Talk:The God Delusion/Archive 1

message: I added a description from amazon.co.uk, but looking back at the edit history I get the feeling this will be removed - are we not allowed to include excerpts from amazon or other online sites which provide descriptions? 81.131.61.180 23:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Descriptions of the book from other sites?

message: My two attempts to edit this page to show that the book is now available and to offer a (very) brief description of the content have been reverted. I'm told the reason is that my changes weren't "encyclopedic." I readily concede that. However, I feel it's better to be accurate with poor format than inaccurate with a perfect encyclopedic style. I'm not making another attempt to edit this page but I suggest somebody (perhaps Laurence Boyce) move himself to make the page more accurate as my attempts seem doomed to reversion.  It is, after all, an excellent book and Dawkins obviously considers it an important addition to his earlier works. 68.173.6.90 01:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. I have absolutely no doubt that within a very short space of time, this article will change dramatically. You could be very much part of the effort, though you would have to curb your enthusiasm for the book and stick to describing it in a neutral manner. By the way, I've made loads of unencyclopedic edits, but there's not a lot of point, they get contested very quickly. Please obtain an account (v. easy) and come on board. Laurence Boyce 10:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit attempts

message: Did anyone see Jeremy Paxman interviewing Richard Dawkins about the God Delusion on BBC's Newsnight (22/9/2006)? Despite Paxman's usual confrontational style of interviewing, he said (to Dawkins) that the book was a very entertaining read, very convincing, although somewhat "strident in tone". Could he be quoted on in article at some point? There are also extracts from the book available on the Newsnight website ( bbc.co.uk/newsnight ). I hope to get the book soon, so I can read the whole text and then start helping with the article. -Neural 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the long run I guess we could quote from the Paxman interview as long as it found its way onto this list as a reference. It ought to. But there will be plenty of written reviews as well. I've got the book, but I won't be reading it immediately. Laurence Boyce 14:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok it looks like it will be available here. Laurence Boyce 15:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dawkins and Paxman on the God Delusion

message: Added links to evidence of historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, Israel, Ten Commandments.  Dawkins, claims no historicity for Christianity held by 33% of world's population.DLH 02:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only 33%? If the evidence is so compelling, it should be 100%. Laurence Boyce 08:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Really? How does it follow that if the evidence for a belief was compelling, that it would result in 100% of the world's population believing in it? I suppose I understand the issue you're raising, but the amount of people who believe in something is completely irrelevant to its truth, or whether the evidence supporting it is complelling. Btboy500 06:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Laurence Boyce wrote "if the evidence is so compelling...", not "if it were true...". But I take your point. 100% of the population once thought the earth was flat like a chess board. -Neural 14:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-reported statistics of religious belief tend to be substantially exaggerated. 43% of Americans say in surveys that they go to church at least once a week, but attendance figures from churches indicate that only about 20% actually show up..  Canada shows 20% claiming vs. 10% actually showing up.   Numbers for Europe other than Ireland are far lower. --John Nagle 21:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: . . . and The Sun is the biggest circulation UK newspaper. Laurence Boyce 10:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Added section on reviews, with links to Andrew Brown and O'Leary. DLH 02:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews

message: Are we going to have a detailed synopsis of the book at some point? I'd be happy to help. -Neural 14:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should. Not in massive detail maybe. Please go for it. Laurence Boyce 16:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been rather more busy recently than I had expected. So I'll give it a shot when I have a bit more time to devote. Unless someone beats me to it, a'course. -Neural 20:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a bash at it, giving a summary of the key points. I agree that we shouldn't go overboard with detail, so I've been as brisk as possible. Now I encourage everyone to dive in and improve or correct anything that seems inadequate or misleading. -Neural 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Neural, good effort. I think we should lose that Douglas Adams quote. Any quotes should be by Dawkins in my view. I know you didn't put it there (I think). Laurence Boyce 16:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dawkins uses that quote because he thinks Adams put it better than he ever could.  He writes "I never tire of sharing his words".  I'd leave it in for its literary quality.  --John Nagle 16:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add the Adams quote, but just wrote the summary around it. I don't feel strongly about it either way, so I'll leave it to the rest of you to decide... -Neural 11:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: This book is currently the number 1 bestseller at Amazon UK (and 6th at Amazon.com). So there's some Good News for you Neural.  Is this worth mentioning on the page? Poujeaux 12:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good news. You never know - reason might just triumph in the end. Unless everyone is buying it just to be outraged. To answer your question: yes, its success might be worth a mention. -Neural 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amazon Bestseller

