Richard Dawkins argument

[iwannabesomeone]

Hello, I recently watched a TED talk by Richard Dawkins. I think there are a lot of good talks on ted.com. This one is making me question my faith. The talk was about atheism and he said that scientists say they know things because of seeing consistent evidence and observing the natural world. He remarked that it would be very silly if a scientist said he knew something because his parents had taught him to just have faith it was true. What can a Catholic say about this. He is right. A person should believe something after careful consideration, not blind faith. What should the Catholic response be to this? Do we sometimes rely too much on blind faith and not even carefully reflect on what we believe?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I’m sure you were looking for mainly Catholic responses, but I thought I’d share my thoughts as well. I agree that it would be silly if a scientist said he knew something because his parents taught him to have faith that it was true. I think it would also be silly if someone believed in the Catholic God for their entire life solely because their parents told them that it was true. Given the diversity of religions, most people’s parents would teach them a false religion. But as I understand Catholicism, it definitely does not ask for blind faith. According to the Catechism, “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” This does not necessarily mean that there is a single argument that proves all of God’s attributes, but that the accumulation of various sources of evidence provides certainty that God exists.

I tend to think that a lot of people, both Catholic and atheists, never really try to seriously consider the arguments of the other side. Sometimes when someone studies the arguments, they realize that their initial position was wrong, while other times they become even more convinced that they had it right to begin with.

My advice is to start reading. Read some of the Catholic arguments. Read some of the atheist arguments. If you take this opportunity to really dig in and explore the arguments honestly, you’ll never again have to worry about only having blind faith. I actually think that Dawkins was wrong about some things in The God Delusion, and I recommend reading The Dawkins Delusion? for a well-thought-out Christian rebuttal to some of his claims. I also suggest checking out Atheism Explained for a readable book that explores the arguments more fairly than Dawkins does. You also might want to check out some of the online resources, such as the ones on this site, those on Reasonable Faith, and those on Infidels.org. Finally, you should see what sources other people would recommend.

 

[Areopagite]

Hello, I recently watched a TED talk by Richard Dawkins. I think there are a lot of good talks on ted.com. This one is making me question my faith. The talk was about atheism and he said that scientists say they know things because of seeing consistent evidence and observing the natural world. He remarked that it would be very silly if a scientist said he knew something because his parents had taught him to just have faith it was true. What can a Catholic say about this. He is right. A person should believe something after careful consideration, not blind faith. What should the Catholic response be to this? Do we sometimes rely too much on blind faith and not even carefully reflect on what we believe?

I’m sure you were looking for mainly Catholic responses, but I thought I’d share my thoughts as well. I agree that it would be silly if a scientist said he knew something because his parents taught him to have faith that it was true. I think it would also be silly if someone believed in the Catholic God for their entire life solely because their parents told them that it was true. Given the diversity of religions, most people’s parents would teach them a false religion. But as I understand Catholicism, it definitely does not ask for blind faith. According to the Catechism, “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” This does not necessarily mean that there is a single argument that proves all of God’s attributes, but that the accumulation of various sources of evidence provides certainty that God exists.

I tend to think that a lot of people, both Catholic and atheists, never really try to seriously consider the arguments of the other side. Sometimes when someone studies the arguments, they realize that their initial position was wrong, while other times they become even more convinced that they had it right to begin with.

My advice is to start reading. Read some of the Catholic arguments. Read some of the atheist arguments. If you take this opportunity to really dig in and explore the arguments honestly, you’ll never again have to worry about only having blind faith. I actually think that Dawkins was wrong about some things in The God Delusion, and I recommend reading The Dawkins Delusion? for a well-thought-out Christian rebuttal to some of his claims. I also suggest checking out Atheism Explained for a readable book that explores the arguments more fairly than Dawkins does. You also might want to check out some of the online resources, such as the ones on this site, those on Reasonable Faith, and those on Infidels.org. Finally, you should see what sources other people would recommend.

anEvilAtheist is actually very correct. I agreed with pretty much everything he said. Let me stress one point:

It is true that accepting something simply because our parents said so is not a very good reason. The Church would agree, even with regard to the faith. Parental instruction should not be the basis for our belief … but merely an aid. It helps, many times, that our parents tell us to do things … but ideally we need to go beyond that and make the faith our own, not merely keeping it out of nostalgia for our family.

