying for a PhD in philosophy. And we gave him more space than Alvin Plantinga, Anthony Kenny, Thomas Nagel, and Michael Ruse. This makes no sense to me, so I have edited down a bit NBeale (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How many people do you know with 2 PhDs - Blackford isn't a student anymore, you need to do your research better. See [2] -- to dismiss him as just a sf writer, which you are trying to do, is clearly a misleading description of him. dougweller (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well his thesis has just been accepted for a PhD as at Nov 2008. I guess about 50,000 people get new PhD's in Philosophy each year. This puts them on the first rung of the academic ladder, and about 1% of them will become serious philosophers. And 1% of those will be remotely as eminent as Anthony Kenny or Alvin Plantinga. Enough said. NBeale (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

50,000 new PhD's in philosophy per year? I doubt that very much. Can you back up that guess? I would reckon there are about 5 per reputable uni per year, and I doubt there are 10,000 reputable unis in the world . I think you are an order of magnetude out.1812ahill (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

God Delusion POV-fork in Anti-Catholicism article.

The Anti-Catholicism article seems to be host to a coathanger attack on the God Delusion. The "Modern anti-Catholic polemics" section contains:

Richard Dawkins in his latest best-selling book The God Delusion (2006) asserts that a Catholic upbringing promotes guilt-trips referring[ to the "semi-permanent state of morbid guilt suffered by a Catholic possessed of normal human frailty and less than normal intelligence" . Discussing the consequences of clerical sexual abuse in Ireland, he further suggests that "horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place".

I tried to remove the second sentence, which is blatantly out of context, as Dawkins states in the next sentence that "it was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment". However, my edit was reverted without comment (and thus with the implication that it was vandalism) by User:Mamalujo. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 12:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not neutral

The majority of the article is about the critical reception of the book and attempts to contradict it. Surely if there are so many arguments contradictory to that of Dawkins, then it would be fair to also discuss in detail the arguments that compliment the book. 121.73.178.22 (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there some specific wording in a specific section that you want to comment on? The article looks neutral to me. For example, the "Responding books" section just lists responding books (with links), and there is no comment on the arguments raised in those books. In other sections, a brief overview of a counter argument is given (with links), followed by a brief overview of a response to the counter argument, to give the POV of the book that is the subject of the article (with links). I don't see how that could be improved. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Economist doesn't use bylines

The article cites "an unnamed source in The Economist". The Economist doesn't use bylines.[3]. "The Economist is 160+ years old, and back then anonymity was the norm. Then the industry went on a slightly disturbing path toward writer celebrity, and we simply chose not to participate." --John Nagle (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Very helpful. I have edited the mention of the Economist back to the way it was, deleting the slightly weaselish-looking words "an unnamed author". SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 05:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Dawkins' father in the lede

A persistent editor has changed the second paragraph in lede repeatedly to mention that Dawkins' father is, by Dawkins' definition, delusional, and also to delete the sentence "He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's observation in Lila that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.".". I think the stable, de facto consensus version is better - the mention of his father seems too trivial for the lede, and I see no reason to delete the quote above - but I'm bringing it here to see what the consensus is. Is there consensus? Dawn Bard (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I checked the edits that you (and John Darrow) reverted and agree that they have no encyclopedic value in this article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on two counts. The Pirsig quote is from the book and helps explain the title. And the editor is engaging in synthesis--using material from multiple sources to advance a position. Barte (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Metacritic

Hello, I have one question about "Critical reception" part, is the user score from Metacritic.com any relevant to use in this article? Since it can be affected by anyone at any time, and it is not a representative sample. It also changes through time. Is it common that the user score at Metacritic is used in articles? Thank you for your answer. --AnUub1s (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will now delete this part since nobody made a valid point (in fact nobody reacted,) so there is no point in keeping this, if someone thinks other or when you have any suggestions, please write here first before reverting my edit, thank you. --AnUub1s (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you BillMasen, I didnt noticed your edit. I think next time i edit it by myself instead of making pointless monologs in the discussion section. Thank you --AnUub1s (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but the symbolism is telling. Like a theist talking to "god", you simply end up talking to yourself ;-) The7thdr (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Touch-ay ;) 1812ahill (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What is a GA Review?

A frequently used term in this article's discussion; GA Review=Good Article Review - as far as I can tell. I had to revert to Google to find this out. Typing 'GA review' into the Wikipedia search box revealed nothing. Perhaps an issue to be addressed? Or am I just being newbish, or just pedantic? 1812ahill (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations without references without sources

Wikipeadia frequently mentions the importance of citations. However, are there any rules/conventions about quoting sources that themselves don't quote source material or any references? Or is it just left up to the reader to judge the value of any quoted references? If so, then (as Dawkins would say) I can make a web page saying there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, then add a section to the Wikipedia fairies page and quote that in a new section named 'Evidence for fairies'.

For instance, in the criticism section, there is a ref (currently #43) to an article on a web page at 'bethinking.org' a.k.a. 'science+christianity', where the link leads to a certain 'Anthony Flew' who writes that "[Dawkins] makes no mention of Einstein's most relevant report namely: that the integrated complexity of the world of physics has led him to believe that there must be a Divine Intelligence behind it". Yet the author, Flew, himself provides no refs to his own statements. As an example of Flew's ineptitude, what does he mean by '[Einstein's] most relevant report' here?!?! Obviously 'report' (meaningless) should read 'paper' and would, to anyone aquainted with his work, be Einstein's paper on Special, followed by General Relativity, or even his paper on the photo-electric effect (which is what he won his Nobel prize for), not some fancifull quote from an unreferenced fourth party reporter!!!

In short, are references to blatently nonsensical articles on POV websites/webpages acceptable? (Even if the quoted reference is followed by a refutation of it - i.e. the current ref #44).

