The God hypothesis
The titular Delusion arises from a hypothesis in the human imagination, says Dawkins. Through one hypothetical question, Dawkins says a whole array of problems is derived. The hypothesis is that there is a God who intervenes in the daily business of human life. This hypothesis is a symbolic framework through which Dawkins reassesses the value of religious belief. His portrayal symbolizes the subjective problem of religion.
God as avoided knowledge
Because people can give God credit for what they do not understand, God can be seen as a symbol for knowledge unattained and unpursued. He says that scientists who entertain questions about God can be seen as avoidant. They avoid the kinds of knowledge they don't know how to attain by pretending that the questions are veiled in mystery. He wants people to struggle, even if in vein, to maintain their curiosity.
The placebo religion
The symbolic synchronicity between a religion's effectiveness and its alleged truth value can be seen through the symbol of the placebo effect, says Dawkins. The placebo effect is a medical phenomenon in which a person reports improvements from medicine, not knowing that the medicine is fake, only in their mind. The placebo effect makes religious people feel better in the same way a person reports a placebo pill makes them feel better; it is the power of belief, and nothing more, he says.
God and parents
Dawkins explores a thematic connection between parenting children and teaching religion. In both cases, knowledgeable people are giving knowledge to a person who can't understand the full truth, so truth is given out a little at a time. He argues that religion can be seen as the evolutionary byproduct of that relationship, and this symbolic connection also has fascinating psychological implications, because parenting is so closely related to why one believes what they do.
Religion as moral compass
Dawkins argues against an idea that religion can serve people as a moral compass. He says that there are obvious connections between the two, but they are independent. He explains how he believes a person's moral compass has come to be. This is his proof against the common argument of religious folks against atheists that an atheist has no reason to be moral if they fear no divine judgment. This conversation is symbolically the crux of the issue; does religion make people better? He says absolutely not.
