"Died-in-the-wool atheists like Dawkins, I argued, meet religious fundamentalists full circle. Both are certain of what they believe, I suggested, and are disdainful of anyone who does not share those beliefs."

Is he correct? As an atheist this is one of the more common charges leveled against me. "How are you any different to the religious fundamentalist?" Do Tom and the multitudes of religious apologists have a point?

Simply put, no.

There is a distinct and crucial difference between an atheist like myself and the religious fundamentalist. Atheists are willing to change their minds if the evidence is forthcoming. The 'truths' we hold are not absolute. Ask an atheist what it would take for them to change their mind about the existence of God. Now try posing the same question to a theist.

Am I a doubting Thomas? Sure. Should I be vilified for it? No.

On one hand we have a group that is open to evidence, one that holds their beliefs strongly and sometimes very passionately but is, nevertheless, open to a good argument. Our theories and beliefs are based upon scientific data and empirical evidence. On the other hand, religious faith or belief not only lacks evidence, but sees itself virtuous for doing so.

Passionate views should not be confused with dogma.

I know that the earth is a sphere. I can observe this, I consider it to be true and anyone that disagrees is a buffoon and needs to go back to school. Am I wrong in assuming this? Does my attitude towards the 'flat earthers' make my case any weaker? Is my argument undermined becaus of how strongly I hold these beliefs?

There is a massive difference between holding a viewpoint that is based upon what we can observe and have discovered through science and in believing something because it feels good or right. There are many thing we would like to believe but we must restrain ourselves, without such restraint our beliefs become dangerous.

This is why the assertion that religious fundamentalists and atheists are much much alike is actually rather perilous. It asumes that a set of beliefs based upon revelation rather than evidence are just as valid. They are not.

We cannot and must not live in a world where it is acceptable to go through life inferring that all hypotheses are open to be understood as truth. This is where the burden of proof takes center stage. Without it we'd be living in a fantasy world. When arguing from the fantastic, one must provide some evidence to support one's claim. As Sagan says, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There are a multitude of things that I could argue for which I have no proof or evidence and could, indeed, be contradictory to our understanding of the world.

Can I bounce up to the moon on my pogo stick? I have faith that I can. Are you willing to allow me to believe this? Are you willing to offer me a 50% chance that I'm correct?

The atheist simply says that where we have no evidence, we must resist believing in the fantastic. There comes a point when you need not be Dawkins to call me an idiot for my beliefs.

Faith or the belief that it is good and proper to accept things not based on evidence or rooted in reason is corrosive. It leaves us open to all kinds of dogma which ultimately leads to many pitfalls. When we allow the notion that an ancient book offers us the best way of understanding the world, we get into trouble. We need only to look at the news to see the damage that this can cause. We need to think for ourselves or change our minds when new evidence is revealed not find ourselves restricted by our faith.

Tom continues:

"Take the debate over evolution, for example. Like most "educated" people, I take the theory of evolution as a given. But the truth is, I’ve read only fragments of The Origin of Species, and have only a sketchy knowledge of science in general. In this respect, I’ll bet I’m no different from most people. Let’s face it, folks: Our belief in the theory of evolution is based on faith—faith in scientists who study these things on our behalf, and faith in a scientific method that we don’t fully understand and certainly have never practiced ourselves in the field or in a lab."

And here is why atheists such as myself are so worried. He follows an alarming tendency of those that argue science as faith to discredit science.

Tom refers to science and a belief in scientific learning as just another kind of faith. Once one agrees with this, why trust science at all? It devalues science and it underrates our best method of understanding the world. Many of us have heard the same argument before. It's normally put forward by creationists. He may not realize it but he's supporting one of the most dangerous educational issues of our time. Intelligent Design.

The creationist will argue that science is just another kind of faith and then say:

"God said it, I believe it and that settles that."

I'm no evolutionary biologist. I have a very weak understanding of evolution in the same way that I have a weak understanding of gravitational theory. Does that mean I should leave either open to question or should not hold them as unalienable truths?

