Talk:The Dawkins Delusion?

Deletion of Paddock's Church Times review
I decided to delete this part from the review-section as reviews published in religious papers are biased. It would be the same as quoting a review of "The God Delusion" written by an atheistic organization. Nuhr (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm an atheist and fan of Dawkins but that's appalling and quite contrary to WP policy. -- 98.108.199.69 (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

POV
This page appears to have been written by someone with a partisan agenda. Could a more neutral party edit it? I came here just for info but was sorely let down by the article - I had to look elsewhere for critism of the book and Dawkin's reaction to it. Those should clearly be in the article, rather than just an uncritical summary of the book and three very positive reviews of it (with no balance). 192.88.124.200 09:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Comments by notable commentators" section seems particularly POV. There are surely some negative comments that could be quoted. I find it hard to believe that every noteworthy commentator to review this book has praised it and thumbed his/her nose at Professor Dawkins... Neural 12:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The comments all appear to be dust jacket blurbs--which is hardly NPOV. I suggest deleting the section until actual published reviews--pro or con--can be cited in actual notable publications.--Barte 01:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than deleting the section, I've rewritten the header to make clear that these are blurbs, not independent reviews. I don't think they are Wikipedia-worthy (you wouldn't find them in a movie entry, for example), but it's a start. Much better would be to cite actual reviews in notable publications.--Barte 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it is a good idea having two positive reviews with no negative, and seeing as it has now been more then 3 months since this last post and noone has added a negative i am going to delete the positive in the interests of maintaining neutrality. IMO the best case scenario would be to not have reviews at all but to have a section titled 'critical reception' or something along those lines....so if someone was to write something like that then im sure it would be appreciated.Trottsky 19:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your removing the reviews, but for a different reason. NPOV doesn't mean finding a balance between pro and con, but of reflecting how the book has been reviewed either way.  In this case, from what I've seen, the book has no garnered no critical reception to speak of, certainly compared with that of The God Delusion itself.  Maybe when it's published in the U.S. that will change, but I'm, uh,  skeptical.-Barte 21:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OR
So far as I can tell, the entire Summary section is OR - a synopsis/book review using only the book itself as a reference. I can find no actual reviews or commentary online which are not blogs. Has this book even been mentioned in any press? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If the summary is OR, remove it. I'll check the NYT to see if they ever reviewed it.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The NYT never reviewed it, and not to sound snobbish, but that usually means the book was not considered worthy of a review. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post never bothered either. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Struck out in Bean Town. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An article about a book needs to start with a summary of what the book says, and the only reasonable way of doing this is to quote from the book. That is hardly OR!. It was only published in the UK a few days ago and has not been published in America yet - no doubt reviews will emerege in due course. NBeale 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What you note is clearly OR. There are no secondary or tertiary sources available.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, you admit it is your own summary. In other words, yes it is OR. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unclear on the OR concept at it applies here. The summary of the The God Delusion entry, for example, is clearly based on the book itself, not on secondary sources.  How is this different from that? Rather, I think the problem has been an overly long summary for what appears to be a non-notable book. If the book is only found in the UK, what about some UK reviews? One would have expected those ahead of publication.  The publisher PR blurbs are not really an acceptable substitute.--Barte 01:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still looking. I have found none. I concur the book seems fairly non-notable, it may be that reviews will come in time and it may be a better solution to merge this with McGrath's article. Meanwhile, I'm off to check out The God Delusion; if the summary there is not referenced by reviews at all then it is OR also and must be sourced or removed. In that case, however, it be a NYT bestseller, I'm thinking it iwll be much easier to find sources. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, The God Delusion summary is truly a summary, not a full-scale review as was here - it much much shorter than NBeale's review which was here. There are numerous reviews quoted, as well as criticism. As a brief overview, I don't have as big an issue with teh book alone being used - but using the book to write a review, as was done here, is clearly OR. I would also prefer The God Delusion use some reviews where possible for the summary in that article, and will note so on the talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Concur with Barte that the "summary" here was far, far too long. In addition to the problems that there are no reviews to balance the book summary, the Is religion evil? section, for example, was 5979 characters (for a book with no reviews at all) compared to The God Delusion summary of 530 characters - that is over ten times as long for a nn book, which is much shorter, than for a best-selling book with numerous reviews and criticisms to balance the view. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Not on reviewcentre, ama, publishersweekly, nowhere. I am still looking, but no one has reviewed this book so far as I can tell. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi KC. The summary is not a review, it expresses no opinion whatsoever on whether what the McGraths say is valid, merely notes with careful references what the book says, including giving the major refs that they quote. It is not OR - that is the only way you can summarise a book - give quotes from the book with references.  Barte is quite right.  Trying to censor this is not helpful. Please desist! NBeale 16:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * NBeale, don't accuse me of censorship, ever. I take great offense at that appelation, and consider it a personal attack of the highest order. Ed Poor called me a bitch once, and I minded that about 1/100th of someone accusing me of censorship. Now, a summary should summarise. Your lenghtly essay is more like the slightly condensed version of the book, which is basically a completely non notable book with zero reviews or attention in any form of media whatsoever, outside of the sales pitch on the publisher's website. Put it on your blog, if you have one. It doesn't belong here. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed fully. Charges of censorship are just one of the canards favored by supporters of all things right-wing, followed closely by the liberal media and vast left-wing conspiracy bullshit.  Removing a piece of OR is not censorship, it is following Wiki's rules.  Beal, I shall tolerate no further accusations of the sort.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi KC. If you don't practice censorship I shall of course not suggest that you do so. Perhaps it would be best not to prevent a well-sourced carefully-referenced summary of a book (NB by no stretch of the imagination is it a review or an essay because it expresses no opinion on the merit of the book) by a notable author with whom you strongly disagree from appearing in Wikipedia. If you think the book is non-notable the propose that the article is deleted, but please don't supress the arguments.  Now of course I don't mind if someone reduces my summary a bit, but a 2-p summary of an 80p book is not "slightly condensed". And it's not OR. Let's work together constructively. NBeale 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As I don't, then that should be the last I hear of it from you. Unfortunately, you continue your personal attacks by accusing me of supressing information. You seem to have forgotten the rule to comment on the article, not the contributor - so please cease your pointless speculation about whether I agree or disagree with the author of the book. It doesn't matter - not to me, not to Wikipedia, and not to you. It is completely irrelevent. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What is this... I'm also offended that genuine concerns with WP:NOR are met with accusations of censorship. NBeale, I like it that you almost always use reliable sources, but I don't want to lose respect for you, so please stop even the slightest hints of POV pushing or censorship, they are currently completely unfounded and highly offensive! --Merzul 14:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected and I'm grateful to people for not deleting the summary. I'm trying to slim it down without loosing the information or the key refs that the McGrath's quote but it's not easy and I'd welcome help. I note also that An OR tag has been inserted suggesting that "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please help Wikipedia by adding references." So far the section has about 20 footnote references and about 23 page references by my count. How many more would people like, and why?" NBeale 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your references are based on the book itself, not on secondary sources. X refs Y so let's ref Y is not a secondary source.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim. Can you (or anyone) (1) explain if this summary is OR how come the synopsis of The God Delusion (which has 15 refs to the book and 2 to books refed in the book) is not OR? (2) give an example of a substantial summary of a book on Wikipedia which is not sourced mainly from the book, so that I can see what you are after? NBeale 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with NBeale on this one. Surely a summary of a book's contents should be based only on the book itself. As soon as you bring in other sources, you introduce other people's POVs and biases. You must surely avoid both your own interpretation and other people's. (And also keep it to a reasonable length) Snalwibma 08:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's hard to say the book isn't notable when it has only been released for a few days in one country. The article needs to be trimmed and reviews added when they appear. (Samwise7 15:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC))


