Delusional Blogging, Part One

[highlyeccentric]

As I mentioned in this entry, one of my summer projects is to read The God Delusion, as it has become increasingly apparent to me that it is going to be impossible to have a sensible conversation with goblinpaladin until I have done so.

Thus far, I have read the Preface. It is bold, and not nearly as... rude as I had been lead to expect. Dawkins is a man on a self-appointed mission. I don't think I'm going to like him and his mission, but I can hardly blame him for pursuing it.

1: What's in a delusion?

I don't mean you. You're not like that, is the common footnote to complaints about religion and religious people. I'm always pleased not to be hated, but am often disquieted by the accompanying assumption that i'm not a real Christian. Real Christians are Those People. Highly has a little bit of a personality quirk, that's all. A harmless delusion, if you will.
Religion is dangerous, highlyeccentric is not. goblinpaladin, shortly after he rescinded his declaration that I was not a 'real christian', got into an argument with a Dawkins-hating friend of ours. He went into Fanboy mode, as he does, rhapsodising about the evils of religion and the glorious vision of a world without it. (This is quite fun to watch, I recommend you get him started on it sometime.)
I'm not talking about you, he qualified. People like you and Highly... Highly's faith is beautiful. Dawkins isn't talking about you guys. He says so in chapter such-and-such. (goblinpaladin corrects himself below)
But that's not how it works. You can't say "The God Delusion" and then want to exempt those whose delusions are pretty.

The word 'delusion' in my title has disquieted some psychiatrists who regard it as a technical term, not to be bandied about...
The Penguin English Dictionary defines a delusion as 'a false belief or impression'... The dictionary supplied with Microsoft Word defines a delusion as 'a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of psychiatric disorder'. The first part capures religious faith perfectly. As to whether it is a syptom of a psychiatric disorder, I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, when he said, 'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion.' (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, (London: Bantam Press 2006) p. 5)

This is Dawkins' own definition. The "God Delusion" is corporate. Individually, I might be a little batty, and Jerry Falwell might have been out of his tree, but collectively we have a Religion. (And am I really any less insane than Jerry Falwell? Or am just less offensive in my insanity?) Dawkins knows that. Individually, I'm unlikely to feature on anyone's Atrocity List, let alone his the tiny summary thereof , which takes up a paragraph on pages 1-2. Nevertheless, just as his imagined world without religion has no suicide bombers and no televangelists, there is no room in it for me.

There is no room in it for me and my faith. But Dawkins is talking to me.

If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down. What presumptious optimism! Of course, dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument, their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods that took centuries to mature (whether by evolution or by design). Among the more effective immunological devices is a dire warning to avoid even opening a book like this, which is surely a work of Satan. But I believe there are plenty of open-minded people out there: people whose childhood indoctrination was not too insidious, or for other reasons didn't 'take', or whose native intelligence is strong enough to overcome it. Such free spirits should need only a little encouragement to break free of the vice of religion altogether. At the very least, I hope that nobody who reads this book will be able to say, 'I didn't know I could.' (pp. 5-6)

My arrogant assumption that I can (and will, thank you Mr Dawkins) read this book without coming out an atheist at the other end might make me one of the dyed in the wool faith-heads. But I have picked up the book, and i don't  think it's a work of Satan. So I'm probably one of those who ought to finish this book as an atheist.

Budding evangelists will tell you that it is important to reach out to people, bring them into the Kingdom of God, save their souls. If you ask them why, you'll get a host of reasons. Jesus said so in the Bible. It brings glory to God. That sort of thing. Sooner or later, it comes back to but they need to be saved. They have sin on their souls. They'll burn in hell. Isn't it selfish not to try to convert your friends, if you know that's the way it works?
It strikes me that this argument applies doubly to athiests. I can, and do, subscribe to the belief that "all things will be reconciled to Him" sooner or later. I can, and do, figure that God is a bigger and better evangelist than any christian will ever be, and that living faith honestly is the best and truest witness, and leave the problem of conversion up to God. But Dawkins has no higher power. His critical mass of athiests, if it is to come into being, can only come into being through the work and words of individuals. He cannot simply sit by and watch an entire planet foundering under Delusion.