With that said, even if you come to realize that your motivation for keeping the faith has largely been out of loyalty to your parents (or something along those lines), that is no reason to reject the faith. It’s your duty now to grow in it with prayer and humility … and no longer out of mere familial customs.

Many saints were converts, and their families weren’t Catholic … yet they had the faith all the same. For those who have been raised Catholic, it is definitely a blessing, but it should not be the only thing they should rely on. They must make their faith their own.

Those are my thoughts.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You have to begin life believing because of what someone else said. The issue is whom to trust. If you trust no one, you will certainly make far more errors than the advice from your parents, priests, or teachers (might want to leave TV out of the mix tho).

Eventually you can begin to rely on your own experience and eventually on your own thoughts. But that time is long in coming.

People tell you that “Science says” when actually Science didn’t say. People tell you that the Scriptures say, when the scriptures didn’t really mean it that way. People tell you that the Church says, when the Church wasn’t really talking about your situation.

Take what people say “with a grain of salt” until you are more sure of exactly who is really doing the saying and what they were really meaning, but don’t make wild guesses. When you don’t know, you don’t know. Leave it at that.

If you don’t discover one day that Science and Religion never were at odds, but only the people following what others had said, then you haven’t learned how to listen yet. Keep trying, but take it slowly, carefully, and don’t make decisions and judgments until you really have to.

 

[HickmanJosh]

You have to begin life believing because of what someone else said. The issue is whom to trust. If you trust no one, you will certainly make far more errors than the advice from your parents, priests, or teachers (might want to leave TV out of the mix tho).

What of reverts back to the church from atheism?

iwannabesomeone:

What should the Catholic response be to this? Do we sometimes rely too much on blind faith and not even carefully reflect on what we believe?

I depends on the person, if your faith is rarely chalenged then you really won’t learn to understand it properly, so really it being challenged is a good thing because you can learn more about the Church and your Faith.

It is not to hard to analyze your faith. there is plenty of evidence for God and none against. Do some research on miracles, read books on faith and the Church, pray, meditate. All give you plenty of time to think and reflect on the Almighty and what you believe about Him.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…scientists say they know things because of seeing consistent evidence and observing the natural world. He remarked that it would be very silly if a scientist said he knew something because his parents had taught him to just have faith it was true…

I have a degree in science and have worked as a spacecraft engineer, and am currently an engineer in support of military space operations. From my perspective, scientists know things for the very same reasons that other human beings know things, by discerning the evidence.

Whatever the field of study, science, law, theology, economics, etc., people come to believe something because of three forms of evidence:

1. Reason
2. Experience
3. Testimony of others

Scientists are no exception. Scientists believe, for example, in “dark matter.” Is this because they have seen “dark matter?” No. Is this because they have verified experimentally all the evidence for the existence of dark matter? No. There are very few scientists who have actually personally conducted any experiments with regard to “dark matter.” So, how do they “know” dark matter exists? They believe it because they read an article on it, or a science book, or received the testimony of another, and reasoned that the testimony was trustworthy and congruent with their own experience, and therefore believe that the theory about dark matter is true.

Is there an element of “faith” when one trusts the testimony of others when coming to believe something is true? Certainly. When a jury listens to the evidence in a murder trial, they judge based upon the *testimony *presented to them that the defendant is either guilty of murder or not, even if they did not actually see them murder somebody. How? Their belief–like every human being that ever existed–is heavily based upon their reasoning about the testimony of others, in comparison to their own experience.

I imagine that there have been many people, scientists among them, who believed that a particular person was “in love” with them. I imagine that some may have even acted upon this belief, and asked the person to marry them. I wonder if there are scientists who made this decision only after running various scientifically controlled experiements which “proved” that the person in question truly loved them. I suspect not.

We ALL come to believe something is true, in every field of study, by carefully discerning the evidence, which always consits of reason, experience and testimony.

Scripture says to “Test everything, hold fast what is good.” (1 Thess 5:21). I am Catholic, only because of careful consideration of the evidence.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m sure you were looking for mainly Catholic responses, but I thought I’d share my thoughts as well. I agree that it would be silly if a scientist said he knew something because his parents taught him to have faith that it was true. I think it would also be silly if someone believed in the Catholic God for their entire life solely because their parents told them that it was true. Given the diversity of religions, most people’s parents would teach them a false religion. But as I understand Catholicism, it definitely does not ask for blind faith. According to the Catechism, “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” This does not necessarily mean that there is a single argument that proves all of God’s attributes, but that the accumulation of various sources of evidence provides certainty that God exists.