 * I also agree with NBeal: the synopsis of a book can, and really ought, to come from the book itself--because with good citations, that's the easiest way to verify that the synopsis is accurate. But the notability question really does linger. I've linked in one book-related interview, but there really isn't much else out there, and yes, I would have expected to see more: reviews are often written ahead of publication. The concern we are seeing here is that an article should reflect the attention a subject has received in the outside world. That's the very nature of an encyclopedia--it's largely a tertiary source. So far, this article doesn't, because so far, the outside world hasn't taken notice.-Barte 18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose the real issue is that the summary of The God Delusion is a true summary whereas the "summary" of The Dawkins Delusion? is simply too damned long. Given that there are only four chapters, one wonders just how long this book is.  Additionally The God Delusion aricle contains numerous reviews that serve to verify the content of the summary, whereas this article contains no such verification.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we have consensus here that the issue was not OR but the length of the original summary. I and another editor have whittled it down and it is now about half the original length, but (in reponse to complaints from other editors about the lack of McGrath's arguments) I think I have kept most of them, just made them terser. NBeale 08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Blurbs
Of course I'd rather have reviews than Blurbs but this book has only just been published, SPCK does not have the huge commercial resources of Trasnsworld, and these are notable commentators. Quick search to respond to your challenge reveals The Computational Brain, Vera (novel), Witchfinder General (novel) that's three. Let's not surpress information but let readers make up their own minds. NBeale 09:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC) PS: I knew that Dawkins had become the Dan Brown of PopSci - but I hadn't realised that they share a publisher! NBeale 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of those, the only one I see a blurb on is  Vera - and that blurb is from the Cambridge Guide to Women's Writing in English. Witchfinder mentions and quotes the back-cover blurb, but it does not present it entire, nor does it present it in a review-like section. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All three article examples are short stubs, with blurbs mentioned in passing. Here we've got an extensive summary that goes well beyond that given far more notable books, with no independent reviews--just publisher-solicited and selected quotes.  So I conclude that Wikipedia is being used here largely to promote a book and its ideas, both of which are not getting much attention elsewhere. That order needs to be flipped.--Barte 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Authorship section
From the article: "After studying chemistry at Oxford, he researched in the field of molecular biophysics, developing new methods for investigating biological membranes. He then moved on to study Christian theology, specialising in the history of Christian thought, and especially in issues of science and religion. A prolific author, his recent publications include Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life (Blackwells, 2004)."

