My parents, with perhaps only incidental intentions, gave me a 
great gift. It was the gift of letting me make up my own mind 
regarding not only the existence of God, but also, if I chose to 
believe in a god, they allowed me to select my own method of 
belief. They more than likely decided to *not* indoctrinate me 
to their spiritual beliefs for no other reason than their own 
disillusionment with the religion they both happened to be 
raised with.

Regardless of their motivations, the result was that I had the 
freedom to decide these issues on my own. This is the gift I 
wish to also impart to my own children someday, if my wife 
and I are fortunate enough to conceive at some point.

The value of this lack of indoctrination can't be sufficiently 
expressed. In a world where people form their opinions early, 
and rarely step away from them for the entirety of their lives, 
the chance to truly make up your own mind without any sort of 
pressure in any direction is priceless.

Therefore, whatever it is I chose to believe about the universe, 
it wasn't handed down to me by my family or friends' religious 
convictions, or for that matter, my institutional peers. Richard 
Dawkins seems to assume that ideological indoctrination only 
occurs within a religious context. An interesting assumption, 
but not very sound, as the dogma of evolutionary biology has 
its own petri dish of viral transference.

I submit that an open mind is better equipped to discover 
"truth" regarding the universe. By open mind, I'm not referring 
to an automatic consideration of every wacky idea that crosses 
one's desk. I'm specifically speaking about looking deeper at 
questions raised regarding any particular scientific theory, 
instead of consistently explaining them away with imaginative 
reasons that guarantee the general theory remains intact. The 
latter is the starkly obvious procedure of the stubborn 
adherent.

Dawkins dances around the big "why" questions by assigning 
them vacuous status. "Vacuous" is a serious adjective, and 
coming from a man who seems to be devoting far too much 
personal and professional time to debunking spiritual beliefs, it 
reveals the bias by which he is hopelessly controlled.

To declare that asking "why" is a meaningless venture because 
there is ultimately no reason for anything, is a lazy way to 
avoid the issue. Surely a no-name, unknown, non-degreed, 
unimportant philistine like me should know better than to dare 
call such a distinguished, brilliant, respected and accomplished 
sage like Dawkins a lazy scientist.

And yet I will continue to do so until he (and others like him) 
admit their grand folly that prevents the world's total 
acceptance of their dogma: they possess the same sort of 
tunnel vision as those they deem scientifically ignorant.

How have the Darwinian Dittos managed to miss the fact that 
something they view as so entirely self-evident is not 
necessarily so? These purveyors of pretentious prattle seek to 
convince the world, through relentless insistence, that the 
innate human desire to seek the *why* of mysteries in the 
universe is in itself a primitive, ignorant, un-evolved, knee-jerk-
behavioral activity; one that could never possibly bear fruit in 
the realm of the physical sciences.

How far would that approach have taken us historically in the 
realm of science if we just accepted everything at its face 
value, and assigned logical-sounding theories the status of fact, 
just because they seemed to make sense?

One of the most devious (but not very original) methods these 
wise men employ to pull in more converts is the age-old 
comparison to fairies, goblins, sea monsters, Santa Claus, and 
name-your-imaginary-entity. That's all very fine and dandy; 
there is no known way to prove the three-dimensional, physical 
existence of a god. However, this kind of intellectual pressure 
has somehow failed to stamp out the delusion so many human 
beings allegedly suffer from.

If the unchallenged verity of Science should be enough to 
forever obliterate any lingering desire to believe in a primitive 
superstition such as a "creator of the universe," then why do 
many highly skilled and formally educated scientists still choose 
to believe in this nonsensical boogie-man/heavenly Father? 
Can't these intelligent, accomplished and sometimes brilliant 
minds see the cognitive dissonance of their belief systems?

Dawkins, Dennett, et al, haven't learned, and may never learn, 
that the subjective nature of humanity, and the perhaps 
limitless possibilities of a highly complex and still somewhat 
unrevealed universe, will always prevent them from turning the 
world into a bunch of nodding yes-people, bowing to their god 
of exceptional intellect, Charles Darwin.

I say, hey, if that's what floats your boat, go on ahead. March 
on with your alarmist propaganda regarding the "dangerous" 
belief in God. All those who continue to believe in this 
"imaginary" entity know full well that your accusations are 
groundless, faceless, hapless and hopeless. The misdeeds of 
humankind do *not* require the flag of religion to make history 
a sometimes unpleasant recollection. If Dawkins, et al were 
being entirely honest, they would have to admit that the 
beneficial results of humanity's spiritual disposition far outweigh 
the heinous headlines blasted from anti-religious literature.

The entire world will never sway to one side of the fence. This 
is somehow guaranteed in the biological/sociological mix, lack 
of scientific data notwithstanding. I'm merely making an 
unscientific observation, but the greatest of scientists would be 
hard pressed to falsify that statement with actual lab results.

Truth be known, at the risk of sounding condescending, I 
actually feel sorry for people like Dawkins. Not for the reasons 
he might guess, such as "I'm saved and he isn't," or the ever 
popular "he's deceived by Satan." No, nothing quite as 
dramatic. I feel pity for Dawkins because he's not even aware 
of the fullness of existence that a belief in God can bestow 
upon the believer. He and I both believe we only get one shot 
at this life; which one of us probably possesses more hope?

He would likely comment that he is happier in the knowledge 
that he's not deluded.

If that is the sort of happiness he thinks is near the summit of 
human experience, then I say, have at it, Richard, enjoy. Take 
comfort in all the meaningless events caused by meaningless 
people who will all become, as you and I will, meaningless 
fertilizer in a meaningless world, in a random universe that 
holds no purpose whatsoever.

I'd rather bask instead in the "pathetic, ignorant delusion" that 
Someone or Something else is "out there," and that there is far 
more depth to existence than statistically near-impossible 
accidents in a three-dimensional mass of inexplicable energy 
and information.

And by the way, Richard: the vast majority of the "believers" 
out there have absolutely *zero* interest in dismantling your 
precious edifice of conjecture. In the final analysis, most of 
them literally couldn't care less about your academic theories. 
They're too busy working, raising families, and trying to make 
sense of life to bother with your esoteric ideas and necessity for 
validation.