quote:It's not difficult to imagine that biased presentation is going to play a large part of that conceptualization of him, especially what with how much people who have invested a lot of their lives into organized religion will want to dislike him fundamentally.
That's not it. Practically everything I've heard about him has been from atheists. You'll have to change your theory to "biased reception".
quote:I'm hard-pressed to think of much Dawkins has done that falls under the rubric of "obnoxious," personally.
Remember that conversation where you kept insisting that it's not obnoxious for you and Dawkins to call everybody who believes in a god delusional?
posted
Well, Dawkins is a British atheist and remains vocal even in the US, hence the perception that he's an uppity atheist.
The perception that he's being obnoxious has little to do with what he's actually done, something that a comparison with PZ Myers who actually *does* stuff to mess with religious people should make clear.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Remember that conversation where you kept insisting that it's not obnoxious for you and Dawkins to call everybody who believes in a god delusional?
Just curious, but would you think the same of someone said that those that believe in Leprechauns are delusional?
posted
I don't personally think that having the opinion that someone else's belief is delusional is obnoxious...but when you tell them...yea, that's obnoxious, be it a belief in Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, leprechauns, horoscopes, Scientology or that the U.S. government pays space aliens a bribe in gold to keep them out of our skies.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I do think Dawkins IS somewhat obnoxious (I'm one of those atheists you may have heard that from) but he's still written plenty of good books about evolution, which is what I think he was originally famous for.
As for the "delusional" thing specifically - I'm honestly a bit torn. I think I'm mostly with Stone_Wolf. But the fact is, if I think God doesn't exist, I pretty much have to also think that people think God does exist are delusional, or at least mistaken about a whole lot of things. (If you think God exists because of the cosmological argument, you're mistaken. If you think you've felt the presence of God, you're delusional)
Any extensive conversation I have with a theist about their beliefs is going to have to acknowledge that eventually. I don't actually attach much negative stigma to the word "delusional" in those contexts - I think plenty of people are delusional about a lot of things. If the word itself upsets people I can phrase it in other ways, but there's only so many ways you can tell someone who believes they have felt the presence of God "I do not believe you have in fact felt the presence of God."
It's only necessary to address that issue in specific types of conversations though.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:...but there's only so many ways you can tell someone who believes they have felt the presence of God "I do not believe you have in fact felt the presence of God."
There you go. Use that. It clearly states your opinion without going into obnoxiousness.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
But "percieving something that is in fact not real" is pretty much the dictionary definition of the word delusional, and is what most people use it to mean. (Yes, it has also has a specific clinical meaning, but that's not how most people I know use it)
I understand why others find it obnoxious, but I'd like them to at least accept that when I say the word, I mean exactly the same thing as when I say "you are percieving something that isn't real." I think most people are delusional on occasion.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure RA, but "delusional" is also a very broad term which doesn't just stop at "I do not believe this thing you do" it is a label which carries with it a disqualifier...saying: you are crazy.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that God exists and that he "talks" to each one of us. I could easily argue that those who don't realize this are delusional. I don't see what good that would do, though.
quote:I understand why others find it obnoxious, but I'd like them to at least accept that when I say the word, I mean exactly the same thing as when I say "you are percieving something that isn't real."
If that's really all that you mean, you'll communicate it much more effectively if you just say that, instead of using a word that carries so much connotational baggage with it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what you need is a really good way to say "I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but..." before you tell someone something you know they're going to take the wrong way. In the meantime, however, you're stuck with coming off as obnoxious when you call someone delusional.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, I usually avoid using the word, unless I'm in a meta-discussion about the word.
quote:I believe that God exists and that he "talks" to each one of us. I could easily argue that those who don't realize this are delusional. I don't see what good that would do, though.
If you turn out to be right, I will in fact turn out to have been delusional. I'm fine with that. And I consider that an understood subtext of your telling me that.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking as someone who doesn't subscribe to any one particular vision of "God" (I think that trying to force our understanding onto God is one of the sure ways to limit our ability to grasp a higher power) that one of the best ways to communicate this particular thought is to make sure to qualify the information as your opinion and make it about the belief not the belief holder. For example:
In my opinion, the absolute belief in God is a delusion.
