>>213091233

Yes Dawkins is a scientist so of course he's going to discuss religion with respect to its material claims. He wouldn't have such fertile territory to explore were it not for the fact that religions often do make material claims about the universe or, at the very least, they have a large number of believers who interpret their faiths in such a way.
You simultaneously criticize him having insufficient knowledge outside his field yet demand his arguments attain an unbounded breadth so as to encompass more diverse interpretations of religion. Now satisfying one surely means betraying the other, no? You admit no plausible criteria in which Dawkins' argument can satisfy you or even be evaluated by you as substantive because you have a puerile hostility towards his existence. In short, you're arguing in bad faith.
It's also worth nothing that defining a narrow bounds for a conversation is scholarly practice. If you don't agree with the material claims put forward by most religions then Dawkins' criticism should mean nothing to you. If anything, you should appreciate it, as it may drive away the more clownish adherents who tend to detract from everyone else.

>>5000356
>>5000357