message: Although I wouldn't feel comfortable editing an article on a book I haven't read, while reading the article I felt that the part that said that a lack of free will would abridge our 'need to find faith' did not adhere to a neutral point of view-it sounded as though the article was making a statement as to what it believed was true, and not stating what other believed. Filippo Argenti 00:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What part are you talking about? The phrase "need to find faith" doesn't occur anywhere in the article, and neither does the phrase "free will". -- Schaefer (Talk) 08:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are still some adjustments needed to maintain an NPOV on this. For example on Chapter 5 "Dawkins uses the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, to explain how religion might spread" should read "Dawkins suggests that the theory of memes ... might explain..." 8, "citing how" should read "suggesting that" or "citing how, in some cases". Any objections if I make those edits? NBeale 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I will remove the "A leap of understanding" item from the Reviews section for the second time:
* Andrew Brown: A leap of understanding. The Guardian Sept 14, 2006
on the grounds that:
* it is not from The Guardian proper, but from the "Comment is free" site, sort of a blog;
* the section already contains a proper review published in The Guardian;
* the section already contains a proper review by Andrew Brown, in Prospect.
Hrvoje Simic 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But to attack concept cogently you need to understand them. Simply "describing them to be a non-subject" doesn't do it.  String Theory may well be vacuuous, but if a biologist had written Not even Wrong without even studying the mathematics (s)he'd expect a rough ride. NBeale 18:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that comparing String Theory to Theology is a bit like comparing Economics with Legoonomics. But then I'm on the same side of the fence as Dawkins on this whole argument... -Neural 14:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "A leap of understanding"

message: Could we make a balanced pair of sections: principal criticisms and principal rebuttals?  Maybe this is too much to hope, but if we had some ground-rules, eg:
# Two separate sections (Principal Criticisms and Principal Rebuttals) of equal length. "The main criticisms appear to be:" and "The main responses to each of these appear to be:" No Rebuttal can be longer than the Criticism to which it relates.
# At most 7 Criticisms, prefereably 5 (and consequently at most 7 Rebuttals).
# No Critic may edit a Rebutter or vice-versa, except in clear cases of breaching the above.  What do people think?
NBeale 18:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not convinced that a pair of sections is such a great idea; it risks turning the article into a battleground of ideas. Much better in my view would be a single balanced criticism section: on the one hand so-and-so said this, on the other hand so-and-so said that. It would merely report what people have said, not discuss the ideas themselves. Laurence Boyce 11:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we make a balanced pair of sections: principal criticisms and principal rebuttals? 

message: Dear Persons,
I should like to draw your attention to a point of logic - you mention in your description of the venerable, and frankly laudable man with large balls and even bigger brain who wrote the book that he is
Atheist.
I should like to point out this needs to be clarified with the eminent and respected scientist himself.
There are differences in a-theism and non-theism.
Viz: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/
as a primer and further, I propose you consider carefully the logic of what you are connoting - this is, as you might imagine somewhat fraught - and I would rather you guys get in touch with him about semantics and the logical differences about these very important distinct and discrete concepts.
Thanks,
Alex
86.111.171.51 13:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no idea what you're talking about.  Dawkins is clear that he is an atheist, and clear about what that means. --Dannyno 21:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect material in the God Delusion article 

