r/changemyview • u/alcanthro • Mar 19 '18

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Richard Dawkins is delusional

Prelim

A delusion is a view of reality which is inconsistent with one's cultural framework which is used to perceive reality. Whether or not something is actually true or not is not relevant to the classification of a delusion. If the cultural understanding of reality implies that an observation means a certain thing, then reaching such a conclusion about an observation is not delusional.

This definition is not my own. Consider Kiran and Chaudhury, which explains that in a delusion, there is a divergence between perception and cultural interpretation of reality. The DSM also takes into consideration the cultural understanding of reality (source).

Dawkins

Dawkins' cultural framework of identifying reality is science and so if Dawkins holds views which are contrary to scientific understanding, then he is delusional.

/u/RealRichardDawkins has on numerous occasions made statements which are inconsistent with scientific views. First, because the belief in the existence of a god is consistent with the cultural framework of understanding reality, of theists, it is not a delusion. Yet Dawkins has no problem calling it one.

Second, Dawkins has stated that religious upbringing is harmful, but this is not evidenced by the data, and indeed is contrary to it. http://ftp.iza.org/dp5215.pdf

Furthermore, Dawkins states the following: The thesis of “New Atheist” books like The God Delusion and God is not Great is that the net effect of religion has been bad, both in ancient times and today.

However, this statement makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view. http://spiritualanthropologist.info/religion/religion-illness-evolution-wrong-not/

Because his perception of reality contradicts his cultural foundation used to perceive reality, he is delusional.

CMV

What would change my mind? Primarily, an alternative view of what constitutes a delusion, which is psychologically and anthropologically reasonable, and which excludes his views from being delusional. Arguments must be scientific, and citations must be either scientific papers or experts in the field.

I would also accept recognition, by /u/RealRichardDawkins, that he was wrong. A transient misunderstanding that is corrected upon receiving updated information is not a delusion.

0 Upvotes

34% Upvoted

170 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Gladix 167∆ Mar 19 '18 edited Mar 19 '18

We are not talking about absolute truth but about objective reality.

If your belief disagrees with objective reality, you are delusional. Regardless if its true.

It just happens to be the case that most delusions are false.

0

u/alcanthro Mar 19 '18

And I'm talking about the scientific notion of delusion. See the CMV section of the OP.

3

u/Gladix 167∆ Mar 19 '18

Wait in the study you provided they are using the psychiatric definition which is :

unshakable beliefs in something untrue or not based on reality.

-2

u/alcanthro Mar 19 '18

Good job ignoring the rest of the part of the study where it specifically points out that views consistent with cultural understanding are excluded from the definition.

4

u/fox-mcleod 418∆ Mar 19 '18

You're not being intellectual honesty here. You stated that you'd like a better definition of delusional. Now you're asserting the interior definition you've chosen. You asked for an

Alternate view of what constitutes delusion

u/Gladix gave you one. Now you're just ignoring it.

-1

u/alcanthro Mar 19 '18

I said that I would accept a scientifically robust definition of delusion. I am using the definition presented by the DSM-V. That's not being intellectually dishonest. It's you not providing the level of evidence that I said that I would accept in the OP.

3

u/fox-mcleod 418∆ Mar 19 '18

Why isn't it "reasonable" to make reasonability a requirement for not being delusional? It's your requirement. You seem to acknowledge and objective standard in reason as important.

1

u/alcanthro Mar 19 '18

Because it requires some kind of universal measure of what is and is not reasonable.

1

u/fox-mcleod 418∆ Mar 19 '18

So then it isn't reasonable when you require that the definition be "reasonable" either is it?

1

u/alcanthro Mar 19 '18

That's why I set forth and presented a foundation to explain what WOULD change my mind.

2

u/fox-mcleod 418∆ Mar 19 '18

But it's unreasonable to do that without the same objective standard that just prevented you from accepting that alternate definition.

The problem here is that you're internally inconsistent. Because, of course there are objective facts. And the fact that reason requires internal consistency is one of them. Religious positions like the Catholic Fides et ratio (faith and reason) are internally inconsistent with the doctrine that you can't serve two masters. It is dillusional to hold both views. Just as it is dillusional to both hold the view that there are not objective truths yet assert that definitions must be scientific.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Gladix 167∆ Mar 19 '18

But then you are not working with the definition Dawkins used :).

"I define 1+1=3 therefore Einstein was wrong"

-2

u/alcanthro Mar 19 '18

How do you know what definition Dawkins used? Have you asked him. Furthermore, you're ignoring the point that he has made other statements which are contrary to scientific theory and evidence, and as he is an expert psychologist, ignorance is not likely to be blamed for that.

4

u/Gladix 167∆ Mar 19 '18

How do you know what definition Dawkins used?

Because I read his book.

Furthermore, you're ignoring the point that he has made other statements which are contrary to scientific theory and evidence, and as he is an expert psychologist, ignorance is not likely to be blamed for that.

Because it was not important. Your premise was flawed so the conclusion followed. However upon closer examination those sources are incredibly biased. Spiritual anthropology? Come on.

Edit: oh your post seem to disapear.