Replies

Practicing some sleight of hand of your own? No one anywhere in the interview suggests that. Dawkins is very clear, it's the belief in God by some people that he considers delusional.

Hi edsheppa!

WRT the above italics: The belief in God by some people is what Dawkins considers “delusional?” I don’t think that stands up. I think Dawkins is very clear that anyone who believes in a personal God is delusional. For Dawkins describes God as “a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” One would have to be delusional to believe in a God like that.

He claims to give a pass to the Deists, who do not believe in a personal God – a God who takes a personal interest in humans -- but simply in a creator who designs and executes the universe and then “splits.”

But the Deist conception of the creator God of the universe is absolutely inconsistent with Dawkins’ account of the universe, which involves the idea of an inception in, and evolution by sheer chance, of accidents that somehow serendipitously lead to the ordered, lawful universe in which we live.

He gives a handwave to Albert Einstein; but Al’s okay, you see, because we can excuse him for believing in God just so long as he does not have a personal relationship with God. Dawkins thinks Einstein did not believe in such a God. That’s his conclusion to draw; but I question its justice. Einstein wrote:

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.

Sounds pretty “personal” to me; though not in the conventional religious sense. What does come across is the idea of a divine Logos (whom Christians associate with the Name of the Son of God) beyond the universe, who created it and supernaturally laid down all the natural laws. Einstein’s science is motivated by the passionate desire to “find God” in the world.

You wrote: “… Dawkins disagrees with Deists. But he doesn’t think that Deist beliefs are delusional. Your claim is refuted.”

Dawkins doesn’t just disagree with Deists (that’s putting it mildly!); the Deist position refutes Dawkins’ entire worldview and scientific methodology. It’s kind of Dawkins not to think them delusional – again, because they do not believe God takes a personal interest in his creatures, and can enter into a personal relation with them – even though a true Deist would likely find Dawkins’ presuppositions and approach to biological evolution nonsensical.

According to Dawkins, I am delusional. I not only believe in God, in the Logos, as some kind of abstraction; but I have experienced Him moving in my life. The history of the human race is filled with people who have had these kinds of experiences (i.e., this is a cross-cultural, universal phenomenon); and what is even more remarkable is that such experiences have a particular form and content, independent of the people who experience them. It’s not as if individual minds were “cooking them up,” as a “delusional” person might do; e.g., as in the case of an imaginary friend….

But rather than consider the evidence, as an honest thinker is supposed to do, Dawkins simply says “this is delusional!” and has done with it. Then he joins forces with William Dennett over on this side of The Pond in a project to slander all religious believers as stupid morons. Whatta guy!

Well enuf of that, for now. What I’d like to ask next is how atheism deals with issues of morality. Any thoughts about that, edsheppa?

Thanks so much for writing!

[ "The belief in God by some people is what Dawkins considers 'delusional?'" ]

Some people are delusional in believing in God..
i.e. Hindus, Buddists, Muslims, Animists and many others..

Jesus the Christ(Messiah) came to make ALL RELIGION Obsolete, AND DID...
Thank God..

It seems we haven't quite finished with the topic (although we seem to be wandering a bit afield here from my main point that "fairies" unfairly characterizes Dawkins's position).

He claims to give a pass to the Deists

No, he doesn't *claim* to give them a pass, he *does* explicitly exclude them in the interview from the delusional category. Now, unless you've got a quote from him elsewhere saying that he thinks Deists are delusional, I insist that you retract that statement.

I think Dawkins is very clear that anyone who believes in a personal God is delusional.

I urge you to reread the interview objectively. Here is what he said in relevant part.

Then there are deists who believe in a kind of God, a kind of personal God ... I don’t think that I would use a word like delusions ... for a deist either ... I would reserve the word delusion for real theists who actually think they talk to God and think God talks to them.

Contrary to your assertion, he not only *explicitly* says that Deists believe in a personal God but aren't delusional but also he *reserves* the term for people who "think they talk to God and think God talks to them." So please retract this statement also.

BTW, I don't know what he had in mind by the phrase "real theist" since, according to the dictionary meaning of the term, Deists are theists.

Dawkins thinks Einstein did not believe in such a God. ... but I question its justice. ... What does come across is the idea of a divine Logos ... beyond the universe, who created it and supernaturally laid down all the natural laws.

I think Dawkins's characterization of Einstein's use of the term "God" and religious language is fairer than your own. For example, there's nothing in your quote that implies a being who created the universe. Rather he's trying to communicate his feelings when contemplating the universe by relating it to feelings of awe and mystery among the "conventionally religious," to use your term.

Dawkins doesn’t just disagree with Deists (that’s putting it mildly!)

Yep, you're right, I put it mildly. Are you implying that, for the syllogism to be valid, I must indicate the *degree* of the disagreement. Sorry, no, that's not the way it works. My refutation of your claim stands. Please have the decency to admit it.

Deist position refutes Dawkins’ entire worldview and scientific methodology ... a true Deist would likely find Dawkins’ presuppositions and approach to biological evolution nonsensical

Hmmm, "true" Deists? Are you saying the Deists who post to these threads and who not only *don't* feel that their "position refutes Dawkins’ entire worldview and scientific methodology" but also *don't* "find Dawkins’ presuppositions and approach to biological evolution nonsensical" aren't "true" Deists?

According to Dawkins, I am delusional.

Maybe. Do you think you talk to God or that God talks to you? (Dawkins says "and" but I expect he really means "or.") Dawkins *reserves* the delusional designation for such people.

It’s not as if individual minds were “cooking them up,” as a “delusional” person might do

Delusions need not be "cooked up" by the individual, they can be learned. For example, Scientology was created by a single science fiction writer but is believed by many. They didn't each individually "cook it up," but it's a delusional belief nonetheless.

Then he joins forces with William Dennett ... to slander all religious believers as stupid morons.

I know you're taking it all personally, but really, there's no reason to misrepresent him. Here's what he *actually* says in his own words.

Tubridy: ... do you think that the people who believe in God and religion are a little bit dim?
Dawkins: No, because many of them clearly are highly educated and score highly on IQ tests and things so…

There it is, unequivocal - Dawkins doesn't think that "all religious believers [are] stupid morons" but rather that many of them are quite smart.

I insist you retract this false claim too about Dawkins. (I can't speak about Dennet, maybe he's said that somewhere, can you back up that claim?) And I would appreciate it if you'd stick to what Dawkins *actually* says.

Thank you oh so very much for that excellent essay-post!

According to Dawkins, I am delusional. I not only believe in God, in the Logos, as some kind of abstraction; but I have experienced Him moving in my life.

He would consider me delusional as well. To him, we only "think" God talks to us and vice versa.

If he could get inside my mind, he'd be shocked to discover that I've known Jesus Christ personally now for nearly five decades. LOL! He'd be far more taken back by the sudden realization that Jesus Christ is alive, is a person, is God.

Truly, his sense of reality is artificially narrow. He doesn't evidently have "ears to hear" (or he has them plugged.)