If nonsense refs are frowned upon, then I'll be chopping out such unsubstantiated rubbish from this article, and wherever else I find it, if not then anyone can indeed write carefully crafted unsubstantiated rubbish

Finally, if I've asked a stupid question, I apologise, as I couldn't easily find anything about this issue in Wiki. 1812ahill (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi 1812, see WP:RS. I think that some of the things that you cite here would probably fail as reliable sources, and so probably can be removed... but be warned, the current state of this article (as are many others on wikipedia) is a consensus between often warring factions who think that this article should or shouldn't include certain things, and who will in turn argue that their preferred source is reliable, while they sources for arguments they don't like is not reliable. This article in particular has been a lightning rod for such controversial additions and rebuttals. Removing some of these sections is sure to elicit some cries of glee and some howls of outrage from different editors here. Edhubbard (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Time has passed since the thrash-wars of this article, and so it is hard to know what will happen if you start chopping. But if you see places where dubious sources have been used, cut away and see what ensues. WP:RS really is the guide here--though the borderline between what is reliable and what isn't can get blurry Barte (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:RS advice. Bearing that, and what you have both said in mind I think I will in that case leave well alone (It is obvious from the length of this talk page alone that this subject has been a hot potato). Cheerz 1812ahill (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Downfall of some opponents" section

I have just noticed this new addition to the article, and I'd like to delete it. It is badly written, incomprehensible in places, inappropriately triumphalist and in breach of WP:NPOV. What's it there for? Permission to delete? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that it is at best badly named. I read it earlier and agree it didn't make much sense. The information may be reasonable, but it does seem a bit odd. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it could be renamed "Aftermath". But I agree with Snalwibma for the reasons stated. Delete it. Barte (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The section needs to be renamed and the content significantly altered, and there is no reason to include external links in the body of the article. All this enthusiasm for Dawkins is admirable, but external links belong in EL, and references should be used to add useful information to the article. I won't edit the section myself at the moment in order to allow Livingrm some time, but it currently is extremely non-encyclopedic, and is actually a little hard to follow: "public relations coups" are generally not appropriate in an article; if used, a reference would be required; a reference is needed for a claim that Haggard's life is relevant to this article; there is probably other WP:OR also. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It should totally be deleted. It's simply OR (and/or fatuous; cf. "Banana Man"). TGD has a lot of critics; we should not be surprised that some of them subsequently run afoul of the law and/or common sense (cf. the Texas sharpshooter fallacy). Unless, that is, we think that Dawkins' God is smiting those who have shunned or chastised him? And those bits that are sourced could easily be integrated elsewhere in the article. This section needs to go. --PLUMBAGO 07:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree tat this section is not encyclopedic. delete. Northfox (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Critical Reception

The "Critical Reception" section looks like an excuse for opinions to slide into this article. It's certainly a gift for people who oppose the book to shove in a never-ending supply of criticisms from everyone who has ever disagreed with it (given the subject, there's bound to be many) The whole article feels like an underhanded critic-fest, dominated by spurious criticisms from anywhere and everywhere. I propose that if any criticism is to be included, it should be set against specific sections of the book, and clearly indicate both sides of the point by including book-references for independent analysis. The other problem with this section, in principle, is that 50 more people who criticized the book can be discovered and their criticism appended. It's not discrete information. It's never-ending clutter.

The other option is to delete this section, I don't see much informational value. If there is a summary of the books overall "points" then these can be linked to arguments against them. I really don't want to read 2 pages of "critcisms" in an encyclopedia - in fact, I would question whether this section is encyclopedic at all 59.154.148.250 (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)spurrymoses

Lennox and "The God Delusion debates"

Can someone tell me, why are Dawkins' debates with Lennox so important as to merit a whole section of the article to themselves, and why do they need ten references? Dawkins has spoken on the subject, and debated with all sorts of people, all over the world, in all sorts of media. Why pick on this one for extended treatment? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. I only cleaned up what was there, but now that you mention it, this is probably undue weight on this one set of debates. So, there are two different answers: 1) we increase the size of this section, to include fair representation of the debates that Dawkins has engaged in in response to TGD, or 2) we reduce or eliminate entirely this section. Of course, we could do a mix of both, to reduce the size of the Lennox debates substantially, and make a smaller section the debates that Dawkins has engaged in as a direct result of The God Delusion (we don't want to stray into his debates on selfish genes, or memetics, or all of the other things Dawkins has done; that's not appropriate here). Ideas? And, what is the best course of action until we have a consensus? Edhubbard (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Ratio Delusion

The publisher of this work specialises in self-publishing and unattributed lifts of Wikipedia articles. Books from this source cannot be considered as reliable. Reinsertion of the title in "Critical reception" by an anonymous editor linked to User:Falk55 may raise conflict of interest issues with the book's author Falk Quest. Once again it has been removed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no compulsion to list every piece of writing that the author hopes is a response to TGD. If necessary, we could consider trimming the lists to include only those works that are notable as evidenced by suitable reviews in reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that point about the publishing house, it will come in handy over at Richard Dawkins, where Falk55 has also been spotted. Hadrian89 (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Debate and deistic god

A recent edit added ...in which Dawkins admitted that, while he would not accept it, a reasonably respectable case for a deistic god could be made. That short extract conveys a meaning that is absent from what Dawkins actually said. To provide some context, I have transcribed the following portion from the video. To start the debate, the moderator asked Dawkins: "Has science buried god?". In reply Dawkins said:

Well which god? I mean we could take Einstein's god which is not really a personal god at all, but which is a sort of poetic metaphor for the mystery, that which we don't understand about the universe.

We could take a deistic god, a sort of god of the physicist, a god of somebody like Paul Davies, who devised the laws of physics, god the mathematician, god who put together the cosmos in the first place and then sat back and watched everything happen. And that would be, the deist god would be one that I think that would be One could make a reasonably respectable case for that, not a case that I would accept, but I think it is a serious discussion that we could have. [The struck out words were spoken while formulating the thought.]

The third kind of god is one of which there are thousands and thousands of varieties: Zeus and Thor and Apollo and...

I do not think that the debate is all that relevant to the subject of this article, but people are highly interested in the follow up to the book, so we may as well carry an accurate portrayal. I have therefore reworded the text to clarify the meaning of what Dawkins said. I included all of the sentence spoken by Dawkins, but some of it could be omitted (replaced with an ellipsis). Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the way you handled it is very good. As for whether to shorten it, with an ellipsis, it seems to me that it is not overly long for this page, as it is now. I was concerned that the edit to which you linked was putting words in Dawkins' mouth, to make it appear that he had conceded a point that, in fact, he had not conceded, and so I agree that the best approach is to present an accurate extended quote of what was actually said. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

<At the end of chapter 4, Why there almost certainly is no God, Dawkins sums up his argument and states, "The temptation [to attribute the appearance of a design to actual design itself] is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.>

First it has to be clearly understood that one of the attributes of God is that "He is the origin of absolutely everything, and He Himself has no origin (God is the Cause of all causes, who Himself has no other cause)." There is no question of God being "designed". Mayurvg (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Dawkins there is. This article is about Dawkins' book. Please discuss the article and stop discussing the subject. See warnings on your talk page. DVdm (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviews and responses

