Talk:The God Delusion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Assessment and verification of reviews

This is a special talk section for documenting our verification of the fair representation of reviews. Each part will begin with a quotation of the current state of the article. Please don't update this, if somebody has already commented on it. If a new version needs discussion, add it to the bottom of this section. Focus on the following:

1. Accuracy of representation: misquotes, contradictions, taking out of context, or other abuse.
2. Balance and fairness of representation: if 90% of the review is negative, then 90% of our summary should be negative.
3. Style and other minor issues in the summary of the review.
4. Significance of the source: is it given too much or too little room in the article.

Krauss (Nature)

The physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, writing in Nature, says that although a "fan" of Dawkins, "I wish that Dawkins ... had continued to play to his strengths". Krauss suggests that an unrelenting attack upon people's beliefs might be less productive than "positively demonstrating how the wonders of nature can suggest a world without God that is nevertheless both complete and wonderful." Krauss remarks, "Perhaps there can be no higher praise than to say that I am certain I will remember and borrow many examples from this book in my own future discussions."

• Haven't read the review, but saw a speech, where he basically says the very same. The last sentence could be introduced better, but otherwise I think this is a very accurate representation of Krauss's opinion. --Merzul 02:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Economist

The Economist praised the book, focusing on Dawkins' critiques of the influence of religion upon politics and the use of religion to insulate political positions from criticism. "The problem, as Mr. Dawkins sees it, is that religious moderates make the world safe for fundamentalists, by promoting faith as a virtue and by enforcing an overly pious respect for religion."

• This is also seems accurate, a bit short... The claim that it praises the books is true: "Everyone should read it. Atheists will love Mr Dawkins's incisive logic and rapier wit and theists will find few better tests of the robustness of their faith. Even agnostics, who claim to have no opinion on God, may be persuaded that their position is an untenable waffle." --Merzul 02:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Is it just me, or do the paragraphs of the negative reviews grow, while the positiv stay minimal? I haven´t checked in for a while, but my first feeling was that the article has departed from NPOV. I´m generally for keeping review paras short, but not if shortness is restricted to positive reviews only. --EthicsGradient 18:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Eagleton (London Review of Book)

Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton in the London Review of Books argues that Dawkins has insufficient understanding of the religious concepts he is attacking to engage with them effectively. He questions whether Dawkins has read or heard of Christian thinkers like Eriugena, Rahner or Moltmann, and upholds that "Critics of the most enduring form of popular culture in human history have a moral obligation to confront that case at its most persuasive". Eagleton also disagrees about historical points; for example he asserts that "Catholic" and "Protestant" were not synonyms for "Nationalist" and "Loyalist" in Northern Ireland.

• I read the review before doing the abridging of the paragraph. Eagleton is overall critical, and I believe the current paragraph reflects his views. He had more things to say, obviously, but if I were to pick his most important points, these would do. As others have pointed out, if readers want the whole story, they will follow the link. --EthicsGradient 10:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Brown (Prospect)

Andrew Brown in Prospect considers that "In his broad thesis, Dawkins is right. Religions are potentially dangerous, and in their popular forms profoundly irrational". He criticises, however, the assertion that "atheists ... don't do evil things in the name of atheism" and notes that "under Stalin almost the entire Orthodox priesthood were exterminated simply for being priests." Furthermore, he cites Robert Pape[18] that religious zealotry is neither necessary nor sufficient for suicide bombers, and concludes that the book is "one long argument from professorial incredulity."

Robinson (Harper)

Harper's Nov. 2006 front paged highlighted: "In Defense of Religion: Marilynne Robinson on Richard Dawkins's Hysterical Scientism." Pulitzer prize winner Marilynne Robinson provides a theistic critique of Dawkins. Robinson portrays Dawkins as having superficial knowledge of the Bible and as intolerant of theists, yet demanding tolerance of science: "if religion is to be blamed for the fraud done in its name, then what of science? Is it to be blamed for the Piltdown hoax, for the long-credited deceptions having to do with cloning in South Korea? If by "science" is meant authentic science, then "religion" must mean authentic religion, granting the difficulties in arriving at these definitions."

Probably the first review I have read in a while that has the word "etiology" in it. This review is almost a chapter long. What someone has extracted, as above, is fine but then if you read on you'll find I'm being disingenuous. As criticism I actually feel it is self-defeating and neutral, if ironically so. That Robinson mentions "Piltdown hoax" and "long-credited deceptions having to do with cloning in South Korea..." (my emphasis) with respect to Dawkins' book simply implicitly highlights that there is a self-correcting nature to science to identify "authentic science" and yet fails to mention a similarly rapid mechanism of correction in religion to identify what is "authentic religion". I think it should stay ;) Ttiotsw 22:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, just as a careful study of science let's you distinguish science from pseudo-science, the careful study of theology, which you and Dawkins have absolutely no knowledge of, would let you distinguish when someone is truly religious and when someone is a suicide bomber who is doing evil in the name of religion... :) Now seriously, what was the point of this? Basically that she would probably stand by the quotation and argue against your claims that authentic science is better defined than authentic religion. In any case, the quotation wasn't included to be a deliberately weak argument on her behalf, so if anybody can find something that represents her views in a stronger way, please go ahead! --Merzul 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well thats a challenge if ever there was ! - Comparing "careful study of science..." with "the careful study of theology" allowing someone to "distinguish when someone is truly religious and when someone is a suicide bomber who is doing evil in the name of religion." and via a WP:NPA too; I call your bluff as it sounds like wishful thinking to me. The science bit is trivial; anyone can do it simply by pulling out their copy of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit from his book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark". Please do show me where a similar text or methodology lies to filter "authentic religion" ? My point was to highlight that, though it may not have been intended, the critic is actually neutral and could in fact be construed to present a compliment to the self-correcting nature of science. Was this what she wanted to say ? Ttiotsw 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you didn't perceive the attack as a real personal attack on you, it was part of the "bluff" or parody, but I apologize anyway. I would obviously side with you in this debate, but I was merely pointing out that she does have a case, or that I honestly think her side would think that she does have a case, if that makes sense... --Merzul 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Bakewell (Guardian)

Joan Bakewell reviewed the book for The Guardian, stating "Dawkins comes roaring forth in the full vigour of his powerful arguments, laying into fallacies and false doctrines", noting it is a timely book: "These are now political matters. Around the world communities are increasingly defined as Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and living peaceably together is ever harder to sustain....Dawkins is right to be not only angry but alarmed. Religions have the secular world running scared. This book is a clarion call to cower no longer."

