"I see no reason why the existence or not of a God shouldn't be put under this kind of scrutiny."

Its not about whether God should or shouldn't be crutinized, or whether religion and science should be kept seperate or not.

People keep making the mistake of attributing a point of view to science.

Science doesn't go looking for things to observe, it scrutinizes what it can see and it forms hypotheses to try to explain what it sees.


It follows that if Science has yet to see God, then it has yet to form a view on him.


What Dawkins is trying to do is discredit Religious belief in the metaphysical by referring to a lcak of physical evidence.

Its like taking someone to a footbal match to prove that there is no such thing as cricket.

As long as your view is limited to the confines of the football stadium while the football match is on, this, in context, is true.

But it might just be possible that there is cricket somewhere outside the stadium ... though a critic of this view would be right to point out that there could also be quidditch ... and that does indeed seem unlikely ...