Faith and superstition vs. the rigors of logic as the only two ways of looking at the world is a plainly false dichotomy.

There are many other ways of "looking at the world" - through a guarded skepticism for example, which is critical of the "rigors of logic" as well.

I'm sure Richard is aware "looking at the world" is an incredibly vague phrase anyway. What does it mean? Perception? Philosophy? Actual sight?

His attempt to capitalize on a definition of a vague phrase is not misguided, and I see the point he's trying to make, but this smacks of the black and white fallacy. Poor show from Richard.

"There are two ways of looking at the world."

Um...no. Wrong. Sorry. This is the same dichotomous, either-or bullshit thinking that got us into Iraq, that in fact defines the narrow, neoconservative mindset, and I personally reject it. It might be summarized as follows--see if this sounds familiar: "you're either with reason or you're with the spiritualists."

Fact is, your brain comes equipped with three major functionally unique regions, and scores of other diverse areas--to shove them into one compartment or the other is as asinine an effort as denying all these sectors' evolutionary roots and destinations.

This my-camp-or-the-terrorists' sloppiness has to go before we can take that next evolutionary stride outward as a species. It must be challenged--not fought (it's not worth the effort), but challenged.

You want scientists to rule the world? Shall we toss the poets, the artists, the musicians into Gitmo?

This guy Dawkins needs some time off, he's losing his edge, his vision--probably from too much debate, too much fighting, too much opposition. It happens to us all.

"There are two ways of looking at the world."

Um...no. Wrong. Sorry. So take that up with the blurb writer.

Reason shouldn't be seen as a "world view", and the person writing this blurb is trying to get you to watch BBC4 on the 13th, so he's gonna toss out the old "good vs. evil", "science vs. fiction" lines to get you to watch. The article never says that dawkins says such a thing...

You three are all over reacting and putting words in his mouth.

"There are two ways of looking at the world."

This does not need to mean that individual humans are on one side or the other. He could just as easily mean that they are competing philosophies that most people take some of both. I don't think it is too out of line to suggest religion and logic are at odds.

That said, I disagree with his superstition that the world is getting more religious. I think science is showing evidence that are limiting the scope of any god and people are seeing less need for god. That is marginalizing the fiercely religious and they are fighting back out of fear.

When was this faze of people being less religious?

You three are all over reacting and putting words in his mouth.

"There are two ways of looking at the world."

This does not need to mean that individual humans are on one side or the other. He could just as easily mean that they are competing philosophies that most people take some of both. I don't think it is too out of line to suggest religion and logic are at odds.

That said, I disagree with his superstition that the world is getting more religious. I think science is showing evidence that are limiting the scope of any god and people are seeing less need for god. That is marginalizing the fiercely religious and they are fighting back out of fear.

When was this faze of people being less religious?

I agree with Reed. The first three comments were taking Dawkins' quote too personally.

In this case, between faith and superstition and logic, there are clearly only two ways of looking at the world. Obviously that doesn't apply across the board, he never said it did. You missed the whole point of his quote just because you couldn't handle Dawkins' breaking down to two simple choices?!

Science and reason contradicts faith and superstition. Period. And it is impossible to believe in both, without being an ignorant hypocrite. So, yes, there are two ways of looking at the world in this case.

Don't even begin to compare Dawkins' with neoconservatism. He's the benchmark for the opposite end of the spectrum. He uses logic and reason to make his decisions . . . does this sound like Bush? or the Iraq War?