Instead of: Anyone who has an absolute belief in God is delusional.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It always seems to me that people who insist on calling theist delusional are either: 1) doing it on purpose to insult and then trying to claim it is neutral, or 2) fundamentally ignorant about human nature. People believe things they can't prove ALL THE TIME. It is a CONSTANT behavior. Anyone who thinks they don't doesn't even know what they take on faith, and doesn't know much about how human brains work.
This is a good thing. It's a big, complicated world, and we'd be too crippled to even feed ourselves if we didn't have some mental shortcuts to handle all the information and allow us to make decisions with mental comfort. This isn't to say that I think a belief in God is a mental shortcut; I don't. But even if it were, then using mental shortcuts wouldn't make someone delusional.
Unless you are prepared every single human being delusional, including yourself, then calling those who beleive in God delusional is a deliberate insult. (Which all evidence proclaims to me that it is. As in, those who insist on calling theists delusional are very comfortable flat out insulting people as well. I very rarely see people noted for their politeness, charity and insight doing it.)
Once you're calling the vast majority of humanity mentally ill, then you need to reexamine either your dictionary or your motives.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless you are prepared every single human being delusional, including yourself, then calling those who beleive in God delusional is a deliberate insult.
While I understand they have that context, the dictionary definitions I'm seeing don't reference mental illness. They just say things like:
quote: de·lu·sion [dih-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA
–noun 1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
Yes, I believe most humans are delusional about something or another. As I said, I don't attach much negative stigma to it. You should try not be delusional in the same way you should try not to be forgetful.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Connotation is different from the denotation.
"Delusional" is not a neutral term. That's fine if you think it is - then it is appropriate for talking to yourself. When you are talking to other Americans, it is an insult.
There are three definitions, two obviously insulting. It comes from "delude", which is obviously insulting.
Any insisting that "delusional" is a neutral term is obviously trying to delude his audience.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the same page...a little further down:
quote:Medical Dictionary
de·lu·sion definition Pronunciation: /di-ˈl{uuml}-zhən/ Function: n 1 a : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded b : an abnormal mental state characterized by the occurrence of psychotic delusions 2 : a false belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that persists despite the facts and occurs in some psychotic states compare HALLUCINATION 1 , ILLUSION 2a ,
Either way, it is a very common association that the word delusional indicates a mental deficiency, and if you are trying to avoid offending people, then simply don't use that word, regardless of your own personal word associations.
I mean, -if- you are trying to be considerate of other's feelings, then taking a word's common associations into account seems appropriate.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that "protects" theists from being crazy is the vagueness of the claim. If I believe in leprachauns, I have a very specific image in mind, as well as properties for the creature. Whereas God is more nebulous. He is a being currently undetected by us who is more advanced and we believe his intentions to be good. Proving or disproving this is pretty impossible, which is why it doesn't seem as delusional to me. The more specific you get, the lower the probability of it being true.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disproving God is the same difficulty as disproving Leprechauns. It is impossible to do either. You don't get a pass because your belief is "nebulous". That's of course setting aside that nearly all theists believe some very specific things about God.
That said, I don't remember ever referring to a theist as delusional here. Not because I think its obnoxious (I don't have a strong opinion there), but because it is counter-productive.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: But leprechauns are shrouded by magic...
Pfft. Nonsense. They're shrouded by technology sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable, to us, from magic. Jeez.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, I'm connected to the internet through magic sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable, to you, from technology.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: It comes from "delude", which is obviously insulting.
I'm not sure that it's obviously insulting.
This definition is: To deceive the mind or judgment of.
Being that all humans are at times delusional, the mere act of acknowledging that to be the case doesn't seem particularly insulting. So I wonder what specifically makes this more insulting than, say, telling someone that you think they are mistaken about the facts. Would saying, "I think there is a significant possibility that you are deluding yourself on this matter" be less insulting?
I view this whole 'delusional' as insulting issue as being similar to telling someone they are ignorant. Yes, people tend to not like being told that they are ignorant, but it can be a perfectly true statement, and it doesn't necessarily need to be intended or perceived as an insult.
And when it comes to discussing things with people that you don't know very well, it can be very difficult to know what connotative value people are going to associate with different words. No matter what you say, there is probably going to be someone somewhere that could take offense. While it is good to try to be considerate of other people's perceptions, sometimes semantic accuracy can be of more importance.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: On the other hand, I'm connected to the internet through magic sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable, to you, from technology.
posted
You make a good point about the likelihood insulting people no matter what is said...it is likely, but semantic accuracy and being aware of which words have a common and understandable insulting connotation, and making effort not to offend are not mutually exclusive.
