Chris Tilling has a good thought on Dawkins et. al. here. This started as a comment, then it got too long.

The problem (a problem?) with Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. (I like Eagleton’s name for the two - “Ditchkins“) is that they argue it’s perfectly rational to assume that all religious belief is the same regardless of its social consequences. Overlaying that with a scientism that itself does not have evidentiary bases for belief adds to the absurdity.

I was engaged in an argument on Atheism v. Christianity (one of many of the same which is why I stopped participating) with some atheists regarding the diagnosis of delusion. Delusion is not a belief but a behavior. Psychologists do not evaluate beliefs alone, they evaluate behaviors and (should) triangulate their diagnosis with a few different variables and with a few different opinions - especially in cases where the behavior is more ambiguous. This is called differential diagnosis. Belief in God is not itself a behavior. Hearing an audible voice or seeing an apparition are both behaviors that one can measure. Believing that Nicole Kidman is in love with you can be assessed. Those last can be qualified as delusional. There are of course other types.

In those debates I actually had someone tell me at the end that it is “all subjective” and that it is based on what is normative in society. The latter is indeed true - in part. You cannot separate one’s psychological state from their prevailing environment. But this is not “subjectivity” at work. Saying this discredits the entire scientific basis for the field of abnormal psychology. This is a clear sign that this person is one of many who confuses Dr. Phil with the social scientific discipline of psychology of which studies in abnormal patterns of behavior is a part!

Delusion is classified as a psychotic disorder that is usually associated with a confused sensory apparatus whereby you are experiencing something that is not there with your sensory inputs. Sensing ease, wholeness, a presence of power, etc. or other heightened emotional states are not delusional by definition. Be as it may, this is the place to engage the debate, if there is any. However Ditchkins does not do this. They would rather assume they know how to give a credible differential diagnosis of delusion, and then simply say that the psychological community gives “favoritism” to religion. What is clear is that while religion can be a direct cause for delusional disorders, religion by itself is not a disorder.

However, Ditchkins want to overload criteria for existence with empirical validity. That is to say, the argument that such an overwhelming number of homo sapiens and indeed other primates have not only believed in a “something more” to scientifically substantiated experience, but have often associated this with God of some kind is rejected outright because there is no evidence to Ditchkins that such a reality even exists that satisfies their sense of curiosity. It seems that the history of religions and of religious experience raises the probability that a God of some kind does indeed exist - that there indeed might be this “something more”. But for Ditchkins, this is simply not an interesting curiosity. This is however, not the argument they are making and this is the problem. They are not saying that God is not interesting, they are saying that God is a sign of delusion, of sickness, and the greatest source of human wickedness - and all for something that is not there!

Here’s the funny part about the argument from Ditchkins - they then go on to say “Well psychologists give religion a free pass” as if they have mis-diagnosed “delusion” in the DSM IV! They want delusional behavior to be what it is not, rely on the psychological analyses where convenient, and then disregard them also where convenient. So here’s delusion which is a category of psychological diagnosis, but psychologists are discredited since they give religions a free pass?! What utter tripe.

Yet when I say that God as they understand God is not how many Christians, Jews and Muslims understand God (not to mention other religions with very different views of God like Hindus) I am then at fault for changing the terms! What a crock!

If atheists want to be helpful, try lending a hand with various Christians who are tired of the highjacking of religious belief by vitriolic and dangerous absolutism and fundamentalism that is rampant in a globalized world that favors tribalism. Stop making these absurd arguments that all religious belief is the same when all religious belief clearly does not render the same social consequences. Let’s stop this blind acceptance that Ditchkins’ rather ignorant points about religion are true, when their criticisms of fundamentalism (if they would choose to make that important and obvious distinction) are quite spot on. The problem is that they fail to make that distinction, fail to demonstrate any care of the social aspects of religious behaviors and beliefs, create fallacious conspiracy-laden hypotheses that are not demonstrable with respect to the study of religion or social science, and smile as millions in the world chew on their wake like blind dogs.