Talk:The God Delusion/Archive 1

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

Not really. The Amazon piece is a sales pitch, which is fine for Amazon but not here. This article will contain a description of the book's contents, together with some immediate reaction and criticism maybe, and then later on a description of the long term impact of the book. As such it's hard to see how the article can progress until release date.—Laurence Boyce 10:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit attempts
My two attempts to edit this page to show that the book is now available and to offer a (very) brief description of the content have been reverted. I'm told the reason is that my changes weren't "encyclopedic." I readily concede that. However, I feel it's better to be accurate with poor format than inaccurate with a perfect encyclopedic style. I'm not making another attempt to edit this page but I suggest somebody (perhaps Laurence Boyce) move himself to make the page more accurate as my attempts seem doomed to reversion. It is, after all, an excellent book and Dawkins obviously considers it an important addition to his earlier works. 68.173.6.90 01:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I have absolutely no doubt that within a very short space of time, this article will change dramatically. You could be very much part of the effort, though you would have to curb your enthusiasm for the book and stick to describing it in a neutral manner. By the way, I've made loads of unencyclopedic edits, but there's not a lot of point, they get contested very quickly. Please obtain an account (v. easy) and come on board. Laurence Boyce 10:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins and Paxman on the God Delusion
Did anyone see Jeremy Paxman interviewing Richard Dawkins about the God Delusion on BBC's Newsnight (22/9/2006)? Despite Paxman's usual confrontational style of interviewing, he said (to Dawkins) that the book was a very entertaining read, very convincing, although somewhat "strident in tone". Could he be quoted on in article at some point? There are also extracts from the book available on the Newsnight website ( bbc.co.uk/newsnight ). I hope to get the book soon, so I can read the whole text and then start helping with the article. -Neural 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In the long run I guess we could quote from the Paxman interview as long as it found its way onto this list as a reference. It ought to. But there will be plenty of written reviews as well. I've got the book, but I won't be reading it immediately. Laurence Boyce 14:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok it looks like it will be available here. Laurence Boyce 15:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy
Added links to evidence of historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, Israel, Ten Commandments. Dawkins, claims no historicity for Christianity held by 33% of world's population.DLH 02:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Only 33%? If the evidence is so compelling, it should be 100%. Laurence Boyce 08:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? How does it follow that if the evidence for a belief was compelling, that it would result in 100% of the world's population believing in it? I suppose I understand the issue you're raising, but the amount of people who believe in something is completely irrelevant to its truth, or whether the evidence supporting it is complelling. Btboy500 06:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Laurence Boyce wrote "if the evidence is so compelling...", not "if it were true...". But I take your point. 100% of the population once thought the earth was flat like a chess board. -Neural 14:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Self-reported statistics of religious belief tend to be substantially exaggerated. 43% of Americans say in surveys that they go to church at least once a week, but attendance figures from churches indicate that only about 20% actually show up.. Canada shows 20% claiming vs. 10% actually showing up.   Numbers for Europe other than Ireland are far lower. --John Nagle 21:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

33% means that Christianity is the largest religion. Far above atheism. Restored the Criticism section for NPOV. DLH 01:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


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

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

Synopsis
Are we going to have a detailed synopsis of the book at some point? I'd be happy to help. -Neural 14:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should. Not in massive detail maybe. Please go for it. Laurence Boyce 16:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been rather more busy recently than I had expected. So I'll give it a shot when I have a bit more time to devote. Unless someone beats me to it, a'course. -Neural 20:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had a bash at it, giving a summary of the key points. I agree that we shouldn't go overboard with detail, so I've been as brisk as possible. Now I encourage everyone to dive in and improve or correct anything that seems inadequate or misleading. -Neural 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Neural, good effort. I think we should lose that Douglas Adams quote. Any quotes should be by Dawkins in my view. I know you didn't put it there (I think). Laurence Boyce 16:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dawkins uses that quote because he thinks Adams put it better than he ever could. He writes "I never tire of sharing his words".  I'd leave it in for its literary quality.  --John Nagle 16:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't add the Adams quote, but just wrote the summary around it. I don't feel strongly about it either way, so I'll leave it to the rest of you to decide... -Neural 11:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazon Bestseller
This book is currently the number 1 bestseller at Amazon UK (and 6th at Amazon.com). So there's some Good News for you Neural. Is this worth mentioning on the page? Poujeaux 12:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's good news. You never know - reason might just triumph in the end. Unless everyone is buying it just to be outraged. To answer your question: yes, its success might be worth a mention. -Neural 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Although I wouldn't feel comfortable editing an article on a book I haven't read, while reading the article I felt that the part that said that a lack of free will would abridge our 'need to find faith' did not adhere to a neutral point of view-it sounded as though the article was making a statement as to what it believed was true, and not stating what other believed. Filippo Argenti 00:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What part are you talking about? The phrase "need to find faith" doesn't occur anywhere in the article, and neither does the phrase "free will". -- Schaefer (Talk) 08:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I was sure I read that here....mabey that was in a former version, but I'm not sure.If I'm just losing my mind, I'm really sorry. Filippo Argenti 02:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there are still some adjustments needed to maintain an NPOV on this. For example on Chapter 5 "Dawkins uses the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, to explain how religion might spread" should read "Dawkins suggests that the theory of memes ... might explain..." 8, "citing how" should read "suggesting that" or "citing how, in some cases". Any objections if I make those edits? NBeale 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section
I'd like to address the "Controversy" section in the article. The tone is somewhat POV ("Dawkins fails to realize," "fails to address,") and to be honest the arguments in the section don't seem particularly relevant as legitimate criticism of the work. The study about prayer and smoking seems particularly irrelevant. I think that the article does deserve a "controversy" section, but the current one seems particularly POV. Snurks T C 01:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I think the article should be about the book alone, and not a debate on the existance of God. I'm removing the section and references for now, pending the creation of a better section about controversy surrounding the book that's actually present in media, instead of controversy claimed by a single editor. Snurks T C 01:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved your reversion discussion up with the rest of the controversy material. Your action appears to be thought police at work - i.e. no criticism allowed without your approval. Since the book is about the existane of God, it is strange that you remove any discussion of contrversy about that. The smoking study explicitly provides scientific evidence for the existance of causation not attributable to natural forces. DLH 13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And I've moved it back down again. The controversy section you added was highly tendentious, editorial, and off topic. Laurence Boyce 13:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If that keeps you happy. Revised to address snurks concerns and added a citation. DLH 13:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * All the citations used do not address the book at all. Several are non-descript personal blog entries that just deal with religion in general and do not even mention Dawkins (let alone the Book).  I do not even want to start thinking about what Dawkins book has to do with teenager smoking ;).
 * Here is an actual negative reviews that you can use that are critical of the book:
 * UK Prospect Magazine
 * Naturally you will have to find more negative reviews. But do remember that when you actuall provide the links, that the links should actually deal with the book and not just be general theological arguements that you are using to criticize the book.  This violates No original research.--Roland Deschain 14:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up the criticism section. Weasel words have been removed and criticisms are tied to named authors and linked to the authors' Wikipedia articles.  Incidentally, Kraus wrote "The Physics of Star Trek" and "Beyond Star Trek".  He's a Trekkie and says he's watched every episode. --John Nagle 22:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up the Andrew Brown criticism section. Incidentally, this Andrew Brown is not Wikipedia's Andrew Brown, who is a second-string relief pitcher for Cleveland. --John Nagle 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed "A leap of understanding"
I will remove the "A leap of understanding" item from the Reviews section for the second time:
 * Andrew Brown: A leap of understanding. The Guardian Sept 14, 2006

on the grounds that:
 * it is not from The Guardian proper, but from the "Comment is free" site, sort of a blog;
 * the section already contains a proper review published in The Guardian;
 * the section already contains a proper review by Andrew Brown, in Prospect.

