Dick in the Dock Part. 4: Chapter 2

In this chapter Dawkins gets around to defining the other element in his title proposition "God". Basically his definition is, "There is a super human supernatural intelligence that deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."
This definition if fine with me, but how exactly could such a proposition be a delusion?
The only meaningful difference between this God, and Einstein/Spinoza’s "God" (which Dawkins apparently does not have a problem with) is consciousness.
But like the color conundrum, consciousness is not something that can be scientifically examined. I suppose that trees might have consciousness, it is probably not exactly like my consciousness, but then I do not suppose that God's is either. In fact there is no reason to suppose that those entities I encounter in the proposition "external reality" that look a bit more like what I see in the mirror then trees do, have what I call consciousness. In fact there is no experiment I can perform that can determine whether anything besides myself is conscious or merely an anomaly within my own conscious. To do so I would have to become it (or it become me) in which case its consciousness would be mine.

This problem is further demonstrated in the great prayer experiment. Had the experiment yielded "positive" results (and subsequent experiments confirmed it) it would have indicated that "God" was just a force of nature, that humans could manipulate like any other, having no free will of "Its" own. In deed the very fact that one would attempt to experiment scientifically with something indicates that one supposes the thing operates in a consistent, indeed mechanistic, manner or else the experiment would be useless.

In this chapter Dawkins also attempts to explain why he is for SETI, but not apparently, the C of E. It's the old Drake Equation. The DE is a series of factors all multiplied together. Obviously if any of the elements is zero the result will be zero. And currently all evidence points to one of the factors (fl to be precise) being no greater than zero. So there is still really no reason for Dawkins chauvinism.