Talk:The God Delusion

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The God Delusion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 90 days

The God Delusion was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 8, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Atheism Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt-an-article.
Help out with this to-do list.

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references).
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly.
Always write for an encyclopedia.

Articles to improve

Agnosticism

Create

Articles on notable atheists

Expand

an atheism stub

Immediate attention

State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

Philosophy: Religion Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion

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)[reply]

Pigs could fly, but not on Wikipedia without a reliable source and care over undue weight. . . dave souza, talk 18:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lack of objectivity when presenting information

User is now indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)[reply]

See our policy wp:WEIGHT and content guideline wp:FRINGE. More interesting pointers at wp:Five pillars. - DVdm (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Wikipedia reflects scientific consensus, which is not on the side of intelligent design. In addition, the task here is primarily to describe the book The God Delusion, not provide counter-arguments. If you're looking for a different model, you're looking for a different online encyclopedia. Barte (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. For clarification, intelligent design is pseudoscience (creation science relabelled) while the argument from design or teleological argument is theological apologetics, a supposed guide to the attributes of the deity. If any. . . dave souza, talk 18:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is a crusader, and crusaders don't last long on Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derren Brown's favourite book

Should this article say that according to the blurb on the cover of the book, Derren Brown states that the book is his favourite book of all time? Vorbee (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of religion

I have a copy of this book on loan from a local public library, and I have go up to the chapter entitled "The Roots of Religion". Should this article point out that Dawkins would almost certainly fail an examination in the Psychology of Religion? This chapter never mentions the work of atheistic thinkers such as Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx and their theories as to how religion originates. Or would this be too much like inserting original research into Wikipedia? Vorbee (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It probablywould. 81.133.110.208 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not just "probably". Barte (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your exclusion of John Lennox's quote.

Why do you want that quote excluded? I think adding in some review of the book from the opposite point of view is fair and is in line with WP:NPOV. Why did you revert my revert, User:Hob Gadling? I only reverted it once, as per WP:BRD. Félix An (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my revert Mainly because your revert was a revert of a revert. That means that you are edit-warring and not following WP:BRD. You want that in the article, you need consensus to keep it.

It's a lengthy quote, and it talks about something that is not mentioned in the article. Without context, it does not make sense. Why would Dawkins claim that Christians believe in a "created God"? It does not make sense, and it is a strawman at best and randomly-generated text at worst.

I get it that your side does not have any good arguments against Dawkins, so, if you want to argue, you need to use bad ones, but please do not use Wikipedia pages for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, this article was buried in quotes from critics of the book and Dawkins. It and he apparently have scores of them. Which is why you now see the sections "Reviews and responses" as way of representing those arguments without piling them on ad nauseam. Lennox is just one of those myriad critics. That he gets a section devoted to him is dubious. That he would get a long quote in addition is clearly WP:UNDUE. If we dropped the debate section and added a short quote from Lennox in the Critical response section above, I could live with it. But proportionality matters here. Barte (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]