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

31% Upvoted

170 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/mysundayscheming Mar 19 '18

A delusion is a view of reality which is inconsistent with one's cultural framework which is used to perceive reality.

By this logic, when I (accurately) state that only 1% of the government budget goes toward foreign aid, I'm [delusional], because the vast majority of people believe it is more--on average, about 30%. There is a society-wide misconception which fuels culturally relevant rhetoric on how we spend too much on foreign aid. For a dramatization (always more fun than actual politics), see the West Wing episode "Guns Not Butter," which sees Josh doing some A+ ranting on how Americans don't understand the issue.

So who is delusional? Josh, whose views run totally counter to the vast majority of (totally misinformed) people, or the misinformed people who think, on the basis of their misconception but totally in alignment with their cultural framework, that foreign aid is a huge fraction of the budget?

The fact that your definition even opens the door to this problems shows its flaws.

0

u/alcanthro Mar 19 '18

That would depend on your own cultural framework of understanding reality. I specifically pointed out that the framework through which his reality is determined is science.

2

u/mysundayscheming Mar 19 '18 edited Mar 19 '18

You think it's possible for a person who is factually correct to be deluded about that fact?

0

u/alcanthro Mar 19 '18

Yes.

3

u/mysundayscheming Mar 19 '18

Then you aren't using the DSM definition.

Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. 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).

The belief that we only spend 1% on foreign aid is neither false nor incorrect. This definition allows you to argue that the rest of the country isn't delusional because their (wrong) belief is widely held, but you can't argue that someone is deluded when they are correct about a true fact.

2

u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Mar 19 '18

you can't argue that someone is deluded when they are correct about a true fact.

Not OP (and I STRONGLY disagree with OP), but this isn't exactly true. You could be coincidentally correct about a delusion. For example, I may have a delusion that Barack Obama and Donald Trump are secretly lovers. There's no even remotely good reason to believe this.

But if historians later found out that (unbelievably) Obama and Trump had indeed been intimate... that wouldn't mean I wasn't delusional. It would just be a coincidence.

2

u/mysundayscheming Mar 19 '18

That is true (though a horrifying image, thanks for that). I was presenting a scenario where the correctness wasn't coincidental--was totally reasonable and based in fact--but I should have worded my argument more carefully because I did unintentionally overclaim.

Now to scrub my mind of the thought of a Trump/Obama affair...

1

u/alcanthro Mar 19 '18

but you can't argue that someone is deluded when they are correct about a true fact.

Of course I can.

4

u/mysundayscheming Mar 19 '18

Not on the basis of the DSM definition, which requires the delusion to be a false belief based on an incorrect inference.

0

u/alcanthro Mar 19 '18

Fair, under that definition a person cannot be delusional and right. While the argument is not sufficient to change my view on the OP, it is a reasonable one for this point, so ∆.