Hrvoje Simic 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading the reviews of Terry Eagleton and Andrew Brown. Both are so feeble and miss the point in different ways. Eagleton writes: Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. If he has read the book, he should know that Dawkins has aptly described theology as a non-subject, something completely empty and pointless. Andrew Brown accuses Dawkins of being "dogmatic and incurious". Well, the chapter "The God Hypothesis" deals with the accusation of dogmatism. As for "incurious", I'm am not sure what he is refering to, or if it even matters. Brown also accuses Dawkins of "rambling" and contradicting himself, although he doesn't point out any specific contradictions. And Brown says that Dawkins fails to explain properly why religion has survived the onslaught of Darwinism - as if this should count in the favour of religion. Why Brown is attacking Dawkins anyway is a mystery, since they are both anti-religion in outlook. Why not attack, umm, religion... instead? -195.93.21.130 12:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But to attack concept cogently you need to understand them. Simply "describing them to be a non-subject" doesn't do it. String Theory may well be vacuuous, but if a biologist had written Not even Wrong without even studying the mathematics (s)he'd expect a rough ride. NBeale 18:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say that comparing String Theory to Theology is a bit like comparing Economics with Legoonomics. But then I'm on the same side of the fence as Dawkins on this whole argument... -Neural 14:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Could we make a balanced pair of sections: principal criticisms and principal rebuttals?
Could we make a balanced pair of sections: principal criticisms and principal rebuttals? Maybe this is too much to hope, but if we had some ground-rules, eg:
 * 1) Two separate sections (Principal Criticisms and Principal Rebuttals) of equal length. "The main criticisms appear to be:" and "The main responses to each of these appear to be:" No Rebuttal can be longer than the Criticism to which it relates.
 * 2) At most 7 Criticisms, prefereably 5 (and consequently at most 7 Rebuttals).
 * 3) No Critic may edit a Rebutter or vice-versa, except in clear cases of breaching the above.  What do people think?

NBeale 18:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced that a pair of sections is such a great idea; it risks turning the article into a battleground of ideas. Much better in my view would be a single balanced criticism section: on the one hand so-and-so said this, on the other hand so-and-so said that. It would merely report what people have said, not discuss the ideas themselves. Laurence Boyce 11:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Free speech criticism: unsupported
I removed the following block from the Criticism section:

Andrew Brown, writing for the Prospect, criticizes apparent selectivity in Dawkins' advocacy of free speech:

He [Dawkins] quotes later in [The God Delusion] approvingly and at length a speech by his friend Nicholas Humphrey which argued that, "We should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out." But of course, it's not interfering with free speech when atheists do it.

This block does a poor job of describing the issue, and the remaining part of the review doesn't help. I asked myself: what does "it" at the end of the quote mean? When atheists teach their children in literal truth of the Bible? Or in the falsity of the Bible? Or in some "atheist" belief that is contradicting reason?

What I think the author suggests is that Dawkins in this book criticizes religious parents when they push their irrational beliefs to children, but not atheist parents pushing : (anti-religious) irrational beliefs to their children. However, he fails to support it by quoting or referring to the passages from the book. What comes out is confusing and misleading, and does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

Hrvoje Šimić 06:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That quote from Humphrey was somewhat out of context. It's quoted on p. 326 of Dawkins, and the entire quote is two paragraphs.  The second paragraph in its entirety, with the quote above in italics, is:


 * "In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense, and we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon."


 * Seen in its entirety, it has a somewhat different meaning. So taking it out, at least in the form it had, was a good move. If you're going to write about this, read pages 325-329 from Dawkins; he has more to say about Humphrey. --John Nagle 21:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect material in the God Delusion article
Dear Persons,

I should like to draw your attention to a point of logic - you mention in your description of the venerable, and frankly laudable man with large balls and even bigger brain who wrote the book that he is

Atheist.

I should like to point out this needs to be clarified with the eminent and respected scientist himself.

There are differences in a-theism and non-theism.

Viz: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/

as a primer and further, I propose you consider carefully the logic of what you are connoting - this is, as you might imagine somewhat fraught - and I would rather you guys get in touch with him about semantics and the logical differences about these very important distinct and discrete concepts.

Thanks, Alex

86.111.171.51 13:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about. Dawkins is clear that he is an atheist, and clear about what that means. --Dannyno 21:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Price
I think Professor Dawkins would help his cause if the book wasn't £20. I'm sure he doesn't need the money particularly. He ought to be posting the entire book on the internet for free. I'd like to by a sack full of them and donate them to schools and libraries, but at £20 a pop I think I might wait and see if a paperback version comes out before even buying one. Sheesh. Capitalist concerns getting in the way of something so important shows why religion is winning against secularism - they give the Bible away for free.

Sorry. Irrelevant rant over.

-Neural 12:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They do give the Bible away for free - and it's worth every penny.


 * Even if it were posted on the net for free, it wouldn't make one inch of difference to its readership. Those who want to read it, will. And even if a library has 20 copies of the book, no fundamentalist Christian will read it. Anyone who wants to read the book will find a way to read it, regardless of the pricetag. -UK-Logician-2006 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the book will get cheaper, and a paperback version will probably come out. Maybe it will eventually be free on the web. I dont agree that "religion is winning against secularism" - the fact that this book is published and openly discussed is a step in the right direction. Poujeaux 13:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I take it all back. I bought the book with £4 off, and it was well worth it. An excellent read. Whether it will have any impact with the faithful at all is another matter. Still, every school should have a copy of this in its library.


 * Btw... in the last census, more than 3 quarters of the British population described themselves as Christian. That's why I think religion is still "winning". I dream of a day when 9 tenths are atheists. Then secularism and reason will have won the day. -Neural 13:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad you enjoyed the book :)


 * Yes, 3/4 of people describe themselves as Christian, but how many of them actually are? You'd probably find that many of them just put 'C of E' out of habit. Not many people actually practice Christianity, and far less go to Church.