So, kudos to Richard Dawkins for realising that. Don't do him the disservice of reducing his mission to "he doesn't mean you". I'm sure he'd concede that some of us are more of a threat to society than others. But I will be disappointed in him if I find an exclusion clause anywhere in this book. If God is a Delusion, then we are all deluded and we none of us belong in Dawkins' longed-for world.

On the other hand, this argument means I'm not allowed to say, of assorted religious nutcases, "but that's not me". Sure, it's not me. But we have the same Delusion. One body in Christ- me and Joe Nutjob. Made extra problematic by the fact that Joe Nutjob doesn't believe we have the same delusion, and firmly believes I am the work of Satan.
*Sighs* I don't know what to do about that. Here's the point where I should say that I've vowed to fight bigotry and poor exegesis in the name of Christ. But I'm not a crusading sort of person.

Comments

[goblinpaladin.livejournal.com]

This is the problem with a) shifting into FanboyMode and b) trying to have a conversation with a person that constantly overrides you (not you, the Other One). One speaks faster than one thinks, with the end result being that one says something slightly different from what one means.

I don't mean you. You're not like that, is the common footnote to complaints about religion and religious people. I'm always pleased not to be hated, but am often disquieted by the accompanying assumption that I'm not a real Christian.

The assumption isn't that you're not a Real Christian. You are. You just don't believe some of the dangerous and stupid things that Other Christians believe. While your belief is 'delusional,' it's not nearly as dangerous as some of the other religites out there. That is all I mean. You can accept some science, even if you have problems understanding the details. You can read the Bible in context. You realise that some of the laws and stories are to help a nomadic tribal people and no longer apply to the real world.

You're delusional, but you only have a mild strand of what could be a much more dangerous illness.

"I'm not talking about you," he qualified. "People like you and Highly... Highly's faith is beautiful. Dawkins isn't talking about you guys. He says so in chapter such-and-such."

But that's not how it works. You can't say "The God Delusion" and then want to exempt those whose delusions are pretty.

Argh. This is what said, but not what I meant. Curse you, fanboy mode! *shakes fist*

What I meant was that not all of Dawkins' arguments apply to you. Some of them are about the Argument from Design, or the Argument from Morality, and you don't make those arguments. Dawkins thinks you're wrong. He touches on why. But several of his important arguments are aimed at beliefs that you, personally, don't have. When I said "he doesn't mean you," that is what I meant.

Your belief in a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us?* That he thinks is a delusion and yes, a dangerous one. But some of his arguments won't apply -you'll already agree with them- because your delusion isn't as bad as is is for some others.

I'm probably one of those who ought to finish this book as an atheist.

We've had conversations about this. I certainly would like you to think rationally about this, even as I feel that it's unlikely to completely change your mind. Neither does Dawkins, I don't think. What the passage you refer to is really saying is, Pick it up and read it. Don't just accept things because you were told 'this is the way it is.' I honestly feel that Dawkins would give you a respectful nod for having actually read the book, unlike so many of his critics, even if you still had faith.

Of course, then he would try and argue with you, because that's the point.

Anyway, you won't find an exclusion clause. Just don't do what several of his critics have done, and get snooty because he's not 'talking about my God.' His definition of 'God' is clearly spelled out, and he makes his arguments there. He will take issue with any definition of faith -and does so- but not all his arguments work with every particular strand of religiosity.

As for you and Joe Nutjob, you are both in the body of Christ. You both have the same delusion, but one of you is healthier than the other. One of you can function in the 21st century, one of you needs to go live in a monastery during the 12th century.

Good luck. I shall read with avid interest.


---
*Dawkins, p.31. His definition of 'God' for the purpose of his argument.

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

Hey, why do i get the feeling you're consigning the wrong one of us to a 12th century monastery?

I demand the right to live in the past!

(medievalist, remember :P)

[goblinpaladin.livejournal.com]

*grins at you*

No, you belong in the seventh century. Back when women could get away with more.

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

oy, don't get me started on my twelfth-century-women's-education rant.

[goblinpaladin.livejournal.com]

Surely that would cleanse the palate from the Delusion!Post?