Richard Dawkins

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Richard Dawkins is neither a religious figure nor a philosopher. His contributions to debate on those subjects are largely political in character, and in my opinion skew heavily (but are not universally) negative. It should be noted that he's also far from an uncontroversially revered figure in his own world of ethology.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

And if Dawkins focused mainly on explaining why that's a bad idea then he'd be in the right.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That's a very simplistic outlook.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How many religions are based on math, logic, reason or science?

Exactly as many as ought to be.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Negative, should stay in the lab instead of engaging in atheist fundamentalism.

Isn't Dawkins technically retired in his capacity as a scientist anyway? He's in his early seventies by now.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How many religions are based on math, logic, reason or science?

Exactly as many as ought to be.

Both of these statements, as well as their implications, are one hundred percent correct, IMO. It's why faith and science on a philosophical level are not reconcilable.

Irreconcilable in what can and should be a fairly benign way, however, I'd submit.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How many religions are based on math, logic, reason or science?

Exactly as many as ought to be.

Both of these statements, as well as their implications, are one hundred percent correct, IMO. It's why faith and science on a philosophical level are not reconcilable.

Irreconcilable in what can and should be a fairly benign way, however, I'd submit.

Yes, I promise to forego crusading!

I actually think the discussion can be fruitful, but I think the objectives of it should be adjusted from trying to convince each other (either science or religion is on the offense, it seems) to exchanging ideas. Science is about method first and body of knowledge second, and it really disagrees with faith, I think. Faith takes the view, I think, that knowledge is passively revealed, and science takes the view that it is actively built. Then there's the supernatural / natural cause aspect, so I think a lot can be exchanged, but maybe the objectives of the discussion could be adjusted. 

I'm in entire agreement with that.