If this belongs anywhere, it belongs in the Alister McGrath article. What does his work on membranes, etc, have to do with this article or anything that the Dawkins Delusion book is about? Neural 16:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read the full summary of the book (and not the censored version that some people want to substitute) you would see that it is an important part of his argument that he started as an atheist PhD Oxford bio-scientist, the same as Dawkins. It is also very relevant to Dawkins pathetic response that McGrath has published more books than Dawkins. NBeale16:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, it seems to me that RD's response is far from pathetic. Quite telling, actually. But you can't resist a childish swipe, can you? - I assume you are NBeale! But to the point - yes, a fuller summary of the book would seem reasonable - but for heaven's sake, not that full! Snalwibma 17:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And not OR. As there are presently no secondary or tertiary sources, the summary shall have to wait until such sources are exist.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, McGrath was NOT an atheist PhD. He became a Christian before gaining that qualification, as the entry Alister McGrath makes clear. --Dannyno 12:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Correspondence
Does McGrath actually attempt to prove that God exists, and refute Dawkins' argument that the existence of a superhuman creator is unfalsifiable? Or does he merely point out the deficiencies in Dawkins' argument?

Also, what makes him think that the God he believes in is any more real than the vindictive, jealous God of the Old Testament?

The reason why I ask all this is not only my own intellectual dissatisfaction, but also the potential dissatisfaction of others who come to this page via the God Delusion page, expecting to find a clear-cut, point-by-point rebuttal of each of Dawkins' arguments. The page, as it stands, seems to me a little evasive, pointing out the flaws in Dawkins' reasoning, but not always offering clear alternatives. If the book itself is not this evasive, then the summary of the book should be changed to reflect not only the author's criticisms of Dawkins' reasoning, but also the alternatives that he proposes. On the other hand, if the book is in fact as evasive as the article suggests, then the places where Dawkins' arguments are not directly addressed should be clearly marked. This will help greatly, not only in satisfying readers who want a full view of this book's relation to The God Delusion, but also in making this article more unbiased. --Siva 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See above. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Above where? I don't quite see where this is addressed.--Siva 23:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Siva. If there is consensus that we should include such points I will try to do so. At present if I do some other Editors will delete them as OR. I could try to post something off-Wiki and link to it if there was a consensus on that. NBeale 23:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability and article length
Is The Dawkins Delusion? notable? For me, the controversy herein boils down to that question. If it's notable, then an article summarizing the contents seems in order. It it's not, then the article itself doesn't belong here. Having reread WP:BK, I think the verdict is out. Among the "threshold standards" is that the book be cataloged in the British Library. Not yet, though many of McGrath's books are indeed found there--so perhaps that will as yet happen.

Beyond that, WP:PK provides these guidelines:


 * A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets one or more of the following criteria:


 * 1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
 * The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
 * 2. The book has won a major literary award.
 * 3. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
 * 4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
 * 5. The book's author is historically significant enough for his or her works to be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.

