# Salon.com interview: Dawkins dumbs down **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 30, 2005, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833 "2005-04-30T05:00:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/21 "2005-05-01T22:25:37Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I think you’re wrong, and I don’t think quite understand what a serious charge Dawkins is leveling. Men who are declared delusional may be involuntarily committed to mental institutions for evaluation and treatment. I believe that “Mengelean” is a perfectly descriptive adjective for asylums that would house unwilling human subjects and do grotesque pseudo-scientific psychiatric experiments on them for the sole reason that they believe in God. Are you, perhaps, speaking from experience? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/22 "2005-05-01T22:36:38Z")
I can’t see that Dawkins’ comments are really all that problematic. Take the atheist/agnostic issue. What is it about the existence of God that people have to create this indeterminant position of agnosticism? If I tell you that I believe in leprechauns, you will rightly say that there is no such thing as leprechauns. You will not say “well, it’s possible that leprechauns exist, but we just really don’t know”. It’s almost as if there is some need not to offend the sensibilities of believers that there is this insistence that agnossiticsm is the strongest stance allowable to the “does God exist” question. There is simply no evidence of the existence of God, and no reason to acknowledge an agnostic stance than there is to do the same for anything a person can conjure up. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/23 "2005-05-01T22:51:36Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I think you’re wrong, and I don’t think quite understand what a serious charge Dawkins is leveling. Men who are declared delusional may be involuntarily committed to mental institutions for evaluation and treatment. I believe that “Mengelean” is a perfectly descriptive adjective for asylums that would house unwilling human subjects and do grotesque pseudo-scientific psychiatric experiments on them for the sole reason that they believe in God. You are seriously suggesting that Dawkins believes that all religious believers should be instutionalized for being psychotic? Oooookay. I can see there’s no point in discussing this any further. ---
**Author:** ![guinnog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7993a0/32.png) [@guinnog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guinnog)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/24 "2005-05-02T00:26:04Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I think you’re wrong, and I don’t think quite understand what a serious charge Dawkins is leveling. Men who are declared delusional may be involuntarily committed to mental institutions for evaluation and treatment. I believe that “Mengelean” is a perfectly descriptive adjective for asylums that would house unwilling human subjects and do grotesque pseudo-scientific psychiatric experiments on them for the sole reason that they believe in God. I don’t think that is what Dawkins is suggesting by his use of the word here. Comparing him to Mengele is really… delusional? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/25 "2005-05-02T02:47:04Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > But our beliefs, the output of our cognitive apparatus, _are_ themselves probabilistic in character: we say we are or believe _strongly_, or are _pretty sure_, or are _uncertain_. We express the position of the needle of the Belief-O-Meter representing this computer in our skulls _no matter what the statement_. This is an excellent observation. I have been thinking about this too, recently: What makes me say (in my mind, as you point out), that a certain CD is _probably_ in a certain location in my house, or that it’s _almost certainly true_ that the God of the New Testament is not as he is described there? I think to a certain extent the answer is as per Kant’s philosophy: “Possibility” is one of his a priori categories, and we cannot help but think in that way–even as you observe. It may be that our mind’s directly perceive Reality in such a way as to produce such language–it makes perfect sense to us–without our really understanding why completely. But we can distinguish such “fuzzy logic” probability from actual calculations of probability. In fact, talking about God in such fuzzy-logic probabalistic terms is to do little more than to say “It seems not so.” That’s not good enough. And once one’s reasoning does get good enough (I myself think there are excellent arguments against a monotheistic that by no means rely on probabalistic reasoning), it’s not about probability. [quote] > [@](#): > > I can still say that it is _possible_ that I live in a computer simulation: that this statement involves ‘reality’ does not change the nature of our cognition regarding it. You’ve got