Talk:The God Delusion
I don't think the headline is correct. He does not try to "disprove" God, he discusses why a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist. He never contends that he is disproving God. --AtheistJohn 09:33, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
- Isn't that essentially trying to "disprove" God? Philip J. Rayment 11:32, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
- No, not the same thing. Good point, AtheistJohn. Dawkins is very careful to say that he offers no proof that god does not exist. He only says that the existence of a god or gods is extremely unlikely. I hesitate to change the opening sentence of the article (I suspect it would be instantly reverted!), but I propose "The God Delusion is a book by the atheist Richard Dawkins, in which he attempts to prove that the existence of God is extremely unlikely." Humblpi 13:05, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
- That is still not the same thing as "disproving" God. The point is, Christians, apologists, and conservatives (the main group of readers for this website) read the headline for this book and say, "But you can't disprove God! Dawkins is wrong!" Dawkins knows better to say this, because of the old argument about the celestial teapot orbiting Mars (one that is there, but because of our inferior technology, we can't see it). Since Dawkins never claims to disprove God, putting that as the headline of this article is deceiving. But as Humblpi said, any attempt to change this will instantly be reverted; it's probably pointless to even have a debate over this. --AtheistJohn 17:08, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
- "The God Delusion is a book by the atheist Richard Dawkins, in which he attempts to prove that the existence of God is extremely unlikely." As Humblpi suggested up above; you must have overlooked it.--AtheistJohn 17:17, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
- No, debate is not pointless. I don't think AtheistJohn and Humblepi have proved that Dawkins is not trying to disprove God: he might be trying and failing, or he might be trying to informally disprove whilst at the same time acknowledging that he can't formally disprove God's existence.
- However, if he explicitly states that he offers no proof, then (a) the onus is on his critics to show that he is trying to disprove, and (b) the wording could at the very least be improved.
- I'm out of time now, but if I don't forget, I'll come back in a couple of hours and either put Humblpi's wording in or think of something better myself. Unless of course someone has beaten me to it.
- Philip J. Rayment 03:08, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
There appears to be some bias present in this article, as well as a preponderance of criticisms. Some more balance might be achieved by removing the biased language in the chapter analysis, and adding some positive reviews to balance out the criticisms. --Diagoras 23:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
- The page is not locked, so you are able to improve it yourself. Or, if you don't feel comfortable doing that, propose some specific changes here for discussion. Personally, though, I don't see too much wrong with it. Don't forget that whether or not you consider it biased depends to a fair extent on your own bias. Philip J. Rayment 05:23, 2 October 2008 (EDT)