"Dawkins’s uncompromising literalism is nowhere more obvious than in his astonishing insistence throughout The God Delusion that the notion of God should be treated as a scientific hypothesis, subject to the same verificational procedures as any other “scientific” hypothesis."I simply cannot see -- or imagine -- why the notion of "God" should not be treated as a scientific hypothesis.
What is "astonishing" about this? Please, someone -- anyone -- please tell me.
Electrons should be treated this way, no? Neptune, too. Extra-dimensions, supersymmetry, the properties of an ideal gas.
Why does this one "thing" -- "God" -- get to escape such proof, merely because you can't provide it? If you can't provide the proof, then you can't scrape by by imaging this thing as part of all those things that a person can't ascertain. What a royal copout.
I just can't see how a person can make this kind of intellectual argument and still look at themselves in the mirror in the morning. It's absurd.