to distinguish between cognition as Reason and cognition as passive consciousness. I can think anything I damn please about anything, but that doesn’t mean I have good _reasons_ to believe it. I feel I can prove through philosophical arguments that we are _not_ in a computer simulation, or at least that the concept of such a simulation is moot. > [@](#): > > Again, I’d suggest that this makes no fundamental difference. Cognitive science seeks to explain how “entities are conceived” - specific properties of those entities (_eg._ invisibility or timelessness) do not change the computational basis. I disagree. I think the qualities of something definitely change the test of that entity’s existence. To give a good atheist’s argument against God, I would say that the very qualities that God is purported to have prevent a priori any test of His existence. For example, there is no test for omnipotence. Even if a powerful being could erase planets right before your eyes is not a proof that the being could do _anything_. And since we have no test or standard by which we could consider any entity to be God, then we have no reason for proposing such a being as existing in the first place. Unless we have a good philosophical argument, such as the ontological argument attempted to be (it was philosophical but not good). God’s existence will either be proved with certainty through philosophical argument or not proved at all. > [@](#): > > Wonder as you will, but you would also have to explain those incredible _predictions_ of scientific models which, amazingly, came true against all odds (and, ultimately, saved the lives of our loved ones who would surely have died in past centuries). I didn’t express myself very well. The applied science of our era is fantastic, but I wonder if theory is where it could be when Dawkins seems so narrow-minded. And evolutionary psychology–_cough_–certainly has yet to produce any world-changing models. > [@](#): > > Personally, I’ve never understood agnosticism as any more than a trivial tautology. _Of course_ we can never know - that’s why we say what our _guess_ is. Surely every theist or atheist is an agnostic? No, people on both sides feel that they have achieved philosophical certainty on the matter, and many theists say that God has revealed Himself directly to them. > [@](#): > > No, you misunderstand memetics: it is simply about _what memories/beliefs are statistically prevalent at any one time_, not about which ones might allow the individual or group which **hold** it to outcompete another which doesn’t. I’m not an expert on what various scientists have said about memetics, but it doesn’t seem much of a stretch to hold that certain of these memes/viruses kill their host and certain of them have adaptive value. > [@](#): > > Dawkins would agree that religious belief is highly successful, but only for _itself_ (hence the virus analogy). Fine, but it still has some relationship to the host. I’d be curious to see a quote or two on the matter if you have them available. > [@](#): > > Maybe so, but I’d be happy to admit that if God exists, I am _deluded_ or _delusional_ in my belief that He doesn’t. Atheists aren’t deluded, and to say they are is to abuse the word and belittle the person. > [@](#): > > Careful with your _tu quoque_s. And careful also with equating atheism with Socialism or PETA membership. And with the argument-to-age in religion’s “track record”. And associating atheism with a moral absence or mass murder. In short, that paragraph of yours was _sloppy_. I stand by everything I wrote. > [@](#): > > A powerful excuse, mind - if they had all been _one_ religion it seems unlikely that such bloodshed would have occurred, although I admit it’s a possibility. You’re right that if they had all been one religion, ceteris paribus, they hadn’t fought. And, by the same logic, if the North and South Vietnamese had had the same politcs there would not have been a Viet Nam War. I’m saying that part of the dark side of human nature is that people separate themselves into arbitrary groups and fight each other. That dark side will use any “excuse” to get people at each other’s throats, and religion is just one excuse among many. I will grant, however, that the evangelical meme (you must believe as I do or face negative consequences) is a bad one, but political systems also have this meme; it is not, historically speaking, particularly characteristic of religion (people used to respect each other’s gods). > [@](#): > > Outside of your lifetime you are dead. The 13.7 billion years before birth and moment of death onwards is “forever”. Remember that you admitted on the final page of the OP that we _are_ like hard drives filled with memories and then thrown on a bonfire. Outside of your lifetime you are non-existent, not “dead.” I was not “dead” in the year 1772. I never agreed with your bonfire analogy, either. Further, the main point of the OP was to point out the corny and philosophically incorrect “you’re dead forever” rhetoric that many atheists–including Dawkins this time around–use. > [@](#): > > Your OP, to me, is rather just splitting hairs. Yes, he puts things in stronger language than others (like, say, me), but compared to the _theists_ I see in the media regularly, he is a paragon of restraint. No doubt. Most Christian media theists are freaks. The point of the OP is that I hold an intelligent and educated person like Dawkins to a higher standard. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/26 "2005-05-02T03:14:10Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > But a philosophically generated entity must be disproved with a philosophical argument. How would you generate a probability for God’s existence? Whether such a being exists is not a matter of chance nor of natural processes to which probabilities could be assigned. Here’s a thought experiment: I take a standard deck of cards, shuffle it thoroughly, then randomly pick one out and toss it in a hat. I ask you what’s the probability that the card in the hat is the ace of spades. You say one in 52. I say “wrong - according to your own argument, the card in the hat either is or isn’t the ace of spades, so assigning probabilities is meaningless.” Would you accept this as a good argument? Just because god either is or isn’t doesn’t mean we can’t look probabilistically at the evidence (or utter lack thereof). ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/27 "2005-05-02T05:15:15Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Here’s a thought experiment: I take a standard deck of cards, shuffle it thoroughly, then randomly pick one out and toss it in a hat. I ask you what’s the probability that the card in the hat is the ace of spades. You say one in 52. I say “wrong - according to your own argument, the card in the hat either is or isn’t the ace of spades, so assigning probabilities is meaningless.” > > Would you accept this as a good argument? Just because god either is or isn’t doesn’t mean we can’t look probabilistically at the evidence (or utter lack thereof). It’s a bad argument. The example you give is one where a probabilistic argument is pertinent. I gave a counter-example earlier in the thread. What is the probability that 2 + 2 = 4? It’s a nonsensical question. Here’s another. Suppose I pull a card out of the deck and random and put in face down on my palm. I tell you to look away for a moment. When you turn back toward me I ask you, “What is the probability I looked at the card while you were turning away?” You have no waying of knowing, and it isn’t a matter of probability. The most basic response to the notion of there being a probability for God’s existence is that there is no way to calculate such a probability, as stated previously. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/28 "2005-05-02T09:01:11Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > It may be that our mind’s directly perceive Reality in such a way as to produce such language–it makes perfect sense to us–without our really understanding why completely. Careful with the cart/horse order here: We talk, chimps don’t - our linguistic modules have _evolved_ where none existed before. Therefore, it is almost certainly not the case that our perception _produces_ language, merely that language is a sound or word _associated_ with a memory or ‘average’ of memories (_ie._ a concept), and we can understand how and why that cognitive development happens as much as the development of, say, the stomach or thumb. > [@](#): > > In fact, talking about God in such fuzzy-logic probabalistic terms is to do little more than to say “It seems not so.” That’s not good enough. I suggest it’s as good as we will ever get. > [@](#): > > And once one’s reasoning does get good enough (I myself think there are excellent arguments against a monotheistic that by no means rely on probabalistic reasoning), it’s not about probability. But it is, even still. “Reasoning” is about the logical connection between premises, not the _truth of the premises themselves_. An argument may be absolutely **valid** , but there is always a possibility that it is not **sound**. Incidentally, what _are_ your non-probabilistic arguments against monoGod? > [@](#): > > You’ve got to distinguish between cognition as Reason and cognition as passive consciousness. Why? Cognition/consciousness **is** the decision+output process: _all of it_. > [@](#): > > I feel I can prove through philosophical arguments that we are not in a computer simulation, or at least that the concept of such a simulation is moot. I’d certainly like to hear it, along with what _isn’t_ moot if the simulation _is_. > [@](#): > > I disagree. I think the qualities of something definitely change the test of that entity’s existence. I said the _cognition_, not the _test_: ie. the computation caried out by our biological machine. > [@](#): > > God’s existence will either be proved with certainty through philosophical argument or not proved at all. How the former, _ever_? Any