Has the book met any of the above? Will it in time? In particular, I'm interested in whether the publisher blurbs, which really have no place here (see #1), will give way to legitimate book reviews. If so, I think this article belongs here and its appropriate length a matter of discussion. If not, then the article does not belong in an encyclopedia. Time will tell.--Barte 03:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well on two counts the book meets this -it is being brought into secondary school libraries and McGrath as an Oxford Professor, ex principal of Wycliffe Hall and a notable Christian author stands out as hitorically notable in his own right. My only question is whether it is best to have an article here -presumably there is one on the God delusion as well?  Or whether to have an article on Dawkins and McGrath and their disagreements -that way both books in effect become sources for the article (193.63.62.252 11:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Hmmm - in light of that, should we have the blurbs at all? They won't stay, once there are real reviews, and in the meantime they are little more than an advertisement for the book.  Guettarda 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I freely acknowledge that I am on the other side of the argument. I am, if you like, pro-Dawkins and anti-McGrath (though I reject such labels). But let me put my bias to one side and look at what this article is really doing here. It seems to me that the length of the article is out of all proportion to the length or importance of the book. I smell a very strong POV rat. This poor little book by McGrath (only 100 pages or so) is not being summarised and described in encyclopedic fashion, it is being used. It is used as an opportunity for soapboxing. This isn't a proportionate article about a notable book; it's a bloggish Dawkins-bashing exercise, lent some credence and respectability by pretending it's a summary of a notable book. The more I look at it, and at the book, the more I conclude that this is probably an AfD candidate. Snalwibma 08:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Summary and original research
I see that the summary has been deleted, on the grounds that it is WP:OR. And Jim62Sch has commented above, in effect, that there should be no summary until secondary or tertiary sources exist. I do feel that the new shorter summary is more appropriate, but can I clear one thing up? I don't understand why a summary of a book has to have external sources. Surely it can (even must) be based solely on the actual content of the book. A summary should merely report what the book covers. Indeed, to use external sources (reviews etc) is bound to introduce a POV. Isn't it the case that a summary must NOT include secondary/tertiary sources? The problem with the long "summary" that has been deleted was not that it failed to use secondary/tertiary sources, but that it went beyond what the book itself says into editorialising/soapboxing commentary (and that it was far too long). Snalwibma 11:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've taken out the blurbs but otherwise restored the previous version - that left by Snalwibma removed all the arguments of the book. I agree the article is probably too long in proportion to the book, but it reflects carefully argued and referenced scholarship and should not be deleted. All POV expressed in it is the McGraths as far as I can see, and therefore entirely legitimate. Laura H S 11:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Snalwibma. Honestly, if you read the book you will see that this was a careful and carefully-refed summary of what the book actually said. All the references quoted in the summary are references quoted in the book. It is a fundamental point of McGrath's that there is a lot of scientific data out there about the effects of religion, and they cite it at some length.  By all means edit it down - as a writer you know how hard it is to make a good precis - and if I have inadvertently included some of my own opinions, which was not my intention, please edit those away - but please let's stop these attempts to supress the arguments that the McGraths make in this book. NBeale 11:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One important stylistic issue. If material is cited by McGrath, then the references should explicitly mention this "as cited in McGrath, p. x". In fact, it might be, but I'm not sure, but it might be considered plagiarism to copy references from his book without indicating where it's taken from. --Merzul 15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's refed from the book -- how is that not OR? The summary is still derived from the primary source, by a Wiki editor, therefore it's OR.  This really ain't rocket science.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But the policy on primary sources says that we can make descriptive claims, as long as the language is neutral and attribution is strong. See the last comment at Talk:The_God_Delusion. I think the difference is that the synopsis at The God Delusion has been the collaboration of many editors with different POVs, so the language I think is very neutral and what is most important: purely descriptive. --Merzul 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a good point. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I did an edit to the introductory section to somewhat neutralize the prose, but I'm not a good writer; and my strength is more digging up sources. The current synopsis also relies very much on quotations, which makes the reading difficult. In any case, I'm not so interested in this book to read it and improve the article, but it has lots of problems indeed. --Merzul 20:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Who explained the explainer?
In this article it says that the question of "so who created God then?" is in some sense similar to "what explains the explainer" -- could this be more clearly stated, currently the entire paragraph is unclear and just glues together quotations:
 * He suggests that Dawkins' "Argument from improbability" is a "poorly structured ... expansion of the 'who made God then?' question" (p23) and that "If Dawkins’ brash and simplistic arguments carried weight, the scientific quest for a Grand Unified Theory could be dismissed with a seemingly profound, yet in fact trivial, question: “what explains the explainer”?"(p24) and that a "leap from the recognition of complexity to the assertion of improbability is highly problematic. Why is something complex improbable? A “theory of everything” may well be more complex than the lesser theories that it explains – but what has that to do with its improbability?" (p26) and that "Richard Swinburne is one of many writers to argue that the capacity of science to explain itself requires explanation – and that the most economical and reliable account of this explanatory capacity lies in the notion of a creator God"

I don't understand this, and while I know Wikipedia is not the forum where you explain this to me, I am still curious about the strengths of the improbability argument; so would anyone from here be interested in contributing to something like argument from improbability. Dawkins suggests that this is an argument with some history, so maybe we could explore its strength by writing a well-sourced article about it? --Merzul 13:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds intriguing - I'm not at all sure that it isn't a neologism invented by Dawkins though. Perhaps we should look for sources and make a determination prior to expending effort on this? If there are insufficient reliable sources with this term, then no article is indicated. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh hey, New York Academy of Sciences and Notre Dame Philisophical Reviews for a start - move this discussion to one of our talk pages, or a sandbox? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair the NYAS ref is an article by Dawkins based on an extract from The God Delusion, and the Notre Dame one is about a quite different "Argument from Improbability" used by the Intelligent Design people. NBeale 15:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If the term is used differently by two very notable individuals or groups, as it seems to be, all the more reason to have an article if sufficient RS can be found. If the DI and Dawkins mean quite different things, the article should present that information. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wonder if maybe Dawkins's improbability argument is to the Dembski style improbability argument, what the "who created the creator" is to the Teleological argument? Sounds like an IQ test :) Anyway, I'm currently quite busy in real life and have another religion related article on my todo-list; but this has been something I've been trying to understand. --Merzul 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (addendum: it's a bit confusing, the above objection seems to apply to both teleological and cosmological arguments, but IMO is more relevant the cosmological argument. It's covered more prominently in our article on the teleological, still, I'm confused... --Merzul 15:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Regarding comparisons with The God Delusion article
I have taken up this issue on the God Delusion talk page too, but featured articles about books are really about the book in an encyclopaedic sense. At some point when all of us have more time, we should probably shorten the synopsis at the God Delusion, cover more about the context, impact, publishing, promotions, lectures, and other matters surrounding it. Exemplary articles on books are Night (book) and The Brothers Karamazov; the synopsis of the latter is roughly one paragraph for about 100 pages I think. Maybe we have set a bad example with The God Delusion article, I'm not sure. --Merzul 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there is a distinction between fictional and polemical books. It would be ridiculous to summarise Pride and Prejudice because to get the point you have to read it. However for books that put forward specific arguments it is sensible to give readers a good idea, where possible, of the arguments that they put forward, without taking a POV on whether they are valid. NBeale 18:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's also a distinction between a newly published work like TGD and the older works you mention: the historical track record is shorter. That said, I've read a few articles, especially around the holidays last year, noting the surge of popular atheist-oriented books.  Dawkins wasn't the first (that honor might go to Sam Harris), but it certainly in the forefront.  But that begs the question--does that discussion belong in this article or in, say, the atheism entry?  In other words, is the context we see here related specifically to TGD or to the wider category?-Barte 19:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It might make sense to mention McGrath's argument on that point in the atheism entry, but this article aims inter alia to summarise the main arguments of this book, which includes this point. NBeale 21:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's in fact the practice to provide a brief plot summary for novels, as this is necessary in order to be able to discuss the characters and the criticism. Same here, the article is meant to tell  about the book, not to substitute for reading it. DGG 06:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dawkins quite clearly deserves a Wikipedia entry. Given that "The God Delusion" also has one, people naturally want to look at the rebuttals, of which McGrath's is the most famous. There might be a case for merging McGrath in with "The God Delusion". 81.129.117.181 17:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to agree with that -it puts the argument and debate about the book in one place and with all due respect to this particular book by McGrath it is a response to another book and would not exist without it. (193.63.62.252 11:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC))