• Quotations are accurate, but some context is missing. At my first reading of the first sentence I thought it was considering Dawkins's claims being fallacious and false (maybe I read it as "laying out" rather than "laying into"). Obviously the second sentence made me re-read the first, but the review itself doesn't make you think twice, as the context is very clear. Here, this review is right after Harper's, no wonder I misread! :) --Merzul 03:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Kohn (The Independent)

Marek Kohn in The Independent suggests that in this book "passions are running high, arguments are compressed and rhetoric inflated. The allusion to Chamberlain, implicitly comparing religion to the Nazi regime, is par for the course." He also argues that "another, perhaps simpler, explanation for the universality and antiquity of religion is that it has conferred evolutionary benefits on its practitioners that outweigh the costs. Without more discussion, it isn't clear that Dawkins's account should be preferred to the hypothesis that religion may have been adaptive in the same way that making stone tools was."

Cornwell (Sunday Times)

John Cornwell states in The Sunday Times "there is hardly a serious work of philosophy of religion cited in his extensive bibliography, save for Richard Swinburne – himself an oddity among orthodox theologians". He also complains that "Dawkins sees no point in discussing the critical borders where religion morphs from benign phenomenon into malefic basket case. This is a pity, since his entire thesis becomes a counsel of despair rather than a quest for solutions."

Skapinker (FT)

Michael Skapinker in the Financial Times, while finding that "Dawkins' attack on the creationists is devastatingly effective", considers him "maddeningly inconsistent." He argues that, since Dawkins accepts that current theories about the universe (such as Quantum theory) may be "already knocking at the door of the unfathomable" and that the universe may be "not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose", "the thought of how limited our comprehension is should introduce a certain diffidence into our attempted refutations of those who think they have the answer"

• This is probably accurate, but the second sentence essentially quotes three different people, so maybe that could be improved. Anyway, this summary is factually accurate, but gives a slightly more critical view than the actual review (I'm myself partially guilty of making it that way), but not so far as to be misrepresenting the reviewer. However, we should probably add that he found it an "entertaining, knock-about book". --Merzul 03:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• After reading Skapinker, I found that he was perhaps slightly more positive than he is represented in his article paragraph. For instance, he says that Dawkins attraction - and drawback - is 'the fury with which he sets about anyone who disagrees with him.' Much of Skapinker's text reads as 'ok, Dawkins is fun and has some points, but...'. The first sentence about 'Dawkins' attack on the creationists is devastatingly effective' is put forward as the only positive thing Skapinker has to say about the book, which is not entirely true. --EthicsGradient 11:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

McGrath (Christian theologian)

Alister McGrath, a Christian theologian, describes The God Delusion as "his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available". He suggests that "All ideals – divine, transcendent, human, or invented – are capable of being abused. That’s just the way human nature is. And knowing this, we need to work out what to do about it, rather than lashing out uncritically at religion."

Peter S Williams (Christian philosopher)

Peter S Williams, a Christian philosopher and author, in a review for the Christian charity Damaris International, says that while "The God Delusion is the work of a passionate and rhetorically savvy writer capable of making good points against religious fundamentalism," Dawkins "is out of his philosophical depth". Williams proposes rebuttals to several of the book's arguments against the existence of God, including Dawkins' case against the anthropic principle, his "argument from improbability" and Dawkins' own God hypothesis.

• After reading the review I would say this summary is correct in tone. Also, the review deserves a place in this article as the review's critical section about anthropic principle seems strong (although, rest of the review seems less so). However, the summary above is incorrect about one thing. The review does not "propose rebuttals to several of the book's arguments against the existence of God", but rather Williams concentrates almost wholly on two issues: the anthropic principle and the argument from improbability. I'm going to change the summary to reflect this. Flambergius 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. We don't seem to have an argument from improbability, but what the review describes seems to be Dawkin's use of Contradictory premises lead to an infinite regress. I'll therefore change that in the article, but will welcome a more informed edit from someone more knowledgeable about philosophy. .. dave souza, talk 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the summary is now correct in as far as to what Williams says. There is a problem with it, but it is one that might not be fixable. I think Williams doesn't wholly get what Dawkins is saying with his "Unrebuttable Refutation" or the "argument from improbability" or at least Williams concentrates on a minor detail of what Dawkins is arguing here. Dawkins is saying that God is a scientific hypothesis positing a being more complex and improbable than the world it is meant to explain. Thus to Dawkins God has very low truth value. Williams refutes this in a rather off-hand fashion by saying, as I think he must, that "God's existence is ... either impossible or necessary". In other words, Williams is saying that God is not a scientific hypothesis (at least that's how I read it). This is buried within discussion about teleological argument/infinite regress, which is not a really a part of Dawkins' argument. The summary right now repeats this "misunderstanding", but I don't know how one could go about fixing this, or even if there is anything that needs to be fixed. Flambergius 05:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this is getting complicated, first of all, let's call it the "Who designed the designer" objection, which can link to the more technical term. Second, I'm unsure if the 747 Gambit can be reduced to the "who designed the designer" objection. (Flambergius says it can't, so this is a non-trivial conclusion! Based on WP:SYNT we should not decide if two sources are talking about the same thing, unless it is obvious or attributable to a third source.) I edited to reflect this, please check if it is neutral. Third, I think the 747 Gambit or argument from improbability, or whatever its esteemed 200 year history is, maybe deserve a wikipedia entry, where this could be discussed in detail. --Merzul 15:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fortunate or unfortunate?

I would give this article a B+.

I haven't decided whether the title of the subject work is fortunate or unfortunate. I think it is fortunate in that it takes away from the author's credibility and that it is unfortunate for the same reason.

Granted, both sides of this age old question can't be right but it is very possible, and even highly probable, that both sides are wrong. At the very least, both sides are delusional in their conviction.

Faith in science or faith in God? Each is as absurd as the other. Anyone who presumes to know is deluded. Belief is delusion. Dotcomma 21:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In science one kind of belief is called a hypothesis. It's ephemeral held for as long as it stands up to evidence/observation/testing etc etc - you know that as it's all part of the scientific method. Same applies to "Theories" ; ephemeral though obviously usually with a longer timeframe. He compares this to religious beliefs which more or less are through revelation and quite firmly held even if evidence is to the contrary. There is a difference. The god "delusion" is that the god hypothesis is unlikely and yet the belief stays. I guess I have to say it's all in the book as opposed to just in the title. Ttiotsw 21:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... how can both sides be wrong. An Atheists accepts there is no evidence of a god and possibly also believes there is no god. A theists believes there is a god. That's the only qualifying criteria. For both to be wrong it would mean there is a god and there also is no god... in which case they'd also both be right but in any case you are wrong. 194.46.224.36 00:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

With reasoning like that who needs Dawkins ? No seriously I think you've just drifted into a topic unrelated to the book. I though we were discussing differences between the delusions of faith and those someone was trying to present as delusions of science. Once you start calling one POV wrong then thats original research. I think this thread is now dead. Ttiotsw 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Its age alone suggests there's a lot more to religion than just Gods while science, in and of itself, has nothing whatsoever to do with Godlessness. Laws govern this universe and man does not live outside it. The existence of religion has a logical beginning, as does the existence of science, whether we know what that beginning is or not. And, much to many's chagrin, whether we like it or not. The atheist's idea that religious belief is "bad" is no different than the believer's belief that any Tom, Dick or Mary can circumvent the will of an omnipotent creator on a whim Dotcomma.

