Talk:The God Delusion

See also

DVdm, there is no reason for this article to link to Atheism: The Case Against God or The Future of an Illusion. Neither book has anything to do with The God Delusion: Dawkins does not quote them in his text, or list them in his bibliography. The purpose of a see also section is not to provide links to every article about a similar topic - which would be confusing and unmanageable - simply to provide a short list of especially relevant links. If readers happen to be interested in other books arguing for atheism, then the appropriate way to direct them to those articles is through categories. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree if there were no articles about the books, but there are. And see also MOS:SEEALSO, which is "A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles." I think these are indeed related Wikipedia articles. - DVdm (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong, they aren't. As I just explained, Dawkins does not cite or refer to either Smith's book or Freud's. That is why linking the books together through categories is appropriate, rather than placing items in "see also" sections on the grounds that they have some kind of extremely general resemblance to Dawkins' book. Your comment that you would agree with me "if there were no articles about the books" makes no sense whatever. It is only because there are articles about the books that they can be placed within categories. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that a link should not be in see also unless the work described in the article refers to the linked item? That view does not seem to be supported by WP:SEEALSO which includes "might be only indirectly related to the topic" and "should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic". There is no relevant rule other than what WP:SEEALSO says about editorial judgment and common sense. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if Dawkins would have referred to the books, that could be mentioned in the article, and the books referred to by wp:wikilink. As this is not the case, the only place to mention them, is, by design, in the See also section. - DVdm (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, WP:ALSO states that, 'The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.' So obviously links to loosely connected subjects are permitted. That does not mean that they are obligatory, however. Whether to include them or not is ultimately an editorial decision. Although the issue isn't of crucial importance, I would not myself include either the link to Smith's book or Freud's here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, but it looks like there is no consensus to remove them, "which normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." - DVdm (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Straw man for a Straw man argument (follow?)

Dawkins is accused of attacking the straw man. The author of the source is Terry Eagleton and here is quote on quote what it says: "Dawkins, it appears, has sometimes been told by theologians that he sets up straw men only to bowl them over, a charge he rebuts in this book; but if The God Delusion is anything to go by, they are absolutely right". Interestingly, the article says this: "Terry Eagleton criticised Richard Dawkins for not doing proper research into the topic of his work, religion, and setting up a straw man to make his arguments against theism valid". The entire book is aimed at arguing against theists. Therefore if it is "made valid" then it cannot be straw man argument. The party guilty of committing this fallacy is the critic here. The proposer asserts "God exists" and Dawkins publishes a book whereby he admits it is impossible to prove outright the existence of a superior being, but it is nonetheless unlikely on various principles. As such, neither the book nor atheism in general posits that there is no god. By stating that theists have not met their burden of proof, this is an unchallengeable fact. Given atheism by its very nature exists as a response to a suggestion that God exists in the first place (i.e. God exists, no he doesn't, that's not theistic, therefore it is atheistic), the only arguer able to make a straw man argument is the one proposing, in this case he who implies there is a god. The sceptic challenges the proposer to prove it, and when the proposer fails to do so on a sound basis, the result is books such as The God Delusion. Now given also that the alleged "straw man" arguments have not been cited in Eagleton's book, only "I agree with the theists", then we do not know a single proposal, nor that proposal's defence/detraction which is what would commit the straw man fallacy. To say that Dawkins somehow "misrepresents" theists in general is a profound absurdity and illustrates that the commentator is not familiar with the book. I believe on this note that it should be changed to "Eagleton agrees with theists that Dawkins regularly commits a straw man fallacy, but concedes that Dawkins refutes this". --Coldtrack (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The current text is straightforward and does not have weasel words such as "concedes". I don't think a change is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know 'concede' was a weasel word. If that is a problem we can work a way around it. But apart from that, it most certainly isn't good the way it is and that was the reason I posted the above comment. --Coldtrack (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

"Concede" does not feature in WP:AWW yet is used unsparingly throughout the site. So it is not a weasel word. --Coldtrack (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

