Dawkins in the Pulpit... meet the new atheists/evos same as the old boss?

Firstly the OP seems to paraphrase Dawkins rather than quote him directly in context. Have you read The God Delusion? He is as passionate about science and rational thought as many of faith are regarding their faith. This is true. However his main aim seems to be the appliance of rationality over superstition rather than conversion to unquestioning atheism.
Any rational atheist must be open to the possibility of God. They just require sufficiant physical evidence with which to verify such an existence.
Dawkins would probably argue that atheism is a logical consequence of rational thought, not an idealogy to follow in itself.My own take on the main points in this thread areA) Science Vs Religion - The conflict between religion and science comes about because those of faith insist on the object of their faith having an effect on the physical world. The physical world is that which science attempts to study rationally. Whether it be creation of the universe, creation of life, miraculous occurances, the soul as the 'self' or whatever else - these beliefs will naturally come into conflict with science because they impinge on the areas in which science is providing increased understanding much of which is not compatible with religious belief.B) Religion causing conflict - Any conflicting ideologies or beliefs which are deeply held but unprovable are almost certain to lead to unresolvable conflict. Both sides are ceratin of their version of truth. Neither will accept that there are any objective criteria under which their claims can be verified or refuted. Political ideologies probably fall under this category. Religious beliefs certainly do. These have been the two main causes of conflict in human history. By their very nature it is almost inevitable.C) Morality - Anyone who has read any religious text can see that holy books are full of what could arguably be described as morally questionable acts. How do we decide which parts of the bible to follow and which to not in moral terms if here is not already a sense of morality inbuilt into us by other means than religion. Why are the teachings of Jesus accepted as a good moral guide (which I would accept even as an atheist) whilst the activities of Yahweh are not to be copied? Add to this studies in evolutionary psychology showing that answers to moral questions between peoples are very highly consistent regardless of faith or education and you have yet another area of conflict between religiously held beliefs and scientific investigation.The more we understand about the physical world, including ourselves as moral sentient beings, our origins as living organisms and the origins of the wider universe, the more religion is forced into retreat regarding our understanding of self as a whole.Given the nature of faith based belief and the nature of science as rooted in rationality, this is inevitably going to lead to conflict.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Holmes I think we agree on the majority of the main issues (except perhaps in minor ways which are not worth debating here). However there are two points on which I would take issue.1) Dawkins overrall stance
2) The role of evolutionary psychology in the development of morals (and the implications this has for the theists claim to the moral domain)On the first of these I would say that is is inevitable that the most inflamatory of his comments are the ones that will be reported. However I might even concede that his refusal to take this into account could be viewed as unnecessarily confrontational in itself....If you are genuinely interested in the God Delusion you might enjoy this ten minute BBC interview with Dawkins regards the book in question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWL1ZMH3-54Would be genuinely interested on your thoughts on this in relation to your OP.Regards Evolutionary Psychology and morality - I agree that the foundations of this sort of science are flimsy in comparison to the physical sciences and would share some of your cynicism regards the objectivity of the conclusions. However I do think the scientific method can be usefully applied to such investigation and that there is evidence for human morality being formed at least partly by "an interplay between universal properties of the mind, universal properties of the body and universal properties of the world". I quote this from Steven Pinkers book - The Blank Slate. IMHO well worth a read before you totally dismiss the whole area of Evo Psych.The basic premise of evolutionary psychology is that the human brain evolved not only due to the usual physical factors but due to the complex social interactions of humans with their main competitors. I.e. each other. In this "social environment" there are certain strategies which will allow an individual to thrive and some that will not. Being a psychopathic murdering bastard will only get you so far. Likewise being a completely altruistic doormat will probably not enable your genes to propogate too far either. Human morality is the result of a complex balance of the individual in a social context.The main conclusion of all of this is that humans are not moral blank slates but are mentally equipped with the basis for a form of human interraction that will enable their genes to propogate in a human social context. In other words there should be universals of behaviour between all humanity which form the basis of morality (amongst other things)This somewhat poo poos religious claims on morality so this conclusion in itself is going to be contentious.So what is the empirical evidence? It seems to fall into two areas 1) Brain damage and 2) Anthrpological studies1) There are known cases of particular portions of the brain being damaged in accidents which have drastically affected the behaviour of the unfortunate vicitim. In some cases the very sense of right and wrong, the socially acceptable and the socially unacceptable have been drastically affected. This gives credence to the idea that the development of the physical brain is somehow linked to moral behaviour and the physical brain is itself the product of evolution. I'll try and dig out some specific instances of such cases if interested?
2) The idea of universal behaviours between cultures seems to be based largely on the work of Donald Brown http://www.ishkbooks.com/universals.pdf. The universality of emotions, facial expressions and ability to empathise, all of which are arguably related to the development of morality appear to be generally accepted human constants (although again I will try and find some sources for this if interested)As you can probably tell from the paucity of my sources this is not really "my subject" (always a dangerous but educational endevour) as such, but I do think the whole area of psychology from an evolutionary perspective should not be so readily dismissed without some investigation.If you accept the human brain as the product of evolution then it is extremely difficult to argue that it's physiological development has no effect at all on the very foundation of human interraction: morality.The consequences of any sort of physiological answers for religious claims to moral insight are immense !!(which is hopefully why all this is relevant to this particualr thread)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Dawkins likens the calling of children by faithe.g.1) A catholic child, B) A Muslim Child, C) A Sikh childTo the comparable by political ideologye.g.1) A Marxist child, 2) A Keynesian child, 3) A freemarket enterprise childNOTE: I intend no correlation between ABC aand 123. Just random examples.Do you disagree with this analysis?

