Wikibooks:Reading room/Projects

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions

Welcome to the Projects reading room. On this page, Wikibookians can talk about subjects related to books, book projects, and other tasks here on Wikibooks that require discussion and organization.

What interests me[edit]

  • Libertarianism
  • Agnosticism
  • Music

allixpeeke (discusscontribs) 13:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, allixpeeke. Are you thinking agnosticism in the weak sense (haven't decided) or the strong sense (can't know)? :-)  --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I ultimately hold that it is impossible for any human to know whether there exists zero, one, or multiple gods.  On the one hand, the ontological argument fails because it assumes that nonexistence is an imperfection, and thus conflates conception of existence with existence itself.  On the other hand, when Steven Hawking says that no god can exist because there was no time prior to the big bang in which a god could commit the action of creating anything, he completely ignores the possibility that there might exist a multiverse, and that a god can exist in that realm, or perhaps even be that realm.  Those who hold that this universe is too finely tuned for life for a god not to exist also ignore the possibility that there is a multiverse, for if there is a multiverse with an infinite number of universes, no god would be necessary for the mathematical certainty that some portion of these infinite universes would happen to be appropriately tuned for life.  Back when I was a young Christian, I came up with Pascal's wager independently of Pascal, but I now reject that as well on the grounds that it merely assumes God would have some sort of problem with a lack of theism, and that God, moreover, would be willing to punish a human for nonthheism.  This seems a much more reasonable alternative to me these days:

    If no god exists, there is no harm in being agnostic.

    If a god exists, and this god is perfect, then this god would be perfectly rational.  If God allowed us to have the capacity to be rational, to use reason, it stands to reason that a perfectly rational god would want us to utilise that capacity to reason.  A perfectly rational god would not want us to simply believe in it using blind faith; a perfect god would be disappointed in those who do not utilise the gift of rationality.  Thus, a perfectly rational god would tend to favour those who are-good-despite-lacking-faith over those who-are-only-good-for-fear-of-damnation.  In short, a perfect god would prefer we be agnostics.

    If a god exists that does not want us to use reason, then this god is not itself a rational being, and thus this god is imperfect.  If this god is so irrational that this god would actually punish us for our lack of fideism, then this god is not only not perfect, but is actually malevolent (to the degree that this god chooses to punish those who have violated the rights of none, whose only "crime" is nontheism).  An imperfect god is not particularly worthy of worship, and a malevolent god is deontologically undeserving of worship.

(Maybe I should call this Peak's wager.)

In any event, although I am a hard agnostic, I am definitely not an apatheist; I do not, as you can see above, have any compunction about speculating on the possible natures of a god or gods, and I'll readily admit that certain conceptions of God seem more appealing to me than others (despite my utter unwillingness to commit to any).  For example, I do not entirely dislike the pantheist notion that the cosmos is god; under this conception, perhaps god has no singular 'mind,' but rather has a large number of disunited minds (i.e., our minds, and the minds of any other intelligent lifeforms that may or may not exist elsewhere in the universe) which it is slowly using to become self-aware (i.e., we are aware of the universe and are becoming increasingly aware of various aspects of physics and the cosmos, thus it could be said that various of the many disunited minds of the universe are becoming self-aware).  Perhaps that's an accurate description of reality, a mere artistic reflection of reality, or sheer poppycock, but either way, it's interesting to think about.  In any event, that is but one example of the many possible conceptions of god that might or might not be, and I find it fulfilling to think about these various conceptions, to consider their various merits and drawbacks critically.  But, in the end, I am a hard agnostic, and I don't really anticipate anything swaying me from that position.

Yours truly,
allixpeeke (discusscontribs) 01:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikijunior:Asia[edit]

Hello everyone! I have started a new Wikijunior on Asia, which is Wikijunior:Asia. So far I've been trying to improve on the appearance rather than the actual content atm. Once I get ready with the appearance (which I'll specify is images), I'll get ready with the appearance. So far I've gotten the images, a short summary, and about 1/5 of the countries of Asia listed at this time. If anyone is interested in this wikibooks, feel free to start contributing since we're going to need them! Thanks.

View of the Lake in Kotamale, Sri Lanka, south of India!

--atcovi (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Progress[edit]

New Wikibook-Text to glossary linking[edit]

Hi there,I wonder if anyone could give me some advice. I am collaborating on a wikibook for university and we were wondering how to mark words in the main text to let the readers know that they are further explained in the glossary Below? I was thinking, is it possible to link the word itself where they can just click on it and be taken to it's definition in the glossary while they read? Thanks for any help. JordanFerguson93 (discusscontribs) 01:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@JordanFerguson93: It looks like you're working on Perspectives in Digital Culture, right? You can have text like the following:
And now I will explain [[Perspectives in Digital Culture/Glossary#Cookies|cookies]]: blah, blah, blah
Using anchors just like in HTML, you can link to a part of a document. Please let me know if you need more help. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Koavf,thank you for your help,I'll have a look about and try a few things to see what works best JordanFerguson93 (discusscontribs) 22:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
You can link the glossary section, such as Wikijunior:Asia/Sri Lanka#Where is Sri Lanka, which links to the specific section. Is that what you were looking for? --atcovi (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I use a similar method, without the need to create sections in the glossary, in Castles of England. If you look at Castles of England/The Development of the Castle you'll see a link to the Glossary for "Feudal system" that uses what appears to be a section link (Castles of England/English Castle Glossary#Feudal system). In the glossary itself this isn't a section - it's an anchor to a section coded like this <div id="Feudal system"></div> to provide the target for the link. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 09:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


Great thanks for your help,don't quite have the hang of it yet but I'll try again tommorow. JordanFerguson93 (discusscontribs) 22:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)