I tend to think that a lot of people, both Catholic and atheists, never really try to seriously consider the arguments of the other side. Sometimes when someone studies the arguments, they realize that their initial position was wrong, while other times they become even more convinced that they had it right to begin with.

My advice is to start reading. Read some of the Catholic arguments. Read some of the atheist arguments. If you take this opportunity to really dig in and explore the arguments honestly, you’ll never again have to worry about only having blind faith. I actually think that Dawkins was wrong about some things in The God Delusion, and I recommend reading The Dawkins Delusion? for a well-thought-out Christian rebuttal to some of his claims. I also suggest checking out Atheism Explained for a readable book that explores the arguments more fairly than Dawkins does. You also might want to check out some of the online resources, such as the ones on this site, those on Reasonable Faith, and those on Infidels.org. Finally, you should see what sources other people would recommend.

You know, my good man, for such an **evil **atheist, you are awfully intellectually honest. I daresay that’s a virtue.

 

[grannymh]

The talk was about atheism and he said that scientists say they know things because of seeing consistent evidence and observing the natural world.

This is a bait and switch tactic which ignores true, fully complete human nature.

 

[Deconi]

I’m sure you were looking for mainly Catholic responses, but I thought I’d share my thoughts as well. I agree that it would be silly if a scientist said he knew something because his parents taught him to have faith that it was true. I think it would also be silly if someone believed in the Catholic God for their entire life solely because their parents told them that it was true. Given the diversity of religions, most people’s parents would teach them a false religion. But as I understand Catholicism, it definitely does not ask for blind faith. According to the Catechism, “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” This does not necessarily mean that there is a single argument that proves all of God’s attributes, but that the accumulation of various sources of evidence provides certainty that God exists.

I tend to think that a lot of people, both Catholic and atheists, never really try to seriously consider the arguments of the other side. Sometimes when someone studies the arguments, they realize that their initial position was wrong, while other times they become even more convinced that they had it right to begin with.

My advice is to start reading. Read some of the Catholic arguments. Read some of the atheist arguments. If you take this opportunity to really dig in and explore the arguments honestly, you’ll never again have to worry about only having blind faith. I actually think that Dawkins was wrong about some things in The God Delusion, and I recommend reading The Dawkins Delusion? for a well-thought-out Christian rebuttal to some of his claims. I also suggest checking out Atheism Explained for a readable book that explores the arguments more fairly than Dawkins does. You also might want to check out some of the online resources, such as the ones on this site, those on Reasonable Faith, and those on Infidels.org. Finally, you should see what sources other people would recommend.

“Evil” - someone must have given you that monicker or made you think you are!
You’re more Catholic than most, because you’ve just given the ‘complete’ panoramic Catholic answer!

Everything in the universe points to it’s Maker!

No scientist starts from scratch to examine his/her field of study. Their parents/teachers tell them things to accept as ‘proven.’ They all read and BASE their reasearch on what others have said or passed on.

The same with Catholicism!

Our faith is not ‘blind’ faith, but on physical, evidential evidence that has a traceable lineage! Do we need ‘faith’? Certainly! Our trust/faith is that Jesus is Who He Said He Is; That He is the Son of the Living God; the Second Person of The Trinity!

Because we can evidentially trace our lineage, through the Popes, all the way back to The Apostles and people that walked, ate and talked with an actual person named Jesus, we have no excuse but to accept the Catholic ‘faith.’ There are many elements of the profession that require our faith to accept, but the fact that there’s a traceable golden thread back to our beginning makes is less a faith, but an acceptance!

Since we accept that Jesus is God, therefore it follows that He MADE everything we see and cannot see! Every scientist knows that every ‘maker’ of something physical can be discovered through careful forensic examination. For those who believe, it is obvious. For those who prefer to examine, in time, a conclusion has to be called for.

I cannot recall if it was Mdme. SAVANT or another scientist who said; maybe, when the scientist have finally examined and scrutinised their way up the mountain of scientific evidence, they’ll find a group of theologians sitting there all along!’

Every parent passes on what they know and what they experienced is best for their offspring. In every offspring’s life there comes the moment when they think,…“WHY?!”

Right about there they start contributing to 'making the world go 'round!

 

[James_S_Saint]

What of reverts back to the church from atheism?

