What if God is a delusion that believers share together?

[ndf8th]

What if God is a delusion
that believers share together?

Dawkins wrote a book named
The God Delusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

The God Delusion is a 2006 bestselling non-fiction book
by English biologist Richard Dawkins, ...

In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator
almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god
qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief
held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.
...

now suppose that most believers would say that Dawkins is wrong.
The believers maybe say their personal experiences tells them
that God is alive and answer their prayers and that they feel God.

Atheists would say that most likely God is a delusion or some atheists
would only say. I lack believe in gods.

suppose I as an experiment just accept what Dawkins say.
suppose I say. Yes God is a shared delusion by some believers.

what if I say God is a delusion that believers share together?

And if I really take that seriously and believe in it.
I guess some believers and some atheists would
find my assertion rather ridiculous? why is that so?

Why can it not be the best explanations there is for the presence of God
in human culture. some 6000 named gods that almost none believe in now
and a few remaining gods that very many do believe in.

Why did some gods die out or why did the believers stop believing in them?

My wild suggestion is that as long as
God is a delusion that believers share together
then that god may survive for as long they act on
that belief together.

sorry confusing logic there but maybe you get what I try to say.

the important thing is not that it is a delusion the important thing
is that they act upon the delusion together in a way that works for them.

Their acts of faith support that delusion of their particular God
and depending on how effectively their acts of faith get spread
that particular delusion of God get more supporters and stay alive.

What does the word delusion mean?
a false belief or opinion

Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason
or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

Delusion come from verb to delude
to mislead the mind or judgment of;
to deceive

the important things is that it is a shared delusion. that the believers
delude each other together for to support each others faith.

I find it rather likely to be the best explanation of why it works.

Now the big difference. AFAIK many atheists wants
to use this idea as a mean to make religious faith obsolete
or to be as little exposed as possible. A private faith not public.

My suggestion is that one do the opposite.
One trust this is the truth about God and religion
and take responsibility for making the delusion
better and better until it is a safe product that one
can make use of without it being harmful to anybody.

Humans made the gods and we should take responsibility
for what we make belief and make it safe to use as a tool
for togetherness.

[Divine Insight]

The God Delusion is a 2006 bestselling non-fiction book
by English biologist Richard Dawkins, ...

In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator
almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god
qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief
held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.
...

Does Dawkins define what he means by the term "God", and how he is using this term?

I would agree with Dawkings that the "Gods" portrayed in some religious myths do indeed have strong contradictory evidence against their existence. This is especially true in the world's most popular Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

However, I would hold that this is not true, and therefore cannot be applied to, other potential spiritual philosophies.

Does Dawkins address this issue at all, or is he just flat out refusing to acknowledge the potential of any and all spiritual philosophies?

To be more concise, "Does Dawkins define the concept of God that he claims to be refuting?"

[ndf8th]

I don't remember. I trust I bought the book
but don't remember details it is from 2006.

Dawkins name Pantheism a sexed up atheism
and he think Einstein and Hawking to misuse
English when they use the word God for the Universe.

So I trust that Dawkins see all such as deluded ideas?

My approach is that religion will most likely only change
how it express itself. I don't trust it ever goes entirely away
so I find it more morally decent to take responsibility for
to make the religions that exists now as harmless as possible.

To reform them from inside. And to create new ones
that get more popular and take over with less harmful
versions of them.

[Nilloc James]

My wild suggestion is that as long as
God is a delusion that believers share together
then that god may survive for as long they act on
that belief together.

This is an use-mention error.

It is true that as long as people believe in a god, then the concept of that god still exists. However, the fallacy is when you say "as long as people believe in a god, then that god exists as an entity".

Basic philosophy 101 error .

[Divine Insight]

Dawkins name Pantheism a sexed up atheism
and he think Einstein and Hawking to misuse
English when they use the word God for the Universe.

Dawkins is doing nothing more than showing his ignorance of the concept of pantheism in this case. He clearly doesn't comprehend the idea if he holds the view that he holds.

Although, in all fairness to Dawlkins this can indeed depend on his semantic definition of the term "God". So until I see Dawkins definition of "God" I really can't comment on his views.

