A point I'm willing to recognize, but then you have folks like Dawkins who believe that unless something can be brought into the lab and observed, it doesn't exist. A militant adherence to materialistic science as the source of all knowing and truth is a militant commitment to ignorance, at some level. C.S. Lewis also used to refer to this world and reality as the "shadowlands," that what exists at the Super-natural level is the true reality, and we touch and experience that reality as we align ourselves with it. To be blunt, when someone like Dawkins shakes his fist at the notion of God, he's living a lie.
--To be blunt, when someone like Dawkins shakes his fist at the notion of God, he's living a lie.--
Why?
C.S. Lewis also used to refer to this world and reality as the "shadowlands," that what exists at the Super-natural level is the true reality,
___________
Sounds like the cave story in Plato's Republic.
Excellent comment. Dr. Orr points out several ways that Dawkins does not, in fact, subject his own biases to his supposed scientific methods.
Another way of looking at Dawkins, is that he's out of synch with the rhythms of the Universe, while others at least occasionally intersect/see/hear/experience those points where we are able to align ourselves with the Supernatural.
(I've used Paul's analogy that we see the Light as "through a glass, darkly." Some of us have a clearer glass, some of us see the reflections from a prism, others see the reflection from some very poor images - believers - and others are over in the true shadows.)
"Me thinks the lady doth protest too much." and all that, eh? I've always thought it takes quite a lot of faith to be an atheist.