Talk:Criticism of atheism

message: how was my content about Hart's book Atheist Delusions considered WP:PROMO when eminent agnostic philosopher Anthony Kenny who is cited earlier in this same article calls Hart's book "the most able counsel for the defence in recent years" and when the book wins a prestigious £10,000 Theology Prize from the Archbishop of Canterbury? Hart's book seems as important to this article on "Criticism of atheism" than much of the other content in the article (more so in many existing cases). Please provide a more substantial reason for this edit where you undid everything that I contributed. I'm glad to consider how better to incorporate Hart's work into this article, but I find it hard to imagine how a note about Hart's work would not be an improvement to this article. Jjhake (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jjhake, I think that the add was more promotion for the book (sources reviewing "Atheist Delusions") than actual content for the article topic. Why don't you extract points or arguments that Hart makes in the book on the topic of the article and cite that instead? "Atheist Delusions" seems like a citable source for the article. Hope this helps.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What Ramos1990 said. I don't think there's anything wrong with the book as such. But, awards and glowing comments from book reviews are basically promotional and much less germane to this article than the author's actual argument(s). PepperBeast (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as Ramos1990 and PepperBeast have indicated, the problem lies with the promotional tone of the edit, rather than making appropriate use of the book as a RS for relevant content. -- Jmc (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you each! That makes a lot of sense. In the next couple of days, as I have a little time, I will work to rewrite (keeping it brief) and move away from commentary about the book and moving to a few key arguments from the book. Of course other edits from any others with the book most welcome as well, but this shouldn't take me too long. Jjhake (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, everyone. I gave it another try. Please let me know what needs to be improved. The citations might be too long that outline the positive and negative case made in the book. Jjhake (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I do have to say that I think that Jjhake's addition of the opinions (and photo!) of David Bentley Hart gives undue prominence to a relatively minor critic of atheism. Jmc (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of reviews published of Hart's book Atheist Delusions with a major university press and the prominent award given to it by a leading Christian theologian Rowan Williams hardly make it relatively minor from what I can see, but I'm glad to trim it down (or have others do so) if it's out of proportion. Jjhake (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I also fail to see that either of the two lengthy excerpts "builds a ... case against New Atheism", which is referred to neither explicitly nor implicitly. Jmc (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Jmc, Atheist Delusions names several of the New Atheists specifically and engages them specifically at points. The passages I picked were seeking to get at the entire scope of the book which responds to the case made by New Atheists that religion in general holds back the course of human progress and is a cause of sufferings and oppression. It is might be worth noting that Hart's book The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss is also widely considered a vital response to atheism and should be noted in this article in some form. Jjhake (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

text: 28,666 views on the Jan 18, 2014 discussion between Hart and atheist philosopher Richard Norman of Hart's book The Experience of God. It looks like you are correct that Hart is not widely popular, but he does get engagement from some serious figures like Anthony Kenny and Richard Norman at any rate. Jjhake (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Oliver Burkeman in The Guardian called The Experience of God "the one theology book all atheists really should read." Jjhake (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jjhake, I think your new add is very wordy and not focused on the points Hart is trying to make with respect to the article topic. Look at the other adds in the section such as Jeff Nall, Jack Eller, Jeffrey Robbins and Christopher Rodkey. You should be able to cite actual criticisms of atheism made by Hart and focus on that. That the book is praised, or that you think it is vital is not the point of citing things on wikipedia. It looks like WP:PROMO if you ignore actual criticisms that Hart lays out in the book. We don't need to cite the scope of the book either. It can certainly be condensed to highlight the criticisms. If the readers read the arguments that Hart makes and they find them interesting, they may want to look at the reference for themselves. That is the best way to highlight a source on wikipeida - just show its strength in relation to the topic of the article. Hope this helps.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, what you are saying makes sense, and I do take the point from Jmc regarding Hart's relative lack of popular prominence as well. It looks like Hart is taken more seriously in British circles than in America overall. At any rate, I'll work tomorrow to trim it down substantially and to only include brief citations that focus on specific criticisms of atheism. Thanks to all for the feedback. Jjhake (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jjhake As Ramos1990 has indicated, you should take as a model the accounts of the views of the other critics of New Atheism in that section (Reza Aslan, Jeff Nall, Jack David Eller, Jeffrey Robbins, Christopher Rodkey, Roger Scruton). This would enable you to achieve an appropriate space, balance and weight for Hart's views. Jmc (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you all. I've taken down the photo of David Bentley Hart as a first step and will work at focusing and reducing the text substantially in the next couple of days along the lines suggested. Jjhake (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is Hart's Atheist Delusions book considered WP:PROMO when it is recognized as critical contribution on this topic? 

