I'm not questioning the scientific method, i was questioning whether Dawkins is entirely driven by the scientific method or whether there is some other more emotionally based reason for his seemingly intense dislike of religion.
However, as i stated above, I need to read more of his work in full before I can make a proper judgement
yes, read more... you'll realize that the characterization you're placing on him has no basis at all. he doesn't seem to have any particularly intense dislike of religion in my opinion, merely the often sad consequences of it. certainly not an unreasoning hatred founded on any emotional or personal basis. he seems merely to disagree with creationism and it's super-natural underpinnings, which are the foundations of religious belief. to that extent he could be said to loathe it as one
should loathe any untruth perpetrated so brazenly and unchecked on the world... especially one that has caused, and continues to cause, so much harm (wars, psychoses, discrimination, etc.). so, i think his distaste for religion is much more clinical and analytical than your estimation places it.
for a simple analogy: if you meet a stranger that insists to you that 2+2=5 and he sincerely believed it, would you hate him for it, even if you were a mathematician?... or would you merely think him a half-wit? you see?... it's not happening. you might engage yourself to explain to him, even vigorously, why he was wrong, and try to educate him... but you'd have to be a bit of sociopath to hate him simply for being wrong.
But, there could be plenty of reasons to feel more negatively toward him that may follow from such poor basic mathematics comprehension, reasons which could make such a person contempt-worthy (and evangelical X-tians often provide them when speaking of religion)... but not for the intelligence/comprehension deficit alone. an example of a reason to take a sharper opinion of such a person: finding out that he is teaching (indoctrinating) his children to believe in that same "creative" math. cause and causality.
there's no rational reason to believe that 2+2 would equal 5, and there's no rational reason to believe a magic man in the sky answers your prayers (and thus, by simple extrapolation, does
not answer those of others), and that's what Dawkins is saying.
of course there's far stronger support for the argument that the religious delusion can be far more damaging to humanity than a maths skill deficit: holy wars, suicide bombings, abortion clinic doctor murders, children dying because their parents wont take them to hospital because it's against their beliefs, etc.
you see, the poor mathematician of my example will not likely make it into any profession that requires him to be able to perform basic addition/subtraction... he will be weeded out and passed over. society's safeguards against such basic incompetence will block his ability to ever find himself in a position to do any mass harm due to his numerical failings. so, he's not very dangerous in the end, other than perhaps to his children's school marks. No such safeguards exist to keep religious zealots from gaining positions from which they can wreak their own more insidious forms of misguided havoc, however. Rather, society and government are currently geared to
enable these types of individuals and groups to gain positions from which their theological convictions can work their nasty "magic" (misogyny, racism, discrimination, homophobia, and much more).
and that's good enough reason to be cautious of organized, zealous, intrusive religion if you ask me. no special, hidden, secret reason need exist... merely
reason itself.
I must admit to not having read any of his books in full, only passages. I will educate myself and return!