 * The majority of people are 'tacit atheists' - they just don't care. So, in a way, secularism has already won the day. -UK-Logician-2006 22:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First, can you substantiate that with data? Also put that way it makes it sound as if 'tacit atheists' are also not subscribers to Dawkins' fundamentalist atheism, so shouldn't they be called agnostics? --BozMo talk 09:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's some material on "adherents.org" that indicates that about twice as many people claim in surveys that they go to church as actually show up. --John Nagle 06:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why Religion is far from beaten
I disagree with the "secularism has already won the day" argument. We still have a situation where no political party would dare outlaw faith schools, for instance. Education is the frontline of this intellectual conflict. Read the chapter on the abuse of young minds in The God Delusion. Also, the minority of True Believers are well-organized, and they have a disproportionate influence on government policy... On the "tacit atheist" point, I agree, but I'd point out that these people still do not admit to being atheists. This reveals the following possibilities: 1, they feel comfortable being identified as Christian (they ought to feel embarrased at the suggestions of such superstition). 2, they may feel embarrased about their atheism (they ought to feel proud that they value reason above faith). Secularism will only have won in the UK when, 1, people would feel pretty embarrased to admit (or pretend to admit) to delusions, 2, when atheists feel proud enough to hold their heads up and organized enough to combat pro-religion government policies, and 3, when faith schools are outlawed so that religion cannot be imposed on vulnerable minds. Finally, we are overlooking the religious insanity of America and the Middle East. America is the world's only super-power. 95 percent of Americans believe they will survive their own deaths. Tens of millions of American voters yearn for nuclear war due to their End Time beliefs. Read Sam Harris's excellent The End of Faith to kill off any remaining complacency. Anyone who thinks secularism has already beaten religion is very mistaken when you consider a global perspective. -Neural 14:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Voltaire also claimed the death of religion? --BozMo talk 09:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * not sure who you think you are arguing against neural! nobody claims "secularism has already won the day". But some of us think things are improving - its more acceptable to criticise religion and be atheist than it was 20 yrs ago, and church attendance is declining... Poujeaux 14:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * no one except -UK-Logician-2006 in the comment about five lines higher who says exactly this? If getting better means anything lets hope that it is more tolerance from everyone of other people's views...I think over the last 200 years the sea of faith has ebbed and flowed...personally AFAIK I have never lived anywhere where atheism or animism was not the considerable majority view....I think the experience in USSR and North Korea shows that fundamentalist atheism ranks alongside the Spanish Inquisition as an unpleasant master; tolerant atheists of course are another matter. I think what most of us dislike are majorities who make disagreement unacceptable but whereas the Moral Majority in the US are one of such, religions don't have a monopoly of this behaviour .--BozMo talk 21:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China... etc, etc. What marks these regimes out is not so much a promotion of atheism as a promotion of variants of communism (itself a kind of religion, requiring faith in Marxist dogma). Take Stalinism and Maoism out of the picture, and would we still have the same persecution? I don't think anyone in history has killed for atheism alone. Why would anyone kill or persecute for a lack of a belief? Communsim, however, is a positive set of dogmatic beliefs that people do kill for. We will be better off without religions - even pseudo-scientific religions like communism and national socialism. -Neural 14:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is getting very far off topic. Please try to restrict use of this talk page to discussing changes to its associated article. -- Schaefer (Talk) 19:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Delusion
A doctor explained to me the point about the scientific/medical definition of delusion which I think is interesting and important enough to have in. The key point as far as I can see is that, scientifically a delusion has to be (a)"false", (b) "firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary" and (c) "not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture." Dawkins considers belief in God meets (a) but concedes that it does not meet (b) or (c).
 * I think that when we talk about the criteria for delision, we should consider the context. The original Jasper criteria were (see the delusion entry):
 * certainty (held with absolute conviction)
 * incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
 * impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
 * According to these criteria, belief in God (or Allah, or FSMism) would meet all three criteria. Now, in the case of the DSM-IV, there is an attempt to be sensitive to cultural differences, and to no longer speak of true or false, but rather widely believed.  Otherwise, we would call anyone who believes that the Earth is flat delusional, when perhaps we should note that they live in a different culture.  But, this very avoidance of true/false in the DSM criteria doesn't mean that we can infer anything about the truth or falsity of the beliefs in a community; rather we can only decide if they are pathological and require treatment.  That is, it is important to recall that the DSM criteria are meant to be used to asess cases where people should be treated.  If we follow that logic, then a definition of delusion that include fewer people seems sensible.  We simply do not have enough mental health professionals to treat the majority of Americans!  But, Dawkins' point is that belief in God still has many of the features of delusions, even if it is a very prevelant one.  Edhubbard 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we can agree that a summary (which may be inaccurate) of what Jaspers proposed in the 1940s doesn't really cut it beside the DSM-IV definition. Also if you look at this definition you will see that it is a false belief, so they do talk of true and false. Furthermore not all delusions are pathological. I think the 'teapot' point is very weak, but if you want to leave it in I can have no objection. After all anyone with a firmly sustained belief in this teapot would be suffering from a delusion in the scientific sense. NBeale 19:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we might agree more than it seems here. The Jaspers summary fits with what I remember from my undergraduate coursework (I have a PhD in Experimental Psychology), although I don't know if it's word-for-word perfect.  I also agree that not all delusions are pathological.  However, for professional, practicing mental health professionals, their job is to identify and treat pathological delusions.  Hence, the form of the definition that they use needs to speak to those cases where it is most likley that it would interfere with an individual's daily life.  This is the standard of care normally applied in the medical health field.  Dawkins is clearly using a slightly different meaning from the DSM usage, but then again, he's not recommending that everyone who believes in God go in for treatment and medication.
 * The 'teapot' example is interesting beucase we can all pretty much agree that it's probably not true, and indeed, even very unlikely to be true, but science is equally powerless to disprove the existence of orbiting teapots as it is to disprove the existence of God (or the FSM, for that matter). It's what Daniel Dennett refers to as an intuition pump.  It clarifies the issue, which in this case is just that saying science can't "disprove" the existence of God isn't saying very much because of the way that science works.  No amount of negative evidence could ever logically disprove that something exists, but it can make it less and less likely, and in the absence of some positive evidence, the burden of proof falls to the person advocating a given position, be it religious or scientific.  Of course, there are people in Malaysia who could not be called delusional about their teapot religion, based on the DSM definition, just because it is their religion, even though we in the Western world would to think that they are suffering from a "delusion in the scientific sense"
 * To take an example from a completely non-religious domain, I could never disprove the idea that lefties are smarter than righties. If I were to run the experiment, and fail to get a significant result, it could be that my sample was too small, or that I did the experiment wrong, or any hundred of other things.  Hence, I could not say my failure to find a difference between lefties and righties "disproves" the idea that lefties are smarter.  I could only say that I didn't find any positive evidence for it.  The scientific method works by positive evidence for something; not by evidence against it.  That's the main point of pages 52-55, and that's why I want to insist a little on having the teapot in there. Edhubbard 20:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The delusion definition in the article is far too long. In the Delusion article it shows contradicting views on the defintion.  It's fine to note how Dawkins defines it, but defining what it isn't is not relevant.  *Spark*  23:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Do you want to take a shot at cutting it down? Dawkins spends a long paragraph on page 5 on this, so it's worth some time, but in one of my previous edit summaries, I mentioned the same feeling. I've been trying to work with NBeale to allow his concerns to be addressed, while trying to maintain my reading of Dawkins' book, too. Perhaps we can summarize with Persig's quote from Dawkins page 5, "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." Edhubbard 23:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That quote was already there. I've tightened it up. As long as Dawkins defines his terms, other definitions aren't relevant. *Spark* 23:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Spark. Please stop just deleting relevant material that has been worked on carefully by qualified editors. This is the official scientific definition of delusion - it is highly relevant that Dawkins does not follow it. NBeale 07:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed. (Scientific -> Psychiatric) Well OK I suppose. But is there another relevant scientific defintion? NBeale 09:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You really need to learn WP:OWN. Live it, be it. You might want to read delusion a bit more closely, especially foonote 3, "Pathologies of belief" as well as the statement in the article "there is no acceptable (rather than accepted) definition of a delusion". As long as we note what definition he does state, other definitions aren't relevant, and it reads very weasely, defending belief instead of defining the term.   It just clutters up the text as is.  *Spark*  12:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. For example, someone who deals with neurological patients might also see people who have delusions, such as that their parents are impostors (see e.g., Capgras syndrome).  In this case, it wouldn't even make sense to talk of "the majority of people's beliefs" since most people would have no belief at all about someone else's parents.  Similarly, in the case of patients with Cotard's syndrome who feel that they are dead, despite the obvious fact that they are living, or people who believe that a limb does not belong to them, associated with anosognosia after damage to the (usually right) parietal cortex, there are clearly disordered beliefs, but again, the majority of people would have not belief whatsoever about somebody else's body.  All of these are considered delusions, but they do not necessarily follow every aspect of the DSM-IV definition.  Indeed, one thing that you learn working with clinical groups is that there are very few patients who come in and *really* exactly fit the "definitional" criteria.  This is part of why I prefer not to limit things to the DSM-IV definition. Edhubbard 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Spark - that's your 3rd revert, please desist. This was a careful NPOV consensus of 2 well-qualified Editors with differing POVs - Ed even has a PhD in Psychology. I'm sure you have something contructive to offer. Also the fact that one editor puts a comment in the Delusion article is irrelevant to the accepted scientific definition of term.  Wikipedia is not Holy Writ :-) NBeale 15:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You might want to learn the definition of consensus. It isn't a question of POV, it's a question of relevance and flow.  There's more text describing what his defintion isn't, than what it is.  Which is ridiculous.  (Edit: After a little review, looks like the extra text does indeed violate WP:NPOV, correct as usual Laurence, Thanks)  *Spark*  16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * NBeale, see my reply to your comment above (scientific -> psychiatric), but the DSM-IV is no more Holy Writ than wikipedia. That's part of why we are on version 4 of the DSM, and working towards a version 5.  Next thing you know we'll have DSM-XP!  Definitions are meant to help guide professionals, and they are 1) difficult to apply which is why people spend ten plus years going to school to do this and 2) are subject to change with increasing scientific understanding.  The fact that the current DSM makes an allowance for religious belief doesn't mean that it always will.  Mass delusions (like the Salem Witch Trials) are nonetheless delusions.  Indeed, the fact that clinicians can and do sometimes talk about mass delisions suggests that they are willing to make exceptions to the DSM criteria. Edhubbard 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * NBeale, I agree with Spark here that it does read as if the intent is to defend belief, rather than to explain Dawkin's book (the first rule of good expository writing, first explain the concept, then explain crticisims of it). This is the reason that I started working on your specific edit from the outset.  I've tried a gentler approach than Spark trying to integrate your comment in some way, but I agree that the goal seems to be to defend religion.  The reason I was somewhat more open to trying it out is that Dawkins' notes that his psychiatrist friends were worried about his use of the term, before proceeding to explain his usage of the term.  Since Dawkins set up his argument along those lines, I thought we might want to have some recapitulation of the explanation Dawkins gives.  I'll try again to make that clear, while trying to avoid it sounding like an attempt to defend belief through definitional battles (what does "is" mean?).  Edhubbard 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The DSM-IV definition allows for a cultural factor (i.e. in this case religion) that can be used to give exactly the kind of misplaced respect that Dawkins wish to discuss. Psychiatrists are obliged to take into account such relativism for a number of professional reasons. Dawkins is not - and obviously should not be - restrained in this manner. Dropping in the hand-picked definition like this does the article no favour in terms of neutrality. EthicsGradient 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If there's a quote, from Dawkins, that states "I know my definition varies from DSM, and here's why I chose such" then that's fine. But a synopsis of the book is no place to be expanding on what he doesn't say.   *Spark*  17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I've put in some text which seems to meet all these criticisms as far as possible. But it makes no sense to call the official psyciatric defintion of Delusion a "hand-picked definition" NBeale 07:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain what book everyone else is reading, but he doesn't state the definition in chapter 1, he states it in the preface . He also does not explicity state anything about religion being exempt from the psych definition beyond the Pirsig quote at this point.  *Spark*  17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right... I noticed that this morning (Paris time) but didn't have time to correct it. The definition thing is in the preface, not Ch. 1, but I was more concerned about getting the information there as NPOV as possible, and to not put words in Dawkin's mouth, like that he "admits" this or that thing.  The point about "undserved respect' is in Chapter 1, so making this link hard to do with a chapter-by-chapter summary.  Edhubbard 18:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding your edit summary, I only put in what Dawkins himself says about delusion in the preface. I don't believe it differs in any meaningful way from the DSM definition, which is flawed. For example, by the DSM definition quoted, my belief that an invisible unicorn lives in my garage would not technically be a delusion.  That fails "despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary" as there cannot be evidence to the contrary (not falsifiable).   *Spark*  00:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Spark. You don't have such a belief, certainly not firmly held. If you did, evidence against would include no sound or smell, no room in garage etc.. If you know better than DSM what should be a delusion explain it to the psychiatrists, but until then let's stick to facts about established scientific defintions not opinions. NBeale 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a multidimensional unicorn which nobody can hear or smell. I don't think you honestly believe no sound, smell, or physical presence is evidence against existence, do you?  Hmmmmm.....  *Spark*  12:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's evidence against existence of a unicorn not (eg) a neutrino. The evidence for/against an entity depends on the type of entity in question. NBeale 13:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