Please review WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not the place for this discussion. Thanks. *Spark* 13:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it Spark, Thanks. My point is that Dawkins either knows better or is also delusional. I can only hope he's delusional because if he isn't...what's the difference between one religious sect wanting to wipe out another religious sect and atheists wanting to wipe out all religious sects? The title of the book clearly and mistakenly (read 'delusionally'?) claims the high ground. Dotcomma 18:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Invalid link

Reference 31 has an invalid link (used the current link instead of permanent link)

Bad link: http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=11&RefPageID=5

Correct link: http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=47&RefPageID=11

For the life of me, I couldn't get into editing the link. I'm new, but you would think that clicking the "edit" link would list the References. Also, all the edit links seemed to be off by one, going to the previous section.

Fixed. You have to edit it in the section of text that refers to the reference, not in the references section itself. Snalwibma 17:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delusion revisited

Further discussion with a leading psychiatrist caused me to re-read what Dawkins says about his use of the term Delusion and he admits that he is not using the term in the proper psychiatric sense (p5) - indeed 3 psychiatrists wrote to him pointing this out. His immediate canter on "his pet steed Tangent" diverts the mind from this important point which is not widely understood. I've had a first shot at reflecting this in the article, would of course greatly welcome improvements (but please not a round of reverts) NBeale 09:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not as quoted - the idea of "coining" smacks of WP:OR as these 3-wise men were proposing a new technical term. Dawkins justifies his more popular usage using a dictionary. The book is more a popular work than a scholarly work so this nitpicking on one word that has a specific meaning in one field (of which the book lays no claims to be contributing to) is not relevant as it is what the common people would imagine the term to mean (as they are the target audience). Now if you're saying his book is a medical text well thats different. Yells, "Yehaaaaa" and gallops away on pet steed Polemic.Ttiotsw 10:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ttiotsw, and I have reverted. Another reason I have done this is because NBeale's addition was yet another case of inserting over-complicated footnotes, which has the effect of making the thing unreadable. Also - please don't use the footnotes for knife-twisting, just for sources and other brief background material. Snalwibma 11:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ttiotsw, Snalwibma. If I give too little in the ref I'm concerned that other editors will say "not enough justification". How about the ref being (p5) "some psychiatrists ... regard it as a technical term, not to be bandied about." (In fact all psychiatrists regard it as a technical term, you might as well say "some biologists regard DNA as a techncial term"). The trope that belief in God is a Delusion is central to the book and that fact that, whether or not belief in God is a mistake, it is not a Delusion in the defined psychiatric sense is notable and admitted by Dawkins. NBeale 12:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The first step to avoiding reverts is discussion of content before adding it. You need to let certain fights go. You're once again claiming facts not in evidence. Dawkins is not admitting his usage doesn't match the "technical term", just that it "shouldn't be bandied about". Whether all psychiatrists regard it as a technical term is irrelevant, as all psychiatrists cannot even agree on the definition of the term (see Delusion and Belief). Please drop it. --*Spark* 12:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Spark. If you read what he says on p5 carefully you will see that he is admitting this, though I accept that due to his clever use of language, it is not obvious at first. NBeale 12:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What a nice way to frame a personal attack. I've read it and disagree with your assessment. Looks like someone (yet another low contrib account) has re-added your disputed text while we're still discussing it. What do you think would be the proper course here for someone following WP guidelines? --*Spark* 12:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted again - for reasons as stated above. It is not a technical book about the psychiatric definition of delusion. It is a popular book about religion as a "delusion" in the sort of sense that most people use the word. This is quite adequately discussed in the article. Don't try to (a) muddy the waters and (b) undermine Dawkins' thesis and slip in a subtle personal attack by the insertion of weasel words and weasel footnotes. Snalwibma 13:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The basic criteria in a neutral summary is whether Dawkins himself is would agree with the term "admit," and that's unlikely--especially when you find yourself citing outside sources ("3 psychiatrists") to justify your wording. Tempting as it may be, you should leave critiquing to the critics. Barte 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Barte, Snalwibma. B: You probably haven't got the book in front of you, but if you look at it you will see that Dawkins himself talks about the 3 psychiatrists. I'd happily change "admits" to "indicates". S: it is not a personal attack to make this clear - if Dawkins didn't say this then he would indeed be justifiably criticised. And most people use the word Delusion with psychiatric overtones (as is clear from the definition Dawkins uses and a quick Google). It's fair enough to adjust the words in which this admitted fact about D's use of Delusion is conveyed so that it is NPOV, but not reasonable to try to hide it. NBeale 14:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But ask yourself why you want to introduce this detail at all. What happened to lucidity, readability, simplicity, the art of a good precis? Just because Dawkins mentions something in the book it doesn't mean it has to be reproduced here. This is an article about the book, not a transcription of the book. I am afraid I am driven to suspect your motives. You are muddying the waters and subjecting the article to lingchi by quote-mining. Snalwibma 14:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins can be interpreted as stating the technical definition is unclear. We know psychiatrists cannot even agree on the usage. So he clarifies how he is using the term. Nothing more need be said. Stating "indicates" or "admits" with respect to the "technical definition" is unsupportable. --*Spark* 14:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the problem is that you are doing a close reading of the text--("Further discussion with a leading psychiatrist caused me to re-read what Dawkins says") when what is called for is just the reverse: a coarse, neutral distillation. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a dissertation. We need to be clear. And we need to paint in broad strokes.Barte 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

< Hi Barte/Snalwimba/Spark. There is no doubt in any medic's mind, let alone a Psych, that belief in God is not a Delusion in the psychiatric sense. Dawkins understands this perfectly well - he's a Prof at Oxford after all. That is why he says "I need to justify" his use of the term Delusion. However most people who are not medically trained don't appreciate this. The idea of Wikipedia is to give people the information they need to make their own decisions on the subject of an article. This is not muddying but clarifying waters, and certainly not a torture! NBeale 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding disputed material. You've been asked repeatedly to refrain from it. He never states he is not using the technical term, and I'd bet if you polled 100 psychiatrists you'd get 100 different answers on what a delusion is, and whether belief in a diety falls within the parameters. The text in that section doesn't support your WP:OR, especially your summary of what Dawkins is _thinking_ when he says nothing of the sort. --*Spark* 21:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is think NBeal's latest edit is closer to the mark. The paragraph still reads a bit awkwardly, but that has been the case for a while. How about something like:

Dawkins defines "delusion" as "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence", while indicating he is not using the term in the psychiatric sense. He is sympathetic to Robert M. Pirsig's assertion that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion."-Barte 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Spark: they get taught this stuff at Med School. Any Psych who thought that theism per se was, psychiatrically, a Delusion, would be struck off. I say nothing about what D is thinking. Hi Barte: I think your text is brilliant. The pedant in me notes that D does not quite define delusion - he quotes two definitions since "I need to justify my use of" the term but I can't think of any sensible way of saying that in the article. Please put it in with my support. I think this is a model of how Wikipedia should work: we each have our own perspectives and together we make a stronger article. NBeale 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He never indicates he's not using the term in the psychiatric sense. I honestly cannot believe you put back the DSM reference in the footnote. We went over this weeks ago and you're still pushing it. Nobody in this current discussion mentioned DSM, you were told previously why DSM doesn't apply and you still insist on adding it. Also, are you making the broad statement that every psychiatrist agrees on the definition of a delusion and whether or not belief in a diety qualifies as one? Is that your assertion? --*Spark* 22:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Spark. He absolutely does. What do you think the "psychiatrists ... disquiet ... technical term...I need to justify my use of it" means? Of course there is the possibility of refining Psych definitions, DSM is an evolving document, and science advances. So not all Psychs agree on the precise definition of Delusion - not all astronomers agree on the precise defintion of a planet. But any competent medic, let alone any Psych, knows that belief in God per se is not a Delusion in the Psych sense, just as all astronomers know that the ISS is not a planet. NBeale 22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's some reading for you. Hallucinating God Regarding Dawkin's text, I read that as him clarifying his usage, not saying his usage is contrary to the "psychiatric sense" of the word. The statement and the end clarifies this: "As to whether it is a symptom of a psychiatric disorder, I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig.... In other words, he's stating his usage is within the bounds of the psychiatric definition as he knows it. --*Spark* 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Spark. The fact that the only counterexample you can find is an apparently uncited paper in a defunct journal from an obscure lecturer at a university in Wagga Wagga (and even he admits that religious belief is not a Delusion under the accepted scientific defintion) rather proves my point. Pirsig was not a psychiatrist but a mental patient, he was making a humorous philosophical point in a novel. NBeale 12:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There you go again making unsupported conclusions. The author is from Macquarie University and the footnotes and studies cited within it (which are more relevant that the paper itself) are fairly strong. I'm certain I could find more, that was a very quick search. Nowhere did I or anyone else state Pirsig was a psychiatrist nor was it even implied. Here's another book you can take a look at Why God Won't Go Away. Feel free to search for yourself for more examples. If you honestly believe every psychiatrist thinks belief in a diety is not a delusion there's nothing I can say or cite to dissuade you. --*Spark* 13:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Spark. The author is a lecturer at Charles Sturt University - look at his website [1]. His paper seems uncited on Google Scholar. Every competent Psych knows that belief in a deity is not a Delusion in the defined psychiatric sense - however many may consider it a delusion in the popular sense. If you can find one qualified Psych who disagrees with this, worldwide, I'd be amazed (and it would be one in about a million). You certainly haven't so far. NBeale 14:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The author was from Macquarie when the paper was written. Feel free to ignore all the studies and papers cited as well. Dawkins notes that three psychiatrists wrote to him and it disquieted some (not all). Out of how many? Is the fact that the vast majority of psychiatrists didn't feel the need to protest the usage in some form relevant? More importantly, this is where your view becomes crystal clear: "Every competent Psych", "every qualified psych". If one happens to disagree with you, you can simply say "well, he's not competent". Makes your claim non-falsifiable. It borders on delusional. --*Spark* 14:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Barte's suggestion is pretty good - though personally I'd go for the simpler 'Dawkins defines "delusion" as "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence". He is sympathetic to Robert M. Pirsig's assertion...' Avoid confusing the reader by going round in self-contradictory circles. And, please, nothing in the footnote other than the page reference for the book itself! Snalwibma 22:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Snalwimba. Honestly I think the Psych point is important: let's go with Barte's text. I'm happy to concede the point on the footnote in exchange :-) NBeale 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Barte's text as is assigning meaning that is not there. --*Spark* 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've now lent out my copy, so I'm flying somewhat blind here. Re: Spark's point, I'm not sure from that quote whether Dawkins is putting his definition in the strict psychiatric "bucket" or just sidestepping the question by going with Pirsig. If Dawkins doesn't address the question explicitly, maybe we should tread lightly here--as Snalwimba does above. -Barte 23:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Delusion revisited pt2

Hi Barte: What Dawkins has on p5 is: The word 'delusion' in my title has disquieted some psychiatrists who regard it as a technical term, not to be bandied about. Three of them wrote to me to propose a special technical term for religious delusion: 'relusion'.2 Maybe it'll catch on. But for now I am going to stick with 'delusion', and I need to justify my use of it. The Penguin English Dictionary defines a delusion as 'a false belief or impression'. .tangent omitted.The dictionary supplied with Microsoft Word defines a delusion as 'a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of psychiatric disorder'. The first part captures religious faith perfectly. As to whether it is a symptom of a psychiatric disorder, I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, when he said,... NBeale 12:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think in the light of this we should add "technical" and say: Dawkins defines "delusion" as "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence", while indicating he is not using the term in the technical psychiatric sense. He is sympathetic to Robert M. Pirsig's assertion that... NBeale 13:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop pushing that, he states no such thing. (By the way, the preface text is available in one of the footnotes in the article.) Note this important line: "a special technical term for a religious delusion". In other words, a special category of delusion. But still a delusion. That's from "some psychiatrists". Snalwimba's text is the same as what's currently in the article, save for the deletion of a quote from the book which doesn't warrant deletion. The text should be left as it is. --*Spark* 13:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading the above, my take is that Dawkins doesn't take really take on the mental disorder question directly, even in quoting Pirsig (who, after all, is no more an expert witness on the subject than Dawkins). But I think the paragraph as it stands is quote-heavy. We are suppose to be summarizing, not excerpting. So I'd reword:

Dawkins writes that religious faith meets at least the common understanding of the term "delusion": a persistent belief in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He expresses sympathy for Robert Pirsig's observation that the only difference between a delusion and religious tenet is the number of people who believe it.-Barte 13:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Barte:I think we're nearly there, but we need the point about psyciatrists disquiet that a technical term is being bandied about, which is really quite important. Also I don't think even Dawkins holds the absurd position that the only difference between a delusion and a religiuous tenet is the number of people... So how about: Dawkins writes that religious faith meets at least the definition of "delusion" as "a persistent belief in the face of strong contradictory evidence" and defends this use against disquet from psychiatrists who consider Delusion "a technical term, not to be bandied about". He is inclined to follow Robert Pirsig's observation that ... (I quite like the Pirsig quote even though I disagree with it, and I don't think we should remove other Editors' text without good reason) NBeale 14:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Barte's quote free paragraph is fine as it is. --*Spark* 14:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Spark. The point is that belief in God is not a Delusion in the defined psychiatric sense. Even the Wagga Wagga man knows that, and so does Dawkins. The Psychs warned him (what do you think "casues disquiet ..." means??) that it is scientifically wrong to call belief in God a Delusion, and suggested that he use another term which does not have a defined scientific meaning. Delusion has a popular and a scientific meaning (Delusion(pop) and Delusion(s) if you will). Dawkins is saying "a special technical term for a relgious delusion(pop)".NBeale 13:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

We've been over the whole "scientific meaning" discussion here, and you've already been shown counterexamples. Try to retain them. --*Spark* 14:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

hi Spark. Last time the objection was that it was WP:OR because no notable commentator had made the point. Sadly I failed to notice that Dawkins had made it himself. NBeale 15:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we are nearly there, but I do not see why we need to register the psychiatrists' disquiet (unless of course we are trying to undermine the argument of the book in every little way possible). Snalwibma 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Snalwibma. "disquiet" is D's own term. But I'd accept "defends this use against those who consider Delusion..." if you would. This clarifies the argument of the book (and D thinks it worth mentioning). Whether clarifying the agruments undermines them depends on the quality of the arguments. NBeale 15:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that he "defends" anything. Dawkins simply notes, almost as an aside, that three psychiatrists have concerns, then goes on to discuss what he, Dawkins, means by "delusion." Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fine points over what "delusion" means never again arise in the book. As opposed to, say, the term "God hypothesis," which is a running theme.-Barte 15:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Using NBeale's own horsey analogy we're discussing the brand of the paint on the door of the stables whilst the horse "hypothesis" has bolted and is 1/2 way down the paddock. This only helps to confirm one of my theories on the existance of god based on Wikipedia edits of "controversial" subjects; something this significant should be a lot more obvious than the ensuing arguments on the subtle definitions of words - which would indicate that there is nothing so significant in reality if this is all we discuss. Now where's me 'ostler ? Ttiotsw 16:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Look. It's like this. Everyone knows what "delusion" means. Dawkins spends 0.0000001 percent (or whatever - please measure it if you like) of his text noting one little point about what precisely it means, then he gets on with his central theme. That theme has nothing to do with calculating how many delusions can dance on the head of a pin. It's about his thesis that belief in a god is a delusion, and a dangerous delusion at that. There is no need to discuss the nuances of what RD means by the everyday word delusion, and especially no need to devote space in the article to how NBeale thinks RD might be mistaken in his use of the word. Let it go, simplify the sentence, forget the nuances, and move on. Snalwibma 16:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

His central theme is that Belief in God is a Delusion! Non-medics think they know what "delusion" means. But Medics use it as a technical scientific term. Dawkins, as Prof for Public Understanding of Science, recognises that "I have to justify my use of it" and so should we. It's not just those 3 Psychs that have concerns. If you don't like "defends" how about: Dawkins writes that religious faith meets the definition of "delusion" as "a persistent belief in the face of strong contradictory evidence" and says he has to justify this use for who consider Delusion "a technical term, not to be bandied about". He is inclined to follow Robert Pirsig's observation that ... NBeale 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you're being way too pessimistic and reading a book by it's title: his central theme is that "Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled and that Natural selection and other scientific theories are superior to a "God hypothesis" in explaining the living world and perhaps even the cosmos and that Children should not be labelled by their parents' religion and that Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind."....and here's why if you read the rest of my book, The God Delusion. He spends a lot of time on the god thing (as you well know with that 747 stuff). Face it, snowball and hell come to mind in the hurdles you'll face with the handicap you've got for your fine steed, "Delusion". Take a breather. Ttiotsw 16:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

One last attempt to persuade you, NBeale. Reasonably enough, Dawkins thinks it is worth justifying his use of the word "delusion" and spending a very small amount of space pointing out how his use of the term might not be exactly in accord with how it is used by psychiatrists. But then (since it's not a psychiatry textbook) he quotes a couple of everyday definitions, refers to Pirsig, and gets on with it. I agree with you, and with RD himself - he uses "delusion" in a non-technical sense. But this is such a small point in the book that it is not worth discussing at length here. This is a wikipedia article of a couple of thousand words, not a thesis. RD provides a definition of "delusion" that he agrees with. Let's just quote that and move on. Snalwibma 17:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ttiotsw, Snalwibma. I agree if D. had called it The Atheist Assertion this would not be a notable point. But he didn't. It's not that his use is "not exactly in accord" - it is completely different. Instead of trying to supress facts why not just accept them and let the readers decide. Surely the case for Atheism isn't that weak? NBeale 17:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My really last final word on the matter. Read RD's preface. What he says is that he is using the D word in the non-technical sense. In other words, in the everyday, normal, everyone-understands-it sense. [Which is also very close to the psychiatric meaning.] My main point, though, is that we are dealing with a brief wikipedia article, and the aim should be to clarify, not to confuse. Give it up. Snalwibma 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins does not explicity say he's using it in the non-technical sense. The fact that three of them wrote him and gave him a subcategory of "delusion" specific to religion isn't important in any significant way. Just as with the previous discussion on delusion, stating what his definition *is*, is fine. Stating what it isn't is irrelevant - he never states what his definition isn't, neither should we. NBeale, do not add anything to this article until we're done discussing it. You have no consensus for your addition, and it's downright rude. --*Spark* 20:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with most of the above. Readers will get this (and the three psychiatrists should have). Clarity counts. And our job is to state what Dawkins is writing about, not what he's not. I would like offer as a substitute my quoteless rewrite of the paragraph, because I think it is more Wikipedia-like. But it's not worth arguing about. Here it is again:

Dawkins writes that religious faith meets at least the common understanding of the term "delusion": a persistent belief in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He expresses sympathy for Robert Pirsig's observation that the only difference between a delusion and religious tenet is the number of people who believe it.-Barte 20:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Barte. If you want to put that in it's fine by me. Readers don't understand the point about the Medical definition of Delusion, Dawkins says he has to justify his (ab)use of the term but Spark and others are determined to hide this fact and weight of numbers seems to count for more than reasoned argument in this part of Wikipedia. Ah well. truth will out in the end. NBeale 21:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that the simplest (and least POV) approach is to quote Dawkins directly, especially as this can be done without adding materially to the length: Dawkins writes that religious faith qualifies as a delusion, at least as the term is commonly understood: "a persistent false belief in the face of strong contradictory evidence". He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's observation that "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." The inclusion of "at least as the term is commonly understood" is an interpretation of Dawkins rather than a direct quote. I think it's fair enough - though I would also be happy simply to omit those words. Snalwibma 22:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This works for me. The phrase "at least as the term is commonly understood" was my attempt to address concerns about medical vs. common meaning of the term. But I'm not wedded to it. -Barte 08:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Facts or Factiods