 * I'm unsure. You'd end up with the article on Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France containing Paine's Rights on Man on that basis, as the latter was a response to the former. --Dannyno 14:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But there is perhaps a distinction there of time -in that Burke's work is now regarded in its own right whereas in this case the argument is still live and Mcgrath is one of many people responding to Dawkins. 100 years hence maybe its worth its own article. This isn't a slight on the book or the author -merely a question about what is most helpful to the reader? (Be Dave 14:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

Stats
It is perfectly reliable to use Amazon and Google as sources for Amazon rank and Google hits resp. The article survived a very rigorous deletion debate and both these stats were germane to the debate. In addition the amazon rank of The God Delusion is prominently displayed, so there is no reason for not doing the same for this book. NBeale 22:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Did McGrath read Dawkins' book at all?
Take a look here: I quote McGrath: "Dawkins' assertion that science disproves God is not right." It is repeated many times in the article.

Quote from "The God Delusion", chapter 2, page 54: "What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable." It is stated many, many times that science can not disprove God's existence.

McGrath mentiones Joseph Stalin. The whole section of chapter 7 of "The God Delusion" is devoted to a question "What about Hitler and Stalin? Weren't they atheists?" (page 272) Alas, McGrath haven't even read the table of contents.

Can anyone please mention those things in the article? Lantios 18:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Short answer: No, he did not read the book. There is another question the Dawkins Delusion author asks: "Why is such a book still necessary?"


 * If he had actually read the book he would have seen an entire chapter dedicated to answering this question. -Numbnumb 08:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think McGrath himself is proof that such a book is necessary ;) I also fully agree with Lantios, but if we start adding what we think is true, then other people will do the same, and Wikipedia will fall apart. That's why we try to neutrally report what people think, and here we report what McGrath thinks without adding our own interpretations and refutations. --Merzul 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. While it is clear that McGrath didn't read the book, until and unless a sources states this, it would be OR to include it. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please consider whether it is actually reasonable to suppose that a real Oxford Professor (who didn't need to have his chair bought for him by a millionaire admirer) who has a serious academic publication record has not read a book that he writes a book-length critique of. That kind of stuff makes Wikipedia look silly. NBeale 05:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What makes wikipedia look sillier is (a) using it as a means of making nasty and spiteful comments about Richard Dawkins at every opportunity, however irrelevant, and (b) devoting a massively overblown and adulatory article to a spiteful little pamphlet - but there you go! Snalwibma 07:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, as only 1/3rd of Oxford University funding comes from the government it seems bizarre to suggest that the other majority sources of funding including those that are hypothecated are of a lesser worth. Curiously enough McGrath was a priest at Southwell Minster; we only need to look at how they describe their unique situation: "Southwell—unlike other Church of England Cathedrals—is not in, or even near, a city centre with business hub offering opportunities for significant corporate support."
 * So it seems fine that corporate support is sought to re-roof a building but not fine to sponsor a chair !? Ttiotsw 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that - as indicated by many of the comments here - he does not demonstrate the basic rigor that would be expected of any academic, never mind an Oxford Professor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReDeus (talk • contribs) 13:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No "supposed" anything -- rather, they gave evidence for the proposition. And what Snalwibma said. -- 98.108.199.69 (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

More balanced reviews
I've had a look for a little more critical opinion on this book (as the selection there already seems to be a little nepotistic), but I can't find a single review on google that isn't from a blog or amazon. Strange, that. Sachabrunel 12:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to add these to the article, but McGrath's book was finally reviewed in Publishers Weekly on 5/14/07. It was also reviewed in Commonweal, but I'm not sure it's very balanced. -I also don't know how to sign my name

These both seem like either advertising or wildly partisan. Sachabrunel 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I've googled for more reviews, but outside blogs that's all I can find. We shouldn't suppress them because the reviewers, on the whole, agreed with the McGraths' criticisms. After all, pretty well everyone who reviewed TGD had quite serious complaints. If we can find negative reviews from reliable sources (as opposed to rants on blogs) then we should add them. NBeale 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Commonweal article seems to be a critique of TGD rather than a review of TDD. There's another review in the Catholic News Agency Zenit here but I'm not sure it adds much. NBeale 05:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Animation_Liberation 16:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is still only one critical review of the book. This definitely needs to be changed. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 15:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As The Dawkins Delusion? is not not as well known as its counterpart it is neither listed on Metacritic, nor has it garnered many reviews from reputable established sources, much less non-biased ones. It achieved a rating of 3/5 stars (82 customer reviews) on Amazon.com and 2.5/5 (165 customer reviews) on its British counterpart.Feyre (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
I am going to work on the Cristicism section. I have read this book and The God delusion completely. I will adress the fallacies and other problems found in the book, I just need a little bit of time to do this because I am new to Wikipedia. There are many good reviews out there that discuss the problems of the book, and I just want to properly quote them from an authoritative stance, as opposed to a POV.