evidence you set forth in support, I will simply say “Wow. Good simulation”. > [@](#): > > And evolutionary psychology–_cough_–certainly has yet to produce any world-changing models. But cognitive science might well do so, in terms of the increasingly human-like computation. Let’s see. > [@](#): > > No, people on both sides feel that they have achieved philosophical certainty on the matter, and many theists say that God has revealed Himself directly to them. Those certain atheists are strawmen. Those certain theists admit that they might be misinterpreting hyperactivity in the significance-judgment modules in the brain. Both, if honest, would admit that ‘certainty’ is impossible. > [@](#): > > it doesn’t seem much of a stretch to hold that certain of these memes/viruses kill their host and certain of them have adaptive value. It is a stretch which experts generally _do not make_: Certainly, “Religion must be adaptively valuable **to the organism** ” is utterly speculative and not within the ambit of memetics at all. > [@](#): > > Fine, but it still has some relationship to the host.I’d be curious to see a quote or two on the matter if you have them available. He’s saying _he_ thinks it is a successful (for **it** ) but _harmful_ (for the host) relationship. > [@](#): > > Atheists aren’t deluded, and to say they are is to abuse the word and belittle the person. And yet, I’m happy to accept the term if I’m wrong. > [@](#): > > I stand by everything I wrote. The you construct strawmen as high if not higher than those of Dawkins. > [@](#): > > Outside of your lifetime you are non-existent, not “dead.” I was not “dead” in the year 1772. Very well, semantic quibble granted again. “Dead” applies only to the body from the moment of death onwards, not before birth. You are free to choose another term for the piece of cooling meat before you on the operating table, but “dead” suits me just fine. > [@](#): > > I never agreed with your bonfire analogy, either. You said “Sounds right”. > [@](#): > > Further, the main point of the OP was to point out the corny and philosophically incorrect “you’re dead forever” rhetoric that many atheists–including Dawkins this time around–use. “From the moment of death onwards, the state remains the same” = “You are dead forever”. Quibble away. ---
**Author:** ![guinnog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7993a0/32.png) [@guinnog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guinnog)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/29 "2005-05-02T09:16:42Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > It’s a bad argument. The example you give is one where a probabilistic argument is pertinent. > > I gave a counter-example earlier in the thread. What is the probability that 2 + 2 = 4? It’s a nonsensical question. > > Here’s another. Suppose I pull a card out of the deck and random and put in face down on my palm. I tell you to look away for a moment. When you turn back toward me I ask you, “What is the probability I looked at the card while you were turning away?” > > You have no waying of knowing, and it isn’t a matter of probability. > > The most basic response to the notion of there being a probability for God’s existence is that there is no way to calculate such a probability, as stated previously. Aha! I have been wondering what you were on about. It seems you have independently discovered the difference between a priori probability and a posteriori probability. I used to understand it well enough to explain it but cannot seem to today. Neither can I find a good, simple web source that explains it well. Any decent statistics course will cover it though. Basically the answers to your questions above are: Probability that 2 + 2 = 4 is exactly 1. This is not a nonsensical question at all. Just a very easy one. Probability I looked at the card while you were turned away will be between 0 and 1. It would depend on a lot of things. If you knew me you might have a better chance of gauging the probability that I had looked at it. A lot of psychology experiments are just like this. There are many ways to calculate the probability. One way would be to do the experiment loads and loads of times, record the results, and then divide the number of folks who peeked by the total. This isn’t an argument buster either I am afraid. Probability that God exists is way down there for me I’m afraid. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/30 "2005-05-02T10:08:54Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > You are seriously suggesting that Dawkins believes that all religious believers should be instutionalized for being psychotic? > > Oooookay. I can see there’s no point in discussing this any further. That isn’t what I said. If you care to deal with what I said, feel free. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/31 "2005-05-02T10:11:56Z")
> [@guinnog](#): > > I don’t think that is what Dawkins is suggesting by his use of the word here. Comparing him to Mengele is really… delusional? I didn’t say he was suggesting anything. He made a declaration, not a suggestion. He declared that people of faith are delusional. Branding people as sick (in need of help) or dehumanizing them is always the first step in abusing them. ---
