Add these earlier posts:
…the problem with arguing with Richard Dawkins is that he is right. More on that later.
The problem with Richard Dawkins’ arguments, as I see it, are two problems and one imaginary: first, it is risky to declare current knowledge as final proof and absolute and as explaining(whatever I said earlier). Second, Reason must, as Emmanuel Kant explained, acknowledge that it cannot prove (or disprove) the metaphysical. The imaginary problem is (what I said earlier).
…he is blatantly, self-servingly (?) wrong about Einstein’s beliefs. / He presumes to speak for Einstein. / He offers his own brand of revisionist history to suit his needs / to assist his cause. Yes, he does have a cause and has so as much himself (insert quote about combating/erraticating religion / making converts to atheism… which is to be expected and even appreciated. He must have a cause, as any passionate person must. Darwin himself said, “(insert quote re: must have an argument)
…after confessing it’s limits, Reason must confess that a Supreme Being is somewhat reasonable.
…the more knowledge I gain / information I learn, the more I value understanding. I am not impressed with game show contestants. And, if it were possible, am less impressed the more I understand.