1. Comment #45975 by chadvader123 on May 29, 2007 at 11:01 pm

I am so pleased to hear Richard pretty much admit that calling someone delusional is a bad choice of words.

Has he finally realized that name calling only hurts his cause?

Other Comments by chadvader123

2. Comment #45976 by z8000783 on May 29, 2007 at 11:34 pm

Interesting, that's not how I heard it.

To me he was making space between the 'dictionary' definition of believing something which is wrong and the more colloquial use of deluded as insane.

I know Wikipedia should be taken as definitive but it gets it about right I think

"A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process)."

John

Other Comments by z8000783

3. Comment #45977 by arthursanford on May 29, 2007 at 11:37 pm

delusion: a false belief or opinion
deluded: to mislead the mind or judgment of; deceive

It is the context that makes the charge insulting. Calling someone a deluded psychopath is stringent. Calling a belief a delusion is a standard criticism.

Other Comments by arthursanford

4. Comment #45978 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 11:41 pm

Me too: I thought that Richard was rowing back a little from the use of the word 'delusion' only in the specific cases of the theists he cites. After all, if you're looking for converts like Richard Harries, Rowan Williams, and Robert Winston, you want to allow them a bit of room for recantation, don't you?

Other Comments by Flagellant

5. Comment #45982 by AdrianB on May 30, 2007 at 12:23 am

Nice try chadvader123, but no cigar in this instance imho.

Other Comments by AdrianB

6. Comment #45984 by bitbutter on May 30, 2007 at 12:57 am

I didn't think there was any backpedaling in evidence. I'd like to hear more of Richard's thoughts on cultural relativism.

Other Comments by bitbutter

7. Comment #45987 by Enlightenme.. on May 30, 2007 at 1:07 am

The big question I think is; Were the 19 hijacker's truly acting under this percieved delusion, or were they - as people keep positing that the tamil tigers are - acting under another delusion - that they were sacrificing themselves in the best interests of 'their' people.

I also think that the rise of profession of belief in good 'ol U.S.A is a sort of not facing up to guilt effect, ironically from the unjust war. I also think it's just that - a profession of belief only, which will hopefully wane after the passing of the Bush administration.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

8. Comment #45988 by CJ on May 30, 2007 at 1:17 am

On two comments I have seen RD make it would appear that there have been times when publishers and spin doctors have got the better of him. One was the title for The Root of All Evil and the other was The God Delusion. Richard has stated previously that the word delusion could be taken as harsh but that still didn't make it wrong.

And what else could you have called the book?

The God Insanity
God Mythology
God Myths
The mythology of Gods
Gods, Memes and Religion
Deprogramming the faithful
What god?
What God!
Etc etc

And whatever you call the book the message is still the same that belief in a superstitious god is a delusion. So back peddling on the title is a futile waste of time. People choose to take offence and will do so every time they want to.

Other Comments by CJ

9. Comment #45991 by Rtambree on May 30, 2007 at 1:27 am

7. Comment #45987 by Enlightenme.. on May 30, 2007

>I also think that the rise of profession of belief in good 'ol U.S.A is a sort of not facing up to guilt effect

Yes, I've noticed that American politicians seem to insert the words "I believe" into every second sentence, as if it's a 'get out of jail' card and no further justification is needed. It ends dialogue.

Dennett is right about belief in belief - if you prefix your sentences with "I believe", then you can get away with anything.

Even Tony Blair used it in his resignation speech - tens of thousands of deaths are OK because "I believed" I was doing the right thing. So did every other mass murdering dictator.

I could paraphrase Yoda... "know, or know not, there is no believe".

The scientific method is about tentative hypothesising and seeking out falsification, whereas in politics, the leader is supposed to have "a vision" that he sincerely "believes" in.

Imagine a politician that said "we will attempt to implement this proposal, but if counter-evidence suggests it is not working, we'll try another proposal".

He'd be lampooned as a flip-flop.

Why do we prefer our politicians to steadfastly pursue goals that may be false, rather than adopt a tentative scientific method to policy?

We insist our politicians be "strong" rather than have someone who is willing to change their minds.

Other Comments by Rtambree

10. Comment #45997 by NMcC on May 30, 2007 at 1:48 am

Rtambree

Excellent post, as I've come to expect from you.

One quibble though: 'tens of thousands of deaths'? Up to a couple of years ago, was it the British Medical Journal, Lancet, or an investigation by an American human rights team, that reported some 650,000 Iraqi dead? Some say it's anything up to 1,000,000 deaths now that the little worm Blair has on his conscience. Never mind though, as you say, it's OK since he 'thought he was doing the right thing'.