(reset) The idea that quoting the facts about the psyciatric definition of a delusion is OR should have little place in serious discourse. Do you think Dawk's "arguments" are indeed so weak that quoting undisputable facts from official medical publications undermines them, so they have to be deleted by people who want to protect his worldview? NBeale 01:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to give it a rest with the whole "acolyte" nonsense. Dawkins doesn't mention DSM, we don't know that he's even familiar with the DSM definition.  You're adding facts not in evidence, drawing a conclusion, and performing original research.  Stop it.  Read WP:NOR, especially the part about what is excluded.   *Spark*  02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Spark. I've no idea what your experience or qualifications are, but it would be constructive to use facts and logical argument rather than weak procedural points to try to block criticism of Dawk. The fact that he doesn't mention an establish scientific fact does not make it untrue. And even I don't think that he could write a book about Delusion without knowing the official scientific defintion of the term. NBeale 08:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nbeale, you continue to insist that the DSM-IV is the "official scientific definition" of the term. I have given you multiple examples from real, scientific practice where the DSM-IV definition is *not* the accepted scientific definition of the term.  Rather, the DSM is first and foremost a clinical guidebook, intended as a shorthand between experts.  So, let's get that canard out of the way right now...  The DSM is *one of* the places that clinicians and scientific experts turn to for definitions, but the most important place that they turn to is their accumulated reading of the primary, peer reviewed, scientific literature (perhaps 100-200 papers per year, for at least 5-10 years before becoming licensed), and their years of accumulated experience.  Just as you don't need a dictionary to tell you what a dog is, clinicians don't run to the DSM-IV every time they see a case and think, gee, that might be a delusion.  As is stated in the DSM-IV-TR "The DSM-IV-TR warns that, because it is produced for mental health specialists, its use by people without clinical training can lead to inappropriate application of its contents." You can see the entry here Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders, and I can confirm that it is in there from my own paper copy.  See, too, the wikipedia section on the limitations (i.e., that the DSM is not a "cookbook") and the critism sections.  One of the criticisms of the DSM is that it is *not* scientific, but rather clinical.  So, you need to stop trying to refer to the DSM as the "scientific" definition of delusion.


 * Importantly, too, definitions change. As I've pointed out before, this is why we are on the DSM-IV-TR (previous versions just within my experience being the III-R and IV).  If, suddenly, with the DSM-V (due out in 2011), this exception that you so proudly use to argue against Dawkins now, were to be eliminated, would you say, "Oh, that means that religion is a delusion after all"?  I don't think so.