Can anyone else think of how to address the criticism page? Animation Liberation 22:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Animation_Liberation

The reason that there are no balanced reviews is because real scientific instances don't take this too seriously. Can't someone who read the book just get some quotes from both books on the same subjects to show that this guy hasn't actually thoroughly read TGD? Feyre 11:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sheffield Humanist Society not a Reliable Source
As many know, I'm all for including properly refed information in WikiPedia and allowing users to make up their own minds. The reason I think we have to delete the Sheffield Humanist Society link is that it is a student's homepage at Sheffield and not a WP:RS. But by preserving it on the talk pages people who want to can follow it - it's just that by policy we can't have it in the article. (It's rather poor stuff BTW IMHO, but people can make up their own minds) NBeale 17:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I have to agree here. Including an external link of one relatively insignificant organisation's response, posted on an individual website, doesn't seem very sensible.  I strongly suspect that hundreds of churches throughout the country have published similar comments on this book and TGD.  This article is as insignificant as they are. (That's not to say that I don't think the article makes valid points - from my standpoint as someone who hasn't read either book yet, it seems it might well, but I don't think that's relevant.) TJ 19:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The rules on conflict of interest prevent me from restoring the link (I don't recall who popped it in here originally, hopefully not me!), but I can clarify the nature of the page. First of all, it is not a student's homepage, it's mine.  I'm temporarily hosting Sheffield Humanists' files on my personal *staff* webspace.   What the link here seems to be is a direct link to the file, but Sheffield Humanists have their own URL.  Nor is it contrary to policy to include it here.  Links to be considered includes "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."  The guidance on "reliable sources" says: "Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view."  SeeOnline sources. In other words, the link can be defended alongside the other external links as helping maintain overall neutrality. Dannyno 12:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry TJ is right about this - this local humanist society is not remotely notable. Didn't realise you were staff not student but I don't see that this makes any real difference. NBeale 13:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So we delete all those Salvation Army links as well, right? Snalwibma 14:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(←)NBeale is clearly determined that readers should be denied the opportunity to see what the Sheffield Humanist Society has to say about McGrath's book. First he says it's "a student's homepage" and "rather poor stuff", then when he is corrected he resorts to stating with no evidence that it's "not remotely notable". In the interests of balance, I think it's a good idea to keep the link. Maybe if NBeale could come up with an alternative source of similar comments about McGrath's book (which, BTW, I consider rather poor stuff), then this one can go. But in the meantime I think it's better to keep it. Snalwibma 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But what have you to say to TJ's point, that if we link to their website we might as well link to the website of any of (say) 100,000 churches that might have posted material about The God Delusion, and which would certainly have a greater membership and average weekly attendance than the Sheffield Humanist Society? NBeale 15:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's a matter of balance, and avoiding producing an article which appears (even if that is not its intention) to support McGrath's position. I agree that the SHS isn't all that notable, but I think it's also fair to balance the links to pro-McGrath websites with something on the "other side". Some of the pro-McGrath links aren't really very notable either - or at least they don't add much to the argument other than presenting a parade of me-too-ist Dawkins-bashing. The reason not to add the 1001 little churches who say "we like McGrath" is not because they are less notable than the SHS, but because they wouldn't add anything new to this article. It's not a matter of absolute notability, but of relative notability, perhaps. Does this makes sense? Does my argument hold water? And is there anything better to provide the balance? I'll look (and maybe you should do so too), and if we find anything reasonable I'm not going to insist on this particular link staying here. Snalwibma 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is apparently a rather critical review of the book by Anthony Kenny in the August 17, 2007 issue of TLS: "Reason to believe". I can't find the text online I think you have to be a subscriber.  But we should use this and not the SHS! Anyone have access?NBeale 21:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I merely note that "SHS is not notable" is somewhat different from "SHS is not reliable". While 'reliability' *is* one of the standards for inclusion of links, "notability" isn't, at least as far as I can see. So this new ground for exclusion appears irrelevant, unless my impression can be corrected.  Dannyno 20:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But SHS is neither notable 'nor reliable. NBeale 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if true, neither claim is conclusive. Notability is irrelevant in Wiki guidelines on links, and reliability is only one consideration and can be overridden by other considerations. Dannyno 19:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Dawkins Delusion.jpg
Image:The Dawkins Delusion.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a rationale. If anyone can improve on it, please do so. Lurker  (said · done) 12:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute
A POV tag was placed on this article by an Anon editor on 31 Oct 07. No justification was given. Unless anyone offers a justification I'll remove it. NBeale (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say it was someone who doesn't like the book. IronCrow (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What you would say is not relevant ... especially if you would say that. -- 98.108.199.69 (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

