Dawkins!

[Storm]

Problem is, "delusional" is already a specific, technical term. Dawkins' redefinition is merely an attempt to give a petty insult a veneer of respectability. I do NOT have to accept it, and I won't.

 

[sandandfoam]

Dawkins writes:

This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphatically NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.​

Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE."​

Source: Lying for Jesus?​

Dawkins didn't say he believed in aliens; what he said was purposely distorted by lying ID proponents.

Hi Midnight,
p.137 God Delusion He says "I think it is likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere"
As it happens I agree with him on this, but I think it's kind of funny that he thinks that belief in Aliens is ok and that belief in God's is delusional. Of course this sad sense of humour that I'm afflicted with could be a by product of my delusion .
I was thinking about this thread today, although I consider myself a Christian, in matters of gravity such as whether belief is delusional or not -I have to admit my heart is with those laughing buddhas

 

[Valjean]

Hi Stephen. How's the scoot running?

I think Dawkin's acceptance of the possibility of extraterrestrial life stems from the fact that a sterile planet did, demonstrably, generate life at some point; that it can be accepted that, under certain conditions, a chemical soup can generate life, and that there are indications that these conditions exist elsewhere in the galaxy.

This differs from his atheisim in that there was never any credible evidence for a God even here on Earth.

Storm: Almost all terms already have dictionary definitions, but if we don't accept the specific definition of a term proposed by him proposing an idea, any discussion of it is bound to be mired in unnecessary misunderstanding.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi Midnight,
p.137 God Delusion He says "I think it is likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere"
As it happens I agree with him on this, but I think it's kind of funny that he thinks that belief in Aliens is ok and that belief in God's is delusional. Of course this sad sense of humour that I'm afflicted with could be a by product of my delusion .
I was thinking about this thread today, although I consider myself a Christian, in matters of gravity such as whether belief is delusional or not -I have to admit my heart is with those laughing buddhas

Saying "I think it is likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere" is a completely different thing than saying "I believe in God". There is no contradiction in believing that alien life is likely and God isn't. They are two vastly different concepts.

 

[Storm]

Storm: Almost all terms already have dictionary definitions, but if we don't accept the specific definition of a term proposed by him proposing an idea, any discussion of it is bound to be mired in unnecessary misunderstanding.

If I redefine "idiot" to mean "atheist", would it be reasonable to expect you to accept that definition? Would I be justified in blaming you for miring the debate in "semantics"?

 

[sandandfoam]

Hi Stephen. How's the scoot running?

I think Dawkin's acceptance of the possibility of extraterrestrial life stems from the fact that a sterile planet did, demonstrably, generate life at some point; that it can be accepted that, under certain conditions, a chemical soup can generate life, and that there are indications that these conditions exist elsewhere in the galaxy.

This differs from his atheisim in that there was never any credible evidence for a God even here on Earth.

The scoot has me falling deeper in love with it by the day! Considering I wasn't going to modify it - I just can't stop!
Back to Dawkins - I see what you're saying and I can see the difference between the 2. I still think it's funny - of course that says more about me than Dawkins. After wading through that book he owes me a laugh!

 

[Valjean]

You can redefine technical terms anyway you want, Storm. Dog can = cat, black = white, though people don't generally confer entirely new meanings to words without some reason behind it.

If "idiot" were introduced as a synonym for atheist, all intellectuals would accept and use it as such, with no personalization and no hint that it ever carried any other meaning. Granted, they might wonder why the perfectly good, descriptive and pre-existing term "atheist" was not used, but, once the terms, major premises and symbols are introduced, no-one would tip over the apple cart by bring up the original "givens" or going off on a tangent with semantic questions.

If, in a cipher, the rules of 1=r, 2=m, 3=e, &c, a cryptologist begn arguing the fact that 1 did not really equal r, nothing would ever be decoded.

 

[Storm]

You can redefine technical terms anyway you want, Storm. Dog can = cat, black = white, though people don't generally confer entirely new meanings to words without some reason behind it.

Like giving petty, mean-spirited insults a veneer of respectability.

If "idiot" were introduced as a synonym for atheist, all intellectuals would accept and use it as such, with no personalization and no hint that it ever carried any other meaning.

BS.

 

[Smoke]

Hi Midnight,
p.137 God Delusion He says "I think it is likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere"
As it happens I agree with him on this, but I think it's kind of funny that he thinks that belief in Aliens is ok and that belief in God's is delusional.

In my copy, it's on page 138. The reason he thinks it's more likely that there's life elsewhere in the universe than that there's a god, is that we already have evidence of the rise of life in the universe: on earth. But we have no evidence at all of a deity. So which is more likely, something that we know for sure can and has happened somewhere, or something for which there's no evidence at all?

He says, on page 138, that even if the odds against life arising on a given planet are a billion to one, we could still predict that life would arise on a billion planets.

Sounds like a reasonable argument to me. But he didn't say, as Creationist liars have claimed, that he "believes in aliens from outer space."

 

[Smoke]

"Delusional" means a good deal more than "mistaken," and you know it. So, how is maligning someone's intelligence more offensive than maligning their sanity?

He specifically says in The God Delusion, and has said repeatedly elsewhere, that he's using the word "delusion" in the street sense and not in the technical psychiatric sense. He says in TGD that several psychiatrists have criticized his decision to use a word they understand in a medical sense, and have suggested that he use instead the word "relusion," but he preferred to a word people would understand.

