That man Dawkins

"'Well, good luck to them/you" could be usefully employed on here sometimes.

Jim Al-Khalili suggested that a number of people of faith have in fact thought about it and have ended up believing. Dawkins said, 'Well, good luck to them' but did not elaborate. If it is true that many people, scientists included, do come to belief or remain believing it does call into question his major thesis, doesn't it? To Dawkins, faith and science are wholly incompatible and this is nonsense on stilts.

Do you know Dawkins personally Bags? Or have you spent a long time researching him?

I doubt if lilygran's views are rubbish. Not to her and other christians anyway. Just your opinion, quite rudely expressed.

Bags - I could say that faith has to be just that - faith. No reasoning. And I could say that that's ok.

But I won't cos it will be the same old same old.

Exempting your Fairisle beret implies some degree of doubt, Bags!

That's rubbish, lily. Both your complaints are wrong. I suggest rather more strongly than last time, that you don't know what you're talking about because you don't know enough about him, and, what's more, that you have a prejudiced and distorted view of him.

I don't know what he said on the programme, but he certainly didn't say what you're implying. He might have said (or implied) that some people of faith are unthinking, which they are, and that some people who believe in god don't believe in evolution, which is also true. I know, without even having to check, that he didn't mean what you have suggested he meant. I think you have misinterpreted what he said this time as well as on previous occasions.

For a start, I know people of faith who do believe in evolution, and so does Dawkins. And for a second, I know people of faith who are unthinking in the sense of not applying reason to what they think, and so does Dawkins. I bet you do too. That's probably nearer the truth. However, I bet none of us knows an atheist who hasn't thought about what they believe, or an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution. That's not to say neither of those animals exists, but it's highly unlikely, whereas it's not highly unlikely but actually provable the other way round.

Which is not to say (and Dawkins didn't say it, I'm sure, and never has) that all people of faith are unthinking (witness, as you said previously, theology) or that all people of faith are 'not capable' of believing in evolution.

Please quote what he actually said verbatim. If he said what you suggest he said I'll eat my hat (not the Fairisle beret – a different one).

He is the other end of the continuum from the religious people who believe that the bible is literal. He is a fundamental scientist! Though I have to say I tend towards Dawkins rather than fundamental religions!