There appear to be some problems with this section... per WP:EL, we shouldn't be linking to articles/sites that require registration or subscription to view content. I haven't checked all of them, but the Plantinga and Ruse ones are clearly out. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there has been some misunderstanding here. WP:EL says very clearly that we should generally not provide content that requires readers to link to pay sites, but it also says very clearly that this prohibition does not apply to references used to source material (see WP:ELREG, and note the clear distinction with respect to inline citations). This is a case of the latter. If we required readers to read pay sites to complete their reading of content on this page, or if we listed them as external links, then it would be correct to delete them. But here, the page is saying that there have been numerous published works responding to The God Delusion, including these, and provides citations to source those statements, and it is only the sourcing that is in question in the disputed edits that have just been made. As long as the sources exist, they still pass WP:V, just as would a book that you cannot access online but could read at a library. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, it would indeed be better if those parts of the page were developed into regular text, instead of lists. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? I believe it is better in list form. The Critical Reception section has over 30 titles in it and forming them into a papragraph would seem rather messy. --Stickee (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This could be argued either way: it is correct that references can use a pay site, but a counter argument would be that there is no information from the source in the article, so a reference is not appropriate, and is merely a work around to provide what is effectively an external link (which should not use a pay site). I think the best approach is to leave the article as it is because TGD is a highly discussed book, and various people want a list of the significant responses, and there is ample precedent for "list of" items in articles (each item using a ref instead of an external link). I do not favor requiring the addition of useful text from each responding source because frankly a lot of the material would be rather unsatisfying, and would rapidly approach He is an atheist and therefore wrong unhelpful commentary. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that both of your comments are well-taken. I'm certainly not pushing hard with respect to the list format. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Adams quote

The Douglas Adams quotation mentioned in the "Synopsis" section is actually from The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, not Last Chance to See. It's Ford Prefect's reaction to Zaphod claiming they are in orbit around Magarathea (which, as it turns out, they are, making the line somewhat ironic). --Hence Piano (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Adams title entirely, as it's not cited in TGD. If you have a page ref to THGTTG, you could add it, but I don't think the info is essential. It's who wrote it and what he wrote, not where. Barte (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearing something up

When Dawkins writes that "Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled. ", is this in response to claims that Atheists are heathens who have no concience? Kalga (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't realise such claims exixted. Atheists are generally well balanced considered people. Men like Dawkins give them a bad name as arrogant and militarily closed to any further suggestion of the presence of a 'higher' force. In many ways Dawkins is quite ignorant, his recent piece on I think Channel four was particularly aggrivating. He seems to have no respect in peoples right to belive in a God. In that sense I personally find him no better than fundamentalists. In fact his considerable intellect oinly serves to make him worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.237.134 (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Please remember that the talk page is a place to discuss editions to the article, not a place to express personal opinions. Thank you. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 02:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Responding Books

It's good to see that the responding books section was cleaned up. It was getting far too large and was including books that weren't really notable. Should we also trim the Reviews and responses section? Stickee (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge the two sections, I'd say. Some things are mentioned in both places. I too am pleased to see that someone has taken a pruning knife to it - but it's not clear what principle has been applied in determining what to keep and what to discard. Keep only books with their own WP articles? Or only books by authors with WP articles? Or ...? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A book and/or author having an article on WP is a pretty good test of notability. I suggest using that criteria and see if anyone complains--and on what grounds. I suspect few will notice. As the TGD has left the spotlight, it has become much easier to make the opposing view sections encyclopedia-worthy, rather than just a compendium of pet theories. Barte (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A WP article indicates that someone with access to a computer wants to promote something enough to write an article. It does not guarantee anything else. It's up to the person adding the book to THIS article to establish its notability to THIS article. Criteria: Were there reviews in major publications such as the NY Times or Wall Street Journal of the book where "God Delusion" and the notable book are described together. If it was to illustrate a number of books have been written in response, the article already says that. There are a number of atheist and theist websites promoting books pushing their positions. That in no way establishes its relevance to this article in WP. Stickee, the Reviews and responses section also has to meet the same criteria. Please feel free to trim that section. --Javaweb (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

A WP article has survived WP's notability standard, however imperfectly applied. Plenty of nascent articles have been eliminated by the community on notability grounds, and so I think that offers a rough guide. But I agree with Javaweb's basic critiera. Please trim, and if in doubt on a particular entry, trim it. Be bold. Barte (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

PDF File

IP200 added a download link to a PDF version of the book. It was reverted by Javaweb for a matter of safety of editors' machines. However, it appears this file has been circulation the internet for over 2 years now and poses no risk to a user. Stickee (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've asked about this at WP:ELN --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems we do have a strict policy against linking to copyright violations, which I assume this is. Which is a pity. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sticklee, thanks for pointing out the virus detector, which I now bookmarked. I appreciate IP200 and the original editors wanting to add a valuable link to the article. Anthonyhcole, thanks for verifying the IP issue. --Javaweb (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Ignorance of religion on the part of critics

Some of the detractors of TGD have complained that Dawkins doesn't know enough about religion to criticize it... but what do they say to the finding that atheists outscore people of faith in their knowledge of religion? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39397251/ns/us_news-life/. Believers don't even know what they believe! Edhubbard (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Msnbc is a joke they are maliciously biased against conservatives to the point of bigotry they are the single

Most biased news againcy mostley a propoganda channel ergo your source is not validIrishfrisian (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The actual survey, upon which the news report is based, comes from the Pew Foundation, avowedly "non-partisan and non-ideological" (but originally extremely conservative). --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Non-fiction"?

The initial sentence of this article states that it is non-fiction. Wikipedia's own article on non-fiction defines the term as a work understood to be fact, and Dictionary.com states that non-fiction means works dealing with or offering opinions or conjectures on facts or reality. To the best of my understanding, this term is not appropriate to describe this book under either of those definitions, because it provides the author's opinions and views on completely subjective matters; there is no undisputed fact involved anywhere. I suggest changing the intro such that it uses another term to describe the genre. I am at loss, though, on what term should be used. --HGK745 (talk) 05:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's non-fiction article isn't, prima facie, a guide to writing Wikipedia articles. That said, the article asserts that the world of books is divided into fiction and non-fiction--so The God Delusion ought to fit in one category or the other. Fiction, the article says, generally includes works of imagination. Non-fiction, says the article, includes essays--which are often works of opinion. So if we were cataloging TGD for a library, would we put it with the novels, plays and poetry? Or, say, with books on religion and philosophy? I think the answer is obvious. Ask any librarian: it's a non-fiction book. Barte (talk) 06:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

ambiguous definition of god

"Dawkins distinguishes between an abstract, impersonal god (such as found in pantheism, or as promoted by Spinoza or Einstein[14]) from a personal God who is the creator of the universe, who is interested in human affairs, and who should be worshipped".

