Here's a thought,
I'm not sure I follow about suicide bombers. Richard Dawkins didn't say that they were the product of regilious schools per se, only that religious schools brainwash children when they are at an age that anything taught to them is believed if taught by someone older. That actually makes sense.
My son was asking about solar research I was reviewing and I said the sun was going "beddy-byes" in October and was going to slumber away, doing not much at all for the next 50 years, according to the research I was reading. My son went to school and said that the sun was going to "shut off". The trouble is my bit of levity was interpreted by my son quite literally because he is at an age where he believes whatever I tell him.
Suicide bombers of the Islamic kind are the product of religious schools because that is where the people that do NOT commit suicide but go out and find people with some character weakness that makes them suitable for such acts and get them to do it. And the financial backing comes from those that attend the religious school. Someone has to pay for the cost of arranging a suicide bombing. It isn't cheap.
I have read the book and watched the Channel 4 two parter that Richard Dawkins narrates. I didn't think it was that delusional at all. The TV shows were called "The Root of All Evil". It is rather hard to argue that the three big religions that he attacks are the root of a great deal of evil. And Richard Dawkins actually concentrated on fundamentalist Christians in much of the TV shows.
Teaching religion mixed up in general science (and not just evolution bits but Noah in geology, bible stories within general science topics) probably can do with a little scrutiny. The statistic that around 50% of the US citizenry believe the world is only thousands of years old is a bit of a worry too.
I do agree with Dan, however. Richard Dawkins is not writing about science but about the dangers of religions. This is not at all the same as science. He may well be right but the topic isn't a science one except where he wishes religion to stay out of science where the two conflict (in his opinion always). I don't think the book is written in any attempt to be "scientific". It is an attempt to show established religions as a danger and one that seems to be gripping the US to a larger extent rather than slowly retreating with the advancement of science.
The person that just knew that his friend was right in killing a doctor who performed abortions and could wrap up a murder as being a good Christian duty, is a bit of a worry, as is much of US politics where the seperation of Chuch and State isn't even given lip service.
It may not be science but it is related to science in that Richard Dawkins sees this type of religion as an attack on science. Australia has agreed to stem cell research. Our Catholic Cardinal is about as conservative as they come and is attempting to have the political decision overturned because it will lead to "human cloning" the "crossing of horses and sheep" and all manner of ungodly occurrences.
Anyman, Richard Dawkins is rather passionate; he does not present his arguments as scientific proof; and he directly attacks religions without consideration for the feelings of those that practice those religions (although in his interviews in the TV programs he was quite restrained and was only inpolite on one occasion, imho). But just how does this make him as bad as those he is arguing against, a bigot or someone totally intolerant? It is that leap that I don't quite understand.
My personal view is that faith is a matter for personal beliefs and AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH OTHERS it should be no one's business. But Richard Dawkins was attacking faith where it directly interfered with others. Is such an attack on the same level as the person that believes killing abortion doctors is not a sin, or blowing up a bus of civilians gets you into paradise or is morally reasonable? I can't see the equality here.
Richard
