Talk:The End of Faith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Clean up

Thanks Jeff for inserting the cleanup tag. I have removed it. I have re-read the article and I feel that, while it may contain the odd dubious phrase, it is otherwise a fairly factual description of the book's contents. I would be grateful to hear of your specific concerns, and indeed of anyone else's.—Laurence Boyce 08:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

(users often use the very general "cleanup" tag, because there are a kinda confusing number of specific tags ;)

I think possibly Jeff meant to use (or at least imply) the {{ sections }} tag, which I'd agree with. It needs at the least a clearly defined lead section; I'll add a "synopsis" header as an example. I don't think the synopsis should be broken into subsections; but the article could use additional sections, such as the critical/public reaction. Actually, a large quantity of the Sam Harris article should be merged to here instead of there.

Hope that helps. --Quiddity 20:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Quiddity – I'll take a look at this article tomorrow. However, I must say I find the phrase "a large quantity of the Sam Harris article should be merged to here instead of there" slightly alarming, and I'm not sure I really agree with it. Anyway, I'll sort this article first, and then maybe elaborate on what I mean, and we can discuss further. Thanks again.—Laurence Boyce 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say "...sh could probably be merged to here...".

Everything from the "World view" section, to the end of the "Criticism" section is (very debatably) about the book's contents more than about the man. That's just my subjective/mergist opinion though. Duplication bugs me ;) Feel free to ignore that opinion. -Quiddity 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now put in place a sectioned article which I trust will give satisfaction. On the wider issue, clearly there's going to be some overlap, but I don't agree that much of the Sam Harris article should be merged over here. The Harris article predated this article by about four months. However, when I wrote it, I was thinking ahead to a time when there would be a book article, so I based the Harris article largely on his media talks, not on the book. A good example would be his lecture, The View from the End of the World.

In fact just about every section of the Sam Harris article now contains phrases or references or events which are not to be found in The End of Faith. Having said that, I do think I will need to tweak the Harris article a bit now. But clearly the Harris article is set to develop further, whereas once we get this article right, one might think it would remain fairly static. Thank you again for your interest.

Laurence Boyce 09:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afterword responses?

Can someone put in some summaries of the responses to his critics Harris gives in his afterword in the new edition? I don't want to buy another copy of the book to find them out myself, and it would be a good addition to this article. 213.122.54.113 14:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The afterword (dated May 2005) is eight pages long and, I would suggest, is not worth buying the book for. Nor does it merit a detailed description in the article, in my view. Briefly it consists of the following:

• Introduction which draws from this
• Common criticisms
  • Religion may cause violence, but the worst 20th century crimes were perpetrated by atheists.
  • Response which draws from this
  • It is absurd to think that we could ever manage without faith.
  • Response which draws from this
  • Islamic violence is due to political and economic factors, not faith.
  • Response which draws from this
  • The End of Faith is merely a stalking horse for New-Age mysticism.
  • Response which draws from this
• Summary

Laurence Boyce 18:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)