 * You know, when I first started working with on this page, I disgreed with the content you were adding, but I assumed good faith. In the past week, I have come to see that what you are really trying to do is push your own POV under the guise of adding this or that reference.  What you are engaging in is OR as defined by the Official Policies of Wikipedia. No_original_research. You are, indeed, citing sources.  However, you are combining sources to create your own synthesis of ideas, in order to in some way attempt to argue that Dawkins is ignoring an important part of the definition, etc. etc.  However, nobody has advanced this argument in a reliable source.  Therefore you are engaging in a novel synesthesis, and attempting to do so to in some way deflect Dawkin's criticisms of religion.  This is POV OR, and personally, I am about ready to adopt a revert-all-NBeale-additions-on-sight policy. Edhubbard 08:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nbeale, when first I reacted to the use of the DSM-IV definition (calling it hand-picked) the text changed to the better quite rapidly due (I think) to a collaboration between you and Edhubbard. I stood down for the sake letting consensus work its way out. Now, after reading the recent discussion on this, I am quite certain that DSM-IV does not merit the weight you want to give it, and that my first reaction was justified. In addition to the points of Edhubbard and Spark above (thanks to both for clarifying things) here is a scientific (review) paper in The Journal of Psychiatric Practice that might shed some additional light on how definitions are viewed by scientists working in the field. From the abstract :


 * Religious beliefs and delusions alike can arise from neurologic lesions and anomalous experiences, suggesting that at least some religious beliefs can be pathological. Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective. However, a religious belief's dimensional characteristics, its cultural influences, and its impact on functioning may be more important considerations in clinical practice.


 * Clearly, the psychiatrist would here use the DSM-IV definition in clinical work, while leaving the door open for using another when working from a rational perspective. EthicsGradient 12:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) NBeale, left the following message on my talk page in response to my above comments: "Ed. If a ref to a single direct quote from an official source is OR then all of Wikipedia is OR. This does not make sense. Be Bold is the slogan, surely. NBeale 10:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)" From watching NBeale work, I know that he is too smart to play dumb here... But, just to make things clear, I am going to go through my thinking on this step by step. Acccording to wikipedia policy here what NBeale is doing is considered OR. In particular, the relevant section states:
 * Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

In this case, A is the definition of "delusion" that Dawkins' used, and B is the DSM-IV definition. NBeale repeatedly pointed to the difference between these two definitions, which then serves to advance the argument (cleverly left implicit) that, since Dawkins' definition differs from his preferred "scientific" defition, Dawkins is in some way trying to mislead the reader about what a delusion is, and perhaps even (oh, hope of hope!) that readers will just ignore everything that comes after. If someone else, in a reliable, published source, were to make the same point, *then* NBeale *could* cite it in the criticism section. However, until then, it is considered original research by wikipedia policies. When I first started working on that section with/against NBeale, I assumed good faith as I mentioned above, and I thought that it might have been relevant, given that Dawkins' does mention talking with psychiatrist friends. However, as Spark correctly noted, Dawkins never mentions the DSM-IV definition, and therefore introducing this new information can only be thought of as adding source B, which then serves to advance the author's (in this case NBeale's) position. Edhubbard 22:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed. Revisiting this issue after a pause for reflection, I still think we can, and should, find a way in which the reader is made aware of the currently defined Psychiatric definition of Delusion, so that they can make up their own minds as to whether it is reasonable to call belief in God a Delusion. I'm pretty sure that if a religious scientist wrote a book which heavily used a scientific term in a non-scientific sense (eg "The Schizophrenia of Atheism", defining it as "a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements." which was justified by pointing out some contradictory or incompatible elements in the views of Atheists) you would think it fair to point readers of Wikipedia to scientific defintions of Schizophrenia and allow them to draw their own conclusions. I certainly would. NBeale 22:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't. Drop it.  It's done. It's WP:OR, clear and simple.   *Spark*  22:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Spark is correct, it is OR.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Curious points about the book
I’m genuinely curious as to how Dawkins’ supporters would defend some aspects of this book from the suggestion of a fundamental lack of intellectual integrity. eg: Responses on these points would be much appreciated (but please spare me tirades about "religionists") NBeale 07:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) He says (p1) that this book is for people who “wish they could [leave their parents’ religion], but just don’t realise that leaving is an option.” Since the OT, NT and Koran all make it clear that leaving is an option, where does he think he can find such un-informed people? Does it surprise him that most readers are like Lala,  fans who already agree with him?
 * 2) He uses his own definitions of “God.” (p13 & p31). With a modern philosophical definition (like “Ultimate Creator”) several of his arguments break down.  If you want to argue with integrity against a widely-held view you should use a definition of that view from a leading exponent.
 * 3) Before The God Delusion the only full-length books on religious questions written by a current FRS were by John Polkinghorne, who even Dawkins concedes is a “good scientist.”  Yet Dawkins never engages with Polkinghorne’s arguments and only lists one of his many relevant books.
 * 4) His list of religious scientists conspicuously omits Simon Conway Morris and Martin Nowak.
 * 5) He uses his own summaries of the major arguments for the existence of God, mentions some well-explored issues about them without citing any of the (vast) literature and assumes that there is no response to his points. The major modern philosophers who lead on these arguments (eg Alvin Plantinga) are not discussed.
 * 6) The obvious ‘evolutionary’ explanation for religious belief is that believers, on average, are happier, healthier, live longer and have more children (all well documented in many studies). Dawkins does not even consider this hypothesis, let alone look at the evidence.


 * 1) The texts themsleves also make it excruciatingly clear that "leaving" (or, for that matter, not joining in the first place) will result in eternal damnation and punishment. Some Western societies (e.g. parts of the US and almost all of Italy), not t mention the Eatern ones, make it exquisitly clear that becoming an atheist will result in ostracism, explicit juridical and political discrimination of varios kinds and generally being treates as if you are a socially contagious species of bacterium. Fact is, if any one of my relatives here in Italy ever found out that I were an atheist, the results would be devastating for all involved. I would be considered a freak and/or satanically possesed, with the result that people wouild be preaching at me and attempting to brainwash me 24/7. I would end up having to physically hurt one of them and that would very sad indeed. This is an important point. Thanks for pointing it out to me!! I now realize the extraodrinay value of a book like Dawkins on atheism that is aimed not at philosophers and intellectualls but at the intelliegent but intimiated secular lay audience "locked in the closet". Judging by the sales, there are a great many people who needed a book like this to help them develop their self-confidence and defend themselves against the pushers of holy hogwash.

2) He uses the most common definition that follows from the three great Western monotheistic religions that he is attacking.And, in can case, this is common pratice. When Daniel Deneett writes a book about intentionality, it is HIS deifntion of intentionality that is relevant and discussed in the book. He does not discuss Searles0s notion of intentionality. Contrarily, Searte ALWAYS defines consciousness in his favored terms before discussing it. He does not adopt Denett's defintion or Chalmer's defintion or Fodor's non-definition. This is because there are simply too many and the concepts are extremely vague, but one has to start somewhere. 3) No one who writes a book on consciosness is require to engage every single writer who has ever touched on the topic. The same applies to the existence of god. 4) So what? Dawkin's book is not perfect. Gee wizzzz!! 5) This is true. He should have enaged the traditional arguments somwhat more thorouhgly and not dismissed them as "silly". But, then, he's writing for a popualar audience which will not have much undertanding or interest in the Ph.D. level technical vocabulary and logico-mathemaical argumentation of Platinga and other a professional analytic sophists.....err, um... philosophers who write exclusively for analytic philosophers. All of this is mostly  beside the point. 6) On the last point, the evidence is certainly disputable. I'm not going to defend Dawkins here, because I tend to reject what Jerry Fodor calls "pop Darwinism" in any case. I don't buy evolutionary explanations for religion. It is purely the product of social psychological needs for father figures, fear of death and so on. Freud had it about right.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. To respond briefly:(1)well maybe that's who's buying the book - I really doubt it. Almost all the reviewers think he's preaching to his fans. (2) To agrue against a view with integrity you should use a definition from a leading Proponent. What would you say to a book that defined Atheism as "a prejudice against God"? (3) He doesn't engage with any good scientist who believes in God - even the ones he knows about and mentions. (4)A bit dishonest to mention the two great evolutionists who disagee? (6)Are there any studies that go the other way? And why doesn't he dispute the evidence, rather than trying to hide it? NBeale 18:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You missed the most important point: the fact that