Emm… what of them? I don’t understand your question… sorry.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hello, I recently watched a TED talk by Richard Dawkins. I think there are a lot of good talks on ted.com. This one is making me question my faith. The talk was about atheism and he said that scientists say they know things because of seeing consistent evidence and observing the natural world. He remarked that it would be very silly if a scientist said he knew something because his parents had taught him to just have faith it was true. What can a Catholic say about this. He is right. A person should believe something after careful consideration, not blind faith. What should the Catholic response be to this? Do we sometimes rely too much on blind faith and not even carefully reflect on what we believe?

Well, I think this is a typical Dawkins misunderstanding or even attempt to misdirect. But…

First of all, the Church has never said that we must not work hard to understand Christianity for ourselves. The people who believe it only because their parents told them to are not that common. That being said, many of the “facts” of Christianity are not available for direct viewing - we don’t get to time travel to meet Moses or Jesus. We must base what we know about such things on historical evidence. Other Christian truths are about our inner states, which again, we cannot “measure” directly.

But to my view, the Church, and the CC, make it quite clear that it is part of our responsibility as Christians and human beings to do more than take our religious doctrines as matters of “blind faith”.

Secondly, it is not true that science works with each scientist as an independent entity. Scientists rely on the previous work of other scientists, and publish in journals that are peer reviewed. THe consensus of the community, while not everything, is important, and shapes the way in which science moves as a whole, and how we non-scientists respond to it. Consider the controversies over the evidence on smoking, oil companies claims, or global warming.

Is this any different, really, than the way the Church asks us to read and consider the works of the Church fathers, the actions of the saints, or even the advice of the local priest? Not as much I think as RD might like us to believe.

As well, most of us are not theologians, or scientists. I am sure that RD would not berate me for my belief in black holes, or that the universe is expanding. Yet these are really matters of blind faith for me - I have not reviewed the evidence, I could not give it an accurate evaluation if I did, and I most certainly can’t do the math to understand the theory. But they don’t contradict things that I do know to be true, and IO trust the judgment of those more knowledgeable than I on these issues. They are less likely to be wrong than I am, though we are of course all fallible as individuals and as a groups.

So to me, this argument is simply a red herring.

 

[Kindness]

Great post Bluegoat.

 

[Drawmack]

Hello, I recently watched a TED talk by Richard Dawkins. I think there are a lot of good talks on ted.com. This one is making me question my faith. The talk was about atheism and he said that scientists say they know things because of seeing consistent evidence and observing the natural world. He remarked that it would be very silly if a scientist said he knew something because his parents had taught him to just have faith it was true. What can a Catholic say about this. He is right. A person should believe something after careful consideration, not blind faith. What should the Catholic response be to this? Do we sometimes rely too much on blind faith and not even carefully reflect on what we believe?

Dawkins has more than one talk on ted which one were you watching.

I would just inform Mr. Dawkins that about half of the world’s preeminent scientists are also theist with many of the being Christian. Therefore, the scientific evidence cannot possibly conclusively lead to atheism. So, I will continue to keep my science and theology in separate class rooms. And, as I have arrived at this conclusion by observing the world around me and drawing my conclusions from facts I would thank him to respect my scientific analysis of the situation and leave me alone.

 

[buffalo]

Do you know of any scientist who has recreated every experiment ever done or proved every science from the beginning? I don’t.

 

[buffalo]

The Irrational Atheist

 

[neophyte]

…He remarked that it would be very silly if a scientist said he knew something because his parents had taught him to just have faith it was true.

I have no language to describe the foolishness of this kind of reasoning. The only reason Dawkins thinks he knows his own birthdate is because his parents told him what it is. The only reason he knows most of what he knows is because someone told it to him. I’m sure he believes all kinds of scientific ideas even though he’s never done the experiments himself; the only reason he believes them is because someone told him about it.

…A person should believe something after careful consideration, not blind faith. What should the Catholic response be to this? …

“Blind faith” is a straw man, because faith by definition is not blind. The object of faith is another who is known.

 

[Bluegoat]

Has anyone other than the OP heard this line of argument by RD? Or if the OP is reading, are you sure he meant it this way? I’m not a fan of Dawkins, but this seems a rather silly argument from any perspective.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

There is a danger on this thread of people talking past each other due to this all encompassing word “faith”. It seems to be applicable to too many things. The notion here appears to be that scientists operate one way and it shows “faith” of a kind. Meanwhile Theists operate another way and have “faith” too. Therefore why can we all not get along as clearly we all have “faith”?