An obscure YouTube channel as a source

User:DVdm reverted my change, in which I removed a reference to a YouTube channel named "Lokesh Bhaskar", apparently some personal channel with 192 subscribers. I believe that using such sources in unacceptable. This must be such a clear violation of the basic rules, so I don't even see why my removal was disputed. I don't want to engage in a war of reverts, so I would appreciate if someone else would give a second opinion and act accordingly. Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It does not realy matter that the channel is obscure. It clearly shows Dawkins saying what our article writes that Dawkins says. There would be a problem if we would omit the part "According to Dawkins in a 2016 interview with Matt Dillahunty". And the interviewer seems sufficiently notable to have a surviving article here. I don't see any problem. - DVdm (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source (with some rare exceptions) for assertions of facts. It would not be acceptable to use what is known as "Wikipedia's voice" to write "the book was downloaded 3 million times". However, an interview where Dawkins says that it was downloaded 3 million times in Saudi Arabia is a perfect source for an attributed statement of WP:DUE information. The place to ask about sources is WP:RSN but please don't as there is no doubt about the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I would think that a YouTube channel of a reputable organization should be acceptable as a source. But some personal channel? Really? Possible copyright issues, possible alterations to the videos (how do you know, it is not a reputable source), just the fact that we effectively promote this channel. I still believe that it is not acceptable to use such a source. Retimuko (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, they are all possibilities but the basic rule at Wikipedia is to go for the big picture. Is anyone seriously doubting that Dawkins made the statement? Is anyone doubting it is WP:DUE? It would be a problem if there were a reason to think the video is a copyvio. At any rate, try WP:RSN if really concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure yet if this needs to be escalated, but I really don't like the idea of using such sources and promoting questionable channels seemingly violating copyright. How about a compromise? I think we can refer to more reputable sources to support this claim. How about Huffpost article and the same article on the Richard Dawkins Foundation site? Retimuko (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Check out this flow chart from WP:VIDEOLINK. In our case in question we end up on the red on the very first step. Retimuko (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Using the Huffpost article would require attributing the claim to its author, and that would be a doubtful source. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring the copyright issue that I pointed out? We must take such things very seriously. This Lokesh apparently just lifted a piece of footage from a copyrighted video, and we are referring to it as a source. This is not acceptable. I have done a little research, and here is what I found: This conversation between Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty was presented by Pangburn Philosophy, which has a YouTube channel, which is mentioned on their web site. The video in question (full conversation) is hosted there. Why don't we link to it at a particular time when Dawkins made this claim just like I did here. Retimuko (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please relax. Above I wrote "It would be a problem if there were a reason to think the video is a copyvio" so I'm not ignoring the issue. Your removal of the source said "not a reliable source" and that is not correct. Now the issue has shifted to copyright which is an area where I make no claim of expertise. There would be a place to enquire about that—I would give WP:C a quick scan but probably just asking at WP:RSN would find people who know about youtube and such matters. Johnuniq (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I proposed to replace the link with one to the original video, which must not have the copyright issue. How about that? Regarding "not a reliable source": I fail to see how can we trust materials from a personal channel. Any number of things can be wrong: time of the event, place of the event, just to name a few, the footage might have been edited somehow, and copyright violation among other things. Perhaps my edit summary might have been more elaborate, but in my view "not a reliable source" says it all. Anyway, how about using the original video instead? Retimuko (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good. If possible, please add some text to the reference giving the approximate start time where the comment is made. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Michael Ruse

The section on the book's reception could point out that Michael Ruse has said that it is books like this that make him ashamed to be an atheist (I have a feeling that I first read this in Wikipedia). Vorbee (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Critical reception section

Apart from the first paragraph which has no details, this whole section is devoted to negative appraisals of the book. Is this a fair representation of the critical response to the book. Ashmoo (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to say. As this list shows, responding books to TGD had become something of an industry, and their mention here has grown at times until editors trimmed the section back. Barte (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity when presenting information

The problem with articles such as "The God Delusion" is that they fail to present information objectively. They constantly address arguments such as "Intelligent Design" as pseudoscientific but opposing arguments like The Big Bang & Evolution are presented as though they are factual (Even though these still remain theories up to today). One must observe & present this information from an unbiased standpoint so that the reader may decide how to interpret this information for themselves & trust that they are not being subliminally influenced to think in a certain way. Wikipedia is a worldwide source of information & they should not be "tricked" into believing one side of the argument more than the other. Repent.The End is Near (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)