In the latest issue of Scientific American two eminent scientists were asked to exchange their views on how scientists ought to approach religion and its followers. The two are Cosmologist Lawrence M Krauss and Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins. While Krauss is amenable to concede that religion may have beneficial functions in human society he won't be hesitant to fight against fundamentalist religion if it teaches against what empirical evidence would say about nature.
Dawkins on the other hand wouldn't concede any ground to religion. Dawkins has a scientistic philosophy. I have reviewed his "God Delusion" in past blog posts and I am of the opinion that this books is the WORST book Dawkins ever wrote (I have read all his books!) since he had ventured into Theology of which he is nothing but a mere writer of caricature (his philosophical discussion of purgatory is a comedy) as bad as any unsophisticated religious fundamentalist.
Dawkins posits that the moral or consolation value of religion must be kept separate about the truth value of religion. Dawkins again proposes an untestable hypothesis. How can the truth value of religion be measured?
If we ask the converse "What is the truth value of science?" The answer is simple. It's truth value is relative and easily testable and if Popper is right about falsifiability then "truth" becomes non truth. Dawkins should desist in using the word "truth" in his scientistic opinions. This would confuse the public.
While science is not in the business of putting meaning in morals, it may explain how morals came about. Who knows it may be a social construct or even as a trick played by God when He evolved it, or it may have been evolved by chance. Perhaps the biggest trick on us is that evolution has hardwired humans for belief in God. There is a fitness conferred by this belief in God. Dawkins the scientistic atheist only survives because his fellow scientists may be of the same kind.
Thus if Dawkins insists that science has the best truth value (an unvalidated hypothesis) then he is accepting his conclusion on ta dah, faith! his kind of Atheism is a faith and scientism an organized system of beliefs to communicate this faith.
Dawkins the Oxford Don is really a good scientist and professor with a Chair of the Public Understanding of Science. I really really want to see him debate the Don of Regensburg who like Dawkins won't hesitate to offend long held sensibilities. The Regensburg Don however sits on the Chair of Peter. This is a match I hope to see in my lifetime.