"abstract, impersonal god" implies deism. However, the god he is excluding primarily refers to THE abstract per se.

Perhaps this should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unchartered (talk • contribs) 08:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

To what? To be honest, I really don't understand your point at all. Want to try again? HiLo48 (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. As I understood from the book, Einstein's god isn't a Deistic God, but rather a term for things like the abstract and the mind (or nature).

The end of the sentence could imply that the God being excluded is a "creator of the universe who is interested in human affairs", as opposed to a 'creator of the universe who is not interested in human affairs".

Perhaps change it to: 'a God who created the universe, or a personal God is who is interested in human affairs and should be worshipped'.

Hope I clarified. :) Unchartered (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC).

The criticism based on Robert Pape's paper on the motives of suicide bombers.

For an in-depth discussion please refer to WP:NPOVN. Where you are directed to the verdict by WP:RSN on the same topic that was initiated per discussions in Richard Dawkins' talk page. The conclusion was that this set of criticism (posed by at least 6 authors including the prominent literary theorist Terry Eagleton) belongs to this article as the hook to the criticism is from a quote in The God Delusion.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Since when is a contributor's opinion a verdict? You should also mention the "amendment" to that "opinion", made by the same contributor a little later, contradicting the conclusion of his first "opinion for the very little it's worth" (sic) - DVdm (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A recent edit (diff) by 24.94.18.234 added:

Dawkins' argument in relating suicide bombing and religion in his book has been criticized, based on a research by Robert Pape. In this 2003 paper, Pape reviews 315 suicide bombings since 1980, and maintains that religious belief of any kind is neither necessary nor sufficient to create suicide bombers and the motive is rather political.

I explained at NPOVN that Pape does not mention Dawkins or any of his books, so referring to Pape in Wikipedia's voice (as in the edit above) is not suitable. Also, it's a sure sign of a desperate edit when six references are tacked onto an assertion. Another defect in the proposal is the WP:SYNTH involved in an editor attempting to sum up "Dawkins' argument in relating suicide bombing and religion"—any reading of TGD shows that Dawkins has no interest in drawing a conclusion about suicide bombing in general; he is claiming that it would be better if children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, and "good bet" is not language commonly used to assert 100% confidence in a statement. At any rate, it is probably possible to rescue some text from the proposal, but it would have to be brief, and phrased as an opinion of a named author (not Pape because he does not mention Dawkins). In TGD, Dawkins spends most of his time in relation to suicide bombings talking about 7/7 (just a short paragraph or two), with some mention of 9/11, and Dawkins spends zero time on the issues addressed in Pape's paper. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If Pape did not mention Dawkins' book, then this is indeed a schoolbook example of wp:SYNTH aka original research. I have undone the edit and warned the IP. - DVdm (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that the Pape paper cited here pre-dates TGD by 3 years. So it is hardly surprising that he does not cite TGD! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Even though (IMHO) Pape's paper should be mentioned (since all those 6 authors directly based their criticism on it), in the interest of time and to converge with the opinion's of the above folks (specially Johnuniq who stated "possible to rescue some text from the proposal, but it would have to be brief, and phrased as an opinion of a named author") I will propose the following briefer version:

In his book Dawkins' says "If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers. This argument has been criticized by some authors including Terry Eagleton.

--24.94.18.234 (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In essence, what we are dealing with is a passing remark by Dawkins, hedged about with the phrase "it is a good bet", and occupying a single line in a book of over 400 pages. Why is it worth mentioning at all? It is merely being promoted to undue prominence to provide a hook on which to hang some anti-Dawkins propaganda. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. It would be due if the book had an entire chapter on the subject. - DVdm (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I was one of the ones who said it could work here if properly sourced. Determining due weight is not simply judging what is in Dawkins' book, but what others have written about the book. Most criticism of figures' arguments is over a few words others focused on out of a larger statement (and I'm not saying that's inherently wrong). Though the addition should not portray Pape has criticizing Dawkins (and it doesn't, it says that others using Pape's research criticized that remark), "The Dawkins Delusion," "Atheism Explained," "The New Atheist Novel" are rather clearly focused on that line from The God Delusion.

Looking through the sources, however, the mention of Pape is usually no more than a few lines, often in the footnotes. "The New Atheist Novel" and "Atheism Explained" are two that go on longer, but the former is still a half-page footnote and the latter is a postscript.

So, I stick by my earlier statement, the addition would be totally fine to include here if properly sourced. If a reliable source cites many of the previous sources (or similar) while describing how widespread the criticism is or something, then it would be due for inclusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that, in the specific case of this particular page, we have to set a pretty high threshold for including criticism of the book, lest it become a trivia list. It really has to be clearly sourced as a direct criticism of TGD by name, with no intervening SYNTH, and it has to be more than a quibble with a single passage. It really needs to be criticism of the book as a whole, or criticism of a major part of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what Jimbo wales says about majority viewpoint in the context of what is due and what is not: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts"

And with a quick search 10 books were found that hold this viewpoint (That atheists are wrong thinking religion is the major cause of suicide-bombings); 6 of them are criticizing Dawkins directly, and at least 4 among those are targetting his book, TGD. [4] [5] [6] [7]

So, I am not sure if your objection to this edit really falls in any category of policies. It is again rather a personal opinion as admitted in WP:NPOVN by Johnuniq. and if you must know, personal opinions do not play any roles here in Wiki. --199.164.159.2 (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems less than entirely settled. My concern is that it's a bit of a WP:COATRACK. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you fundamentally against this topic, i.e. the suicide-bombing/religion controversy, or it is only the current edit? I mean do you think we could modify the material I am referring to such that it is in proper shape? If so, please advise.--216.31.219.19 (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You can only fit in so much criticism before it gets unbalanced, so we have to use that space wisely. We want high-quality criticism, preferably with a response from the person criticized, so as to maintain balance. For the suicide bomber line, all we know is that some people were critical. That's not very helpful or interesting. There's always going to be someone who's critical. Is the criticism by apt or does it miss the point entirely? Is there some response to it? The article gives no hint, but what's mentioned above isn't promising because it mostly consists of people arguing against something Dawkins didn't even say. No wonder there's no response. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