message: I disagree with the "secularism has already won the day" argument. We still have a situation where no political party would dare outlaw faith schools, for instance. Education is the frontline of this intellectual conflict. Read the chapter on the abuse of young minds in The God Delusion. Also, the minority of True Believers are well-organized, and they have a disproportionate influence on government policy... On the "tacit atheist" point, I agree, but I'd point out that these people still do not admit to being atheists. This reveals the following possibilities: 1, they feel comfortable being identified as Christian (they ought to feel embarrased at the suggestions of such superstition). 2, they may feel embarrased about their atheism (they ought to feel proud that they value reason above faith). Secularism will only have won in the UK when, 1, people would feel pretty embarrased to admit (or pretend to admit) to delusions, 2, when atheists feel proud enough to hold their heads up and organized enough to combat pro-religion government policies, and 3, when faith schools are outlawed so that religion cannot be imposed on vulnerable minds. Finally, we are overlooking the religious insanity of America and the Middle East. America is the world's only super-power. 95 percent of Americans believe they will survive their own deaths. Tens of millions of American voters yearn for nuclear war due to their End Time beliefs. Read Sam Harris's excellent The End of Faith to kill off any remaining complacency. Anyone who thinks secularism has already beaten religion is very mistaken when you consider a global perspective. -Neural 14:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Voltaire also claimed the death of religion? --BozMo talk 09:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  not sure who you think you are arguing against neural! nobody claims "secularism has already won the day". But some of us think things are improving - its more acceptable to criticise religion and be atheist than it was 20 yrs ago, and church attendance is declining...  Poujeaux 14:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no one except -UK-Logician-2006 in the comment about five lines higher who says exactly this? If getting better means anything lets hope that it is more tolerance from everyone of other people's views...I think over the last 200 years the sea of faith has ebbed and flowed...personally AFAIK I have never lived anywhere where atheism or animism was not the considerable majority view....I think the experience in USSR and North Korea shows that fundamentalist atheism ranks alongside the Spanish Inquisition as an unpleasant master; tolerant atheists of course are another matter. I think what most of us dislike are majorities who make disagreement unacceptable but whereas the Moral Majority in the US are one of such, religions don't have a monopoly of this behaviour .--BozMo talk 21:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China... etc, etc. What marks these regimes out is not so much a promotion of atheism as a promotion of variants of communism (itself a kind of religion, requiring faith in Marxist dogma). Take Stalinism and Maoism out of the picture, and would we still have the same persecution? I don't think anyone in history has killed for atheism alone. Why would anyone kill or persecute for a lack of a belief? Communsim, however, is a positive set of dogmatic beliefs that people do kill for. We will be better off without religions - even pseudo-scientific religions like communism and national socialism. -Neural 14:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting very far off topic. Please try to restrict use of this talk page to discussing changes to its associated article. -- Schaefer (Talk) 19:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Religion is far from beaten

