Yes, I thought that might soon be pointed out. On that basis, quantum theory and relativity were disprovable until about 1880, as science had no means of detecting any evidence of their existence.

All scientific laws are either probably wrong or definitely wrong. We hold to them because they explain the things we understand so far, and because they are useful approximations to reality that allow us to progress. So if you hold up science as an unchallengable absolute, you fall into the same trap as does a religious extremist.

“non-overlapping magisteria”

Yes, an argument considered long before Dawkins’ works in the form of the “God of the Gaps” approach to religion.

As ever, attaching a label to an argument enables one to oversimplify it and dismiss it. I would resist an argument which said that scientists could never wonder whether there was (or was not) a God and that theologians could only ever consider the choreographic possibilities of pinheads. The truth lies somewhere between; that the tools and approaches of science have been developed in order to answer a specific type of question. Likewise for theology. Given that the nature of the tools differ, the result of using them to answer other sorts of questions will inevitably differ. So, if someone believes that his tools are perfect and applicable to all questions, he will conclude that the other tools are useless. But the problem may not be with the tools as such, but with the manner of their use.

Patently, you seem to have fallen into what Dawkins calls “non-overlapping magisteria”, which is an argument along the lines of “let science be science & God be God”. Seems attractive at first, but surely supernatural claims should be questioned & challenged as others are.

They also make claims about the physical world, such as in creationism, & this is where the argument side comes in. It isn’t right to fence some things off & say they should be left to theologians.

So within those parameters, I’m quite happy (and enjoy) speaking to theologians about how they interpret their stories but I have to object when they make assertions about measurable reality based upon demonstrably false claims in those tales.

Dawkin’s use of this premise is valid for the purposes of scientific research, but not otherwise. It is why I would not rely on him as a theologian any more than I would rely on him as (say) a lawyer or a politician. The problem lies in Dawkin’s insistence on using an exclusively scientific frame of mind to approach non-scientific issues. You criticise (as I would) theologians who use an exclusively theological frame of mind to approach scientific issues; Dawkins is making the same mistake.

So if a theologian told me that God literally made the world in 6 days, I’d regard him as a blinkered extremist and pay him no more attention than I pay Dawkins. There is a middle ground in which scientists can enquire how things happen and theologians can discuss why, and in which they will (sometimes) be the same person.

PS – My background is science with (secular) philosophy, not theology.

Theologians are fine until they start making pronouncements about the natural world based on their fairy stories (God made the world in 6 days, God said heterosexuality is the only natural way and so on)…

Dawkins is probably more expert than I in explaining the how questions of life, but is just one of the many trying to explain the why…

Anyway, The God Delusion is, in some ways, a natural progression from Dawkins’ earlier more science based work (The Blind Watchmaker, Unweaving the Rainbow, etc). I do agree with you, patently, that he is better at writing about zooology, and that his philosophical viewpoints at times more arrogant than is necessary, but I still think he is in a better position than most to explain the likelihood of the existence of God, since his particular field is rather instrumental in explaining the origins of life on Earth.

Of course, I happen to agree with his point of view, which helps.