Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argument from love (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep . The argument that this was a WP:SYNTH violation was a strong one, and the vague hand waving at Google results was a rather weak response. However, it seems in the end that it is possible to rectify the issues with original research and synthesis, so let's call it "keep but remove all original research." Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Argument from love
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Essay masquerading as an article. The titular subject is synthesis from disparate primary sources. The previous AfD dates back to a more innocent period in WP's history when simply having a good number of references was sufficient to justify an article not being OR. See also Articles for deletion/Argument from beauty (2nd nomination). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination makes a claim of synthesis without detailing the supposed synthetic proposition. The article has sources and it is not difficult to find more such as this.  The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely different argument for life after death: God love's you, so he wouldn't let you vanish, therefore, life continues after death. It has nothing to do with this argument here. Vesal (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's a different argument which that source has in a separate section as The Argument from God's Love. Warden (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you link to page 251, and that's certainly an argument for immortality. Could you tell me on which page the argument for God's existence is? Vesal (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See below. Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. This is not an argument considered in contemporary philosophy of religion. It may be used in amateur apologetics, and most likely, Richard Dawkins ridiculed it in his book The God Delusion, which is probably the only reason this article exists... Still, I looked at most sources cited here, and none was explicitly and directly about an argument for the existence of God, so it's very much a WP:SYNT creation. I will change my mind, though, if at least the logical form of the argument can be explicitly attributed to some philosopher or even apologist. Vesal (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This was all debated in 2007 and nothing has changed to make the article less viable. Indeed the fact that it has been in WP for 5 years is pretty strong prima facie evidence against deletion.  (On checking I find that this was an article I initially created, back in 2006, but many others have worked on the article since. I'm basically on a WikiBreak so probably won't be able to respond to messages I'm afraid). NBeale (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic of the article does not make sense. There could unlimited things like "argument from X", where the X could anything from love, caring, presence of trees, sun etc. Such articles contribute nothing, they are just for the sake of illogical arguments. I propose nominations of Argument from a proper basis, Argument from desire, Argument from degree as well for deletion. Abhishikt (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually there are quite a lot of Arguments from X to the existence of God. It's been a subject that has been thoroughly debated for some several thousand years, after all.  In many ways, our sad bullet-pointed existence of God article doesn't do them justice.  That a wide range of such arguments have been made is not a problem.  Indeed, quite the converse:  every one that has been discussed an analysed by philosophers and others can have a valid place in an encyclopaedia (and indeed already have in several other encyclopaedias, which we aim to at least equal) whether it's valid or not.  It is the arguments that have not been made by philosophers and that are made up directly by Wikipedia editors that are the problem. Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden points to Google search results. It was actually that, not that the current article is valid, that convinced the nominator to withdraw in the prior AFD discussion.  Colonel Warden points out that the article has sources.  It has some sources.  Notice that quite a lot of the notes are not statements that a source supports something in the article.  Moreover, it has sources for some of its parts, often only tangentially related, but not for the overarching concept itself. The problem with just waving in the general direction of Google search results is that there are many "arguments from love" in the literature.  The important thing to consider, which the Google wavers have not, is what those arguments from love are to.  There's an argument from love to immortality originating with Gabriel Marcel.  There's an argument from love to trinitarianism (and rejecting unitarianism) put forward by Sts Bonaventure and Augustine.  Neither of those arguments are this argument, which is to the existence of God.  After five years of asking, Nicholas Beale has yet to name who it is that propounds this argument. Don't believe the "other people have edited it so it must be true" argument, by the way.  Ironically,  has been to challenge material in this article.  There's reams of discussion on the talk page, and I'm sad to report that it boils down to the challengers getting tired of repeating the same question &mdash; Where in the literature is this argument propounded? &mdash; to which there has been zero response in five years, and editors getting distracted by ideas that only editors with a certain point of view may edit the article and Wikipedia editors themselves trying to determine whether the argument is valid. I have a few more things to check before coming to a final conclusion, but at the moment I'm with Vesal.  This argument &mdash; not something with this string of words as a title that a Google books search can turn up but this actual argument with the conclusion given &mdash; doesn't exist in the literature, and the only person propounding it is a Wikipedia editor, in violation of the No original research policy. Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I asked a lot of questions on the talk page, and nominated the article for deletion, several years ago. Eventually I backed off, deciding I was clearly not qualified to comment, as I was a mere mortal and did not understand the exalted matters discussed by the author in this essay masquerading as a Wikipedia article. I have had another read of the article. Time has not improved it. It is still an essay expressing (mostly) one editor's opinion and marshalling all sorts of passing references retrieved from Google that happen to use the words in the article's title, or something like them, to imply support of a particular point of view. It is not an encyclopaedia article describing/explaining something that has any solid existence out there in the world. Where is the thing out there called the "argument from love"? Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, not a platform for bloggish musings. Get rid of this sorry mess. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable. ref-ed. style issues can be addressed. Greg Bard (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the original research issues, which you don't even address? Or are you saying that you've finally answered the five-year-old question against this article: Where in the literature is this argument propounded?  You imply that you've actually checked out the sources.  So tell us:  Where in the literature is this argument propounded?  And by whom?  You should be able to say, now that you've checked out the sources and come to the above conclusion.  Uncle G (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See, for example, Global philosophy of religion which discusses the "argument from love to God's existence" over several pages with a specific section heading like the title of this article. That was published in 2001 and so the topic is not original to Wikipedia.  Warden (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete For the love of respect, tolerance, attachment, passion, rose tinted glasses, and all that is truly love, because it is unencyclopedic content, because it is non-notable, and because it is empirically observable to be a pleasant pipedream posing as logic. Love is a function of our minds, and each are the better for this. Every word of the first and primary premise of this argument, that science is unable to account for love, was written before brain imaging technology. Anarchangel (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are arguing that the argument is invalid, which has nothing to do with its notability. Notable arguments can be valid or invalid. -- 202.124.72.1 (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Disagreeing with the content of an article is not a valid argument for deleting it. (And FWIW brain imaging makes no difference to the argument at all, but this is irrelevant to the AfD) NBeale (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Beale, we haven't found people who argue like this in the literature. The philosophical alternative to theistic explanations are naturalistic explanations, so the "plausibility of theism by comparison with materialism" is entirely irrelevant. If you defeat materialism, the plausibility of pastafarianism by comparison with materialism is also increased, but that doesn't make it a valid argument for the flying spaghetti monster. Do you have sources for this specific form of the argument? Vesal (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have little difficulty finding this line of argument in published works such as Christian apologetics. The "specific form" issue is a weak criticism because we are not dealing with a mathematical proof here.  Apologetics may be weak logically but that doesn't stop them being used and that is the basis of their notability. Warden (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely critical that this article presents the arguments exactly as they occur in the sources you have found. From my brief look at the "global philosophy of religion", it does not argue versus materialism but versus naturalism, so this strange way of formalizing the argument is original to Wikipedia. So will you commit any effort to actually make this article reflect the sources you've found, or will this article remain in this miserable state after the inevitable "no consensus" closure? Vesal (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment There is meaningful referenced material here, however, much care is required. If the article follows standard scholarship, then it ought to be possible to elucidate that "there is a long-standing contention that having a belief in G-d leads and has lead to consideration of love as a worthwhile human attribute". However, if the article continues to provide a putative argument that "humans have love, therefore this is an undeniable proof that G-d exists" that would be OR and not suitable encyclopedic material. Which is it to be? NewbyG  ( talk) 18:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I see that I have quite likely got it wrong here. I will try again. Whatever cogent case can be sustained from the reliable sources is fine : either (A) or (B) or (Z). IMHO wrong style is to present any putative argument in Wikipedia's voice; also the satisfaction (nevertheless) of WP:NPOV is not best served by a sports contest type of exposition, for and against; Oh best of luck. NewbyG  ( talk) 19:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Appears to be a somewhat convoluted case of synthesis involving primary sources that make this "argument". eldamorie (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable. The argument appears in the writings of Alvin Plantinga, Runzo's Global Philosophy of Religion: A short introduction (as noted above), and a number of other ancient and modern books on religion. The article may need cleanup, but not deletion. -- 202.124.75.159 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment/query – I think the key question is, where is the primary location of the "argument from love"? Is it out there in the outside world, or is this Wikipedia article itself the primary source? If the argument "appears in the writings of" various people, the article needs to show exactly where and how it does so, and how it is precisely this argument that appears there. At present the article proposes an argument for belief in a god, and it makes various nods in the direction of other people whom it claims support the argument being made: for example, there is a footnote that says "The Old Testament speaks repeatedly of God's love ...", and another that says "This type of argument was made by Alvin Plantinga in God and Other Minds." The problem here (and throughout the article) is that the primary location of the "argument from love" is this WP article itself, with others brought in to support the WP editor's opinions. The article completely fails to show how those other sources are the primary source of the "argument from love". This seems in fact to be recognised by those saying "keep", who all acknowledge that the article needs editing or rewriting. If it is kept, it is incumbent on those people to rewrite it so that it works