The Philosophy Now Forum

Over the past few months, I have been working with Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, with the three AIs that I use. I think it encounters a lot of issues.

As a neutral observer, I don't think he's proven that God is a delusion; he has certainly done a lot, but not that, in my opinion. Working with ChatGPT specifically, I distilled my current stance to the following formulation, which is the point where the other philosophy forum I use ceased discussion.

My thought is that, in his title (or conclusion), Dawkins should have specified that the God he defined was a delusion because his conclusion is based on his definition. But he applied the claim, “God is a delusion,” in a wider sense. He provided no justification for discussing "God" in a wider context than the scope of his created definition allowed. And let's be clear, he did not define God specifically; he discussed a hypothesis of his own creation. On that basis, I would argue that his book, The God Delusion, has the shape of a strawman argument.

ChatGPT's formulation:

Dawkins explicitly qualifies his conclusion by saying, “God, in the sense defined, is a delusion.” My question is whether his arguments against the defined God Hypothesis are sufficient to justify the wider conclusions he draws about God generally.

Fanman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 4:58 pm But he applied the claim, “God is a delusion,” in a wider sense.

I don’t think he did. Dawkins was quite clear that he was addressing the belief in God at the root of Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. Other conceptions of God to which Dawkins’s “delusion” thesis doesn’t apply are available, of course.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 5:51 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 4:58 pm But he applied the claim, “God is a delusion,” in a wider sense.

I don’t think he did. Dawkins was quite clear that he was addressing the belief in God at the root of Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. Other conceptions of God to which Dawkins’s “delusion” thesis doesn’t apply are available, of course.

This was Dawkins' definition of God, his God-hypothesis: "a superhuman, supernatural intelligence that deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it." His conclusion is based on his hypothesis.

Does Dawkins' showing that his definition of God is a delusion mean that he has shown that God, outside the scope of his definition, is a delusion? If so, why?

Fanman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 6:15 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 5:51 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 4:58 pm But he applied the claim, “God is a delusion,” in a wider sense.

I don’t think he did. Dawkins was quite clear that he was addressing the belief in God at the root of Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. Other conceptions of God to which Dawkins’s “delusion” thesis doesn’t apply are available, of course.

Does Dawkins' showing that his definition of God is a delusion mean that he has shown that God, outside the scope of his definition, is a delusion?

Er …

mickthinks wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 5:51 pmOther conceptions of God to which Dawkins’s “delusion” thesis doesn’t apply are available, of course.

So that would be a “no”.


I’m already beginning to lose faith in this discussion, dude!

mickthinks wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 7:15 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 6:15 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 5:51 pm

I don’t think he did. Dawkins was quite clear that he was addressing the belief in God at the root of Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. Other conceptions of God to which Dawkins’s “delusion” thesis doesn’t apply are available, of course.

Does Dawkins' showing that his definition of God is a delusion mean that he has shown that God, outside the scope of his definition, is a delusion?

Er …

mickthinks wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 5:51 pmOther conceptions of God to which Dawkins’s “delusion” thesis doesn’t apply are available, of course.

So that would be a “no”.


I’m already beginning to lose faith in this discussion, dude!

Which conceptions of God would you include in Dawkins' definition? [his God hypothesis]

Richard Dawkins' definition of God does not feature in the NASB translation of the Bible. So he isn't describing the Christian's God, Yahweh, in his definition.

My thought is that, without a matching biblical hypothesis (or definition), he cannot establish the correspondence between his God Hypothesis and Yahweh.

So, in terms of definitional coherence, it is not clear who Dawkins' title means by “God”.

Update to my post:

Based on what has been stated in this topic, I believe the strawman shape of The God Delusion is visible.

1. He created a definition of God, his God Hypothesis: “a superhuman, supernatural intelligence that deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it.”

2. As I stated, this definition is not found in the NASB translation of the Bible. So it cannot simply be indexed as a definition of the biblical God.

3. As micthinks stated, “Dawkins was quite clear that he was addressing the belief in God at the root of Christianity,” so he created a conceptual bridge to the Christian God, Yahweh, without explaining why his definition adequately encompassed Yahweh.

4. Dawkins explicitly qualified his conclusion by saying that “God, in the sense defined, is a delusion.” His conclusion is therefore explicitly indexed to his own definition.

5. Dawkins argued that his unique definition of God, his God Hypothesis, is a delusion. But without an explicit conceptual bridge linking his definition to the biblical God, which he has not supplied, he has not established that the biblical God is a delusion.

6. On this basis, I would argue that his book has the shape of a strawman argument.