 anyone  in the US is buying the book is an important revelation of the enormous number of people out there who HAVE NOT been successfully brainwashed by fundies and others, but who feel  closeted  and isolated because of the overwhelming social pressure to conform to the dominant theocratic culture. The book is valuable because it takes on the most sacred of all sacred cows in the history of the planet, giving others the courage to follow and speak out more forcefully. Period. 2) The Stanford Ency of Phil, when discussin the arguments for and againt the existence of god, uses a definition very similar to Dawkins "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenelovent being worhty of worship, etc.." In sum, a personal deity.

The term “God” is used with a wide variety of different meanings. These tend to fall, however, into two main groups. On the one hand, there are metaphysical interpretations of the term: God is a prime mover, or a first cause, or a necessary being that has its necessity of itself, or the ground of being, or a being whose essence is identical with its existence. Or God is not one being among other beings -- even a supremely great being -- but, instead, being itself. Or God is an ultimate reality to which no concepts truly apply.

On the other hand, there are interpretations that connect up in a clear and relatively straightforward way with religious attitudes, such as those of worship, and with very important human desires, such as the desire that, at least in the end, good will triumph, and justice be done, and the desire that the world not be one where death marks the end of the individual's existence, and where, ultimately, all conscious existence has ceased to be.

What properties must something have if it is to be an appropriate object of worship, and if it is to provide reason for thinking that there is a reasonable chance that the fundamental human hopes just mentioned will be fulfilled? A natural answer is that God must be a person, and who, at the very least, is very powerful, very knowledgeable, and morally very good.

They don't take sides on the arguments. 3-6) The rest are just intersting quibbles with which I agree. The book is not an academic tour de force. But that's not what it is supposed to be!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop_hand.png|30px|Stop]] Enough of this. This entire section is irrelevant to improvement of the article.  Read WP:NOT.  This is not the place for a debate on the merits of the book.  I'm sure you can find a board or newsgroup to discuss your issues.  *Spark*  21:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


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


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

The 747 Gambit
Even by Dawkins standards this is a terrible argument. The standard form of argument for hypothesis H1 vs H2 is to observe a fact X and note that p(X|H1)>>p(X|H2). So the argument from fine tuning (say) is that p(Anthropic Universe|God)>>p(Anthropic Universe|No God). Now if Dawkins stopped handwaving about "statistical improbability" (whatever he thinks that means) and tried to formulate his argument as p(X|Y) he would see that it doesn't hold water for a second. Of course p(God|No God)=0 which is less than p(X|No God) but that begs the question. What Dawkins seems to be trying to say, in his quaint non-numerate way, is that if D designed X then, for any B, p(D|B)<p(X|B) (justifying it perhaps by wooly appeals to "complexity"). But this is obviously untrue. Consider an artist D who designs n paintings x1..xn, all but one of which are destroyed at random. Then p(x1|B) = 1/n but p(D|B) =1. I accept at the moment that this counts as WP:OR but it's only a short matter of time before someone publishes this elementary refutation. To prepare the ground for this, does any Dawkins supporter have a better formulation of the "argument", preferably from a notable source, or a suggested counter to the refutation? And in the meantime shouldn't we soft pedal on his ludicrous assertion about theologians. Dawkins must have heard for Bernard Silverman! NBeale 23:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you're kidding. WP:NOT.   *Spark*  00:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are sure somebody will shortly publish 'this elementary refutation', why the hurry? If that's the case, you can afford to relax. EthicsGradient 10:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nbeale, you continue to break Wikipedia guidelines even when they are pointed out to you (see the stop sign above). Can you read what it says at the top of this page? It says This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Poujeaux 13:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC). [ If I am allowed a one line reply, p(Iraq war, malaria, mosquitoes, cancer | randomness + evolution) >> p(same things | kind loving omnipotent god). ]

Be that as it may (glad to discuss offline but as you say this isn't the place!) ... Thanks Spark for restoring the +ve reviews, which I didn't delete (and indeed I think I put some of them in originally). I hadn't noticed that they had gone because I was only looking at the 747 section. The reason I've adjusted the Dennett reference is that it reads as though we are getting a quote from Dennett but the ref was in fact a quote from Dawkins who then quotes Dennett. Since (as you know) I think the argument ridiculous the more Dawkins and Dennett tie themselves to it the better as far as I'm concerned, but since Dennett is writing 11 years before Dawkins offers this "gambit" to the world he might be writing about something else. NBeale 19:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)End of rant.

and not any agumnatatiomn THIS is why the books like this are so damned important!!

