>>the absolute philosophical illiteracy of so many naively confident advocates of reductionist science and the silly caricatures of faith they hold to. (I can

>>the absolute philosophical illiteracy of so many naively confident advocates of reductionist science and the silly caricatures of faith they hold to. (I can agree that Dawkins doesn't really have the background to do the theological/philosophical detailed arguments.) I just note that to be religious is to make claims about the world ("reality", for some form of meaning) that is not based on reason or proof of facts. So I really can't see a reason to take any religious belief more seriously than Son of Sam's world view. I'd be more impressed if you weren't limited to insults for a motivation of what makes your supernatural creatures more likely to exist than the flying spaghetti monster.