# 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:** 4
**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 4, 2005, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/61 "2005-05-04T01:24:12Z")
For those who don’t think there’s anything at stake in this debate, [this](http://www.salon.com/opinion/letters/2005/05/03/dawkins/index1.html) letter to the Salon editor gave me the willies. > [@Brian Hinson (to Salon.com editor)](#): > > Thank you for interviewing the scientist Richard Dawkins, who unflinchingly calls religion what it really is: a disease. It’s about time we stopped humoring the religious with political correctness and began to speak the truth. We have to fight from the high intellectual ground. The religious are enemies of the Enlightenment and will indeed send our civilization spiraling toward a new dark age. From wanting to teach creation myths as “science” to censoring what we see in our science museums, these people will pollute, degrade and impair the young minds of our future scientists and engineers. Freedom to believe as one chooses is a good thing, except when those at the bottom of the intellectual food chain somehow come in to too much power. It’s time for the defenders of science to come out with irrefutable arguments blazing, lest we see our schools someday teaching Christianity instead of science. ---
**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 4, 2005, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/62 "2005-05-04T01:30:48Z")
Mengele, shmengele. The writers talks about fighting ignorance with reason. What’s wrong with that? ---
**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 4, 2005, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/63 "2005-05-04T01:44:19Z")
> [@guinnog](#): > > 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. Googling gives one lots of sites. Here’s [one](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/apriori.asp): \*\*Probability calculated by logically examining existing information. A priori probabilities are most often used within the counting method of calculating probability. This is because you must use logic to determine what outcomes of an event are possible in order to determine the number of ways these outcomes can occur.\*\* I haven’t independently discovered any difference–I already understood the concept–nor do I think the examples I gave are matters of probability. > [@](#): > > 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. I don’t agree. There are several different ways of looking at “probability” and more than one definition. Whether a coin ends up heads or tails is a contingent matter. 2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute truth and not contingent upon anything. While it is true that assigning a probability of 1 to that statement is not going to be problematic in many/most/all mathematical systems, doing so is much different from assigning a proability of 1 to the chances of picking a red ball from a bag that only contains red balls. In the latter situation, we still recognize that the situation could be otherwise and can imagine a bag full of blue balls or half blue and half red. We cannot imagine 2 + 2 = 5. It is not a matter of chance; it is not contingent. > [@](#): > > 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 is a different case. Whether I look at the card or not is indeed contingent on my eternal state and probably on a lot of other things, but it is not something that can be calculated. To say that the probability is between 0 and 1 is merely to assert that either I did or I didn’t–which is undeniably true but also without insight. There are many contingent events for which a probability cannot be calculated. Chaos theory demonstrates this with mathematical rigor: there is a certain point of complexity at which no model is possible because the model would have to be completely congruent with the unique chaotic event (in other words, the model would be just as complicated as the event it attempts to define, and thus of no use). > [@](#): > > Probability that God exists is way down there for me I’m afraid. God is defined as a being that is not contingent on anything. Nor is there a model that can be built to test whether He exists or not. God’s existence is not a matter of probability, QED. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/64 "2005-05-04T02:20:12Z")
Whats the probability that your definition is correct? ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/65 "2005-05-04T02:26:38Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Mengele, shmengele. The writers talks about fighting ignorance with reason. What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong is that he equivocates religion with ignorance. ---
