Dawkins2-2

The point about NOMA is that science and religion don't overlap, at least that is what Stephen Jay Gould maintains and Richard disputes. It is an area that scientists will no doubt continue to argue over for many a year, but it is important to Richard because he believes God must be open to scientific scrutiny. Perhaps in the next world he may be right - or perhaps he may be open to the fullest of scrutiny!

I have no problem with the evidence being scrutinised scientifically. (Q.12)
Alister McGrath suggests there can be partial overlapping of the two. (Q.12)
Using snide quotes from obvious unbelievers does nothing to enhance the intellectual case we are waiting for him to make. (Q.13)
There is a scientific dishonesty in atheistic scientists who seek to create meaning and purpose our of purposeless chemical reactions. Moreover in a competition for who has thought most about these things, theologians win hands down over scientists. (Q.14)
‘Why' questions are valid because we all have a desire for meaning and significance that goes beyond pure molecular activity. (Q.15)
Questioning of religions is valid and may certainly be resolved by clear investigation. (Q.16)
Richard reveals a great lack of knowledge and understanding about the Old Testament (Q.17)
This is especially revealed in his lack of thought about the Law (Q.18)
It is further revealed in his lack of understanding about which books have the Law (Q.19)
He simply writes off a colleague because he dares to say something contrary to Richard's beliefs. (Q.20)
He fails to follow up the consequences of a world without God. (Q.21)
He fails to think through the logic of miracles (Q.22)
He fails to understand the many evidences that are put forward in Apologetics (Q.23)
He has to resort to negative comments about the institutional side of Roman Catholicism, which many of us question anyway. Even these, though, say nothing about belief in God being a delusion. (Q.24)
Trying to scientifically analyse two people's conversations after it has happened and what happens as a result, is a futile exercise. (Q.25)
Leaning on ‘evolved intelligence' is embarrassing in the light of the world's recent history. (Q.26)

Within this section Richard maintains that scientific verification of prayer doesn't work by citing a particular experiment that clearly didn't work out. He takes to task various theologians etc. trying to justify the experiment's answers.

This section could be subtitled, ‘Friends together against Creationists' and I have simply pointed out that this is a battle between scientists and has little to do with the main theme. (Q.30)

This is about the possibility of other advanced worlds, advanced aliens appearing godlike to us. I'm not sure how it is supposed to do away with the concept of the One God who is Creator-Sustainer of this present world and all of existence. (Q.31)

In this chapter, as seen on this and the previous page there seems very little to do with historic Biblical Christianity. Having seen in the media many of the supporting comments for Richard's writings, what I have found here conforms exactly with the image of those supporters. It is ironic that Richard so often berates believers for being ignorant and unthinking, and yet this is exactly what is conveyed by Richard's supporters in the media and indeed, his own writing in this long chapter.

To try to summarise my key criticisms of the things he says in this chapter they must include:

It is the last point that I find most strange because it makes him appear like a Don Quixote tilting against the shadows of windmills, not even the windmills themselves. I realise that Cervantes' windmills weren't what Don Quixote thought they were, but it just seems that Richard has been aiming at something so widely disparate from the title of his book, that that seems the only analogy possible. Sorry!