Talk:The God Delusion/Archive 2

message: 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:
# Accuracy of representation: misquotes, contradictions, taking out of context, or other abuse.
# Balance and fairness of representation: if 90% of the review is negative, then 90% of our summary should be negative.
# Style and other minor issues in the summary of the review.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Assessment and verification of reviews 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [http://richarddawkins.net/article,238,n,n Krauss (Nature)] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7939629 The Economist] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html Eagleton (London Review of Book)] 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  [http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20 Robinson (Harper)] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1878706,00.html Bakewell (Guardian)] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/69554d74-76a9-11db-8284-0000779e2340.html Skapinker (FT)] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  [http://www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=5&id=501 Peter S Williams (Christian philosopher)]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Invalid link 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Facts or Factiods

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Baltimore review 

message: 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)
replies: text: ... 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Einstein 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where is footnote 38? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Arguments for God's existence