I may be getting myself into hot water here....But is it not a statistical fact that the single biggest common factor in determining the particular faith one holds is the faith of the family in which one is raised?Brad you would appear to be a statistical anomoly in this respect.I would hazard a guess that the main faith of the predominant culture in which one end up in life is the second biggest statistical factor.Even where an individual rejects the faith (or lack of it) of their parents I would suggest the spontaneous conversion to Islam in a Catholic part of Ireland, for example, is going to be rare........You are going to ask me to back up my assertions with statistical sources now aren't you....?BTW The link - I don't understand the relevance.......???Edited by Straggler, : The link

It is probably worth me saying that the main area with which I would disagree with Dawkins is his stance on children in terms of faith.Faith based formal education in a secular society I do not believe is justified.
However banning parents from raising their children to believe in a particular faith (or anything else I can think of for that matter) is A) Totally unrealistic on any practical grounds and B) Smacks dangerously of state run thought control.The argument could be made for teaching children to think for themselves, to place rational evidence based conclusions above all others and to question any faith based conclusions. Dawkins would probably make that argument.
However I think the whole issue is too loaded with potential for equal but opposite indoctrination, pretty much as you suggest.We are possibly in danger of agreeing too much so far in this thread........I look forward to your thoughts on the Dawkins interview and response to the EP issues raised.

The difference is that they have the opportunity to study the same evidence on which the conclusions were drawn should they so wish. Physical, not personal, evidence is the key. No scientist worth that name would tell anyone to accept any theory such as evolution on faith alone. The core component of any science education should be an ability to question. The fact that most people cannot be bothered to look at the evidence themselves and that the majority of those who do question evolutionary theory do it from a position of religious dogma rather than scientific discovery is a great shame.Faith based indoctrination however is just that. Faith based.The two positions are very different.

For "compelling" sort in this context read "personal" sort.
Do you dispute the personal nature of this "evidence"?Personal evidence is exactly that - personal. Therefore faith based "evidence" is not the same as empirical evidence in that no two people can, by definition, consider the same piece of evidence.The commonality of evidence is the basis of empiricism. The personal nature of faith is the basis of faith.Unless the physical bible can be considered as evidence in itself (which does not appear to be what you are saying) then the two forms of evidence in question are not comparable.Thus your evidence based claims of equality of indoctrination are wrong.Back later