. I would simply like to point out that this article really does conflict with the fundamental Wikipedian principal of the neutral point of view (POV) because the "Reviews" section only contains positive reviews of the book. nothingnesswithoutend (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am tempted to suggest that the book is so insignifcant that it really only attracted attention from sycophants and those who feel so threatened by Dawkins' arguments that they need to find every possible way to squeal - but of course I would never make such a biased comment here! Whatever - I have just reinstated the Sheffield Humanist Society review that was deleted a couple of months ago on the grounds that the link didn't work. The link is now fine, AFAIK. So we have one negative review again. Snalwibma (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources used in the article
I took a look at the sources used in the article for the reviews.

They are


 * The Times
 * New Scientist
 * The Times Literary Supplement
 * Publishers Weekly


 * Church Times


 * A self-published review from a (sole?) member of the Sheffield Humanist Society


 * A blog on Dawkin's website.

I'm not sure about the Church Times, but I think the two at the end clearly don't make the grade.208.89.211.168 (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree about the last two not being reliable sources, but I moved the Dawkins blog post to the section on Dawkins reply, and I think it is more or less proportional. This is after all a book about Dawkins, so views expressed on his blog might merit inclusion. Still, I don't feel strongly about this, the paragraph just adds to the article that someone affiliated with Dawkins didn't like it. The only genuinely interesting review is that of Anthony Kenny and it might merit a more careful look. I wrote that summary, and as I'm an atheist, I might have somewhat cherry-picked the pro-Dawkins part. Someone else should check it to provide some balance. Merzul (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the Kenny review and I think you've got it about right for here. Kenny is probably more critical of Dawkins than the piece in the article suggests but that is fair here, I think, because Kenny's criticism of Dawkins seems directed towards The God Delusion but not necessarily for the reasons given by McGrath in his book - the topic of this particular article.


 * One problem I have with Kirby's blog, setting the RS issue to the side for a monment, is that it says the book is "72 pages of snide, distorted, falsified, predictable ad hominem attack all the way". I wonder how, if this is true, reviewers of the caliber of Kenny, and to a lesser extent Appleyard, didn't notice it. Had such a scathing attack appeared in the TLS then of course it should be covered, but then maybe the reason it hasn't been published in a RS like the TLS is because it isn't very good. I think to give a full paragraph to this and to quote such scathing attacks at length we really need to be looking for something better. I would favour shortening it to single line which notes that exists and that it was highly critical of McGrath.208.89.211.168 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, I will reduce it to one line simply saying that it exists. Now, what about the Sheffield Humanist Society? Maybe we should wait for one more person to comment here before we just remove it. I haven't read the review and I don't know anything about Sheffield Humanist Society, are they notable? Merzul (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the new wording is much more fitting. As regards the SHS, I think that is an even worse source. It is self-published on the author's website (and presumably nowhere else). However, I agree that we should leave it for more comment here. I see there was some discussion above but it didn't look very productive. The argument seemed to be that it was necessary to balance the praise with criticism but I am not convinced that point is relevant. Let's wait a while and see if anything more happens here. My view is that it should be removed. 208.89.211.168 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note. I think the need for balance was before we had Anthony Kenny's critical review, but I'm not sure. Merzul (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion about the SHS article was inconclusive. I declare an interest as the author, but so far as I can recall I didn't include it in the first place (I hope!). I'm not here to argue it definitely ought to stay, I should emphasise. It's not really a review, that's the first point. It's just a quickly written digest of perceived errors and omissions. You will notice I defended it in the previous discussion on the grounds that those arguing for its removal were citing irrelevant considerations such as notability (I make no claims for my own notability, though I hold positions that could give me some reflected authority!). Bias was certainly an issue back then, and I certainly felt an alternative perspective was helpful. Is bias still an issue? If not, maybe its not needed at that point in the article, or indeed at all.  If however, we still think a countervailing opinion is needed, then the SHS article or something like it still belongs here. --Dannyno (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

McGrath's credentials
I think the introduction should make it clear that McGrath has a scientific background. The way I phrased it was "former biochemist and Christian theologian Alister McGrath". I based this on the fact that McGrath has a publication record in peer-review scientific journals from his years at Oxford and also because he was European Molecular Biology Organization visiting fellow at the University of Utrecht. Is this adequate for the wording I used or would some other wording be better?208.89.211.168 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

