Religion Beyond Dawkins

As was said in previous posts, Dawkins does not venture past superficial explanations or observations that cannot be necessarily proved (since he is using data outside of his empirical domain). As a consequence of this impedance, C. Hitchens has said in debates that there is one question that is not apparent to him and his Master, “Why do we exist rather than not exist?” Dawkins cannot answer this question since it is a question that science cannot answer. It requires answers that are not provable with 100% certainty. However, there must exist an answer that only religion can answer. (I won’t go on to attempt to address the answer to that in this post.)

I define religion as a group of people that believe in a creed. Some creeds are rigid, some are flexible because the creed allows for flexibility, and many vary in between. Each religion’s creed is developed -- as each one believes -- from a revelation; revelation’s origin is from the believer, another person, created things, the creator of all things himself, or a combination of the above.

The creed itself has consequences. The study of the creeds and consequences is theology (assuming each creed has a god component). Assuming the creed is correct, theology is of great importance since understanding the consequences brings about further wisdom.