Come on NBeale thats getting dangerously close to not being in good faith if you read Wikipedia:Consensus#Reasonable_consensus-building "Insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors, has been adjudged a violation of consensus due to its putting undue weight on a topic." etc etc etc. I mean we've allowed some changes, edited others, reverted others and yet you are still insisting that it's been a supermajority that counts as there has been no "reasoned argument" except on your side of the table. To me the table is round and what you have said is not the right way to describe the consensus that has arisen. Ttiotsw 23:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ttiotsw. Not clear what you mean by factoid. The facts that I think should be referred to somewhere in the article are:

1. Describing belief in God as a Delusion is, scientifically, incorrect. Delusion is a defined scientific term, and under the accepted definition, belief in God cannot be classed as a delusion. Like many scientific terms (Energy, Power, DNA etc.) delusion also has a looser popular sense, and in the popular sense any belief with which you disagree can be labelled a delusion.
2. Dawkins is aware of this and says he has to justify his use of Delusion in this non-scientific sense. He does so with the logic and rigour typical of the rest of the book.

I quite accept that stating these facts in the language I have used might well be seen to be POV :-) and in the interests of consensus have worked very hard to find words that people will accept. But it is difficult to see how the underlying facts to which my (maybe wrongly worded) descriptions point can be said to be either untrue (the main sense of factoid) or true but utterly insignificant. NBeale 09:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

NBeale, if you try to slip those two "facts" into the article it will be reverted faster than you can say "factiod" [sic], as a gross violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BLP etc. Snalwibma 09:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Snalwibma. I accept that the language I have used is inappropriate for inclusion in the article, and needs considerable adjustment in the light of policies as you rightly say! I'm just curious to know whether anyone seriously claims that the underlying substance (not the details) of these points are (a) untrue or (b) trivial, the 2 senses of "factoid". And if not, could we collaborate to find language which is WikiPedian. Simply threatening a revert war with weight of numbers is not the way forward methinks. NBeale 12:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your "defined scientific term" is no such thing. You've been clearly shown this. Reread Talk:The_God_Delusion/Archive2#Delusion, noting especially the points made by edhubbard. Let this one go. Find some articles on music or fiction or some hobby of yours and edit those for a while. It will help you understand consensus and working better with other editors. Keep WP:AGF in mind. --*Spark* 13:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a term. It is defined - in DSM-IV (even your Wagga Wagga man knows this). Is your point that it is not scientific? Or what? NBeale 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If saying belief in God is delusional is "scientifically incorrect" because "delusion is a defined scientific term", then it is equally incorrect to say that Bill Gates possesses great power, that a legal bill was met with resistance from protesters, or that progress in integrated circuit design is accelerating. Dawkins isn't proposing that every theist in the planet be put in a straight jacket, or even that one can turn them into atheists by having them gulp down thorazine tablets. The God Delusion is a popular book on science and religion, not an article in a journal of clinical psychology. -- Schaefer (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The point was made a long time ago. Try to remain WP:CIVIL. Read the old discussion I've linked at least twice. Go dig into some other articles outside the realm of religious topics for a while. Further discussion here on this point will not be fruitful. --*Spark* 18:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a larger point here, as well. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. That's part of its DNA. (Not literally. of course.) When several other editors come to the same conclusion about the same issue, it's best to gracefully move on. That doesn't mean that your mind is necessarily changed or that the majority is by definition correct. This is all a series of judgement callse. But by necessity, that's how the process works. Speaking of which, I'm still not entirely happy with the Pirsig part of my substitute paragraph and will probably continue to tweak it. And, Wikipedia being what it is, I know that others may do the same.-Barte 20:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Factoids are small facts and it was not my wording but taken from Wikipedia:Consensus#Reasonable_consensus-building so don't ask me why they use it. The issue is building consensus. Their inclusion would add WP:Undue weight to one point of view. I'm being nice here. Ttiotsw 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Baltimore review

Hi Spark. I think you/someone may need to adjust your edit to the Baltimore review a bit. FWIW if you look at the full review he says "Because I am myself unable to accept a religious explanation of anything, I wonder why others so readily do so. Dawkins does talk about the possibility that..." so Baltimore is the one "unable to accept". As now written the 2 quotes seem to elide without much link. I accept that this makes the Baltimore para longer than the others, but he is after all a Nobel Prizewinner. NBeale 13:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Was going to suggest putting "Noble prize winner" in front of the name when I noticed there are labels on some on the reviewer's names - "physicist", "Marxist literary critic", etc. and not others. That should be consistent one way or the other and I'd lean towards no labels, but could go either way. Regarding that line, it was poorly written as it was, and a quote about Baltimore's personal views outside of his views of this book is not relevant. The quote about "deep-seated need" stands on its own. --*Spark*

BTW If Baltimore is right about the purpose of Dawkins's book, is mounting such an all-out assault on the beliefs of the majority, treating them with contempt, a good way to do it? Just asking? NBeale 20:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

NBeale: as the note at the top of this page says: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." If you would like to do so, please find another venue. Thanks.-Barte 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Trouble with Atheism

For anyone interested, I hear that Rod Liddle has a polemic/docementary coming up, called "The Trouble with Atheism", in which he generally misrepresents Dawkins and The God Delusion. For instance, he implies that Dawkins refutes even the possibility of there being a God. For more details, I go into a slight rant about this on my talk page. Apparently, Liddle trots out the old "Stalin was an atheist" business. Very lame. RL has gone down slightly in my estimation.... -Neural 15:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Neural, thanks for pointing this out. It is on Channel 4 at 8.00 tonight. Lets watch it with an open mind... (but see my comment about 'stalin was an atheist' on the criticism of atheism page!)Poujeaux 16:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't as bad as I'd been led to think. I read a review of the program that praised Liddle but was fairly atheist-bashing and Dawkins-bashing in tone. The documentary was more balanced and considered than I'd expected, but I still think Dawkins has the stronger arguments. Liddle was strongest when he implied that humans are such a bad lot that, without traditional religion, they're liable to gravitate towards ideologies like Stalinism or Fascism. I certainly hope he's wrong. Liddle ends by saying "it's possible that there's no God. And it's possible that there is a God. Why can't we just leave it at that?" The trouble, of course, is that the single-minded Islamists around the world and the Christian Fascists setting the agenda in America will never leave it at that. Liddle's response seems to be "just let them believe whatever they like and please don't point out the absurdity of much of it." If opposition from secularists dies away, America will quickly become much like modern Iran, although a Fundamentalist Christian version. And the Middle-East will continue its slide into its Dark Age. Still, if atheists take something away from Liddle's documentary, it may be: "don't ever become too dogmatic about things, and don't act like an arrogant swivel-eyed fanatic. Don't give secularists a bad name..." In other words, perhaps try to emulate Dawkins himself - charming, quietly-spoken, considered, sincere... and rational. -Neural 16:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Atheists always 'point out' that Hitler was a Catholic. "Very lame". In my view Atheism is a religion; there is no evidence for the non-existence of God (there is no proof of his existence, either). Theism and Atheism are both leaps of faith.

