I'd say no. His personal life/opinions are of no interest or importance to us.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
It's not about his personal life or opinions. It's about his book 'the God Delusion' a controversial book whether the reader believes in God or not, since it caused a stir and even other atheists have found flaws in the case it presents.
I suspect you don't want to add the tropes to his page for fear that it will cause a flame war between his supporters and his detractors. A good goal. Regardless of the opinions or feelings of either side, the case argued in that book remains controversial. So in light of that, may I ask one last time; Should the trope Critical Research Failure, Author Tract, They Just Didn't Care, two of them or all three be added to Dawkins' page regarding his book 'the God Delusion'?
PS: Unlike the other posts here, even the ones that criticize Dawkins himself, this one received a moderator response. Did my question provoke a flame war and you were forced to step in? It was/is not my intention to provoke a flame war.
Nah, I was commenting in my function as a site editor.
Putting controversial statements made in a work on the page of the creator is questionable. I think not. Also, out of curiosity what would the proposed text of the examples be?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I was saying that his arguements in the God Delusion are questionable, stating his controversial views is not wrong. It's not stepping on toes to say the Ku Klux Klan are prejudiced against black people, why should it be stepping on toes to say Dawkins is prejudiced against religion and, to a degree, religious people when he is?
The proposed text;
- Insert the word “controversial” before the word "case" in the opening text about his book 'The God Delusion'
- A summary of both sides views on the God Delusion with links to relevant tropes included; “His supporters state he makes a strong case due to explaining the flawed arguments in favour of theism and some agree with his statements of atheists being marginalized and that one can live a happy life without religion. His detractors state that he makes no mention of, or reference to, the teachings of the religions he criticizes, overlooks the differences between religion and philosophy and ignores the good that religion has done, such as charity work."
- Adding 'Author Tract' to tropes that apply to his work, stating the God Delusion is his way of sharing his beliefs.
Whew. No, the point of a creator page is not to be dragged into some controversy about its creator, much less to discuss what everybody thinks of their works. Factual accuracy does not make a difference, there. So no.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
You are right, the point of a creator page is not to be dragged into some controversy about its creator.
However, those tropes are regarding Dawkins work, not Dawkins himself, maybe the wording could be changed to stay "his book" instead of "him".
Furthermore, I though TV Tropes strived for factual accuracy, so it would be important as it is a fact that this work has caused controversy (I will provide links to prove it if you want). I don't see any harm in saying the case the God Delusion makes is controversial; yes it may be stepping on the toes of some of Dawkins' supporters though you can't please everybody and it's controversy it is a fact whether Dawkins' supporters like it or not.
So maybe just adding the word controversial before the word case. If not, then I'll leave this be.
(I am aware this is different from the last reply I sent, I changed it because I thought the previous words were too harsh).
Edited by tropelion
Well, factual or no, the existence of a controversy is inherently not part of the work itself. As such, it doesn't go into a main article.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
boomerang bigot: If atheism is considered to be a religion, Dawkins is this.
Atheism is NOT considered a religion. Even creationist nut Venom Fang X admits this. It's like saying 'not smoking' is a hobby and 'not being a Star Trek fan' is a fandom. This section needs to be removed.
Trope lists on creator pages are supposed to be about the creator's work(s), not about themselves or their public perception. See Creator Page Guidelines. Cutting these examples (reasons for cut in parentheses):
- Agent Scully: Of course.
- Dawkins even criticized X-Files itself as an example of pop culture endorsing of superstitions and obscurantism. He argues that the show systematically presents a one-sided view of the world, making an anvilicious aesop "between a rational and a supernatural explanation of some mystery, it's supernatural which is always right". His analogue is a detective show where Agent Mulder is always biased towards the black suspects and Agent Scully biased towards the white. And week after week, the black suspect turns out to have done it.
- Create Your Own Villain: For the first two decades of his career as an author, Dawkins was basically a scientist writing about evolution for other scientists and knowledgeable laymen. 1996's River out of Eden was his first "coffee table" book intended for a more general audience, however he had already been singled out by creationist writers for vilification as an arch-atheist. It would be a further ten years before Dawkins picked up the gauntlet with the publication of The God Delusion.
- Deadpan Snarker: And HOW!
"[Pope John Paul II] suffered an assassination attempt in Rome, and attributed his survival to intervention by Our Lady of Fatima: 'A maternal hand guided the bullet'. One cannot help but wonder why she didn't guide it to miss him altogether. Others might think the team of surgeons who operated on him for six hours deserved at least a share of the credit, but perhaps their hands too were maternally guided. The relevant point is that it wasn't just "Our Lady" who in the Pope's opinion guided the bullet, but specifically Our Lady of Fatima. Presumably Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Guadeloupe, Our Lady of Medjugorje, Our Lady of Akita, Our Lady of Zeitoun, Our Lady of Garabandal, and Our Lady of Knock, were busy on other errands at the time."
- Once in his book he quoted Aquinas about how the punishment of the damned should entertain saints in heaven and replied: "Nice man." This isn't much, but the audiobook recitation was especially comedic, where he used Beat to great comedic effect.
- In response to the canard that evolution is "just a theory": "Gravity is a theory. It is also a fact. Anyone who disagrees is invited to jump out a tenth storey window."
- The Dreaded: Called "Darwin's Rottweiler" by detractors, joining "Darwin's Bulldog", Thomas Huxley. Ironically, he's generally soft-spoken and calm even in the middle of a debate with a religious opponent.
- Precision F-Strike: Dawkins reads his hate (e)mail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc
- Social Darwinist: Averted. While his original theory of Memetic Mutation is basically applying natural selection to society and culture as a whole (in this context, memes that are more adaptive, imitable and easily spread will pass on more from person to person, like how in original Darwinian selection those that have traits that are more adaptive to their environment will be more likely to reproduce), he's very likely to be one of the biologists who will get annoyed if you ever accuse them of being advocates of "survival of the fittest" in political circles.
- This Is for Emphasis, Bitch!: On the subject of science: It works...bitches
Why do we have a list of tropes applying to a real person? Isn't that stated to be discouraged?
Hide / Show Replies
Yes it is. We have it because nobody bothered to clean up the list yet.
Let's just say and leave it at that.
Having read his book 'The God Delusion' his case against theism and religion is of questionable quailty at best, bigoted propaganda at worst. He also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the teachings of the religions he criticizes; eg not even refrencing the Ten Commandments, one of the most basic elements of Christianity that even some atheists know. Should the trope Critical Research Failure, They Just Didn't Care or both be added to his page regarding that book?
Edited by tropelion Hide / Show Replies