@199.164.159.2: Please study and respond to all of my comment before extracting one tiny piece believed to provide an advantage. Re the proposed edit, two problems jump out: adding six references is coatracking undue views; the criticism is of one sentence in a 400-page book (more WP:UNDUE, particularly since the sentence is an incidental part of the book's argument). If an authority on suicide bombing had made a comment on the few words written by Dawkins, the authority's comment might be worth adding here, however, the view of a few commentators with no knowledge of suicide bombing is not WP:DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I am a little confused. I tried to address the issues you brought up in your earlier comment by avoiding any mention of Pape and phrasing it as an opinion of Terry Eagleton's. If mentioing all 6 sources is a problem, then fine, I will only mention one. Why then are you posing new things in your new comment? Your new comment is basically saying there is no way to work on this matter, while your original comment said:

"it is probably possible to rescue some text from the proposal, but it would have to be brief, and phrased as an opinion of a named author" --216.31.219.19 (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) To me, the following text would meet your original requirements. Please, advise if I am wrong:

• Terry Eagleton has criticized Dawkins' argument on relating suicide-bombing and religion.

--216.31.219.19 (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Unspecified criticism is pretty useless. And Pape's criticism is silly; he's trying to argue that there are cases where religious belief isn't necessary, when all Dawkins ever said was "it's a good bet". Good bets aren't crushed by rare exceptions. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I make sure I let the Political Science Review know -when I see them next time- what a Wikipedia editor's opinion is on their peer reviewed paper. :)

Humor aside, we are not here to do original research, e.g. refute reliable sources. and books like the one I sourced above (written by Terry Eagleton) is definitely counted as a reliable source.--216.31.219.19 (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the sources are unreliable, but that mention of the issue is WP:UNDUE. As editors, we need to use our own good sense about what deserves to be included.

Dawkins made a statement promoting critical thinking as opposed to blind acceptance, and ended it by saying it would be a "good bet" that such thinking would prevent suicide bombings. This is a fairly mild statement.

To actively refute it, you would need to show that suicide bombers are typically strong critical thinkers who reject faith. Is anyone even trying to do that? Pape, for example, merely says that faith isn't necessary or sufficient. Well, nobody was claiming it was sufficient, and "good bet" falls rather short of necessity. This isn't so much wrong as irrelevant! Moreover, the lack of critical thinking that Dawkins opposes is not the sole purview of religion; politics also breeds this sort of conformity, so Pape's point doesn't even contradict Dawkins'.

Now, it may be that one of the other critics has something more relevant and substantive to say, but I don't have any reason to believe so, as no evidence has been presented. Even if so, it may be that Dawkins has an adequate response, but that hasn't been presented, either. All that's left is generic mention of criticism, which adds little to the article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

^{(After 4 edit conflicts)} If the idea in Dawkins' book would have been worked out in an entire chapter or so, and if some other notable author would have dedicated some chapter in some book on the matter, then it would indeed be "probably possible" to say something about it. The proposed phrase is merely a piece of trivia about a piece of trivia in the book — aka severely undue. The value of the phrase "probably possible" is of course equivalent to "perhaps not possible", which, in this case, seems to reduce to "not possible". - DVdm (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the IPs in this discussion created accounts.--Charles (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

@DVdm:

That is not what some authors think (That the phrase mentioned by Dawkins in TGD is just a trivia). Check these out:

• "The God Delusion can be summarized very simply: religion causes bombings! Get rid of religion and the greatest threat to global peace and security will be eliminated"

• "The God Delusion is to be seen as one of the number of books to emerge from the events now universally referred to as 9/11...For Dawkins it is obvious that religious belief leads to suicide bombing"

• "One of the reasons why atheism is getting more of a hearing right now than it did a few years ago is the murder of innocent civilians by Muslims in act of terror such as 9/11. The three spectacular best sellers advocating atheism (The End of Faith, The God Delusion, and God Is Not Great) all rely heavily on the claim that murder and other wicket deeds are the fruits of theistic belief"

216.31.219.19 (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I had suggested that Pape was responding to a straw man; your quote confirms it. His "summarized very simply" version of Dawkins' message is so wildly inaccurate that it reduces a nuanced book to an unrecognizable caricature. This is particularly pointless given that Pape's thesis is that the "taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism"; nationalism is hardly an example of the critical thinking that Dawkins endorses.

What we have here is dishonest and low-quality criticism. It would be UNDUE to include it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is perhaps possible to duly rescue some text from the proposal in our article about suicide bombing. - DVdm (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

@Still-24-45-42-125: Can you to find one quote in which Dawkins differentiates between blind faith and faith in general? It would be disingenuous to think he is only promoting critical thinking and fighting solely the extremists; he is fighting religion in "general". and this is not just my opinion; I can cite books confirming this. If you are planning to respond to this comment, make sure you first search for that quote I asked you.

Oh well. I guess I tried; but censorship takes different forms nowadays. There is an old saying in my culture that says "when you love something so bad you, it will make you blind and deaf". Evidence: no one even bothered improving the proposed text; even the guy who admitted once we could do so.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if this seems bitey, but it strikes me as odd that there would suddenly be so much interest in this rather specific criticism all at once. I notice that all of the IP addresses geolocate to a specific small area in southern California. Has there been some sort of push for inclusion of the criticism, coming from someplace outside of Wikipedia? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

SoCal is also part of Wikipedia. Although I am not sure I even understood your comment correctly. Nonetheless, no need for apology; you are rather soft in your sarcasm.--216.31.219.19 (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I was not being sarcastic at all. I'll repeat: has there been some sort of push for inclusion of the criticism, coming from someplace outside of Wikipedia? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, yes & no; yes because there is a push from me (The SoCal resident) who finds RD related articles intensely controlled to the level that is affecting its neutrality. and no because I am not an outsider when it comes to Wiki.--216.31.211.11 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. But it was 24.94.18.234 who started this talk thread, not 216.31.211.11. Perhaps you are saying that all the comments from IP editors in this talk section are coming from a single person, you, and that you simply have been editing from more than one computer at different times? The question, which I'm asking in good faith, arises because it looks on the face of it like there are maybe three or four people raising the issue, but perhaps that is not the case. (It's perfectly reasonable that it could be one person, and there's nothing wrong with that, and nothing that diminishes the validity of what you are arguing, but there has been an appearance of multiple editors showing up all at once, which looked suspicious.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. Yes, indeed all of it is coming from one person (@home, @work, @worship place, etc.)216.31.211.11 (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Then in that case, please make sure you are aware of WP:3RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

About my last edit, I tried to address the issue raised earlier on having many citations for the same criticism as well as removing Robert Pape. I am trying to compromize. Any move from you folks would be appeciated.--216.31.211.11 (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My concern, with respect to content, is what I said in my earlier comment, above: "I think that, in the specific case of this particular page, we have to set a pretty high threshold for including criticism of the book, lest it become a trivia list. It really has to be clearly sourced as a direct criticism of TGD by name, with no intervening SYNTH, and it has to be more than a quibble with a single passage. It really needs to be criticism of the book as a whole, or criticism of a major part of it." It looks to me like a criticism of just one small part of what the book contains. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The concern I was trying to address in my last edit was not from you. It was coming from Johnuniq. Funny enough, if I want to combine all the concerns mentioned from all the users, I should not even start this discussion; because there are users who do not believe there should be any criticism. Check the talk page of RD to get an idea.

