MOD EDIT: Thread split off from here.

Am now reading Richard Dawkin's The Greatest Show on Earth, which so far has been fascinating, hilarious and peerless.

Richard Dawkins and stuff
 

I like Dawkins. He's a smart fella.

This is probably my Catholicism seeping out, but I thought Dawkins was kind of a dick with his writing? Or in general?

As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the only thing I know about him is from some episode of South Park.

Oh boy, I am a shining gem of my generation,

Let's just say that he is quite matter of fact. Okay, yeah. He's a dick. But he's also really fucking smart. So he gets to be.

He maybe needs to look up the DSM definition of Delusion though.

Frankly, he could be exactly the way he is about anything, and no one would accuse him of being anything besides passionate. Be that way about evolution, or especially religion, however, and he must automatically be a bastard, shrill, strident militant dick (this seems to be a ubiquitous law, the origin of the ever-perplexing term "militant atheist". But at least his comrades-in-arms don't find those who should be allies driven against him by the semi-insane rabble riding on his coattails).

I am also continually astonished by the lengths people will go to (seemingly) deliberately misunderstand him, whenever I see people criticising him for having opinions and beliefs in direct opposition to those he has explicitly expressed, and most frequently of all, make criticisms that he already pre-empted and explained in the very article that the criticism is in response to. It's like a curse, and it is to his credit that he is able to shrug it off and meet such repetitive idiocy with an often required response accompanied with nary more than a frustrated tone and exhausted smile. He knows they won't listen anyway.

And to everyone else's credit, most people only ever see him on TV being asked the same moronic questions that always come when the cameras turn on, and the executive meddling by Channel 4 and newspaper editors are equally infuriating. Do you really think he wanted to his TV two-parters to have such provocative names as "The Root of All Evil?" and "The Enemies of Reason"?

To call Richard "much-maligned" is an understatement.

He shouldn't really release books with controversial titles for controversy's sake though. Delusion does not mean what he thinks it means and he's a scientist so ignorance is no excuse.

Richard has never used technical terminology in the titles of his book that he did not himself invent (The Extended Phenotype). They are all, with that exception, extremely poetic, and the words themselves cannot in any way be taken to literally describe the subject matter.

Still, Princeton on-line dictionary has these definitions:

# S: (n) delusion, psychotic belief ((psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary)
# S: (n) delusion, hallucination (a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea) "he has delusions of competence"; "his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination"
# S: (n) delusion, illusion, head game (the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas)

I have found a number of similar definitions, the only important deviation being those that explicitly exclude unfounded convictions of a religious nature. This is balant special pleading, and although I have not yet read the God Delusion (and will report back on the occassion that I do) it is in Dawkin's style to tackle this precise issue pretty early on in the book. It is also in Dawkin's style to explain the exact origin of his title in the preface. Finally, the book itself is intended, at least in part, to be the case that the belief in gods is itself a delusion. For that reason alone, regardless of whether or not the attempt is successful, the title "The God Delusion" is perfectly appropriate.

Yeah. What he said.

The psychiatric definition of delusion is 'A false belief based of incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture.'

Are we saying that religion can't be a delusion because there are a lot of people who believe it? That's the only point that doesn't specifically apply, but I don't know, that sounds like splitting hairs to me. And it seems like a silly reason to have a problem with him.

Of course, inventing a new word for "a delusion shared by a majority of people" could never have the same effect of quickly imparting the idea. Neither could using the word we already have for such a thing (i.e. "religion").

People who believe they have touched, been touched by, seen or heard from God are delusional and it could be said they are having a God Delusion, certainly interpreting things as miracles by God is analogous to interpreting the car outside your house as belonging to the KGB who are tracking you because you're the only man who can stop the bomb. Most religious people think nothing of the sort, delusion is a psychiatric term and the inference made is that these people should be gibbering inside a mental ward taking pills. Why? Because the term delusional is usually said of schizophrenics. You can't even coherently argue that the belief is erronous, as there is yet to be any solid proof that a deity or creator does not exist.

