Two extremes: to exclude reason, to admit reason only.
Blaise Pascal
I agree with him that we should trust evidence. Is not the incredible miracle that is the universe not evidence of something? I think he's showing blind faith in the authority of the academic science establishment by throwing out that evidence.
I agree to skepticism about revelation, as many revelations will simply be mixes of a person's imaginations and emotions. But not all of them. Throughout history saints and ordinary people have had direct experimental evidence of the Divine, not invalid, in my opinion, because that evidence is subjective and not objective.
Many of the greatest scientists have been filled with awe at the Supreme Being they infer from the wondrous objects of their study.
Because there are no scientifically acceptable methods or devices available which would make God apparent, he does not exist, the personal experience and testimony of millions notwithstanding.
But truth is independent of knowledge and discovery. X-Rays were happily bouncing around the universe the whole time, unknown by scientists for millennia. The world has been spherical in shape even during periods of intense unpopularity. And God lives, whether there is even one believer drawing breath, He lives anyway.
Millions of people know for themselves, independent of any research or study, that He lives. A scientific explanation in no more necessary to prove that my prayers are answered than to convince me that I am alive. It is an absolute truth with no need for scientific proof, since the real proof of the fact is always individual.
With few exceptions, God reveals Himself to them who first believe. Skeptics will always want it to be the other way around, but that's not their decision to make. The principle of faith is true and real. The lack of a "faith meter" by which it could be measured and detected does not change the fundamental truth: God lives anyway.
The problem with Dawkins is that he thinks he is God. He will find out he is not.
later read
Some scientists and intellectuals like to give the impression that most of their colleagues are agnostic or atheistic and that the only "intelligent" way to perceive the universe is as a skeptic.
However, most surveys of scientists show the overwhelming majority are believers.
Furthermore, one might speculate whether the skeptical scientists have really made a thorough study of the Bible and the historical evidence.
In 1875 the author of Ben Hur, General Lew Wallace, according to his own testimony, "was not in the least influenced by religious sentiment. I had no convictions about God or Christ. I neither believed nor disbelieved them. The preachers had made no impression upon me. . . Yet when the work was fairly begun (writing Ben Hur), I found myself writing reverentially, and frequently with awe."
In other words, studying the Bible and researching the life of Christ made a believer of him.
How many scientists have jumped to conclusions and settled on a lifetime of unbelief (or indifference), without doing any research on the subject?
I think an article entitled as follows would be more interesting:
The Problem with Richard Dawkins: Interview with God
Interview with GOD
No one, Dick.
But...
Here. Let me correct this headline:
The Problem with God is the interview with Richard Dawkins.