Let's face it Tryptofish. Do you think any of the criticism mentioned in the article as of now is because the author spent a whole chapter on it, or it was merely a passage? And since when has the chapter threshold has become a Wiki policy for determining due criticism?--216.31.211.11 (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm speaking only for myself here, so others may not see it the way I do, but I never meant that it's a project-wide policy. I'm just reacting to the fact that there are so many criticisms out there (and we do have a bunch of them on the page already, so it's not opposition to having any criticism), that if we include everything that's out there, the criticism section would be far longer than the rest of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Re "Wiki policy for determining due criticism": I think the policy at work here is related to wp:consensus, which seems to be —so to speak— against the addition you have in mind. - DVdm (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:CONSENSUS is a pretty important thing to consider, and indeed it is against this addition. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm no fan of taking a vote and calling it a consensus, but what we have here is a single editor whose arguments don't seem to be getting any traction, most likely due to the problem of WP:UNDUE. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The recent edit history of the article shows there may be reason to wonder if I have noticed developments—yes I have. My earlier comments suggesting some text might be suitable were tentative, and were surrounded with comments from myself and others showing reasonable objections. My previous comment (at "07:41, 10 August" above) focused on the issue that criticism of one sentence in a 400-page book is UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree with WP:UNDUE. The early edit history of this article shows the dilemma. TGD sparked a veritable industry of critical responses, none of which, to my knowledge, came close to being as notable: by book sales, reviews, other obvious criteria. As a result, the criticism section of this article grew unduly long and editors attempting to trim it back were frequently accused of censorship. That only changed after the spotlight of attention moved on. I think it was one editor, actually, not involved with the original squabbles, who finally got away with a major overhaul, much improving the article and reflecting what's now here. If there now seems strong resistance to editors again adding their pet criticism, that's one good reason why. There is of course no hard and fast rule for what criticisms should remain. But I think the threshold is indeed high, and this one doesn't come close for the reasons fellow editors have given above. Barte (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Confusing natural selection with evolution

I reverted this because it was based on taking some nitpicking criticism out of context, and then explaining it poorly. It's not that Dawkins is somehow unaware of the distinction between evolution as a whole and natural selection, it's that he focuses on the latter since it's the part that's relevant. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The new version is not an improvement. Quoting one or two words does not make this any less misleading. We don't get to take reviews out of context to leave a false impression. This is particularly true because WP:BLP applies. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is the original text:

"Throughout the book, he throws the term ‘natural selection’ around like it means the same thing as evolution. But evolution requires ‘random mutation’ as well as natural selection, and Dawkins' failure to address the question of how universes might randomly mutate spells doom for his probability argument."--216.31.219.19 (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't the source, it's how you use it:

criticizes Dawkins for using the term 'natural selection' as if it means 'evolution'

Out of context, it sounds like it's claiming that Dawkins doesn't know the difference or is trying to plaster over it. In context, it's a bit of hyperbole which just means that Dawkins is emphasizing natural selection without focusing on the source of variation.

The reason the reviewer brings is up is that they're complaining about Dawkins not pausing to explain how there might be variation among universes. Dawkins is well aware of these mechanisms[8] but apparently didn't spend enough time summarizing them to please the reviewer.

So if you wanted to say, "One reviewer complained that Dawkins didn't go into enough detail about how variant universes form", you can do that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• You did not let me finish. Here is what he means by Dawkins mixing the two concepts:

"Biological evolution is only possible because of the laws of nature that govern the universe and give organic molecules their remarkable properties. With cosmological evolution, however, there must be no external laws governing how universes behave, otherwise we would be back to square one trying to explain where these higher laws came from.

Every possible way in which a baby universe might be different from its parent would have to be determined by the internal laws that govern the parent. Every universe would have to contain the potential design of every other universe that ultimately descended from it. This would include the seeds for life in our universe.

The only possible way around this would be if there was some kind of reality disconnection during the birth of a new universe. The birth process would have to include something unrestrained by the laws of nature that allowed unpredictable and indeterminable things to happen. In other words, there would have to be an injection of pure chaos.

With biological evolution, this injection of chaos is governed by the laws of nature. It is restrained chaos. But if you try to use pure unrestrained cosmic chaos to explain the gaps in cosmological evolution then anything becomes possible. You don't need gradual evolution anymore because our universe could have sprung directly from pure cosmic chaos. Even a personal God could conceivably spring from cosmic chaos. If there was any chaos at all in our origin, then we could not trust our laws of nature to be failproof.

Another problem with the idea of cosmological evolution is that it would be difficult to imagine how a fundamental thing like ‘time’ could ‘gradually’ evolve into existence. The origin, whatever it is, would have to be beyond time. In a similar way, the origin would probably be beyond concepts like logic and even probability. Why would the thing that was originally responsible for the concept of probability be bound by it?

Dawkins' description of cosmological evolution reminded me of the old image of a flat earth being carried on the back of a giant turtle standing on the back of an infinitely high stack of turtles. Each turtle gets slightly smaller as you go down the stack. The difference in size between consecutive turtles is too insignificant to require an explanation. At the bottom of the stack, the turtles are so small that they may as well no longer exist. "

• As can be seen above, the reviewer is criticizing Dawkins for mixing the concepts of biological evolution with that of the cosmological one. Dawkins is not an expert in cosmology (though he might have heard or read about some of its concepts) and that is where the reviewer is targetting.--216.31.219.19 (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that StillStanding-247 made the right call. The source [9] does not look a reliable source to me. Without a proper wp:secondary source I don't think the paragraph belongs here. Actually, I would even remove the addition of this site in an external links section as straightforward spamming. - DVdm (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

216, what you're missing is what I linked to: Dawkins was invoking the notion of many universes, only some of which are fit for life as we know it. You don't understand the subject so your choices are wrong. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DVdm and Stillstanding. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@ StillStanding, I did check your link and I do know the subject of multi-verse as proposed by Steven Hawking in his 2010 book, "The Grand Design". Not only I read his book, but I also translated it from English to another language. May I suggest you "criticize the content rather than the contributor"?

