The God Delusion lays out Dawkins arguments fully. All you are getting are snippets.
What on earth do you mean by snippets? I watched at least one full program which he appeared to be in complete control.
Your statement simply does not answer my question. That he has a book with a very rational explanation of a position, does not counter other appearances where he says or acts something completely different.
theism can & does discourage understanding of aspects of science, ergo a lack of religion on balance leads to a better understanding of science.
That is a logical error. At best your argument would be that atheism on balance leads to fewer possible conflicts for those who try to understand science.
Atheists can have no knowledge of science and involve themselves with equally ridiculous attitudes and practices. They may also engage in other beliefs which discourage understanding of aspects of science.
How many of those alien-abductee people are atheists?
Dawkins said xyz makes for bad science, so that must hold true in all circumstances?
That is not exactly an accurate description of my position.
He points to evolutionary biologists who are believers in a six-day creation but do perfectly good science, for example.
That statement suggests to me that you STILL have not gone and watched the interview he gave about his book on BBC. He specifically dealt with that question. His commentary came off as "I have a friend who's gay/black/fundie/etc".
He starts by arguing that most scientists who say they are religious aren't really Xians or other full theists. That is they are like him or Einstein who view the universe as something awe-inspiring (and science worship). He had to be pressed on the point a couple times before admitting that some scientists really do have faiths. And then his answer to that was while they still could do good science he didn't know how they were capable of handling both systems, without serious compartmentalization. He didn't get it.
That would be part of my problem with him and the way he talks. Atheists are not scientists, and theists are not nonscientists. The decision to choose atheism/theism is a philosophical position with no inherent relation to science. He does not seem interested in discovering how theists practice valid science, but would rather pan them broadly with dismissive comments of compartmentalization.
None of this is useful to my mind, and in fact is counterproductive. If he is going to speak as an atheist, about what atheism is, or as a scientist about what science is, I wish he'd do it right.
My head is still whirling from hearing him state how science is the search for Truth. That it uncovers Truth. He sounded like an ID theorist.
I should note I was a good boy and when I was at the bookstore the other day I looked for that book. They had everything he wrote EXCEPT God Delusion. Not sure if it was sold out or just not in yet. When I'm around I'll be keeping my eye out for it.
holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)