"But even if that evidence were good, the trilemma on offer would be ludicrously inadequate. A fourth possibility, almost too obvious to need mentioning, is that Jesus was honestly mistaken. Plenty of people are. In any case, as I said, there is no good historical evidence that he ever thought he was divine."
I find some inconsistencies with The Dawkins's broader approach here; indeed, with his main atheological strategy.
If "honestly mistaken" is a live option here, if The Dawkins is serious here, then why does he not give this kind of nod to the theist?
Why are we always deluded, irrational, even insane?
We suffer, presumably, from the same meme Jesus suffered from. "The God Delusion" is supposed to be a belief comparable to a psychiatric disease. We suffer from delirium.
He draws analogies between people who believe in God and people who believe a pink elephant is in the room with them. The latter, says The Dawkins, we wouldn't hesitate to throw into a psychiatric ward.
So why does Jesus, arguably a specimen of the God delusion par excellence, receive "honestly mistaken" as a live option here?
Certainly, if Jesus can be "honestly mistaken" about being God himself, how much more then (on Dawkinsian assumptions) can the theist be "honestly mistaken" in his belief that there is a God other than himself?
If Dawkins met a man who said there was a pink elephant in a 10*10 room, would he say that the man could be "honestly mistaken?" How much more would he say that a man who thought he was the pink elephant in the room was "honestly mistaken?"
If Jesus could be "honestly mistaken" then so can all theists. If so, then The Dawkins's position that we are all psychologically deluded saps is, like the Lewis position he critiques, "ludicrously inadequate" (on his own terms).