message: I thought I'd start a new topic as the comments were getting squashed on the last one. Feedback welcome as I've tried to concisely represent Hart's two books criticizing New Atheism. I've put it at the very end just because I could not see a particular order to the other critics represented, but other locations might make more sense. It's likely a little too long, but I figured that I would try to represent all of the most relevant content as succinctly as I could as a starting point. Help appreciated in trimming it down as needed. Jjhake (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an improvement, but I trimmed it further. Book reviews are not needed for this article. If you think about it, all sources used here have reviews (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, Harris, etc all have lots of reviews on their works), but these are not encyclopedic and they distract from what the sources actually say. Look at any encyclopedia and you will see that the focus is on the topic, not reviews of sources used. However, if you would like, the David Bentley Hart article is more appropriate for you to add reviews of his works as that article does talk about criticism and receptions of his works there. Hope this helps.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, all. Looking good. I note that  also removed this portion (with the note that it was an "irrelevant (to New Atheism) sentence"): "His book makes a case for Christianity as the only 'true revolution' in history and the Enlightenment as 'a reactionary flight back toward a comfortable, but dehumanizing, mental and moral servitude to elemental nature.'" I don't understand how a claim that Christianity is the basis of true revolution and a critique of the Enlightenment as backwards can be irrelevant to New Atheism as several of the New Atheists repeated caricatured religion as inherently backwards and the Enlightenment as a great advancement. However, I understand that there was too much content about Hart's two books, and I'm glad to see the help in trimming it down. Jjhake (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, @Jjhake. As for my abridgement, that sentence made no explicit reference to New Atheism. You (and I !) may know that "several of the New Atheists repeated[ly] caricatured religion as inherently backwards", but, absent that explicit connection, a naive reader, for whom we're presumably writing, wouldn't grasp that statement's relevance to New Atheism. -- Jmc (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That helps. Thank you, . Jjhake (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, @Jjhake for instigating a worthwhile addition to this section - and for your collegial approach in editing it. -- Jmc (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback on rewrite of material with two David Hart books criticizing New Atheism 

message: This is a very long article.  A big chunk is devoted to the question of whether Hitler and other Nazis were atheists. The implication, I guess, is an ad hominem attack on atheism due to people who are atheists. Would we include a list of despots and murderers in Criticism of the Catholic Church? The issue of Hitler's religious affiliation, if any, is well covered elsewhere.  Likewise, criticism of certain pseudoscientific theories is not criticism of atheism.  This article casts too wide a net.  2603:8000:E4F0:87A0:940A:5570:9230:D9F3 (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "whether Hitler and other Nazis were atheists" You are kidding, right? The article on Religion in Nazi Germany specifies that most Nazis were Christian Protestants. "Protestants were over-represented in the Nazi Party's membership and electorate, and Catholics were under-represented." They promoted Positive Christianity as their preferred variant of Christianity, and Hitler self-identified as a Catholic. Meanwhile these Christian fanatics discriminated against atheists:
**"the regime strongly opposed "Godless Communism" and all of Germany's freethinking (freigeist), atheist, and largely left-wing organizations were banned the same year."
**Heinrich Himmler... did not allow atheists into the SS, arguing that their "refusal to acknowledge higher powers" would be a "potential source of indiscipline"."
**"In a speech made later in 1933, Hitler claimed to have "stamped out" the atheistic movement."
**"By 1939, 94.5% of Germans still called themselves Protestant or Catholic, while 3.5% were so-called "Gottgläubige" (lit. "believers in God") and 1.5% were without faith." Dimadick (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. My question is not about Hitler's religious views, but rather why they matter for this article. 2603:8000:E4F0:87A0:1CAD:3815:A234:C088 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Hitler an Atheist?