The Dawkins delusion...

[dimreepr]

Quote

The God Delusion is a 2006 book by British evolutionary biologist and ethologist Richard Dawkins. In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator, God, almost certainly does not exist, and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.

Who thinks he's right and why.

[Peterkin]

I think he overstates the diagnosis. Delusion connotes mental illness. Belief in the supernatural, or in some Greater Good, or Higher Purpose or Ultimate Truth is quite normal in humans; they can be perfectly functional, even rational, in all aspects of life that do not impinge on their faith. I'm with Freud, that it's a response to distress over one's lack of power over the world: gods and magic give us the illusion of control.  

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Delusion connotes mental illness.

Not necessarily. Delusion can be a symptom of mental conditions, but they do not have to be. 

[pzkpfw]

Lack of proof there is a god of some kind, isn't proof that this god doesn't exist. There are also plenty of reasons why reasonable people find comfort in some kind of belief, including upbringing (indoctrination?) and nervousness at the unknown. Not that I'm agnostic, I personally go with "there is none", but I think it's a bit too strong to say "delusion".

It did sell some books, though.

(dimreepr, is the incorrect "you're" in your signature ironic?)

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

Not necessarily.

Hence "connotes" rather than "means". When people talk about delusions, they're not usually talking about religious faith. I do think Dawkins generally overstated the harmful effect of faith - but maybe not by much.

1 minute ago, pzkpfw said:

Lack of proof there is a god of some kind, isn't proof that this god doesn't exist.

It's not simple lack of proof of the existence of god(s): it's a preponderance of evidence contradictory to each particular claim of each particular religion; it's the implausibility of the stories in holy scriptures; it's the whiff of self-interest from the beneficiaries of religious observance. Yes, it can be considered reasonable to cling to illusions when reality is grim, and religion is not the only illusion we cling to.   

[pzkpfw]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

...

It's not simple lack of proof of the existence of god(s): it's a preponderance of evidence contradictory to each particular claim of each particular religion; it's the implausibility of the stories in holy scriptures; it's the whiff of self-interest from the beneficiaries of religious observance. Yes, it can be considered reasonable to cling to illusions when reality is grim, and religion is not the only illusion we cling to.   

Oh sure, I actually agree here, I did note 'I personally go with "there is none"'.

But it's like "proving a negative", hard to be absolute. (Back when I was busy (ha!) dropping out of University I went to exactly 1 philosophy lecture, and this was the topic.)

[sethoflagos]

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I think he overstates the diagnosis. Delusion connotes mental illness. 

Your 'connotes' is contradicted in the OP:

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 ... qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.

 ... like believing that the Conservative Party are going to win a majority at the next British general election. Or Trump 'won' the last US presidential election. 

Given the vociferous and frequently malicious nature of the attacks on evolutionary biology by the US christian right in particular, I think Dawkins strikes the right tone. Sufficiently punchy to attract the attention of the uncommitted, yet not sinking to the level of the opposition. Got to remember who the target audience is - it isn't to the regular contributors to scienceforums.net. We more than any should allow him his leeway and applaud his contribution.

Personally, I'd have gone for the title 'Satanic Verses' but I understand someone else got there first.

 

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

We more than any should allow him his leeway and applaud his contribution.

I have no argument with that. He was not nearly as hyperbolic as Hitchens, and far more personable in the screen.

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

(dimreepr, is the incorrect "you're" in your signature ironic?)

Depends on the subject. 🙏

11 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Given the vociferous and frequently malicious nature of the attacks on evolutionary biology by the US christian right in particular, I think Dawkins strikes the right tone. Sufficiently punchy to attract the attention of the uncommitted, yet not sinking to the level of the opposition. Got to remember who the target audience is - it isn't to the regular contributors to scienceforums.net. We more than any should allow him his leeway and applaud his contribution.

Personally, I'd have gone for the title 'Satanic Verses' but I understand someone else got there first.

His delusion is that 'god' is relevant to the discussion; much like every other biggoted argument.

Science doesn't give a shit what 'people' believe, some scientists do...

[sethoflagos]

28 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

His delusion is that 'god' is relevant to the discussion; much like every other biggoted argument.

Others made it relevant whether he wished it or not. Your criticism seems nonsensical.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Others made it relevant whether he wished it or not. Your criticism seems nonsensical.

No, 'he' made it relevant to others, when 'he' wrote the book; every other biggoted argument just used a different word.

 

[joigus]

Your title confounds me. What delusion?

You seem to be of the opinion that Dawkins is deluded. Could you elaborate?

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

His delusion is that 'god' is relevant to the discussion;

Which discussion? It's relevant to the discussion of some things - like the prevalence of bigotry in human cultures. It's relevant to the psychology of mass manipulation and self-esteem. "Science", whoever she is, might not give a shit, and it shouldn't matter to physicists and chemists, but no scientist in the fields of medicine, psychology or anthropology can ignore it. 

[dimreepr]

34 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Which discussion? It's relevant to the discussion of some things - like the prevalence of bigotry in human cultures. It's relevant to the psychology of mass manipulation and self-esteem. "Science", whoever she is, might not give a shit, and it shouldn't matter to physicists and chemists, but no scientist in the fields of medicine, psychology or anthropology can ignore it. 

Indeed, nor should they. 

 

But as Nietzsche suggests, not everyone is equal and it takes a great man/person to point out the difference.

[sethoflagos]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No, 'he' made it relevant to others, when 'he' wrote the book; every other biggoted argument just used a different word.

 

And perhaps you should too. I can sympathise with the conceit of not capitalizing 'god', but why on earth are you giving him a double initial 'g' in bei Gott?