I do not have, as itsjustdave1988 said, “faith” in things because someone wrote a paper I read and I agree with it. We do not believe in Dark Matter for example simply because I “read an article on it”.

What do people generally think science is? A group of people in white coats who operate as the scientific version of priests to whom we show deference and believe all they say? Not at all.

Science is a process rather than a thing. It is a process that relies not on one person writing a paper to show something is true, but on something called “peer review” which means that every other scientist out there reading the paper is engaged in showing that the paper is “wrong”.

In Science you win points by showing other paper’s methods or conclusions are false. In fact it is the only area of discourse of which I am aware in which one gains points for proving YOURSELF wrong.

Science is not just about coming out with a paper and everyone who reads it accepts it. Someone did not write a paper on Dark Matter and now everyone believes it to refer to the used example again. There is a hard hard slog behind such papers. There has to be as much, if not the majority, of papers released for peer review turn out to be really really dire and flawed to the point of comedy.

Take for example the now mostly accepted work of Lynn Margulis on an aspect of evolution called symbiogenesis. This is wonderful stuff and strengthens what we know about evolution and is now very strong evidence for evolution. Was it therefore accepted right off the bat because there was a paper written on it and it fits so beautifully with everything we think we know about evolution? Did we, like with the suggestion above about dark matter, all “read a paper” on it and now know it is true? Not a chance.

Marguilis had to go through decades of presentations, submission of evidence, writing of papers which were subjected to the height of peer review, she wrote books, speeches, papers and monography. She had to write and re-write everything as new data came in and flaws in her original methodology were highlighted and after 35 years of intense testing it has trickled into the biological curriculum as a mildly controversial but generally accepted theory which sheds wonderful light on the evolutionary past of some very very distance common ancestors.

I do not therefore, nor does any serious scientist, read a paper and then “believe” in dark matter like it was suggested on this thread. They do the review, they examine the evidence contained in the papers, they question it themselves, they read how other people questioned it and question their questioning. When it trickles into mainstream science it does so through an incredible distillation process and every time that paper is used to prove something else the base assumption of the original can be called into question all over again in the light of fresh evidence.

Where there is “faith” in that I do not know except to say I have great faith in the fact that this process of scientific peer review and meta analysis is the best we have today.

I personally hold this in stark contrast to “faith” in theistic terms. For me in this context it refers to nothing but basic confirmation bias. You are told something and you look for the things in this world which confirm it. There is no active process of proving yourself wrong or having anyone else prove you wrong. How could there be?

I always fight with “atheists” who come out with the tired old line of “Faith is belief with no evidence”. I think this is a highly damaging claim. To me religious faith is more easily defined as “Assuming as a basis to be true that which you are trying to evidentially show is true”. This world is chock FULL of evidence for your Deity therefore if in fact you engage in “faith”.

To return then to the context of the OP and his post:

Dawkins has a point but a vastly generalised one. There are a good few reasons why people think there is a god and his point here addresses only one of them. Examples include personal experience, arguments from incredulity and more.

However there ARE some who have “faith” as I just defined it. They are told by parents or other people in positions of “authority” that there is such an entity and then they view the world with new eyes and find the things that support this position. If you first assume the entity exists you will find evidence abound that it really does. In fact it would be a true honest miracle if you couldn’t!!!

In fact the authors of the bible itself knew this well! They not only knew it but actively endorse that you engage in it:

Seek and you will find

Quite. Of course you will. If someone actually doesn’t I would love to meet them.

 

[eccles]

“Everything in the universe points to it’s Maker!”

WRONG. Who or what was the maker. Just because the Bible says so does not make it right. There is a circular argument behind that - Who wrote the Bible? God did… What is the proof - God said so. See how stupid that is. There is no proof for a “Creator/God”.

"No scientist starts from scratch to examine his/her field of study. Their parents/teachers tell them things to accept as ‘proven.’ They all read and BASE their reasearch on what others have said or passed on.

The same with Catholicism!

Our faith is not ‘blind’ faith, but on physical, evidential evidence that has a traceable lineage! Do we need ‘faith’? Certainly! Our trust/faith is that Jesus is Who He Said He Is; That He is the Son of the Living God; the Second Person of The Trinity!"