I don't think my example of:
"In my opinion, the absolute belief in God is a delusion.
Instead of: Anyone who has an absolute belief in God is delusional."
...is less "semantically accurate", but it -is- decidedly less rude.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being that all humans are at times delusional,
No. This is wrong.
It isn't that all humans are delusional - it is that all humans - including you, right now - use mental shortcuts to make sense of the world. There are so many prejudgments and assumptions going on right now in your head that it would make it spin to know them, which is precisely why they occur.
This is NORMAL. It's healthy. It's necessary.
It doesn't mean all humans are delusional. The only delusion is to imagine that a human being can someone turn himself inhuman and no longer be subject to such things. "Delusional" is still an indication of either naive gullibility or else mental instability, and it's still an insult.
Try it out with other insults - it doesn't work any better there.
"You're dishonest. But that's not an insult because I think all humans are dishonest. Except, of course, me, because I'm using your dishonesty to distinguish yourself from me and put you on a lower plane. This is okay, because I'm being honest. See? I'm better!"
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I don't think my example of:
"In my opinion, the absolute belief in God is a delusion.
Instead of: Anyone who has an absolute belief in God is delusional."
...is less "semantically accurate", but it -is- decidedly less rude.
Well, those statements do mean two different things.
But I still wonder why the former statement is supposed to be less rude. Is it because it has the IMO qualifier at the beginning? Is it because the latter statement includes a more obvious generalization? Is it because the former is stated as a possibility while the latter is stated as an absolute fact? Does it matter who the person is that is making the statement to you?
I think both the speaker and the listener have a share in how language is perceived. The speaker should try to be considerate of known values of the listener, and the listener should be willing to take into account the possibility of having misinterpreted the intentions of the speaker.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: It doesn't mean all humans are delusional. ... Try it out with other insults - it doesn't work any better there.
There is a difference between saying 'all humans are delusional' and 'all humans are at times delusional.'
And yes, it does work with other things. 'All humans are wrong' vs. 'all humans are at times wrong.' Or 'all humans are eating' vs. 'all humans at times eat.' You can plug in pretty much any word, and there will be a difference in the two statements.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: On the other hand, I'm connected to the internet through magic sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable, to you, from technology.
Wait, you're The Doctor?
I have a beard now. Beards are cool.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It isn't that all humans are delusional - it is that all humans - including you, right now - use mental shortcuts to make sense of the world. There are so many prejudgments and assumptions going on right now in your head that it would make it spin to know them, which is precisely why they occur.
I don't really doubt this, but I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on the subject. Is this an established consensus in a scientific field (psychology, cognitive science, etc)?
Are there any specific examples you can point to for an individual, as an outside observer? I think mostly I hear similar statements in a context of those quizzes that indicate that "you are racist, even if you don't think you are". Also the various cognitive biases might be related to what you are speaking of here.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: Well, those statements do mean two different things.
True, but the differences are subtle, and someone who believes the first statement might not believe the second, but probably not vice versa. The first is more likely while the second is just looser language and ruder.
quote:But I still wonder why the former statement is supposed to be less rude. Is it because it has the IMO qualifier at the beginning? Is it because the latter statement includes a more obvious generalization? Is it because the former is stated as a possibility while the latter is stated as an absolute fact? Does it matter who the person is that is making the statement to you?
Yes, the qualifier...opinions are generally accepted to be a person's right to have, where as facts are held to a different standard. Yes...lack of generalizations. Also a big difference is one statement is aimed at the belief itself, where as they other is aimed at the belief holder.
quote:I think both the speaker and the listener have a share in how language is perceived. The speaker should try to be considerate of known values of the listener, and the listener should be willing to take into account the possibility of having misinterpreted the intentions of the speaker.
Agreed.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Beards are cool.
My chin agrees with you.
quote:Originally posted by Aerin:
quote:Being that all humans are at times delusional,
No. This is wrong.
Since we are currently talking about how to state your opinion and not offend your audience, I'd also like to point that imperially saying someone you disagree with is wrong is also likely to cause friction.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being that all humans are at times delusional,
No. This is wrong.