And while you're at it, please clarify the context of both 'he' and 'it'. Your anaphora is clear as mud. It's almost as if you're trying to deliberately obscure your meaning.

[TheVat]

I find it interesting that many hunter-gatherer peoples did not believe in a personal god, but saw nature as alive, in various blends of animism and pantheism.  The notion of a powerful Boss deity seems to have emerged along with more hierarchical societies and, as others note here, used for controlling hoi polloi.  

As a person in touch with my inner HG, I find the pantheist view to be prima facie less delusional.  We seem to be hard wired to view nature as alive, and then unlearn that in western culture through indoctrination.  

Basically, one can be a dualist, in the sense of attributing a spiritual aspect to matter, without being a supernaturalist.  The current philosophical stance of panpsychism seems closer to this, where matter is hypothesized to have some intrinsic consciousness however rudimentary.  

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But as Nietzsche suggests, not everyone is equal and it takes a great man/person to point out the difference.

Did he? Where? I can't for a second imagine him saying man/person; it's man or nothing.  Not sure he was such a big fan of the kind of 'greatness' that tells others they are inferior. 

Quote

The masses must have the impression that a mighty, indeed invincible, strength of will is present; at least it must be seen to be there. Everyone admires a strong will, because no one has it, and everyone tells himself that, if he had it, there would be no more limits for him and his egoism.

- Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits

But he did go on with considerable heat about how we ought to strive toward producing true greatness.

I don't think Dawkins is opposed to that idea.

Edited April 25 by Peterkin
forgot quote attribution

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

And perhaps you should too. I can sympathise with the conceit of not capitalizing 'god', but why on earth are you giving him a double initial 'g' in bei Gott?

That's the thing about the written word, a typo can cause so much confusion down the line.

23 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

And while you're at it, please clarify the context of both 'he' and 'it'. Your anaphora is clear as mud. It's almost as if you're trying to deliberately obscure your meaning.

The him, and to some extent the it is, I think, pretty clear in the OP. Perhaps you could be more specific.

19 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Did he? Where? I can't for a second imagine him saying man/person; it's man or nothing.  Not sure he was such a big fan of the kind of 'greatness' that tells others they are inferior.

That not everyone is equal doesn't mean not everyone is capable of greatness, the situation/context mould's the person, and when the hour cometh the most capable rises to greatness...

 

19 hours ago, Peterkin said:

But he did go on with considerable heat about how we ought to strive toward producing true greatness.

I don't think Dawkins is opposed to that idea.

Neither was Hitler... 😉

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That not everyone is equal doesn't mean not everyone is capable of greatness, the situation/context mould's the person, and when the hour cometh the most capable rises to greatness..

According to Nietzsche (cripes, he had a difficult name!) yes, it does. Almost no-one is capable of greatness, but we should strive to improve the human race so that some day, great men could exist. And I still don't believe he said that a great man has to tell people they're not equal 

On 4/25/2024 at 9:54 AM, dimreepr said:

But as Nietzsche suggests, not everyone is equal and it takes a great man/person to point out the difference.

- I think he knew they already knew this.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Neither was Hitler...

*sigh!!!*

[sethoflagos]

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Perhaps you could be more specific.

If you can't be arsed to improve the clarity and coherence of your own argument then why should anybody else do it for you? It isn't as if it's a position worth defending.

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

According to Nietzsche (cripes, he had a difficult name!) yes, it does. Almost no-one is capable of greatness, but we should strive to improve the human race so that some day, great men could exist. And I still don't believe he said that a great man has to tell people they're not equal 

You're missing my point, not everyone is equal doesn't mean they're not capable; the great man only needs to exist when most people can't see the light.

Quote

 

Parable Of The Madman

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning
hours,
ran to the market place, and cried incessantly:
"I seek God! I seek God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God
were standing around just then,
he provoked much laughter.
Has he got lost? asked one.
Did he lose his way like a child? asked another.
Or is he hiding?
Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?
Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes.
"Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you.
We have killed him—-you and I.
All of us are his murderers.
But how did we do this?
How could we drink up the sea?
Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?
What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun?
Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving?
Away from all suns?
Are we not plunging continually?
Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions?
Is there still any up or down?
Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?
Do we not feel the breath of empty space?
Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us?
Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?
Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers
who are burying God?
Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition?
Gods, too, decompose.
God is dead.
God remains dead.
And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?
What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled
to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us?
What water is there for us to clean ourselves?
What festivals of atonement, what sacred gamesshall we have to invent?
Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us?
Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us -
For the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all
history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners;
and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment.
At last he threw his lantern on the ground,
and it broke into pieces and went out.
"I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet.
This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering;
it has not yet reached the ears of men.
Lightning and thunder require time;
the light of the stars requires time;
deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard.
This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars -
and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day
the madman forced his way into several churches
and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo.
Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing
but:
"What after all are these churches now
if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

 

 

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Neither was Hitler...

*sigh!!!*

You sigh, but again point missed so I'll raise you a MEH...

7 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

If you can't be arsed to improve the clarity and coherence of your own argument then why should anybody else do it for you? It isn't as if it's a position worth defending.

But you can't be arsed to be more specific, it's not like I forced you to participate in this topic, jeez... 🙄

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

but we should strive to improve the human race so that some day, great men could exist.

Indeed, but who said science is the only path?

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

You're missing my point, not everyone is equal doesn't mean they're not capable; the great man only needs to exist when most people can't see the light.

Sure. Whatever. I should have known we're not in Basel anymore.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but who said science is the only path?

I dunno. Certainly not Nietzsche.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

You sigh, but again point missed so I'll raise you a MEH..

When somebody doesn't have an argument, they usually trot out the H card, often apropos of nothing previously mentioned.  

Edited April 27 by Peterkin