Trading on his educational credentials, Dawkins, has developed his own religious cult against belief in anything other than his views on everything. He tarts it up with claims to have scientific evidence, but most of what he preaches about is outside the legitimate reach of the scientific method.
Arguments against belief, religious or otherwise, founded only in “disproving” those beliefs offering only evidence that said beliefs don’t manifest measurable phenomena as claimed is hardly rigorous. Was the claims of large, man-like apes in Africa superstition only until Science found gorillas?
Replies
-
If something physically provable, but as yet unstudied by “authoritative” scientific experts, while believed (rightly) by supposedly ignorant, primitive people is just superstition until granted legitimacy through those experts, how can claims for any elusive thing be definitively disproved?