**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 4, 2005, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/66 "2005-05-04T02:58:01Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > What’s wrong is that he equivocates religion with ignorance. No, he’s equating the subordination of science to religion with ignorance. But whatever your prespective, he isn’t calling for hauling religious people off to concentrations camps and performing medical experiments on them. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/67 "2005-05-04T03:15:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No, he’s equating the subordination of science to religion with ignorance. He equates the subordination of science to religion with ignorance. He speaks as if the subordination of science is a necessary property of religion. Put the two together and you get … > [@](#): > > But whatever your prespective, he isn’t calling for hauling religious people off to concentrations camps and performing medical experiments on them. Agreed. I don’t think the comparison to Mengele is justified. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/68 "2005-05-04T03:24:13Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > For those who don’t think there’s anything at stake in this debate, [this](http://www.salon.com/opinion/letters/2005/05/03/dawkins/index1.html) letter to the Salon editor gave me the willies. I fail to see anything remotely resembling a call to persecute the religious in that statement, unless you equate “vocal disagreement” with persecution. Really, what on Earth are you getting at here? This line of objection is so shrill and hyperbolic you’re approaching parody. I’m afraid the religious are not entitled to having their views respected, only tolerated insofar as they don’t trod on civil rights and free thought. Then and only then would free thinkers of Dawkins’ ilk act, and only in self-defense, legally, and ethically. It is not unethical to call religious faith a load of rubbish and a disease. It is not persecution to be treated dismissively. The religious have no recourse to fact or empirical evidence to support their faith, and hence have no cause to complain when it intrudes on disciplines which rely completely on such evidence. The fact they do complain, often and loudly, is indicative of nothing but their own intolerance of dissent. No one in this debate wants force anthing on the religious, except acceptance that alternate views should not themselves be repressed, especially in the underhanded and mendacious manner so often employed. No evolutionist would or should care if some of the faithful were simply content with virtual hegemony, but apparently that’s not enough. How anyone gets from this sorry state of affairs to nonsense like this most attrocious example of Godwinization gone amuck is astonishing, and shameful. ---
**Author:** ![FordPrefect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@FordPrefect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FordPrefect)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/69 "2005-05-04T03:42:39Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Two comments. > > 1. > > Nice try, **Miller**. No kidding. I just don’t think **Libera** l is going to get up offa that thing, ya know? Saying someone has a delusion \*is exactly equal to \* calling that person delusional, which is \*exactly equal to \* diagnosing that person with a commitable illness, which \*is exactly equal to torturing \* said person, which makes the first guy a monster. Ya see? But if anyone could have gotten through I think you would have done it. > > 1. > > It is threads like these that make the SDMB worthwhile. **Miller, Sentient Meat,** **Liberal, Aeschines** ; all of you guys provoke me into thinking about things in newer, deeper ways, and the cites I have gotten from\*\* Sentient Meat \*\* and \*\*Liberal \*\* provide reading material for months to come. Thanks. 1. Wrong! When I look up delusional I find several definitions, and one or two would agree with what you say here but those are qualified as psychological or psychiatric. If Dawkins was speaking as a psychologist or psychiatrist you would have a point here, but he wasn’t so there is no point assuming he was speaking as a specialist when he used that word. Although, I do concede that I may be getting whooshed here. 1. I agree! ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/70 "2005-05-04T03:45:27Z")
Ignoring Mr. Godwin for a moment . . . > [@Liberal](#): > > Whether God exists or not is clearly not a matter of probability but rather concerns the foundation of Reality itself. Further, God is not “just another” entity that can be proposed but instead is a concept that concer[n]s how we can conceive of any entity at all. You think, therefore God exists? In that case, I would suggest that God is all in your head. One is reminded of a certain two-headed, three-armed ex-head honcho of the galaxy, who found out that he was, in fact, the most important person in the universe. Please don’t cease to think, Lib, lest the rest of us cease to exist. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/71 "2005-05-04T10:57:07Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > the question of how we use the fuzzy logic of probability without really being able to explain how we do so We [can](http://perso.unifr.ch/rafael.nunez/) explain how we do so (or at least, provide _an_ explanation and leave it to each of us to personally output whether it is _the_ explanation). > [@](#): > > I’m not really impressed with what cognitive science has come up with thus far. If Dennet’s _Consciousness Explained_ is to be considered one of the better works in the canon out there, then I’d say the field is in rough shape. You _understood_ it, then? Regardless, it is only one formulation of the Computational Theory of Mind, the **alternatives** to which are, frankly, as empty and ludicrous as intelligent design or vitalism. Can you not _imagine_ that parallel sensory inputs continually filtered and sorted into memory might produce **a** subjective experience in the sensor-memoriser (even if _human_ subjective experience requires far more elements)? I’m not here in this thread to provide a synopsis and Q&A of such a vast scientific field but I would suggest, just as I do to creationists, that you seek to _understand_ what you are arguing against. > [@](#): > > If I could sum up the field in one line, it would be, “Consciousness is no big deal, and the brain is doing it.” Then you fall prey to the oversimple sloganeering which Dennett expressly warns against. > [@](#): > > Answer me this: Where has applied science taken off with the discoveries of cognitive science? The treatment of neurological disorders _directly caused_ by **physical** damage or malformation to modules of the brain, such as [temporal lobe epilepsy](http://psy.ucsd.edu/chip/ramapubs.html). If the physical brain did not **cause** these mental conditions, how could such treatments _possibly_ work? > [@](#): > > I rest my case. (Again, saying so is not to defend any other viewpoint.) You see, this is the problem. People are so happy to snipe from the sidelines at evolution, cosmology or cognitive science without ever proposing testable _alternatives_. You say you rest your case, I say you flee the arena. > [@](#): > > This is grossly short-circuited reasoning. I am _telling you my position_. I will explain my reasoning for holding it over others upon request, citing my interpretations of [Ockham’s Razor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) and [Scientific Explanation](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/). > [@](#): > > Even if one concedes that ontology is doing its best to hold a position that is contrary to your physicalist philosophy, that doesn’t mean that everything in it can be tossed out without considering the merits of individual propositions. If it proposes nonphysical entities, I will listen to their merits. But unless the arguments are _radically_ different to those I have heard before, I will simply ask why we need them _at all_. Like I’m doing right now. > [@](#): > > Having read many of your posts on this board, I sometimes feel you are using the name of your philsophy as a kind of Hammer of Thor to smash to bits any proposition that smells funny to you: “Wait a sec, you’re talking about something that’s not physical, so that means the content of what you’re saying is null and void!” I state my position in a debate as convincingly as I can. It is my _position_ that such content is unnecessary and uninteresting. Then you argue back as convincingly as _you_ can, and the audience makes up their …heh heh… minds. > [@](#): > > Since you say that all is phyiscal with great confidence, wouldn’t it be that when people are saying things that assert non-physicality you should conclude that they are semantically off-kilter rather than fundamentally incorrect? I try to avoid wasting time quibbling over such minutiae. My position vs. other position = debate. > [@](#): > > Wrong thought: Gotcha! I _know_ that everything is physical Agreed. I don’t _know_ anything, ultimately. My position is that which my Belief-O-Meter swings _towards_. It never touches 100% certainty. > [@](#): > > Right thought: Well, whatever ghosts are, I know that they are not physical. Wrong thought. Ghosts _could_ still be physical. > [@](#): > > I can tell you right here that the proposition is definitely wrong–or, to be clearer, it’s moot. You are saying that there are _definitely_ non-physical things. What are they? > [@](#): > > If everything is physical (and cannot be otherwise), then physicality itself is a characteristic that cannot be distinguished from anything else. “Physicality” then becomes equivalent to “existence”–everything’s got it. Non-existent things don’t. I am saying God, ghosts and leprechauns are nonexistent. > [@](#): > > Where does that assertion get you? Nowhere. It’s bad philosophy. It is a philosophical _position_ which my cognitive apparatus outputs as being “most probable”, a configuration which ultimately “makes my brain happy”. If I thought another position was somehow superior, I’d hold _it_ instead. Call it bad, or call it delusional - I