as a Wikipedia article – a tertiary source – and that it is no longer merely an essay expressing its own opinions. The fact that this issue was raised (by me) over five years ago, and that in the intervening time nothing has been done to address it, makes me suspect that in fact the "argument from love" does not exist as a notable argument out there in the non-Wikipedia world. Can any of those saying "keep" demonstrate clearly that I am wrong? Thanks. SNALWIBMA ( talk - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 08:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AfD is not cleanup, but a decision on notability. Plenty of sources exist to permit a rewrite to an excellent article. -- 202.124.73.190 (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you and others keep saying! But where are those sources, what do they say, and why has nobody, in five years, done the necessary rewrite? I suspect it's because the sources do not in fact use this particular argument. Please prove (not just assert, prove) me wrong! <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 11:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Several sources are given above. If you read them, you would see they use the argument. -- 202.124.72.200 (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So why (I repeat) in five years, has no one been able to edit the article to show the existence of the argument in those sources? You are merely waving your hand in the direction of some alleged sources, but doing nothing to show how those sources use this argument. That's exactly what the article does, and it leads me to the conclusion I have stated above. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 14:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because AfD debates distract editors from writing articles, perhaps? -- 202.124.74.86 (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - There seem to be more than enough sources to establish notability. As well as what has been provided already, I have found, and . Cleanup is certainly needed; not deletion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - So you're proposing that the article should cover a whole range of disparate things that have been described as an "argument from love", as opposed to specifically an argument for the existence of god called the "argument from love"? The first of the three sources you mention is an argument for immortality; the second seems to be some sort of circular discussion starting with the assertion "god is love", and as far as I can tell it's an argument for the trinity, as opposed to god as such (god is taken as a given); and the third is altogether different - an "argument from love and justice" concerning well-ordered societies and a sense of justice (though it's not clear from what is freely available online what exactly it's about). But we don't write a Wikipedia article about a phrase that has been used in different contexts to refer to different things, just because different authors, discussing different things, happen to have used the same words. That is indeed synthesis. A Wikipedia article should be about a concept, not a coincidence of words. Where (I ask again) is the "argument from love ... for the existence of God, as against materialism and reductionist forms of physicalism", as stated in the first line of the Wikipedia article under discussion? Apart from in this Wikipedia article, where does it exist? Who has proposed it? Where? When? What have other people said about it? How has it been developed/commented on/criticised/etc? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 17:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The simplest summary of the argument, such as it is, is by Peter Kreeft here: "Love is the greatest of miracles. How could an evolved ape create the noble idea of self-giving love? Human love is a result of our being made to resemble God (Gen 1:26-27; James 3:0), who himself is love (1 Jn 4:8). If we are made in the image of King Kong rather than in the image of King God, where do the saints come from?" The same argument has been made by others, as noted above, and various people have criticised it. -- 202.124.74.142 (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Plantinga's very similar version of the argument was presented in his paper “Two Dozen [or so] Theistic Arguments,” delivered at the 33rd Annual Philosophy Conference, Wheaton College, 23-25 Oct. 1986; and republished as an appendix to: Deane-Peter Baker (2007), Alvin Plantinga, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521855314. -- 202.124.72.227 (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And Plantinga is in turn criticised in Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin, Temple University Press, 1992, ISBN 0877229430, page 50. -- 202.124.75.220 (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The argument also gets a filmic treatment in The Decalogue #1 -- see Yvonne Tasker, Fifty contemporary filmmakers, Routledge, 2002, ISBN 0415189748, page 216. -- 202.124.75.220 (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Okay, I'm wondering what to make of this. We have, indeed, a couple of sources arguing from love to God's existence in various ways. (Thank you, 202.124, for searching and adding these to the article.) I'm still skeptical. Just note how absent this argument is from any philosophical reference work, such as SEP and REP, and not a single hit on Oxford Reference Online, whereas the argument from design occurs in 6 or so dictionaries/companions on that site. There are loads of textbooks on the philosophy of religion, and only one rather obscure one seems to mention this argument at any length. Nevertheless, I don't see any serious harm if this article is kept as long as all the synthesis and original research is aggressively removed from the article. If only material that closely follow the sources are included, the current article would look like this. Given that "plenty of sources exist", there is no need to rely on original research. Vesal (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work, Vesal. Looking at your version of the article, I'd delete the "further reading" section as well. Those books have no clear relationship to the topic of the article. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 10:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that some serious cutting was needed, so good job! However the Dawkins "Argument from emotional blackmail" comment should go (it's a response to something else), while comments about scientific explanations for love are indeed relevant and should perhaps stay. -- 202.124.74.54 (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.