Anyways, the only valid argument I see here, is the one belonging to DVdm, asking for a secondary source that validates this review. --216.31.219.19 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I question the understanding, not the person. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with DVdm. The source is not notable, and given that TGD has spawned a veritable industry in critiques, a strict standard for notability is crucial. Otherwise, it's a firehose. Barte (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with leaving it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As a cautionary tale, this is what this article looked like in 2007. In a classic case of WP:UNDUE, the "Critical reception" section was markedly longer than the rest of the article.Barte (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

G or g for god?

I don't have a copy of the book with me, so I can't check. The article seems confused about whether Dawkins wrote of god(s) or God. Both forms are used in the article. A capital G makes sense in the title of the book and in The God Hypothesis, but I'm not sure it belongs elsewhere. Right now we have a massive mixture, which simply cannot be right. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Just thumbing through my copy, I don't see any example of "god" lower case. "gods", plural, is not listed in the index.Barte (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Misquote on Einstein

166.147.121.143 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)There appears to be a misinterpretation in the part of the entry. "Dawkins distinguishes between an abstract, impersonal god (such as found in pantheism, or as promoted by Spinoza or Einstein[14])" Such an addition would have been fine, as I'm not wholly interested in discussing the religious views of Einstein. He did possibly accept and/or promote a form of a deity at sometime in his life, but more obviously rejected such a thing later on, but the reference given to support such an idea that he promoted an impersonal deity does not suffice at all. In fact, it appears to convey the opposite. "[14] Randerson, James (13 May 2008). "Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear". The Guardian (UK). Retrieved 14 May 2008. "In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.""

No mention of the acceptance of an impersonal deity. I advise that this is revised to either include a better supporting reference, or omit such a reference to Einstein entirely. 166.147.121.143 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at a rewrite of that paragraph. Dawkins references Einstein at length, and what Dawkins calls "Einsteinian religion," so that can be included, as can any of the Einstein quotes actually appearing in the book. (But not quotes outside the book: that's WP:SYN) I selected the quote on page 19 Dawkins used to summarize the point. Barte (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Falsibility of God?

Can someone with a better insight than me please make sure that the (quoted below) sentence provided in the "Synopsis" first paragraph is accurate? I think it is actually misleading, and offers an easily refutable counter-argument which is not part of the book:
"He maintains that the existence of such a God would have effects in the physical universe and – like any other hypothesis – can be tested and falsified.[16]"
I seem to recall that the book adheres to the scientific method drafted by Popper and polished by Russell. If I'm not mistaken, it explicitly asserts the impossibility of falsifying hypothesis which cannot be empirically tested in an exhaustive way (Russell's Celestial Teapot). Dawkins makes it clear that burden of proof falls under the responsibility of those who claim any given proposition. Since proof has not been provided, a researcher should and must resort to a bayesian approach. Conclusions regarding the non-existence of a divine being cannot, by definition, be proven right, no matter how high the probability - however, faced with two (or more) opposing theories, the one which provides a deeper insight (solving a problem vs. creating a problem), a more refined and conclusive frame for empirical test and refutal ("fossil rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian"), a simplification of the terms of reference of the problem ("crane" vs. "sky-hook"), and a cohesive frame for propositions drawn is always preferable.
Jordissim (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been rereading in and around P50, which is reference [16], and I don't see how the sentence holds up. I think it should either be deleted or better cited. Barte (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the changes made, thank you. Unluckily I don't have the book with me, so I could neither assert nor deny that the original sentence was correctly sourced - although I found it deeply suspicious. Thanks again! Jordissim 06:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. It's amazing what a fresh eye can do on an established article. Barte (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried to find something that I am confident I read in the book, namely that Dawkins states that a God of the type envisaged by most believers (one who at least sometimes interacts with the world) would have implications for science—there would be effects on the physical universe. I forget where the argument ran from there, but obviously Dawkins was not trying to prove the nonexistence of something. At any rate, it is good to remove the text until someone can work out what was intended. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Quoting from the book, page 50:

Contrary to Huxley, I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. Even if hard to test in practice, it belongs in the same TAP or temporary agnosticism box as the controversies over the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions. God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice. If he existed and chose to reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument, noisily and unequivocally, in his favour. And even if God's existence is never proved or disproved with certainty one way or the other, available evidence and reasoning may yield an estimate of probability far from 50 per cent.

I think that the original statement was more or less on the mark, but I have inserted a slight paraphrasing of the bolded above back into the text. - DVdm (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. Now: Should we go more on depth? I seem to recall that the argumentation against a theist god is not easy, and certainly not one that can linearly be followed, since it needs to grab bits and pieces from different chapters. A referencing nightmare, but one of the main topics of the book. If my memory serves me right (it usually doesn't), first we must establish monism as the only sound option stemming from the fact that dualism is self-contradictory: if the physical body and the ethereal soul are to be in existence AND linked, there must be an interaction between them; since an interaction with the physical world implies quantifiable reactions the interactions themselves are subject to the realm of science, which leads to a direct implication that the soul itself can be studied through its interactions, thereby disqualifying it as "ethereal". A similar reasoning can be followed for an intervening God: A so-called miracle is either a) "true" or b) "false" --> a) if "true", God intervenes physically (since dualism has been discredited) and is therefore subject to scientific scrutiny | b) else "false", then nothing has taken place involving God. Another topic used in order to progress is the Non-Overlapping MAgisteria approach: Dawkins argues that NOMA is a truly unsound theory, since it places God forever out of scientific reach, or even out of scientific-based reasoning, by either avoiding the above-explained issue, making use of a patently false movement such as the God of Gaps, or falling into a reductio ad absurdum. A deist God is more problematic, since its non-interventionist nature means the divinity could have decided to just play a role at the very beginning of the Universe, fine-tuning the physical variables leading to intelligent design: the anthropic principle easily proposes a much simpler alternative, and Occam's Razor does the job. However, the anthropic principle is kind of a tautology (personal opinion, it shouldn't count)... Too ambitious? Too dense? Plainly too much? Just wrong? What do you think? Jordissim (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Too much. Let's just leave the going more on depth to Dawkins :-) - DVdm (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure! :-) Worth a try, one never knows... Jordissim (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah....way, way too much. As Wikipedia editors doing a synopsis of a book, we are about brief, clear summary. The ideas, details and depth are left to the author, him or herself. If you find yourself doing original thinking, you're in the wrong place ;-) Barte (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I know, and I agree. The statements given aren't original research (or at least they don't try to be), but rather a step-by-step synopsis of the arguments I remember from the book. I've tried to avoid subjective statements - I leave that to my professional sphere. However, I simply don't have the book with me right now, so I may have mixed up my recollections with the analysis that went with it as the by-product of my readings. I tend to remember quite vividly anything I read - regardless of whether I agree with it or not -, emphasis placed on "tend to". So it wasn't my intention to introduce original ideas (I know the rules of the game - not only as a moderately experience editor but as a researcher, although my area of expertise is physics, not biology nor philosophy). If I strayed off the path, my apologies. I was just trying to gauge the possibility of expanding the article, which in my opinion is a good one, but nevertheless could do with more content. Summarizing a divulgation book poses special problems: one must decide to what extent the arguments should be rendered, and I'm no good at drawing the line, having an inherent conflict of interests. That's why I try not to edit myself, but rather to start a dialogue for other editors to be impartial when I can't. So again, my apologies if my intentions were misinterpreted. I'm always in for constructiveness, and the talk page for this article is exceedingly welcoming - thanks to you all. Regards, Jordissim (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's avoid subjective judgments!

