what i find interesting is that so much of the time people really seem to talk past each other on these issues and don't always realise they aren't talking about the same things. i'm not sure if i can contribute to this conversation in a meaningful way but i would like to try. i haven't read every single post with careful eye so forgive me if i repeat too much of what has already been said, however i don't hear anyone addressing the topic that condell is incorrect on a number of points. he perhaps should look up the definition of faith again or think it through again. faith is not the suspension of disbelief or whatever he called it. perhaps some people call the suspension of reasoned faculties faith but they are not correct. faith should be well reasoned and though through very carefully. every belief a person holds should be weighed in light of evidence and there is no way around this. condell believes many things about life, himself, and the universe that he cannot prove but believes them anyway in light of his weighing of the evidence. he cannot prove he is not the only intelligent life form there is but there is good evidence this is not true. he cannot prove he is not a brain in a vat but it is not convenient to believe that and so most of us do not. everyone has basic beliefs and assumptions about life that are unavoidable. in short, we all have a "faith" and this is a plain fact. he happens to have faith in the human mind, human reasoning capability, and a whole host of other basic assumptions that no one can prove or disprove but perhaps seem likely based on experience... but in the end there is nothing that can ultimately validate those experiences... we just have to take a leap of faith at some point... everyone does it... totally unavoidable. there are some things that cannot be scientifically measured. there is a limit to science that people like dawkins can't seem to accept. science can not tells humans what is right and what is wrong. in an atheist world view there is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is anything wrong with taking an axe to condell's head yet i'm sure he believes very firmly that this would in fact be wrong. plato asked, "what is the good?" this is a good question and one that cannot be answered logically in an atheist framework because it all will boil down to opinion, power or preference. bertrand russell put forward the idea that you can understand right from wrong based on feeling. just like you determine colour with your eye so too you determine right from wrong based on feeling. this is silly but exactly the kind of nonsense the atheist is reduced to because without something outside the human system providing a moral frame work there is no foundation for morality.
practicality has nothing to do with it. what matters is what is true. someone earlier brought up the point that no matter what good things you think religion might bring you it doesn't matter if it is false. he is completely correct... and this is also true of atheism. despite what benefits one might think it could bring what matters if it is true. i find it incredible that dawkins cannot seem to understand that atheism is completely unprovable by any means. it might be valid for him to say he thinks it is more reasonable to believe atheism is true based on the evidence but ultimately that leaves in the same position as the well reasoned person of religious conviction arguing the same point from the other side.
i find it so sad that there are those who cannot seem to understand that science tells us zero about the existence or non-existence of God.
so of course religion and religious beliefs should be subject to careful evaluation for every person... and using reason, logic, philosophy and the like should all be employed... however, again, science is not the tool for that. those that think it is should reexamine the limitations of science. it is merely a tool to construct models to make predictions about the world. it cannot tell us right from wrong (in the moral sense) and it cannot tell us what is really real... what each person believes is really real is merely a leap of faith.