People seem to forget that there are Atheist fanatics. All forms of fanaticism are dangerous. Look at that Atheist with the banners that read "It is WRONG to believe in Jesus etc...", or something like that, was he right to do that.

Dawkins is a fool to deny that Stalin was an Atheist who killed in the name of Communism and Atheism. Many Jews and Christians were tortured and killed for their religious beliefs. - user:Doctor Hesselius

Joseph Stalin was indeed an atheist. But it seems he "liquidated" thousands of clergy and other Christians mostly because he couldn't tolerate any other religion than the cult of Joseph Stalin, along with his party's own distorted brand of Marxism.

I only take issue with one other thing you've said. Dawkins, whatever you may say about him, is no fool.

-Neural 15:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Attaching a label to someone doesn't make them automatically acquire all the prejudices you associate with that label. Calling some one "Christian" doesn't mean that they always pursue a morally right behaviour and that they will never kill, never covet, never present false witness etc: we know that's a stupid generalisation but the prejudice is there. Conversely labelling someone an atheist doesn't mean that they are communists or represent the obverse of "Christian" values. Dawkins issue is that Stalin killed for Stalin's reasons and that atheism (or communism) was not the reason for his actions (any more than Hitlers relationship with Christianity was for his).

Religion is used as a reason for doing something and this is where the notion of fundamentalism between faith and reason starts to differ.

An atheist can be enthusiastic in their views (Dawkins would be an example of this) but as he says this is a very flexible view as new evidence can shift this view. An atheist can also be enthusiastic about beer, wine, chocolate, art, buildings, ecology and many other things but these are not defacto associations with atheism. So what is defacto for atheism ? - nothing; they simply have no belief in or do not believe in god or gods. To identify their ethics, politics or diet you must ask specific questions e.g. are they secular humanists or buddhist or Democrats or Libertarians or Communists or vegetarians or or or.. the list goes on.

Dawkins is not a fool to simply use religion as a reason for the worlds ills and conversly he is not a fool to discount atheism as the reason for Stalins actions. People are more than just one label. Ttiotsw 12:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Einstein

I've re-read Pais's definitive biography of Einstein (Subtle is the Lord..) Although there is no doubt that E. did not believe in a personal God, it is not right to say that he used the term God "as a metaphor for nature or the mysteries of the universe" (unless you take the utterly simplistic view that everything is either "literal" or "a metaphor"). The philosopher who came nearest to E.s views on God was Spinoza ("If he had a God, it was the God of Spinoza") who was a monist and for whom God and Nature were different aspects of the same underlying reality. Spinoza sees two sides of Nature. First, there is the active, productive aspect of the universe — God and his attributes ("Deus sive Natura")which S. calls Natura naturans, "naturing Nature" and says is identical with God. The other aspect of the universe is that which is produced and sustained by the active aspect, Natura naturata, "natured Nature". "By Natura naturata I understand whatever follows from the necessity of God's nature, or from any of God's attributes, i.e., all the modes of God's attributes insofar as they are considered as things that are in God, and can neither be nor be conceived without God." (Ip29s). Let's think about how to put this, but "metaphorical" (a term not found in the SEP article on S. anywherer) isn't right. NBeale 06:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

... remembering, of course, that the paragraph in which Einstein occurs is a summary of what Dawkins says about Einstein, not a summary of what Einstein said. Let's not get too hung up on what Einstein actually thought - what matters, in the context of a summary of chapter 1 of The God Delusion, is what Dawkins says about what he said! Now, if only I hadn't lent my copy of TGD, this would be easily sorted. The only question is - is what is said a fair reflection of Dawkins' comments? Forget Einstein. Snalwibma 08:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• What's there is a fair reflection of Dawkins' comments. Read it here. "Metaphorical" is completely accurate. --*Spark* 12:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins says that Einstein did not believe in a personal God (correct) believed "in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings" (also totally correct). He then asserts that: "Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings." (somewhere between contentious and naive) and then asserts "Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense" which is simply incorrect and for which he offers no evidence at all! I've adjusted the section accordingly. NBeale 23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop making changes to content we're actively discussing. I've lost track of how many time you've been told by myself and others that it isn't proper and will cause nothing but edit wars - note other people partially reverted and changed your text but it's still a step back from what was there. Propose your change here, we'll discuss it here. --*Spark* 01:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Spark. I don't think this sparkean veto principle is right, this idea on WikiPedia is be bold. But my suggested text is: "He begins by noting that some commentators have found his enthusiasm for science to be almost religious, but he asks "is religion a good word" for it? This awe of nature's complexity is the core of what he calls “Einsteinian religion”. He suggests that when Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"he meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant by "religion", pointing out that Einstein did not believe in a personal God but "in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings" and suggesting that Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. However, he regrets that many scientists use the word God in this pantheistic and poetic sense as it causes much confusion." I think user:TheologyJohn is mistaken to suggest that Einstein's "lame/blind" quote is not notable (it's about the most famous thing he said on the subject) and that, given the great importance Dawkins attaches to Einstein's attitudes, the topic deserves discussion. NBeale 07:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NBeale I feel you misunderstand consensus. If one editor states something that others agree we don't need to do me-too edits but just watch the exchange until we can add something. I feel it is not in good faith on your part to accuse *Spark* of some kind of veto. He has no veto and a quick check seems to show an editor who works on a wide range of articles. I agree with him on his comments regarding your edits to this article. It seems that now that Delusion has gone to pasture you're now flogging this new runner, Einstein. Be bold - but expect others to be equally as bold. Ttiotsw 07:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that NBeale's proposed amendment (which in effect consists of inserting a reference to Spinoza) is inappropriate simply because it is too long and complicated, and strays too far from the basic function of the passage. The aim must be to produce a short, clear, understandable summary of what Dawkins says, not to indulge in sophistry about precisely what Einstein meant, and (by implication) how Dawkins may have got it slightly wrong. More water-muddying, I am afraid. Out of order. I'm not saying that it's perfect the way it is, just that this sort of amendment is not what is required. (Suitable changes? 1. dewikify "enthusiasm" - pointless for a word in everyday use; 2. strengthen the end of the paragraph to bring in the "intellectual high treason" quote - maybe). Snalwibma 09:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This section can be as long or as short as you like. But it must conform to NPOV which requires that if Dawkins is making an assertion which is highly questionable or untrue a word like "suggesting" or "arguing" is used. It is quite clear from Pais that Einstein did not use "God" in a purely metaphorical or poetic sense but in Spinoza's philosophical sense. To be fair Dawkins does say that E. uses "god" in S.'s sense and merely suggests that this is "purely m. or p." based on an v superficial understanding of S. who is pretty difficult to understand and on the borders of philosophy and theology which are not D's fields. I don't think D. is being dishonest here but he is (in fact) mistaken and (at least) contentious, hence "suggests". I think it would be fairer to D. (and E.) to put in the S. reference though. NBeale 10:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no suggestion in the present text that Dawkins is correct in his assessment of Einstein. And I certainly see no justification for a POV-pushing attempt to pull the rug from under his argument, as you seem to want to do. I neither know nor care what you think Pais thinks Einstein actually meant. What matters here is what Dawkins says. Snalwibma 11:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither Dawkins, Spinoza, you, me or anyone else here will know excatly what Einstein´s attitude towards religion was. I think how the article reads is consistent with what is know about Einstein´s philosophy from his quotes which can be found in the Einstein article, The God Delusion and no doubt Pais' biography, which I have not read. There is no need to obfuscate the matter. If you believe you have solid sourcing and arguments, you could discuss changes on the parts of the Einstein article that deal with what he did and did not belive. --EthicsGradient 11:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously not Spinoza :) --EthicsGradient 11:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen Wikipedia referred to as a "tertiary" source. In this case, TGD is the primary source, the reviews are the secondary sources, and the Wikipedia article draws from both--but, ideally, nothing else. Editors can select what sources they compile from, with an eye toward NPOV, but they can't themselves become reviewers, or even original researchers. That's the domain of the second tier, which requires publication in a "notable" source. You qualify if you publish a critique in the New Yorker, say, but not if you simply publish on your blog. (One blogger's external link was quickly erased here.) The distinction can be difficult to understand--we all have opinions and want those opinions known--but it's important, because being an honest broker is at the heart of the endeavor. Or to put this all another way, the only "truth" in a summary of TGD is the truth according to Dawkins.Barte 19:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Barte. Not quite. We must not (NPOV) be seen as endorsing claims that are controversial/wrong. Hence words like "suggests" rather than "proves". "referring to Einstein's use of the word “God” as a metaphor for nature or the mysteries of the universe." apparently asserts that E. used "God" as a metaphor - but he didn't, he used it in a particlular philosophical sense, as per Spinoza. To be fair to Dawkins he knows and says this. So why not get this right? NBeale 08:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My comment above was a general observation, not specific commentary on your edits and changes re: Spinoza. My copy of TGD is on loan, so I have no way to check the actual text.Barte 11:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is footnote 38?