message: I’m genuinely curious as to how Dawkins’ supporters would defend some aspects of this book from the suggestion of a fundamental lack of intellectual integrity. eg:
# He says (p1) that this book is for people who “wish they could [leave their parents’ religion], but just don’t realise that leaving is an option.” Since the OT, NT and Koran all make it clear that leaving is an option, where does he think he can find such un-informed people? Does it surprise him that most readers are like Lala,  fans who already agree with him?
# He uses his own definitions of “God.” (p13 & p31). With a modern philosophical definition (like “Ultimate Creator”) several of his arguments break down.  If you want to argue with integrity against a widely-held view you should use a definition of that view from a leading exponent.
# Before The God Delusion the only full-length books on religious questions written by a current FRS were by John Polkinghorne, who even Dawkins concedes is a “good scientist.”  Yet Dawkins never engages with Polkinghorne’s arguments and only lists one of his many relevant books.
# His list of religious scientists conspicuously omits Simon Conway Morris and Martin Nowak. 
# He uses his own summaries of the major arguments for the existence of God, mentions some well-explored issues about them without citing any of the (vast) literature and assumes that there is no response to his points. The major modern philosophers who lead on these arguments (eg Alvin Plantinga) are not discussed.
# The obvious ‘evolutionary’ explanation for religious belief is that believers, on average, are happier, healthier, live longer and have more children (all well documented in many studies). Dawkins does not even consider this hypothesis, let alone look at the evidence.
Responses on these points would be much appreciated (but please spare me tirades about "religionists") NBeale 07:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) The texts themsleves also make it excruciatingly clear that "leaving" (or, for that matter, not joining in the first place) will result in eternal damnation and punishment. Some Western societies (e.g. parts of the US and almost all of Italy), not t mention the Eatern ones,  make it exquisitly clear that becoming an atheist will result in ostracism, explicit juridical and political discrimination of varios kinds and generally being treates as if you are a socially contagious species of bacterium. Fact is, if any one of my relatives here in Italy ever found out that I were an atheist, the results would be devastating for all involved. I would be considered a freak and/or satanically possesed, with the result that people wouild be preaching at me and attempting to brainwash me 24/7. I would end up having to physically hurt one of them and that would very sad indeed. This is an important point. Thanks for pointing it out to me!! I now realize the extraodrinay value of a book like Dawkins on atheism that is aimed not at philosophers and intellectualls but at the intelliegent but intimiated secular lay audience "locked in the closet". Judging by the sales, there are a great many people who needed a book like this to help them develop their self-confidence and defend themselves against the pushers of holy hogwash.
2) He uses the most common definition that follows from the three great Western monotheistic religions that he is attacking.And, in can case, this is common pratice. When Daniel Deneett writes a book about intentionality, it is HIS deifntion of intentionality that is relevant and discussed in the book. He does not discuss Searles0s notion of intentionality. Contrarily, Searte ALWAYS defines consciousness in his favored terms before discussing it. He does not adopt Denett's defintion or Chalmer's defintion or Fodor's non-definition. This is because there are simply too many and the concepts are extremely vague, but one has to start somewhere. 
3) No one who writes a book on consciosness is require to engage every single writer who has ever touched on the topic. The same applies to the existence of god.
4) So what? Dawkin's book is not perfect. Gee wizzzz!!
5) This is true. He should have enaged the traditional arguments somwhat more thorouhgly and not dismissed them as "silly". But, then, he's writing for a popualar audience which will not have much undertanding or interest in the Ph.D. level technical vocabulary and logico-mathemaical argumentation of  Platinga and other a professional analytic sophists.....err, um... philosophers who write exclusively for analytic philosophers. All of this is  mostly  beside the point. 
6) On the last point, the evidence is certainly disputable. I'm not going to defend Dawkins here, because I tend to reject what Jerry Fodor calls "pop Darwinism" in any case. I don't buy evolutionary explanations for religion. It is purely the product of social psychological needs for father figures, fear of death and so on. Freud had it about right.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. To respond briefly:(1)well maybe that's who's buying the book - I really doubt it. Almost all the reviewers think he's preaching to his fans. (2) To agrue against a view with integrity you should use a definition from a leading Proponent. What would you say to a book that defined Atheism as "a prejudice against God"? (3) He doesn't engage with any good scientist who believes in God - even the ones he knows about and mentions. (4)A bit dishonest to mention the two great evolutionists who disagee? (6)Are there any studies that go the other way? And why doesn't he dispute the evidence, rather than trying to hide it? NBeale 18:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the most important point: the fact that 
 anyone  in the US is buying the book  is an important revelation of the enormous number of people out there who HAVE NOT been successfully brainwashed by fundies and others, but who feel  closeted  and isolated because of the overwhelming social pressure to conform to the dominant theocratic culture. The book is valuable because it takes on the most sacred of all sacred cows in the history of the planet, giving others the courage to follow and speak out more forcefully. Period. 2) The Stanford Ency of Phil, when discussin the arguments for and againt the existence of god, uses a definition very similar to Dawkins "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenelovent being worhty of worship, etc.." In sum, a personal deity.
The term “God” is used with a wide variety of different meanings. These tend to fall, however, into two main groups. On the one hand, there are metaphysical interpretations of the term: God is a prime mover, or a first cause, or a necessary being that has its necessity of itself, or the ground of being, or a being whose essence is identical with its existence. Or God is not one being among other beings -- even a supremely great being -- but, instead, being itself. Or God is an ultimate reality to which no concepts truly apply.
On the other hand, there are interpretations that connect up in a clear and relatively straightforward way with religious attitudes, such as those of worship, and with very important human desires, such as the desire that, at least in the end, good will triumph, and justice be done, and the desire that the world not be one where death marks the end of the individual's existence, and where, ultimately, all conscious existence has ceased to be.
What properties must something have if it is to be an appropriate object of worship, and if it is to provide reason for thinking that there is a reasonable chance that the fundamental human hopes just mentioned will be fulfilled? A natural answer is that God must be a person, and who, at the very least, is very powerful, very knowledgeable, and morally very good. 
They don't take sides on the arguments. 3-6) The rest are just intersting quibbles with which I agree. The book is not an academic tour de force. But that's not what it is supposed to be!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Enough of this.  This entire section is irrelevant to improvement of the article.  Read WP:NOT.  This is not the place for a debate on the merits of the book.  I'm sure you can find a board or newsgroup to discuss your issues. *Spark* 21:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You still don't get it, do you?--KaptKos 10:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd love to try and explain some of this to you, NBeale - but I fear I'm not qualified to do so, as I'm not a "supporter" or a "follower" or an "acolyte" of Richard Dawkins! Snalwibma 14:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious points about the book 

