Originally Posted by
Outvoid 
I read the article and found it to be yet another silly Dawkins diatribe in which he makes a common mistake - one that I used to make: trying to define spirituality through a mathematical intellectual system. When one examines spirituality in terms of mathematical pragmatism (as Dawkins does), it's easy to poke holes in it. I could do it right now.
However, spirituality and faith are not based on concrete facts and figures.
He does use logic, yes. If you say God is beyond logic then I do understand the point of view but I could use that argument to believe in anything and say it is beyond question, Santa Claus, fairies, UFO's, invisible orbiting teapots, whatever. if anyone criticises my belief I just say, "you don't understand, my belief is beyond your logical arguments".
Believing in God makes as much sense as believing in the other stuff I mentioned. None. Except it satisfies a psychological need.
Originally Posted by
Outvoid The results are verifiable, certainly (eg. look at all of us recovering addicts out there), but not by using the scientific method of absolutes.
The results are not verifiable, it could just be a placebo effect or another psychologcal mechanism. Belief in God may help your recovery but its doesn't prove God actually exists.