Hitler, as we all know, was racked with doubt.

Other Comments by NMcC

11. Comment #46004 by Rtambree on May 30, 2007 at 2:13 am

>10. Comment #45997 by NMcC on May 30, 2007 at 1:48 am

RE: Iraqi death toll

Yes, I know, good point. I deliberately underestimated so no right-winger could say "those Lancet figures have been disputed and the UN says 'x' and the 'Iraqi ministry says 'y' and Iraq Body Count says 'z'.

Who really knows what it is, as the estimates vary so widely. It wouldn't surprise me if it was in seven figures. In any case, it's comparable to the deaths caused by the 1990s economic sanctions under Clinton.

How Bush & Blair can live with themselves is perplexing. Even if it was an "honest mistake" (best case scenario for them), one would think it would have some psychological implications. I mean, if a ship's captain or airline pilot made a mistake that killed his passengers, there's often severe depression at best or suicide at worst, so extreme is the guilt, but Bush and Blair (and Howard) just keep on smiling like some demented psychopaths.

Other Comments by Rtambree

12. Comment #46005 by The Science Pundit on May 30, 2007 at 2:15 am

Cultural Relativism is a tool that scientists (such as anthropologists and historians) must use in order to properly understand other cultures. In that (the proper) context it is a good thing.

When people on the "left" start to use it as Richard said to put down science (and other Western ideals of the Enlightenment), then they are full of (you know what).

Other Comments by The Science Pundit

13. Comment #46010 by NMcC on May 30, 2007 at 2:37 am

Rtambree

Again, excellent points. In regard to the sactions under the Clinton administration I have a little twinge of guilt myself as I remember agreeing that there was little point sending aid to, or lifting sanctions on, a country when the (unelected) leader of which would only use this to his own nefarious advantage. I suspect I was influenced by Sunday Times reports of how Saddam sold the aid previously sent and used the funds to buy weapons (obviously not of mass destruction!). Now I'm ashamed of myself for not looking into the matter with more interest. I think your comparison with the two death tolls is spot on.

As to the lack of conscience. One of the things that makes me want to put my boot through the TV when Blair is on is remembering the story of the little 9-10 year old Iraqi boy who had his arms blown off. Do you remember that? How the media slobbered over the fact that he was brought to Britain for 'new' arms etc - with a grinning Blair playing it for all it was worth. I wonder does Blair even remember the wee lad's name? Or given him a single thought since?

It's an interesting question as you say; how do they deal with it psychologically? Well, Blair, at least, has already indicated how...God will sort it all out in the end and God knows he was one of the good guys. As for Bush, I suspect the way he deals with it is that he doesn't even accept that it has anything to do with him; that it's all part of a game called 'protecting freedom' and, when it's all over, everyone will come back to life again and have their limbs and mental state restored.

Other Comments by NMcC

14. Comment #46014 by IanRobinson on May 30, 2007 at 2:49 am

"How to question everything."

Sounds like a good book project to me.

Other Comments by IanRobinson

15. Comment #46017 by Shuggy on May 30, 2007 at 2:58 am

So what is the difference between the kind of delusion that someone is Napoleon and the kind that there is a supernatural intelligent being?

All I can think of is that there is negative evidence that someone is Napoleon, such that they have to believe a variety of absurd things as well, and only a lack of evidence that there is a god. But theists do generally believe a variety of absurd things as well, so maybe that can be pulled down.

What makes a delusion pathological?

Other Comments by Shuggy

16. Comment #46031 by HunterZolomon on May 30, 2007 at 3:37 am

"So what is the difference between the kind of delusion that someone is Napoleon and the kind that there is a supernatural intelligent being?
"

Number of people sharing your delusion is an obvious reply. Another reason is perhaps that "God" is a sort of replacement for the unknown for many people. What one cannot understand is probably also easier to be fooled into believing.

Other Comments by HunterZolomon

17. Comment #46032 by MIDVALCRE on May 30, 2007 at 3:54 am

Whats also needed to "help our cause" is to remind those who are faithful that Religion has its merits, its beauty, and its importance in the same ways art and literature do, and that we do not intend on abolishing it completely, only putting it where it belongs, like in the area of the humanities department. Many people might be willing to temper their faith if they knew they could still practice their religions. It may very well be these baby steps that are needed for humans to walk into the adulthood of their existance.

