@Sojourner
I don't really take issue with that. But that's not what you stated. You stated that 'there are no big questions,' as if science had already answered every question, which is far from the case.
Sorry, but that is plainly nonsensical. For a start, logic and mathematics do not fall under its purview, as science must assume those in order to function. Further, morality cannot be defined by science as the founding premises of ethics are necessarily philosophical; prescriptive, while science is concerned solely with the descriptive. Likewise for things like qualia and the experience of music; purely subjective phenomenon that cannot be put under a microscope, being distinct from the physical phenomenon that are associated with them, e.g., light waves or sound waves.
I agree with most of that. However, I think the experience of music is one thing that is likely to come under science at some point. An analogy would be the experience of maternal affection just after birth. We now know that it's largely a result of oxytocin levels in the blood.
Well, even if we are nothing more than an evolving ape species, we will still have moral questions. And indeed our being such an organism does not preclude the existence of other states of being, the supernatural, God, etc.
IMO, the relevant point here is that although it does not
preclude such states, in the absence of verifiable evidence for them there is no obvious reason to assume they exist.
Ah yes, the infallible Richard Dawkins to whom both cleric and philosopher alike must bend the knee given his profound philosophical acumen. A man who, when challenged to debate even a specious sophist like William Lane Craig, declined knowing that the odds were firmly against him.
Without attempting to imply that Dawkins is perfect, one of the problems with live debates is that making spurious assertions that sound good is easy, but demonstrating that they are spurious can take a lot longer. Live debate is often more of a bread and circuses thing, rather than a real attempt to deal with the issues.
This is why creationists do so well in front of audiences that are primed to accept their world view. There is limited time for response and the spurious sound bites are what the audience wants.
Now, like a lot of people on this site, Dawkins is perfectly capable of demonstrating that creationist assertions are bollocks, providing that the audience is prepared to put in the time and effort to understand the arguments. He chooses not to engage, not because of a lack of ability on his part, but because the format is stacked against dealing with the issues comprehensively. Then there is the additional factor that he thinks the creationist arguments should not be dignified by wasting time on them, since they are fundamentally dishonest anyway.
Though, I'm sure he's a fine biologist and if this book is concerned with said subject matter then I may indeed see what it's like. I just don't expect people like Dawkins, or for that matter any member of the intellectually insipid New Atheist movement, to have answers to the 'big questions,' and even less to make them redundant entirely.
I realise this may come as shock to some, but IMO most religious thought and argument (at least that I have encountered) is also intellectually insipid.
Topic: Are atheists missing the point?