There are areas in Dawkins approach to religion that are valuable especially when he points out on religious extremism that some believers portray. He believes that many people identify themselves as religious yet their actions are far from being acceptable in society. Dawkins points out conflicting beliefs and improper behavior of those calling themselves religious believers yet they carry heinous acts which are not religious. For example, he alludes to Christian anti-abortionists killing physicians who carry out this act which is ungodly and Muslims who support beheading of people who term Islam as a violent religion. On the other hand his approach is problematic for example when he defines faith. Some people feel like Dawkins definition of this term is limited. Dawkins says that faith is an evil since we cannot justify it and it does not encourage arguments. He also argues that faith is irrational. He argues that we cannot base religious belief on evidence, but his critics believe that since Dawkins has many arguments on God’s presence, he should be familiar that faith can be argued, therefore, critics think that he is being venomous.
Keith Ward argues that Dawkins approach on religion is simple and indiscriminate. Ward singles out two flaws in the atheist position. Firstly, Ward says that as physics becomes complex, materialism is no longer the effortless commentary. With central concepts such as time, space, energy, and matter not well grasped to give a true definition of reality, there is no need of being materialistic when we do not know what is matter. Secondly, the issue of consciousness, and that no one has an idea of how perception and thoughts come to light. He acknowledges that the human brain is important for consciousness, and he looks at this consciousness like it emerges from evolution but he inquires whether consciousness could survive without being entangling it to a physical procedure.
I would debate using human consciousness because as a human I am aware of that make my life enjoyable. I can have perceptions and feelings that give me knowledge of the world and have an essential individual uniqueness not known by anyone else.
My personal reaction is that one explanation, whether scientific or religious cannot fit every case that human beings face. For example, if I was to explain how evil is compatible with the presence of a good God, I can give different answers by looking at the entailments of specific concepts of a creator God. I will not rely on experiments or give new hypothesis, but I can succeed in bringing out the problems that we encounter, and show whether we can or cannot resolve these issues. I am not expected to offer universal answers. Also, if I was to solve a certain theory that involves deductions, I will start by defining deduction, the different mathematical theorems and how mathematics works in general. At no particular point will I rely on observation or experiment. I believe there is no one key that can open one lock. It is essential for this dialogue to continue because lack of engagement will lead to deepening of the divide. Religious people view atheism as an anti-religion and that they do not act morally, while non-religionist view religious people as superstitious. There is tension that this two groups cannot have a common ground. It is essential that this dialogue continues so that they can uncover the foundation of each other’s unbelief or belief in order to forge a future together within a shared community. This is the conversation that involves the realities that we have lived of both groups trying to be more human and humane in an increasingly strained world.