WRONG. What evidence that can be accepted in a court of law that Jesus existed as outlined in the Bible. NONE.

“God” was made in the mind of humans then used as a big stick to control people. The sordid history of the Roman Catholic Church in it’s first 1,500 years shows that. And by the way the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the Holy Office of the Inquisition in it’s new name. It might not burn heretics, but it has strong powers. And Benedict XVI was it’s Cardinal Prefect.

 

[Bluegoat]

There is a danger on this thread of people talking past each other due to this all encompassing word “faith”. It seems to be applicable to too many things. The notion here appears to be that scientists operate one way and it shows “faith” of a kind. Meanwhile Theists operate another way and have “faith” too. Therefore why can we all not get along as clearly we all have “faith”?

I do not have, as itsjustdave1988 said, “faith” in things because someone wrote a paper I read and I agree with it. We do not believe in Dark Matter for example simply because I “read an article on it”.

What do people generally think science is? A group of people in white coats who operate as the scientific version of priests to whom we show deference and believe all they say? Not at all.

Science is a process rather than a thing. It is a process that relies not on one person writing a paper to show something is true, but on something called “peer review” which means that every other scientist out there reading the paper is engaged in showing that the paper is “wrong”.

In Science you win points by showing other paper’s methods or conclusions are false. In fact it is the only area of discourse of which I am aware in which one gains points for proving YOURSELF wrong.

Science is not just about coming out with a paper and everyone who reads it accepts it. Someone did not write a paper on Dark Matter and now everyone believes it to refer to the used example again. There is a hard hard slog behind such papers. There has to be as much, if not the majority, of papers released for peer review turn out to be really really dire and flawed to the point of comedy.

Take for example the now mostly accepted work of Lynn Margulis on an aspect of evolution called symbiogenesis. This is wonderful stuff and strengthens what we know about evolution and is now very strong evidence for evolution. Was it therefore accepted right off the bat because there was a paper written on it and it fits so beautifully with everything we think we know about evolution? Did we, like with the suggestion above about dark matter, all “read a paper” on it and now know it is true? Not a chance.

Marguilis had to go through decades of presentations, submission of evidence, writing of papers which were subjected to the height of peer review, she wrote books, speeches, papers and monography. She had to write and re-write everything as new data came in and flaws in her original methodology were highlighted and after 35 years of intense testing it has trickled into the biological curriculum as a mildly controversial but generally accepted theory which sheds wonderful light on the evolutionary past of some very very distance common ancestors.

I do not therefore, nor does any serious scientist, read a paper and then “believe” in dark matter like it was suggested on this thread. They do the review, they examine the evidence contained in the papers, they question it themselves, they read how other people questioned it and question their questioning. When it trickles into mainstream science it does so through an incredible distillation process and every time that paper is used to prove something else the base assumption of the original can be called into question all over again in the light of fresh evidence.

Where there is “faith” in that I do not know except to say I have great faith in the fact that this process of scientific peer review and meta analysis is the best we have today.

I personally hold this in stark contrast to “faith” in theistic terms. For me in this context it refers to nothing but basic confirmation bias. You are told something and you look for the things in this world which confirm it. There is no active process of proving yourself wrong or having anyone else prove you wrong. How could there be?

I always fight with “atheists” who come out with the tired old line of “Faith is belief with no evidence”. I think this is a highly damaging claim. To me religious faith is more easily defined as “Assuming as a basis to be true that which you are trying to evidentially show is true”. This world is chock FULL of evidence for your Deity therefore if in fact you engage in “faith”.

To return then to the context of the OP and his post:

Dawkins has a point but a vastly generalised one. There are a good few reasons why people think there is a god and his point here addresses only one of them. Examples include personal experience, arguments from incredulity and more.

However there ARE some who have “faith” as I just defined it. They are told by parents or other people in positions of “authority” that there is such an entity and then they view the world with new eyes and find the things that support this position. If you first assume the entity exists you will find evidence abound that it really does. In fact it would be a true honest miracle if you couldn’t!!!

In fact the authors of the bible itself knew this well! They not only knew it but actively endorse that you engage in it:

Have you ever tried reading academic theological or philosophical journals? Or a really good history of philosophy? The process of theology is much closer to what you describe as the scientific process than you are saying. And you must realize that science, like philosophy, begins with unprovable assumptions - faith.

Most people though do not read academic journals of any kind, scientific or theological, or whatever.