Now, if you would, attempt to answer the question that has been bending my brain ever since I first saw this. What, exactly, was the point of Dawkins telling this man that he was
hallucinating?He was trying to accomplish something, certainly. But what? To my perception, the man's belief system remained intact (if not stronger than before), and Dawkins likely ended up making himself look rather bad for a response that was out of proportion to the tone and nature of the man's question. I'm thinking negative progress here, but if you see something positive, please enlighten me. I just don't get it.
I think that Dawkins' general response was right. I just would have cast it in terms of misinterpreting mystical experiences, not hallucinations. I don't think the guy is claiming that he struck up a conversation with Jesus at the grocery store, but that he "felt his presence" in his life or something wishy-washy like that.
ReplyDeleteYour suggestion is certainly not a bad re-statement of Dawkins' response. Maintaining the disagreement can be accomplished successfully without the 'full frontal assault' aspect, which is the distinct impression I received from Dawkins' remark about hallucinating. "I think it's a misinterpretation" sounds much more diplomatic and inviting to dialogue than "You're hallucinating."
ReplyDeleteI don't know what your credentials are, but that Ph.D. could certainly learn something from you in terms of respectful interaction. Thanks for your comment.