If people dislike his choice of words, fine. Maybe he should have said fantasy, misconception, illusion, deception, or wishful thinking instead. But I don't think that would really have appeased the believers, or satisfied the people who insist on claiming that he's saying something he has specifically disavowed.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Midnight,
p.137 God Delusion He says "I think it is likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere"
As it happens I agree with him on this, but I think it's kind of funny that he thinks that belief in Aliens is ok and that belief in God's is delusional. Of course this sad sense of humour that I'm afflicted with could be a by product of my delusion .
I was thinking about this thread today, although I consider myself a Christian, in matters of gravity such as whether belief is delusional or not -I have to admit my heart is with those laughing buddhas

Can you provide the complete quote. btw, when I looked at p. 137 of this version I found no such statement.

 

[sandandfoam]

In my copy, it's on page 138. The reason he thinks it's more likely that there's life elsewhere in the universe than that there's a god, is that we already have evidence of the rise of life in the universe: on earth. But we have no evidence at all of a deity. So which is more likely, something that we know for sure can and has happened somewhere, or something for which there's no evidence at all?

He says, on page 138, that even if the odds against life arising on a given planet are a billion to one, we could still predict that life would arise on a billion planets.

Sounds like a reasonable argument to me. But he didn't say, as Creationist liars have claimed, that he "believes in aliens from outer space."

I see and accept your point.
As I said above I still find it mildly amusing, but that's me.
After wading through the book and listening to debate and discussion about it, my feelings on the subject are not strongly felt. He has his opinions, a lot of people love his book. I didn't.
He seems to be at one end of a spectrum that has YEC at the other. But even if he's in the middle - fine.

 

[Autodidact]

I have to agree with Storm on this one. It's not a question of logic; Dawkins is a writer. He chose the word "delusion" because he thinks it most accurately conveys what he wants to say about belief in God, not because he wants to insert his own definition. I think one of the reasons he chose it is to be provocative, and another because he thinks it's accurate. I happen to agree with him. Storm, I understand that you disagree, and think it's offensive. Do you think that certain God beliefs are delusions, say, the Malaysian Teapot Cult? People who believe the earth will be destroyed in 17 days? Jim Jones? David Koresh?

 

[sandandfoam]

Can you provide the complete quote. btw, when I looked at p. 137 of this version I found no such statement.

My apologies, it is the last line on p.138

 

[Fluffy]

I have to agree with Storm on this one. It's not a question of logic; Dawkins is a writer. He chose the word "delusion" because he thinks it most accurately conveys what he wants to say about belief in God, not because he wants to insert his own definition. I think one of the reasons he chose it is to be provocative, and another because he thinks it's accurate. I happen to agree with him. Storm, I understand that you disagree, and think it's offensive. Do you think that certain God beliefs are delusions, say, the Malaysian Teapot Cult? People who believe the earth will be destroyed in 17 days? Jim Jones? David Koresh?

He specifically says in The God Delusion, and has said repeatedly elsewhere, that he's using the word "delusion" in the street sense and not in the technical psychiatric sense. He says in TGD that several psychiatrists have criticized his decision to use a word they understand in a medical sense, and have suggested that he use instead the word "relusion," but he preferred to a word people would understand.

If people dislike his choice of words, fine. Maybe he should have said fantasy, misconception, illusion, deception, or wishful thinking instead. But I don't think that would really have appeased the believers, or satisfied the people who insist on claiming that he's saying something he has specifically disavowed.

Dawkins is attempting to do two things with the word delusion:
1) Provoke theists under the veneer of acceptability in order to prove his point that religion is beyond criticism
2) Popularise his work
He has been very successful in both of these aims. The paltry explanation he gives for using the word in the introduction serves to justify the smoke screen he needed for his first aim. He is an intelligent man. He knew exactly how provocative he was being with that term and that is why he felt it necessary to explain it.

That, of course, does not make him a bigot or full of hatred or all of the other things that some theists accuse him of. That is exactly what he wants you to say because then you look like the stupid, overreacting theist he has built you up to be. However, it does make him intellectually dishonest. I think it would serve theists well to avoid doing what Dawkins wants and become outraged at his terminology. It would be better if they saw beyond the smokescreen and called him out on the real game that he is playing.

 

[Storm]

Do you think that certain God beliefs are delusions, say, the Malaysian Teapot Cult? People who believe the earth will be destroyed in 17 days? Jim Jones? David Koresh?

I'd even agree with you that YEC is technically delusional. However, I still say that the term is counter-productive to civil discussion.

 

[Autodidact]

He doesn't say intelligent life, let alone little green men, as you said in your slander. He says life. Elsewhere in the universe. Chances of same are good. He even demonstrates his reasoning, clearly based on evidence and math. I think any reasonably informed person would have to agree that the chances are high that there is life elsewhere in the universe. Why would you characterize this belief as delusional, or even mention it in this context? Remember when you said that you wouldn't lie, unlike Dawkins? (1) You did. (2) You haven't cited him doing so, which makes two whoppers.

*or am I confusing you with someone else in this thread?

 

[Autodidact]

I'd even agree with you that YEC is technically delusional. However, I still say that the term is counter-productive to civil discussion.

You believe that it's delusional, but are too polite to say so?

 

[fantome profane]

I'd even agree with you that YEC is technically delusional. However, I still say that the term is counter-productive to civil discussion.

Are there any circumstances where you would use the word?

 

[sandandfoam]

He doesn't say intelligent life, let alone little green men, as you said in your slander. He says life. Elsewhere in the universe. Chances of same are good. He even demonstrates his reasoning, clearly based on evidence and math. I think any reasonably informed person would have to agree that the chances are high that there is life elsewhere in the universe. Why would you characterize this belief as delusional, or even mention it in this context? Remember when you said that you wouldn't lie, unlike Dawkins? (1) You did. (2) You haven't cited him doing so, which makes two whoppers.

*or am I confusing you with someone else in this thread?

You're half confusing me. I would never say that I wouldn't lie, because that would be a ...
My slander is slander - sure I admit it, little green men, my tongue was in my cheek, much as I imagine his was.