nameandnature

I don't know you, but I really like this comment. Science isn't a religion, but it sometimes behaves like one, particularly when the actual thing practised by scientists and the scientific establishment diverges from the ideal of what Science should be. Certainly, I have no hesitation in classifying Dawkins' dogmatic materialism with a smattering of communal cohesion as a religion, and a rather dumb one at that.

pw201, have you come across Peter Lipton? You seem to be a bit inclined towards attempting to align your beliefs with those of the most intelligent person you can find, and while Dawkins is undoubtedly intelligent and an excellent communicator, he is also pontificating (and I use that word deliberately) about things that are way outside his field. Philosophy of science is Lipton's actual academic speciality, and he is personally religious, both of which I think make him better qualified to talk about religion than an evolutionary biologist with ego issues. And don't be scared off by the idea of reading high level academic philosophy; Lipton is extremely accessible.