**Author:** ![guinnog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7993a0/32.png) [@guinnog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guinnog)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/32 "2005-05-02T12:32:40Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I didn’t say he was suggesting anything. He made a declaration, not a suggestion. He declared that people of faith are delusional. No, he did not. He answered a question by stating that in his view belief in God and therefore religion were delusional views. He stated correctly that debate with people who base their views on ‘faith’ is rather pointless. I have reproduced the original text from the article which you are referring to, as you missed quite a lot of it out. > [@Salon article](#): > > A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence. Religion is scarcely distinguishable from childhood delusions like the “imaginary friend” and the bogeyman under the bed. Unfortunately, the God delusion possesses adults, and not just a minority of unfortunates in an asylum. The word “delusion” also carries negative connotations, and religion has plenty of those. > > What are its negative connotations? > > A delusion that encourages belief where there is no evidence is asking for trouble. Disagreements between incompatible beliefs cannot be settled by reasoned argument because reasoned argument is drummed out of those trained in religion from the cradle. Instead, disagreements are settled by other means which, in extreme cases, inevitably become violent. Scientists disagree among themselves but they never fight over their disagreements. They argue about evidence or go out and seek new evidence. Much the same is true of philosophers, historians and literary critics. > > But you don’t do that if you just know your holy book is the God-written truth and the other guy knows that his incompatible scripture is too. People brought up to believe in faith and private revelation cannot be persuaded by evidence to change their minds. No wonder religious zealots throughout history have resorted to torture and execution, to crusades and jihads, to holy wars and purges and pogroms, to the Inquisition and the burning of witches. Seems pretty fair and unexceptional stuff to me. > [@Liberal](#): > > Branding people as sick (in need of help) or dehumanizing them is always the first step in abusing them. And distorting the words of one you disagree with so you can react even more emotionally seems somewhat dishonest. I still do not think there is any real comparison between Dawkins and Mengele. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/33 "2005-05-02T13:51:34Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > It doesn’t seem much of a stretch to hold that certain of these memes/viruses kill their host and certain of them have adaptive value. > [@SM](#): > > It is a stretch which experts generally do not make: Who’s an expert if not [Susan Blackmore](http://archive.salon.com/july97/21st/article970710.html)? > [@](#): > > Blackmore says that a good test for the independent existence of memes would look for “behavior that is not in the interest of the person – but purely in the interest of the propagation of the memes.” > > The classic example of this spread is religious: “Martyrdom” originally meant “testifying.” It’s just that handing out tracts or making speeches turned out to be a less effective marketing method than getting chewed by lions in public. “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church,” as the meme has it. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/34 "2005-05-02T14:40:13Z")
Apologies: to clarify, experts in biological evolution generally do not look at viruses and ask whether they are advantageous to the _host_, they ask only what is advantageous _to the viruses_. Dawkins and Blackmore are doing the same with memes. The step which experts do not make is concluding, as **Aeschines** did in his OP, that if a meme is popular it **must** have adaptive value _to the host_. On the contrary - a meme could be popular despite its _harmfulness_ to the carrier. The experts are generally as shy of exploring the benefit or harm _to the host_ of a meme as of a virus or parasite: it is far more scientific only to consider the point of view _of the meme/virus_. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/35 "2005-05-02T16:49:20Z")