McGrath is described as a "biochemist and Christian theologian" by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation here. I guess my wording should be OK then, although I am still happy to include the word "former" as I think it may be more accurate.208.89.211.168 (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In a review by Dr Denis Alexander, Chairman of the Molecular Immunology Programme, The Babraham Institute and Fellow of St. Edmund's College, Cambridge, which was published on the website of Blackwell Publishing, McGrath is described as "a biochemist turned theologian". If nobody has any complaints I will restore the wording tomorrow. 208.89.211.168 (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I complain. First of all, the idea that McGrath is/was a "biochemist" is based on his graduate degree. However, that's not McGrath's current role. His credentials are described in later paragraphs. I point out that the Alister McGrath page does not call him a "former biochemist" in its lead. Neither should we. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, the idea that McGrath is/was a biochemist is now based entirely on what the reliable sources cited above tell us. Secondly, the source you cite is another Wikipedia article, and that can't count because if it did, Wikipedia articles could all justify each other without reference to any outside sources. Finally, even if your source did count, that article notes McGrath's scientific background in the lead, which is all I am suggesting we do here. In the absence of any reason to doubt the veracity of the sources cited above, I suggest we return to the previous wording and use those sources as verification.208.89.211.168 (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the above, but I'm actually thinking that wouldn't symmetry demand that Joanna's credentials is also given in the lead. I don't know but whatever you guys decide to put on Alister, I'm disturbed by the emptiness before Joanna. Kind of silly argument here, but I though I would still say this. Merzul (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I think you're right. In the absence of any dissenting voices now about the sources for AM's credentials I will reinsert that too. I also saw that he is included in the List of biochemists so I don't think there can be any dispute.


 * Unsure why the above comment was deleted. I have restored it and restored the accurate description of McGrath's background to the article.208.89.211.168 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Might have to do with your interaction (or that of someone sharing your IP) with those users on WT:NPOV, or you may be suspected of being a sockpuppet of someone called Davkal. In any case, the edit summary made no sense to me. Let me say this though, in this article, your contributions have been completely to the point and accurate. Personally, I don't see a problem in calling him a former biochemist. Merzul (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify to other editors of this page, there is good reason to believe that 208.89.211.168 is indeed a sockpuppet of User:Davkal. He seems to follow ScienceApologist around to revert and disagree with his actions. I agree with the IP on this page, but the behaviour elsewhere is obviously not acceptable. Merzul (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeremey Craddock Review
Does this actually make sense to people? Besides that it is copied directly from the source, I can't seem to make heads or tails of it.


 * He adds that "Dawkins asserts that God is so improbable that he cannot exist, and that, if he did, he would need explaining...[but] at Douglas Adams's funeral, Dawkins asserted that the fine tuning of the universe (if constants such as gravity and the strong nuclear force had values other than those observed, we could not exist) needed no explanation. So why should God?" Craddock concludes that "I am sad that Dawkins, once my hero, has descended to unscientific nonsense. McGrath makes much more sense."[28]

So, if I understand, Dawkins essentially says that the fine tuning of the universe needed no explanation (because values like gravity are constant) and neither does God (because Dawkins believes there's no emperical evidence for such a being). I don't see how this is unscientific nonsense.

Could we remove this section of the review? If it stays, it needs to be clarified.--Ducio1234 (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since no one has piped up I will shortly go ahead and remove these sentences because it is unclear and directly copied from somewhere else.--Ducio1234 (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly is confusing as it stands. I think it could be summarized as follows, however:
 * He adds that "Dawkins asserts that God is so improbable that he cannot exist, and that, if he did, he would need explaining..." But Craddock believes that Dawkins contradicted himself by asserting that the fine tuning of the universe (the seemingly arbitrary values for such as constants as the masses of the elementary particles, upon which the universe as we know it depends) need no such explanation. Craddock concludes that "I am sad that Dawkins, once my hero, has descended to unscientific nonsense. McGrath makes much more sense."[28]''
 * I think that's clearer, though it still rather a mouthful, so to speak. RedSpruce (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice job! It is still a mouthfull, but it's much better. Thanks for clearing this up.--Ducio1234 (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Kirby's Review
I'd like to see the Kirby review that was recently removed included in this article. After reading it, I believe Kirby offers a fairly unbiased account of the text, at least, as unbiased as possible. What do others think?--Ducio1234 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation?
The "Synopsis" section relies on a huge amount of quoted material from the book. Every part of this section is loaded with quoted phrases and even whole sentences. Some quotations are long enough to be paragraphs, like this one from the subsection "Has science disproved God?": "Dawkins clearly has no mandate whatsoever to speak for the scientific community at this point or on this topic. There is a massive observational discrepancy between the number of scientists that Dawkins believes should be atheists, and those who are so in practice....Dawkins is clearly entrenched in his own peculiar version of a fundamentalist dualism." Many of the sentences that were intended to be rephrased from the book may constitute plagiarism due to close paraphrasing. Now, I do not own this book myself and I cannot read every page of it, but I checked some of these sentences using Google Books, and they appear to be plagiarized. Compare the pairs of sentences:

1) "He states that Aquinas never speaks of 'proofs' for God's existence; rather they are demonstrations of the inner coherence of belief in God..." (from the Wikipedia article) 2) "At no point does Thomas speak of these as being 'proofs' for God's existence; rather they are to be seen as a demonstration of the inner coherence of belief in God." (from the book)

1) "He cites Richard Swinburne as one of many writers to argue that the capacity of science to explain itself requires explanation – and that the most economical and reliable account of this explanatory capacity lies in the notion of the monotheistic God of Christianity." (from the Wikipedia article)

2) "Richard Swinburne is one of many writers to argue that the capacity of science to explain itself requires explanation-and that the most economical and reliable account of this explanatory capacity lies in the notion of a Creator God." (from the book)174.131.123.141 (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)