Since we are currently talking about how to state your opinion and not offend your audience, I'd also like to point that imperially saying someone you disagree with is wrong is also likely to cause friction.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yes, the qualifier...opinions are generally accepted to be a person's right to have, where as facts are held to a different standard. Yes...lack of generalizations. Also a big difference is one statement is aimed at the belief itself, where as they other is aimed at the belief holder.
Yeah, so really it's not so much the word 'delusion' itself, it is the way in which it is used that is the source of offense.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well...for what it's worth, I think the word delusional is WAY more offensive then the word delusion.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It makes sense that describing the person is often more offensive than describing a single belief.
Delusional has a lot of negative connotations. Aerin's probably right that it's not the best word to use for someone who holds beliefs that you consider wrong (even drastically wrong), if you want to have a polite conversation about it.
Then again "you are drastically wrong about [cherished belief]" is kind of troublesome, too. The topic of religion IS famously incompatible with polite conversation.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dawkins' own book, The God Delusion, deals quite explicitly with this question. He points out that it is perceived as rude to acknowledge that the belief in contact with the Divine is almost certainly either delusion or misinterpretation of other experiences. He then goes on to explain that in an ideal world, people would be entitled to their delusions, and explains that he is not hostile to religion in and of itself. He observes that we live in an era in which people who cling to religious modes of thinking -- and he includes some who do not believe in God in this group, by the way -- are making disastrous choices and openly asserting those religious epistemologies as the rationale for those decisions, and suggests that we as a society need to loudly, publicly, and socially disapprove of decisions -- especially policy decisions -- reached on "faith."
And I submit that he puts that argument forward in a non-obnoxious way.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why add drastically? I mean this whole meta-conversation is about a having a polite discussion of religion between one who believes in it and one who does not. Everyone can leave the room after it's over and get with others of like-opinion to discuss how small-minded, pretentious or outright dumb the opposition is if that's what they want to do. If the discussion is to serve a purpose why label it at all? If you're trying to understand, or even just highlight a point you don't think is correct say exactly that. In fact, why even add you don't think it's correct? You both know each other's opinions you're trying to get to the 'why' not the 'what'. If you think someone is being a total moron what is the point in saying that other than to feel better yourself? If you want to change their mind, or understand why they don't think it's moronic then just talk about the cause of their belief. Why do we have to explain what we think of the belief first? Polite or not?
Also, saying that a word applies to everyone doesn't remove the connotation but it removes the purpose of the word. If you say someone is delusional but defend it that everyone is delusional then why did you single out this person? You just said the word actually doesn't define anyone because it's all inclusive, yet applied to to a specific person. The only reason to do that if the denotation makes no sense is for the connotation.
quote: If you say someone is delusional but defend it that everyone is delusional then why did you single out this person?
I think the implication is, "Everyone -- or almost everyone -- is delusional about something. You are delusional about this specific thing, but it is within your power to stop."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the actual conversation where this sort of phrasing came up, I didn't actually use the phrase myself (that I recall), but the conversation ended with my friend saying "I'm sorry, I get why your arguments make sense, but I just can't believe God is real, because if he is that means I'm crazy, and I just can't believe that."
I think it's extremely important for people to understand that they probably ARE crazy about some things, and to not attach negative stigma to that, precisely so that it's easier to change your mind about beliefs that turn out to be wrong.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the implication is, "Everyone -- or almost everyone -- is delusional about something. You are delusional about this specific thing, but it is within your power to stop."
In which case the argument that it's not obnoxious since everyone is delusional loses its power. It is also not a healthy way to have a discussion. It's a good way to have an intervention but if you equate belonging to a religion to having a heroin problem you lose your credibility when it comes to not understanding why those you have these discussions with find it offensive or obnoxious.
posted
I think shadowland nailed it...saying that everyone has things they are delusional about is just about the same level of obnoxiousness as saying, everyone has something they are ignorant about.
While it may be imperially true, it's also perty durn rude.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dawkins did have some pretty compelling points about the privilege that religious beliefs enjoy when it comes to public policy and debate. e.g. it's considered impolite to challenge you* about your religious beliefs about an impending apocalypse, even if there's a good reason to think those beliefs might influence your vote on some really important stuff.
*Not you, that other guy.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not a lot of people ruin their bodies, family ties, spend all their money to the point of have to resort to petty theft and end up prematurely dead for their religions.
How is this comparison valid?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I can actually answer that question without seeming obnoxious. Is that all right?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