I have no gripe with the man, I find his writing witty, well researched and highly intelligent, I just think that by flanderizing the concept of 'Delusion' he really deserved (And maybe even sought after) all the controversy his claim created. It would have been far more prudential to title the book something along the lines of 'The Divine Misconception'. I know I'd buy a book with a title like that.

Actually, you can coherently argue that their beliefs are erroneous. It's not as if their beliefs start and stop at "I think there is a god, and I think he created the universe". Their beliefs encompass a vast amount of logical and historical fallacies that are easily proven wrong. Once these fallacies are pointed out, if you continue to think that your holy documents are infallible, well...you are deluded.

From the part I have read, I know that he graciously awards this concession, and says that there would be neither the need nor the drive to even write the book if either every believer was this way or that those who are scarily deluded, damaged beyond repair and/or possibly dangerous did not actually compose a horrifyingly large proportion of the population of believers.

That is a fallacy. You can still be paranoid delusional even if someone somewhere really does want to hurt you, and a belief is no more vindicated if it turns out to be true entirely coincidentally, which under the present state of theology it only ever could be. As for proving a negative, I'm not going to argue the point because I know you already understand that problem.

But that's not what deluded means, misinformed, in error, stupid, gullible and many other things but deluded would be if you believe in God because he talks to you.

It's a goddamn medical term, not a critical one.

EDIT:Point conceded.

How many fundamentalist christians have you been around? Because 90 percent of the ones I know think that god does talk to them.

Yeah alright, I probably don't know enough about fundamentalist Christains in America to argue this point properly, I'm just judging it by the fundamentalist Christains I know in Britain and Europe.

I still think The Divine Misconception would have made a better title.

We probably have different ideas of what makes someone a fundie, as well.

Again, he does distinguish between those who are literally deluded, and the much more sensible believers whom we continue to collectively find baffling. He does not think or write that those like, and indeed the clergymen with whom he is positively amiable, in agreement with on other issues and even friends with are delusional in this way, just wrong. Of course, several such clergymen have turned out to have been closeted atheists for many years, having been reluctant to come out when they know no other way of life, and we have reason to believe this is true of several other church figures, but that's besides the point and possibly wishful thinking.

But as I say, we would be much more qualified to discuss this particular Dawkins book after we have all read it in its entirety.


But by way of reparations, I myself would not have called it "The God Delusion", nor do I think that is the best title. But I don't think "The Divine Misconception" is better!



Sounds like a Dan Brown.

I like my puns, the mother of a very very saintly family on my primary schools' PTA was sickeningly pure and nice and hypocritical. My father used to call her 'The Divine Misconception'.

Sounds like a review of the work of Dante.

I haven't read The God Delusion but I have seen the tv shows he did and I have discussed the book with my brother-in-law, who is far more knowledgable on matters religion than me.

Basically, my impression is that his goal is to show how stupid and immoral religion (primarily Christianity) is, by cherry picking Old and New Testament quotes out of context. This is especially ridiculous with regard to Judaism, where the bible is only ever filtered through 3000 of oral history and commentary.

It's funny, really, on the subject of Athiesm.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe in Ghosts and spirits and supernatural crap. And it's all due to a bunch of personal experiences, not because anyone told me.

So when I read Dawkin's books, I just cherry-pick the funny bits and ignore what I disagree with.

Sort of like fundie Christians and the Bible.

Nah, I kid. I don't want another Christianity argument.

You can have a go at the fundies by all means. Just don't group all Christians with the fundies.

I do. We haven't had a good religious argument in years.


I think the last time, I ended up trying to justify why Christians were allowed to persecute gays. It all got a little wierd after that point.

At that point it could be one of hundreds of threads.

See my lectures on Philosophy of Religion thus far have consisted of nothing BUT blasting atheists. It's actually not such a rational stance once you get into it.

What could be more rational than rejecting claims for which there is insufficient (or no) evidence?