Talk:Divine Action and Modern Science

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge#External articles and readings|Theology]] The anchor (#External articles and readings) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Regarding these tags

Don't see how a list of reviews could not be helpful, unencyclopedic, or not notable. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then read WP:MOSBETTER and learn how to write an informative article. Summarise what the reviews have to say about the book -- don't just list them and quote them verbatim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which words does the tagger consider jargon? All the prhases and terms used are essential ideas in the book and can be found in its reviews. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Saunders calls the interface between a scientifically defined world and Divine Agency a causal joint which is the mechanism whereby God can act in the world" "Special Divine Action" "General Divine Action" -- they were after all individually tagged -- until you removed the tags. "All the prhases and terms are essential ideas in the book..." then explain these ideas in clear English. "...and can be found in its reviews" And reviews never use jargon? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry-list/quotefarm removed from article

Regurgitating lists/quotes from reviews is not in the least bit encyclopaedic (see WP:IINFO). If this material can be turned into encyclopaedic prose describing the topic then please do so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Edward L. Schoen. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, February 2005, volume 57, issue 1, pages 67–70.
Michael Epperson. The Journal of Religion, October 2004 volume 84, issue 4 p648(2).
Larry Chapp (DeSales University), Modern Theology, October 2004, volume 20, issue 4, p.613-615
David Atkinson, Words and works, Times Literary Supplement, January 9, 2004 issue 5258 p27(1).

"[Saunders] looks at the Near Eastern sources of biblical notions of divine action, and at various contemporary theological approaches. How does divine action occur, and what is the relationship between divine and finite causation? Are we talking about complementarity or something that is mutually exclusive? How often does special divine action occur[?] What effects does it achieve, and what is its purpose? Are we talking about God's being involved in quantum manipulation, or does he overrule the laws of nature? Saunders gives a cogent exposition and critique of a significant number of writers, ranging from those who subsume any special divine action into a concept of general divine activity, to those who see God's action in 'the fall of a sparrow.' ...After such a tightly argued book, with its most welcome ground-clearing exercise, Nicholas Saunders's conclusions are modest indeed. Can we continue to assert that God is active in the physical world? Yes, but much of the traditional account of God's activity, he believes, does not hold up against our modern understanding of science. In other words, he thinks that there is a great deal more work for the scientifically aware theologian to do."

Arthur Peacocke, The Journal of Theological Studies, October 2003 volume 54, issue 2, pages 869-873.
Religious Studies Review, Oct 2003 volume 29, page 353.
V.V.Raman (Rochester Institute of Technology) CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, Sept 2003, volume 41, issue 1 p169(1).

"Given the background of the author, there are more technical (even mathematical) discussions here than the reader might expect from a book with this title. Some technical physicists may cringe at the incorporation of quantum mechanical wave functions and Von Neumann's projection operator into theology and vice versa. But this approach may be necessary to keep certain discussions from going overboard in science-religion debates. Saunders' arguments are persuasive, and few will quarrel with his conclusion that 'we are still far from a satisfactory account of how God might act in a manner that is consonant with modern science.' Summing up: Recommended. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty."

Russell Stannard, Theology, July-August 2003, volume 106, Issue 832, pages 294-295.

[End of removed laundry-list/quotefarm material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC) ][reply]

coming here by accident, I consider that the presence of reviews is so important to the notability of a book, that where there are relatively few reviews, as for this and almost all academic books, every review should be listed. Sometimes the wording in a review in a RS gives the best explanation of what a book is about, and then there's nothing wrong with quoting it in the main article. But the quotes listed above are somewhat too long--good quoting removes the more rhetorical portions and keeps the central ones. I have therefore restored the review listing, without the quotes. Considering that CHOICE reviews are very selective, and sufficient in themselves to show notability, it was particularly inappropriate to remove that one. DGG (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. It is what reviews say about a topic that makes it notable, not their mere "presence". As it stands, the article would have difficulty withstanding a rename to 'List of reviews of Divine Action and Modern Science', as the list dominates the article. It is far better to summarise what a review says about the topic (as I have for the Atkinson review) than to simply list them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree that what they say may be relevant to the article, and can often usefully be worked into the article in some way--you will notice I restored the reviews, not the quotes. I agree that this, like most Wikipedia articles, could be expanded and improved. I continue to think it the consensus, that reviews show notability; for those who go by the GNG, it obviously applies if there are substantial reviews. I consider a list of reviews as basic information as references. It lets the reader judge how seriously the book is taken, and shows where to go for information about it. Eight seems reasonable; if there were 50, it would be appropriate to include only the major ones--judging by journal, author, & length, & whether the reviews themselves are discussed elsewhere. DGG (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"it obviously applies if there are substantial reviews" -- this is a matter of content of reviews, not mere presence -- which is precisely what I was arguing. I have no problem with a proportionate list of reviews being included in an article whose referenced-text includes "significant coverage" to establish notability. I do object to employing a disproportionate review list as the sole claim to notability. This is because simply stating 'X wrote book Y on subject Z. A, B, C & D reviewed it' is completely useless as an encyclopaedia article. I know you're a librarian by trade, but please keep in mind that WP is not a library catalogue or similar WP:DIRECTORY. It's primary purpose is to explicate the topic, not simply to tell the reader where such information can be found. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]