Although I will agree that the Abrahamic myths are riddled with extreme contradictions and absurdities. There's no question about that. The God of Abraham is supposed to be an egotistical sentient individual being who clearly has all the failings of many humans.

For examples he lusts to be worshiped. He demands to be loved. He even supposedly threatens to hurt people if they refuse to obey, worship, or love him.

The God of the Bible, the Torah, and the Qur'an is an extreme egotist who as serious psychological problems. And this fact comes directly from the claims of these ancient fables about this God.

Fail to worship and obey this God and he will methodically and knowingly damn you. That requires a totally independent egotistical God that is just as egotistical as any individual human being, and unfortunately even far worse in terms of having immoral wants and desires.

So I agree with Dawkins that at least some God myths are utterly absurd and clearly false.

But I don't agree with his idea that he can blatantly dismiss any and all spiritual philosophies. That just as absurd and outrageous as claiming that there exists an egotistical God.

So he appears to be doing precisely the opposite of what he's complaining about and taking it to extremism is precisely the other direction.

There are spiritual philosophies that Dawkins cannot dismiss. It's that simple.

We (humanity as a whole) simply don't know enough about the true nature of reality to make that assessment. And Dawkins certainly doesn't know anymore then the rest of humanity. So he's not in a position to be dismissing many of these other spiritual philosophies.

But yeah, if he wants to point out the absurdities of the Abrahamic myths, I'll support him on that particular issue to the hilt.

[ndf8th]

My wild suggestion is that as long as
God is a delusion that believers share together
then that god may survive for as long they act on
that belief together.

This is an use-mention error.

It is true that as long as people believe in a god, then the concept of that god still exists. However, the fallacy is when you say "as long as people believe in a god, then that god exists as an entity".

Basic philosophy 101 error .

Did I say that? I maybe gave that impression not realizing
you would read into my text that claim?

will it be less ambiguous if I rephrase it like this?

My wild suggestion is
that as long as God is a delusion
that believers share together
then that god delusion may survive as a delusion
for as long they act on that believed delusion together.

[ndf8th]

I guess I have to add that in the mind of the believers
God is more real than the reality God created so
god is not delusion to those believers that see God as real.

What I say is that that particular God is by definition
seen as real by the believer. The delusion they share
is that their God is real so to ask if it really exists as an entity
is to misunderstand what a delusion is about?

delusion comes from the word delude to deceive

What does the word delusion mean?
a false belief or opinion

Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason
or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

Delusion come from verb to delude
to mislead the mind or judgment of;
to deceive

But I don't do philosophy. Religious traditions
are only into philosophy if challenged by those
that doubt their "truth". They declare what is true to them
and that is the act of faith delusion as I get it.

they commit to that way to see the world.
But seen from within that delusion they see it as the true world.

It is more psychology and sociology and political acts not
philosophy.

[Nilloc James]

My wild suggestion is
that as long as God is a delusion
that believers share together
then that god delusion may survive as a delusion
for as long they act on that believed delusion together.

With your rephrasing the claim is now true but trivial.

As long as people believe a delusion the delusion exists.

In this case god is still a delusion and not true.

[ndf8th]

the word trivial when you use it here
sounds like a value judgement to me.

As if that makes it less of value to you?

Why would a faith need to be non-trivial?

You say "In this case god is still a delusion and not true."

But that is why they declare God to be supernatural
and existing outside any dependence of us human.

for God to work as a delusion they have to declare God to be true.


God to them is true by definition as I get it. "You got to have faith"
It is set up that way for to work as a social and psychological tool.

Maybe a too trivial tool to you or a too trivial set up
for to work for you?

[A Troubled Man]

Does Dawkins define what he means by the term "God", and how he is using this term?

Absolutely, he goes into depth and detail with every example he uses.

Does Dawkins address this issue at all, or is he just flat out refusing to acknowledge the potential of any and all spiritual philosophies?

Yes, again. But, he does focus primarily on the main religions, he couldn't possibly cover them all. And of course, he recognizes and acknowledges the positive aspects of a religion as well as the negative.