don’t mind. > [@](#): > > (In my version, the Divine is a quality of harmony that can inhere in patterns to a greater or lesser degree). And I hope it makes you happy. Personally, I find that that position unimaginatively shoves God in various cognitive [Gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) and has sadly inadequate _explanatory_ power, so I’ll hold and defend _mine_ in these debates instead, thanks. > [@](#): > > Now, so as not to straw man your physicalism, I suspect that it is similar in some way s to my own pantheism. I hold my pantheism not to assert something particularly new but to correct notions about God that I deem incorrect. Perhaps you hold physicalism to correct notions about the Universe that you consider incorrect (i.e., all is matter and energy, and to think that there is a separate soul or spirit is incorrect). > > That’s fair, but you must avoid making the kind of logical errors I described above. And sometimes you do, as in this very thread. Thanks, but I don’t think I _have_ committed logical errors. > [@](#): > > Here is an error. Who says that “transcendental truth” has to “transcend” physical nature just because people _say so_? What are you suggesting it _does_ “transcend” then? > [@](#): > > The wise thing to ask (I was told this years ago by a prof and it has really stuck with me) is, “In what way could what this person saying be true?” If metaphysical entities existed. My working conclusion is that they don’t need to. > [@](#): > > You talk about a cognitive apparatus encoding the universe correctly (how it is)–how do you assess that how-it-is-ness without _going meta_ on the system and assessing it from above or without? I think you end up with transcendental truth anyway. Like I said, by arbitrary criteria: that’s how brains _work_. I’m using shapes on a screen to communicate to you the output of mine. > [@](#): > > The philosophical point being that, at that level of power, there is no difference whatsoever between “computational” and “supernatural.” **Agreed** , this being **irrelevant** : I (and Dawkins) assign _low probabilities_ to **both** God/Descartes demon **and** the Matrix. You said that, on the contrary, you could **disprove** the latter. > [@](#): > > If there is no difference between the simulation and the real world, and if there is no test to see if one is in one or the other, then there is not even any difference between the concept. The question is **Are we in a simulation?** That question has **an** answer. The fact that we might not ever _find out_ that answer is **irrelevant** to the **possibility** that the answer is **yes**. The answer “Yes, but it’s moot” does not **prove that the answer is “no”**. Understand? > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t you consider me nutty if I proposed that there were “simulated owls” in the woods that were exactly the same as “real owls” except that they were “simulated”? An owl made of DNA is different to an owl made of silicon. A brain made of DNA is different to a brain made of silicon. A cognitive apparatus receiving photons reflected from atoms in spacetime is different to a cognitive apparatus receiving photons directly to its visual processing modules. Just because we didn’t have the _tools to hand_ to differentiate those owls, or brains, or cognitive environment systems is **irrelevant** to whether the owl, brain or CES is one or the other. You said you could **prove** that our CES _isn’t_ the latter. > [@](#): > > But suppose a booming voice then told the controllers that they themselves were in a simulation–a booming voice that we ourselves could also hear. And suppose this booming voice then told the controllers that they were just a simulation that was allowed to test the faith of people in the **real** world. Ah, but you just said it _is_ simulated. Yet again, you are embarking on a _non sequitur_ in seeking to _define_ “real” and “simulated” as being the same thing. Read back though the thread - the understanding we started out with is _clearly_ that you could **prove** that we are **not** in a simulation. Why did you not say “OK, we **are** in a simulation, but that’s the **same** as reality anyway”? That is a different argument entirely, which I would have trivially ignored. > [@](#): > > The example amply demonstrates that the dichotomy of real/simulated is false and vacant. “I can prove we’re **not** in a **simulation** ” is directly contradictory to “I can demonstrate that reality and simulations **are the same thing** ”. > [@](#): > > Yes, it’s one of my sins, Father Meat. Why, then, should any of us seriously debate you if you _willingly_ rely on such fallacies? > [@](#): > > But we do not hold that the dead person is in a _state of death_, merely that we continue to experience his/her absence. What? What state _are_ they in, then? > [@](#): > > Again, the atheist uses “dead forever” to deliver a rhetorical punch to the theist who believes that in the afterlife we are “alive forever.” No, they _state