Science textbooks and papers are non-fiction. One can reasonable argue that The God Delusion is not a non-fiction but merely a diatribe against religion. Vanguard Scholar (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not a work of imagination or a story, which is what fiction is. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-fiction is a category of writing, not an assessment of the quality or accuracy of the work. A "diatribe against religion" is still non-fiction. Guettarda (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Dbrodbeck and Guettarda. "Merely a diatribe" seems like a far more subjective judgment than calling it nonfiction. According to the first sentence of non-fiction, it's a matter of presentation; the truth or falsity (nevermind the tone) are irrelevant. --Rhododendrites (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is a theoretical work, its about his ideas. Non-fiction is about verifiable stuff. Calling a theory non-fiction just because it uses scientific ideas is not correct. It could be right or wrong, many scientific theory's turn out to be fictitious. Thus it is not correct to call it non-fiction! 175.38.163.188 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please look at the Wikipedia entry for non-fiction (or any other). Books of theory are without a doubt non-fiction. Books of science are non-fiction. If it's NOT (non) in the genre of FICTION, it's non-fiction. By your own logic, the entirety of scientific output that has since been disproven (or not been proven) would have to move over to fiction. Books of maps with names of cities that have since changed names are fiction. What exactly can you really prove in such a timeless and absolute way such that it cannot ever be false? Your non-fiction section sounds empty. --Rhododendrites (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

IP, there is no consensus for the changes you have made [10], please revert them and discuss them here. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Saying that it is a work of philosophy is correct saying that his ideas are not fictional is not!. 175.38.163.188 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to go read our article on what non fiction is. Please also go read WP:CONSENSUS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I know what the word fiction means and what the word non means and putting the two together to describe this book is not really a good idea. I think philosophy should be acceptable to both atheists, agnostics and fundamentalist wack jobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.163.188 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dbrodbeck et. al. The book is shelved under non-fiction in libraries. That's the broad category. That's how we should describe it here unless there is consensus for a narrower category. "Philosophy" doesn't work for me as said category. Barte (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy doesn't work for you et. al. Well you might as-well tag it for WP:Speedy Deletion then. 175.38.163.188 (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins is not a philosopher, indeed we have had that discussion at talk:Richard Dawkins. There is no consensus for this change, please revert it.Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh whatever, I'll leave you to your consensus. Have nice life! 175.38.163.188 (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As a latecomer to this discussion, I agree with the consensus. Philosophy is not fiction anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It's just Dawkins' ego on paper. If this is non-fiction you guys might as well convince me Family Guy is an animated biography about Seth MacFarlane's college life since Brian's basically his mouthpiece. Hitmonchan (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Many autobiographies are ego-driven. But on library book shelves, all are still classed as "non-fiction". Barte (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Lo! Biographical, ideological, political, and/or philosophical messages does not void categorization as fiction! And non-fiction is not defined by verified or even verifiable truths. Indeed, it can encompass conspiracy theories, abstract cultural criticism, extremist punditry, scientific studies, unscientific hypothetical musings, notes on recent knitting projects... I think the article explains this pretty well. --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. "I don't think the book is true/valid/sound/well written" is a fair critique, but it doesn't disqualify it as non-fiction. Barte (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"[Non-]Fiction book" can be interpreted as a truth claim

Re:This edit, just call it a book and let it stand on its own merits. If the description non-fiction or fiction is given, some readers will naturally see that as meaning that there is a consensus on the truth of the book. --Javaweb (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

We have had this discussion before, check the archives, and discussion just above this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR version (for informational purposes only -- not looking to rehash a debate): It can be interpreted as a truth claim, but shouldn't be because "non-fiction" is just a genre that means "not fiction." Since it isn't included as "fiction" anywhere, we can conclude it's "non-fiction." It's more nuanced than that, but that's the gist. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Austin Cline quote

The Cline quote is, in context, a critique of Terry Eagleton's critique of Dawkins. In the past, the criticism section of this entry has overtaken the rest of the article, and only vigilant trimming has kept it in check. I'd trim here. Thoughts? Barte (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I forget (if I ever knew!) what Eagleton was criticizing. Was it this book, specifically? I don't see Eagleton in that section of the page currently. If we could clarify that, I'd be happy to put Cline's response in better context. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

What I know of is in the footnote after the Cline quote. I do see now that its placement is next to a London Review of Books review, written by Eagleton. If we're going to keep (I'm still dubious, but not insistent), that should probably be noted. Barte (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

With embarrassment, I note that I, myself, moved the quote there without having realized that Eagleton is the author of that review. I've just made some edits, attributing the review to Eagleton and defining the comment by Cline as a response to it. I think that makes it a statement from one POV followed by a response from the opposing POV, and, as such, I'd argue for keeping Cline's quote. To my eyes, the weight is approximately equal between the two of them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. But if someone adds a response to Cline's response to Eagleton's response to Dawkins, I'm reverting. Barte (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! I agree entirely with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)