slevesque writes:
Lennox then proceeded to ask a question: ''Do you have faith that your wife loves you ?''. To which Prof. Dawkins answered 'Yes of course'. Lennox continued and said ''Well how do you know this?'' And Dawkins answered ''Well because of the evidence I see, the twinkle in the eye, ...''
Knowing he had been a bit 'played', Dawkins proceeded to explain that religious faith cannot be the same. But the issue is of course that it is the same, or at the very least it should be.
Why should it be considered the same? Dawkins' belief concerns his wife, and the Christians' belief concerns God, and there's a glaring difference between the two cases.
Dawkins' wife actually exists, there is objective proof of that fact. If she then displays behaviour that makes Dawkins believe she loves him, so much the better for his case.
In the case of God, however, there is no objective evidence that he actually exists and, from an objective point of view, the story simply ends there.
That should be a big difference in anyone's view.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
™ Version 4.2