their position_, as the theist does theirs. Otherwise, is the very word “afterlife” not every bit as much of a ‘punch’ swung in the other direction? > [@](#): > > The implication is that there is a “state of death” that parallels the “state of eternal life.” I know that atheists don’t really believe that, but they do try to rub in the _feeling_ of that phrase (or those similar) in a nya-nya-nyaaa way. But there _is_! The state of death is exactly the same as that for 13.7 billion years _before_ life. It is the _alternative_ to “eternal life” that we _propose_. Why can we not _say_ this without afterlife-believers feeling insulted or threatened? > [@](#): > > doesn’t the consensus seem to be here that Dawkins did in fact dumb himself down for the Salon interview? His viewpoint, as better set forth in that 1993 essay, was “dumbed down” a bit perhaps. Whether that was his fault or that of the journalists involved is undecided, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/72 "2005-05-04T11:54:12Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Do you really think that Dawkins believes that people with religious beliefs should be institutionalized? Do you think that his statements in this interview are part of a concerted effort to push an agenda whose ultimate goal is to have religious belief reclassified as a severe mental disorder? Personally, I think it’s far more likely that he’s making deliberatly inflamatory statements in order to garner more attention for himself and his books. Trolling, in other words. Which is certainly nothing worthy of respect, but it’s hardly monstrous. > > Even if you answer yes to the two questions posed above, I still don’t see why you’re quite so outraged. Sure, it’s a reprehensible opinion. So is the idea of eternal damnation for not correctly guessing which diety is hiding behind door number one. The thing is, you’re as likely to end up in an institution for being a Christian as I am to end up in hell for _not_ being a Christian. I don’t appreciate being told I’m going to burn in hell, but since I don’t believe there’s such a place as hell, or such a being as God to send me there, it’s hard to get really riled up by it. Similarly, in this overwhelmingly (and increasingly) Christian nation, the odds of religious belief being redefined as a mental illness is so vanishingly small as to be laughable. Why get so outraged at being threatened with something that cannot possibly ever happen? That’s the problem with epistemic modalities: it’s what you don’t know that’ll get you. Today’s impossibility is tomorrows SOP. That said, I’m not as angry as you seem to think I am. I don’t use the term Mengelean with anger, but with mere contempt. Were I angy, I would use Jacksonian. But far more disturbing than anger in this instance is disinterest, especially for you atheists. If, as you say, the nation is overwhelmingly Christian and will be so into the far future, then Dawkins is doing you no favor. He is connecting the dots on an already established reputation that hard atheists have for being arrogant and emotive social nuisances. If you think I’m reacting angrily at this, just wait till you see the reactions from Pat Robertson’s people. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/73 "2005-05-04T11:57:02Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Nice try, **Miller**. No kidding. I just don’t think **Libera** l is going to get up offa that thing, ya know? Saying someone has a delusion \*is exactly equal to \* calling that person delusional, which is \*exactly equal to \* diagnosing that person with a commitable illness, which \*is exactly equal to torturing \* said person, which makes the first guy a monster. Ya see? But if anyone could have gotten through I think you would have done it. Did you, as you wrote, have any sense at all of the irony in your italicized _exactly equal to_ phrases? I hope so because, otherwise, you unwittingly made “almost” and “exactly equal to” exactly equal. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/74 "2005-05-04T12:00:21Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Ignoring Mr. Godwin for a moment . . . > > You think, therefore God exists? In that case, I would suggest that God is all in your head. > > One is reminded of a certain two-headed, three-armed ex-head honcho of the galaxy, who found out that he was, in fact, the most important person in the universe. Please don’t cease to think, Lib, lest the rest of us cease to exist. Actually, you attributed someone else’s statement to me, but drew a non sequitur nonetheless. The OP made clear that the conceptual God was not a product of thought, but a product of existence imposing Itself. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/75 "2005-05-04T15:06:42Z")
