"If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."

Methinks Mr. Dawkins has a very narrow understanding of what has constituted religious thought across time and culture.

In fact, at least Buddhism and Islam have very subtle, very abstract conceptions of the transcendent.

While I may share many of Mr. Dawkin's reservations about historically contingent (and anthromorphic) beliefs, I'm not as willing as him to make blanket statements about the personal beliefs of millions of fellow humans.

This. This is the post that finally drew me from lurkerdom.

I have my problems with Dawkins. He can be an ass, frankly. And I know that it's out of sheer frustration, more than the arrogance he's often accused of, but he can indeed give atheists a bad name. I don't think he's wrong, but I confess I wish he'd be more subtle.

But this. . .this is perfect, to me. The perfect, subtle, beautiful argument. It struck such a chord with me.

Ken, I think he's right on this--however hugely or abstractly any theologian has thought about the supernatural, it was still working within human frameworks. Human beliefs can teach us volumes about being human, but I'd agree that if there is some deist god out there, it's greater and stranger than anything we could imagine.

Back to the shadows. Thanks for all you do, Norm.

I recently went to see Dawkins speak as part of the Skeptics Society lecture series at Cal Tech. I have also read God Delusion and seen numerous internet-based video clips of interviews with him, etc. In short, I think he's gotten a bad rap from people who feel threatened by his uncompromising position, and secondarily by people who want to protect the feelings of those who are easily offended. If you really read his work and see him speak, it is easy to see that he is heir to a deeply "Sagan-ian" sense of wonder about the universe. Typical believers want to construct a box for God with such and such dimensions and characteristics, while Dawkins refuses to do that without the proper evidence. This, in my opinion, leaves more room for wonder in the universe, not less.

What an odd comment to hear from Dawkins. Essentially, that he has no real issue with the possibility of God, only that he thinks it highly unlikely that any specific religion actually has it right?

I wish he'd keep his terminology straight. His book is The God Delusion, not 'The Religion Delusion'? It would be helpful if Dawkins didn't paint with such a broad brush.

Is he arguing against religion or God?Arguing against the specific truth of any one religion isn't all that hard (since many of them disagree with one another). Arguing against the existence of God is an entirely different (and much harder) position.

The problem with modern-day science is that it is unscientific. It ridiculously force feeds the facts to the evolutionary theory (regardless of how tortuously the square peg is forced into the round hole) rather than fitting the theory to the facts.

It refuses to infer to the best evidence.  It also cannot properly explain why, with the lack of fossil record support, the inability to observe evolution in actual nature, and the lack of convincing evidence for an older earth (a mammoth can't have millions of years difference in age among a single specimen's body parts, but modern "dating" methods have concluded such), among other things, that the presumption is not of intelligent design rather than evolution.  If it looks, acts and quacks like a duck, it should be rebuttably presumed that it is a duck until convincing evidence shows otherwise.   

 That evidence is currently lacking and one suspects, forever will be.  Evolution is illogical because its very postulates defy natural law rather than confirm it.  Besides not being able to account for origins for the first life, it cannot explain the fight for survival, only meekly making conclusions that it's there, and looks at end results and postulates how it could be while ignoring the obvious patterns of intelligence, including intricate and sophisticated divisions of labor in the cell based on organized instructions executed with uncanny timing and precision.

 I could go on and on, but it the theme is clear:  the evidence points to the fine-tuning that Intelligent Designers emphasize, not only in a system sustaining itself but in the implementation of such a system to begin with.

Give me a break, Mike. Evolution has never claimed to be a theory of the origins of life - only the simplest explanation for adaptions that have been directly observed. Yes, directly observed. Anyone who says otherwise is simply blind or lying.

Your "cites" to flaws in carbon dating are especially laughable, given the alternative explanation implicit in your rant.

Overall, I don't think I'm alone in believing that attitudes such as yours are exactly what's wrong with so much "religious thought" in America, and why it makes it so easy for non-believers (or at least skeptics) to portray believers as either moronic or intellectually dishonest.

Grow up.

