Acknowledgement of lack of certainty is what is, er, lacking among a large number of those who adhere to God. I imagine such people with their incurious eyes tight shut, a serene half-smile on their lips and faces half-turned to "heaven". I can't understand certainty. I certainly ( ;-) ) haven't got it. I don't know whether there's a God or not. There's a bit of a spectrum there, from those like me who think there almost certainly isn't a God to those who think there almost certainly is. If you think there almost certainly is, you are leaving room for doubt, which is wonderful, and you are not deluded (though you do need educating in the need for evidence, but that isn't the same thing). If you are certain there's no God, you are similarly deluded. Even if there's the remotest, infinitesimal chance that God exists, you'd better acknowledge that (I do). As in good science, the word "proof" has no place here. Delusion comes only from certainty. Unfortunately, certainty/delusion gives rise to dogmatism and evangelism. In this case your moral compass ceases to work. You do things such as hector others with the goal of getting them to acquiesce in your misplaced certainty. Professor Dawkins' book contains not one scrap of certainty (I've just re-read it this week in order to confirm that for myself). The "teaching" of religious faith to children, on the other hand, is jam-packed with certainties. It's no good trying to claim that good instruction in religion is filled with nuance. Little children don't get nuance. They won't understand your grown-up get-out clauses. You know exactly what you're doing by teaching little children that myth is truth (let's face it - you're lying!), and it is useless and dishonest to pretend otherwise. People of faith, even those of good will, rarely, in my experience, acknowledge this. Conviction is one thing, but certainty is everyone's enemy.