message: Even by Dawkins standards this is a terrible argument.  The standard form of argument for hypothesis H1 vs H2 is to observe a fact X and note that p(X|H1)>>p(X|H2). So the argument from fine tuning (say) is that p(Anthropic Universe|God)>>p(Anthropic Universe|No God). Now if Dawkins stopped handwaving about "statistical improbability" (whatever he thinks that means) and tried to formulate his argument as p(X|Y) he would see that it doesn't hold water for a second.  Of course p(God|No God)=0 which is less than p(X|No God) but that begs the question.  What Dawkins seems to be trying to say, in his quaint non-numerate way, is that if D designed X then, for any B, p(D|B)*Spark*</span>]] 00:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are sure somebody will shortly publish 'this elementary refutation', why the hurry? If that's the case, you can afford to relax. EthicsGradient 10:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nbeale, you continue to break Wikipedia guidelines even when they are pointed out to you (see the stop sign above). Can you read what it says at the top of this page? It says This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Poujeaux 13:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 747 Gambit 

message: Religion is a disease, a plague, an epidemic.  It must be wiped from the face of the earth before its too late.  Any ammunition that can (peaceably) help with this is Good.  This is a Good book.  Publicize it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.194.13.103 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 November 2006  (UTC)
:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publicity platform. Our goal is to present information from a neutral point of view, not to promote or disparage. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timely writings - Religion as Contamination 

