@richrf,
all of this is always a question of interpretation. Scientific method by definition deals with objective realities and phenomena that can be investigated by experimentation and analysis. In this sense I believe it is perfectly true there is no such being as an objective deity or God who does things, orchestrates the world, or creates and designs beings. I believe this is an anthropocentric fallacy which has been created by religious people to give themselves a sense of comfort in the world. It is derived from the literal interpretation of various metaphorical texts and philosophies and then projected onto the world at large. It is no use arguing with people who believe that kind of thing. They cling to their belief out of an emotional requirement. Oddly, Dawkins is like this also. he has become like it from arguing with them and so has become similar to what he is fighting. That is a law of some kind.
However, if you read the Karen Armstrong essay at the beginning of this thread, you will see that traditional theology also does not posit God as such 'a being' or an objective reality of any type. God, if there is a God, is beyond existence, a reality beyond all phenomenal form. In Neoplatonist philosophy, this is not even called 'God' but 'the One' which does not 'act' and certainly does not 'do anything' like a cosmic design department labouring over eye structures and insect wings (which is pretty much how Dawkins imagines a 'God' must be).
But how, you ask, can such a being even be known? Religions and spiritual philosophies are full of metaphors for different states of being, and different levels of realisation. Of course most people will reject the very notion higher states and the like. But the difference between asserting the existence of God, and asserting the existence of higher states, is that you can actually realise higher states, and in that sense verify their reality. It also provides a key to the interpretation of these myths and symbols which is far more fruitful than this 'is/is not/is' slanging match.
In my view, this is what religion was originally intended to signify. But it has crystallised and hardened into myths, rituals, statutes, beliefs, all of the externals of institutionalised faith which is the subject of this dispute. I ought really not take up this argument, because I have not the least interest in defending institutionalised faith of this kind. On the other hand, the states of higher awareness and the associated understandings are very important. And the idea that various religions have many different insights into them, and may preserve the understanding of transcendent truths which are not available to the profane imagination, is more realistic and more fruitful than the idea that the whole religious imagination is just a delusion.
Dawkins has never had it happen to him, whatever it is. His spiritual centers are completely inactivated. So it is like a tone deaf person commenting on Beethoven or Bach. He can't hear the music, it all seems nonsense to him, 'what are all those silly people going on about, they must be mad'. So it is very deep, in some ways, and ridiculously trivial, in others. People in the West have huge hang-ups about spirituality, it is like a massive field of conspiracy theories and apocalyptic imaginings about the end of the world and the rest of it. It is all a huge collective neurosis in my view.
I have been arguing about this with various people on various forums for months now, really I am probably being very annoying to them, and certainly the whole thing annoys the heck out of me. So really, once and for all, I have to exit this whole God Delusion debate, I really think at the end of the day it is a sideshow. If you want to believe the Universe is meaningless, that everthing just comes about because of atoms running into each other, well bully for you. I just don't buy it and I never will, but I don't want to make you wrong or win the argument. I just want to do something useful.
