Well Bill has been a while since we've talked about Richard Dawkins.

In fact, I think that he's kind of persona and angrata these days and may have kind of shot

himself in the foot with some of the philosophical speculations that were so ridiculed in his book

and some of his sayings. But let's take a look at some excerpts of his recent interview with

Pierce Morgan and see what he's saying these days. One thing that has apparently not changed

is his view that there is no evidence for God. Listen to these two clips.

I despise people who believe something without evidence and then go out and take action which

damages other people. It's 2006 blockbuster The God Delusion made him a global face of atheism.

What's wrong with in your opinion with believing in a God regardless of who the God is?

I think it's false. I think that it's a matter of belief without evidence.

I know that's one of your pet peeves Bill. Yeah here Dawkins is espousing an epistemology or theory

of knowledge that has been exposed as being untenable and is therefore now obsolete namely that you

should only believe things based upon evidence. That is an untenable epistemology. It's untenable

because there are vast areas of knowledge where we know things to be true reasonably and rationally

even without evidence including things in science itself, unprovable assumptions at the very

root of science. Moreover, it's self-refuting to say that we should only believe things based

upon evidence because there's no evidence for that principle so that it defeats itself.

So epistemologists like Alvin Plantinga has shown that vast amounts of our

knowledge is what he calls properly basic beliefs. That is to say these are beliefs that are

foundational. They lie right at the very root of our belief system and are not justified through

argument and inference. And so wholly apart from the question of whether there is evidence for God,

I think that there is. The more fundamental question raised by Plantinga is why belief in God

...