> [@guinnog](#): > > No, he did not. He answered a question by stating that in his view belief in God and therefore religion were delusional views. He stated correctly that debate with people who base their views on ‘faith’ is rather pointless. I have reproduced the original text from the article which you are referring to, as you missed quite a lot of it out. What you’ve quoted states unequivocally that people of faith are delusional — “the God delusion possesses adults”. The hear-no-evil see-no-evil pretense is rather pointless. > [@](#): > > Seems pretty fair and unexceptional stuff to me. Perhaps that is because you are not the object of its attack. > [@](#): > > And distorting the words of one you disagree with so you can react even more emotionally seems somewhat dishonest. Then why did you misrepresent what I said? You said that I said that he was making suggestions, as though I was coy about it, when in fact I was quite blunt. > [@](#): > > I still do not think there is any real comparison between Dawkins and Mengele. Do you? The comparison is in the declaration that people of faith are sick — psychologically unstable — which, as I said, is the first step in dehumanizing them and which, as I also said, qualifies them for involuntary commitment to mental institutions. In my opinion, the fact that you find his comments “unexceptional” is a remarkable testament to your complete lack of empathy and your inability to grasp the significance of what he has said. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/36 "2005-05-02T17:50:49Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > The comparison is in the declaration that people of faith are sick — psychologically unstable — which, as I said, is the first step in dehumanizing them and which, as I also said, qualifies them for involuntary commitment to mental institutions. I think you’re skipping some steps here, though. He says that religious belief is a delusional belief…people believe it without any evidence that it’s true, but that doesn’t mean he’s saying that people who believe in God are sick or should be committed. He’s saying the opposite, actually. That this is a delusion that affects sane adults, not just little kids, like the belief in an imaginary friend, or “a minority of unfortunates in an asylum”. ---
**Author:** ![guinnog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7993a0/32.png) [@guinnog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guinnog)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/37 "2005-05-02T20:13:28Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > What you’ve quoted states unequivocally that people of faith are delusional — “the God delusion possesses adults”. The hear-no-evil see-no-evil pretense is rather pointless. I see you equate ‘faith’ with belief in ‘God’. How telling. And rather predictable too. You could not even envisage someone having faith in the essential goodness of people, for example. That simply would not compute for you, eh? > [@Liberal](#): > > Perhaps that is because you are not the object of its attack. And perhaps that, in turn, is because I do not go around looking for trouble. Not this kind of trouble at least. At least now I can see the game you are playing so I will leave you to it. This is a game you can probably best play on your own. > [@Liberal](#): > > Then why did you misrepresent what I said? You said that I said that he was making suggestions, as though I was coy about it, when in fact I was quite blunt. I am sure this means something to you. Sadly, it means nothing to me. > [@Liberal](#): > > The comparison is in the declaration that people of faith are sick — psychologically unstable — which, as I said, is the first step in dehumanizing them and which, as I also said, qualifies them for involuntary commitment to mental institutions. In my opinion, the fact that you find his comments “unexceptional” is a remarkable testament to your complete lack of empathy and your inability to grasp the significance of what he has said. I know what you said. As I said, in my book this makes you rather than Dawkins somewhat delusional. To equate a respected scientist who has laboured his entire life trying to bring knowledge to people like you, with a Nazi torturer, simply because you do not understand his argument, just strikes me as weird. Unless you want to continue this in the Pit, I see no further point in discussing it with you here. Sadly. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/38 "2005-05-02T20:31:14Z")
Much of the content of this interview is classic Dawkins, not so much “dumbed down” as made rather terse for the medium, and perhaps no less significantly, for the incessant need to repeat himself. Dawkins doesn’t shy from provocation, and I suppose if that motivates one to delve more deeply into his books and essays, it’s as good an inducement as any other. The points he made in the interview, down to the very wording, at times, have all shown up before, though fleshed out and given much more depth. If you find him wanting for the brevity of this interview, I’d caution that it’s meant for short-attention-span popular consumption, and much better renditions of everything he said can be found quite easily. Perhaps because I’m so used to his point of view, and have read a number of his works, I don’t find anything terribly problematic about the content of his interview, beyond uncharacteristic brevity, and somewhat more commonly-accessible vocabulary. By why complain, if you are aware of his larger body of work? Do you expect him to really do the concepts he alludes to justice in the span of a _Salon_ interview? I certainly wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/39 "2005-05-02T20:37:20Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Thinking that religious beliefs are delusional is emphatically _not_ on par with performing grotesque experiments on unwilling human subjects, and suggesting that it is diminishes you. Re. the obscure Godwinization, and what that hyperbole deserves: One’s stance can only be diminished if there’s anywhere to go but up. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/40 "2005-05-03T01:43:30Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Therefore, it is almost certainly not the case that our perception _produces_ language, merely that language is a sound or word _associated_ with a memory or ‘average’ of memories (_ie._ a concept), and we can understand how and why that cognitive development happens as much as the development of, say, the stomach or thumb. I think we’re at cross-purposes on this. I merely meant that we may perceive/think a certain way (and consequently use language a certain way) because we are unconsciously accessing Kantian categories, as it were. > [@](#): > > Incidentally, what _are_ your non-probabilistic arguments against monoGod? We can perceive that certain truths must pertain in all possible universes and even in a universe with nothing in it at all; hence, God is not the creator of such truths; He is subordinate to them. For example, 2 + 2 = 4 in all possible universes. Pi (in a 2D Euclidian plane) is always 3.14~, etc. Atheists don’t like this argument because they are averse to the notion of transcendental truths. It does seem to give theists the willies, though. Another is that God could not have created the “good.” For if the good is merely so becuase of God’s fiat, then he could just as easily have called murder good and it would be so. But we do not believe that murder is arbitrarily good or evil, but that it is essentially evil. Etc. > [@](#): > > I’d certainly like to hear it, along with what _isn’t_ moot if the simulation _is_. There are several good, simple arguments against our being in a computer simulation. First, it’s helpful to see that that the proposition that we are in a computer simulation is nothing more than Descartes’ proposition that an evil demon controlled his perceptions in modern dress. The common denominator is the fear that there is a being or beings that have complete control over Reality and can cause such a reality to change or stop at any time. Moreover, such a proposition is really no different that a belief in God, except that one controlling authority is seen as immoral or evil and one is seen as benevolent. Since there is no real difference between the proposition that we are in a simulation and the proposition that there is a demon or God controlling our perceptions, then an atheist or agnostic has no reason to treat the former proposition any differently. There is an even stronger argument that moots the whole concept, however. There is no test or standard to determine whether we are in a simulation or not. None. Even if one of the masters of the simulation were to alter things before our eyes (Matrix-like) and say, “So there!” we’d have no way of knowing if we were in a simulation or the victim of a demigod’s pranks. Obviously, our perception of How Things Are would change. They’d also change if the Second Coming occurred too. Etc. Another point. Suppose that we are indeed in a simulation. How do the masters of our simulation know that _they_ are not in a simulation? Ad infinitum. > [@](#): > > Those certain theists admit that they might be misinterpreting hyperactivity in the significance-judgment modules in the brain. Both, if honest, would admit that ‘certainty’ is impossible. Certainty is possible about some things. > [@](#): > > And yet, I’m happy to accept the term if I’m wrong. Despite that willingness, it’s still a misuse of the term “deluded.” > [@](#): > > The you construct strawmen as high if not higher than those of Dawkins. “If you build them, they will come.”–Field of Strawmen. [/quote] > [@](#): > > Very well, semantic quibble granted again. “Dead” applies only to the body from the moment of death onwards, not before birth. You are free to choose another term for the piece of cooling meat before you on the operating table, but “dead” suits me just fine. It’s not a quibble–it’s an objection to a rhetorical point atheists consistently employ to mold the tonality of the debate. > [@](#): > > You said “Sounds right”. OK, I take that back then. > [@](#): > > “From the moment of death onwards, the state remains the same” = “You are dead forever”. Quibble away. Quibbles 'n Bits. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833.md?page=3)