Mike, If you had it just a little wrong we could discuss it, but the fact is that your knowledge of evolution is so mistaken on so many fronts that it it's pointless. Please read a book

I wish he'd keep his terminology straight. His book is The God Delusion, not 'The Religion Delusion'? It would be helpful if Dawkins didn't paint with such a broad brush.

I too saw Dawkins at Cal Tech last weekend and was struck by how he used the words God and religion as if they are interchangeable. At one point a woman on the balcony asked "What's the harm in believing in God?". The audience couldn't hear the question, so Dawkins repeated it... but he said she'd asked "What's the harm in being religious?" These are not the same, so Norm, I'm glad to read the Dawkins quote you posted here. I wish he was more consistent in his delineation of the two concepts though.

Kevin- As stated many times by Dawkins, you can't disprove God, any more than you can prove God. This god he is referring to is the one taught by relgions all across the world, which you say can be debated easily. The burden of proof falls on those making the claim to support it, not those who don't believe it to disprove it. I could tell you there is an invisible unicorn on the moon, but there is no scientific way to find the unicorn, it would be my job to prove it.

Mike - "Evolution is illogical because its very postulates defy natural law rather than confirm it." Give an example, please. I would love to know how a Dolphin with vestigal legs ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227572,00.html ) and "lack of fossil record" ( http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=00073E23-CDE6-1491-8DE683414B7F0000 ) are counterintuitve to evolution. Thanks mike, read something other than the bible for your evolutionary facts

Nate,

As to which God Dawkins refers to, if your answer is that when Dawkins uses the word God, he is referring specifically to (and only to) God as rigidly defined by specific religions, then I'd say he's a poor communicator. Look up the word God in the dictionary - there's no mention of specific affiliation with any particular religion(s). There's a big difference between someone who believes there is no God, and someone who believes there may be a God, but that the specific descriptions of God offered by human religious institutions are inaccurate.

As for your 'burden of proof' comments, there is no burden of proof for simply holding a belief. It's also somewhat ridiculous to suggest there could ever be a burden of proof for an postulation that, by definition, is not provable. I'm not engaged in a debate, trying to argue a position nor did I make a claim.

However, someone 'arguing against the existence of God' (per my comment) would be initiating a debate with a positive assertion (declaration A is incorrect). Burden of proof falls upon them, therefore, as they are the ones who are making a claim.

If there's no burden of proof for holding beliefs how do you make the choice of what beliefs to select? Why do you not believe in the tooth fairy and Thor?

I would hope there would be some consideration of rationality in choosing a belief that can often dictate a person's conduct toward others.

If there is no proof that it exists, don't believe in it. Just like you don't just sit around all day thinking of things that could exist and then putting your trust in them.

Also I think your idea that the burden of proving god rests on atheists is hilarious =)

So "What is the harm in believing in God?" This question can be answered in several ways. But here is one possible way - let's consider another question, "what's the harm in believing in a fantasy or something imaginary?" Perhaps there is no harm, but if your entire life and everything you believe in is based on a fantasy out of your imagination, what does that say about you? What if an entire culture or civilization is built upon the fantasy of an imaginary entity? What does that say about us as a race and species?

Let's face it. Reality is hard. How cold and lonely the Universe would be if indeed it is true that there is really no one looking out for us, and when we die, we perish forever. And how infuriating it would be if murderers that got away with their crimes in life do not really suffer eternal damnation or punishment in death?

We humans have a great capacity for projecting ourselves into the external world. The idea of God is the epitome of that projection. God simply represent all our hopes, wants, and dreams - eternal life, eternal happiness, just rewards and punishments, love, self-importance, clear delineation of good and evil, etc. etc.

So "What is the harm in believing in God?" Simply that it's not the truth.

With a little reflection I think it should appear obvious that problems can occur with any non-organized religious superstitious belief. Imagine trying to apply superstitious beliefs to medical emergencies, political decisions, military resolutions, etc. Any belief that does not accord with nature (not just supernatural beliefs) can present problems when trying to apply it to solve problems in the world.