message: I find it impossible to order a copy of this book because I'm surrounded by an entire family (that is, mine) of Catholic fanatics. I will have to lie to my mother and tell her that I have ordered a different book and then, when the book arrives via courier, I will have to immediately remove it from the box, hide it under my bed or somwhwere comptely inaccessible and replace it with a copy of some other book in the box. It's as if I were buying a book of child-pornography by Ted Haggard or something. WTF!!
If anyone in my family found out I am atheist (except my ex-fundamentalist, now rabidly and vociferously atheist American brother in San Francisco, of course) 
they would probably kick me out of the fucking country, notwishstanding the fact that I am nearly 80%  physically and mentally disabled. (It is these disgusting injustice and unpardonable maliciousness of the torture involved in these latter conditions, BTW, that convinced me of the absolute impossibility of GAAAAAAAD and not Dawkins or anyone else's argumentation. That and the fact that I can easily see through all of the BS logical arguments for the exitence of god that are put forth by those who beleive in god(s),for whataver bizarre psyhcopathologic reasons they do and then argue a posteriori to convince people that the idea of gaaaad is not as ridiculouly implasuible as that of Zeus, Hera, Aprhodite, flying green strawberries, Santa Claus, etc..) At any rate, I would be cosidered some kind of terrifying freak of nature if my Catholic fundie famnily were to find a copy of this insidious and dangerous work buy Richrd Dawkins. This is why I shall certainly buy it and translate it into Italian myslef ASAP. You see, these MOTHERFUCKERS are trying to control what I am allowed to think, read, beleive right down to the most fundemnental matters. The question is not one of who's right and who's wrong, from this point of view. It is one of CIVIL RIGHTS and FREEDOM of THOUGHT, for Christ's sake. Western civilization (wel., at leats parts of the US and ALL of Italy are already theocracies!!). It's time to fight back, ladies and gents and it0s time to fight back hard againts these poisonoous Christofacists and Islamofacoists who control what many of us  can say, do and think. 
--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do you realize the absolute silliness of this situation

message: If Dawkins have arguements against religion that is not current listed in the article criticism of religion, could you please create a new subsection and add them in. Thank you. Ohanian 07:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please visit criticism of religion 

message: eg We cant say of the first three classical proofs of the Existence of God that he "demonstrates" that they are vacuuous.  That takes a position on whether his argument succeeds. (Frankly I think that he "demonstrates" that he has little or no understanding of the relevant philosophical issues, which is that basis of Terry Eagleton's strong criticism - I was genuinely disappointed when I got to that section because it was so lightweight.  Others may think that it demonstrates that he has an unparalleled mastery of the subject. WikiPedia cannot take a position on this, so a neutral word is needed. NBeale 22:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need to be NPoV in the description 

message: I think it would be possible to summarise the logical points he makes about the "arguments for existence of God", using his own words as far as possible.  Would anyone like to make a sandbox for this? NBeale 09:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as you said above, that section of the book is very superficial. I don't think it is worth the effort to work through his refutations, what is far more notable is how dismissive he is of theology. --Merzul 02:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarise Dawkins on the arguments for existence of God, using his own words as far as possible 

message: The Brown "review" entry in the article talks about one item in the book (suicide bombing), but that's not the main focus of Brown's review if you read the reference.  It is not representative of the review in the least, which is mainly about persistence of religion.
The Cornwell text here is a total misrepresentation.  Cornwell does not say "religious reading", he says "philosophy of religion [citations]".  The statement "Cornwell argues that, ... his bibliography cites numerous sources for evolutionary theory" is a complete falsehood.  Cornwell says no such thing. 
The division of reviews between "religious" and "others" is a disruptive one.  Are the people who reviewed it positively not religious?  Do we have information regarding their religious beliefs?  Cited?
What makes these particular reviews more notable than other reviews linked?  I'll repeat that I believe this section as is doesn't belong in the article at all.  *Spark* 13:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the religious/non-religious reviewers distinction is wrong, for many of the reasons you cite. I think the correct classifications are: highly positive, highly negative, and mixed.  I'd suggest that we work together to improve the article so that eventually each of the reviews is represented, at which point some groupings by theme will emerge.  This will allow the reader to get a NPoV idea of what the various critics are saying, without having to read all 14 reviews themselves. We might also want to limit ourselves to reviewers with Wikipedia articles, and to avoid describing who they are any further - users can click if they want to. NBeale 14:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember not to edit another editor's entries on a talk page.  Regarding your +/- classifications, that would be clearly POV and potentially WP:OR.  *Spark* 15:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresenting Reviews 