What Tom fails to grasp, is that although his understanding is weak, he is able to open up any book and study the subject himself and come to his own conclusions. One of the principles of science is that anyone can confirm any experiment, no matter where or when it was undertaken, and each individual has the ability to verify the results and repeat the experiment to make sure that what they are being told is true. And that's the beauty of the scientific method. How different a religious belief is. This we take on tradition and revelation.

Atheism is a necessity because without it we'd still be stuck in the dark ages, taking someone's word that the sun rotates around the earth. It's telling that those who saw the wonder of science found themselves at odds with religion. One need only to look at the treatment of Galileo as an example.

What is Tom really trying to say? Is Tom suggesting that we give equal footing to mythological beliefs that have no way of being verified? If he's suggesting that we open ourselves to believing that there might be an alternative theory, a way of understanding, we already do. That's what science is all about. We must continually strive to find truth. Science's journey is only just starting. Religious belief is already at the end of the line. The final stop, time to get off the train.

What we do not, and must not do, is allow mythology into the argument. Where does one stop? Do we give credit to geocentric theory? That the universe is spinning around the earth just because we, not being fully educated in the world of astronomy, do not understand the science behind the theory?

A great example of how silly this can get is that of the Kansas School Board debate about whether creation should be taught alongside evolution. Bobby Henderson wrote the following to the board:

"I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design...I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him...It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories."

The full letter can be found here.

How accepting should we be of other points of view? We does one draw the line?

Tom continues:

"There is a vast difference, of course, between what we can know in matters of religion and what we can know in matters of science or public policy. The latter realms are knowable, at least theoretically. The point of religion and spirituality is that there are things we can never know. As Huston Smith observes in Why Religion Matters, "the human mind cannot come within light years of comprehending God’s nature."

"What, you don’t believe in God? Fine, then. Go ahead and replace the word "God" with the word "Universe." The statement still applies. The great advances of theoretical physics and astronomy notwithstanding, we are in some fundamental way no closer to understanding the mysteries of the cosmos than our cave-dwelling ancestors were."

This is utter gibberish. We are closer to understanding the mysteries of the Cosmos. We have not got their yet but that's where the fun lies. We certainly know more than we did 100 years ago nevermind 1000 years ao. We also understand it better than the religious who believe God invented the sun before the earth or that the earth is at the centre of the universe.

"Faith is rooted in paradox: a yearning to know and an acceptance that this yearning can never be fully satisfied."

No, it's not. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Any theist will inform us that faith is only virtuous because we don't have proof. Believing that one has a personal relationship with the creator of the universe and that his best selling book provides us with all we need to know is absurd. Where are the creationsists searching for evidence of the truth behind the universe? They hold an absolute belief and that their faith that cannot be shaken. They are not interested in learning or studying the evidence.

Tom finally shows his hand:

"To my mind, however, authentic faith is a recognition that there are limits to scientific knowledge but that the beauty of the earth and the heavens suggest the presence of a higher truth that cannot be named."

"The irony, as I noted earlier, is that people like Dawkins have such utter faith in science, even though scientific advances have wreaked as much havoc on the world as religious strife has."

Taking the latter point first, it's beyond me what exactly is has to do with the discussion. It's not uncommon however, when someone's argument is floundering to see them throw a red herring into the equation. People using the scientific method have of course made mistakes. Plenty of them. Science is not infallible nor does it claim to be. It is simply a method for understanding the world and finding the best possible answer to our questions. What science has and religion does not, is what might be best described as an 'error correcting mechanism'. It's through this mechanism that science is able to answer the questions and has led to the advancement of our understanding. Religious beliefs about the world on the other hand, have invariably been disproved. Yet even in the face of the evidence, the theist will counter this with 'science is just another kind of faith'.

As for his belief that Dawkins has faith in science, I think that's already been tackled.

"As we strive to solve all of these problems, whether of a scientific, social or spiritual nature, it seems to me that our only hope lies in remaining humble in our own assumptions and open to possibilities not yet considered."

That's exactly where science has an advantage over theism.

Tom concludes:

"Then again, maybe everything I’ve just said is wrong."

I'm happy to ask my self the same question? Could I be wrong? Yes. But as Dawkins has often said:

"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."