I’ve never read his books on this subject and nothing here inclines me to change that. He is so quick to gather all the low lying fruit in favor of his strident screed and so reluctant to acknowledge any possible points in favor of religious faith. I couldn’t disagree any more strongly with his call for a holy war against religion. To understand what motivates his position I think we’d be better served to talk with his therapist if he has one, or if not to steer him toward a good one. Still it does make me think that Christianity would do better to speak of religious creation in less concrete terms.* Religion isn’t really for establishing empirical facts so why cast it in those terms? I do wish the religious sense of creation could more boldly claim its status as mythos rather than insisting it compete with the scientific sense of creation. Why do we assume they are the same?
*Of course one might well ask, why can’t scientists make that accommodation rather than expect the religious to do so. I am sympathetic to that point of view. I find scientists such as Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss disappointing in their inability to think about anything in life in a way that doesn’t demand the same standard of evidence as science. I actually think they are being moronic about this. But given their difficulty and the Christian ideal of turning the other cheek, I think there might be more hope if those who see what has gone wrong would find a way to offer their type some help.