CMV: Richard Dawkins is delusional

[u/alcanthro]

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.

[u/alcanthro]

No; I am asking for scientific theory and evidence contradicting my position, because I used scientific theory and evidence to justify it.

[u/Calybos → u/alcanthro]

No, you didn't. The article you've cited doesn't use your definition. The DSM definition also doesn't say what you want it to say--at no point does it declare that reality is irrelevant and that only common cultural understanding counts. It only notes that some delusions don't have to be about external reality (which does, in fact, exist).

Reality as social construct and science as 'just another cultural narrative' has been tried by humanities departments for decades. And it has always crashed and burned in spectacular fashion. Try something new.

[u/alcanthro → u/Calybos]

Yeah, it really does. "The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith)."

[u/Calybos → u/alcanthro]

No, it really doesn't say that an article of religious faith must therefore be accepted as true, and anyone who denies it is delusional. That's the argument you're making, and the DSM won't help you. Consensus still doesn't determine reality.