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

Criticism Section is POV
The section as it stands is all negative commentary on the book. That's hardly NPOV. I don't know that we need more than a simple link to external reviews. If there's going to be a criticism section it should be balanced. A well written section shouldn't just have a list of comments, but integrated text of commentary from all angles. I'm removing what's there as hopelessly POV. Spark* 22:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't that what Criticism is? I have tried to make it as much/little PoV as the main section, using words like "argues", "suggests" etc... And most of this section was not done by me BTW.  No reason why you shouldn't add a "Praise" section if you think it appropriate. But we are encouraged to improve, not delete. NBeale 23:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Deletion is improvement in this case. I'm not deleting it because it was done by you, I'm deleting it because it's POV.  It needs to be balanced.  As it stands it is hopelessly one sided.  It invites a clash and turns the section into a battleground.  As we have a "reviews" section, I'd ask why have an additional "Criticism Section"?  If it's going to be there it needs to be balanced.  Spark*  00:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Giving criticsm is not restricted to pointing out incompletness, errors in facts or flaws in logic. Criticism could and should, when applicable, also point out positive aspects of a work that has survived the process, so to speak. I believe that the section as it stands now fails to take this into consideration. EthicsGradient 11:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A "criticism" section should include both criticism and appreciation. The current section is totally unbalanced. Laurence Boyce 16:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, a criticism section should reflect prevalent reactions to the work. It would be POV for Wikipedia to present a 50/50 perspective when such a balance does not actually exist. Shoehorn 23:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's drop the Eagleton reference. Eagleton has roughly the same arguments as Cornwell, and Cornwell is a serious historian of religion. Maybe David Quinn, too; he's basically a pundit. --John Nagle 07:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section again. It isn't balanced and it clearly doesn't reflect prevalent reactions to the work. If you want to add it sandbox it until balanced. *Spark* 12:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is the work of numerous editors. Please learn to improve things rather than cutting them out. I've had a go at meeting your concerns, but I'm sure you can improve the section further, quoting from supportive reviewers. NBeale 14:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying to find a win-win solution to the dispute... It seems perfectly reasonable to have a section which gives some details of responses to the book. Given the subject matter of the book, it also seems perfectly reasonable to divide the list into (a) responses of religious people and (b) responses of non-religious people. What I don't like (and will shortly remove, if not beaten to it) is the further division of (b) into praise and hostile/equivocal. That smacks to me of sneakily suggesting that the hostile has the last laugh, because (a) it comes second and (b) it's longer! I am wondering - has any religious person said anything good about the book? If so, then I suspect the people (person?) adding material to this section is likely to omit to mention it... More seriously, I am also rather concerned that it is of course the case that a newly published controversial book will have attracted more brickbats than posies, more attack than support (opponents always shout louder and sooner than supporters). So whatever we do to try to keep it NPOV, it's almost bound to end up slanted towards those who disagree with the book. Another concern is one I have also voiced elsewhere - that anyone who picks a small hole in the book (e.g. Eagleton saying that Dawkins makes a bit of an error about Northern Ireland) is liable to find themselves enlisted in the Dawkins-bashing army, and by implication is presented as if they are saying that they disagree with the overall thrust of Dawkins' argument. Anyway, about that win-win solution... A combination of Swift's modest proposal and the judgment of Solomon, perhaps. I propose that the good people who disagree with Dawkins gather material ONLY for the section headed "Responses by religious nutcases reviewers" and the Dawkins acolytes rest of us add stuff ONLY to the section headed "Responses by non-religious reviewers". At least for the moment. Ah well, at least I tried! Snalwibma 15:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why such division makes it a battleground. NBeale's made the section worse.  He's done exactly what he was asked not to do.   A section on critical reaction is not a bulleted list of points, it should be an integrated text of balanced information.  See featured literary articles for examples of good composition.  He must be kidding with an entry like: "The Economist praised the book to the skies ("Everyone should read this book"). Polly Toynbee in The Guardian was equally fulsome."     *Spark*  15:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed I hadn't spotted that - but on reflection it does look rather malicious. The Guardian slur! You know, lefties and atheists read the Guardian, so we don't need to take any notice of what it says. Why, if the Guardian says it's good, it must in fact be bad! (who, me, paranoid?) Snalwibma 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Snalwibma has offered a pretty good way forward. My main concern was to build rather than delete, and I see the point about the classification. However some of the responses by non-religious reviewers are very hostile so unless we can find some non-religious anti-Dawkins editors it may be difficult for strong supporters of Dawkins to give a fair summary of what Eagleton etc.. says. Let's work together and see what happens. NBeale 15:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh dear - I didn't mean to gain the approval of NBeale! Seriously, though... I have just (wonder of wonders!) checked a source, and have actually read the review by Marek Kohn in the Independent. My conclusion? That the way this review is represented in the Wikipedia article is so utterly distorted that it should be deleted at once. And probably the whole section. Marek Kohn is in fact enthusiastic about the book, but (as all reviewers do) makes one or two points about issues where Dawkins may have got it wrong. To pick out only those phrases from what he says and pass it off as a negative review is a serious misrepresentation. Snalwibma 17:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, but by all means add the things in the Kohn review that you think make it +ve. The article merely says he's a non-religious reviewer. NBeale 21:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * After the recent change dividing up two lists of religious and non-religious (dominantly negative) responses to TGD, the Criticism-section seem even more POV. It seems that mentioning The Economist's favorable review in the passing and then going on to systematically and at some lenght list negative opinions by category goes out of its way to hack away on the book. This is not suitable for Wikipedia at all. EthicsGradient 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As is, it's simple an expansion of the reviews section, I see no reason for it. The Brown "review" isn't a review at all, it's a comment on one statement in the book.  There is a review behind the reference, but the text in this article focuses on that one point. The John Cornwell section can be trimmed to state he notes a lack of religious references.   Either way, it shouldn't be a bulleted list.  There's fourteen reviews in the "Reviews" section.  Why did only the negative ones make it into the "Criticism" section?
 * This addition by NBeale is nothing short of ridiculous: "Critical reaction to this book has been mixed. Christian reviewers have been highly critical, and some atheists have praised the book to the skies ("everyone should read this book" - The Economist). Other reviewers, whilst not themselves religious, have been equivocal or hostile." . That last part was changed to "or in some cases unimpressed", which is still ridiculous.  *Spark*  18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well maybe we can agree on this: some reviews are positive, some negative and some mixed. Let's try to classify all 14 reviews and then summarise each, using quotes from the actual reviews, with the understanding that the Pro-Dawkins editors get the +ves, the Antis get the -ves, and that we each try to do the mixed. Of the reviews I would classify them as:
 * +ve:Bakewell, Economist, Myers, Tickell
 * -ve:Eagleton, Brown, Midgley, Malik, McGrath, Cornwell
 * mixed: Krauss, Kohn, Lin,
 * Don't know about Nagel, it's Subs only (but i guess it's -ve if it's new Republic) What do people think? NBeale 21:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the section is hopeless and needs to be removed completely. There's no reason to summarize 14 reviews.  There are links to the reviews, readers can read them.   Your opening statement in the criticism section is a divisive overgeneralization ("some christians hated it, some atheists loved it, everyone else was mixed") that is not in the least encyclopedic or even meaningful.  Please read what featured literary articles have done with balanced criticism sections.   *Spark*  00:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well User:FeloniousMonk seems to be satisfied with his version of the sentence. Let's work with that, try to be constructive and make a better section rather than scattering "ridiculous", "hopeless" etc.. (PS I've corrected format and double-class of Lin in my suggested classification above) NBeale 06:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because someone doesn't delete text immediately doesn't mean they agree with it. Can you please refrain from preaching (word used intentionally)?  You're someone pushing POV, hard. Putting a statement like "other reviewers...equivocal or hostile" is so far off the mark both factually and for an encyclopedic text that "ridiculous" clearly applies.   I suggest you do a little reading on proper article composition in WP. WP:NPOV for one, particularly the "undue weight" section, as well as articles from Featured_articles for good examples.  And then, as previously requested and standard practice for an article that generates controversy, discuss in talk before adding something.  *Spark*  11:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If a v experienced user like User:Feloniousmonk edits a short sentence I think we can take it that he is happy with the sentence that results. I really must ask you to stop deleting things you don't agree with and start making some constructive contributions and improvements. You have already done two reverts on this article please don't do a third. I'm sure you have something positive to contribute. NBeale 15:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the lead paragraph to this section because it is pointless and contains detail which is more suited to the following paragraphs. I hope this shows how, by removing detail, an article can be improved. Please don't mindlessly revert. Yours etc --KaptKos 16:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Misrepresenting Reviews
The Brown "review" entry in the article talks about one item in the book (suicide bombing), but that's not the main focus of Brown's review if you read the reference. It is not representative of the review in the least, which is mainly about persistence of religion.

The Cornwell text here is a total misrepresentation. Cornwell does not say "religious reading", he says "philosophy of religion [citations] ". The statement "Cornwell argues that, ... his bibliography cites numerous sources for evolutionary theory" is a complete falsehood. Cornwell says no such thing.

The division of reviews between "religious" and "others" is a disruptive one. Are the people who reviewed it positively not religious? Do we have information regarding their religious beliefs? Cited?