Footnotes go up to 37. The main text refers to footnote 38 which is non-existent, although when I click on it it takes me to footnote 37, which is near enough, but no cigar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.159.89 (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

• seems OK now. Snalwibma 20:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for God's existence

This section is written with the sole intention of making one point: Dawkins treatment is superficial. And well, yes it is, but that doesn't justify the current style, e.g. "he reduces the ontological argument to the language of the playground", sure, but he also discusses Kant's objection. What is superficial is that he doesn't discuss the modern formulations, but here is my objection or plea to people who find the time to search for sources and cite Dawkins to show that his treatment is superficial: why don't you help me with the Ontological argument instead? Or, there is also a red link to Argument from degree, which at least deserves a stub maybe, but I doubt there are contemporary supporters. Anyway, I will repeat my plea for help: if you do have a religious POV, and whoever has edited that section must have a religious POV, instead of spending time writing down Dawkins's treatment of theology, please help write a good account of the pro-theistic arguments, in particular, a lot needs to be done with Plantinga's ontological argument, see my question on it's talk page. Thank you! --Merzul 15:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not up to us to pass judgement in the article on how good a job Dawkins does with the traditional arguments. In my opinion it's very good undergraduate philosophy level, but not postgrad level. That is not meant as an insult, because it means he gets things about right without being up to date with the cutting edge of professional philosophy. It's exactly the level he should have been aiming for in a book like this, and there are plenty of more technically sophisticated treatments elsewhere for those who want them. But that's all by the by; whatever any of us think should not find its way into the article and should not even be debated on the talk page. Metamagician3000 23:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is weird - I read the section as completely opposite from Merzul. For instance Merzul says that e.g. "he reduces the ontological argument to the language of the playground", but the article says that "He reduces Anselm's Ontological Argument to "the language of the playground"[14]" the inner quotes are on what Dawkins says. Dawkins is saying that these arguments have little substance and for instance he is able to reduce Anselm's Ontological Argument to it's true form - i.e. childish. The arguments proposed by many for god can be reduced to simpler forms or have beam-sized flaws; that this appears as a "superficial" coverage is because the arguments presented for god have little substance. Ontological_argument#Plantinga.27s_modal_form_and_contemporary_discussion with it's reliance on Axiom_S5 is a perfectly presented form of these emperors clothes. Ttiotsw 09:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I overreacted... But before my edit, every argument was summarized in a way that focused entirely on the dismissive aspect of Dawkins's criticism, but the book does actually contain some real objections at say, yes, undergraduate philosophy level. In short, is it a fair an accurate summary of his 2 pages on Pascal's wager to say that Regarding "Pascal's Wager", he suggests that "Pascal was probably joking when he promoted his wager"? --Merzul 11:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Dawknin's main point regarding Pascal's Wager was that it was not a proof for the existence of God, but an argument for hedging your bets and playing the odds. I do not have the book in front of me as I write this, but seem to remember that D. concluded that Pascal's wager was an argument for cynically professing belief to get the 'infinit' reward of heaven and avoiding the 'infinit' punishment of hell, should God actually exist. D. argues that Pascals wager does not in itself contain any argument for or against the actual existence of God. Perhaps we could rewrite to reflect this, rather than focus on the 'Pascal must have been joking'-thing? --EthicsGradient 17:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and that would be a good summary, but the only problem is that it is so much easier for me to complain here on the talk page than actually do it :) Another thing is that all these arguments are quite well discussed in their own articles, and so in the case of the Wager, Dawkins first argues some of Pascal's Wager#Assumes one can choose belief and then a bit of Pascal's Wager#Assumes God rewards belief, and we might want to use the same words as those titles. --Merzul 19:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I know how it is. Looks like somebody beat us to it, though. It looks better, at least the focus on Dawkins 'Pascal must have been joking' is gone. Unfortunately, my copy of TGD is currently not with me, so I am not sure I can improve on it accurately. --EthicsGradient 20:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)