Other Comments by MIDVALCRE

18. Comment #46034 by Corylus on May 30, 2007 at 3:59 am

I wonder, am I the only person who finds Hitchens so much more convincing when he bothers to shave??

I'm shallow, I know, judging on appearances! But then so do many theists...

Other Comments by Corylus

19. Comment #46036 by Corylus on May 30, 2007 at 4:01 am

Whoops sorry! Wrong thread.

That's what happens when I try to multi-task... :(

Other Comments by Corylus

20. Comment #46070 by Strider40 on May 30, 2007 at 6:15 am

I don't understand why so many of these gems are posted in QuickTime. Given that most of us are slaves to MicroSoft don't most people use Windows Media Player?

Other Comments by Strider40

21. Comment #46080 by mdowe on May 30, 2007 at 6:40 am

Re: Comment #46070 by Strider40

At least it is a direct link so you can just download the file with a web-brower even if you don't have a player on hand. On most less-than-mainstream operating systems, retrieving a clip is often much more annoying than finding a media player to handle it.

Other Comments by mdowe

22. Comment #46117 by Jiten on May 30, 2007 at 9:19 am

Why does RD shy away from calling the Archbishop deluded?This is the second time.The first was when the lady in the tent "put the question with merciless clarity".

Is he being polite to the "distinguished"? I thought we were not meant to be polite anymore.I thought we were not going to take it anymore.

Other Comments by Jiten

23. Comment #46129 by BicycleRepairMan on May 30, 2007 at 9:50 am

"Why does RD shy away from calling the Archbishop deluded?"

Its obvious, people in the media are looking for controversial statements, they want headlines like "Dawkins says all Bishops are deluded" They try to corner him to present the bishops as deluded in the crazy sense, while the meaning of the word in the book is the scientific usage of the word, which is more "You are wrong" than "You are crazy"

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

24. Comment #46132 by maton100 on May 30, 2007 at 10:06 am

Once again, it is called "The God Delusion" not "The People Delusion."

Other Comments by maton100

25. Comment #46142 by Enlightenme.. on May 30, 2007 at 11:11 am

@ comment 46117 by Jiten;
"Why does RD shy away from calling the Archbishop deluded?"

If you think about it, what he is (not) saying could be taken to be much ruder, the bish could perhaps be forgiven if he was deluded, if not then he is an apologist for 'the big deception' of faith - the child abusers, (erm -pertaining to their minds, that is) genital mutilators, etc etc - it puts him in that company.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

26. Comment #46146 by Enlightenme.. on May 30, 2007 at 11:34 am

Anyway - I still don't think some people on here have got what I'm saying;

That is, I think we are deluding ourselves by believing these people really are believers.

Professing belief just isn't the same thing - far from it, and there are plenty of 'good' reasons for turning a blind eye to the emporer's nakedness.

Ask yourself, how many elementary-schooled people do you think 'don't get' the simple argument from geography which occurs to us all around age 10?

We (the royal) are professing a false belief (I believe!)

How many of those 19 men do you believe really were deluded?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

27. Comment #46153 by freestateofmind on May 30, 2007 at 11:49 am

I think the book and its title are great. HOWEVER, in order to not "disrespect" that untouchable thing called religion, perhaps Richard's follow up book could be entitled "The God Confusion."

Other Comments by freestateofmind

28. Comment #46161 by AJ Rae on May 30, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Some people say they believe in "God", but it's hard to say they do if you ask them to explain what they mean. If you believe you talk to God, it's a delusion. Deists do not have a delusion, they're simply wrong, and some bishops are certainly not willing to commit to Theism when asked, it resembles either Pantheism or Deism. As an analogy, you can't say they believe they're Napolean, but some religious people definitely do, like certain terrorists.

Other Comments by AJ Rae

29. Comment #46175 by EndlessForms on May 30, 2007 at 1:01 pm

I agree, seems chad is grasping at straws. Dawkins surely means in the strict definition of delusion, not the lay persons idea of deluded (ie insane) as an insult, which is only the definition to a knee-jerk reaction to the word, being ignorant of a bloody dictionary.

Other Comments by EndlessForms

30. Comment #46208 by Jiten on May 30, 2007 at 3:04 pm

At the end the reporter asks RD about what's next.I know what I'd like: an autobiography.But alas I've read that RD probably shall not write one.In that case get Matt Ridely to write a biography.He's just done a fine one on Crick and I enjoyed his The Red Queen.

Other Comments by Jiten