Please note that most Christians (at least in Europe) DO NOT any longer live in the middle ages, and that since Thomas of Acquitaine in the 1300-hundreds rediscovered Aristotle, the sense (reason & logic) has sort of been smacked right back in the Christian religion. Somehow the whole Protestant thing in Europe helpe, too, I think...
I know that Dawkins is speaking and writing in an American context, and I really don't think, from what I've heard and read about him, that he really understand the way, religion are seen as a private thing in most of Europe.
(simply because religion in the USA is a matter or public concern and debate etc).
There also seems to be no distinction made, as far I can tell, between the fundamentalist people in all organized religion, and the more liberal people in say Judaism, Christianity or the Moslem faith. (and for some reason in his book, 'the end of faith' her treats Islam as it was some sort of ideology which all people practises Islam the same way, which they don't). It just seems an attack on all religion, because religion is 'the root of evil' as it was people with a religious agenda that flew into the WTC towers
1 (not a recommendation...)
This simply overlooks the fact that most of the Moslem world (if we can talk of one Moslem world, but let's say this for argument's sake) has been aghast over its status in the world of today, or that the Moslem world seem 'mad' that its economic importance in the world has been declining for years. I don't think you can say that there's only explanation as to why people, muslems, or others, do they thing to do. The explanation as to why people flew into the WTC towers
: a multi-facetted one, imo. It can't just be explained away with saying 'they did because their religion told to do it.' I'm sorry, but this is way to much of a superficial explanation, to me.
Also, I don't think that any Christian in Europe will argue with scientific facts about how the world was made (created?) or came to be. (well, maybe a small percentage would, but they are usually looked at, at least by the Danes, as some cuckoos and crackpots...). The thing is is this: Yes, science can explain a a lot, but science really can't help us decide whether or not abortion ought to be legal or not or whether or not people should get to choose their children's gender or not or whether or not people should be given the opportunity to implant a Cochlear Impleant (CI) in the ears of deaf children or not. Science can only, as I see it, presents us with the way to do this. And then it is up to us to choose, if we will make abortion il-legal or not, if we would like to give parents the ability to get their deaf children a CI-implant etc.
And that's where (organized) religion can play a role, I think, in co-operation, of course with the voice of atheists, agnosticists and other people who has opinions on the issues or subjects being discussed. I'm including atheists etc. because I happen to agree with the argument that just because someone is a Priest or a (clergy) Minister doesn't mean that he or she is a moral or ethichal person that say an atheist is. Personally, I have known atheist who are more ethichal than any Minister or Priest, I know and who seem to have grasped more of the Christian message about love (agape) towards others than some religious people of all faiths & beliefs.
And the not saying 'hallo' to a fellow human being is just rude and very not polite, imo. Dawkins needs to re-read his book 'the selfish gene' again, I think. Then he would learn (again) that the only way, according to him, that have made humanity survive, is that we, as a species, have always depended on the kindess of strangers. To see ourselves as members of the human race (or species) and not establish borders between us, whether we are christians, muslems, or atheists.
