I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. (attributed)

Of course, the comparison of the God of Abraham to the Flying Spaghetti Monster fails on account of the number of people who claim to have witnessed each. Even as a severe agnostic, I allow for a greater possibility of a god that vaguely resembles the one described in Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, since so many sincere and rational people claim to have a personal experience with this kind of entity. Maybe they know something that I don’t. Unlike Dawkins, I humbly hold that as an explanation of more than zero percent likelihood. I don’t arrogantly write it off as hallucinations and dreams – he does this without evidence, take note.

But the part of the interview that really rankles me is when he gets into atheists being more intelligent than theists. Putting aside the anecdotal evidence of this or that genius who believes or believed in God, Dawkins seems to make some statements that he has no business making. For example:

The one meta-analysis of this that I know of was published in Mensa Magazine. It looked at 43 studies on the relationship between educational level or IQ and religion. And in 39 out of 43 -- that's all but four -- there is a correlation between IQ/education and atheism. The more educated you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist. Or the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist.

Dawkins says that it’s a correlation, but then he speaks about it as a causation. Could it be that atheists are more likely to seek an education? I certainly wouldn’t find that hard to fathom. But more importantly, who exactly will be persuaded by this argument? Dawkins says that one of his goals is to persuade people to his point of view, but I just can’t imagine that if I were a religious man, I would want to read about how my religion indicates that I am probably a bit dim and ignorant. [shrug] Perhaps this simply means that I am not his target audience. But I don’t understand this pressing need of his to force a decision between science and religion. Plenty of people – of varying degrees of intelligence and education – are able to have both a scientific philosophy and a religious faith. Dawkins’ attack of the moderate just seems unnecessary and unhelpful. Late in the interview (bottom of page 3), Dawkins says:

Well, I don't relish confrontation for its own sake. I don't spoil for a fight. I'd much rather have an amicable discussion. But I am a professional academic, and professional academics are used to arguing about all sorts of things. And we argue in a robust way, bringing forth evidence where we can and using our skills of argument to use that evidence. So I may come across as passionate. But that doesn't mean I go out of my way to have confrontations in an aggressive way. I don't.

I have to ask; is the best way to start an amicable discussion… to title your book The God Delusion? Real non-confrontational, Richard.

Furthermore, when asked what is so bad about religion, he selectively speaks to what is bad about some of the organized, hierarchical religions, especially with regard to their political influence. It is here where he paints with the broadest brush. He says that religion is bad because:
- it encourages one to believe falsehoods,
- it encourages one to be satisfied with inadequate explanations which really aren't explanations at all,
- it actively discourages people from scientific explanations for the world and for life,
- some religions teach that blasphemers and apostates should be killed,

But it is the politics, not the faith itself that is the problem. Dawkins skims right over that distinction and blasts all religion as bad. The fact is that most religious beliefs are similar to most secular beliefs in that they only become dangerous when they are permitted to govern the lives of those who do not actively consent to such. For example, your religious faith is no more dangerous to me than is the commune where my cousin lives – until the government sanctions that religious faith or that communist philosophy as a system by which I must abide.

Of course, Dawkins has no problem imposing his beliefs on others. He calls it child abuse for parents to teach their religious faith as anything more than one choice among many. This completely neglects the reality that religious faiths all have exactly one thing in common: they do not view themselves as but one choice among many. They all consider their own doctrines to be correct, and others to be varying degrees of incorrect. Dawkins is no different, except that while my parents may have worried that I would burn in flames for all eternity for having the wrong beliefs, Dawkins only worries that I would contribute to the evils of the world through the duration of my short life. Oh, and my parents based their concerns on personal spiritual/religious experiences that they held, whereas Dawkins bases his concerns on personal spiritual/religious experiences that he does not hold – a null set.

It’s a ridiculous argument and expectation.

Now, having said all of that, I should note that I agree completely with this exchange:

Salon: But it seems to me the big "why" questions are, why are we here? And what is our purpose in life?

Dawkins: It's not a question that deserves an answer.

But that’s a personal preference. There are people who will choose to ponder this question, and it is not illegitimate for them to do so if it pleases them. It is simply illegitimate to expect scientists to attempt to make any answer. We cannot. That’s not a failing of science – it’s just not what science is for. And furthermore, for scientists who are agnostic on religion, we simply don’t care about the question.
Dawkins says that there are certain “core questions”, like;

how did the universe begin? Where do the laws of physics come from? Where does life come from? Why, after billions of years, did life originate on this planet and then start evolving?

But that’s also a personal preference. It is no more natural to ask these questions than, Why are we here? and What is our purpose in life? I know plenty of people of good intellect who simply don’t care about these questions.

Where I disagree with Dawkins is that I don’t see where he or anybody else gets off judging the absolute legitimacy of these questions or the people who ask them. The issue is whether science is a legitimate way to attempt an answer. And, for each of us of course, whether we have a personal interest in using our time and energy pursuing the questions.

Dawkins has a fanaticism that does not seem to have any rational, scientific basis. His hatred of religion is evident in his language.

The science lobby, which is very important in the United States, wants those sensible religious people -- the theologians, the bishops, the clergymen who believe in evolution -- on their side. And the way to get those sensible religious people on your side is to say there is no conflict between science and religion. We all believe in evolution, whether we're religious or not. Therefore, because we need to get the mainstream orthodox religious people on our side, we've got to concede to them their fundamental belief in God, thereby -- in my view -- losing the war in order to win the battle for evolution.

What war? What is the inherent conflict between science and religion? Dawkins asserts that there is one, but he hasn’t convinced me that it is necessary to have one. I don’t believe it exists. It can’t be measured and reproduced. Shall we write it off as hallucinations and dreams on his part?