The supernatural in religion is faith based not evidenced based.
Define both "faith" and "evidence" as you are using those terms here.
There is no way that I can think of to evaluate one God claim from another to determine which is more likely true.
As long as you are limited to purely rationalistic, empiricist methods of analysis, you are essentially correct.
God beliefs offer no predictive power which can be verified, no explanations of nature open to critical objective evaluation.
Upon what basis need they do so?
So what exactly is there necessary to study? Religious claims of the supernatural throughout history and world wide are authoritative claims absent evidence open to objective verification to support those claims. Religious supernatural claims are therefore vacuous for critical evaluation, and hence there is nothing for Dawkins or any scientist/critical thinker to study with regards to supernatural claims. I'm not sure what you mean by Dawkins is a materialist, reductionist and a positivist, so not comment there unless you want to elaborate further on what you mean.
This is utterly circular, and indicative of precisely the vastly truncated and self referential mental set that infects the secularist mind, especially in its more severe manifestations. This entire argument
assumes, a priori, that the material universe that is accessible to human empirical observation and experiment is
all that exists. This assumption is not scientifically verifiable, nor is it derivable from any known scientific facts. I appreciate that God is not accessible to verification by independent observers in an objective empirical sense. However, the problem we have here is scientific methodology driven from a methodology to a metaphysics; from a means of apprehending the phenomena of the observable world to a philosophical and metaphysical prescription about phenomena well beyond the reach of its methodology or intellectual tools.
That scientific methodology can tell us nothing directly about God is only a barrier to belief in God if one also accepts the assumptions of scientism; the preconceived meta-scientific claims about the ultimate nature of the universe and reality that are not derivable from scientific knowledge per se but are philosophical claims made within an interpretational framework that interprets scientific data and bodies of knowledge in a certain idiosyncratic way. This interpretatinal framework is much more a function of the psychologies and cultural milieus of scientists than of what may be safely extrapolated from science itself.
I do think there is a link between intelligence and critical thinking.
Of course there is, but you have to define what you mean by intelligence before this has the kind of weight you would like it to have. For example, logical reasoning ability, or the ability to think in very abstract terms (such as mathematical thinking) are certain forms of highly developed
cognition but this does not necessarily translate into a person as a whole being having the property of
intelligencein a much more overarching sense. That is, cognitive attributes like logical reasoning, abstract thought, or the ability to see inferential relationships between disparate pieces of data must be combined with other intellectual and psychological elements to be considered "intelligence", at least in a Gospel sense.
In other words, "intelligence" is more than the sum of a few cognitive or intellectual parts.
I
n particular I think someone who overcomes indoctrination, who can rationalize their beliefs with intellectual honesty I have found seems to very highly intelligent.
Yes, but you have introduced some very subjective factors into the mix here. This is all dependent on a number of other variables, such as the individual's prior enculturation and socialization, life experiences, and preconceptions or assumptions regarding the universe and its essential qualities. These assumptions will condition, to some extent, what each individual values and understands to be legitimate within the intellectual realm. One highly educated man(say, C.S. Lewis or William Buckley) and another (say Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking) value different aspects of the concept "intelligence" than do others, and hence, emphasize different intellectual attributes or combination of intellectual attributes. But its not just the "data" or the "evidence" that leads one to certain conclusions and not to others. Its a combination of variables and human elements that cannot readily be disentangled from each other.
Intelligence it seems can also be used to justify beliefs even when the evidence is against. So I think there are many factors involved and I also believe there are many different types of intelligences. It is beyond my study and comprehension.
Indeed...
I think people who have a good appreciation of the scientific method, the process of critical thinking are more likely to be less taken in by religious organizations and authorities.
The above begs to many questions to go into here, and assumes a number of things you have not openly stated. The number of competent scientists who have a perfectly good appreciation of the scientific method but who nonetheless have been taken in by AGW belies your assertion here (and numerous examples could be added to this, if not so colorful).
They are more likely to overcome indoctrination by authority than someone not trained to think critically.
Actually marg, I see no reason to believe that one grounded in the scientific method per se, as applied to the study of the natural world, is any more likely to be resistant to philosophical nonsense in other areas, ideological fanaticism, or political passion that has little intellectual content. I see no historical evidence of this whatever. Some scientists are very resistant, while many others have not been. I really don't think grounding in scientific method, or the methods of formal critical thought, are the deciding mediating factors in this.
You seem to be intent on attacking Dawkins. Those who make claims have the burden of proof. When and if a religious organization can offer good reasoning to warrant their supernatural claims, then they will be taken seriously by science. Attacking Dawkins is not justification to warrant acceptance of any religious supernatural claim.
[/quote]
Yes, I don't like Dawkins at all. I think Dawkins is a poster child for the worst of what can happen when man begins to worship himself; the creature, instead of the creator, as Paul said. Dawkin's condescending intellectual snobbery is utterly insufferable. The ironic thing is just how far over his head he is talking about God at all, and how oblivious he is to this state of affairs.
As to religious claims, I can tell you exactly, barring your own unique needs, how you can know for yourself, with perfect certainty, that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the Church is what it claims to be. However, you will, a priori, not accept my methodology, preferring your own and claiming that your own is sufficient to comprehend all possible knowledge (this is scientific method used, not as an intellectual methodology per se, but as an oracle). This is
your religious claim, and the burden of proof is on you to verify this as well.