"Dawkins is far better than that"

The problem is, I'm not convinced that he is. The first thing a scientist is taught is that they're full of shit; they don't know much at all and whatver their hypotheses are, they are probably going to change. He is problematic in terms of science outreach by couching everything in absolutist terms; he allows his outrage at the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion to overwhelm the fact that most people in the world are actually kind, caring and compassionate beings regardless of their beliefs.

I don't believe Dawkins attitude to people of faith chimes with that of the wider scientific community which does of course have many people of faith within it. The main and most fundamental issue between science and religion is one of method, and when the results conflict with religious belief then problems arise. However, most people are more nuanced and sophisticated in their approach to religion than the headline-grabbing fundamentalists and can accommodate both theology and philosophy.

But also I don't believe that religion should be the sole source for our moral and ethical codes and has the sole claim to the expression of human spirituality; that way if fraught with danger as we all know from watching the telly every night. At the very basic level sciences tells us we are the universe made conscious, contemplating itself and as far as we know earth is the only place in the universe that exists where this is happening. That thought alone is so beautiful and profound in so many ways, not least the fact that every life is precious and should be valued and nurtured equally. Compassion is a universal value.