What makes these particular reviews more notable than other reviews linked? I'll repeat that I believe this section as is doesn't belong in the article at all. *Spark* 13:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the religious/non-religious reviewers distinction is wrong, for many of the reasons you cite. I think the correct classifications are: highly positive, highly negative, and mixed. I'd suggest that we work together to improve the article so that eventually each of the reviews is represented, at which point some groupings by theme will emerge.  This will allow the reader to get a NPoV idea of what the various critics are saying, without having to read all 14 reviews themselves. We might also want to limit ourselves to reviewers with Wikipedia articles, and to avoid describing who they are any further - users can click if they want to. NBeale 14:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please remember not to edit another editor's entries on a talk page. Regarding your +/- classifications, that would be clearly POV and potentially WP:OR.   *Spark*  15:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Representing Reviews
I see what you mean about +/-/= possibly being OR (though I would have thought it pretty easy to reach consensus) So I suggest: 1. We have 3 categories: 2. Each review is summarised in the form X, writing in Y, says "A", "B" and "C" but also "D", "E" and "F", with all of these being direct quotes from the review. NBeale 19:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Established Authoritative Journals (eg Nature, New Scientist, The Economist, Prospect)
 * National newspapers
 * Other reviews by notable reviewers


 * I'm failing to see how Prospect can be considered an Established Authoritative Journal. The other three are known worldwide.  Prospect is an opinion magazine with a fraction of any of their circulation numbers.   See how this becomes POV again?   I'm not certain how many ways this can be explained.  If people want to read a series of direct quotes from each review, they can go read the reviews.   *Spark*  19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Come on - be bold is the principle. If we act like this anything which is not a quote is PoV and anything which is "they can go and read [the original]s." But some of these require subscriptions, and the point of Wikipedia is to summarise verifiable facts. Was this the Prospect that voted him "top British intellectual" BTW :-) We can legitimately exercise editorial judgement. How about:
 * * Notable magazines (suggested order: Nature, Economist, New Scientist, LRB, Prospect, NR, Harvard Crimson
 * * Notable newspapers
 * * other reviews by Notable reviewers NBeale 22:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I've had a first cut at this. But not time yet to summarise all the other reviews. Other Editors might want a go. NBeale 16:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The new arrrangement of reviews looks good. Thanks. --John Nagle 18:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section
Are there any responses from Dawkins or other notable people regarding the specific examples of criticism noted? It seems a bit one-sided to just let each criticism stand without any counter-point from Dawkins or anyone. This may be the fault of Dawkins if he hasn't responded; I'm not sure. Does anyone know if he has replied to any of these critics? -Neural 14:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section has now been renamed to 'Response' by an anonymous user. It seemed to me that we agreed that criticism could include both postive and negative feedback. I would support reverting it to 'Criticism', because criticism implies a more rigourous process than responses. And there has been some work done trying to pick the most important and thorough critics, right? Besides, a lot of other books have criticism-sections rather than response-sections. We shouldn't treat TGD any differently. Any views on this? EthicsGradient 10:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was confused by the structure, having 'response' summarising the reviews and then 'reviews' with the web links. So I have labeled the section as just 'reviews', which is what it contains. I think 'criticism' would be a bit misleading because many of the reviews are quite positive (and 'criticism' in common usage is negative). Poujeaux 14:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of the feedback is indeed positive, but it could (and I think should) still be labelled 'Criticism'. See my views above and also the discussion concerning the Criticism and POV section. As long there is a balance in the section that reflects the 'real-world' prevalence of negative and positive critique, I'm happy. Anyway, welcome to TGD article. EthicsGradient 15:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the response/criticism section ('Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton...') appears quite long compared to all the other paragraphs. I suggest we cut it down to 3-4 lines, and will do so unless anyone else can think of good reasons not to. EthicsGradient 12:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, excellent, could you try to do something about the paragraph summarising Andrew Brown, it is quite a mess. I will move the last sentence a bit forward as it is about atheism violence, but then still the objection to free speech needs copy-editing and my English is very weak. --Merzul 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've actually slightly expanded the section on Eagleton - this is a very elaborate and important review by one of the most important literary crtics/theorists of the past generation, and I think it is important to convey what he actually argues. Metamagician3000 13:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Though the detail on this one review is starting to get over the top by now. Metamagician3000 10:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just pruned it back a bit. Seems to me that quoting Eagleton is fine, but going on to say how others (McGrath, yet again! Has the man nothing better to do than criticise Dawkins?) picked up Eagleton's bons mots is a step too far. Snalwibma 10:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, makes ssnse. Metamagician3000 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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


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

Redundant sections
The section "Chapters" seems extraordinarily redundant, given the "Synopsis" section which immediately preceded it. I suppose the titles could be seen as new content, a phrase to summarize the material in the Synopsis section, but then why isn't it there, or even before that section? So I propose to splice the titles into the text of the Synopsis section.

Now these epigraphs. I am not sure how they contribute to this article, other than snarky pushing of Dawkins' POV. Could anyone provide a reason to keep them? Baccyak4H 20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I think you were right to remove them; they were a relic from an earlier stage. I don't much like that Douglas Adams quote either. Or rather I do like it, but I'm not sure we should be quoting Adams at length in a Dawkins article even if it was one of his favourite quotes. But I think others may disagree. Laurence Boyce 21:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the step of removing the epigraphs was quite bold, so I left the source but just commented it out for convenience. Although it seemed obvious to me that they didn't belong.


 * RE the Adams quote. Someone above stated that Dawkings felt he could not express his sentiment better than Adams did, or something similar. If we can verify this, I think the quote should stay (although see no need to source Dawkins' reason for including it in the article proper, and perhaps it could be moved elsewhere...).  If not, I am not sure, but lean for removing, as the article content which it supports ("He maintains that religion is given a privileged immunity against criticism which it does not deserve") is pretty clear.  Not sure I'd take it upon myself to delete or revert back in either case though.  Baccyak4H 03:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I vote to remove the Adams quote. The quote is (for me) a memorable part of the book and does make Dawkins' point in an informal, funny way--but seems out of place here. The "privileged immunity" sentence says the same thing well, and with more compression. --Barte 02:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "If we can verify this, I think the quote should stay". It's on page 20, under "Undeserved Respect".  --John Nagle 17:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Current state of the article (end of November 2006)
Let's take a look at what this article looks like so far. Reading the above talk, I'm quite impressed at the compromise that has been reached. So I wonder what people think about the current state. In particular, please comment on neutrality, but I also have some questions about things to do: Again, I'm mainly asking for opinions about neutrality. Much has changed since this was last discussed. --Merzul 02:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anybody dare summarize the reception of the book? The reviews section lacks a lead paragraph. :)
 * The general intro of the article should probably be expanded, maybe place this book in the context of 2006 atheist bestsellers.
 * Is everybody happy with the current reviews section? Maybe one or two positive reviews could be added: the last subsection only has a notable Christian commentator.
 * Is the current structure fair? The synopsis only summarizes the book's arguments, so is a separate criticism section needed (in addition to the reviews) to balance it?


 * This might be a sign of boundless naïvety, but the article now seems reasonably neutral to me. Granted, there is an overweight of negative responses, but this probably reflects the intitial reception of the book. As for a separate criticsm-section, it might turn the article into a battleground. At the very least, that would inflate the article which to me seems attractive in its terseness. The points you list above are good, and I will contribute as time allows. --EthicsGradient 12:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I dislike the structure of the current reviews section. I cannot offer a better format at the moment.  Previously some of the reviews were misrepresented, but I haven't read and checked them all, so I don't know if that's still the case.   A few more positives wouldn't hurt.  Considering the sales of the book I find it difficult to believe its general reception has not been a positive one.  *Spark*  12:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's possible. Just as a badly reviewed movie can still achieve strong box office. And here, beginning even with the title, prevailing sensibilities have been offended.--Barte 13:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The only section with a clear bias is the notable commentator section. But we should probably write down the assessment of the reviews, I will create a section here in the talk for it here... --Merzul 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)