Talk:A Rough History of Disbelief
Latest comment: 12 years ago by 72.228.177.92 in topic Current state
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A Rough History of Disbelief article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Current state
editI removed the sentence that appeared to be theistic apology or accuse Miller of same. I saw the entirety of the series parts of it more than once. I removed an expand tag which was certainly justified as the text that's there was a complete distortion. The main framework of the series is in fact the historical development of European atheism that more or less ends with d'Holbach (in Miller's presentation), IIRC. The sentence I introduced attempts to restore that factual focus, a recounting of the content proportional to the time spent on different thinkers will make this clear. I think there was something at the end where Miller looked at rational apologists but it didn't match the sentence I removed. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've got the DVDs at home, but it is something that he brought up when sitting in the library, cutting away from Colin McGinn. It's certainly not theistic apologetic: he's saying that theists ask that you have faith, but it's extremely difficult if not impossible to do will oneself into believing without reasons or what not. It's not theistic apologetic, it's simply an issue in philosophy that Miller touched on in the programme. There is, of course, a sourcing issue - it's on TV, and I'd have to go find the minutes and seconds and all that. I can do so if required, but it might take a few days. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- In view of the current bias which my addition doesn't really fully address that might be the best thing. In doing so you will be able to refresh your memory and place it in an accurately reported context. Recounting the specific mark in the episode isn't necessary but accuracy in prose is. The fact tag can be addressed by either correct inline prose or a footnote. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, the failure of understanding that has caused you to use "voluntarily" is known to me. As you appear to have staked this out I'll leave it to you, Tom Morris, to address it, as you've stated above you would do. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)