tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9051910413872751516.post8946589407171695045..comments2023-09-06T01:31:38.653-07:00Comments on Comics, Beer, and Shakespeare: What's wrong with being delusional?Lance Christian Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14662783824480475026noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9051910413872751516.post-21459122063863214452008-12-29T22:42:00.000-08:002008-12-29T22:42:00.000-08:00Hmmm...I really just don't see him as "belittling"...Hmmm...I really just don't see him as "belittling" anybody. A bit harsh, maybe? Oh well, we could get into semantics all day about this, I suppose, but it doesn't seem to matter as we pretty much agree.Lance Christian Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14662783824480475026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9051910413872751516.post-46687182651152968252008-12-29T19:47:00.000-08:002008-12-29T19:47:00.000-08:00That's kind of my point. Someone else has to decid...That's kind of my point. Someone else has to decide if a person is delusional or just hopeful. To some degree, delusion is a matter of opinion. You and I might agree if a person is delusional, but really the reason Dawkins uses that word is to belittle religious individuals.<BR/><BR/>I think a more helpful descriptor might be "cognitive dissonance."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05913380772514874237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9051910413872751516.post-44060277727388718342008-12-29T14:24:00.000-08:002008-12-29T14:24:00.000-08:00The difference between delusion and hope? Well, h...The difference between delusion and hope? Well, hope isn't necessarily delusional. For instance, I hope that my wife comes back okay from the ski trip that she went on today. That's reasonable. I also hope that the economy will turn around - again, reasonable.<BR/><BR/>If I hope that one day I'll get bitten by a radioactive spider and gain its powers, well...then I'm getting delusional.<BR/><BR/>I guess that hope isn't delusion, but there's a line there somewhere. Where is it? I'm not entirely sure.<BR/><BR/>As for the rest of what you wrote, I'll just leave it at that, because if I'm not mistaken, you're just adding to what I wrote and not necessarily contradicting it. It might not be the way I'd put it, but I can't really find anything in there that I disagree with even though it's not exactly, 100% how I see things.Lance Christian Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14662783824480475026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9051910413872751516.post-80648652840883289542008-12-29T10:50:00.000-08:002008-12-29T10:50:00.000-08:00Good topic. I really like Dawkins. I do think he's...Good topic. I really like Dawkins. I do think he's somewhat insulting, but that's just what he does. He's the proverbial dinner guest who actually says that the food stinks.<BR/><BR/>As for the topic, I agree that there's nothing necessarily wrong with delusions, we all have them to some degree, and if they help or serve as a much needed crutch then so be it. Although, I think that in the grand scheme of things we're all better off with fewer of them.<BR/><BR/>Despite liking Dawkins, I have to niggle with him from time to time. I won't say that I outright disagree with him, I just don't think he's always completely honest with himself and the audience. I agree with him in this clip. I <I>think</I> anyone who claims to have spoken with a supernatural being is either delusional or a liar. Furthermore, anyone who insists on the existence of supernatural beings is also <I>likely</I> delusional (not that there's anything wrong with delusions). But, I think it's important to point out two things, first, that the converse (invsrse?... not sure) is not necessarily true, that rational thought does not necessarily lead to atheism (although, I would agree that it <I>usually</I> does). That is to say that atheists do not have a lock on reason... they're just typically better at it.<BR/><BR/>After all, science is based upon experience and dogma too. The difference is that all experience needs to be repeatable in order to become dogma... or at least it should be repeatable. Maybe the religious should learn something here. And, a good scientist (or atheist) would be well served to remember that we are limited by what we can experience, that some things are simply not testable, and that's the reason religious beliefs do not belong in science. It's not that belief in god is delusional by definition or just a silly notion - there are plenty of silly ideas in science. Religious experience is simply not testable and not repeatable. As a consequence, we can reasonably assume that religious dogma is delusion, but it's just a hedged bet, not a proof. I believe this is why Dawkins says, "it is my opinion that you are hallucinating." There is no way to prove that the man suffers from hallucinations, and no way to prove he is delusional. It's just relatively likely that he is.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, in defense of the religios, I might ask, what is the difference between delusion and hope?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05913380772514874237noreply@blogger.com