[QUOTE] > [@\*\*FordPrefect](#): > > \*\*1) Wrong! When I look up delusional I find several definitions, and one or two would agree with what you say here but those are qualified as psychological or psychiatric. If Dawkins was speaking as a psychologist or psychiatrist you would have a point here, but he wasn’t so there is no point assuming he was speaking as a specialist when he used that word. > > Although, I do concede that I may be getting whooshed here. Well, I was attempting to characterize \*\*Liberal’s \*\* position in an ironic way, but apparently (see post #73 below) he said “almost” rather than “is”. I still don’t see how he got from claiming someone has a delusion, to being a monster, simply on the strength of stringing a few “almosts” together. If you were being whooshed it was only because of my inability to make my point clearly. ---
**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 4, 2005, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/76 "2005-05-04T15:16:26Z")
> [@SM](#): > > It[physicalism] is a philosophical position which my cognitive apparatus outputs as being “most probable”, a configuration which ultimately “makes my brain happy”. If I thought another position was somehow superior, I’d hold it instead. Call it bad, or call it delusional - I don’t mind. I’ve been wondering whether it should properly be adopted as a philosophical position at all, or just a methodological preference. It seems to buy you into the whole metaphysical game unnecessarily. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/77 "2005-05-04T15:24:01Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > I’ve been wondering whether it should properly be adopted as a philosophical position at all, or just a methodological preference. It seems to buy you into the whole metaphysical game unnecessarily. Well, in that case, perhaps [this](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/) is in the wrong encyclopaedia! It is the _position_, the _thesis_, that whatever we currently consider ‘metaphysical’ is actually just **as** physical as things like rainstorms, bacteria and Sonic the Hedgehog, which very few amongst us would propose were **not** physical. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/78 "2005-05-04T18:23:02Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Well, I was attempting to characterize \*\*Liberal’s \*\* position in an ironic way, but apparently (see post #73 below) he said “almost” rather than “is”. I still don’t see how he got from claiming someone has a delusion, to being a monster, simply on the strength of stringing a few “almosts” together. If you were being whooshed it was only because of my inability to make my point clearly. That’s the second time you’ve spoken about me rather than to me in response to others about statements I’ve made. Am I now both delusional and persona non grata? May I at least grab my coat before you toss me in the wagon? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/79 "2005-05-04T19:37:14Z")
[QUOTE] > [@\*\*Liberal\*\*](#): > > That’s the second time you’ve spoken about me rather than to me in response to others about statements I’ve made. Am I now both delusional and persona non grata? May I at least grab my coat before you toss me in the wagon? Well there you go. I have never called you delusional or crazy, so you will need to find someone else to arrange your transportation. I did speak _of_ you rather than \*to \* you, which was rude, and for that I apologize, (although one of the references was flattering, in my opinion.) To respond to your post concerning irony, it is my understanding that you used “almost” in reference to Mengele, which I did not comment upon in my post to **Miller.** I was attempting to use hyperbole for sarcastic effect, although apparently my effort went unnoticed. I still contend that you have drawn a straight line from “Dawkins says the God delusion possesses adults” to “Dawkins is a monster.” You support that by stating that the next step after calling someone delusional is institutionalization of that person, as if it were a necessary step, and then asserting that people in institutions are tortured, as if that were a necessary step. I suspect that I could spend eight hours a day doing nothing but calling everyone I meet delusional, without any of them ending up being tortured as a result. Perhaps I have missed some caveat in your reasoning. If so, I apologize. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833/80 "2005-05-04T22:26:56Z")
Actually, I stated quite plainly that it was a possible, not necessary, step. But the steps are merely consequential. He isn’t a monster because I might get put away in a mental institution by a judge who agrees with him. He’s a monster because he does what monsters do — he inspires “horror or disgust” (_American Heritage_). I’ve known delusional people. It is not a pretty picture. If he did not mean delusional, then he should have said what he meant. I believe that had Pat Robertson said atheists are delusional, we would be discussing this in the Pit rather than here, and the whole bunch of you would be flaming him. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-interview-dawkins-dumbs-down/301833.md?page=5)