Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/Biblical1

Wikipedian filing request:

• Biblical1 (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• MartinRobinson (talk · contribs)
• Leinad-Z (talk · contribs)
• Pat_Mustard (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

• Cs_lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:C._S._Lewis#Disputed_text_.28see_discussion_above.29 (edit | [[Talk:Talk:C._S._Lewis#Disputed_text_.28see_discussion_above.29|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:C._S._Lewis#Critics_of_Lewis (edit | [[Talk:Talk:C._S._Lewis#Critics_of_Lewis|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Questions:

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

• Answer: Yes

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

• Answer: It is a content dispute over criticism. Some is allowed by particular editors, others are not yet without clear mention or example. I have worked very hard to adopt my edits to their viewpoints only to have them erase it all for new reasons. I think you'll see there were at least 4 or 5, once one was agreed upon as false it was erased for a NEW reason. I am user 74.129.230.61 .

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

• Answer: I have not done such a thing

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer: Clarity over the issue. I would prefer a mediator, I think the other side has made it clear they do not wish for the material to be presented whatsoever, irrecovable of whether it conforms with wikipedia policy.

Summary:

The accusations against my offering of criticism over CS lewis have been "an indiscriminate collection of information", it violates the "no original research policy", my edits are "publisher of original thought", my references must specifically "criticise Lewis, his works, or the beliefs he advocated" and failure to "provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate." There is even more.

What I wish to maintain is I have defended myself in each instance as all my information complies, I am quite used to these allegations, the references include the respective works, I can even add in page numbers, yet the whole reason for altering my information has changed on countless occasions. I would like to point to the fact that even though I have adapted all of my work to their suggestions, they have deleted them no matter the alteration to make a new suggestion. When asking how I could fix the edit, all left and said not a word, especially the individual MartinRobinson whom refutted me for a good 6 hours, only to leave immediately when I asked for suggestions and stopped reverting the page.

It is very difficult for me to edit religious particular pages due to biased view points. I err towards allowing criticism, however it is rare a supporter of the person in question wants this criticism. The better the criticism is, the more likely they are to continually erase it... and the more likely they are to erase it for new reasons.

At worst I hope to receive clarification over this issue so I can add in new material that is completely in line with wikipedia policy. My goal is to have the reader aware of critics of Lewis' philosophy which is seen as a contradiction to those in the field of Moral Philosophy. It seems some would like to ignore this.

You can see the particular page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis#Criticism

If it has been reverted already.. here is my addition:

Lewis anomalous philosophy involving the divine command theory, or the idea that morals must come from an authority or God, is critiqued by Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Speaking about Kant's views, moral philosopher and Professor of philosophy J. David Velleman of New York University writes:

If we were subject to moral requirements because they were imposed on us by God, the reason would have to be that we are subject to a requirement to do what God requires of us; and the force of this latter requirement, of obedience to God, could not itself depend on God's authority. (To require obedience to God on the grounds that God requires it would be viciously circular.) The requirement to obey God's requirements would therefore have to constitute a fundamental duty, on which all other duties depended; and so God's authority would not account for the force of our duties after all... We can always ask why we should obey a particular source of authority, whether it be a desire, the U.S. Government, or even God. But the requirements of morality, being categorical, leave no room for questions about why we ought to obey them...moral requirements must not depend for their force on any external source of authority.

In addition, Lewis' support of morality based on authority, seen in almost everyone of his works, is mistaken to some such as Einstein because it associates ethics with religious views. Einstein maintained that a man's morality should entail "satisfaction of the desires and needs of all, as far as this can be achieved, and achievement of harmony and beauty in the human relationships. This presupposes a good deal of conscious thought and self education." Einstein further maintained that teachers of religion such as Lewis "must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God - that is, give up the source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in Humanity itself. That is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task." Moreover, Einstein argues in his The World as I see it that views such as Lewis on moral authority are wrong and they are simply based on needs for love and guidance:

File:Einst 3.jpg Albert Einstein, picture taken in 1940.

The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes, the God who, according to the width of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even as such, the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing, who preserves the souls of the dead... Only individuals of exceptional endowments and exceptionally high-minded communities, as a general rule, get in any real sense beyond this level...A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it goes through... A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear and punishment and hope of reward after death

— Albert Einstein, Religion and Science, The World as I see it

Lewis' unequaled apologetics also were consistent with arguments against moral relativity, or arguments against the notion that morals should be based on relative circumstances.

This theory which Lewis aptly argues in most all of his works is condoned by many moral philosophers but none so much as the founder of modern psychology, Sigmund Freud. Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, believed that Lewis' disposition to argue against moral relativity in favor of the divine command theory was psychoanalytically, or genetically, explainable. Speaking about this in his Civiliation and It's Discontents, Freud maintained that a divine morality presupposes a purpose in life: "Only religion can answer the question of the purposes of life. One can hardly be wrong in concluding that the idea of life having a purpose stands and falls with the religious system."

Freud's explanation for this is even the subject of a documentary, as he maintained that Lewis' did not care for objective analysis of a system of morals, but instead was in search of meaning in life and the desire to limit human suffrage. Freud maintained Lewis did this through the promotion of Christianity:

File:Freud24.jpg The founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud.

[Man's religion is a] system of doctrines and promises which on the one hand explains to him the riddles of this world with enviable completeness, and, on the other, assures him that a careful Providence will watch over his life and will compensate him in a future existence for any frustrations he suffers here. The common man cannot imagine this Providence otherwise than in the figure of an enormously exalted father. Only such a being can understand the needs of the children of men and be softened by their prayers and placated by the signs of remorse. The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise about this view of life…[Religion's] technique consists in depressing the value of life and distorting the picture of the real world in a delusional manner – which presupposes an intimidation of the intelligence.

— Sigmund Freud, Civilization and it’s Discontents

---

As an aside, on October 8th I just received help from an admin on that particular page and was able to clarify some things. I hope the dispute is resolved unless others continue to mess with the page.

Discussion:

While I will not be your Advocate, I will tell you that you can go here to ask for a mediator. Hope this helps. Geo. 05:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is a breach of NPOV and it has been tagged for a POV check. Punk Boi 8 05:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Followup:

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

• Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

• Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

• Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

• Answer:

AMA Information

Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:

• Punk Boi 8
  • It appear's that the advocee has left. No edits since Oct. 8. Also, a non-advocate distrupted the process. Closed. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)