message: Are there any responses from Dawkins or other notable people regarding the specific examples of criticism noted? It seems a bit one-sided to just let each criticism stand without any counter-point from Dawkins or anyone. This may be the fault of Dawkins if he hasn't responded; I'm not sure. Does anyone know if he has replied to any of these critics? -Neural 14:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was confused by the structure, having 'response' summarising the reviews and then 'reviews' with the web links. So I have labeled the section as just 'reviews', which is what it contains. I think 'criticism' would be a bit misleading because many of the reviews are quite positive (and 'criticism' in common usage is negative). Poujeaux 14:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some of the feedback is indeed positive, but it could (and I think should) still be labelled 'Criticism'. See my views above and also the discussion concerning the Criticism and POV section. As long there is a balance in the section that reflects the 'real-world' prevalence of negative and positive critique, I'm happy. Anyway, welcome to TGD article. EthicsGradient 15:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, excellent, could you try to do something about the paragraph summarising Andrew Brown, it is quite a mess. I will move the last sentence a bit forward as it is about atheism violence, but then still the objection to free speech needs copy-editing and my English is very weak. --Merzul 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually slightly expanded the section on Eagleton - this is a very elaborate and important review by one of the most important literary crtics/theorists of the past generation, and I think it is important to convey what he actually argues. Metamagician3000 13:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the detail on this one review is starting to get over the top by now. Metamagician3000 10:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just pruned it back a bit. Seems to me that quoting Eagleton is fine, but going on to say how others (McGrath, yet again! Has the man nothing better to do than criticise Dawkins?) picked up Eagleton's bons mots is a step too far. Snalwibma 10:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, makes ssnse. Metamagician3000 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: Reading the article it seems to rely too much upon the word 'suggest', both when describing Dawkins and his critics' views. This is probably because editors would like the text to sound as dispassionate as possible, but I don't think it reads well. Might we exchange some of the 'suggests' with other words such as 'holds' or 'maintains'? If other editors think this is a good idea, I'll happily have a go at it. EthicsGradient 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good idea.  I'd even support using the word 'argues' from time to time.  Edhubbard 20:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I went ahead and did some editing on the first part. If nobody objects to those changes, I'll run through the whole text. There are still some 'argues' there. I like 'em, too. EthicsGradient 12:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetitive use of 'suggest' 

message: Let's take a look at what this article looks like so far. Reading the above talk, I'm quite impressed at the compromise that has been reached. So I wonder what people think about the current state. In particular, please comment on neutrality, but I also have some questions about things to do:
* Does anybody dare summarize the reception of the book? The reviews section lacks a lead paragraph. :)
* The general intro of the article should probably be expanded, maybe place this book in the context of 2006 atheist bestsellers.
* Is everybody happy with the current reviews section? Maybe one or two positive reviews could be added: the last subsection only has a notable Christian commentator.
* Is the current structure fair? The synopsis only summarizes the book's arguments, so is a separate criticism section needed (in addition to the reviews) to balance it? 
Again, I'm mainly asking for opinions about neutrality. Much has changed since this was last discussed. --Merzul 02:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be a sign of boundless naïvety, but the article now seems reasonably neutral to me. Granted, there is an overweight of negative responses, but this probably reflects the intitial reception of the book. As for a separate criticsm-section, it might turn the article into a battleground. At the very least, that would inflate the article which to me seems attractive in its terseness. The points you list above are good, and I will contribute as time allows. --EthicsGradient 12:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's possible.  Just as a badly reviewed movie can still achieve strong box office. And here, beginning even with the title, prevailing sensibilities have been offended.--Barte 13:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The only section with a clear bias is the notable commentator section. But we should probably write down the assessment of the reviews, I will create a section here in the talk for it here... --Merzul 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current state of the article (end of November 2006)