@reasoning logic,
Thank you for reminding me of that Dawkins programme.
IMO What Dawkins fails to take into account is an argument for the sociological forces which drive
both scientific activities
and religion. In other words, the concept of "scientific evidence" is itself insufficient to counter religious viruses (
sic) even if it is at odds with particular religious narratives. Nowhere (as far as I know) do we find Dawkins looking into the
socialization role of human language, say and symbolization as a unique human for both "narrative" and "evidence". This is why I favor social parameters over scientific ones in the conclusion that religions are "wrong", in the sense that they historically operate to exacerbate group aggression. Dawkins appears naive in this programme because he fails to understand that religious individuals concepts of "self" are
co-extensive with their "belief", and hence an attack on belief
is a personal attack.
The idea of a "top down" approach which encompasses both "science" and "religious belief" has been argued for by such writers as Fritjof Capra in his book "The Web of Life" 1978. No deities are required by his "systems analysis" yet nor is his analysis devoid of the possibility of "spirituality" in the sense that it leaves open the question of "the nature of consciousness".
